Who Needs Film Critics?

This year's Cannes Film Festival has sparked some debate about the necessity of film critics. The Da Vinci Code was not made available to film critics until the day before wide release. Despite near-univeral panning, the movie did extremely well among the common folk. In addition, Salon.com independent film critic Andrew O'Hehir bemoaned the Cannes jury's award of the Palm D'Or to The Wind That Shakes the Barley, which O'Hehir did not feel was a particularly innovative film. Despite the fact that the jury was populated by Wong Kar-Wai, Samuel Jackson, Tim Roth and others, O'Hehir believes that these film professionals have similar tastes to those of the general public, because -- unlike film critics -- they are too busy making movies to watch 200 films a year. Mr. O'Hehir argues that watching this many films cannot but impact a person's taste in film, lending them a certain refinement or an "eye" for what's good cinema.

Film criticism is an Air venture, whereas film itself is more Water. Air is the element of thought and detachment, whereas Water is the element of emotions and fantasy. The famous film critic Pauline Kael had her Sun in Gemini -- an Air sign, particularly appropriate for writing and journalism. Roger Ebert is also a Gemini.

In mundane or political astrology, the Moon symbolizes the general public. The Moon, which rules Cancer -- a Water sign -- is an emotional planet. In our charts, the Moon habitually reacts to situations based on unconscious factors. Hence, the movie-going public is more lunar, more emotional than analytical.

The power of film lies in its ability to be larger-than-life, to make us feel things on a scale that makes our ordinary lives seem pale. Surely, film critics get swept away by films. But Air people are able to step back with some distance and judge a work of art without being beholden entirely to their emotional reactions. Water types -- and we can generalize by putting "the movie-going public" into this category for argument's sake -- get caught up in the fantasy, the illusion, and don't think all that critically. In fact, they don't think at all ... they get swept up and away.

I wonder if the mutual reception between Uranus in Pisces and Neptune in Aquarius relates to the role of film critics. Pisces and its ruler Neptune rule film; Aquarius and its modern ruler Uranus relate to the detachment required to see things objectively. These outer planet placements also correspond with the ability of technology to connect people instantaneously. When teenagers can see a movie at opening night and immediately text-message their friends, and when adults can quickly look up movie times and audience reviews on the internet, who needs film critics? David Carr of the NYTimes notes that this ability to get the word out quickly can help movie sales over a single weekend. Hence, the film industry is less dependent on film critics to make or break a movie.

In fact, it seems the public's tastes in movies greatly diverge from those of critics. I myself will admit to having middle-brow tastes in film. I even own a copy of Daredevil! Nonetheless, I think critics are important because they help us learn to watch movies differently. I religiously read Salon.com movie reviews -- even those on films I know I won't see -- because (1) critics tend to be excellent writers and (2) good critics know how to watch a movie within the context of film history. They are able to compare the work of directors, screenwriters, cinematographers and the like to help me notice aspects of cinema I would not have otherwise. Granted, many people just want to know if a movie is worth ten bucks, and are happy if they are wowed by special effects and pretty faces. Although movies just last a few hours, they can have a great impact on society ... and like the ability of leaders to sway the masses with appeals to emotion and fantasy, it is important to have thinkers to draw the distinction between art and tripe.

Technorati tags: cannes - astrology - movies - the da vinci code - david carr