Last time I wrote about film critics, (as opposed to film reviewers, who I think are cool), I was basically just ranting.  I made them out primarily to be ego deficient squares who use their writing/speaking skills and unbelievable quantities of trivial knowledge to bully people into giving them attention and respect.  —Now, I still believe this is at least partly true, except upon closer examination, it seems there was something else going on as well. . .

Here's how I see it now:

When I look at how much cash the entertainment industry turns over in a year, I wonder if film and television, and books and comics, if stories, aren't perhaps something more than just a bunch of things we happen to 'liike.'  I mean, in the same way that we all ‘like' food and sex and sleep, we seem to be drawn to stories in a way that suggests something. . . bigger.

For a start, stories are one of the best ways to feed ourselves information.  —Information about how to live and function in whatever environment we might find ourselves in.  Like it or not, an episode of Beverly Hills 90210  is going to teach you things about how you should and should not function in our society.  Maybe it won't teach much, but the simple fact is that if you watch, stuff goes in and gets stuck in the depths of your head; adding to your mind's library of things you've seen or done.  And if you are paying a lot of attention when you watch, it probably means that a lot of stuff is going in.

Of course, you can't go very far in life without actual hard experience.  Just reading about something like ‘heat' isn't going to give you the same kind of understanding a hot stove will.  But it's a proven fact: if you read a book, you can learn stuff without actually having to be there.  And learning stuff gives you an edge over everybody else, which in turn gives you a better chance in the 'survival' game.  (The game of 'evolution'.)  And since the evolutionary process rewards those creatures who have an edge, (by allowing them to stay alive), useful tricks like eating and sleeping and having sex become genetically burned into a species' survival mechanism.  The thing that really blows me away, however, is how our desire to be told stories is right up there in irresistibility.  After nourishment, sleep, various bowel functions, and stuff like that, our craving for stories is really powerful.  —I mean, EVERYBODY has a television.  Think about it.

I don't think critics view stories the same way everybody else does.  They aren't just feeding their brains when they watch a movie or read a comic.  —Well, they are, (they are human, after all), but they are also looking for different things.  For them, celebrating the history of film or comics is often more important than experiencing the story itself.  —The knowing of all the actor's, or writer's names, their life stories and various anecdotes etc., the trivia.  —Which is fair enough.  It's like any hobby.  Stamp collecting, for instance.

Except that where regular folks usually only want stamps for mailing letters, a stamp collector will want specific stamps printed on specific dates, with flawless perforation and clear watermarks; things which have little or no bearing on a stamp's actual function.  The same holds true for film and literature, and of course, for comics.  What the people want, and what the critics want are apples and oranges.  Which is why I think Reviewers are so different from Critics.  —Reviewers are people who judge stories.  Critics are primarily excited by film or art trivia.  For a Critic, if a story does not demonstrate a knowledge and respect for the trivia, then he or she won't enjoy that story as much as one which does.  —And if the Critic does not enjoy a story, then he or she will consider it ‘flawed,' or ‘substandard'.  And will say so.  If Terminator II had tipped its hat to former greats by shooting scenes using the same camera angles and shadow effects, (and perhaps the grandson of an actor or two), from the 1920's monster flick, Nosferatu, the critics would probably not have hated it.  As it was, however, there was no trivia at all.  Just disrespectful direction by that arrogant, James Cameron kid.  —Whether his story worked or not was irrelevant.

I think part of the reason critics often seem to be so full of suppressed anger and conceit, is based on the same reason a stamp collector might shake his head at Joe Regular who only wants to mail a letter.  The difference, however, between the use of stamps and the hobby of stamps is clear enough that nobody gets upset.  When it comes to films and comics, though, things become much more mixed up.  To further the problem, is that the artists involved in writing and producing stories are actively contributing to, and influencing the body of trivia which the critic holds sacred; the trivia which gives the critic identity and ‘value' in our society.  Often the artist will have this effect without knowing or even caring; without, in a critic's view, giving the trivia proper respect.  I imagine this must be very frustrating.  Tho, I can't sympathize.  Critics are jerks waiting to happen.