All the World’s a Screen: Critics and fans represent two very different ways to watch movies
2018 was an eclectic year for movies. It graced audiences with everything from a lovable British bear (“Paddington 2”) to arguably the most disturbing horror film in recent memory (“Hereditary”). Needless to say, there were many divisive projects in the plethora of releases — films like “Vice” and “Green Book” received backlash for their questionable and highly dramatized portrayals of historical figures.
What fascinated me the most about this year, however, was not the political disputes behind these movies so much as the gaping chasm between the critiques of an average moviegoer and those of a film critic. The phenomenon repeated itself throughout 2018 — time and time again, we saw critics and audiences differ greatly in their respective opinions on a film.
The most interesting examples of this gap came in the form of two very different movies, which produced very different effects on audiences and critics: “Venom” and “Bohemian Rhapsody.”
“Venom,” released the same week as “A Star is Born,” demolished all competition at the box office; it quickly became a massive hit despite rampant criticism. When all was said and done, “Venom” emerged with a whopping 28 percent “rotten” critics’ score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Just across from the critics’ score on the site, you’ll see what looks like a discrepancy in the audience’s take on the film: 84 percent, “fresh.” Arguably the best movie of the entire year, “Roma”, has an 83 percent audience score.
Rotten Tomatoes’ Twitter account quickly took advantage of the situation with tweets displaying the two vastly different scores, captioned: “Who do you trust? The audience or the critics?” It’s a harrowing question that asks us to choose between two disparate movie-watching philosophies. It implies that one side is having fun while the other is coldly, heartlessly (maybe even pretentiously) analyzing a film’s technical elements.
Soon after “Venom,” the battle for cinema’s soul found a new fight in the Queen biopic “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Metacritic, a website that creates a composite score out of 100 from film critics everywhere, gave it a dismal 48.
However, it was studded with Queen songs. And it featured actors who looked just like Queen members performing those songs. That was more than enough for the audience because, according to IMDb, their score (8.4/10) has placed it at No. 136 in the top 250 movies of all time.
To put that score in perspective, according to IMDb’s user scores, “Bohemian Rhapsody” ranks above three directors’ most acclaimed films: “Fargo” (the Coen Brothers, #165), “Jurassic Park” (Steven Spielberg, #183) and, of course, “Roma” (Alfonso Cuaron, #238).
“Bohemian Rhapsody” is a stranger case than “Venom”; for the latter, much of the public admitted it was “so bad, it was good.” On the other hand, Queen’s biopic received genuine praise from fans even as it garnered scathing reviews from critics. Depending on what side spoke louder, “Bohemian Rhapsody” was either very good or very bad.
Part of what makes a film good — arguably something both camps agree on — is how immersive the experience is. Movies are mostly critiqued in relation to how much they take the viewer out of the experience by making it clear that they are watching a fabricated product. For example, “bad dialogue” is only bad because it was clearly scripted and is not something a character would naturally say (which, consequently, is “good” dialogue).
When a movie like “Bohemian Rhapsody” is (literally) playing to its audience’s demands — giving them a clean-cut version of the Queen tale with a healthy dose of (admittedly well-made) concert scenes — it abandons faithfulness to the actual Queen story just to give its audience a lightly dramatic, mildly heartwarming tale. With every cardboard scene, every poorly-defined character trait and clumsy continuity, “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Venom” repeatedly take the attentive critic out of the experience of watching a story organically unfold; it becomes obvious that this was mostly fabricated to meet the public’s demands.
But right next to the pensive critic sits a wide-eyed Queen fan; they don’t care if these scenarios have been fabricated, only about how great it was that the bass line from “Another One Bites the Dust” settled a band argument, even if that’s far from the truth. On the surface, “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a very fun watch, and, unlike “Roma,” is very superficial, not requiring audiences to probe the depths of the universal questions it may or may not be asking. Critics like to probe the worldview behind every frame and line of dialogue; in my experience, most casual viewers can do without.
There’s no right or wrong way to watch a movie. On one end, films are primarily a vehicle for entertainment, so judging a film’s quality based on how entertaining it was on its surface is completely valid. Nevertheless, movies are decidedly an art form, and, as all art, there is an unspoken but agreed upon, standard to determine its quality. Both criteria are valid when watching a movie; now we just have to find a middle ground.
Isa Uggetti is a sophomore writing about film. He is also the lifestyle editor of the Daily Trojan. His column, “All the World’s a Screen,” runs every other Tuesday.