Read on Twitter
The @guardian is doing a series called "Hear Me Out" where writers defend widely dismissed films. More of this in 2021 and beyond please!
I truly believe the gleeful Art of the Take Down in arts & ent has a chilling effect on all who are out here just trying to make stuff, not just overprivileged hot shots. Beginners on up hear scathing take downs and hear those voices in their imagined audience.
A question I wish more critics would dwell on: what IS it? Often they are so eager to go straight to: what it's not.
But slowing down to just observe, without judgement, what a thing is takes patience and a willingness to be moved in ways you didn't anticipate.
And while criticism is about judgement, I argue that's only a part of the job. The more important part is to reflect: what's being made? Why did people come together to tell this story? And who might want to come together to receive it? How can I help connect those groups?
I suppose another way of coming at this is, do critics and other opinion holders value of the benefit of the doubt? Do they presume good faith on the part of storytellers and do they themselves want to act in good faith?
In this case, "good faith" means: faith that a team of artists and craftspeople came together to attempt something meaningful. And even if they fell short, the attempt is worthy of dignified observation, as opposed to mockery or smug superiority.
I find the "this is what it's not" brand of criticism especially comes out for stories about hot social and political topics. Racism. Sexism. Rape. Depictions of poverty. People have strong opinions about those topics, & get mad at storytellers for not reflecting their opinions.
And sure, point out what a story "misses" about a certain issue or group. That can be valuable. But I prefer hearing those judgements AFTER I sense that the critic has demonstrated they really tried to see what people came together to do.
