The Monty Python co-founder is on a social media mission to get movie critics to admit their limits.
What experience should film critics have in terms of writing, acting and/or directing? Does it make sense that people with no film experience are film critics? These questions have been on the mind of comedy legend and Monty Python co-founder John Cleese over the past week on social media, where he’s sparked a debate about what qualifications film critics need. Just this week, Cleese wrote: “It’s strange that, given [film critics’] disabilities [in acting, directing, or screenwriting], they are then put on trial of people who can write, lead and act.
The debate over the qualifications of film critics began when Cleese observed last week that sports coverage on television had “improved dramatically” by hiring former athletes as commentators. Because former athletes have personal experience of the sport they are commentating on, they are able to more accurately weigh in on games, training decisions, and more. Cleese asked his followers, “Could the same principle now be applied to the arts?
“Instead of having ‘critics’ who themselves cannot direct, write, perform, sing, dance or claim any other kind of expertise, wouldn’t we get superior feedback from people who can? asked Cleese. “Why should artistic criticism from untalented people be preferred to that of exceptionally talented people?”
Cleese noted that he was not angry with film critics but “just wants them to recognize their limitations”. The comedian added, “For example, critics are surprisingly ignorant of [the filmmaking] to treat.”
In an August 4 article, Cleese speculated that “if critics could write, direct, or act, they probably would and earn more than the pittance that critics get paid.” That critics don’t make movies or perform means that in most cases they aren’t qualified to do so, so why are they the ones judging the art? Followers chimed in for and against Cleese’s argument in the comments section.
Cleese is getting her own reviews for her live comedy show ‘Why There’s No Hope’, which aired this week. Check out all of the comedian’s thoughts on film critics in the articles below.
i agree with oscar
If critics could write, direct, or act, they probably would and earn more than the pittance critics get paid.
So it’s strange that, given their inabilities, they are then judged against people who CAN write, direct and act.
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) August 4, 2020
I wonder if the herd of marketers and bureaucrats who now run television have finally noticed that having former players commentate on the sports they excelled at has improved sports coverage immensely.
Could the same principle now apply to the Arts?
In the place of…..
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 28, 2020
…having “critics” who themselves cannot direct, write, perform, sing, dance, or claim any other kind of expertise, wouldn’t we get superior feedback from people who can?
Why should artistic criticism from untalented people be preferred to that of exceptionally gifted people?
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 28, 2020
May I introduce you to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which proves to you exactly the opposite
But, rightly, this is not known to critics
Or, if so, they have a hard time silencing it
May I ask you what is your profession? https://t.co/jCuTDfFaWb
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
We could become MORE expert…
I’ve watched football for 67 years and I’m realistic enough to know that I don’t really know what’s going on out there on the pitch
But there are one or two great critics who stick with it long enough and with the right learning attitude….. https://t.co/ZKCYhOsb98
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
i like your thought
I think there were ten percent, but that was when newspapers could afford to hire better people https://t.co/OCSFcvysBJ
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
four points
1. I had dinner with David Dunning two weeks ago and he thinks my point is valid.
2. I’m not “angry” with criticism. I just want them to recognize their limits
3. Your last point is a misquote followed by a non-sequitur
4. You avoided my question. Why ? https://t.co/NXD3ZxNZPP
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
I had dinner with David recently, and what he still says is this
In order to know how good you are at something, it takes the same talents you need to be really good at it.
So if you’re not good at something, you don’t exactly have the skills to realize you’re not good at it. https://t.co/MnJvyl3fun
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
Who says says that the current system is good? The critics probably…
But try talking to creative people. They want critics to be better informed, but they dare not say so
And where do critics get their credentials from?
Quentin Letts has been named the DM’s chief theater critic. https://t.co/ECYgLJdSvt
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
True
What’s vital is that they love their medium and don’t envy people who have talent. https://t.co/IAiMEyh5l4
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
Register: Stay up to date with the latest film and TV news! Sign up for our email newsletters here.
