Do Film Critics Need Filmmaking Experience? John Cleese Says It’s Odd Most Can’t Act or Direct
How much experience should film critics have in terms of writing, acting, and/or directing? Does it make sense for people with no experience in filmmaking to be film critics? These questions have been on the mind of comedy legend and Monty Python co-founder John Cleese over the last week on social media, where he has started a debate over the necessary qualifications for film critics. Just this week Cleese wrote, “It’s odd that, given [film critics’] inabilities [in acting, directing, or screenwriting], they are then put in judgement over people who can write, direct and act.”
The debate over film critic qualifications started when Cleese observed last week that sports coverage on television has “improved immensely” by hiring former athletes as commentators. Because former athletes have personal experience with the sport they are commentating on, they are able to weigh in more accurately on plays, coaching decisions, and more. Cleese asked his followers, “Could the same principle now be applied to the arts?”
More from IndieWire
Film Critics Sound Off on Christopher Nolan's 'No Chairs' Rule, Which Isn't Entirely True
As Kenneth Turan Leaves the Los Angeles Times, Film Critics Face a Post-Theatrical Age
“Instead of having ‘critics’ who can’t themselves direct, write, act, sing, dance or claim any other kind of expertise, would we not get superior commentary from people who can?” Cleese asked. “Why should artistic criticism from untalented people be preferred to that of outstandingly talented ones?”
Cleese has noted that he is not angry with film critics but “simply wants them to acknowledge their limitations.” The comedian added, “For example, critics are astonishingly ignorant about [the filmmaking] process.”
In an August 4 post, Cleese theorized that “if critics could write or direct or act, presumably they would be doing that, and earning more than the pittance that critics are paid.” That critics aren’t out there making films or acting means in most cases they aren’t qualified to do so, so why are they the ones judging art? Followers have sounded off for and against Cleese’s argument in the comments section.
Cleese is in the middle of receiving his own reviews for his live-stream comedy show “Why There is No Hope,” which aired this week. Check out all of the comedian’s thoughts on film critics in the posts below.
I agree with Oscar
If critics could write or direct or act, presumably they would be doing that, and earning more than the pittance that critics are paid
So it’s odd that, given their inabilities, they are then put in judgement over people who CAN write, direct and act
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) August 4, 2020
I wonder if the herd of marketing people and bureaucrats who now run TV have finally noticed that having former players commenting on the sports in which they excelled has improved sports coverage immensely
Could the same principle now be applied to the Arts ?
Instead of…..
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 28, 2020
…having ‘critics’ who can’t themselves direct, write, act, sing, dance or claim any other kind of expertise, would we not get superior commentary from people who can ?
Why should artistic criticism from untalented people be preferred to that of outstandingly talented ones ?
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 28, 2020
May I introduce you to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which proves you exactly wrong
But, understandingly, this is not known to critics
Or, if it is, they are at pains to hush it up
May I ask what your profession is ? https://t.co/jCuTDfFaWb
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
One might become MORE expert…
I’ve watched football for 67 years and I am realistic enough to know that I don’t really know what’s going on there down on the pitch
But there are a one or two great critics who stick at it long enough, and with the right learning attitude….. https://t.co/ZKCYhOsb98
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
I like your thinking
I think there used to be ten per cent, but that was back in the days when papers 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 ‘mad’ at critics. I simply want them to acknowledge their limitations
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 requires the same talents that you need to be really good at it
So, if you’re no good at something, you lack exactly the abilities to realise you are no good at it https://t.co/MnJvyl3fun
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
Who says says the present system is good ? The critics probably…
But try talking to some creative people. They want critics to be better informed, but they daren’t say so
And where do critics get their qualifications ?
Quentin Letts was made chief theatre critic of the DM.. https://t.co/ECYgLJdSvt
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
True
What’s vital is that they love their medium, and are not envious of people in it who do have talent https://t.co/IAiMEyh5l4
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
Best of IndieWire
Sign up for Indiewire's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
