‘Every Film a Critic’ 

From Highbrowers to Rotten Tomatoers and YouTube Video Essayists. 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laurie Le Bomin 

 

 

Thesis 2019 

MA New Media and Digital Culture  

University of Amsterdam 

Table of Contents  Preface & Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 

 

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…...4 

 

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 

 

1. Critics and the ‘Art of Film’……………………………………………………………………………………………...…7 

1,1. The Cinema of ‘the Spectacle’…………………………………………………………………………….…7 

1,2. ‘Nouvelle Vague’ Critics…………………………………………………………………………….………...9 

 

2. Highbrow Critics, Lowbrow Reviewers…………………………………………………………….………………….10 

2,1. Critics and Elitism………………………………………………………….…………………………………..11 

2,2. A ‘Sensationalist’ Approach to Criticism………………………….………………………………....12 

 

3. Subjective Taste-Makers……………………….…………………………………………………………………………...14 

3,1. The Departure from Objectivity………………………………………………………………………….15  

3,2. The ‘Universality’ of Taste…………………………………………………………………………….…….16 

 

4. Is Everyone a Critic in the Digital Era?……………………………………………………………………….……..18 

4,1. The Rise of Amateurism……………………………………………………………………….…………...19 

4,2. Tomatometer-Approved Critics…………………………………………………………………………..21 

4,3. A Decline in ‘Good’ Criticism?…………………………………………………………………….……..23 

 

5. ‘To Edit and to Voice-Over:’ The Audio-Visual Essay Genre……………………………………….……….25 

5,1. Filmmaking and Essays: Early Experiments……………………………………….………………….26 

5,2. Video Essays and Academic Potential……………………………………….………………………....28 

5,3. Social and Cultural Implications……………………….…………………………..…………………….29 

 

 

 1 

 

6. YouTube Video Essayists and the ‘ Sociality’ of Expertise……………….………………........................31 

6,1. Critics as YouTube Users and Participatory Expertise……….……………….......................32 

6,2. Case Study: Every Frame a Painting, NerdWriter1 and Lessons from the Screenplay, Pseudo-Intellectual Film Criticism?………………..…………………………….…………………………...35 

6,3. The Challenges of YouTube Film Criticism………………………………………………………....40 

 

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………........43 

 

Bibliography………………………………………………………...........................................................................44 

 

Appendix………………………………………………………................................................................................52 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 2 

Preface & Acknowledgements  

To an avid film enthusiast such as me, there is nothing more pleasurable—except watching                           films—than to look at film criticism and reviews. In many ways, new media has significantly                             shaped how I came to view films critically. Although I can draw many parallels between the                               transition from highbrow film criticism to digital new formats and my appreciation of criticism,                           this thesis constitutes a broader inquiry regarding new media. After applying to the Master in New                               Media and Digital Culture at the University of Amsterdam, I was curious to learn more about                               online practices and communities. Learning about theoretical concepts and discourses was highly                       beneficial to advance my understanding of new media. Initially fascinated by the intellectual nature                           of film analysis and the literary excellence of film critics in Les Cahiers du Cinéma and The New                                   Yorker, I then began to watch audio-visual formats such as YouTube videos and reviews. As a                               result, YouTube is a source of knowledge and creativity worth researching. Many researchers have                           already engaged with this medium—examining its affordances, its cultural and economic impact,                       and so on. My approach, however, is not limited to this one platform. Instead, I consider the                                 digitization of the cultural practice of film criticism to enquire into online notions of expertise.                             Despite being familiar with digital methods such as the YouTube Data Tool (Rieder, 2015), I                             ultimately decided to write this thesis using a theoretical approach. I chose YouTube audio-visual                           essays as a case study as they constitute a relevant trend in contemporary film criticism. I hope my                                   research, which combines concepts from various fields, will provide thought-provoking insights                     into this vernacular practice and contribute positively to the development of more innovative,                         intelligent, and appealing ways to engage critically with and learn about cultural objects.  

I would like to thank, first and foremost, my supervisor dr. B.M. (Bogna) Konior. Not only                               did she provide valuable insights into film theory and media studies, her guidance contributed                           greatly to the production of this thesis. Secondly, I want to show appreciation for each of my                                 professors who significantly and positively impacted my learning experience: Prof. dr. R.A. Rogers,                         dr. T.J. (Tim) Highfield, Dr A. (Alex) Gekker, dhr. dr. B. (Bernhard) Rieder, dhr. dr. M.D. (Marc)                                 Tuters, dhr. E.K. (Erik) Borra MSc, mw. N. (Natalia) Sánchez Querubín MA, and mrs. Prof. G.                               (Giovanna) Fossati. And finally, I dedicate this thesis to my family and friends. I also want to thank                                   B. David who offered helpful advice. Without their support, I would not have been able to                               conduct this research.  

 

 

 3 

Abstract  

Film criticism was initially associated with a notion of expertise. Whether written by professional                           critics and film theory scholars in traditional prints and scholarly articles, or published in                           magazines by culture journalists, the aesthetics, symbols and historical contexts of a film were                           analysed to establish its value as an art form. As digital technology transformed the production and                               distribution process of cinema, the stature of the film critic changed. Streaming services facilitate                           access to films and TV shows, and anyone can publicly establish themselves as critics and write                               about their opinions, recommendations, and reviews on social media and websites. With the                         democratization of film criticism, online communities, amateur critics, and cinephiles proliferated.                     Rotten Tomatoes has made a significant impact on online film criticism. The website relies on                             statistical rankings, the audience’s opinions, and professional critics and journalists. A community                       of critics also emerged on the YouTube platform. Analysing and deconstructing film narratives in a                             video format has been popularized as a more entertaining approach to film criticism.                         Consequently, the practice has deteriorated, as many people lament a ‘crisis of criticism’ and even                             its death. However, there has been a growing trend towards the production of more intellectual                             content, using visual rhetoric to break down abstract ideas and complex concepts within films. For                             instance, YouTube channels such as Every Frame a Painting and NerdWriter1, produce                       high-quality video essays that attract a large audience. The popularity of such content poses the                             question—are digitization and democratization eroding the relevance of the critic and ‘cultural                       intermediaries’? And if so, do video essays constitute a revival of the expertise and intellectual                             aspects of film criticism online?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 4 

Introduction  

In an interview during which he reminisced about his days as a film critic, author and                               culture critic Chuck Klosterman revealed that, “the only thing people really wanted was a plot                             description and how many stars I'd give it. It didn't matter how much effort you put into writing a                                     piece, they looked at it solely as a consumer's guide toward going or not going to films” (Murray,                                   2006). Given that the practice of film criticism has considerably changed in the digital era, this                               claim appears to ring particularly pertinent to the current state of modern society. Established and                             professional film critics are growingly disappearing, replaced by self-proclaimed online experts or                       film enthusiasts. For audiences, notions of expertise are not authoritative criteria in assessing the                           quality of a film. Instead, personal opinions and ratings are favoured. Web 2.0, social media, and                               cultural industries are thus significantly influential in shaping consumers’ behaviours. Many                     researchers in new media focus on analyzing the challenges of contemporary entertainment and its                           effect on culture in relation to technology. One of the main topic discussed is the changing                               relationship between producers and consumers. Audiences can communicate their opinions                   online, build social networks and communities, produce content, and dictate market trends. They                         can develop online communities based on common interests or ideas. This active, social, and                           participatory approach to consumerism impact the economic model, placing the consumer in                       between two roles. As ‘prosumers’ (Fisher, 125), film audiences create new modes of public                           engagement with films as cultural objects. In addition to these new forms of sociality enabled by                               new media, questioning the relevance of film critics, or what sociologists refer to as ‘cultural                             intermediaries,’ can help shed light on broader economic and social aspects of society.  

As film criticism first emanated from notions of expertise, it then appears coherent to                           examine the transformation of film criticism in the digital era. With new media, the practice of film                                 criticism proliferated in diverse formats. This development carried out a promising                     democratization of culture and taste. With the Internet propelling culture criticism and reviewing                         outside the realms of academia and print journalism, delineating the practice constitutes a                         challenge. Technology and new media have accelerated processes of culture production and the                         rate of consumption, so much so that economic and social models predominantly hinge on the                             production and commodification of cultural products. Scholars observed that: “entertainment is a                       commodity that requires profitability: it is an ‘experience that can be sold to and enjoyed by large                                 and heterogeneous groups of people’ and ‘a particular category of marketed product’ (Bates and                           Ferri, 6). The commodification of films exemplifies the extent to which entertainment is produced                           to be marketed and consumed on a large scale. Film critics, by engaging with cultural commodities,                               therefore contribute to the development and profitability of film culture online. The interaction                         

 5 

with culture and cultural objects, made possible by new media, is an important aspect of                             contemporary discussions. Many researchers have addressed the different possibilities and                   challenges that arise on social platforms such as YouTube. Focusing on critics’ role in the digital era,                                 one can thus refer to the notion of ‘prosumer’ and the ‘participatory culture.’ Since films are                               largely discussed and criticized online by various communities, it appears necessary to try and                           understand how the role of film critics and notions of expertise have changed to adjust to new                                 norms and standards.   

The purpose of this thesis is not to propose an historiography of film criticism, nor to                               conceptualise its digitization as one singular practice. Rather, by first giving an historical overview,                           I want to contextualize the role of the critic in the digital era and ultimately consider its                                 importance. By doing so, one may gain a new perspective on the relevance of ‘cultural                             intermediaries’ while questioning the ways expertise is conveyed online. Ultimately, I want to argue                           that digital forms of film criticism, particularly video essays, can permit the development of new                             modes of expertise.   

Throughout this thesis, I will use a theoretical approach. In the first part entitled “Critics                             and the ‘Art of Film’,” and the second ‘Highbrow Critics, Lowbrow Reviewers,’ I will examine the                               role of critics and look at the changes throughout history, using concepts in the field of film studies                                   and sociology. Then, I will engage with concepts of subjectivity and taste in the third part                               ‘Subjective Taste-Makers’. With support from literature in philosophy and culture studies, I want                         to determine in what ways critics participate in the formation of cultural tastes. In the fourth part                                 ‘Is Everyone a Critic in the Digital Era?,’ I will discuss different definitions of what constitutes a                                 critic. I will also propose a brief analysis of the website Rotten Tomatoes to examine the context of                                   the transition from traditional media to the Web 2.0 and the extent to which the supposed ‘crisis of                                   criticism,’ is led by new online standards and changes in cultural practices. After that, in the fifth                                 part ‘To Edit and To Voice-Over: The Audio-Visual Essay Genre,’ I will engage with the                             implications of using digital technology to present film criticism. Considering the potential of                         video essays, I will then focus on new media topics to consider new forms of sociality and expertise                                   in the final part “YouTube Video Essayists and the ‘Sociality’ of Expertise’.” I will zoom in on                                 contemporary film criticism—mainly, the practice of creating YouTube video essays—to further                     explore notions of expertise. As a case study, I will examine how three YouTube channels; Every                               Frame a Painting, NerdWriter1 and Lessons from the Screenplay, use video essays as new modes of                               expression. By positing that these video essayists on YouTube are contributing to the revival of film                               criticism as an intellectual practice, I will gain further understanding as to whether this new form                               of film criticism is pseudo-intellectual and a mere symptom of the platform’s purpose in sustaining                             the participatory culture, or if it indeed constitutes a new form of revival of the expertise and                                 intellectual aspects of film criticism.  

 6 

1. Critics and the ‘Art of Film’  

The technology of film was invented in the late 19th century, relying first on visual                             projections and later incorporating sound. The production of films demands a considerable                       amount of machinery and human labor. Additionally, each frame is determined by its aesthetics, its                             technical prowesses, and its storytelling intent. That is why the artistic value of films is studied by                                 scholars and communicated by critics. Film critics evaluate through their own structured and                         researched interpretation. This practice elevates the genre of film as a whole by establishing it as an                                 art form. Its legitimacy comes from authoritative figures for whom culture is produced following a                             hierarchy of taste. Film criticism also contributes to the curation of films for the constitution of a                                 visual heritage. However, the stature of the film critic has long been discussed. In the beginning,                               film criticism struggled to become a relevant practice. As a matter of fact, “challenges to the critic’s                                 authority and legitimacy are not new; these can actually be traced back to the first attempts to                                 define film as an art form” (Sayad, 41).  

 

1,1. The Cinema of ‘the Spectacle’ 

It is indeed important to note that the potential of film itself slowly came into view in the early                                     20th century. When discussing the process of making films such as Le Voyage Dans La Lune                               (1902), French filmmaker Georges Méliès explained: 

 

As for the scenario, the "fable," or "tale," I only consider it at the end. I can state that the scenario                                         constructed in this manner has no importance, since I use it merely as a pretext for the "stage                                   effects," the "tricks," or for a nicely arranged tableau (Gunning, 382).  

 

Early cinema was thus the cinema of ‘the spectacle, ’ or ‘the cinema of attractions’ (Gunning, 382).                                 By favoring illusions of reality and magic tricks instead of cohesive narratives, films were made for                               entertaining audiences visually. The role of the director was not recognized as central in the                             production process. It was not until later that the status of the director was elevated to the one of                                     an artist, bestowing critics an important role in cultural ‘gatekeeping’. Vachel Lindsay was a prime                             contributor to the establishment of film as an art form. In 1914, he published the first work of                                   American film criticism The Art of the Moving Picture. This groundbreaking book included                         various analysis of silent films. In Chapter 3, he began with the following statement; “the motion                               picture art is a great high art, not a process of commercial manufacture” (Lindsay, 79). He then                                 addressed the people working in the fields of art, humanities, and the critical to explicitly declare                               his intentions to “establish the theory and practice of the photoplay as a fine art” (80). Although he                                   

 7 

was among the first to adopt a scholarly approach to film, him positioning it as art through critical                                   standards also implied that film criticism as a practice would be reserved to an elite of intellectuals.                                 To him, for films to last historically and be considered as high-value cultural objects, the ‘shabby                               readers’ (80)—the lowbrow people with little education and poor taste—had to be pushed to the                             sidelines and arbitrarily dismissed in the establishment of film as an art. This elitism gave critics a                                 ‘highbrow’ stature, which will be further examined in the second part of this thesis entitled                             ‘Highbrow Critics, Lowbrow Reviewers’. 

Acclaimed films such as The Wizard of Oz (1939), Gone with the Wind (1939), Meet Me                               In St. Louis (1944), which required expensive production budgets to make, defined the aesthetics                           of Hollywood films. In spite of the cinema of ‘spectacle’ being the focus of Hollywood since the                                 1920s, many contemporary films have been criticized for their exorbitant budgets and over-the-top                         resort to technical display. The first denunciations can be traced back to the 1950s when the                               rear-projection technique was used to produce a practical imitation of reality. In Hitchcock’s                         North by Northwest (1959) for instance, scenes were filmed by combining actors’ performances                         with pre-filmed backgrounds, instead of on location. Laura Mulvey appraised this technique as “an                           aesthetic emblem of a bygone studio era” (Danks, 67). Rear-projection was thus an innovative way                             of filming. However, it now constitutes an outdated industrial form “that define[s] the heightened                           artificiality of classical Hollywood as an outmoded form” (Danks, 66). This cheaper production                         method could be compared to the contemporary ‘green-screen’ video effects technique used in                         blockbusters and franchise films such as Spy Kids 3D: Game Over (2001) and Spider-Man (2002).                             Critics’ dissatisfaction with these techniques is mainly due to its unfitting nature with specific                           “cultural and historical conceptions of what constitutes cinematic realism” (Danks, 68). In other                         words, these types of techniques are being used systematically in films for practical reasons to                             suggest realism, but fail to bring a significant cultural value. Instead of framing a scene in reality,                                 which would anchor the film in a specific historical and cultural context, rear-projection or                           green-screen effects become mere backgrounds creating a sort of mise en abyme, that brings about                             confusion in their artificial aspect. The artificiality mentioned here is not associated with set                           designs or fabricated décors—as these contribute to the artistic value of a film—but with its                             superficial and irreal nature; “its self-consciousness, spatial and temporal discontinuity, artificiality,                     pictorial inability to adequately suggest appropriate lines of perspective, hermetic qualities, and                       imperialist and colonialist implications” (Danks, 66). As a consequence, many films that exhibit a                           generic and recognizable aesthetic can be dismissed by critics because they suggest the imperialist                           nature of the Hollywood industry.  

 

 

 

 8 

1,2. ‘Nouvelle Vague’ Critics 

From the 1950s onward, in an effort to diverge from Hollywood’s extravagant productions and                           challenge popular culture, Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut prompted a movement called                       the ‘nouvelle vague.’ In a 1954 article published in Les Cahiers du Cinéma, a French ‘revue’ which                                   had a significant role in establishing film criticism as a legitimate and professional practice,                           Truffaut emphasized the potential of film as a medium for directors to express their ideas. To him,                                 considering the decline of the French film industry, it was essential to reinstate the directors’ role                               and authority in the creative process, in lieu of screenwriters’ and producers’ focus on textual                             representations (Glenn, 27). This idea of 'auteur cinema’ or ‘auteur theory,’ which considers films                           through the lens of the director’s artistic intent, allowed for both intellectuals and journalists to                             make an impact on the film industry. Publishing their film reviews enabled them to discuss and                               debate film culture. Les Cahiers du Cinéma featured works written by an elite of writers, elevating                               the intellectual and cultural value of film criticism. It had a tremendous impact on the history of                                 film theory, introducing non-academic criteria used to evaluate films such as technical competence                         and the personality and intent of the director. It also participated in the birth of cinephilia, which                                 gave readers a new appreciation of films. Film critics were teaching audiences “how to appreciate                             and analyze the unique nature of cinematic language” (Glenn, 19). It prompted the creation of                             ciné-clubs where communities of cinephiles could gather, socialize, and discuss their common                       interests. For instance, the Cinémathèque Française was highly influential in educating audiences                       about auteur cinema, showing various experimental and alternative films (Glenn, 19). The                       emergence of film culture is an important aspect of the popularization of film criticism.                           Knowledge about films began being identified with evidence of expertise. It became a way to                             socialize and gain desirable cultural capital.  

The heydays of cinephilia and film in France had an impact on American culture. As Asher                               Weiss pointed out, “the 1960s and 70s, whether because of the remarkable bounty of good films,                               or the rising interest in film culture, or both, spawned a golden age in American movie criticism”                                 (10). Roger Ebert, for instance, was an influential film critic who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize                               for Criticism in 1975. Throughout his career, he popularized film criticism on television. His                           reviews and knowledge about films were broadcasted and accessible to a mainstream audience. He                           remains a trailblazer in successfully adapting film criticism to the specificities of the medium.                           

Simultaneously, film criticism became a relevant way for scholars and academics to engage with                           culture and politics. This approach was influenced by the historical events taking place; the                           feminist movement, the Civil Rights movement, the counterculture movement, and the Vietnam                       War. These conflicting contexts were marked by unstable and contradictory ideas and prompted                         scholars to focus on how ideologies were communicated through media. Particularly, one                       influential figure named Laura Mulvey established the psychoanalysis approach in film studies. She                         

 9 

aimed to analyse how films shaped and transmitted ideological ideas. More specifically, she sought                           to demonstrate the relevance of psychoanalysis theory as a “political weapon” (Mulvey, 833).                         According to her, films were structured in a way that reflected the inequalities of the                             socio-cultural-political context, mainly the misrepresentation and sexualization of women on                   screen through specific framing and camera movements. Exposing how visual rhetorics                     contributed to the transmission of political ideas led many feminist scholars to use her approach.                             Mulvey was the first to consider questions of identity and gender disparities, broadening the scope                             of research within the field of film studies. Consequently, films came to be appreciated and                             criticized, not only for their artistic merit but also for their cultural and political value. Following                               scholars’ political engagement, critics introduced “new models of film appreciation, providing a                       vision of critic as a creative artist, as opposed to distanced judge” (Taylor, 7), popularizing the                               practice outside the realm of elite intellectuals.  

 

 

2. Highbrow Critics, Lowbrow Reviewers  

The verb “to criticize” comes from the Greek krinein, which means “to decide”. Criticism                           implies judgment and deliberation. Culture criticism aims to produce opinions and evaluations of                         cultural objects. To assess the quality of these objects, two approaches can be taken; the first is an                                   expert’s critic evaluation or “evaluation grounded in reasons,” and the second is a journalistic                           review or “a report with opinion” (Jaakkola, 12). The expert’s critic is considered more                           authoritative as it presumes the critic to have received validation from an institution after acquiring                             specific knowledge. Furthermore, the term ‘evaluation’ alludes to a more objective, intellectual and                         logical approach, as opposed to ‘report’ which would entail a subjective description. Criticism                         contextualises, classifies, elucidates, interprets, analyses, and evaluates a cultural object (Jaakkola,                     13) to communicate its artistic and cultural value. To some extent, reviewing uses similar elements                             to make cultural objects appealing but only provides audiences with guiding lines on how to                             consume and understand them. According to Christian Metz’s psychoanalytical semiotics, the                     cinema is an institution operated by feedback loops between “the outer machine (the cinema                           industry), the inner machine (the spectator’s psychology), and the third machine (the cinematic                         writer)” (Beller, 11). To him, the three machines operate to gratify the cinema itself. Therefore,                             critics and reviewers, by evaluating ‘the outer machine,’ inform cinematic standards and values,                         and participate in the creation of meaning for the audience or ‘inner machine’. In other words, the                                 relation between the cinema industry and the audience are based on a system of “financial                             feedback” (Beller, 11), thus placing critics and reviewers as a connector between the production                           

 10 

and consumption process. To Peter B. Orlik, director and professor in the School of Broadcast &                               Cinematic Arts at Central Michigan University, the critical process constitutes a “knowledgeable                       comprehension, positive/negative ascertainment, and resulting carefully considered judgement as a                   means of reasonably estimating the value of the particular work under scrutiny” (Jaakkola, 13).                           Critics and reviewers, through structured, detailed analysis and evaluation, connect filmmakers and                       audience, and bring about a form of public ‘gatekeeping’ by producing meaning and safeguarding                           the value of cultural objects.  

 

2,1. Critics and Elitism 

As gatekeepers of film culture, ‘highbrow critics’ (Taylor, 5) embodied the elitism of traditional                           critics. Originally, as stated by Matthew Arnold, a 1880s cultural critic and poet, criticism was “a                               disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in this world”                               (Taylor, 6). In his view, the critic had to remain objective, unbiased, dispassionate, and thorough.                             By applying a sophisticated approach to the practice, it puts film criticism in the domain of elite                                 deliberative processes which are not democratic in a Tocquevillian perspective (Crosbie, Roberge,                       284). In his reflection on 19th-century civilization, French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville                       described elites as using intelligence to assert power over the public. He stated that, “the                             high-minded and the noble advocate subjection, [...] honest and enlightened citizens are opposed                         to all progress, whilst men without patriotism and without principles are the apostles of civilization                             and of intelligence” (Tocqueville, 22). Simply put, society’s control is operated by a privileged few                             through the establishment of intellectual authorities that encourage obedience and contain                     individuals’ divergent behaviours and opinions.  

In the book entitled In Defence of Elitism however, William A. Henry III argued that                             society had reconciled democracy with elitism (46). He distinguished democracy and                     egalitarianism, claiming that the latter encouraged mediocrity and ignorance. To him, democracy is                         based “on the theory that anyone’s participation, even if ignorant and fleetingly motivated,                         enriches the collective judgment” (Henry, 46). He illustrated the practical application of                       democracy with the example of the popular vote in America. Voters are fulfilling their duty in                               response to shared common standards and values. Elections are held because a representative                         democracy requires electees to have merit since favoritism is not accepted. An intellectual                         distinction is thus perceived as a prerequisite for governance. Intellectual legitimacy is “valued                         above ideology and certainly far above compatibility with the common man” (Henry, 47). This                           intellectual elitism also applies to the field of culture. As a culture critic for Time magazine, he                                 advocated for an established elite of intellectuals that set superior societal standards. The                         prevalence of uninformed opinions in a society justified the presence of elites who use their                             cognitive abilities to elevate culture; “high culture is hard brain-work” (Henry, 313). William A.                           

 11 

Henry III’s argument reinforced Tocqueville’s description of 19th-century America where a                     dominant minority exercised control. Elites exist because they are perceived as primordial to                         individuals’ education and self-improvement. One may argue that claiming to push individuals                       towards excellence is de facto using knowledge as an instrument of subjection. By conveying the                             idea that as long as individuals respect and comply with principles decided by higher figures, they                               can be part of society and elevate themselves. Ultimately, I would argue that it implements a flawed                                 outlook on the purpose of intellectual expertise. Instead of encouraging critical thinking, it creates                           intellectual insecurities and a desire for social validation. Both can be illustrated by the trend of                               auteurism which paradoxically introduced a different form of elitism. Auteurism is a critical                         approach to film based on auteur theory. Critics often adopted a laudatory approach to                           independent or avant-gardist film directors. In the 1957 edition of Les Cahiers du Cinéma, André                             Bazin warned that auteurism risked promoting an “aesthetic personality cult” (Sexton, 135). The                         term cult initially referred to a herd-like mentality and perceived superiority in a group. In the                               1950s, it was used to refer negatively to individual thinkers assigning abstract and intellectual ideas                             to popular culture. Auteurism was now not compatible with a trustworthy critical approach due                           to the elitism that came with it. As Pratley explained, 

 

There is . . . a tendency on the part of some individuals to support such works simply because of the                                         learned superiority which comes with proclaiming their enthusiasm for these bewildering puzzle                       pieces. This, in turn, is prompted by a fear that in disavowing these distortionist fallacies they will                                 reveal their lack of profundity, be looked down upon with scorn, and ultimately be rejected from                               

intellectual circles (Sexton, 135). 

 

By attributing deeper meanings to certain films and using auteurism to assert knowledge, it is                             argued here that most critics were in part influenced by their desire for intellectual and social                               recognition.  

 

2,2. A ‘Sensationalist’ Approach to Criticism 

Later, during the counterculture movement and its interest in challenging mainstream opinions,                       film criticism emerged as a popular journalistic practice. The debated role of the journalistic critic                             can be illustrated by taking two contrasting examples: Andrew Sarris, who brought the auteur                           theory to the American public, and Pauline Kael who pioneered a more modern approach. Sarris,                             who wrote for the New York Observer, approached film criticism as a vehicle towards journalistic                             and literary excellence. He also contributed to the development of film scholarship as a teacher. He                               took part in counter-culturistic cinema practices in the 1960s with his contributions to Film                           Culture and The Village Voice. These magazines embodied the ‘New American Cinema’ which                         

 12 

engaged with avant-garde films, departing from classical Hollywood productions (Fossen, 30).                     Sarris and Kael shared common political opinions but had divergent visions on film criticism.                           Sarris often adopted a more detached, auteurist approach and historical perspective on films, while                           Kael focused on sensationalism and the audience's viewpoint (Bordwell, 254). Writing for The New                           Yorker, Kael participated in a cultural shift as she “shaped how critics looked at movies and how                                 people read them. [...] she made it exciting to go into film criticism as a profession, and her                                   influence on the next generation of film critics has been enormous” (Beller, 11). Kael was known to                                 have a singular writing style and a personal approach to film. She became an authoritative figure by                                 disregarding theory and established standards, making film criticism more appealing and accessible                       to the public.  

There appears to have been a shift in critics’ focus as as producers of meaning, or what is                                   referred to in sociology as ‘cultural intermediaries’. Bourdieu’s definition frames cultural                     intermediaries as “anyone involved in the transmission of a work of art” (Crosbie, Roberge, 276).                             Drawing upon this broad definition, the transmission of a cultural object is dependant on the                             expertise—ability, experience, authority—of a critic or reviewer in translating and communicating                     the artistic intent within films. Enough extended knowledge or ‘cultural capital’ is required for                           critics and reviewers to be considered cultural intermediaries. Since the 1960s however, instead of                           bridging the gap between the production and consumption of culture with expertise, critics and                           reviewers appear to be leaning towards a less elitist approach. Henceforth, the stature of film                             critics, increasingly challenged by socio-economic contexts has changed. Critics are no longer the                         politically engaged intellectuals of the auteur film landscape, but part of the neoliberalist                         capitalistic system. Hence, there is a need to be aware of the different modes of practice of critics                                   and reviewers. Accordingly, “we should develop an ability to untangle or disaggregate the practices                           of cultural intermediaries: to work out when, how and under what conditions such aesthetic                           activity might be creative, innovative and providing any more than an impetus inclining towards                           the conservative and mundane” (Negus, 13). This claim coincides with a different definition of                           cultural intermediaries, departing from Bourdieu’s initial one. Keith Negus defines “cultural                     intermediaries as those involved in the economic impact of the cultural product” (Crosbie,                         Roberge, 276). As he explains, “cultural intermediaries shape both use values and exchange values,                           and seek to manage how these values are connected with people’s lives through the various                             techniques of persuasion and marketing and through the construction of markets.” (Negus, 4). To                           some extent, it reduces critics to mere facilitators of the producer-consumer interactions within a                           capitalistic system. However, the mediation here is not solely financial. Following Jean                       Baudrillard’s analysis of the end of political economy and the rise of the ‘attention economy’                             (Beller, 5), it can be suggested that the ‘economic impact’ mentioned in Negus’ definition can                             encompass the different aspects of the attention economy. While the attention economy is worth                           

 13 

acknowledging as a significant element in contemporary society, it will not be a central concept in                               this thesis.  

Digital technology and new media are transforming both the production and distribution                       process of cinema. As Tom Gunning suggested, “in some sense recent spectacle cinema has                           reaffirmed its loots in stimulus and carnival rides, in what might be called the                           Spielberg-Lucas-Coppola cinema of effects” (387). Here, he is referring to films such as Jaws                           (1975), Jurassic Park (1993) and Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) which were,                               and still are today, highly popular. Not only did these blockbusters captivated the mainstream                           audience, but it also gave rise to the popularity of the ‘franchise’ marketing concept. The plethora                               of remakes, sequels and prequels, are frequently ranked online and slashed by film critics who give                               low ratings on popular websites. Critics’ reviews target consumers and are directed at fans seeking                             recommendations. This trend in negatively reviewed films is due in part to the fact that “most                               movies are constructed functionally, to be legible and entertaining. They are not built to last but                               exist very much of their brief, hyped moment in the marketplace” (Taylor, 5). The same goes for                                 television, although its programming was always intended for a mainstream audience. The medium                         is regarded as maintaining publicly shared social and cultural values, with its aesthetics embodying                           what David Thorbum calls "consensus narratives" (Crosbie, Roberge, 283). Television, thus,                     produces public content through standardized visuals, moderated dialogues, plots reinforcing the                     status quo, familiar characters, and so on. From the popular TV comedy I Love Lucy (1951-1957)                               portraying the values of family life in the United States in the 1950s, to the sitcom Friends                                 (1994-2004) which captured the zeitgeist of the early 2000s, television is a mass communication                           media. Programs are made to accommodate product placements and advertise a specific lifestyle.                         Consequently, TV criticism is often regarded as an irrelevant practice. Nonetheless, the emergence                         of cable television and streaming websites has allowed for the production of more artistic series,                             which resulted in the acceptance of TV criticism despite considerable skepticism. Since the history                           of television differs greatly from the history of film and although it would be interesting to address                                 TV and series criticism, especially since streaming services such as Netflix have had a tremendous                             impact on the practice, the focus of this thesis will solely be on film criticism. 

 

 

3. Subjective Taste-Makers  

The shift towards a more journalistic approach to film criticism popularized the practice,                         prompting the emergence of amateur critics. As film culture increasingly opened itself to the                           public, having a profound and sincere appreciation for films was thought to offer meaningful                           

 14 

insights to criticism. Critics also contributed to the development of new social relations between                           film fans. The enthusiasm for films communicated by critics influenced audiences to appreciate                         film criticism as an accessible practice for supporting their interests. Most of the popular culture                             goods were not judged based on the hierarchy of taste established by elites, but on the critic’s own                                   diverse experiences of them. This subjective approach redefined the nature of criticism itself,                         departing from its scientific and academic objectivity, towards empiricism. Thus, I specifically                       chose to engage with philosophical concepts. Through this approach, I will be able to draw upon                               theoretical principles that characterize our understanding of criticism and gain insights into                       broader discourses surrounding subjectivity, beauty, and taste.  

 

3,1. The Departure from Objectivity  

First, I will turn to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophical claims about language to emphasize why                           some began to perceive criticism as non-theoretical. Wittgenstein argued that highbrow critics                       tended to appropriate critical expressions for the establishment of rules or ‘calculi’ (Abrams, 544),                           modeled after the scientific languages. This bias towards an expert, academic, and sometimes                         ornamental language limited its critical purposes to the intellectual sphere. Also, setting up                         standards and norms of thinking meant that critics were restricted in their judgment by existing                             rules. To Wittgenstein, there cannot be authoritative principles for language is viewed as                         ever-changing, adapting to different contexts. By approaching criticism as an impartial way to                         convey expertise, film critics risk using concepts which are inherently biased and have limited                           critical purposes. That is why exclusively relying on the critical lexicon established by aesthetical                           theorists to criticize a film, may only lead to its ‘valency’ or its value in terms of grammatical and                                     logical assessment. It has no practical value. To remodel the function of criticism, M. H. Abrams                               proposed that:  

 

we must remain ready to put the simplified model of critical activity back into its complex and                                 variable surroundings. When we do so, we find that the most important thing the model leaves out                                 is the role played in the transaction by language-both by the general system of language and by the                                   characteristic language of the individual critic. In terms of the model, language comes into play only                               insofar as the critic, having made his aesthetic discoveries, proceeds to render his visual perceptions                             in words (546). 

 

Following this claim, it can be inferred that individual empiricism is suggested to be the underlying                               criteria in film criticism. As previously mentioned, Pauline Kael’s work as a critic was based on the                                 description of her emotions when experiencing a film. She thus followed Wittgenstein’s argument                         in rejecting the traditional critic’s scholarly structured language. To her, “there are not—and there                           

 15 

never were—any formal principles that can be used to judge movies but there are concepts that are                                 serviceable for a while and so pass for, or are mistaken for ‘objective’” (Fossen, 43). Because                               authoritative principles are built on immutable theoretical ideas, they cannot offer a more concrete                           understanding of films. Concepts, on the other hand, are temporary and characterized as                         intrinsically subjective. In his book What Good Are the Arts?, anti-elitist John Carey rejects the                             same external standards, especially aesthetic ones, claiming that they only validate an institution or                           an authority assessing artistic values. To him, objective criticism is not possible since “artistic value                             exists only in people's minds. Art is inescapably personal and cannot be called to account in any                                 objective court” (McDonald, 19). To appreciate the subjectivity of film as an art form, aesthetic                             values have to be informed by subjective perception. He warns, however, that overtly subjective                           ill-advised remarks made by critics can be limiting and have detrimental effects on their legitimacy.                             Subjectivity for a critic is, therefore, used to encompass the complexity and diversity of sentiment                             or experience at play when watching a film, so that variations of taste can be transcribed and                                 communicated.  

 

3,2. The ‘Universality’ of Taste  

Taste is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as “a person's ability to judge and recognize what is                                 good or suitable, especially relating to such matters as art, style, beauty, and behaviour”                           (Cambridge English Dictionary). Following this definition, it can be inferred that the journalistic                         practice of film criticism adopts a sentimentalist approach. Insofar as the subjective experience of                           films are appreciated and shared, the value of films produces a common taste, which in turn                               informs the artistic cultural standards. Henceforth, taste can be examined through philosophical                       sentimentalism. In David Hume’s Of the Standard of Taste, because empirical experience or                         sentiment has universal physical basis in producing bodily pleasures, it positions taste as a                           distinctive common sense. Taste is, ergo, the product of aesthetic and moral values. These values                             are informed by external influences and societal standards, making both sentiment and judgement                         determinant in the production of an object’s beauty. As Hume stated: 

 

The difference, it is said, is very wide between judgment and sentiment. All sentiment is right;                               because sentiment has a reference to nothing beyond itself, and is always real, wherever a man is                                 conscious of it. But all determinations of the understanding are not right; because they have a                               reference to something beyond themselves, to wit, real matter of fact; and are not always                             conformable to that standard. Among a thousand different opinions which different men may                         entertain of the same subject, there is one, and but one, that is just and true; and the only difficulty                                       is to fix and ascertain it. On the contrary, a thousand different sentiments, excited by the same                                 object, are all right: Because no sentiment represents what is really in the object. It only marks a                                   certain conformity or relation between the object and the organs or faculties of the mind; and if                                 

 16 

that conformity did not really exist, the sentiment could never possibly have being. Beauty is no                               quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind                               perceives a different beauty (Hume, 1757). 

 

Put differently, since beauty is subjective, it is guided by a convergence of sentiments and                             appreciated based on empirical judgments. Sentiments, therefore, inform all aesthetic, moral and                       value judgments. Consequently, refining one’s taste is not linked to earning the merit of                           appreciating high culture through academic research or theoretical studies, but implies refining the                         ability to reflect on the sentiment that results from the experience of the cultural object. Therefore,                               taste is defined not only by the pleasure given by a film, but also by the analysis of our own                                       standards and the extent to which they constitute a feeling of approval and admiration in us, or                                 conversely the opposite. Hume’s argument joins Immanuel Kant’s in concluding that there is no                           objective beauty. Despite their divergent ideas on empiricism and sentimentalism, they can both                         advance our understanding of criticism. For Kant, the impossibility of an objective critic means                           that, when assessing the quality of art, an arbitrary assumption about what its purpose is is made,                                 and criteria are invented by the perceiver (59). This subjective creation of standards and rules is said                                 to be necessary to unite the relation with the object, the pleasure it provides, and the beauty it                                   predicates. Beauty is what satisfies universally without concepts, so what may differentiate a purely                           subjective judgment of taste from the one of a critic is the ‘Understanding’ of “the faculty of                                 concept” (Kant, 77) regarding the conscious intention assigned to the representation of an object                           without purpose. In Kant’s words, “we could even define Taste as the faculty of judging of that                                 which makes universally communicable, without the mediation of a concept, our feeling in a given                             representation” (Kant, 173). Kant thus goes further than simply recognizing the relativity of                         beauty. In addition to instinctive natural sentiments, individuals and especially critics can engage                         with beauty by making subjective judgments of taste through the common understanding that the                           capacity to do so is universal. In contrast, taste, inherently subjective and prejudiced by individuals’                             desires, is also said to present a limit to sentimentalism by its detractors who claim that it embodies                                   emotional indulgence and a misrepresentation of reality (Jefferson, 523). When individual                     emotions dictate judgments expected to be grounded in reason, it most likely impacts a critic’s                             authority. A critic’s personal desire to be recognized and admired for their capacity to express                             tasteful convictions may cloud their judgments. For instance, their emotions can be misdirected at                           a specific film aspect with which they are not or otherwise too familiar. Moreover, critics can easily                                 mask what would be considered a lack of or ‘bad’ taste with syntax. This extract from Alexander                                 Pope’s An Essay On Criticism, written in 1711, can help shed light on the mistakes made by critics:  

 

 

 17 

In search of wit these lose their common sense, 

And then turn critics in their own defence: 

Each burns alike, who can, or cannot write, 

Or with a rival's, or an eunuch's spite (Pope, Part 1). 

 

According to Pope, critics can be flawed by vanity and selfish interests. By referring to “a rival's, or                                   an eunuch's spite,” he compares critic’s conceitedness to impotent intellectual insecurities.                     Although Pope’s poetic essay was a reactionary piece against the critics of his time, it constitutes a                                 reflection on the critic’s ideal role. To him, since critics were biased, the establishment of artistic                               limits were to be made by the artists themselves. Hence, he suggested criticism should be based on                                 sensible wisdom rather than defiant intelligence. As a result, it is now widely argued that anyone                               can be or become a critic.  

 

 

4. Is Everyone a Critic in the Digital Era?  

In light of the philosophical sentimentalism and its understanding of subjectivity, beauty,                       and taste, I would wish to suggest that there is a need to reconsider the role of film critics in the                                         contemporary era. Films “exist on the border of art and consumer culture” (Taylor, 5) and tastes                               are heavily influenced by the cultural and economic context. It is, therefore, necessary to take into                               account entertainment culture and market structures. Since films are cultural commodities which                       are marketed and, with the advent of the internet, discussed by using various public forms of                               criticism and reviewing, it raises questions about the current role and legitimacy of critics. To                             illustrate critics’ relevance in the digital era, one can turn to contemporary debates in The New York                                 Times, or even among intellectuals surrounding the phrase claiming that ‘everyone is a critic.’ In                             the article entitled “Is Everyone Qualified to Be a Critic?,” Adam Kirsch and Charles McGrath                             briefly state their views on the critic’s function. Kirsch describes receptivity and response, meaning                           the reaction people experience when looking at a work of art, or in this case a film, as being the                                       fundamental aspect of criticism. Whether they disregard the piece or are moved by it, their                             immediate judgement constitutes a form of criticism that is inherently present in their                         consciousness. This instant perception echoes the above-mentioned philosophical sentimentalist                 approach in which sentiment is at the core of moral judgments. The ability to then self-reflect,                               question one’s responses or emotions, and transcribe them as coherent ideas onto another medium,                           is what makes for a legitimate critic. In his own words,  

 18 

 

What makes someone a critic in the vocational sense is, first, the habit of questioning her own                                 reactions — asking herself why she feels as she does. Second, she must have the ability to formalize                                   and articulate those questions — in other words, she must be a writer. To be able to say what you                                       feel and why: that is the basic equipment of a critic (Kirsch, McGrath, 2015). 

 

The critic is thus considered a professional individual who communicates his or her own taste as a                                 form of moral value criterion through written language. For McGrath, “a valuable critic is                           someone whose judgment you can rely on and learn from, which is not to say someone you always                                   agree with” (2015). Critics are respectable, valid figures who provide knowledgeable judgments to                         challenge other people’s opinions. As Gitlin argues, it is important to pinpoint the role of critics in                                 shaping taste. As their judgments do not derive from the mainstream, collective preferences, “they                           are best thought of as ‘precipitates:’ the material outcome of debates among producers, around                           which the dispositions of certain audiences then crystallize” (Ross, 924). They have a significant                           impact on audiences’ judgments and are, therefore, influential in the formation of taste through                           their critical works. It can be concluded that they produce meaning, as Daniel Mendelsohn                           suggests in its definition of criticism in the 2012 article entitled “A Critic’s Manifesto.” In simple                               terms, Mendelsohn describes criticism with the equation “KNOWLEDGE + TASTE =                     MEANINGFUL JUDGEMENT.” Being a critic is therefore not compatible with a lack of                         knowledge or taste. According to him, the work of a critic is to produce meaning, “to mediate                                 intelligently and stylishly between a work and its audience; to educate and edify in an engaging and,                                 preferably, entertaining way” (Kristensen, 1). This definition restates the traditional understanding                     of the critic’s ideal qualifications, adding the performance aspect of the critic.  

 

4,1. The Rise of Amateurism 

With the majority of contemporary ‘amateur’ critics, cinephiles and freelance writers, writing and                         publishing on the Internet, communicating opinions about films became a way for film culture to                             be deployed online. The decline in print journalism, and subsequently the deterioration of the                           critic-journalist profession resulted in a move of criticism to online spaces. Along with adapting to                             the transition from print to new media, criticism gained a new meaning. According to its new                               conception, criticism is not a means to convey expertise and taste in the traditional sense, but it                                 rather serves to communicate and differentiate oneself online. In the issue entitled “Film Criticism:                           The Next Generation” published in the magazine Cinéaste, contributing film critics described                       what writing online film criticism meant to them. Vadim Rizov, a freelance writer, stated that “the                               goal of film criticism is to articulate my thoughts and record them before my memory fades”                               (Cinéaste Magazine, 2013). In his view, criticism is a sort of personal approach to films made                               

 19 

public. It is aimed at maintaining a collection of film interpretations, each one being associated                             with a specific memory. His conceptualization of criticism reflects the perceived permanence of                         digital content. Calum Marsh, who is also a freelance critic for various publications, addressed the                             difficulties of online criticism. He explained that “it has been my experience that writing film                             criticism on the Internet is sort of like distributing music with it: you accept that free                               dissemination is valuable for the audience it might earn you over time” (2013). He is alluding to                                 the absence of copyrighting regulations online and the fact that the authorship of a critic’s work is                                 often misapprehended or overlooked. These complex and limiting aspects of online film criticism                         lead to much uncertainty for any critic who aspires to gain public recognition or achieve a                               successful career in the traditional sense. Furthermore, distinguishing critics from amateurs has                       become difficult with the proliferation of online reviewers.  

According to Marc Verboord, the binary structure designating criticism as a “professional”                       practice and reviewing as one for “amateurs” does not include gradual distinctions between                         different types of reviewers (Jaakkola, 13). An attempt to label these distinctions has been made by                               Kristensen and From. In their theoretical typology, they proposed a model that distinguishes four                           ideal types of cultural critics: 

 

1) the intellectual cultural critic, who is closely connected to an aesthetic tradition, bohemia and/or                             academia, or institutionalized cultural capital; 2) the professional cultural journalist, who is first                         and foremost embedded in a media professional logic; 3) the media-made arbiter of taste, whose                             authority is closely linked to practical experience with cultural production and repeated charismatic                         media performances; and 4) the everyday amateur expert, who offers subjective opinions and                         represents experience-based cultural taste. The aim is to provide an analytical minimum model for                           future empirical studies by outlining the contours of the multiple, objective and subjective,                         professional and non-professional cultural ‘authorities’ of contemporary media culture (Kristensen                   & From, 1).  

 

Their topology is thus particularly relevant in addressing the growing disappearance of the                         distinction between the private and public sphere and its consequences for cultural intermediaries.                         By drawing distinctions between cultural critics in accordance with sociological concepts and                       historical transitions, their topology relies mainly on notions of power and capital. They claim that                             a critic’s authority is linked to “their cultural, social, and, in the terms of Couldry (2003, 2012),                                 media meta-capital” (Kristensen & From, 12), extending Bourdieu’s initial definition of cultural                       intermediaries to include the impacts of new media. Moreover, although criticism is considered to                           be more legitimate than reviewing, the terms have been used interchangeably in recent years. This                             amalgam can be explained by the impact of the internet on the film industry. Film distribution and                                 consumption is transitioning from traditional theater releases to digital platforms such as Netflix.                         

 20 

Web 2.0 enabled more than access to films through streaming services, it also offered                           spaces—forums, websites, social media—for audiences to voice their opinions. These digital                     environments gave rise to the democratization of the practice of film criticism and prompted a                             shift in audiences’ approach to film culture.  

 

4,2. Tomatometer-Approved Critics 

Nowadays, anyone can publicly establish themselves as critics. Individuals with different levels of                         expertise can express their interpretations and opinions online with little to no restrictions. New                           conventions across digital media blur the line separating expert critics from online practitioners.                         The proliferation of digital forms of film evaluation such as amateur blogs, video essays,                           viewer/consumer reviews, the democratization of the culture production process and the                     mediation of user-generated content pose challenges for the relevance of critics’ traditional roles.                         Launched in 1998, the website Rotten Tomatoes is a prime example that illustrates this changing                             new media landscape for critics. It makes use of statistics and ratings from online communities of                               consumers, amateur critics, and cinephiles to determine the quality of a film. Critics’ approval of a                               film largely determines its reputation and its commercial success. It was found that “more than                             one-third of Americans actively seek the advice of film critics (The Wall Street Journal 2001), and                               approximately one of every three filmgoers say they choose films because of favorable reviews”                           (Basuroy et al., 103). Critics’ positive reviews thus act as signals of quality and determine the value                                 of cultural products. The higher the rating a film gets, the more likely it is to influence a film’s                                     performance. Film ratings are, thus, determinant factors and explain why Rotten Tomatoes has                         become a referential source for film reviews. Its rating system is based on aggregated opinions.                             Films obtain two scores that are measured according to the ‘Tomatometer’ (Rotten Tomatoes).                         Both are calculated based on a 60% or higher approval rate; one of critics’ reviews and the other on                                     the audiences’. Scores constitute a critical consensus which further establishes the website’s                       authority. A recognizable ‘certified fresh’ badge, which has become a mainstream staple in film                           quality evaluation, also accompanies well-reviewed films.  

 

A movie or TV show that reaches the requirements for Certified Fresh doesn't immediately receive                             the designation. Instead, it is automatically flagged for our staff's consideration. Once the team can                             determine that it's unlikely the score will drop below the minimum requirements, they will mark it                               Certified Fresh. If the Tomatometer score drops below 70%, then the movie or TV show will lose                                 its Certified Fresh status (Rotten Tomatoes). 

 

These conditions and prerequisites, which serve to establish the website’s commitment to quality                         and transparency, are signals that evoke trust in the rating system. Instead of the star rating system                                 

 21 

used by IMDb (the Internet Movie Database) for instance, Rotten Tomatoes creates its own sets                                of principles and rules that take form through easily recognizable symbols (red tomato, green splat,                             badge, popcorn bucket). These emblems serve to signify reliable film criticism. Moreover, critics                         are selected after a process that is similar to a professional selection of candidates. Individual critics                               and publications can apply on the website and are approved if they meet the criteria required                               according to ‘key values’ and ‘eligibility guidelines’ (Rotten Tomatoes). Key values are divided into                           four criteria: 1) insight, which requires critics to have a relevant perspective and interesting                           opinions, 2) audience, which implies that critics must have online influence and be able to                             represent specific communities, 3) quality, meaning that critics must follow standards regarding                       the written and oral language, and 4) dedication. Values are, therefore, presented as being based on                               critics’ ethical and journalistic principles. The ‘eligibility guidelines’ list requirements such as                       “consistent output for a minimum of two years,” “a minimum of 200K subscribers on a video                               publishing platform qualifies for broad audience reach,” and “demonstrated social media presence                       and engagement (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, and/or Instagram)” (Rotten Tomatoes). Although it is                       mentioned that exceptions can be made, productivity and online influence are predominantly                       considered. As Denis McQuail claims, the main new media competence now lies in the “ability to                               attract attention and arouse interest” and “assess public taste” (Ross, 913). To do so, Rotten                             Tomatoes offers content specifically targeted at fans. This emphasis on film enthusiasts                       communities aims to encourage active participation.  

 

We also serve movie and TV fans with original editorial content on our site and through social                                 channels, produce fun and informative video series, and hold live events for fans across the country,                               with our ‘Your Opinion Sucks’ live shows. If you’re an entertainment fan looking for a                             recommendation, or to share an opinion, you’ve come to the right place (Rotten Tomatoes). 

 

On Rotten Tomatoes, one can thus refer to online ratings which serve as an accessible and                               easy-to-understand format to assess the quality of a film before watching it, and get involved in a                                 community.  

Critics act both as influencers and predictors. This dual role was examined by Jehoshua                           Eliashberg and Steven M. Shugan. According to their definition, “an influencer or opinion leader,                           is a person who is regarded by a group or by other people as having expertise or knowledge on a                                       particular subject” and “a predictor is expected to call the entire run (i.e., predict whether the film                                 will do well) or, in the extreme case, correctly predict every week of the film’s run” (Basuroy et al.,                                     104). Critics’ influence is based on their reputation, while their role as predictor relies on their                               ability to gauge the notoriety a film will gain. Criticizing commercial films is, therefore, not                             determined by notions of expertise, but by critics’ social media reach and their understanding of                             

 22 

trends in audiences’ tastes. Besides, their recognized authority is dependent upon their ability to                           resonate with a wide audience and to build a strong following across platforms. In that sense, both                                 positive and negative reviews contribute to the establishment of a critic’s online persona and                           reinforce his or her leverage in impacting audiences’ choices. More often than not, negative reviews                             have a greater impact than positive ones. The study by Basuroy et al. questioning “How Critical                               Are Critical Reviews?” (103) referred to the ‘negativity bias’ to posit that audiences are more                             affected by negative reviews. Their hypothesis was validated by their findings: 

 

our second set of results shows that negative reviews hurt revenue more than positive reviews help                               revenue in the early weeks of a film’s release. This suggests that whereas studios favor positive                               

reviews and dislike negative reviews, the impact is not symmetric” (Basuroy et al., 116). 

 

Although the study relies heavily on statistics and focuses on the revenue and marketing effects of                               film criticism, it is particularly efficient in showing the impact of critics on both the film industry                                 and film audiences. Consequently, online reviews, whether they are positive or negative, do not                           have any significant impact when singled-out. What matters most is the final score resulting from                             the combination of multiple reviews. Rotten Tomatoes scores, thus, paradoxically exemplify the                       loss of value of criticism. On the one hand, it allows for more people to discern quality in films. On                                       the other hand, the simplified presentation of film reviews can result in inconsistencies, especially                           between critics and audiences. The website appears to have eroded the professional and                         authoritative aspect of film criticism. Social bonds between film audiences and a critic are replaced                             by statistical rankings, making the ‘pleasure’ and meaning found in writing or reading film                           criticism obsolete. Film reviews are governed by “‘herd-like’ models of connected sociality”                       (Terranova, 13). An emphasis on the superiority of the majority within social networks means that,                             while the proliferation of reviews is facilitated, there is paradoxically a loss of diversity in the                               expression of opinion. The general agreement surrounding a film is taken as a certain and reliable                               signal of quality since unanimity is favoured over an individual’s ability to convey expertise and                             subjective taste. 

 

4,3. A Decline in ‘Good’ Criticism? 

Along with this homogenization of mainstream taste, many others have foreseen “a crisis of                           criticism”, and even the "death of criticism" (Crosbie, Roberge, 275). Since critics’ artistic                         judgments are not considered as much as it used to, singular critical opinions can no longer impact                                 audiences. Instead, they solely look at the aggregate percentage of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’. In other                             words, it is only when the rate of approval outweighs the one of disapproval that a film is deemed                                     worth watching. Or, Stephen Prince argues that: 

 23 

 

There are two sources of pleasure in good criticism. The first derives from re-experiencing the film                               through the critic's descriptions; the second derives from the critic's use of language. Many people                             read criticism not because they necessarily agree with the critic, but because they like the way the                                 critic writes or talks about movies (379). 

 

In other words, it is through their expertise and a distinctive writing style that critics offer                               subjective critical opinions which can enable readers to sympathize and relate to empirical                         experiences. This communicative dynamic results in the creation of social bonds between critics                         and film audiences. These bonds permit the intellectual challenge and gratification that comes with                           reading film criticism. Ronan McDonald’s book The Death of the Critic addresses the challenges                           faced by critics and particularly literary critics. As a highbrow practice, criticism relies on                           knowledgeable and sophisticated writing within an authoritative institution. Contemporary                 readers, however, tend to disregard authority. According to McDonald,  

 

The era of the experts, the informed cognoscenti whose judgements and tastes operated as a                             lodestar for the public, has seemingly been swept aside by a public that has laid claim to its capacity                                     to evaluate its own cultural consumption. The contraction of academic criticism and the expansion                           of reviewing are both symptoms of the same anti-authoritarianism: a refusal of top-down                         instruction and a suspicion of hierarchy. The critic-as-instructor, as objective judge and expert, has                           yielded to the critic who shares personal reactions and subjective enthusiasms. If anyone can be a                               critic, then there is hardly any need for specialized and devoted professionals (4). 

 

If his argument is applied to film criticism, it seems that the scholar practice is struggling to stay                                   relevant in the contemporary era. Not only did proliferation of amateur critics led to the                             impoverishment of the academic and professional field, but it also disrupted standards and values.                           Subjectivity and sensitivity prevail over expertise and authority. McDonald’s final words sum up                         the way criticism, in his view, should be considered anew; “if criticism is to be valued, if it is to                                       reach a wide public, it needs to be evaluative” (146). According to him, the lack of established,                                 objective evaluation criteria in modern criticism seem to devalue criticism. Here, criticism is to be                             understood as the expression of valuable and valid judgments that are necessary for criticism to be                               relevant. When cultural objects are valued for their popularity, norms of perception are influenced                           by mainstream ideas and emulation prevails. Film criticism as a purely consumeristic guide limits                           the development of critical thinking. The need for cultural intermediaries fades and cultural tastes                           are shaped by disregarding the validity of informed judgments. It can be inferred that the                             deterioration of the traditional critic role, thus, does not solely result from the advent of the Web                                 

 24 

2.0 and the decrease in reading material, but also stems from the mainstream dismissal of                             authoritative institutions and the subsequent public appropriation of the practice of film criticism.   

5. ‘To Edit and to Voice-Over:’ The Audio-Visual Essay Genre  

New experimental genres can alleviate the deterioration of criticism and place it in the                           foreground of the digital era. With the democratization of filmmaking and editing technology, film                           criticism is no longer limited to the written language. Although the use of voice-over and visuals                               carries various implications for the production of culture, the expression of ideas, and the                           transmission of knowledge, it constitutes a relevant potential for the practice of film criticism.                           Previous forms of educational and intellectual audiovisuals content seem to have tried adapting to                           the new media landscape. Documentaries have considerably changed. Akin to intellectual film                       criticism, they were not appealing to a mainstream audience and would be considered dull, elitist,                             and highbrow. Most of them relied on interviews with experts and historical evidence to represent                             information as accurately and objectively as possible. However, many documentaries also rely on                         investigative and politically engaged journalism. For this reason, documentaries came to be                       regarded as ambiguous mediums. For instance, in Michael Moore’s 2004 documentary Fahrenheit                       9/11, the investigation is led by the filmmaker. His biases are, therefore, inherent to the                             documentary and injected into the narrative. As the audience is conditioned to trust visual                           evidence, their judgment is largely affected by the filmmaker’s viewpoint. As Laura Rascaroli                         explains,  

 

The film’s rhetorical structure is that of journalistic exposé, in which the reporter investigates a                             topic and discovers scandal, corruption, or controversy and aims to convince the audience of their                             historicity/factuality [...] at all times, the spectator is told clearly where to be, what to feel, how to                                   react, what to find out, what to believe (43). 

 

Consequently, there is a need to develop different ways to present ideas. In recent years, attempts                               to make better use of technology to represent knowledge and ideas in a more accessible and                               appealing way have proliferated. A novel form known as ‘visual essay’ or ‘audio-visual essay’ has                             gained popularity online. In the following section, I will examine the developments of the                           audio-visual essay genre and shed light on its potential and limits. It is particularly relevant since                               

 25 

audio-visual essays constitute the first attempts to combine the written form with digital                         technology. First emanating from experimental filmmaking to then becoming a new method of                         presenting academic research, the audio-visual essay genre has now become an innovative means of                           communication for online film critics.   

 

5,1. Filmmaking and Essays: Early Experiments  

Contemporary video essays derive from the documentary genre of ‘film essay’ or ‘essay film.’                           Jean-Luc Godard was one of the first to experiment with film essays with its eight episodes                               instalment entitled Histoire(s) du Cinéma (1997–98, France). As a filmmaker and critic of the                           French New Wave, his project was not so much an attempt to encapsulate the history of the                                 cinema, but rather to shed light on the possibilities of representation offered by the medium. To                               him, the potential of film was immense, and one way to elevate its value was to combine it with                                     thoughtful reflections. In his own words, “instead of writing criticism, I make a film, but the                               critical dimension is subsumed” (Godard, 171). The series of video essays, which investigated                         various topics in film history, was initially commissioned for cable television and released in VHS                             (Williams, 10). It was acclaimed for its impact on the cinema and other art forms. In his praise of                                     the series, James S. Williams highlighted that “what counts above all is that an intersubjective                             critical space is created that actively encourages the processes of memory, and forces us also to                               consider the importance and value of our own filmic memories” (12). The film essay is, thus, not                                 primarily an attempt to instruct the audience about the history of cinema. Most importantly, it                             instigates critical thinking while allowing a new perspective on what is represented on screen. This                             twofold depiction influenced Alexandre Astruc, who coined the term la caméra-stylo (18), to                         describe experimental works that combined filmmaking techniques with the literary essay genre.                       He stressed the importance of the cinema as a means of expression and communication. According                             to him, 

 

The future of cinema is completely bound up in its developmental possibilities as a language. The                               documentary age, when the camera was set up on a street corner to record the minor happiness of                                   its image-cargo, is well and truly over. Now we must speak, and speak in order to say something.                                   Little by little, film replaces paper or canvas as the privileged material where the trace of individual                                 obsessions are inscribed, where they unfold (Astruc, 47). 

 

Although he was not fond of film critics—“only a film critic could fail to notice the striking                                 transformation which is taking place before our eyes” (Astruc, 17)—his claim iterates the                         importance of considering the new social context in which audio and visuals are growingly                           becoming the main modes of communication and knowledge transmission.  

 26 

The ‘Taking Ideas For A Walk: The 2018 Essay Conference,’ organized by the University                           of Dundee’s Centre for Critical and Creative Cultures, explored the changing media landscape and                           its impact on the traditional essay genre. Among the different questions the conference set out to                               address, one was particularly relevant to reflect on the current democratization of both knowledge                           and technology. The question asked, “how might returning to the essay’s roots help us move                             towards writing a different kind of academic paper or help yield a more open kind of journalism –                                   a more varied but also intellectually serious kind of popular intervention?” (DURA, 2008). In                           other words, in what ways can essays constitute an engaging and entertaining form of cultural                             content, yet still hold intellectual value and critical discernment? Phillip Lopate, essayist and film                           critic, was a guest speaker at the conference. He contributed significantly to the establishment of                             the literary essay genre with his works The Art of the Personal Essay and To Show and to Tell. In an                                         interview that took place at the conference, Lopate discussed his career and the state of the essay in                                   the contemporary era. When describing his writing style, he emphasized the importance of irony                           and humour. As the interviewer observed, “if you read a Lopate personal essay and a film review                                 side-by-side, you’ll recognise his voice in each; he doesn’t switch between one writing style and                             another, and there’s always that little bit of cheekiness somewhere in the text” (Lyttle, 2008).                             Lopate upholds literary artistry as the main element of the film essay form. His belief echoes Adam                                 Kirsch and Charles McGrath’s definition of a critic. According to them, the critic has to be a writer                                   first and foremost. Lopate, thus, distinguishes essayists from documentarians: 

 

“The text must present more than information”, writes Lopate, “it must have a strong, personal                             point of view. The standard documentary voiceover which tells us, say, about the annual herring                             yield is fundamentally journalistic, not essayistic” (ibid.: 19). The documentary’s typically                     omniscient mode of address is communal and collective. The essay, by contrast, invites us to adopt                               a more singular spectatorial position. It speaks to us as embodied individuals rather than as an                               undifferentiated mass (Lavik, 4).  

 

To him, essays are unique in their subjective and personal mode of address. Film essayists must,                               therefore, make use of their voice in a distinct and explicit manner, without omitting the main line                                 of reasoning. Lopate opposes the designation of Godard and other avant-gardists filmmakers as                         essayists. He pointed out that the essay film genre is “a cinematic genre that barely exists” (Lavik,                                 3). The format of film essays alone seems unable to exploit the possibilities of combining                             filmmaking with literary essays fully. As a result, the genre is still considered experimental. 

 

 

 

 27 

5,2. Video Essays and Academic Potential 

Similarly, academic video essays, which derive from film essays, have struggled to develop. As                           Thomas Van den Berg and Miklós Kiss observed in their analysis of audiovisual essays and                             academic research video, “finding writings or practical guidelines for how to produce videos is                           scarce or at least theoretically thin (see the very useful but quite basic How-to Video Essays guide by                                   Greer Fyfe and Miriam Ross) and measurements for evaluation are rather underdeveloped” (5).                         The lack of established standards for creating video essays limits its development. It is, however,                             worth mentioning that a few attempts to introduce new media formats as legitimate critical                           methods have been made. Scholars such as Eric Faden and Catherine Grant have tapped into the                               potentials of audio-visual film criticism. For Eric Faden, since media formats have replaced the                           written ones, academic fields must adapt. In his approach, he refers to Alexandre Astruc’s                           definition of the film essay genre as ‘la caméra-stylo’ by using the term ‘media stylo’ (Faden, 1). He,                                   thus, offers a new concept that stresses the new media aspect of the video essay genre. Faden                                 declared his departure from the traditional scholar approach with the following statement: “I vow                           to abstain from that most sacred but restricted of intellectual practices—the literary academic                         essay—no matter the temptation. From here forward I put my faith in media over text, screen over                                 paper” (1). This bold pledge is a testament to the importance of media in the field of film study.                                     Media is said not to be solely the object of inquiry, but is also suggested as a methodology. As                                     explained here, 

 

scholarship in an electronic culture does not abandon the tools and techniques of oral or alphabetic                               culture; it simply can use them in new ways. In a key difference, the media stylo moves scholarship                                   beyond just creating knowledge and takes on an aesthetic, poetic function. Critical media, unlike                           say the traditional journal article, should evoke the same pleasure, mystery, allure, and seduction as                             the very movies that initiated our scholarly inquiry (Faden, 3).  

 

Academia is urged to realize the benefits of using new mediums to advance research in a pertinent                                 manner. Faden joins Catherine Grant by emphasizing on the creative aspect of audio-video essays.                           For her, these new formats are “creative, critical, and performative film studies practices” (Grant,                           1). They constitute an audiovisual attempt to answer substantial questions by combining textual                         information and visual representation with film as both object and subject. In their view, a                             scholarly approach should not be limited to the creation of objective knowledge. For this expertise                             to be meaningful, it has to be modeled after the objects analysed. In other words, academic film                                 criticism must hold similar creative intent and value as the films studied. Using a less formal and                                 distant approach, as well as incorporating visual rhetoric are essential aspects in the creation of                             substantial audio-visual essays: 

 28 

 

After several decades of scholarly writing that was wary of making assertions about aesthetic value,                             or that privileged theories over the individual films used for purposes of illustration, this renewed                             interest in close analysis in the service of evaluation is most refreshing, harkening back to the early                                 days of cinephile criticism and early academic scholarship in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The                               emergence of DVD technology, the expansion of the internet and the emergence of a number of                               sophisticated cinephile bloggers has coincided with a revival in academic circles of the kind of                             ‘expressive’ criticism devoted to close reading and evaluation. This kind of scholarship fits Mulvey’s                           description, quoted above: ‘textual analysis ceases to be a restricted academic practice and returns,                           perhaps, to its origins as a work of cinephilia, of love of the cinema’ (Keathley, 178). 

 

According to Keathley, the departure from elitism and the return to a film enthusiast approach are                               important elements that explain the current changes in film culture. Technology has allowed film                           criticism to evolve beyond the boundaries of academia. Audio-visual essays are not merely                         distinguishable by their creative, performative, experimental, and subjective aspects, but also by                       their social and cultural significance.  

 

5,3. Social and Cultural Implications 

Representing cultural objects involves many ambiguous aspects. Film essays engage with the                       political to spur engagement and active participation with what is presented. Academic video                         essays present knowledge in a distant and objective way to allow students to develop their own                               critical thoughts. Consequently, an emphasis is placed on the viewer who has to actively process                             the information so as to avoid experiencing things solely through sentiment. As a matter of fact, 

 

in moving outside, or beyond, the standard determinants of immediately recognisable modes of                         representation, the onus lies firmly on the viewer to decode and process meaning. The                           manipulation of form here appears to avoid the perils of self-reflexivity’s pure introspection by                           firmly orienting the viewer to the ideological imperatives of seeing/knowledge, thus indicating both                         one’s proactive and determined role in this process (Charlesworth, 118). 

 

Most documentaries, film essays, and academic video essays interact with the viewer by trying to                             convey objectivity. The presentation of seemingly factual information persuades the viewer of the                         legitimacy and validity of the format and its expertise. Since the cognitive abilities of the viewer are                                 considered as sole determinants of knowledge receptivity, these formats are labelled intellectual                       and, ergo, can constitute a form of elitism. However, modern video essays have specific                           characteristics. The majority of them challenge the viewer’s perspective, encouraging critical                     

 29 

thinking, rather than attempting to validate intellectual capacities. This new form of audiovisual                         film criticism is particularly relevant to address in the digital era when current trends have                             deteriorated the value of criticism by relying on negative opinions, hyper skepticism, and imitation.                           In fact, identities and the formation and transmission of knowledge are increasingly shaped by                           visuals and sounds. These now play an important role in the formation of societal ideas. According                               to Walter Benjamin, the contemporary visual culture has instigated the 'age of mechanical                         reproduction' (Mirzoeff, 6). Through the process of visualizing knowledge, cultural objects are                       taken apart and manipulated for the construction of new narratives. This reappropriation of form                           results in the formation of identical and imitative representations. As a result, these representations                           inform and influence the ways films are appreciated. In video essays, meaning is produced through                             the quality of the interaction between the viewer and the representation. The use of voice-over                             encourages trust and legitimacy, while skillful editing conveys mastery of digital technology. To                         fully tapped into the potential of digital film criticism, Erlend Lavik states that,  

       

though this genre has a serious drawback: the voiceover is at the mercy of – or forever playing                                   catch-up with – the film’s linear, temporal unfolding. [...] In the digital film criticism that I have in                                   mind, however, text and image are carefully coordinated or “co-written”. Thus, the video essayist                           can arrest the action, for example by freezing the frame, to develop a detailed argument about shot                                 composition, or inserting footage from other movies as points of comparison (9).  

 

For Lavik, a video essayist has to create more than an audiovisual commentary of film through                               voice-over narration. The argument has to be coherent and proficiently enacted by utilizing media                           to its full capacities. A balance and a clear intent in the use of visuals and audio allows the viewer to                                         think about what is represented critically. Nonetheless, adapting the written language to                       audiovisuals can carry historical implications. According to Katherine Groo, “the essential tool of                         historical expression—writing—loses its privileges, its claims to objectivity and neutrality, as it                       collapses in a series of endless substitutions and equivalences” (4). Thus, one has to question the                               nature of video essays as digital objects and the impact of editing, rearranging, reproducing and                             sharing film clips online. What should be considered is how a representation can efficiently make                             use of techniques to direct a viewer in a specific direction, while at the same time mediating the                                   impact of rhetorics by encouraging critical thinking. Also, since video essays have prompted a                           return to fan-based criticism and ciné-club-like communities, a deluge of imitations and similar                         content can be observed, particularly on YouTube. These modern video essays are particularly                         relevant in discussing the state of visual culture and introduce new prospects for the production of                               meaning.  

 30 

6. YouTube Video Essayists and The ‘Sociality’ of Expertise      

As previously mentioned, the Web 2.0 has disrupted many aspects of the film industry and                             the YouTube platform, in particular, has been influential in this transformation. It encourages                         users to participate through its various affordances. For instance, its algorithm serves to                         recommend content, keeping the user engaged on the platform and the ‘YouTube Studio’                         (YouTube, 2019) feature facilitates the creation and sharing of content. Participatory media, then,                         implies taking part in social processes. Marshall McLuhan’s work was influential and                       groundbreaking for the understanding of the new forms of sociality enabled by new media. In                             Understanding Media, he conceptualized the historical and cultural change of media, claiming                       that it produced new social models based on collective values. Reflecting on his reasoning, Douglas                             M. Kellner and Meenakshi Gigi Durham remarked that, 

 

whereas print culture [...] produced rational, literate, and individualist subjects [...], the                       proliferating media culture produced more fragmentary, nonrational, and aestheticized subjects,                   immersed in the sights, sounds, and spectacles of media like film, radio, television, and advertising.                             The new media culture was, McLuhan argued, “tribal,” sharing collective ideas and behavior. It was                             generating an expanding global culture and consciousness that he believed would overcome the                         individualism and nationalism of the previous modern era (xxii).  

 

With McLuhan characterization of new media culture, it can be deduced that technology is driving                             the uniformisation and convergence of ideas. Film, in particular, constitutes a visual media through                           which society is portrayed in certain ways. Since most popular films originate from American ideas,                             it is important to note also that imperialist ideas largely lead this homogenization of culture.                             However, my interest here does not lie in examining the dominance of American films on                             contemporary criticism. While McLuhan may argue that new media produces converging ideas, I                         want to focus on the specificities of mediation and the possibilities for new modes of expression                               and transmission of expertise. In the digital era, the mediation of culture is blurred by the rise of                                   the ‘prosumer.’ As previously explained, the term refers to the consumers’ ability to shape the                             content of cultural commodities by engaging in the ‘participatory culture’ (Fuchs, 203). Bernard                         Stiegler asserts that technology now operates in relation to networks and enables the participatory                           aspect of new media. According to him, social media platforms such as YouTube are technologies                             designed and scaled to operate in the same way as they would be for cultural production. In other                                   

 31 

words, social media and cultural production are both set up and automated by active user                             participation. 

 

Collaborative techniques and auto-broadcasting seem to set up the conditions for a sort of                           technocultural isonomy, where hegemonic subjective relations imposed by the cultural industries                     seem reversed and which make an auto-production based on isoproduction possible” (Stiegler, 45).  

 

In his view, it is the formation of new sociality enabled by new media technologies that lead to a                                     paradigm shift in the traditional cultural producer/consumer dichotomous model. The individual,                     as well as its social network, both contribute to the creation of culture. This duality raises questions                                 about the significant role of YouTube film critics and reviewers in shaping culture. Most of them                               rely on skepticism and humour to engage their audience in an entertaining way. This approach can                               be contrasted by the growing trend of ‘serious’ video essayists on YouTube. These vernacular                           practices constitute relevant objects of inquiry due to their popularity and influence on viewers’                           tastes and way of looking at films. Since there is no strict distinction between what constitutes a                                 legitimate and informational YouTube video from a satirical content, one has to take the                           platform’s characteristics into account. I will, thus, focus on examining the diversity and variations                           of videos related to film criticism through the lense of the participatory culture and its impact in                                 shaping notions of expertise.   

 

6,1. Critics as YouTube Users and Participatory Expertise 

As an example, one can refer to Patrick Vonderau’s analysis of the strike orchestrated by the labor                                 union preserving TV and film writers’ rights, the Writers Guild of America (WGA), that took                             place in 2007, to shed light on the new possibilities offered by YouTube. After being dismissed                               amidst the strike, writer Jim O’Doherty used YouTube as an outlet for productivity. For him, “the                               internet is a place where you can be creative, very independent, you can get out of bed in the                                     morning, get an idea, go shoot it, come back to your home, edit it on your laptop and get it out                                         onto a variety of different platforms” (Vonderau, 112). YouTube is, therefore, a new environment                           where individuals, for whom participation in a disrupted industry has been limited due to the                             changing economic context, can establish themselves as creators and develop their skills and                         reputation. Similarly, for film criticism and reviewing, YouTube has introduced non-institutional                     cultural forms and practices, as well as sub-cultures and communities. The evaluation of publicly                           available forms of entertainment has become a vernacular practice. The transition from traditional                         criticism to contemporary criticism can be seen in the proliferation of YouTube channels such as                             CinemaSins, Screen Junkies, Screen Rant, which are particularly appealing to viewers. They attract                         a large number of subscribers and fans for whom videos that hash over films, using humour and                                 

 32 

parodic tones, constitute an entertaining form of critical film review. These channels have become                           authoritative and recognized figures on YouTube. The channel Screen Junkies, which to this date                           gathers more than 6.6 million subscribers (Screen Junkies, 2019), has gained popularity thanks to                           its ‘Honest Trailers’ series in which film trailers are parodied using a satirical voice-over. One can                               argue that this trend of mocking commercial films exemplifies the ‘clickbait’ mentality of social                           media and leads to a decline of standards in film criticism. YouTube is an open-platform where any                                 individual can publish content. This democratization in content production and distribution leads                       to a deluge of poor quality, meaningless, morally ambiguous videos–thus deteriorating qualitative                       standards. According to Gunnar Iversen, this abundance of content is inherent to the platform. 

     

The default experience of YouTube is one surrounded by too many in the midst of too much, clips                                   of every imaginable style and genre, high and low, old and new, professional and amateur,                             commercial and non-commercial. YouTube is a place where one can drown, or fight to stay afloat,                               in a superabundance of meanings (356). 

 

His argument is linked to the context of information overload. YouTube videos that analyze films                             through visuals and satire exemplify the challenges of participatory culture. Through viral                       contents, clickbait titles, videos about films attract viewers. In spite of that, as I will argue, the                                 proliferation of more serious formats re-establishing standards for film criticism on YouTube can                         permit the development of new modes of expertise. In particular, many YouTube videos termed                           ‘video essays,’ have appeared. These new types of content, inspired by three popular channels,                           NerdWriter1, Every Frame a Painting and Lessons from the Screenplay, have gained popularity as                           reliable sources of experts’ knowledge.  

Many scholars from various fields have examined notions of expertise regarding                     technology. Philippe Ross mentions H. M. Collins and Robert Evans’ characterization of two                         types of expertise. The first, which is referred to as ‘contributory expertise’ (Ross, 915), concerns                             the level of competence one has to have to bring about significant contribution. The second is                               ‘interactional expertise’ (Ross, 915) and revolves around the ability to understand and                       communicate the specificities of a subject. In the case of film criticism, this distinction would                             apply to the classical divide between scholars as experts—in the sense that they can advance the                               field of film studies—and critics and reviewers as experts—by their understanding of the language                           and subject of film. Since “acquiring expertise is, therefore, a social process—a matter of                           socialization into the practices of an expert group” (Ross, 915), YouTube facilitates the exchange                           of ideas and the immersion into established and self-proclaimed groups of experts. However, when                           considering new media and the platformization of knowledge, it can be argued that there cannot                             be a single delineation between types of expertise. As previously stated, YouTube is an amalgam of                               

 33 

different types of videos. As a result, it becomes tricky to identify certified or legitimate expertise                               from ill-advised content. Thus, knowledge is now, not only more accessible than ever—making                         differentiation surrounding the levels of expertise one can acquire more complex—but is also                         transformed through its manipulation. This appropriation and re-interpretation of knowledge can                     be analysed using the scientific approach of Kurt A. Richardson and Andrew Tait in their article                               entitled “The Death of the Expert?”. They distinguish ‘neo-experts’ from ‘modernists experts’: 

 

So neo-experts are not only concerned with the process of producing context-specific                       understanding, but also with the care that must be taken in applying such understanding in the real                                 world. [...] rather than being the source of the relevant domain specific knowledge, they are there to                                 bring together the ‘expertise’ of the many organizational stakeholders in a coherent fashion to                           facilitate the definition of the problem space, and the development of strategies to guide an                             organization, or department, or individual in a particular direction—a rather harder proposition                       than just supplying textbook like knowledge. ‘Modernist Experts’ do our thinking for us, whereas                           

‘Neo-Experts’ help us think for ourselves (Richardson and Tait, 95).   

   

Although their dichotomy is primarily devoted to business organization and management                     consulting, I would suggest that it can be applied to new media film critics. If taken as a model, it                                       can be observed that YouTube film critics are combining the knowledge of traditional experts,                           along with theirs, by producing videos that have an impact in the online ‘world’. This impact can                                 be seen in the audience reach they have. As an example, the channel MovieFlame engages with film                                 theory using a specialist tone. Its creator, Morgan Ross, is “a college graduate with a degree in film                                   making and communication (focusing on mass media)” (MovieFlame, 2019). He, therefore,                     combines his media expertise with the medium of YouTube. Whereas the channel I Hate                           Everything produces subjective film reviews emphasizing on displaying extreme skepticism and                     aversion for particular films. Yet, MovieFlame only gathers 673,236 subscribers (MovieFlame,                     2019), while I Hate Everything counts 1,941,350 subscribers (I Hate Everything, 2019). They,                         thus, deploy different strategies that resonate to their viewers’ taste and establish their legitimacy.                           The popularity of these channels is an indicator of the departure from institutional systems. As                             explained by Iversen, “popularity works as the major attraction and distinction—mainly through                       rating—and creates an ambiance of competition” (3). Traditional institutions no longer establish                       authoritative hierarchies through selective criteria. Instead, YouTube creators are competing                   amongst themselves to build their reputation. In this non-traditional approach to expertise,                       creators of these channels can be related to neo-experts. By connecting with their audiences, they                             gain feedback and organize their own network of expertise. Contrary to film scholars, from whom                             theoretical knowledge originates, these YouTube channels focus on producing content relevant to                       

 34 

the current social context. Alike neo-experts, they focus on accommodating audiences’ desire for                         novel, visual, creative, and entertaining videos. 

As knowledge is becoming increasingly available, participatory platforms are important in                     shaping notions of expertise. According to Damien Smith Pfister, “the model of communication                         and the dominant medium of communication do not just incidentally coincide; the cultural use of                             the medium actually shapes the model of expertise” (220). While his article focuses on Wikipedia,                             YouTube, as one of the main source of audio-visual film criticism, also constitutes a platform of                               knowledge and a medium for communication. In this ‘participatory expertise’ (Pfister, 220),                       creators are encouraged to think creatively about new ways to convey expertise. As it is argued here,                                 instead of knowledge, innovation and creativity are what differentiate their performance, and                       consequently attribute them a higher status as experts.  

 

As established information routines break down, simple possession of information will not itself                         give rhetorical advantage, since theoretically everyone will have access to that information [...].                         Interlocutors who can arrange an argument in a novel form will have more persuasive success. [...].                               Novel—that is to say imaginative or speedy—arrangements will garner more attention (Pfister,                       224). 

 

This disruption of traditional institutions is important to address. Networked expertise is relevant                         to gain insight into the different practices of online communities. YouTube, as a social                           environment, constitute an opportunity for the development of new approaches. The methods                       and formats of film criticism have expanded to include academic research, journalistic writing,                         online reviews, scores and ratings, and more recently YouTube videos. Popular channels adopt a                           satirical approach to film criticism. Subjectively knit-peaking films for comical aims on YouTube                         generate communities but also imply a disregard for any objective truth. In contrast, a large                             number of YouTube video essays are seemingly leaning towards a more intellectual approach to                           film criticism. Consequently, I would like to further examine the latter approach by zooming in on                               the three channels: NerdWriter1, Every Frame a Painting and Lessons from the Screenplay.  

    

6,2. Case Study: Every Frame a Painting, NerdWriter1 and Lessons from the Screenplay,                         Pseudo-Intellectual Criticism? 

Every Frame a Painting, Nerdwriter1 and Lessons from the Screenplay are successful channels that                           rely on sophisticated editing, intellectual concepts, and film theory to critically analyse films. I                           chose these channels because they are among the most popular that specialize in video essays. When                               querying ‘video essays’ on YouTube (using a private browser and without being logged in to any                               account so as to get an unbiased result) channels ranked as follows: 1) Every Frame a Painting with                                   

 35 

28 videos and 1.5 million subscribers, 2) Nerdwriter1 with 244 videos and 2.5 million subscribers,                             3) Lindsay Ellis with 102 videos and 612K/606K subscribers, and 4) Lessons from the Screenplay                             with 44 videos and 1 million subscribers. I used the filter ‘sort by view count’ to get the most                                     relevant result in terms of overall popularity of the contents produced. It is important to note that                                 the channel Lindsay Ellis does gather a greater number of views than Lessons from the Screenplay,                               but has two identical accounts (see Fig. 1), which I believe is the reason why it obtained a higher                                     ranking despite having fewer subscribers than Lessons from the Screenplay. Hence, given this                         inaccuracy, I have decided to exclude the channel Lindsay Ellis from my analysis. In any case, the                                 popularity of these three channels raises the following question—do video essayists constitute a                         revival of the expertise and intellectual aspects of film criticism online?   

 

 

Fig. 1. Screenshot from YouTube search interface.  

 

Since the three channels have produced video essays about Steven Spielberg’s films, I have selected                             these videos as relevant illustrations for analysing each channels’ characteristics. In this                       cross-examination, I aim to comment on editing style, tone, and argumentation. Every Frame a                           Painting video essay “The Spielberg Oner,” takes an in-depth look at the director’s often                           overlooked use of the single-shot filmmaking technique. The tone of the voice-over is informal                           ‘that’s for shit like this’, ‘incomprehensible bullshit’ (Every Frame a Painting, 2014), friendly,                         advisory, and educational. The commentary approach places the visuals as the main focus of the                             video. The video’s visual look is consistent thanks to skillful editing and color grading. The                             narrative is constructed through a combination of clips taken from various Spielberg’s films. These                           clips are assembled to examine the characteristics and changes throughout history of a specific                           filmmaking technique. Every Frame a Painting was created as a passion project. Creators Taylor                           

 36 

Ramos and Tony Zhou produced “a series of video essays about film form, made from April 2014                                 to September 2016” (Every Frame a Painting, 2019). They stopped uploading content after losing                           interest in making videos. As they explained, “when we started this YouTube project, we gave                             ourselves one simple rule: if we ever stopped enjoying the videos, we’d also stop making them. And                                 one day, we woke up and felt it was time" (Fusco, 2017). They, thus, had no commercial intent or                                     plan to develop the series on a larger scale. The series of video essays emanated from the creators’                                   interest in film. It focused on directing viewers’ attention on aesthetic elements, cinematic                         techniques, and film structures.  

The Nerdwiter1 channel, created by Evan Puschak, examines films through the lens of                         interconnected ideas. His video essays often focus on revealing audio and visual rhetorics, as well as                               abstract and philosophical ideas within films. In “See With Your Ears: Spielberg And Sound                           Design,” he focuses on revealing an aspect of Spielberg’s films that commonly goes unnoticed. He                             offers a novel perspective that focuses on storytelling techniques within films. By adopting a poetic                             and melodious tone, his voice-over is the prevalent aspect of the video. This specific approach of                               combining visuals with a well-spoken, serious narrator creates a feeling of immersion into an                           intellectual case. In addition, no self-introduction is made. Instead, the viewer is instantly engaged:  

 

There are a few ways that you can build up tension in a movie scene through camera work, through                                     pacing, and probably most commonly through music like the music you’re hearing right now from                             this incredibly tensed scene from Steven Spielberg’s 2005 film Munich...except there is no music in                             this scene (0:00-0:27) (Puschak, 2018).   

 

What is interesting here is that the sound effects are used to stress the narrator’s point. He                                 re-created an audio cinematic tension that audiences are familiar with and cut the sounds to reveal                               that he manipulated the scene. This dexterous use of audiovisual rhetorics is effective in                           challenging the viewer’s perception and reinforces the video essayist’s argument. He is not so much                             concerned with the production of a film analysis in itself, but with what techniques are used for                                 the representation of ideas within films and what they consequently entail for the audience. In an                               interview with Tom Bilyeu, he stated what impact he wanted to have through his work:  

 

For me, we learn by saying not thinking. We learn by articulation and articulation is what makes                                 the world go round, right. So the impact I want to have is I want to articulate things in such a way                                           that people actually view a different world than they viewed before [...]. Because the world and our                                 minds are made up of language and when you find a new way to write that language you changed                                     

the world [...] and people’s mind (39:24) (Puschak, 2017). 

 

 37 

He aims to challenge the way other people critically think about things through language. As                             previously determined, language is ever-changing in nature. The concept of ‘family resemblance’                       (Majdik and Keith, 278) demonstrates this claim by positing that the meaning of things assigned by                               language emanates from the variations and overlaying of different characterizations. To put it                         simply, language obtains meaning through its diverse social enactments. Zoltan P. Majdik and                         William M. Keith relied on Wittgenstein’s reflections on language to conceptualize expertise as a                           plural activity. According to them, “expertise, as practice, therefore, is the process of being able to                               articulate reasons for—thus operating under a requirement to socially validate and legitimize—an                       individual’s enactment of expertise (Majdik and Keith, 279). Through video essays, natively digital                         forms of expertise and expression are enacted and become entangled with vernacular standards and                           practices. This argument can be related to Michel Foucault’s approach to language. In his view,                             language is intrinsically inscribed in a specific context—“language is not a value-neutral mode of                           transmission, but always-and-already entangled in a regulating system that it cannot escape,                       describe, critique, or unravel” (Groo 5). In the case of Puschak’s YouTube video essays, they                             engage viewers in a novel way because they connect multiple ideas in a coherent and eloquent                               manner. This ability to have direct bearing on others’ perspective is what relates Puschak to an                               expert. His expertise is not merely the result of knowledge possession combined with its skillful                             production and interpretation of ideas within the YouTube social space, but it is also shaped by his                                 particular mode of expression. Drawing this parallel between Wittgenstein’s and Foucault's                     philosophical conceptions about language and notions of expertise brings about relevant insight                       into a video essayist’s performance and its impact on the production of meaning in social spaces.  

Lessons from the Screenplay was created in 2016 by Michael Tucker who has a background                             in video editing; “after years of doing various editing gigs, I really wanted to return to my creative,                                   writer/director roots and continue my pursuit of filmmaking” (LFTS, 2019). The channel is a                           collective operation with Tricia Aurand, Alex Calleros, Brian Bitner, and Vince Major as members                           of the team. They also use other mediums such as podcasts and blog posts on their website. Their                                   goal is to engage viewers in new ways and make knowledge more intelligible and accessible. To                               describe their channel, they wrote the following description; “Part educational series and part love                           letter to awesome films, Lessons from the Screenplay aims to be a fun way to learn more about                                   your favorite films and help us all become better storytellers” (Lessons from the Screenplay, 2019).                             In the video essay “Jurassic Park — Using Theme to Craft Character,” they rely on written text and                                   visual quotations to support their argumentation. For instance, Figure 2 shows how external                         sources are presented to the viewer, and Figure 3 demonstrates how parts of the script are displayed                                 so as to not separate the visuals from the text. Since the main focus of the channel is the screenplay,                                       there is an emphasis on visualizing the script. 

 38 

 

Fig. 2. Screenshot from Jurassic Park — Using Theme to Craft Character (2:00).  

 

 

Fig. 3. Screenshot from Jurassic Park — Using Theme to Craft Character (6:36).  

 

In addition, they adopt an academic approach to film criticism by investigating a specific research                             question through literature sources, contextualization, and film theory. To introduce the video                       essay, the line of reasoning is justified as follows: 

 

...and in revisiting the film as an adult, it’s clear that one of the most impressive aspects of Jurassic                                     Park is its screenplay. [..] So today, I want to examine how the theme’s origins inspired the creation                                   of two very specific central characters. To look at how both the plot and supporting characters                               challenge their beliefs. And dissect how every single choice made by the writers fed the theme until                                 

 39 

it became a full-grown monster, unstoppable monster (0:27-1:02) (Lesson from the Screenplay,                       2018). 

 

To conclude this analysis, it becomes clear that the genre of video essays on YouTube is not                                 represented by one singular style. Despite employing similar techniques—voice-over narration,                   visuals to help support argumentation—the creators of these videos have their own modes of                           expression and follow different methods to convey expertise. Nonetheless, their image and                       reputation are built on their attempt to educate viewers and challenge perspectives. The fact that                             these types of content are among the most popular provides a significant insight into which                             qualitative standards are valued. The three videos essays analyzed are, thus, not mere                         pseudo-intellectual attempts to deconstruct films. They constitute legitimate and reliable sources                     of knowledge. Hence, YouTube video essays that originate from experimental filmmaking and                       academia can retain intellectual qualities while injecting a creative vitality to film criticism.  

 

6,3. The Challenges of YouTube Film Criticism  

So far, it has been established that film critics influence the way media is viewed critically. It                                 appears that video essays appeal to a mainstream audience. Along with overly subjective, skeptical,                           or humorous videos made for pure entertainment, video essays have broadened the scope of film                             criticism. The most popular video essays channels display various ideas by conveying objectivity,                         mastery, and knowledge of films. Many other creators, on the other hand, embrace the subjective                             potential of YouTube video essays. Renegade Cut describes itself as “a leftist video essay series                             about the politics, philosophies and culture that inform popular media” (Renegade Cut, 2019).                         Similar to a journalistic publication, the channel is politically engaged. When it comes to film                             criticism, this bias raises questions about whether adopting a political stance can jeopardize the                           legitimacy of a critic who relies on ideologies or skepticism rather than producing an unbiased and                               meaningful interpretation.  

Furthermore, while video essays can attract a large audience, they are intertwined with the                           platform’s specific ways of operating. Other elements have to be taken into account. The YouTube                             personalized algorithm, for instance, is biased and influences viewers’ choices. Moreover,                     monetization and copyrights are financial factors that should be further analyzed. In participatory                         platforms, popularity is a dominating determinant so offering sophisticated and high-quality                     videos is not sufficient to compete with other channels. As a result, many creators may                             purposefully adopt a divergent viewpoint to gain attention and create controversial content. For                         instance, CinemaSins produces the popular YouTube series “Everything Wrong With.” A                     voice-over criticizes a film and counts out film errors as ‘sins.’ At the end of every video, the sins’                                     total determines its ‘sentence,’ or conclusive judgment. Although the videos are made for                         

 40 

entertainment, they devalue films, as well as the practice of film criticism. What is analyzed is not                                 the complexities of the films themselves, but their faults in satisfying the expectations and arbitrary                             standards of the critic. This type of film criticism is growingly impacting how audiences watch                             films. They tend to reproduce nitpicking minor flaws instead of enjoying the films. Since                           CinemaSins is a popular channel, gathering to this date 8,431,806 subscribers and a total view                             count of 2,692,131,027 views (CinemaSins, 2019), their legitimacy is questioned by other creators.                         Patrick (H) Willems, a YouTube video essayist and film critic has been adamant about the negative                               influence CinemaSins has had on the practice of film criticism. In his controversial video entitled                             “SHUT UP ABOUT PLOT HOLES,” he denounced the popular trend of ignorantly                       complaining about plot holes. He filmed himself in different locations and included film clips and                             humorous skits to lay out his argument creatively. What I find interesting in his video is that,                                 instead of simply vocalizing his claim, he performed it as a way to achieve a greater persuasive                                 impact.  

 

2012 was when the change really happened. This was when plot holes started taking over YouTube.                               Pop[ular] culture from a nerdy fan perspective began exploding in popularity. And immediately,                         the types of video that proved most popular were humorous analysis of popular movies focusing on                               surface level knit-picks. [...] For many people, especially millennials [...] most film criticism they                           consume is on YouTube. [...] Plot holes do not mean anything but they are good clickbait. [...] No                                   one is really to blame for this … okay CinemaSins definitely deserves some of the blame, but it is not                                       just them. This is way bigger, this is about cultural shifts coinciding with evolving technology.                             (9:57-11:00) (Patrick (H) Willems , 2018). 

 

Patrick (H) Willems shed light on a broader cultural issue. In allowing popular trends that degrade                               the value of film and criticism, there is an increased risk of losing the ability to discern and have                                     valid judgements. To subside CinemaSins’ influence, the channel CinemaWins was created. The                       purpose of the videos is meant to alleviate the negative trend of nitpicking films. As the creator                                 explains it; ‘I use a similar format as CinemaSins specifically to be their opposite. This is just my                                   spin on films that I think don't get the respect they deserve or are so good they need to be                                       celebrated” (CinemaWins, 2019). This approach, however, is limited as it is mere imitation and still                             contributes to the production of film analysis in a superficial, humorous way. This aspect is                             important to take into account. On YouTube and other social media platforms, ideas and                           behaviours can rapidly spread and be reproduced mindlessly. Online platforms that encourage                       participation in effect trigger imitation. As Marcel Danesi suggests, it leads to the formation of an                               “ever-expanding pastiche culture” (Jaakkola, 16). Pastiche refers to the collective creation of visual                         works that imitate one another. There is a need to examine these trends and define approaches that                                  

 41 

defy popular ideas and ensure the existence of knowledgeable and diverse sources. This cultural                           diversity is fundamental to regulate society because, as it is suggested here:  

 

social reality expresses itself through form, and form itself is the ‘totality of social relations around a                                 certain production as well as the material and aesthetic choices’. The difficulties arise, however,                           when we fail to take note of how such ‘expressions’ are formed, the manner in which they connect                                   to and are produced from the social world, and we posit that ‘expression’ as enough (Charlesworth,                               144).  

 

Therefore, because new media operates through increased sociality and facilitates the expression of                         social states, intermediaries are needed to think about cultural objects and ideas critically.                         Moreover, while the point of most YouTube videos is that they constitute a subjective perspective,                             viewers can fail to recognize the subtleties of what is presented. In video essays, critics frame                               themselves as authoritative by using sophisticated editing and voice-over. These techniques present                       information and convey objectivity through visual rhetoric or ‘vococentrism’ (Harvey, 7).                     Consequently, video essays can, also, deceitfully convey expertise to the viewer. Furthermore, “to                         attach one’s conception of media production expertise primarily to a set of technical features is to                               obscure the overarching need for producers to appeal to, or engage, an audience” (Ross, 914).                             Following this argument, I would suggest that, while specific video essays—such as the ones                           examined in the case study—can be considered as attempts to elevate the practice of film criticism                               and bring it back to its intellectual roots, their potential predominantly hinge on the audience                             receptivity and depend on the knowledge, creativity, persuasiveness, and diversity of creators’                       performances, i.e. their verbalization and visual rhetoric abilities. Due to these aspects, I would not                             consider YouTube video essays as a new and established film criticism practice. In many ways, they                               do hold significant potential for the presentation and transmission of expertise. But the few                           examples to point to for confirming a complete revival of the intellectual aspects of film criticism                               seem insufficient. To consider film criticism anew would imply a departure from film reviews or                             rankings and a complete shift to audio-visual formats.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 42 

 

Conclusion  

The digital era has transformed film criticism. In this thesis, I considered different aspects                           of that transformation. In the beginning, since film itself was not predominantly considered as an                             art form by the mainstream audience, film critics were considered elitist and held a marginalized                             and authoritative stature in the mediation of culture. The democratization of the practice of film                             criticism, however, introduced the importance of subjectivity. Journalistic film criticism was                     marked by a subjective expressionism, shaping popular tastes. This approach was further                       reinforced by the digital transition, which allowed new public modes of expression and reshaped                           notions of expertise. Since then, films have growingly been judged as cultural commodities, placing                           the critic as a mere consumer guide. The Web 2.0. has not only democratized the practice of film                                   criticism, but it also deteriorated the relevance of critics as cultural intermediaries. The success of                             Rotten Tomatoes accelerated the disappearance of the traditional critic in mainstream culture by                         popularizing rankings and statistics. Furthermore, the democratization and availability of resources                     to make videos, as well as online social environments, allow for a plurality of film criticism practices                                 and formats to emerge. In particular, YouTube has radically transformed film criticism. The use of                             satire and humour to criticize films is a testament to the platform’s influence in shaping cultural                               behaviours and tastes. That is why there is a need to analyze practices on YouTube. Nitpicking                               videos and skeptic film reviews are significantly influencing viewers’ ways of watching films. The                           popularity and impact of these types of content on cultural norms and values need to be examined                                 and questioned.  

I set out to answer whether the digitization and democratization of film criticism had                           eroded the relevance of the critic and ‘cultural intermediaries.’ While critics had been considered                           highbrow and dull before, I believe that the sociality of YouTube has allowed positive                           contributions to the democratization and development of film criticism. New media, as a cultural                           industry, is based on participation, sociality, and popularity so examining vernacular practices is                         fundamental to understand how tastes and ideas are formed. In my case study, I gained insights                               into YouTube video essays, which I posited to constitute a revival of the expertise and intellectual                               aspects of film criticism online. As it was observed, verbalization and visual rhetoric are                           fundamental elements that effectively convey expertise. They constitute relevant technical                   methods to communicate ideas in the digital era. However, these technicalities are not enough to                             establish YouTube video essays as a new film criticism practice. The diversity of video essays that                               are posted regularly on YouTube implies that subtleties and variations exist. This constant change                           renders an exhaustive and definitive categorization of video essays as revived intellectual forms of                           

 43 

criticism impossible. Nonetheless, it does not make case studies irrelevant as it can help determine                             which attempts at communicating expertise can be most effective. All things considered, I wish to                             suggest that video essays constitute a new possibility for the mitigation of the challenges originating                             from the participatory culture. For film criticism to be relevant and valued in the digital era, there is                                   a need to develop new standards and qualitative criteria. YouTube video essays, ergo, are not only                               important for the transmission of knowledge and expertise, but are also paramount to safeguard                           the value of film criticism as they hold significant potential for shaping ideas and producing                             meaning. Knowledge is now more accessible than ever and as a result, the potential of technology                               in the transmission of expertise should be considered. Creative and effective attempts can                         constitute more meaningful, accessible, and relatable forms of expression and communication.  

 

 

 

Bibliography  Abrams, M. H. “A Note on Wittgenstein and Literary Criticism.” ELH, vol. 41, no. 4, 1974, pp. 541–54. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2872721. 

 

Alexandre Astruc. "The Birth of a New Avant-Garde: La Caméra-Stylo." Film and Literature: An Introduction and Reader. Ed. Timothy Corrigan. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.  

 

Bates, Stephen, and Anthony J. Ferri. “What’s Entertainment? Notes Toward a Definition.” Studies in Popular Culture. 2010. http://www.jogoremoto.pt/docs/extra/FjSXoz.pdf. 

 

Basuroy, Suman, et al. “How Critical Are Critical Reviews? The Box Office Effects of Film Critics, Star Power, and Budgets.” Journal of Marketing, vol. 67, no. 4, Oct. 2003: 103–17. pinnacle.allenpress.com (Atypon), doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.4.103.18692. 

 

Beller, Jonathan. The Cinematic Mode of Production: Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle. UPNE, 2006.  

 

Bordwell, David. Poetics of Cinema. Routledge, 2008.  

 44 

Cambridge English Dictionary. Meaning of ‘Taste.’ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/taste. Accessed 24 Mar. 2019. 

 

Charlesworth, Amy. “The ‘Video-Essay’ in Contemporary Art: Documenting Capital and Gender for the 21st Century.” PhD Philosophy Thesis. University of Leeds, School of Fine Art, History of Art and Cultural Studies. 2013. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/6338/1/Charlesworth_A_HistoryofArt_%20PhD2013.pdf. 

 

Cinéaste Magazine. “Film Criticism: The Next Generation.” Cinéaste Magazine, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 2. 2013. https://www.cineaste.com/spring2013/film-criticism-the-next-generation. Accessed 27 Mar. 2019. 

 

CinemaSins. “About.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/user/CinemaSins/about. Accessed 22 May. 

 

CinemaWins. “About.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL8h3ri2WN_-IbviBlWtUcQ/about. Accessed 22 May 2019. 

 

Crosbie, Thomas and Roberge, Jonathan. Chapter 14 “Critics as Cultural intermediaries.” In Knowledge for Whom?: Public Sociology in the Making. Edited by Christian Fleck and Andreas Hess. New York: Ashgate Publishing, 2014: 275-293. http://www.chairefernanddumont.ucs.inrs.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/RobergeJ_2013_Critics_as_Cultural_Intermediaries.pdf. 

 

Danks, Adrian. Chapter 4 “Being in Two Places at the Same Time The Forgotten Geography of Rear-Projection.” In B Is for Bad Cinema: Aesthetics, Politics, and Cultural Value. Claire Perkins and Constantine Verevis. SUNY Press, 2014: 65-84. 

 

De Tocqueville. Alexis. Democracy in America, Volumes One and Two. Pennsylvania State University, 2002: 12-25. http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Alexis-de-Tocqueville-Democracy-in-America.pdf. 

 

 45 

Dobrovolskis, Deniss, and Niklas Bomark. “Curious Case of Rotten Tomatoes: Effects of Quality Signalling in the US Domestic Motion Picture Market.” Master’s Thesis, Department of Business Studies Uppsala University. 2018. 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ace0/eb7f6595c6da683bf3aba56dde3fa4fda74e.pdf. 

 

DURA. “Taking Ideas for a Walk: The 2018 Essay Conference.” 2008. https://dura-dundee.org.uk/2017/04/04/the-essay-taking-ideas-for-a-walk/. 

 

Durham, Meenakshi Gigi, and Douglas, Kellner. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Rev. ed, Blackwell, 2006. 

 

Every Frame a Painting. “About.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/user/everyframeapainting/about. Accessed 21 May 2019. 

 

Every Frame a Painting. “The Spielberg Oner.” YouTube. 6 May 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q4X2vDRfRk.  

 

Faden, Eric. “A Manifesto For Critical Media.” Mediascape. UCLA, 2008. http://www.tft.ucla.edu/mediascape/Spring08_ManifestoForCriticalMedia.html. 

 

Fisher, Eran. “The Dialectics of Prosumption in the Digital Age.” Digital Labour and Prosumer Capitalism: The US Matrix, edited by Olivier Frayssé and Mathieu O’Neil, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015, pp. 125–144, doi:10.1057/9781137473905_8. 

 

Fuchs, Christian. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. SAGE Publications, 2014. ISBN 978-1-4462-5730-2. 

 Fusco, Jon. “RIP ‘Every Frame a Painting’: Farewell Advice from Video Essayists Tony Zhou and Taylor Ramos.” No Film School. December 4, 2017. https://nofilmschool.com/2017/12/rip-every-frame-painting-farewell-advice-tony-zhou-and-taylor-ramos. Accessed 21 May 2019.  

Fossen, Inge. “Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael - The Duel for the Soul of American Film Criticism.” Høgskolen i Lillehammer, Avdeling for TV-utdanning og Filmvitenskap Thesis, 2009.   

 

 46 

Glenn, Caroline. "Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut: The Influence of Hollywood, Modernization and Radical Politics on their Films and Friendship" (2014). All Theses. 2074. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2074. 

 

Grant, Catherine. “How long is a piece of string? On the Practice, Scope and Value of Videographic Film Studies and Criticism.” The Audiovisual Essay: Practice and Theory of Videographic Film and Moving Image Studies, September, 2014. http://reframe.sussex.ac.uk/audiovisualessay/frankfurt-papers/catherine-grant/. 

 

Godard, Jean-Luc. Godard on Godard: Critical Writings by Jean-Luc Godard. Jean Narboni and Tom Milne, eds. London: Secker & Warburg, 1972: 171.  

 

Groo, Katherine. “Cut, Paste, Glitch, and Stutter: Remixing Film History.” Frames # 1 Film and Moving Image Studies Re-Born Digital?, June 2012.   

 

Gunning, Tom. “The Cinema of Attraction[s]: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde." In The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded. Edited by Strauven, Wanda. Amsterdam University Press, 2006: 381-388. 

 

Harvey, David Oscar. “The Limits of Vococentrism: Chris Marker, Hans Richter and the Essay Film.” SubStance, Vol. 41, No. 2, ISSUE 128: Between the Essay Film and Social Cinema: The Left Bank Group in Context. The Johns Hopkins University Press. 2012: 6-23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23260788. 

 

Henry III, William A. In Defense of Elitism. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2015. 

 

Hume, David. Of the Standard of Taste. Copyright Julie C. Van Camp 1997. https://web.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html. Accessed 23 Mar. 2019. 

 

I Hate Everything. “About.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/user/IHEOfficial/about. Accessed 10 May 2019.  

 

 47 

Iversen, Gunnar. “An Ocean of Sound and Image: YouTube in the Context of Supermodernity.” In The YouTube Reader. Edited by Pelle Snickars Patrick Vonderau. Mediehistoriskt Arkiv 12, Sweden, 2009: 347-356.   

 

Jaakkola, Maarit. “Vernacular Reviews as a Form of Co-Consumption: The User-Generated Review Videos on YouTube.” MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, vol. 34, no. 65, Dec. 2018, pp. 10–30. tidsskrift.dk, doi:10.7146/mediekultur.v34i65.104485. 

 

Jefferson, Mark. “What Is Wrong With Sentimentality?” Mind, vol. 92, no. 368, 1983: 519–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2254091. 

 

Kant, Immanuel. Kant’s Critique of Judgement. Translated with Introduction and Notes by J.H. Bernard, 2nd ed. revised. London: Macmillan, 1914. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/kant-the-critique-of-judgement. Accessed 23 Mar. 2019. 

 

Keathley, Christian. “La Caméra-stylo: Notes on Video Criticism and Cinephilia.” In The Language and Style of Film Criticism. Edited by Alex Clayton and Andrew Klevan. Routledge, 2011: 176-190. https://elearn.uni-sofia.bg/pluginfile.php/76861/mod_resource/content/1/%5BAndrew_Klevan,_Alex_Clayton%5D_The_Language_and_Sty(BookFi.org).pdf. 

 

Kirsch, Adam, and Charles McGrath. “Is Everyone Qualified to Be a Critic?.” The New York Times, 1 Sept. 2015. Accessed on 17 March 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/books/review/is-everyone-qualified-to-be-a-critic.html.  

 

Kristensen, Nete Nørgaard & From, Unni. “From Ivory Tower to Cross-Media Personas: The heterogeneous cultural critic in the media.” Journalism Practice, 9(6), 2015. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2015.1051370.  

 

Lavik, Erlend. “The Video Essay: The Future of Academic Film and Television Criticism?.” Frames Cinema Journal, #1, 2012. Accessed on 11 May 2019. http://framescinemajournal.com/article/the-video-essay-the-future/.  

 

 48 

LFTS. “The Team.” Lessons from the Screenplay. https://www.lessonsfromthescreenplay.com/team. Accessed on 21 May 2019.  Lessons from the Screenplay. “Jurassic Park — Using Theme to Craft Character.” YouTube. 29 June 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWz1E3oHd8w.    

Lyttle, Paula. “A Short Interview with Phillip Lopate.” Dundee University Review of the Arts. 16 Oct. 2018. https://dura-dundee.org.uk/2018/10/16/a-short-interview-with-phillip-lopate/. 

 

Majdik, Zoltan P., and William M. Keith. “The Problem of Pluralistic Expertise: A Wittgensteinian Approach to the Rhetorical Basis of Expertise.” Social Epistemology, vol. 25, no. 3, July 2011, pp. 275–90. Crossref, doi:10.1080/02691728.2011.578307. 

 

McDonald, Ronan. The Death of the Critic. Continuum, 2007. 

 

Müller, Eggo. “Where Quality Matters: Discourses on the Art of Making a YouTube Video.” In The YouTube Reader. Edited by Pelle Snickars Patrick Vonderau. Mediehistoriskt Arkiv 12, Sweden, 2009, pp. 126-137.   

 Mirzoeff, Nicholas. “Chapter 1: What Is Visual Culture?.” The Visual Culture Reader. Routledge, 1998: 1-12.  MovieFlame. “About.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/user/aandawesome/about. Accessed 10 May 2019.  

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” In Film Theory and Criticism : Introductory Readings. Eds. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. New York: Oxford UP, 1999, pp. 833-44. 

 

Murray, Noel. “Chuck Klosterman.” The A.V. Club. https://www.avclub.com/chuck-klosterman-1798210204. Accessed 26 Apr. 2019. 

 

Negus, Keith R. The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and the Enduring Distance between Production and Consumption. Cultural Studies, 16 (4). 2002. https://research.gold.ac.uk/1758/1/MUS_Negus_2002a.pdf.  

 

 49 

Patrick (H) Willems. “SHUT UP ABOUT PLOT HOLES.” YouTube. 27 Aug. 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9HivyjAKlc.   

Pfister, Damien Smith. “Networked Expertise in the Era of Many-to-Many Communication: On Wikipedia and Invention.” Social Epistemology, vol. 25, no. 3, July 2011, pp. 217–31. Crossref, doi:10.1080/02691728.2011.578306. 

 

Puschak, Evan. “See With Your Ears: Spielberg And Sound Design.” YouTube. 17 Jan. 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kavxsXhzD48&t=79s.   Puschak, Evan. “How to Be a Better Thinker | The Nerdwriter (Evan Puschak) on Impact Theory.” YouTube. Uploaded by Tom Bilyeu. 4 Jan. 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYzGv6Tfu_0&feature=youtu.be.   Prince, Stephen. Movies and Meaning: An Introduction to Film. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Third Edition. 2004, pp. 379. 

 

Rascaroli, Laura. “The Essay Film: Problems, Definitions, Textual Commitments.” The Essay Film, Framework 49, No. 2, Wayne State University Press, 2008, pp. 24–47. https://cpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/mediafactory.org.au/dist/0/168/files/2014/04/05Rascaroli.pdf. 

 

Renegade Cut. “About.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9infsKo33_2LUoiqXGgQWg/about. Accessed 26 Apr. 2019. 

 

Rieder, Bernhard (2015). YouTube Data Tools (Version 1.10) [Software]. Available from https://tools.digitalmethods.net/netvizz/youtube/. 

 

Richardson, Kurt A. & Tait, Andrew. “The Death of the Expert?.” E:CO Issue Vol. 12 No. 2 2010, pp. 87-97.  

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1875/4519aa6067c86faec043ac47cc971886b05b.pdf. 

 

 50 

Ross, Philippe. “Is There an Expertise of Production? The Case of New Media Producers.” In New Media & Society, 13 (6). 2011. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461444810385393.  

 

Sayad, Cecilia. “Critics Through Authors: Dialogues, Similarities, and the Sense of a Crisis.” In Film Criticism in the Digital Age. Edited by Frey, Mattias, et al. Rutgers University Press, 2015, pp. 41-60. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/46074. 

 

Screen Junkies. “About.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/user/screenjunkies. Accessed 20 March 2019. 

 

Sexton, Jamie. Chapter 7 “From Bad to Good and Back to Bad Again? Cult Cinema and Its Unstable Trajectory.” In B Is for Bad Cinema: Aesthetics, Politics, and Cultural Value. Claire Perkins and Constantine Verevis. SUNY Press, 2014, pp. 129-144. 

 

Stiegler, Bernard. “Carnival of the New Screen.” In The YouTube Reader. Edited by Pelle Snickars Patrick Vonderau. Mediehistoriskt Arkiv 12, Sweden, 2009, pp. 40-60.   

 

Taylor, Greg. Artists in the Audience: Cults, Camp, and American Film Criticism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999. 

 

Terranova, Tiziana. “Attention, Economy and the Brain.” Culture Machine, Vol 13, 2012. 

 

Vachel, Lindsay. The Art of the Moving Picture. New York: Modern Library Paperback Edition, 2000. Originally published: New York: Macmillan, 1915. eISBN: 978-0-307-76965-7. 

 

Van den Berg, Thomas and Kiss, Miklós. Film Studies in Motion: From Audiovisual Essay to Academic Research Video. University of Groningen, July 2016. http://scalar.usc.edu/works/film-studies-in-motion/the-web-and-the-video-essay?path=chapter-ii-from-scribe-to-screen. 

 

Vonderau, Patrick. “Writers Becoming Users: YouTube Hype and the Writer’s Strike.” In The YouTube Reader. Edited by Pelle Snickars Patrick Vonderau. Mediehistoriskt Arkiv 12, Sweden, 2009, pp. 108-121. 

 51 

 

Williams, James S. “Histoire(s) Du Cinéma.” Film Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 3, 2008, pp. 10–16. JSTOR, doi:10.1525/fq.2008.61.3.10. 

 

Weiss, Asher. "21st Century Film Criticism: The Evolution of Film Criticism from Professional Intellectual Analysis to a Democratic Phenomenon." CMC Senior Theses. 2018. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1910. 

 

YouTube. “Search: Video Essays.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=video+essays&sp=CAMSAhAC. Accessed 20 May 2019. 

 

YouTube. “YouTube Studio.” YouTube. https://studio.youtube.com/. Accessed 20 March 2019. 

 

 

Appendix  Laurie Le Bomin. “Film Criticism in the Digital Era.” YouTube. 13 June 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLvS7uYenFM. 

 

 

     

 52