If you want the answer, you need to watch Gerald Peary’s documentary, . And fair warning: it will ruin the way you think about Rotten Tomatoes forever.
For a while, it looked like utopia. Suddenly, anyone could be a critic. No gatekeepers. No editors. Just pure democracy. for the love of movies the story of american film criticism
The film features on-camera interviews and archival footage of many of the industry's most influential voices: Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael, and Andrew Sarris. If you want the answer, you need to
Peary’s film is essentially a loving, 80-minute genealogy lesson for film nerds. It starts with a radical idea: In the early 20th century, movies were considered garbage. They were nickelodeon peep shows for immigrants and illiterates. No "respectable" person would dare critique them. Suddenly, anyone could be a critic
Despite this, film criticism was not yet a prestigious vocation. In the 1950s, many papers still relied on syndicated Hollywood gossip columns rather than serious appraisals. It wasn't until the 1960s that criticism entered what many consider its "Golden Age." The Golden Age: 1968–1980
at IndieWire makes video countdowns of the best films of the year that are pure emotional art. K. Austin Collins at Rolling Stone writes with a jazz musician’s flow. In the Black film criticism movement, figures like Angelica Jade Bastién (Vulture) and Robert Daniels (RogerEbert.com) are writing incisive, politically aware critiques of Hollywood’s structural racism.
This intellectual explosion coincided with the chaotic, revolutionary era of New Hollywood. The critics were now young, hip, and aligned with the counterculture. Pauline Kael, writing for The New Yorker , became the most influential voice of this generation. Kael was a sensualist; she despised the dry academic approach. Her reviews were feisty, personal, and passionate. She championed the raw energy of Bonnie and Clyde and The Godfather . She understood that "for the love of movies" meant engaging with the visceral thrill of the medium.