When you make any type of art, critical reviews are an inevitability. Professionals and amateurs alike will take it upon themselves to express publically their thoughts on what you have created. This is a good thing for many reasons – for one, if people are talking about what you’ve made at all that means they’ve seen it (unless it’s a religious group boycotting Dogma based on merely hearing the premise, but they’re hopefully representative of the exception). Secondly, one of the primary purposes of art, beyond expressing the desires and intention of the creator(s), is sparking debate, discussion, and reflection in the viewer. One inevitable consequence of this that is hard to escape, particularly in this day and age of online video, text, and tweet reviews, is the dreaded ‘bad review.’ While it might be easy to let such a thing get you down, I’d argued that bad reviews are not only inescapable, they’re GOOD.
Let me explain…
The Nature of Art
As mentioned above, art is made both for the benefit of the artist and of the audience. This is true no matter the medium: paint, sculpture, photography, video, audio, performance – all fit the bill. Because of this duality of the nature of art, all (personal) opinions are valid. While a creator might have intended a certain message or theme, audiences are free to interpret it as they see fit. Sometimes this means that they receive what was intended and sometimes it means they don’t. While in some cases this could be laid at the feet of the artist for not being clear enough in their intentions, it is often down to differing worldviews and life experiences. The types of situations that any given person has had to live through and deal with will inevitably color how they perceive the world and everything in it.
While this does mean that it is possible for artistic creations to be ‘misinterpreted,’ I would argue that such readings (done in good faith) can be equally valid. Just because an artist didn’t intend for a particular message or commentary to appear in their work does not mean that it can’t still be there all the same. The ability for the collective to pick up on facets missed by the singular is one of the amazing things about creating and releasing art. That does not means that uninformed or intentionally misinterpreted ideas (typically made by people who have never seen the artwork in question) are equally valid with those made by people who’ve actually interacted with the piece, just that as creators we have to be accepting of that fact that once the art leaves our hands we cease to have total control over its perception. Art is subjective, as they say.
I’m B-B-B-Bad, Bad to the Bone
Perhaps the next question we should ask is what is ‘bad,’ anyway? Are there different types of bad and are they all equally damning? Well, in order: we’ll get to it, yes, and no. As I’m sure that succinct answer was not proficient in summarizing my argument, let’s get a bit more specific…
‘Bad’ art is a term that has always been thrown around with a bit of a liberal hand, but it has gotten even more pervasive in today’s online world. Bad as a concept, however, is a bit tricky to nail down. At the most basic level, ‘bad’ is the antonym of ‘good.’ But, without first defining good, this is somewhat of a useless comparison. Unfortunately, what makes this doubly tricky is that fact that, much like bad, good is also subjective. Generally, good can be defined as positive, well-made, quality, wholesome – all words which can mean very different things. Something that is positive (upbeat, uplifting) and wholesome (representative of a certain level of moral acceptability) is very different from something that is well made and quality (technically proficient). As such, something that is bad must be the polar opposite: negative, poorly made, cheap, and immoral – right? Not so fast.
Putting aside the issue of subjectivity for the moment (an issue with a HUGE impact on the topic), as mentioned with good, each of those different meanings of bad are vastly different from one another. While it is possible that a particular work of art might encompass (to one degree or another) all of the above aspects, most things labeled as bad rarely do. Typically the perceived existence of any of one of those qualities is enough to saddle a piece with the ‘bad’ designation. That said, there is a big difference between something that was hastily made with shoddy skills and something whose meaning is unflatteringly received. Art that is poorly made, or made with limited resources, can lack a bit of the polish found in more ‘quality’ examples, but can still contain an amazing amount of depth in its story, message, or themes. The perceived lower quality might negatively impact the viewer’s ability to connect with those ideas as intended, but it does not negate their existence. Likewise, something that was made with an absolute perfection of technical artistry can be dragged down by incomplete, incomprehensible, or unwelcome messaging. Exploring negative or unpleasant issues or themes and glorifying societally unacceptable (or unpopular) concepts can damn the reputation of even the most well-crafted piece of art.
It’s worth noting, however, that what is considered ‘acceptable’ or popular is a concept that changes over time. At one point, merely hinting at the notion that the earth might not be the center of the universe was enough to get one jailed for heresy – now it is just accepted as fact. There was a time when ‘selling’ one’s daughter to the highest bidder (a few cows or some land) was a normal practice even though today that would be considered barbaric. And these changing cultural attitudes can work in both directions – there are myriad examples of all forms of art (though I’ll just focus on cinema) whose at-the-time cultural norm has since become taboo. Smoking in hospitals or around children, grabbing a struggling woman and kissing her against her will until she finally submits to enjoying it, and disparaging a woman who attempts to find fulfillment outside the home until she realizes her place – these are all examples of real events and messages that have occurred in popular films that are, by today’s standards, woefully outdated. While it might be easy to look back with the benefit of hindsight and point out just how astray from our current thinking they now are, at the time they were nothing out of the ordinary – they were reflective of the cultural norms of the society that created them.
But while it’s true that films considered bad for moral or thematic reasons might eventually find themselves justified by the passage of time (though certainly not always), films that fail on a technical level face a different set of challenges. On a level or sheer craft, while art forms do typically evolve, thus rendering certain aspects of particular artworks outdated, they rarely move backwards. A shot that is unintentionally out of focus or audio that is indecipherable will never reach a point where it is considered ‘good.’ While these are sometimes failings of skill or experience, they can also be the result of a lack of proper equipment or resources. While in these cases they may still be ‘ruined,’ the reason behind such flaws is important. An audience armed with the knowledge of the hardships of production might be more willing to overlook particular flaws in an attempt to experience the story. Sadly, in film, as in all things, context fades over time. While certain viewers might be aware of the context behind particular issues, not all will be. Moreover, as time passes, fewer and fewer viewers will have access to this information, rendering the piece even more isolated from its creation. As has been mentioned many timed in numerous books on filmmaking (I’m paraphrasing), “The audience doesn’t know or care how hard you worked to get a shot or what is just out of frame – all they care about is what they see (and hear).”
In this light, are all ‘bad’ movies equal? I would say an emphatic ‘NO.’ While perhaps excusable given knowledge of the events surrounding their creation, technically flawed films (at least ones that are taken to extreme levels) are ‘worse’ than films that ‘fail’ as a result of an undesirable message or theme. One of these represents a failure to properly realize the intended vision of the piece while the other is an aptly communicated idea that is disliked by a particular audience. This doesn’t mean that a few technical flaws negate all of the positive aspects of an otherwise ‘good’ piece of art, nor does this mean that every message is equally valid (Nazism and pedophilia are never okay), only that there is clear demarcation between “mistakes” and reception.
Subjectivity is Key
Of course, even on a technical level, how ‘poorly’ made any given piece of art is (or how much it bothers the viewer) is entirely subjective. Whether or not an auditory glitch or plot loophole bothers any given audience member is entirely and exclusively rooted in the individual. The same is true for themes, messaging, and the artistic work’s overall outlook on life. As a result, the ability of any one piece of art to fully satisfy the entirety of the audience is rendered impossible – both on an intentional and unintentional level.
Unintentionally, even if one is making Christian films for a Christian audience, each member of that audience might have a very different idea of how the respective movies should play out. Perhaps they feel that the casting of Jesus doesn’t represent their idea of what he should look like, or maybe the particular way in which the ‘lost’ soul (there is always one of those) finds the righteous path doesn’t reflect their own experiences. No matter the case, even though the story might be aimed at a narrow audience, the differences in opinion and variations in worldview ensure that at least some segment of the population will find themselves unhappy with the result. This can vary from mild distaste to outright loathing, but such a result is unavoidable.
Intentionally, on the other hand, the fact that a certain film or franchise is aimed squarely at a particular demographic may preclude its enjoyment from either certain other sub-sets or even the general public. A gory horror film, filled to the brim with nudity and drug use, for instance, might well find itself outside the range of enjoyment from the aforementioned conservative Christian audience (as a whole, obviously, as individuals can still express varying opinions). As the visual and tonal choices were intentionally geared towards satiating a particular segment of the general public (those interested in the mix of gore, sex, and drugs provided so well by certain groups of films), the fact that it would, in turn, dissuade other groups from enjoying it was unavoidable.
Why BAD reviews are GOOD
All of this leads to my ultimate point: getting bad reviews on any piece of art is both an inevitable and positive experience. All works of art, from a macaroni picture glued by a toddler to a multi-billion dollar crossover film, have a particular point of view. Perhaps it is the artist’s subjective representation of their subject or the intended messages they hoped to communicate – in either case, it represents that external manifestation of an internal thought or idea. Thus, as an artist, there are only are really two options available: accurately and clearly communicate that which is intended or fail to do so. While the artist can’t affect how that idea is perceived by the viewer, they do have control over whether they feel that the work accurately represents their vision to the greatest degree possible.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, an artist might be unable or unwilling to fully bring their vision to life: a lack of funds, a lack of skill, a technological limitation, or worry over audience reception. Of these causes for a less-than-optimal transition from the ethereal to the concrete, it is only the last that should concern an artist to their core. As George Lucas’ eternal classic Star Wars has shown, the inability to 100% replicate the precise vision in his head (due to the non-existence of CGI at the time) did not detract the final product’s ability to impact the audience. Attempting to placate everyone, to craft a story that appeals to the widest possible base and which has the smallest exclusion zone, however, usually only results in a product that is far inferior to its possibilities. Put another way, “You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”
Art, of any kind, works because it has something to say. The intentions of its creators laid bare before the mass of humanity – it is an inherently intimate experience. Worrying about its reception to the point of intrinsically altering its meaning defeats the entire purpose of such an exercise and almost always results in an inferior result. Instead, the best creators acknowledge and revel in those things that makes their work unique – they proudly stand behind the unencumbered themes and ideals which constitute the final creation. While this will no doubt divide the audience, such division (to one degree or another) is unavoidable – the piece of art in question was always going to have greater inherent appeal to certain segments of the population than others, never mind the variance within the intended market itself. By capitalizing on, rather than muting, their strongest concepts, great artists allow their work to stand for itself. “If you’re going to fail, fail spectacularly,” as they say.
While this modus operandi will likely no doubt inspire a great divide between the “lovers” and the “haters,” it is important to remember that this is also a good thing. The fact the people are talking about the art, and that it inspires such strong emotions, is the epitome of why the very concept of art was created. Remember, even beloved films such as Titanic, Gone with the Wind, and Back to the Future have those people who hate them. After all, how many studios (all of them) passed on the original script for Back to the Future? Some passed because they felt the film too tame and not raunchy enough, and others (like Disney), were scared off by the racy nature of Marty making out with his mom. In the end, the final film earned huge success and created a successful trilogy by sticking to the precepts on which it was founded.
Perhaps the easiest way to look at it is this: if you are going to receive criticism anyway, why not receive it for following through with your vision as opposed to receiving it for compromising that which made it stand out? This is the exact reason that so many modern blockbusters, while financially successful, are paned for unoriginality – in order to appeal to as many people as possible, they must standardize and limit they types of stories they tell and ways in which they tell them. The formula for crafting a successful but ‘safe’ film is well known but, while fine when a story calls for it, can be a creative chain for those works which do not fit neatly within its structure.
All of this is in addition to the other big benefit of ‘bad’ reviews: learning to grow as an artist. While some criticisms can be chalked up to personal taste, others reflect areas in which the artist can improve. Being open and able to hear such criticisms, and using them to improve future works, is an important part of being able to overcome your own limitations. The best artists always admit that they have more to learn and are constantly challenging themselves to step beyond their comfort zones. While this may occasionally lead to mistakes, it sometimes takes an outside observer (the audience) to point out where those weaknesses lie. It is the same reason that great leaders don’t wish to be surrounded by ‘yes men’ – they would rather gain counsel from those whose ideas differ from their own, who challenge what they think. It allows these leaders to get a fuller picture of the situation and to use their own judgement to assess the validity of their both their own assumptions and those of the people around them. In much the same way, artists can use ‘bad’ reviews to assess, first, whether or not they agree with the criticism and, secondly, how to address it if need be.
Conclusion
In the end, art is both intentional and subjective. No two people will look at/hear/watch the same piece of work and have the exact same reaction. Good art is unafraid to embrace its own themes and is unconcerned with the reaction of the audience – such reaction is both unknowable and uncontrollable, in any case. Instead, artists should accept in the fact that, inevitably, there will be those that dislike their work. They can choose to, rather than be distraught by this fact, use it as both a gauge of their success at communicating their desired concepts and as a way to grow. ‘Bad’ reviews mean that someone cares enough about what you’ve made to not only have an opinion on it, but to want to share that opinion with those around them. While it is not exactly the same concept as “There’s no such thing as bad publicity,” the two notions are not dissimilar. The continued engagement and interest of the public with a given piece of art, even if it is not as positive as initially hoped, is nevertheless cause for celebration.
At the end of the day, no matter the medium or the intention, when it comes to art, some will like it and some will not. More extremely, there will be those that hate it while others feel nothing but love. No matter which way it swings with a given individual, either case is preferable to the alternative – being forgettable.
Now go make something memorable.
Chris