What are the five key debates around digital film criticism discussed by Mattias Frey? Which one/s do you find most interesting and why?

Following a quiet pessimistic introduction on the future of film criticism, Mattias Frey discusses the current state on film criticism and the role of the critic in five paragraphs. First, he questions the utility of evaluation as an essential element of film criticism. In the second paragraph, he examines the relationship between the critic and his/her audience and how the critic has lost his/her function as a mediator in the digital era. In the third paragraph, Frey delves deeper into the consequences of the widespread of the internet and how contemporary critics are trying to compete with these demands. In the fourth paragraph, he investigates how new media has taken its toll on established newspapers and changed film criticism as a profession.
In the last paragraph, he explores how criticism has become more “democratic” and how the internet is thinning the line between “experts” and “amateurs”‘s opinions, as well as, pointing out how, thanks to new access to media, minorities have found a platform to express themselves.

I found Frey’s lucid analysis of the impact of social media quite frightening. The second paragraph was the most interesting as well as the most painful to read. I’ve never reflected on how demanding the challenge is for film critics competing with the billions of amateur reviewers and online tweets, and on how pondered and complex film analysis are reduced to 140 characters slogans on a daily basis. I appreciated Frey’s attempt to not be entirely cynical about the advent of new media. He encourages to see the internet as an opportunity, an open space for debate that wouldn’t have happened in real life, and a chance to access to writers from all around the world and from a variety of niche demographics.

In its argument about the purpose of evaluation in film criticism, I found myself agreeing in particular with Nöel Carroll. You can see in films, as in any form of art and creation, patterns, influences and recognisable styles and meanings which one cannot dismiss as purely subjective.

Write a brief summary of Frey’s discussion of 2 or 3 of the debates.

In the first debate, Frey asks how the introduction of digital formats and platforms challenged the most fundamental questions of “What is cinema?” and “What is the role of the critic?”. He focuses in particular on the meaning of evaluation and questioned if is or should be the main aim of a film critic. He takes into account the opinion of film scholars as John Carey and Nöel Carrol who both argue that evaluation is an essential part of film criticism. 75% of critics report that assessing the value of a film is at least a significant part of film analysis.
Whereas, the remaining dissenters quarrel that evaluation is doomed to be “subjective”.

In the fifth debate, Frey summaries how the advent of the internet changed film criticism into a more democratic system and the role of the authoritative critic has disappeared. Established film critics need to be consistently present in social media since nowadays anyone can open a film blog or a twitter account and do the same job for free. The line between “experts” and “reviewers” is thinner. However, he emphasises on how film criticism can save small films from obscurity. At the end of the paragraph, Frey raises the issue on the gender and race disparities in the field of film studies and how digital platforms are helping to diversify the discourse.

Critical Reflection: why is ‘evaluation’ an issue for film criticism? Draw on Klevan and Clayton’s introduction as well as Frey.

Why are some films more worth watching than others? The assessment of a creation worth has always been a significant discrepancy in the world of criticism. Does the implication of subjectivity defeat the entire purpose of evaluation? While the vast majority of film critics agrees that the assessment of value is a significant part of the critic’s role, many experts have challenged the core of criticism itself.
The etymology of Critic is from greek Kritikos, which means someone that evaluates and delivers a verdict. In order to assess, the critic has to decipher the meanings, research for influences and categorise the director’s work, as well as, taking in consideration the collectiveness required in making a film, (acting, cinematography, sound, editing, production design, music etc) and contextualised the socio-political and historical connections inside and outside the subject of review.
To dismiss the critic’s work as purely subjective can be reductive and simplistic. John Carey argues that evaluation should be the primary goal of a critic. Carroll argues that “criticism is essentially evaluation grounded in reasons.” He demonstrates that by analysing films, you should be able to draw patterns and spot formulas and similarities according to the genre, the movement, the style and the historical period. Similarly, as a defence against subjectivity, Barthes points out that that the “subject” is hardly an asocial entity, but rather the result of cultural and external influences.
On the contrary, Cavell emphasises the power of subjectivity. After watching a pleasurable screening of Vincent Minelli’s The Band Wagon, he felt inclined to share it with others. He encourages the viewer to seek the same “pleasure” while specifying that this is “his” opinion and “his” experience, and the worth of a film is assessed through a collection of opinions and not a singular individual.
The famous French magazine “Cahiers du Cinema” has re-evaluated categories of Hollywood films often dismissed by critics as formulaic and uninventive, such as westerns and melodramas. The ending of Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, for instance, could be seen as sentimental and conventional. However, Georges Toles explains that those cinematic conventions facilitate the sentiment to emerge on screen.
It is clear that evaluating films is not a precise science, and that a film’s worth cannot be considerate final and irreversible. Nonetheless, film criticism can be a stimulating symposium on what cinema can do.