• Frey’s essay is a good example of academic research into digital film criticism. Having read the whole thing, write a paragraph summarising his overall argument, approach and research methods (e.g., think about how the essay is structured, what kinds of examples and evidence he uses, and why). How persuasive do you find his argument?

By condensing a wide range of case studies and examples, Frey mistifies the rising anxieties in the world of cinephilia around the loss the authority of the critic and the decline into “dumbed-down” critical writing. An example that summed those concerns was the marketing campaign for J. A. Bayona’s The Impossible (2012), whose poster was costellated by users reviews rather than film critics’ taglines. It opened many questions around the “democratisation” of the Internet, whose widespread promote an expanded and inclusive public sphere, as well as, thinning the line between professionals film critics and amateurs movie-goers.
Frey reassures the reader, by avoiding any discouraging and fatalistic scenarios, but instead exploring the complexity and nuances of the digital age. He presents four significant trends.
1) Online Film Reviews of traditional print news, magazine and journals (Ex. Peter Bradshaw’s reviews for The Observer).
2) Sites designed to communicated about films, which also offer forums open to every user (Ex. IMDB).
3) Film dialogue on social media platforms as Facebook and Twitter.
4) Aggregate sites where hyperlinks connect to external sites. (Ex. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc.).

Frey deepens into his investigation using Rotten Tomatoes as the central case study. Differently, from IMDB, RT tries to be a rigorous “objective” and unbiased platform for film evaluation. 60% positive response marks the line between a decent “Fresh” film and a mediocre “Rotten” film. This percentage is calculated by considering both the evaluations from a comprehensive selection of established critics and the opinions from the members of the audience. Thus, Rotten Tomatoes seems to offer a more consistent and “objective” experience of criticism, it allows greater access to a more diversified range of voices, and it increases the degree of participation and the sense of community.
The authority of the critic is not questioned as many might fear, since even the layout of RT priorities the opinions of the “Top Critics” which users can follow according to their individual taste. However, the idea of the utopian online “community” is hardly accurate. Readers tend to reinforce their views, values, prejudices and taste, rather than challenging them. In some extreme cases (Ex. The Dark Kight Rises 2012), online users react with threatening, derogatory and misogynistic comments once confronted with negative opinions around a film. The RT community feels homogenous even in its demographic, considering that the vast majority are between 18 and 34 years old middle-class men.

I found Frey analysis very persuasive. I often share the same concerns around the widespread of the internet that Frey broke down into well-pondered arguments. He supports his opinion with a wide range of case studies which I found compelling and rational.

• How does Keathley characterise the changing relationships between ‘scholar’ and ‘critic’ in the digital age?

The advent of DVDs offered new ways for film critics, and film lovers to watch cinema. Features like freezing the frame, slow motion and infinite replayability, meant that the viewer could own the film and watch it “closely”.
Textual analysis stops to be a restricted academic practice, but a work of cinephilia. The widespread of the Internet changed the world of film academia, film journals and magazines, as well as, opened new doors for film analysis.
Keathley explained how the world of cinephilia writing became less steadfast and the distinction between scholarly and non-scholarly less obvious. Between the 60s and the 70s, film journals as Sight&Sound, American Film, Take One provided articles, news and insights around films to the middle range of non-academic cinephiles. In the 80’s magazines geared towards mainstream cinema emerged. With the internet, most of these magazines have moved online, and much of the online film criticism takes for granted that its readership includes both the non-academic and the film specialist.
Thanks to user-friendly editing software and access to high-quality stills and videos, some directors, film critics and film lovers found new ways to think about films. Video Essays like Jean Luc Godard “Histoire du Cinema” became a more poetic and expressive form of cinephilia. Some of these essays explored details of the body of work of directors like Rossellini, Ophüls, Anderson, Wells and Truffaut, trough video collage of images and sounds, words and music. Alexandre Astruc, at the time of the Nouvelle Vague, talked about cinema as a form of imaginative writing, “camera-stylo”.

• How has digital technology affected film criticism? (Last week’s question was about cinephilia.) Note specific issues and new forms, drawing on all three readings (i.e., including Shambu if you have time).

The digital age is a shifting point in the discourse around film criticism which has caused enthusiasm and turmoil, acclaim and disdain in equal measures. Many fear for the role of the authority of the critic to be in danger. Others are excited to have a more inclusive and “democratic” platform for film discussion. Frey dissects those anxieties with clear arguments and case studies, underlining how the vastness the internet reinforced the authority of the critic, instead of demolishing it.
Online film reviews from established online journals (Peter Bradshaw from the Observer) and online presence of film critics on social media platforms as Twitter and Facebook show a wide disparity of views and followers between professionals and regular users. Anyone can open a film blog, but the chances to have your work read and shared among the infinite daily online content are as little as the chances to win the lottery.
Rotten Tomatoes bolstered the role of the critic, which position as gatekeeper is essential to decide how “fresh” a film is. Rotten Tomatoes praised the more established film experts with the title of “Top Critic”, through a series of rigorous criteria.
In Keathley’s chapter on video criticism, he investigates how the coming of multimedia platforms allows critics to analyse films beyond solely writing. Video Essay as Paul Malcolm’s “Notes Toward a Project on Citizen Kane”, manipulates footage from the work of great directors, juxtaposed with different use of sound and music which match the tone of the images (Ex. Sigur Ros).
Meanwhile, on platforms like Twitter and Facebook more concise and shorter forms of criticism take place. Shambu called this “micro-criticism”, a regular online practice where the writer in few words record observations, try out ideas, risk hypothesis on films and filmmaking.