Arts criticism is a tricky business, especially for those paid to do it.

Knowledge is key. Grasping the ins and outs of the medium being reviewed — be it film, theater, visual arts or literature — is paramount. It allows writers both to analyze the work and to constructively inform the artists being reviewed and everyday folks looking to spend entertainment dollars. Ignorant critics abound, but the smart ones are trusted.

That said; criticism is entirely subjective. Art is at the mercy of all variety of whims, from personal tastes to outside influences unrelated to the work.

A critic who despises musical theater may not dig the umpteenth revival of Guys and Dolls. And a writer who sees a play while suffering with a nasty head cold or writes a book review at 4 a.m. while jacked on caffeine and nicotine will find critical perceptions altered — whether intended or not.

Critical impact reaches far beyond the printed page, putting pressure on both reviewer and the reviewed.

Accolades are heralded, while pans are often cried about or discredited as the mere opinions of a hack. This latter notion has helped perpetuate the myth of the critic as a bloated, self-important ego; or worse, as a former artist projecting past failures onto those who have found success. Such stereotypes are certainly out there, but they exist in far fewer numbers than imagined.

A new film running this weekend at the Gene Siskel Film Center turns a mirror onto those accustomed to dishing out public criticism, wrapping the observations in a neat, meta whodunit that is both inspired and sadly frustrating.

Adapted from a stage play by former Chicagoan Adam Langer, author of acclaimed novels Crossing California and The Thieves of Manhattan, and directed by local underground filmmaker Jim Sikora, The Critics had a long period of gestation.

Production began over a decade ago with Chicago Dramatists members Jim Donovan, Mark Vanesse, Juliet Schaefer, Mary Beth McMahon, James Wm Joseph, and Maht Wells starring. Money and time constraints shelved the project, though, but it’s now ready for its belated close-up.

The film revolves around five drama critics for a Chicago alternative weekly who find themselves the subjects of a new play that portrays them all in uncomfortable lights. One of the five is the show’s author. Summoned to their editor’s office, the critics are forced to confront each other to determine the scribe — and it gets ugly.

Langer’s script is a fast blade. The characters rip viciously, tearing each other down until all insecurities and shortcomings, both personal and professional, are bare. Frustrated writers, failed dramatists and intellectual imposters are exposed. The dissections reveal criticisms of criticism that are sharp and exact.

The momentum only falters when the characters dive into the suspect play, turning The Critics into a play within a movie. Much of this is the result of sloppy editing that muddies the sequence, though.

Such sloppiness extends into much of the film, unfortunately.

The low-budget production is plagued by uneven sound and unfocused camerawork. The deficiencies are jarring and distracting, dragging down the film and its actors — all of whom deliver fine performances. The Critics is remarkably written, but this amateur screen translation robs much of its power.

---

By Lew Ojeda from North Center
Posted: 02/20/2011 10:32 AM

Ditto on what Suzi writes. The ocean-wide amounts of arts criticism are the boon and the curse of movie blog writing. There's more to wade through to find the article worth reading, especially if a reader challenges himself to make that search. Very fine post.

---

By Suzi Doll from North Center
Posted: 02/19/2011 1:35 PM

I liked the pre-review commentary on the nature of arts criticism. I agree with the necessity of knowing the formal aesthetics of the art form being reviewed. Too many do not. Thoughtful points and writing, as always.