The Ben Lyons Syndrome
Is film criticism really a dying art form?
Christopher Goodwin notes:
[Roger] Ebert’s illness is symbolic of a greater malaise afflicting the profession of film criticism in the United States
Goodwin cites the disturbing attrition of critics from newspapers and magazines, including luminaries like David Ansen, Jack Matthews, and Gene Seymour, among others.
Of course, many factors are at work - you can tick them off ad-nauseum: a rapidly changing marketplace, the rise of the Internet, movie blogs, and film criticism aggregation sites like rottentomatoes.com. Add to that the explosion of celebrity culture, “critic proof” movie marketing, and the dwindling revenues/ratings of traditional print and broadcast media. And it goes on an on.
Not surprisingly, into this fluid environment we’ve witnessed the evolution of a new kind of movie critic: a creature named “Ben Lyons”
Where once film criticism belonged solely in the haughty intellectual realm of Cahiers du Cinema, Andrew Sarris, and Pauline Kael — it has now become bland fast food, served up by dewey-eyed, Michigan frat boys, like Lyons.
Lyons, for those who haven’t had the pleasure, is the 27-year-old son of film critic Jeffrey Lyons, and the latest cohost of “At The Movies”, the same show that was helmed for years by America’s most iconic film critics, Siskel and Ebert.
Chris Lee’s brilliant LA Times piece provides a nice primer on the Lyons’ phenomenon:
Lyons’ ascension to the “throne” of televised film criticism has come to represent something more than just the changing of the guard — many view it as yet another example of the dumbing down of media and of celebrity triumphing over substance…….among the accusations flung his [Lyons'] way: that he landed his job through nepotism, is unknowledgeable about movies, sucks up to celebrities and, most damaging, is a “quote whore” — a shill for movie marketers whose all-too-frequent raves are repurposed as gushy pull quotes on movie ads, usually accompanied by several exclamation points.
Unfortunately, while solid journalists like Lee are probably looking over their shoulder’s while they fight for job security, glad handlers like Ben Lyons are just the kind of “critic” big studios use to market they’re increasingly high stakes products. Lyons knows where his meal ticket is coming from, and he’s not shy about sharing his real agenda with all the poor sobs who are tuning him in. It’s why he won’t think twice about throwing out “The Greatest Film Ever Made” praise on an average studio blockbuster, like ”I Am Legend” (while forgetting to mention it on his list of Top Ten Films of the year)
But before we become too fixated on Ben Lyons, and his ilk, maybe we need to take a closer look at ourselves and try to understand this new entertainment environment better. The relationship between a critical review and its commercial effect (or lack thereof) has never been murkier. While studios may still recognize that a flurry of good reviews and word-of-mouth can fuel box office - it’s less likely that any single review or critic can influence a film’s commercial success, in the way that a “Two Thumbs Up” from Siskel and Ebert - once did.
Is this good news or bad news for studios? From a bottom-line, business standpoint, no studio wants to be beholden to the whims of some critic’s pen, no matter who they are…That’s why movies these days are being wrapped in the critic-proof armor of awesome marketing and promotion. You get the feeling that by the time the reviews come out, these pricey horses are already way out the barn and halfway across the world.
Yes, the critic-proof concept is clearly a interesting trend worth following, but what’s that got to do with film criticism, and its relevancy? If the review and the box office are on slowly diverging tracks, that could be actually be good thing for the art of film criticism. Good reviewers and their criticism might be going underground for awhile, as comets like Ben Lyons fly by. But I doubt they’re in danger of extinction. Why do I say this?
I go back to Roger Ebert and his cancer, and my own little alternative take on the symbolism of it all: How about the fact that Roger Ebert is still here - having survived countless operations and the loss of his voicebox? Ebert is still standing, still reviewing; his perceptive voice and criticism continue to ring out on daily basis with more vitality than ever. If a film critic like Ebert can stand-up to cancer and come out swinging, what makes us believe good film criticism is going to deep-six it anytime soon? There. That’s my symbolic takeaway for all you Christopher Goodwins out there…
Meanwhile, it’s still unclear whether someone like Lyons will ultimately survive (ratings of his show have plummetted 23% in the last year), let alone prosper in this new world, or whether he’s just someone’s lame idea of throwing paint at the wall to see what sticks.
If you believe, like I do, that the cream always rises to the top, you have to feel the Lyons Syndrome is nothing to get too worried about. Like a pesty flu bug, it will run its natural course. And while we can assume fast food and aggregation will continue to feed the masses, it doesn’t mean we won’t get hungry for quality and substance as well. Where-ever that takes us, however it all shakes out - there will always be a vacuum into which the real talent and content will flow. Future Roger Eberts and Pauline Kaels - take note, because one can assume the money will be there as well.
But if you’re a cynic and worry that the Lyons Syndrome is a dangerous plague that needs to be stopped in its tracks — I suggest you head over to stopbenlyons.com and rant away.
