This month: The psychology of (certain) critics

I tuned in to ‘At the Movies’ with Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton a couple of weeks ago and caught their review of ‘Smart People’. It’s no secret that I loved the drama/rom-com and it remains one of the best movies I’ve seen this year. Neither of the abovementioned reviewers liked it, however, and that’s fine – as Patrick Swayze says in ‘Road House’, opinions vary.

What got up my snout, though, was a comment from Pomeranz. I don’t remember what she said verbatim, but it went something like this: “When it comes to portraying a dysfunctional family, director Noam Murro is not in the same league as Noam Baumbach.”

Pomeranz was of course referring to Baumbach’s latest dysfunctional family movie, ‘Margot at the Wedding’, which she had awarded four stars.

Now I don’t profess to be the all-knowing oracle of ‘dysfunctional family’ films, but I would imagine the audience being able to identify or connect with the characters in some way is an important criteria in judging whether one is good or not.

In ‘Smart People’, we have an academic father who is very bright but emotionally crippled following his wife’s death. His interaction with his adopted brother gradually draws him out of his intellectual shell and allows him to get to know his children better. Take the English professor out of the equation and I think we all know someone who is like this: a person who shies away from their feelings and distracts themselves with work or some other available diversion, thereby neglecting those they love.

On the other hand, there’s ‘Margot at the Wedding’. I’m curious to know what it was Pomeranz (and all the other hyperventilating critics of her ilk) identified with in this movie.

Here we have a son who tells his mother he “masturbated last night”. I reckon I could poll 1,000 men about whether they had shared onanistic details with their parents and come out with 100 per cent in the negative.

Moreover, Baumbach’s characters cry and laugh at inappropriate times for no apparent reason. Are they supposed to be autistic or something? Sorry, but sticking a bunch of odd characters together and having them say weird things to each other does not provide insight into familial relations or the human condition.

I understand that you aren’t meant to take Baumbach’s films at face value, and that certain elements are supposed to be metaphorical. But symbolism and metaphor are the spices you add to a meal, not the meal itself. Or to use a different analogy, with ‘Margot at the Wedding’, the tail is wagging the dog. The story (such as it is) only exists so Baumbach can show everyone what a clever fellow he is.

I have a theory that certain critics assume if a movie is muddled, strange or doesn’t make sense, it must be somehow ‘experimental’ or ‘profound’. That, or they’re afraid to give it a low score for fear they’ll discuss it with a colleague who will then favour them with a withering look and say, “Really, two stars? Hmm, I thought there was a bit more to it than that…”

The one thing I can take some cold comfort from is that such meaningless navel gazing rarely outlives the generation that begat it. The movies (and books) that have survived to become classics without a solid foundation of story and believable characterisation are few indeed.

Kris Ashton has published fiction in more than ten different magazines and anthologies. His new novel ‘’Ghost Kiss’’ is available now from Asylett Press.