Issue # 18: "The role of the film critic now is to cut through the clutter"
A conversation with writer, author and film critic, Pete Croatto.
Pete Croatto loves movies - so much so that he spent 25 years writing about them. But somewhere down the line, his perception of film criticism, and his own place in it, changed. Nowadays, he reserves cinema for his viewing pleasure only and prefers to put his pen to the pad to cover other subjects he is passionate about like sports. Why the change in creative direction? A big part of it, according to him, has to do with the internet. Pete joined perspectivves for a very raw and honest conversation about that. He also shared how Roger Ebert inspired him to become a film critic in the first place, why he thinks Korean cinema has experienced an explosion in popularity among North American audiences, and why he hopes people will continue going out to enjoy movies at the theatre in the era of online streaming. The From Hang Time to Prime Time author connected with us from his hometown of Ithaca, New York.
Listen using other podcast services.
Ziv: How did you get into film criticism in the first place?
Pete: I got into film criticism when I was 12-years-old. My grandfather was an avid reader. He was a translator for the United Nations and he was a professor at New York University and he had a collection—a massive library—in his basement office. When he died, my brother, father, and I went through it and picked what we wanted. Out of the blue, I came across this collection of Roger Ebert movie reviews. It was, I think, from 1986 and it was called Roger Ebert’s Movie Home Companion. I didn’t really know much about it. I was just getting into movies at the time. I read that book and it made me want to be a writer and, specifically, it made me want to write movie reviews. Roger Ebert’s prose was so clear and he was so articulate without using his knowledge of film history as a cudgel. He wrote for the intelligent movie fan. The best way to describe it is that it was an awakening to just see someone write in such an informed and casual way and it was right after that that I decided that I wanted to be the next Roger Ebert; I wanted to write a movie review column for a newspaper and get on television and become as articulate and as genuine as he was. So I remember that distinctly. I was 12-years-old going on 13 when I read that book and everything changed.
“I became a Roger Ebert guy. He was somebody I read and it just hit.”
Yarden: Did Siskel influence you as well?
Pete: It’s funny. Gene Siskel was a great film critic but he was never really my guy. And, also, here’s the weird thing: I don’t think Gene Siskel—unless I’m mistaken—had a collection of written movie reviews. You know, his stuff is either out of print or very hard to find or is never published. So Roger Ebert was just the first person I gravitated towards. I didn’t really watch Siskel and Ebert’s At the Movies. I watched it occasionally, but it wasn’t appointment viewing. Reading movie reviews really satiated me. I didn’t really have a need to see the two of them debate movies for 30 minutes. I know it’s an odd thing because usually there’s one and the other. You know, if you’re into Ebert you’re into Siskel but I just became a Roger Ebert guy and I have several of his books. Some writers just stick with you. He was somebody I read and it just hit. After that, I don’t think Gene stood a chance, to be honest with you [laughing].
Ziv: You recently wrote a very candid article for Poynter about your thoughts on being a film critic. In it, you mentioned that films really helped shape your worldview. Can you give us some examples of that?
Pete: John Singleton, who directed Boyz n the Hood, had a great line about movies. He said that you’re engaging in a conversation with somebody for two hours. The amazing thing is that if you watch a variety of films from different countries, from different eras, you learn a lot about other cultures and learn about different periods of time. The one thing that I’ve learned a lot about are human relationships and that they’re complicated and that people, no matter where they are from or how old they are, have complicated lives. Having spent 25 years reviewing all types of movies, you learn that every life is worth exploring and is worth something in a small way. Everyone has a story to tell.
Yarden: What are your thoughts on the role of the critic in the internet era? Oftentimes we will see movies that have a low critics score on sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, yet an overwhelmingly high score from the audience. How do you explain that?
Pete: Rotten Tomatoes, I think, has an audience score and also has a critic score and different metrics measure an audience score versus a critics score. My thought of the critic now, in the internet era, is that a critic is a guide. A critic is somebody who not only can steer you towards the right movies or movies that are going to provoke your interest, but they are also going to help you explain the world and show you how that movie highlights a larger theme in the world. I think that in an era where we have so many opinions and there’s so much out there—not just from established critics but from people who run blogs or people on Twitter, for example—having a critic that you can turn to who is sort of your confidant or consigliere is an invaluable asset. I don’t think movie critics are ever going to go out of style because I think that need for someone who can take you by the hand and show you the deeper meaning of a film, has existed for years and I don’t think that’s going away anytime soon.
“If you have that one critic who can show you a movie in a different light…that is invaluable.”
Yarden: I have to agree with you on that. I think that people sometimes over-rely on things like Rotten Tomatoes and they might miss some good gems. They need that Tom Hagan in their lives to tell them.
Pete: Yeah, you need to have that whisper in your ear [laughing]. Look, on the surface, Rotten Tomatoes is invaluable because you have all of these critics whose articles you can read at your fingertips. But I think most people just look at the score, they look at the percentage. That’s fine but I honestly think that if I were back to my avid movie-going days, I would definitely have a rotation of reviewers that I would consider to be my panel. I would want to hear from people like Sam Adams or Wesley Morris and I think that’s the value. Again, Rotten Tomatoes can give you a good overview but if you have that one critic who can show you a movie in a different light or show you a hidden gem I mean that is invaluable. I think that the role of the critic now is to cut through the clutter.
Ziv: In your article, you say that you were never a great film critic and that that was a relief for you. What do you mean?
Pete: The internet showed me, by bringing all of these great critics into my Twitter feed or on Facebook or whatever social media platform I favoured at the time, just how out of depth I was. I would look at Glenn Kenny’s (writer for the New York Times Arts section) Twitter feed. He is just so erudite and so well-versed in film history and all of these genres. I would read, you know, Sam Adams and just become amazed at the clarity and the breadth of what he covered. I would read these reviews and just knew that I was just not there in terms of my abilities and in terms of making people feel the way that I felt when I read those great reviewers. So it was that and it was also just—and I alluded to this in the article—how little f*ing money I was making. I mean, I was busting my ass driving to Philadelphia which was a 40-minute drive from where I was in Suburban Philadelphia [at the time]. I was going to weekend Matinees to review movies that were just garbage and I didn’t have the love or the passion for it and I was going nowhere. I felt that my abilities as a writer could be shared in a better way with more people than what I was doing because I would write a review and I would know that no one would read it; not because it was a bad review necessarily but because by the time it came out the review was old hap, it had been written about three ways ‘til Sunday. I felt like I was writing for a party of one and I don’t like writing that I can’t share. One of the reasons that I became a writer was because I saw that people seemed to like what I had to say and what I had to write and to not get that feeling was extremely deflating. It began to feel like a job and I got into writing because I didn’t want to feel like I was at a job.
Yarden: Korean cinema has become very popular here in North America. What do you attribute that to and what do you think these films offer that Hollywood does not?
Pete: I think that having streaming services available makes it a lot easier to get to these films. I’m 43-years-old. In my early 20s, Blockbuster was the place to go and it sucked ass. You could find maybe 80-thousand copies of Legally Blonde 2 but if you wanted to find a Fellini film, forget it, that’s not going to happen. So having the availability certainly helps with that. Also, Parasite winning at the Oscars certainly helped. You know, a rising tide lifts all boats. And I also think that people get tired of the same old stuff. Granted, it’s always great when a new Fast and Furious or Tom Cruise movie comes out, but what are you going to do for the other eleven months of the year? It’s nice to have options. Streaming platforms are so great because they’re allowing people to dig deeper into film catalogues that, ten years ago, would have been an impossibility. The 13-year-old me would have loved to have a [movie streaming] account because then I could have gone deep into catalogues that just weren't around. I would have been a kid at a candy store. People are no longer tethered to what’s at the mall or the local indie.
This giant screen comes to life and you just let your worries melt away.”
Ziv: One of the things that I had been missing the most during the pandemic is the ability to go to the cinema. With the dominance of streaming platforms in our lives, do you see the movie theatre experience being pushed aside?
Pete: I don’t think cinema is ever going to be pushed aside. People are always going to want a cheap night out and going to the movies, even though prices are going up and up, is still a cheap night out. But I am concerned about that too. Movie theatres are being closed left and right. I am very lucky here in Ithaca because our great arthouse cinema, Cinemapolis, remained open. I do think that with the rise in streaming we’re going to lose the intimacy that comes with watching a movie in the dark where, as I said before, you're in a conversation with somebody, or you're lost in the spectacle of a car chase or an action sequence. That’s something that I don’t want to see go away because I think that’s a really pristine, special experience especially when you’re a kid. You’re in the dark, the lights go down, everyone goes quiet and this giant screen comes to life and you just kind of let your worries melt away. I love that feeling. It’s something that still tickles me to this day. I suspect that as time goes on it will become one of those quaint little things that people don’t appreciate as much as they should. I hope I am wrong. I usually am about these things. That’s the good news.
This interview was edited for brevity and clarity.
Like this interview?
Read Yarden’s interview with professor and photographer, Iain Cameron, published in Function Magazine here.
About the creators:
Yarden Haddi: Graduate of the Image Arts Centre at Ryerson University.
Ziv Haddi: Graduate of the Master of Media in Journalism and Communication program at Western University and a former intern at 680 News and q on CBC Radio. He currently produces a current affairs program on Zoomer Radio.