Elitist critics and populist moviegoers

In Slate, Erik Lundegaard answers the question of whether or not film critics are elitist – and if they are, does that make them redundant in the eyes of an ever-more populist movie-going public? He looks at the numbers, breaks down box office totals for films into categories depending upon how many screens they played and whether or not they’re marked as ‘rotten’ or ‘fresh’ on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, and comes to this conclusion:

While the gross numbers can be depressing (we spent half a billion dollars on the likes of Norbit, Good Luck Chuck, and Bratz?), the averages are not. Critically acclaimed films average about $2,000 more per screen than critically lambasted films.

The numbers are starkest with limited-release films (fewer than 2,000 screens). Art-house films that critics loved, such as Away From Her and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, averaged $3,113 per screen, while arthouse films critics were iffy about, such as Interview and Margot at the Wedding, didn’t even do half as well, averaging only $1,322 per screen. Some people are paying attention.

» Read all of “Why we need movie critics” at Slate.com

~ by Hugh on July 3, 2008.