Has it been a long time since you’ve been mad at a critic? Thought he didn’t get his head around the latest superhero movie? That she had allowed herself to be too easily impressed by a hyped author? It’s no wonder. The number of reviews in the media has dropped dramatically. These are the findings of a report commissioned by the Norwegian Critics Association. It shows that the number of reviews in Norwegian newspapers has more than halved in the 15 years from 2007 to 2022. In both VG and Dagbladet, reviews of art and culture have been cut by more than 80 per cent. The reviews in Aftenposten have been reduced by 67.4 per cent. CELEBRITY CRITICS: In the past, certain critics were famous and the subject of countless parodies, such as news’s long-standing film critic Pål Bang-Hansen. Photo: NTB Anyone who works in cultural journalism knows that it is difficult to get the public to click on reviews. When a critic works for hours on a review in a national medium, and the text only reaches a couple of thousand readers, it is perhaps not surprising that the editors think that time and money could have been better spent. But people are not necessarily uninterested in reading analyzes and assessments of film, music, literature and theatre. In a Norstat survey carried out by news, for example, it has emerged that the public in this country is more than happy to consult the rating service Rotten Tomatoes, which collects the assessments from a large number of reviewers, before pressing play on a film. 45 per cent of those questioned say they use international rating services, but the figure is even higher in the 18-39 age group. There, 77 percent say that they use such sites. POPULAR: Many cinemagoers, including many Norwegians, consult the score a film has achieved on Rotten Tomatoes before buying a cinema ticket, or pressing play on the streaming service. Photo: Alamy Stock Photo At first glance, it doesn’t seem like it’s hanging on. Why are reviews so strongly downgraded in the Norwegian media, when the demand for analyzes and assessments is obviously present? There are probably several explanations. Some of those who visit sites such as Rotten Tomatoes find it easier to deal with a number, a thumbs up or down, than long reasonings. But it is also about the fact that the reviews have withstood the transition from paper newspapers to digital media spectacularly poorly. The film sections and book supplements in the old days were designed so that you, the reader, would get an overview. You flipped through some newspaper pages with texts that clearly signaled that they were assessments of what was happening in cultural life. You read a bit of one, a bit of the other, and turned the page with a feeling of knowing more about what was going on. AN UPDATE: The paper newspaper was better suited for film, literature and music reviews than the online newspapers are. There, the reviews compete on the premises of the news stories. Photo: Shutterstock Suddenly you knew that something existed, a book, a film, someone’s vision and project, which you had not known about until then. Perhaps you would like to go to the cinema or theatre. Maybe not. The same mechanisms do not work to the same extent when an article has to be actively selected. And it must be chosen at the expense of other texts. The articles published in the online newspapers compete with each other, and they compete on the premises of hard-hitting, sensational news stories. Then the reviews lose. The development is easy to understand and explain. That does not make it any less worrying. One of the most important functions of criticism is to invite a higher, public conversation about what kind of stories we tell each other. About what kind of culture is created. SEEKING GUIDANCE: Many people want to know if a film has been recommended by critics before they buy a cinema ticket or press play on the TV. Photo from Gimle cinema in Oslo. Photo: NTB Underlying this is an idea that culture is too important to just be experiences for the couple or the group of friends or the family with children, even if this is significant in itself. Thoughtful reviews initiate discussions and conversations about how we live now, what we think about what surrounds us, and how this is expressed in art. There will be fewer of these conversations when the critics become increasingly unemployed. But also from a consumer perspective, the development is boring. Because how do you actually find out about what’s new on the cultural front? Without the reviews, the book or film fronted by the biggest names, or with the most money in the marketing budget, wins. They also win on rating sites that collect reviews from reviewers and the public. Because they are not quite as democratic as they may seem at first glance. CAN BE MANIPULATED: Many of those who post reviews of books and films on the major rating sites are serious, observant and analytical. But the system is vulnerable to those who want to manipulate the numbers. Photo: Shutterstock Culture magazine Vulture has revealed how a film’s PR team can work behind the scenes to pump up the Rotten Tomatoes score to an artificially high level. They can pay reviewers outside the major newsrooms to see the film. If they don’t like what they see, they’re encouraged to keep a critical review away from the sites that count toward the Rotten Tomatoes score. With regard to user-driven rating sites such as IMDb for film and Goodreads for literature, the individual user has no overview of whether the reviewers have actually seen the film or read the book. Recently, fantasy author Cait Corrain admitted that she had created fake Goodreads profiles to give negative reviews of books written by competing authors. MUCH USED: Many readers both write and read reviews on the book app Goodreads. But recently a fantasy author was exposed after she created fake profiles to drag down her competitors’ ratings. Photo: Alamy Stock Photo Stories like this show why the hobby reviews have so far been unable to offer a good alternative to traditional criticism. It’s a shame, because in many ways the committed users on these pages are a valuable addition to the traditional criticism. Many of those who post comments about a work are committed, serious and analytical. In a small country like Norway, the absence of reviews can also mean that a work of art does not reach these commenting readers or film enthusiasts, because they simply do not know they exist. Last year, author Agnar Lirhus started a debate when he claimed that almost all the press coverage is concentrated on a bunch of authors that the publishers themselves are betting on. He also believed that the media are turning themselves into an advertising body for the publishers rather than exercising an independent judgement. When space is limited, there is only room for those with whom the reader already associates something. Visibility creates visibility. STARTED DEBATE: Author Agnar Lirhus claimed that the Norwegian media were doing the publishers’ business, by directing all focus to the big titles that came. Photo: Finn Ståle Felberg It is, of course, not just simply asking the editors to prioritize creating material that they know will be poorly read. But it is timely to encourage them to think again. Look for some ways and paths that can enable criticism to emerge on its own terms. Make the criticism easily accessible, so readers can find it again when they have closed the book or come home from the cinema and are curious about what others have thought. It is not the media’s task to do the business of those in power, quite the opposite. But it is still relevant to point out that Norwegian cultural policy is full of support schemes that will ensure that narrower films, novels and performances are also produced. And the fact that much of this money flows into the sand when the journalism that for so many decades showed the public the way in this jungle becomes a shadow of itself.
ttn-69
Has it been too long since you’ve been mad at a critic? – Speech
