When a Twitter friend alerted me this morning that I'd been named our most conformist critic by Slate, a publication I like and to which I occasionally contribute, I wasn't sure how to react. Do they make plaques for that? Should I put it on my business card? I was relieved to see the context, which made it clear that though I agreed with the critical consensus more than the other critics considered, even my 83% rating wasn't that, to use the terms of the piece, "conformist." I ultimately found the piece more interesting than insulting.
That said, let's talk about words and numbers, numbers first. As invaluable as I find Rotten Tomatoes, there's not a lot of shading to it. It's a Manichean place where critics either like or dislike films (and signal their disapproval with rotten tomatoes, presumably.) There's not a lot of shading there. I know when my B- review of a film by a major director runs this week it will be treated as a positive review despite my major problems with the movie. When my C+ review of another major director's latest runs the following week, it will be treated as a negative even though there's a lot in the movie I like. The math becomes merciless.
Now, words. I wish Daniel Engber, the piece's author, had chosen a word other than "conformist." I make it a habit to avoid early buzz on movies and turn away from festival coverage as often as possible. (When The A.V. Club goes to Toronto, Sundance, and Cannes, I usually hand my editor cap off to others on staff.) I know others don't do this and I don't think they're wrong for it, but that's the approach that works best for me. I also don't read other reviews until my own review is written. (And even then, truth be told, I don't read that many.)
In short, if I'm conforming to something I don't know what it is. There's no such thing as seeing a film in a vacuum. When I see a movie with co-workers and colleagues here in Chicago we inevitably end up talking about it after the screening. By then I feel like my opinion is already in place, but who's to say? (This is to say nothing of some fellow critics who, intentionally or not, change the temperature of a screening with audible scoffs and other unwelcome gestures.)
But I don't really think about other critics when I'm writing the review and nothing bores me more than when reviews become grounds for weird critic-on-critic feuds that often have little or nothing to do with what's good or bad about the movie at hand. Those aren't fires critics I respect, including Dana Stevens here at Slate, waste their time stoking.
(These comments have also been posted at Slate.)