The Beginnings and Emergence of Film Criticism
Film criticism, analysis and assessment of films, started nearly as early as the existence of motion pictures themselves. Early reviews trace back to the 1890s, when the “New York Times” wrote about the Lumière Brothers' cinema showings in Paris. Such initial notices tended to focus on the novelty of the form instead of any narrative material. By the early 1900s, dedicated film pages appeared in trade publications (for example, the “Optical Lantern & Cinematograph Journal” and Britain’s “Bioscope” in 1908). Early film pioneers like Ricciotto Canudo in France proclaimed cinema the “Sixth Art” (later “Seventh Art”) in a 1911 manifesto, signaling the growing view of movies as worthy of serious discussion.
In those decades, film criticism was not yet prestigious. Audiences and even editors viewed film as pure entertainment. A British trade-paper “Kinematograph Weekly” was still grumbling in 1918 that reviews of top films were perfunctory and written by people with ‘the prejudiced mind of dear old Granny’. But a few newspaper writers did champion cinema as art. In India and elsewhere, film journals such as “Pravinya” (a Marathi-language magazine from the 1920s) and “Filmindia” (launched in 1935) began publishing essays about films. In Japan, the monthly “Kinema Junpō” (starting July 1919) became the world’s first continuously published film magazine. By the 1920s, critics were beginning to evaluate films in terms of their artistry, and big papers worldwide began employing full-time film critics.
World cinema movements and political realignments also influenced criticism. Soviet filmmakers Sergei Eisenstein and Dziga Vertov were already writing about montage in the 1920s; German (e.g., Siegfried Kracauer) and Italian theorists were debating cinema's formal possibilities. In many countries, film societies and avant-garde groups (notably in France) spawned journals that blended theoretical essays with criticism. France’s “Cahiers du Cinéma”, founded in 1951, emerged directly from Paris cine-clubs and from an earlier “Revue du Cinéma” (1928–48). Cahiers’ founding editors André Bazin, Jacques Doniol-Valcroze and Joseph-Marie Lo Duca steered the magazine towards an intellectual model of criticism. Some of the young writers who contributed to ‘Cahiers’ were Jacques Rivette, Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol and François Truffaut, all future prominent directors. In 1954 Truffaut's celebrated essay condemned the "Tradition of Quality" of French cinema and demanded that directors should be accorded status as the "authors" of their films. This “politique des auteurs” formed the heart of “auteur theory” (the name later applied in English by critic Andrew Sarris) and revolutionized film criticism throughout the world.
In Britain, meanwhile, the British Film Institute (BFI) began “Sight & Sound” in 1932 as a quarterly magazine dedicated to the medium. “Sight & Sound” (subsequently a monthly) was a preeminent forum for serious criticism and is renowned for its decennial polls of the greatest films. Throughout Europe, other magazines emerged: for instance, in postwar France “Positif” (1952) presented a different, left-wing cinephile viewpoint, while in Italy such publications as “Bianco e Nero” and “Cinema Nuovo” (1950s) promoted the Neorealist movement. On every continent, as movies became culturally significant, movie reviews became pervasive in print media. In the 1940s and 1950s, essayistic film criticism had reached the mainstream; writers such as James Agee (writing for Time and The Nation) and Otis Ferguson started combining personal style with analysis. As one historian points out, with the advent of sound films, critics and audiences alike became more serious, turning film criticism into "an art form" of writing and assessment.
The most prominent critics of this period were André Bazin and his pupil François Truffaut (France), Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris (United States), Vincent Canby (USA), and literary men such as Graham Greene (UK) and Walter Benjamin (Germany) who published on cinema. By the 1960s, film criticism had divided into various schools, formalist and structuralist theory, Marxist and cultural studies approaches, feminist criticism (Laura Mulvey's influential essay was published in 1975), and more popular journalistic review. But some legacies emerge: the French New Wave critics (Godard, Truffaut, etc.) argued for the director's vision, and American critics such as Pauline Kael at “The New Yorker” wrote in a personal, conversational manner that appealed to general readers. In Britain, critics such as Lindsay Anderson and Penelope Houston (both “Sight & Sound” editors) argued about film canon within a more institutional context.
Some major publications established the discipline. Powerful mid-20th-century journals include “Cahiers du Cinéma” (Paris, founded 1951), “Sight & Sound” (London, founded 1932), “Monthly Film Bulletin” (London, founded 1934), “Film Comment” (New York, founded 1962), and “Boxoffice”, “Variety” and “The Hollywood Reporter” (USA). In India, the English-language film magazine “Filmindia” (1935–1961) led the way, followed by best-selling magazines such as “Filmfare” (founded 1952). Journals also multiplied in the academy: “Film Quarterly” (Berkeley) and “Screen” (UK) became the norm for academic criticism from the 1950s onwards.
Every region had its star critics. In America, Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) and Gene Siskel (Chicago Tribune) eventually made criticism fashionable on television, but earlier idols were Pauline Kael (New Yorker), Andrew Sarris (Village Voice), and Manny Farber (The Nation). In fact, such critics as Kael, Agee and Sarris were household names during the 1960s–70s due to their fervent and opinionated critiques. Bazin (France) established the intellectual direction for ‘Cahiers’. British critics like Penelope Houston and Philip French (later of “The Observer”) helped shape a “broad church” of cinephile culture. Later critics Mark Kermode (BBC “The Observer”), Jonathan Rosenbaum (Chicago Reader) and others, bridged academic and public audiences. (For example, in one survey Roger Ebert described the BFI’s “Sight & Sound” poll as “by far the most respected of the countless polls of great movies”.)
American Film Criticism
Film criticism in the United States emerged from the Hollywood-focused press. By the 1910s and 1920s, trade publications such as “Variety” and “The Moving Picture World” printed frequent unbylined reviews. The late 1920s witnessed the installation of full-time critics: Otis Ferguson (New York “Herald Tribune”) and James Agee (Life, then “Time/The Nation”) were the first U.S. newspaper writers to treat films with seriousness. Following World War II, television and magazines broadened the audience for criticism. The most celebrated print critic in America was Pauline Kael, whose clever, idiomatic essays in “The New Yorker” (1968–91) battled the over-intellectualization of film. Her impassioned arguments in defense of Hollywood or off-center films frequently confronted the auteur-oriented Andrew Sarris at “The Village Voice”. Sarris, who made ‘Cahiers’' auteur theory accessible in English, maintained that the director's individual style should take precedence. The “Kael–Sarris debate" between popular movies and artistic 'auteurs' set the tone for American criticism during the 1970s.
In the meantime, mass media raised the profile of criticism. Studios and spectators came to either dread or reward critics: a New York billboard might boast of a review in Time magazine, and stars pursued accolades from “Film Comment” or “The Hollywood Reporter”. During the 1980s television film shows were enormously powerful. The syndicated program “Sneak Previews” (eventually renamed “Siskel & Ebert”) used to star two Chicago newspaper critics, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, in spirited showdowns with "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down" evaluations. This brought cinema conversation into America's living rooms. Roger Ebert remained the biggest name in movie criticism of the modern age, as one early review comments, showing how a critic's brand name could equal that of a director.
By the late 20th century, however, traditional outlets began to wane. Newspaper jobs shrank and chains often cut local critics in the 2000s. At the same time, the Internet opened new avenues. Veteran critics like Roger Ebert (who later wrote on his website) were among the last of the old-guard, and many observers declared film criticism “democratized” by blogs and aggregation sites. In the 2000s and 1990s, sites like “Ain't It Cool News”, “The A.V. Club”, “Filmspotting” and subsequently “IndieWire” and “The Playlist” enabled anyone with passion and a keyboard to post reviews. Aggregator websites like “Rotten Tomatoes” and “Metacritic” aggregated thousands of critic scores, shaping the public opinion of a film's success. Briefly, anyone with a good eye for film and an internet connection can publish reviews, radically expanding who gets heard.
Today American film criticism is both a remake of the past and something new. Most students and fans operate personal film sites or podcasts. Video essays on YouTube (by such channels as RedLetterMedia, CinemaSins, and more) reach millions, often combining humor and analysis. Even as the old print media decline, online spaces have created many "critics" in social media. The impact, academics observe, is both widening the voices and at the same time challenging: with so many opinions to pick from, old critical authority has been dispersed.
French Film Criticism
France's film-criticism tradition is renowned. Paris cinémathèque clubs of the 1920s and 1930s pioneered the way, with initial critics such as Louis Delluc and writers such as Jean Epstein. André Bazin dominated post-World War II times. Bazin was one of the founders of “Cahiers du Cinéma” in 1951 (along with Jacques Doniol-Valcroze and Joseph-Marie Lo Duca). As editor and chief theorist, Bazin advocated realism in cinema and tutored emerging critics. Authors for ‘Cahiers’ soon became successful filmmakers: Godard, Truffaut, Rivette, Claude Chabrol and Éric Rohmer are just a few of the many who crossed the page-screen boundary.
The ‘Cahiers’ critics spearheaded the French New Wave circa 1959–62. Their unconventional reviews championed Hollywood genre masters (Hitchcock, Hawks) on a par with French and Italian auteurs. Truffaut's 1954 manifesto condemned French studio lethargy and proclaimed director as author. This so-called "auteur theory" was embraced globally and reformed criticism: Andrew Sarris introduced the term into English.
France also saw other papers during this period. “Positif” (1952) was established as a left-wing alternative to “Cahiers”. Scholarly film studies evolved from the 1960s onwards, with theorists such as Christian Metz, Roland Barthes and the magazine “Image & Narrative” developing film semiotics. By the 1970s–80s, French debates tended increasingly to turn philosophical or Marxist. Film criticism remained lively in France: critics like Olivier Père and Thierry Frémaux (Cannes head) still cite the lineage from Bazin to today. The French state also supported criticism through the Cinémathèque Française and the CNC, keeping film culture central.
Notably, Bazin’s legacy carried on internationally. The “Cahiers” clique inspired a global generation of critics. In India, for instance, left-wing intelligentsia of the 1950s and 60s consciously emulated those French cinéphiles. In Britain and elsewhere, Cahiers' cult status was followed by elaborate cinéphile cultures. (It's interesting that two of France's most celebrated critics, Bazin and later Jacques Rivette became models for British film enthusiasts arguing in “Sight & Sound” in 1960.)
Indian Film Criticism
India has its own cinema culture and therefore its own critical tradition. Indian criticism coincided with the birth of the nation's cinema. The earliest significant English-language cinema magazine was “Filmindia” (occasionally spelled “Film India”), launched in Bombay in 1935 by Baburao Patel. “Filmindia” blended fan-magazine format with tart editorializing: Patel, its editor, was renowned (and dreaded) for his caustic humor. The periodical covered Bollywood (Hindi cinema) and news of other regional and international films, mixing gossip, trade information and critical reviews.
Following independence, cinema journalism spread in metropolitan dailies and weeklies. In 1952 the Bombay-based “Filmfare” magazine appeared, describing itself the first serious effort of film journalism in India. “Filmfare” (and comparable publications such as “Screen” and “Stardust”) largely reported on the Hindi star system, interviews, rumors and critiques for mass audiences. Simultaneously with this, a less prominent tradition of serious criticism emerged. Director Satyajit Ray and author Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, for instance, sometimes wrote essays on films (Ray himself translated Eisenstein's work). The Indian Film and Television Institute of India (FTII, established 1960) was involved, with educators such as Abbas penning reviews. During the 1960s there arose in India a "Parallel Cinema" movement that produced art-house films, and some scholars started writing about them.
But as this older critic noted, Indian print criticism has tended to be divided between fan journalism and highbrow cinephilia. During the 2010s new venues have appeared: websites such as “Cinemas of India” and “Film Companion” (edited by Anupama Chopra) provide more analytical reporting, and film societies encourage debate in cities. The Film Critics Circle of India (FCCI) was established in 2013 with the aim to network professional critics. But many commentators do observe that India has nobody akin to Pauline Kael, Robin Wood or Richard Corliss a reviewer comfortable with both mainstream blockbusters and art cinema. In fact, as Amit Khanna has contended, much of Indian "criticism" these days is “review-writing” (plot summary and star-gossip) and not analysis.
Despite these limitations, India's critics have made their contribution. Kolkata's film critics wrote with passion about auteurs such as Satyajit Ray and subsequent Iranian and art-house film-makers. Contemporary Indian criticism also addresses questions of politics, representation and audience (for instance, arguments over censorship, or the depiction of caste and class). Because of Bollywood's global reach, Indian critics at times act as cultural ambassadors, interpreting Indian cinema to the world. As Indian cinema goes digital, young critics post on social media and YouTube (Hindi- and English-language review channels are thriving). The overall path, from “Filmindia” to “Filmfare” to blogs today reflects the international movement away from print and toward the web, even as it is anchored in India's specific cinema history.
Since the late 1990s, film criticism has experienced another earth-shaking shift with the advent of the internet. Nowadays, with the digital era, the field of criticism has spread much wider than newspapers and magazines. Scholars of film journalism observe that online platforms have democratized and diversified the field. Now anyone can write a movie review or analysis: blogs, Twitter threads, Reddit forums, and specialized forums are filled with amateur and half-professional critique. Experienced critics have responded by writing for web publications and starting video podcasts. Older film journals (“Sight & Sound”, “Cahiers”, “Film Comment”, etc.) also publish web editions, but their power is matched by the sheer weight of online publications.
Video and social media have been particularly revolutionary. YouTube is home to millions of "video essays" that analyze scenes, genres or directors with film clips combined with commentary. Channels such as “CinemaSins”, “Nostalgia Critic”, “RedLetterMedia” and “Nerdwriter1” have millions of viewers for formats that vary between comedic lists and scholarly analysis. The study cited here observes how multimedia (video essays and podcasts) have become integrated into criticism that supplements traditional written reviews. Even social media sites such as Instagram and TikTok have individuals uploading short film critiques or reaction videos. The traditional gatekeepers (film critics for large publications) coexist with Internet celebrities and community critics in this new ecosystem.
But the digital revolution comes with its own problems. The sheer amount of available opinions can water down perceived expertise. Consumers these days frequently use aggregates: the Rotten Tomatoes rating, or the consensus of Metacritic or Letterboxd, instead of one critic's decision. As a columnist puts it, the web has made it "hard to gauge" one critic's own influence in the era of the complicated world of the web. The web is also focused on speed and clicks, which can promote quick opinion over thoughtful critique. Most journalists bemoan the death of the golden age of criticism with each passing generation of print loyalists (such as Ebert or Kael).
But this transformation also has its positives. The digital age allows for niche and diverse voices to thrive. There are now critics who specialize in specific genres (horror, anime, queer films, etc.), and they reach out to audiences across the globe. Younger audiences increasingly look to critics whose preferences align with their own, whether a YouTube vlogger or a critic on a site such as The Ringer or Polygon. As one study concludes, though many bemoan the demise of the single authoritative critic, more opinions are typically "a good thing" for cultural conversation.
From penny presses chronicling silent shorts to
worldwide internet chatrooms, film criticism has always changed. Major film
journals like “Cahiers du Cinéma” and “Sight & Sound” once defined highbrow
critical debate; today those conversations also happen on tweets and YouTube
comments. Over the course of its history, critics such as André Bazin, Pauline
Kael, Roger Ebert and countless others have not only shaped the public's perception
of cinema but also influenced filmmakers' perceptions of their own art. In America, France, India and around the
world, film criticism has reflected and helped define national cinemas –
celebrating auteurs or challenging clichés, newspaper column or blog post. As
technologies and audiences shift, so does the critic's role, but the underlying
aim is always the same: to evaluate film as entertainment and art, and assist
viewers in interpreting why movies do (or don't) succeed.