How to avoid blurring the lines between fandom and criticism

 

Nowadays, in the world of film criticism, film fans tend to gravitate towards those who usually lack film knowledge only to hide their lack of knowledge behind a cinephile costume. The cinephile costume term means that someone pretends to be a cinephile by outwardly having knowledge by fooling people into thinking he/she has knowledge to get attention to boost their popularity only to cause deception. This approach has made a lot of people think that they can placate to the masses by hiding their subpar knowledge behind this false image in order to get so much clout for the sake of being popular by purposely saying things like ignore the critics along with telling others that knowledge is not needed in order to be a cinephile since they think that loving movies is enough to be a cinephile. Being a causal is different than being a cinephile considering that they are two different terms in cinema to where there should be one that is chosen over the other if someone wants to know who they are when it comes to experiencing cinema in the process.

A causal is someone who only enjoys film as a way to only have fun with it as opposed to doing it to increase knowledge and to see it as an artform. For example, he/she will watch a film to pass the time because he/she goes to the cinema without looking at the film as an art piece so instead he/she looks at it as only entertainment in the process. Let me get this clear, I have nothing against causals at all as long as they know their place as people who see film as something to pass the time since they are not concerned with teaching people about what cinema is as an artform and they are not also interested in writing about it and having a thing to say about it too. They would say stuff like I go to the movies to make me happy instead of sad only to stay away from the artistic aspects of the medium which is reserved for the cinephile section of cinema. Bottom line is this, there is nothing wrong with being a causal whatsoever so people should have the right to be one and have fun doing it too.

A cinephile is a person who not only loves and adores movies but also has knowledge and literacy about them to where he/she sees it as a real artform that changes lives. For instance, a cinephile would watch a movie to not only enjoy it but to really let the movie have an effect on him/her whether it is through the technical aspects like production design, cinematography, costume design, art direction, direction along with the more literary aspects like acting, writing, etc. etc. In addition, he/she is so in love with watching the movie due to the effects that it has on him/her that he/she ends up writing about it and having a thing to say about it to where he/she begins the journey of becoming a cinephile only to continue to love and have knowledge of the art of cinema. Being a cinephile is where I operate in terms of being absolutely knowledgeable about cinema because I believe in loving movies as well as being literate about them so that I can write about them, say something about them and teach people about them for the sake of inspiring other cinephiles to expand and enrich their pallets for the better. The title of cinephile is a huge responsibility for someone to live up to considering that it takes so much time, knowledge and effort to be one that it does not happen overnight so people who want to really be cinephiles should be up for the challenge since it is a hard but rewarding process that will eventually pay off as long as people faithfully maintain the ability and mentality of loving and being knowledgeable about cinema in order to be real and genuine as cinephiles.

Now that I clearly stated what a causal is and what a cinephile is, I will now address something that is unquestionably prevalent and ubiquitous today in any form of film criticism whether it is in publications and especially on YouTube and that is blurring the lines between fandom and criticism. Blurring the lines between fandom and criticism means to actually forget about the importance of knowledge by doing away with it while still holding on to the title of being a cinephile with little to no knowledge whatsoever. This approach is sadly and heartbreakingly allowing people to think that they do not need to give audiences knowledge about films due to the overemphasis of only focusing on the love and relatable aspects of criticism because a lot of the critics who do blur the lines between fandom and criticism do believe that educated critics only focus on the knowledgeable aspects of criticism in ways that are too elitist and stuffy thus saying that educated critics do not relate to audiences who only want empathy in criticism as opposed to overt knowledge in it.

 Due to this mentality of emphasizing not giving much knowledge of film while still talking about them with the title of cinephile in name only in a way that is overly accessible to more causal audiences who are not into critics being knowledgeable in reviews, a lot of critics whether it is in tik tok and of course, YouTube have got so many subscribers as a result of blurring the lines that it is becoming really hard for more legit and knowledgeable cinephiles to gain the same of type of success due to the audiences' lack of interest in them. Also, the blurred lines critics believe that most educated critics only focus on films that are Oscar worthy and are considered classics like Citizen Kane, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Seventh Seal as opposed to films like Die Hard, Spider-Man 2, Batman 1989, which the blurred lines critics only cover. As far I am concerned, I am an educated cinephile/critic and I watch and cover a lot of different types of films, no matter what they are. For example, I can watch Citizen Kane and still watch Die Hard along with watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and also watching Batman 1989. Roger Ebert was also well-rounded but consistent as an educated critic in that he can watch Ingmar Bergman and still watch Star Wars too. Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the argument that all educated critics are too stuffy to appeal to people considering that on the one hand some educated critics can be stuffy and elitist for their own good while there are others such as Roger Ebert and myself who are educated in an authentic and well-rounded way too. No matter what others say it is important to be educated as a cinephile as long as there is empathy to go with it as opposed to either blurring the lines or being too stuffy as a critic.

Avoiding blurring the lines between fandom and criticism may be difficult nowadays but it must happen because there are far too many people who are blurring the lines by placating to the masses so people must know their place in order to avoid the dangers of blurring the lines. I have no problem with someone who wants to be a causal for the sake of passing the time and I also have no problem with someone who wants to be a cinephile who has knowledge to go along with the love of the art. What I am stating is that you are either a cinephile or a causal, there is no in-between and that is something that must be understood considering that I have an issue with anyone who wants to blur the lines only to keep on placating by staying away from knowledge while still talking about movies at the same time since you cannot have your cake and eat it too in life, period. Not being knowledgeable while still attempting to be a cinephile is truly problematic to where it will deceive others into thinking that only loving movies is enough to be a cinephile only to fail to recognize that the mentality of love without knowledge in criticism is good and gravy for someone that has a causal point of view on criticism, which is unfortunate. The fact of the matter is this, people should experience cinema as either a causal or a cinephile so that they will stay in their lanes but if they blur the lines between fandom and criticism then that is blood on their hands. Avoid blurring the lines or else. God bless.