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. A lot of critics now 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 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. They hide behind this false image in order to get so much clout. They purposely say things like ignore the critics along with telling others that knowledge is not needed in order to be a cinephile. 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. 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 rather than having 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 seeing it as an art piece so instead he/she looks at it as only entertainment. Let me get this clear, I have nothing against causals at all. They should know their place as people who see film as something to pass the time. By the way, they are not concerned with teaching people about what cinema is as an artform. Also, 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. They 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 movies but also has knowledge 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. They look at the technical aspects like production design, cinematography, costume design, art direction, direction, etc. In addition, they look at the more literary aspects like acting, writing, etc. etc. He/she is so in love with watching the movie that he/she ends up writing about it and having a thing to say about it. 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. I believe in loving movies as well as being literate about them. 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. 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. Being a cinephile does not happen overnight so people who want to really be cinephiles should be up for the challenge. It is a hard but rewarding process that will eventually pay off for the better. People should faithfully maintain the ability of loving and being knowledgeable about cinema in order to be real 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 today in any form of film criticism. In publications and especially on YouTube, blurring the lines between fandom and criticism does exist. Blurring the lines between fandom and criticism means to actually forget about the importance of knowledge. Some people do away with knowledge while still holding on to the title of being a cinephile. This approach is sadly and heartbreakingly allowing people to think that they do not need to give audiences knowledge about films. There is an overemphasis of only focusing on the love and relatable aspects of criticism. Blurring the lines between fandom and criticism is common nowadays. People who blur the lines believe that educated critics only focus on the knowledgeable aspects of criticism in ways that are too elitist. They believe that educated critics do not relate to audiences who only want empathy in criticism as opposed to overt knowledge in it.

This mentality of emphasizing not giving much knowledge of film while still talking about them is something to be aware of. The title of cinephile in name only is quite disturbing considering that lackluster critics are successful for blurring the lines. Some people on YouTube have got so many subscribers as a result of blurring the lines. 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. Films like Citizen Kane, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; The Seventh Seal are believed by the blurred lines critics to be films only covered by stuffy critics. Whereas films like Die Hard, Spider-Man 2, Batman 1989 are only focused on by the blurred lines critics. 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. On one hand, some educated critics can be stuffy for their own good. On the other hand, others such as Roger Ebert and I are educated in an authentic and well-rounded way too. No matter what others say it is important to be educated as a cinephile. There should be empathy to go with criticism 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. However, it must happen because there are far too many people who are blurring the lines by placating to the masses.  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. Also, I 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. The differences must be understood considering that I have an issue with anyone who wants to blur the lines. Placating by staying away from knowledge while still talking about movies at the same time is quite disingenuous. It is truly problematic to blur the lines to where it will deceive others into thinking that only loving movies is enough to be a cinephile. Remember that the mentality of love without knowledge in criticism is good and gravy for someone that has a causal point of view on criticism. The fact of the matter is this, people should experience cinema as either a causal or a cinephile. They should learn to stay in their lanes to avoid blurring the lines between fandom and criticism or else. God bless.