The debate over film critic qualifications started when Cleese observed last week that sports coverage on television has “improved immensely” by hiring former athletes as commentators. Because former athletes have personal experience with the sport they are commentating on, they are able to weigh in more accurately on plays, coaching decisions, and more. Cleese asked his followers, “Could the same principle now be applied to the arts?”
“Instead of having ‘critics’ who can’t themselves direct, write, act, sing, dance or claim any other kind of expertise, would we not get superior commentary from people who can?” Cleese asked. “Why should artistic criticism from untalented people be preferred to that of outstandingly talented ones?” Cleese has noted that he is not angry with film critics but “simply wants them to acknowledge their limitations.” The comedian added, “For example, critics are astonishingly ignorant about [the filmmaking] process.” In an August 4 post, Cleese theorized that “if critics could write or direct or act, presumably they would be doing that, and earning more than the pittance that critics are paid.” That critics aren’t out there making films or acting means in most cases they aren’t qualified to do so, so why are they the ones judging art? Followers have sounded off for and against Cleese’s argument in the comments section. Cleese is in the middle of receiving his own reviews for his live-stream comedy show “Why There is No Hope,” which aired this week. Check out all of the comedian’s thoughts on film critics in the posts below.
If critics could write or direct or act, presumably they would be doing that, and earning more than the pittance that critics are paid So it’s odd that, given their inabilities, they are then put in judgement over people who CAN write, direct and act — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) August 4, 2020
Could the same principle now be applied to the Arts ? Instead of….. — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 28, 2020
Why should artistic criticism from untalented people be preferred to that of outstandingly talented ones ? — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 28, 2020
But, understandingly, this is not known to critics Or, if it is, they are at pains to hush it up May I ask what your profession is ? https://t.co/jCuTDfFaWb — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
I’ve watched football for 67 years and I am realistic enough to know that I don’t really know what’s going on there down on the pitch But there are a one or two great critics who stick at it long enough, and with the right learning attitude….. https://t.co/ZKCYhOsb98 — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
I think there used to be ten per cent, but that was back in the days when papers could afford to hire better people https://t.co/OCSFcvysBJ — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
- I had dinner with David Dunning two weeks ago and he thinks my point is valid.
- I’m not ‘mad’ at critics. I simply want them to acknowledge their limitations
- Your last point is a misquote followed by a non-sequitur
- You avoided my question. Why ? https://t.co/NXD3ZxNZPP — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
In order to know how good you are at something requires the same talents that you need to be really good at it So, if you’re no good at something, you lack exactly the abilities to realise you are no good at it https://t.co/MnJvyl3fun — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
But try talking to some creative people. They want critics to be better informed, but they daren’t say so And where do critics get their qualifications ? Quentin Letts was made chief theatre critic of the DM.. https://t.co/ECYgLJdSvt — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020
What’s vital is that they love their medium, and are not envious of people in it who do have talent https://t.co/IAiMEyh5l4 — John Cleese (@JohnCleese) July 29, 2020 Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here.
