Who'd trust a critic?

Dave Calhoun looks at the many influences that serve to corrupt film journalists.

Dec  1 2006

An article in last Monday's Guardian questioned whether Johnny Vaughan, the film critic of the Sun, attends screenings of all the films that are reviewed in the paper next to his mugshot. The report went on to suggest that it’s common practice for the Sun to send a writer in Vaughan’s stead who ghost-writes some of his reviews.

If this is true (and a spokesman for Vaughan has denied it), it's curious and embarrassing for all concerned, but not scandalous. If Vaughan does employ a stand-in to take his place then we can at least take comfort from the fact that the films are being seen by someone.

Much more serious is the Guardian's accusation that some critics cobble together reviews of films unseen from the web. Even so, we'd be kidding ourselves if we believed that the problem of fair coverage of cinema stopped with whether a critic has seen a film or not. There are other, less obvious pressures on film journalism.

Consider the interfering hands of editors and publishers. In the editorial of this July's Sight & Sound, the magazine's editor, Nick James, reported that he had it from the horses' mouths that two high-profile critics – one for a broadsheet – had their reviews of 'The Da Vinci Code' altered by editors. Both critics filed their copy as one-star reviews only for them to appear under a more glowing three-star rating. Several conversations with newspaper critics confirm that their editors often override them, whether choosing the film of the week or deciding how much space to give a film. One wonders whether the influence of advertising ever figures in such decisions.

The problem of distortion isn't restricted to critics. It's worth considering film journalism beyond reviews, especially the way monthly film mags such as Empire and Total Film feel obliged, in a competitive mainstream market, to give extensive coverage to unseen films to satisfy the demands of their readership. Take the case of 'Casino Royale', featured on the covers of Empire, Total Film and Film Review last month. None of these mags saw the film before going to press, yet Empire dedicates 21 pages to its release, and Total Film keeps back 12. This is meant not as an accusation of corruption but as an illustration of how some core values we attach to criticism – such as not writing about a film that you haven't seen – don't apply to much of what we tag 'film journalism'.

Other dangers lurk. Increasingly, platforms for reviewers – newspapers, magazines, TV channels – are owned by corporations that also make films. Time Warner, for instance, is the parent company of HBO, New Line Cinema, Warner Bros and Time, Inc – a stable of approximately 150 magazines. Similarly, News Corporation owns 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight as well as UK newspapers such as the Times and the Sun. Writers and editors strive to retain their integrity, but who could say that potential conflicts of interest are not growing?

Closer to home, the sponsorship of the London Film Festival by the Times raises similar questions. The artistic direction of the festival is rock-solid in its independence. But could the Times' film writers honestly say they didn't sometimes feel compromised when reviewing films at the Festival? This autumn, relations between sponsor and sponsored were strained when a two-star review of 'Stranger than Fiction' appeared in the paper after the Sky Movies gala screening of the film, prompting a heated discussion between Festival and paper. It didn't help that publicists thrust copies of the Times into the hands of the film's stars at the after-party.

Lest we appear to be throwing mud over the fence, it must be said that Time Out isn't free from such conflicts. As a media partner of the LFF, for instance, we happily cover it in depth. And we occasionally publish set-reports of unfinished films (although never close to their release). Despite good intentions, prejudices and preferences will prevail. But we must recognise these problems to be able to protect what we do, now and in the future.

• 
•