Film critic research typically attends to the impact of critics' ratings and reviews on box office receipts. With few exceptions, critics are treated as a homogeneous group. Taking a different approach, this article explores similarities and differences among critics. First, in a test of potential differential influences of the objectification of women harbored in the “Male Gaze,” no significant difference between male and female critics' median ratings was found. Second, differences and similarities among critics did appear in their rankings along a “kindness” dimension. Specifically, produced by a Correspondence Analysis which used the complete rating “profiles” of 25 professional film critics who contributed 6389 ratings to Film Comment, it was possible to rank critics from most to least kind. Third, differences in kindness ratings between two subsets (male and female critics) set the stage for another examination of the continuing influence of the Male Gaze: while males were distributed across the entire kindness scale, female critics clustered around the central (or average) kindness profile. The observed similarities and differences among critics are discussed in terms of the divergent influences of professional canons and ideological issues, such as the Male Gaze.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenP. A., & LincolnA. E. (2004). Critical discourse and the cultural consecration of American films. Social Forces, 82, 871–894.
2.
AnastP. (1967). Differential movie appeals as correlates of attendance. Journalism Quarterly, 44, 86–90.
3.
BasuroyS.ChatterjeeS., & RavidS. A. (2003). How critical are critical reviews? The box office effects of film critics, star power, and budgets. Journal of Marketing, 67, 103–117.
4.
BaumannS. (2002). Marketing, cultural hierarchy, and the relevance of critics: Film in the United States, 1935-1980. Poetics, 30, 243–262.
5.
BergerJ. (1972). Ways of seeing. United Kingdom: Penguin Press.
6.
BoorM. (1990). Reliability of ratings of movies by professional movie critics. Psychological Reports, 67, 243–257.
7.
BoorM. (1992). Relationships among ratings of motion pictures by viewer and six professional movie critics. Psychological Reports, 70, 1011–1021.
8.
CameronS. (1995). On the role of critics in the culture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 19, 321–331.
9.
ChangW. H. (1975). A typology study of movie critics. Journalism Quarterly, 52, 721–725.
10.
ClancyK. J. (2000, March). Movie critic reviews have no impact on box office success. News & Announcements. Copernicus Market Consulting.
11.
CloverC. J. (1987). Her body, himself: Gender in the slasher film. Representations, 20, 187–228.
12.
d'AstousA. (1999). Consumer evaluations of movies on the basis of critics' judgments. Psychology and Marketing, 16, 677–696.
13.
DoddsJ. C., & HolbrookM. B. (1988). What's an Oscar worth? An empirical estimation of the effect of nominations and awards on movie distribution and revenues. In AustinB. A. (Ed.), Current research in film: Audiences, economics, and law (Vol. 4, pp. 72–88). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
14.
DolanJ. (1988). The feminist spectator as critic.Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.
15.
EliashbergJ., & ShuganS. M. (1997). Film critics: Influencers or predictors?Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–78.
16.
GemserG.van OostrumM. A., & LendersM. (2007). The impact of film reviews on the box office performance of art house versus mainstream motion pictures. Journal of Cultural Economics, 31, 43–63.
17.
GreenacreM. (1993) Correspondence analysis in practice.New York: Academic Press.
18.
HolbrookM. B. (1999). Popular appeal versus expert judgments of motion pictures. The Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 144–155.
19.
JedidiK.KriderR. E., & WeinbergC. B. (1998). Clustering at the movies. Marketing Letters, 9, 393–405.
20.
JurcaC. (2002). Mildred Pierce, Warner Bros., and the corporate family. Representations, 77, 30–51.
21.
KamakuraW. A.BasuroyS., & BoatwrightP. (2006). Is silence golden? An inquiry into the meaning of silence in professional product evaluations. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 4, 119–141.
22.
KaplanE. A. (2004). Global feminisms and the state of feminist film theory. Signs, 30, 1236–1248.
23.
KingT. (2007). Does film criticism affect box office earnings? Evidence from movies released in the U.S. in 2003. Journal of Cultural Economics, 31, 171–186.
24.
KriderR. E., & WeinbergC. B. (1996). Competitive dynamics and the introduction of new products: The motion picture timing game. Working paper, University of British Columbia.
25.
LauzenM. M. (2008). The celluloid ceiling: Behind-the-scenes employment on the Top 250 Films of 2008. Report compiled by Martha M. Lauzen, Executive Director, Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, School of Theatre, Television and Film, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 92182.
26.
LevyE. (1990). Stage, sex, and suffering: Images of women in American films. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 53–76.
27.
LincolnA. E., & AllenM. P. (2004). Double jeopardy in Hollywood: Age and gender in career of film actors, 1926-1999. Sociological Forum, 19, 611–631.
28.
LitmanB. R. (1983). Predicting success of theatrical movies: An empirical study. Journal of Popular Culture, 16, 159–175.
29.
MayneJ. (2004). Marlene, dolls, and fetishism. Signs, 30, 1257–1264.
30.
PeressM., & SpirlingA. (2010). Scaling the critics: Uncovering the latent dimensions of movie criticism with an item response approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 71–83.
31.
PluckerJ. A.KaufmanJ. C.TempleJ. S., & QianM. (2009). Do experts and novices evaluate movies the same way?Psychology and Marketing, 26, 470–478.
32.
RadasS., & ShuganS. M. (1995). Seasonal marketing and timing introductions. Working paper, University of Florida.
33.
RadasS., & ShuganS. M. (1998). Managing service demand: Shifting and bundling. Journal of Service Research, 1, 47–64.
34.
RamasubramanianS., & OliverM. B. (2003). Portrayal of sexual violence in popular Hindi films, 1997-99. Sex Roles, 48, 327–336.
35.
RavidS. A. (1999). Information, blockbusters, and stars: A study of the film industry. Journal of Business, 72, 463–492.
36.
ReinsteinD. A., & SnyderC. M. (2005). The influence of expert reviews on consumer demand for experience goods: A case study of movie critics. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53, 27–51.
37.
SawhneyM. S., & EliashbergJ. (1996). A parsimonious model for forecasting gross box office revenues of motion pictures. Marketing Science, 15, 113–131.
38.
SimmonsJ. (1994). A ‘thumbs up’ pulls in the audience. Wall Street Journal, March 25, b1.
39.
SimonoffJ. S., & SparrowI. R. (2000). Predicting movie grosses: Winners and losers, blockbusters and sleepers. Chance Magazine, 13, 15–24.
40.
SimontonD. K. (2004). The “best actress” paradox: Outstanding feature films versus exceptional women's performances. Behavioral Science, 50, 781–794.
41.
SimontonD. K. (2005). Cinematic creativity and production budgets: Does money make the movie?The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 1–15.
42.
SimontonD. K. (2009). Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 400–420.
43.
SmithS. P., & SmithV. K. O. (1986). Successful movies: A preliminary empirical analysis. Applied Economics, 19, 501–507.
44.
SnowE. (1989). Theorizing the “male gaze”: Some problems. Representations, 25, 30–41.
45.
StaigerJ. (1985). The politics of film canons. Cinema Journal, 24, 4–23.
46.
TerryN.ButlerM., & De'ArmondD. (2004). Critical acclaim and the box office performance of new film releases. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 8, 137–148.
47.
TerryN.ButlerM., & De'ArmondD. (2005). The determinants of domestic box office performance in the motion picture industry. Southwestern Economic Review, 32, 61–73.
48.
WallaceW. T.SeigermanA., & HolbrookM. B. (1993). The role of actors and actresses in the success of films: How much is a movie star worth?Journal of Cultural Economics, 17, 1–27.
49.
WandererJ. J. (1970). In defense of popular taste: Film ratings among professional and lay audiences. American Journal of Sociology, 76, 262–272.
50.
WyattR. O., & BadgerD. P. (1984, August). How reviews affect film interest and evaluation. Paper presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.
51.
WyattR. O., & BadgerD. P. (1987). To toast, pan or waffle: How film reviews affect reader interest and credibility perception. Newspaper Research Journal, 8, 19–30.
52.
WyattR. O., & BadgerD. P. (1990). Effects of information and evaluation in film criticism. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 359–368.
53.
ZuckermanE. W., & KimT-Y. (2003). The critical trade-off: Identity assignment and box office success in the feature film industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 27–67.
