Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down: Why I won't be scoring films anymore

No, that wasn't a typo on the Spider-Man: Homecoming review - I have intentionally not scored the film. I had something of a quandary in scoring both that film and Baby Driver, which I saw back-to-back. I was originally going to give Spider-Man: Homecoming an 8/10. I felt slightly weird giving a mass-produced studio product a higher mark than the work of a master filmmaker at the top of his game when I knew that technically Baby Driver was a better made film. Here's my argument. While entertaining and brilliantly made, Baby Driver doesn't quite have the plot to match it up. For me, it all comes down to how well the concept and the film's goals are executed. Spider-Man: Homecoming understood 100% what it needed to be and executed it very well. Baby Driver also understood what it needed to be but used Wright's excellent filmmaking technique to mask a slightly generic plot that ultimately succumbs to the genre cliches to it was trying to overcome and was not completely satisfying as a film. Obviously, not every film needs to have a satisfying arc to be great - master filmmakers like Kubrick, the Coens, David Lynch, Paul Thomas Anderson and Hitchcock toyed with these ideas for the best of their careers to create ambiguous and challenging works. The difference is that those filmmakers replaced a satisfying arc with something equally interesting, if not more so.

This quandary actually ended up obscuring what I actually thought about each film, to the point where I was considering giving a film I enjoyed less a higher score because of the pedigree involved and didn't take into account my actual enjoyment level. And that goes directly against the integrity of my writing, by directly obscuring my opinions behind a vague concept of a score. I ended up labouring over the score rather than voicing my actual opinion. This got me thinking about my past reviews as well. Ok, so I gave Baby Driver 7/10 but I also gave that to Alien: Covenant, even though Baby Driver is a much better film - how does that work? On what scale should I judge things? Do I even need a scale? This in turn got me thinking about scores in general. In particular, I was getting tired of giving films 8/10, which became shorthand for "it's very good, some slight niggles, not one of the classics of the genre". 

Arguably a lot of this started with the legendary late great film critics Siskel and Ebert. In a unique twist, the two would debate the merits of a film on prime-time television boiling it all down to a Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down rating. This gave consumers an idea of what a film was like, from a critical stand point. And this is part of what a critic does - we explore the pros and cons of a film and end by recommending it or not. However, a rating system gave an easily understandable view on what a critic thought of the film. Thumbs up or down, a star rating, a score out of 10 etc. gives an easily quantifiable level of quality, so a reader or viewer can easily skip to this section to get an instant idea of what a critic thinks of a film on some of kind of scale (the funniest is The Daily Mail's rating system, with 'terrible' films earning a Turkey score). 

However, I argue that concentrating on the score can, to some extent, cheapen an actual discussion of a film. Rotten Tomatoes (RT), with its aggregate scores, has done some harm to colouring people's views on films. I actually think it makes it harder to re-discover misunderstood films and appreciate other elements. You take one look at the score and decide if you want to see it or not. Baby Driver is a perfect example of this. The filmmaking was excellent and I go into detail why its so great in the review. However, I had issues with the script and the way the plot developed. No film is perfect. 97% on Rotten Tomatoes does not give you the film story. Nor does 10/10. Thus I don't think a score can accurately reflect a true opinion on a film. Can a 10/10 film really exist and how can this scale be decided? Should a film that succeeds on its own merits really be judged against what are regarded as the greatest films of all time (if that's what a 10/10 implies)? Would you give the Mona Lisa a 10/10, while Warhol's Campbell Soups a 9/10? The difference between works of art and film is that film is much more commercially driven. With so many films out there to consume, in particular if you are on a lower income, having an aggregate score to refer to does give one a good idea of what to expect from the film in terms of quality. Heck, I would make the argument that now audience are paying more and more attention to RT, much to the distaste of the studios. However, this also colours audiences' views on low and high brow works - in my opinion, all films should be judged on their own merits and how they have succeeded. 

Well, going forward, as an experiment, I will not be scoring films (or any other form of media I review). I hope that my prose and honesty will get across my feelings on a film better than a generic rating out of 10. I could clearly define a rating system for my reviews or I could work to actively improve my writing style. Because I think opinion is much more complicated than a assigning a number. My 'reviews' have always ridden the line between review and article. Abandoning the scoring system will hopefully mean I can concentrate more on the elements I am interested in. I do just want to say that a lot of reviews I read and critics I follow use a scoring scale. This does not dilute their work as a critic, as their actual reviews are thoughtful, insightful and serve their purpose perfectly. I just personally have issues with it...

Film and media deserves to be discussed in greater depth than concentrating on a score. Scores can be a very helpful tool to a critic but can sometimes get in the way of actually engaging with a piece. 

Hopefully, this will help to improve my writing style and let my prose communicate my thoughts and musings on any given piece of media in greater, more confident, detail. 

Let's see how it goes ...