Reflection on Film Criticism

What is criticism good for? Is there any objective measure for the appreciation of films (or other products)? Is there? Then what is it needed for? What one likes the other gets upset. What one laughs at, the other cries. All of us can only see the world that we live and experience. We interpret everything with the help of them. The woman who was raped she wouldn’t relive the experience on film screen definitely but it would probably free her from her trauma. Perhaps it would be very painful, but it might help her face up to fears.
There isn’t only one objective measure but many different ones and still there are works and films, which are chosen and subsisted. We talk about them; we see them over and over again. Why does it happen? Is it only a result of an arbitrary choice? Why do we say that Picasso was a big painter? Why do we talk about Orson Welles as a big director? Because of the critics who say that? Do these artists thank their reputations for coincidence? I don’t think so. Then what for? Most of the public became alienated from them. They don’t appreciate their works. Then why are we enthusiastic about them? I think because they teach to see us, if we let them. A critic’s task is to mediate between the public and the creator. The critic can show a way, a door, which is only his view. This might help us to find our own ones. It depends on our decision to enter it or not (for example Franz Kafka’s Before the Law).