By Travis Johnson
The early 21st century has been marked by a seemingly global misapprehension of the power of a formal petition. The latest example of misapplied civic force comes in the form of a campaign on the site Change.org by one Abdullah Coldwater of Alexandria, Egypt, to “Shutdown Rotten Tomatoes”.
“We need this site to be shut down because It’s Critics always give The DC Extended Universe movies unjust Bad Reviews, Like
1- Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice 2016
2- Suicide Squad 2016
and that Affects people’s opinion even if it’s a really great movies”
Ultimately, 17,615 signatories contributed to the petition, which was then delivered to Rotten Tomatoes with no effect whatsoever.
There are a few things worth unpacking here, though. One is a pretty widespread misunderstanding of what Rotten Tomatoes is. It’s an aggregate site, collating reviews from noted critics (and, fair enough, your definition of “noted” may vary) and parsing them into “Fresh” or “Rotten” ratings, and it’s the contributing writers who decide which category their review falls into – so there’s no conspiracy here.
Another is the wrongheaded notion that critics should be unbiased. While that might be the Platonic ideal of criticism, it’s a patently unattainable goal. A critic is a human being, not a Reviewatron 9000, and human beings have all kinds of foibles and prejudices built into them. A critic aims to be informed and balanced, but you can’t walk into a movie and leave your whole lived experience at the door.
The third is the notion – which has come up an awful lot on various comment threads lately – is that critics are getting paid off by someone – “Disney” on the DC/Marvel threads, “Sony” on the Ghostbusters comments – to either big up one side or disparage the other. The glib answer to this is “we wish”, but the deeper truth is more nuanced. Your worth as a critic is based on your consistency of opinion and your willingness to praise good cinema and call out bad cinema, as you see it, when you see it, regardless of the director, or the actors, or the production house. You attract a readership who recognise value in your writing either because your tastes jibe with, or you’re able to contextualise movies in a way they find useful. Imagine how mutable your work would be if it was subject to the vagaries of bribery? We’re edging towards a “No True Scotsman” fallacy here, but the broad truths are evident. IF you trade in opinions, your opinions must be seen to be inviolable.
And the fourth is the idea that dissenting opinions must be silenced, which is so self-evidently awful that it shouldn’t need explaining. It does tie in to this awful but increasingly popular notion that professional opinions (and that’s what critics are – professional opinion-givers) are not to be trusted, and one should “make up your own mind”, a stance that ignores the fact that this is exactly what critics do. Disagreements are fine and discourse is essential, but shutting down conversation is just plain abhorrent.
Luckily, Mr Coldwater was not seriously trying to have Rotten Tomatoes commit internet seppuku. Indeed, the quick spread of his petition and the furore it created seem to have made him reconsider his position a bit:
“In fact i started this petition to gather dc fans to express our anger just for fun. I didn’t mean it to be taken that serious.
After thinking. I found this petition is pointless. And the only thing that it does is spreading a speech of hate and online fighting among the supporters and objectors . The movies is something to enjoy. And the hate and fight is the opposite of enjoying.”
Which is absolutely true. Less hate, less fighting, more healthy, vigorous debate and cool movies.