I recently had a discussion with Nathan Weinbender, film critic for Spokesman-Review's "7", about several different movies, including “Cloud Atlas” and the works of Paul Thomas Anderson, who directed films like “Boogie Nights” and “There Will Be Blood.”
During this discussion, Nathan and I disagreed on many different points, such as me believing that “Cloud Atlas” was the best film of 2012 and how we both felt about last few scenes of “Magnolia.”
While discussing this with Nathan, I began to think about one of the problems with critics: Because each critic has his/her own beliefs and feelings, they will each feel different about any given work. Critics will always disagree about some issue. And if that’s the case, why trust film critics?
The reason people still trust what critics have to say is because, when a certain critic has enough passion and heart behind their words, it gives their opinions power and strength that make it fun and entertaining to read or hear about.
Does that mean that particular critic is right about the film? No. When it comes to an art form, there is no clear cut answer to it being good or bad. That’s why critics disagree on any given issue with that work of art.
Neither Nathan nor I were right about “Cloud Atlas” or “Magnolia.” It’s just simply how we feel. The proper way to address it in this case is to respect the work and feelings of others, but not to the point where you must agree with every little thing that person says. To have your own feelings, never compromising them, but still acknowledging the feelings and opinions of others.