The arts rarely have anything good to say about critics. That they鈥檙e not generally the hero of many stories is, at the very least, understandable. More often they鈥檙e portrayed as joyless, cruel and a little pathetic; themselves failed artists who live to take down others, or, worse, sycophants in search of a famous friend.
Without getting into any sort of philosophical, or even factual debate about the nature of the kind of person drawn to criticism (besides perhaps a staunch antipathy to either job security or amassing wealth), it is safe to say that the drama critic of 鈥� 鈥� takes all the worst stereotypes to hysterical heights.
Set in the 1930s in London, is Jimmy Erskine, a veteran theater critic whose reviews can make or break a play or a performer. He has a monastic devotion to telling the truth, as entertainingly as he can, and knows what he must sacrifice to do so.
鈥淭he drama critic is feared and reviled for the judgement he must bring,鈥� McKellen says in an ominous voiceover. 鈥�(He) must be cold and perfectly alone.鈥�
When one woman dares to chat him up after a play, offering her take on the material and performances, he swiftly tries to have her removed from the restaurant claiming he must be protected from the general public. When an actress, Nina Land (Gemma Arterton), confronts him about his wildly inconsistent criticisms of her (how can she be both plump and emaciated, she wonders), he refuses to apologize. And he scoffs when the new boss at the newspaper, David Brooke (Mark Strong), implores him to tone it down: 鈥淏e kinder,鈥� he says. 鈥淢ore beauty, less beast.鈥�
But what starts as satire spirals into a wildly messy tragedy with contrivance upon contrivance. This is a film that could have listened to its anti-hero鈥檚 advice to the flailing actress: Do less. That someone as great as Lesley Manville, as Nina鈥檚 mother, gets a mere handful of scenes and is only minimally consequential to it all is telling. It strives to be an intricate spider-web of compelling, intersecting stories, but few characters are fleshed out enough for us to care.
鈥� ,鈥� handsomely directed by Anand Tucker (鈥淗ilary and Jackie,鈥� 鈥淟eap Year鈥�) and written by Patrick Marber (鈥淐loser,鈥� 鈥淣otes on a Scandal鈥�), is very loosely based on Anthony Quinn鈥檚 novel 鈥淐urtain Call,鈥� itself more a murder mystery than this ever allows itself to be. Instead, the film is about the desperate lengths a man will go to when his job and freedom are threatened. Erskine is the kind of gentleman critic whose power and authority have gone unchallenged for so long, he鈥檚 become delusional beyond recognition. His words don鈥檛 just destroy, though. They鈥檝e also inspired. Even the actress he obliterates time and time again admits as much: She tells him it was his writing that made her fall in love with the theater.
There are some fun ideas here, and good performances. McKellen is having a wonderful time living inside this charismatic monster who you are with until you鈥檙e really not. Erskine is also gay; an open secret that becomes a liability with his new boss and the rise of fascist thought around him. But none of it really adds up to anything poignant or enormously entertaining; its darkness is both lopsided and superficial, as most become casualties of Erskine鈥檚 aims. Theater critic as tyrant is a juicy premise; 鈥淭he Critic鈥� just can鈥檛 live up to the promise.
鈥淭he Critic,鈥� a Greenwich Entertainment release in select theaters Friday, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for 鈥渟ome language and sexual content.鈥� Running time: 100 minutes. Two and a half stars out of four.
Lindsey Bahr, The Associated Press
