Oscar season is upon us and nytimes.com film critic A.O. Scott takes a moment to reflect on the current state of the Oscars. But rather than devolve into a screed censuring the committee for its race bias—which he duly chastises for “racial homogeneity”—Scott takes on the much broader idea of what it means to be a critic. Is he even necessary, or nothing more than a paid hack who, in the Twitter age, has all the relevancy of the printing press?
The article is at turns acerbic, witty, and frustrating, as Scott tries to answer this slippery question of taste: Is it all subjective or is there some objective aesthetic standard that is always at war with the movie-industrial-complex? (Or is it mere snobbery to even pose such a question!) You be the judge.
Words to look out for: