The Critic follows Ian McKellen's Jimmy Erskine, an esteemed theatre critic in 1930s London. However, Erskine's position is at risk when his newspaper, The Daily Chronicle, is inherited by Viscount Brooke, played by Mark Strong, after his father's death. The film, however, also focuses on the persecution of the gay community in 1930s Europe with fascism on the rise, as well as displaying the power of the critic, being able to make or break an actress's career.
As Brooke runs Erskine out of The Chronicle for failing to comply with the ethos of the family-friendly paper, Erskine uses his power over up-and-coming actress Nina Land, played by Gemma Arterton, to leverage his position back in the favour of Brooke. As he states to an artist who takes his portrait early in the first act, he is willing to pay any price to remain eternal, to be one of the few greats. Meanwhile, the public scrutinises Erskine's affair with his secretary, Tom Turner, played by Alfred Enoch.
The Critic's title alone is something that intrigued me. Throughout film history, the critic has been criticised and negatively portrayed. However, this dynamic between a filmmaker and a critic's writing makes this dynamic quite interesting. Yet, this is something the film never really extracts any form of commentary other than the opening few scenes where McKellen's critic is played as cold and bitter, secluding himself from the public so he can sit on his throne of power; played as a corrupt person who revels in sending actors out of the industry. Apart from the odd discussion, there is little about the power of art and its impact and importance on society. Instead, Erskine is only interested in a myriad of wordplay that fails to present analysis and only provides hyperbolic headlines that will entertain his readers with little acknowledgement of the power his words convey.
The critic is less interested in analysing the critic's role and more focused on an old pensioner willing to scrap his way back to the top, whatever the cost. Unwilling to compromise his lifestyle, Erskine realises he can no longer live his exuberant and extravagant lifestyle unemployed. In this troubled state, Erskine hits rock bottom; he fears being outed as a gay man and uses the last remaining leverage he has to convince Atherton's Land to help him cancel Viscount Brooke. This leads to a muddled script and tonal mismatch that lacks a voice, whipping the audience from melodrama to murder.
In doing so, the film forgets to provide any characters of likeability that the audience can latch on to and empathise with. McKellen's titular critic is cold and conniving, with McKellen sleepwalking through the role, his face rarely emotes, making the audience wonder whether we are supposed to root for this character or not; whilst his performance isn't necessarily bad, there is little to read or savour in this portrayal. Mark Strong's Viscount is presented as a ruthless and cutthroat businessman, who, whilst Strong provides nuance, particularly towards the backend of the film, fails to charm the audience. Likewise, although the most relatable of the bunch, Atherton's Land is still presented as a troubled member of society. As Erskine states, no one is an angel; perhaps this unlikability is on purpose, yet I can't help but conclude that this is a misstep, particularly with the muddled and sometimes laborious narrative.
Nevertheless, the film has some bright sparks, particularly at night; the screens are lit with warm oranges that give the picture an effervescent glow. It is as if to say, look at the critic in his element as he heads to berate his next piece of theatrical drama. There is a radiance to the screen in these scenes when so often they are bland, whilst also adding context to the power of the critic in his prime during the 1970s. This lighting choice adds a bright spark in an otherwise poor, meandering, yet not necessarily explicitly harmful film.
The Critic fails to provide any form of substance, neither in its analysis of the critic nor its portrayal of a homosexual man in 1930s London. Whilst the film is perfectly watchable, it fails to provide thrills in its short 100-minute runtime, leaving the audience only to dislike the corrupted characters on screen.
コメント