Art Movie: the big canvas for Thomas Kinkade's "The Christmas Cottage"
The success of “300” (which I liked) and “Ghost Rider” (which I
haven’t seen) has some industry experts — Peter Bart of “Variety” and
Patrick Goldstein of the “L.A. Times”
for example — questioning the validity of elitist film critics reviewing films
that appeal to the masses, i.e.: cutting
edge pop culture afficiandoes. Shouldn’t they be reviewed by hip, elitist
fanboys instead? Shouldn’t all films be reviewed by people who like them or who
can reflect the promotional spin of the multi-million dollar studio marketing
campaigns that sweep audiences in like sheep? Shouldn’t we just let the studios
PR departments review their own films which they practically are doing already,
film critics’ pathetic attempts to remain aloof and “critical” notwithstanding?
If so, then, I have no problem with this latest
development in movie adaptations reported in “Variety.” Oh, eggheads squawked
about the end of cinema when they started adapting comic books way back when
Tim Burton made “Batman” in 1989, and that turned out okay. Film survived
versions of video games and theme park rides and “Snakes on a Plane." Even the talk
of late to turn out movies featuring figures from TV commercials (the Burger “King”
and the Geico cave men, for example) might even rejuvenate the medium. So why
not make a movie based on a really bad but extremely popular painting?
Say what you will about Thomas Kinkade, but in terms of profit
his canvases have put Picasso (Kinkade claims to have made a billion dollars in sales of
artwork alone) to shame. It was only a matter of time before the
studios caught on to the phenomenon and figured out a way to exploit it. Thus, in
time for the holidays, Lionsgate Pictures says we can look forward to a feature
film adaptation of Kinkade’s painting “The Christmas Cottage.”
No doubt the film will cash in big, perhaps even hit the opening
weekend $70 million of “300.” How should critics respond? Clearly it must be
good if so many people think so. And if elitist critics pooh pooh the film as
kitsch and a travesty of cinema just as art critics have denouced the paintings,
who, according to Bart and Goldstein, would be best qualified to review such a
movie? Or have we reached the point where art and aesthetics and quality are
irrelevant?