.png)
The Critic is an American 1963 short animated film by director/producerErnest Pintoff and creator/narratorMel Brooks that won anOscar forShort Subjects (Cartoons) in 1964.[1][2][3]
The film was reportedly inspired by an actual incident. In 1962,Mel Brooks attended a screening of an animated short byNorman McLaren. It featuredsurrealistic,abstract imagery. During the screening of this short, Brooks overheard another audience member "mumbling to himself", an old immigrant man who was voicing his disappointment at the lack of aplot. Brooks was inspired to create a film out of this experience.[4]
Brooks contactedErnest Pintoff, who had experience producing animated works such asFlebus.[5] They agreed to create a short film based on two points: the visuals of the film had to be fashioned in a style similar to that of McLaren, and Brooks would have no specific warning of the content. He intended to improvise his monologue.[4] Pintoff and animator Bob Heath completed the visuals as agreed, then Brooks watched the result and improvised hismonologue for the accompanying soundtrack. He used aRussian Jewish accent and attempted to find lines appropriate for an old man "trying to find a plot in this maze of abstractions."[4]Henry Jenkins points out that the comments themselves belong to a recognizablenarrative mode, thestream of consciousness.[6]
Simple, abstract, geometric shapes move and morph on the screen toharpsichord music, from aFrench Suite (BWV 816) byJ. S. Bach. The voice of an audience member, who claims to be 71, complains throughout the film despite being told repeatedly by other audience members to keep quiet.[7]
The onscreen images feature geometric patterns. The "cranky and clueless" old man is trying to make sense of them, and describes what he sees at various points, including a squiggle, a fence, a cockroach.[4] The old man finds that certain images remind him of thebiology classes of hisRussian boyhood. When two abstract shapes approach each other and unite, the old man sees it as amating sequence. "...They like each other. Sure. Lookit da sparks. Two things in love!... Could dis be the sex life of two things?"[8]
When the scene shifts from the "mating" to other abstract images, the old man gets bored. He proclaims the images must besymbolism, then adds that they are symbolic of junk.[8]
He eventually concludes that some of the images, depicting lips, are "dirty", obscene.[4][8][9] He admits at some point that he was looking for "a hot French picture", which he hoped would involvenudity. The implication is that the old man is in the wrong movie theater, probably one screeningart films.[4]
He also wonders why the creator of the film wasted his time with this. He points that this creator could instead do something meaningful, like driving a truck, or do something constructive, like working inshoemaking.[9]
Mel Brooks came to prominence as a performer by playing the2000 Year Old Man (1961). This"ancient Jewish gentleman" had a characteristic voice and manner of speaking; a "raspy", "gravelly" rambling voice with aYiddishaccent. To American audiences the accent implied a foreign-born background,German Jewish orEastern European.[10] InThe Critic, Brooks serves as the narrator. He essentially reprises his role of the 2000 Year Old Man with minor variations. The tone of voice is "marginally deeper", the dialogue-style of the original role is replaced with a fragmentedmonologue. But otherwise there is little to set apart the two roles.[10]
Brooks voices a character who is heard but not seen onscreen. He is unnamed, identified only as an old man from Russia.[10] The character is an audience member in amovie theater which is screening thefilm within a film. Said film is anexperimental film, the product ofavant-garde filmmaking. Clearly unfamiliar and unappreciative of such films, the old man delivers witty and insulting commentary.[10]Donald Weber points out that with his "contemptuous"common sense the old man unmasks the pretensions ofart criticism.[9]
James Monaco suggests that the film approaches matters offilm criticism in a humorous way. When the old man complains about the two dollars he paid to see this worthless film, he is touching on two subjects: what does the film audience get for the money they spend on a film; how can the "cinematic value" of a film be determined?[8] Monaco mentions the other film viewers, who seem to be enjoying the film within a film, which implies that there are subjective tastes when approaching a film, and consequently that the "cinematic value" is a matter ofrelative points of view.[8]
Kevin Murphy recalls the film as his introduction to the concept of riffing (MSTing). He describes the onscreen images as abstractpop-art animation, similar to that used inart classes and supposedlyeducational television. He describes the soundtrack as a droning and nondescript tune, somewhat reminiscent ofJazz andBaroque pop. And above them the voice of the old man provides riffing-style commentary, voicing what everybody else is thinking.[8] He finds that the film addresses a key subject of audience reaction. The audience members have paid to see the work of an artist, and discovered that said work is "awful". Then why should they be expected to"just... sit there, shut up, and just take it?". They can instead start riffing, in an attempt to make their film-going experience at least "tolerable, fun".[11]
The film debuted on 20 May 1963, at New York City's Sutton Theater, on Manhattan'sEast Side. The film benefited by being screened for weeks alongside a popular British comedy,Heavens Above! (1963).[4] The animated short received positive reviews by film critics, as a "spoof of the pseudo-art film". Positive reviews appeared in prominent newspapers such asThe New York Times and theNew York Herald Tribune.[4]
The film won theAcademy Award for Best Animated Short Film[12] at the36th Academy Awards.[13][4]
The film won aBAFTA Award for Best Animated Film from theBritish Academy of Film and Television Arts at the17th British Academy Film Awards.[14]
The film won aWest Germanyfilm festival award.