Merchants of DoubtA documentary about how corporate interests cloud public health and environmental issues by creating doubts about scientific findings through the use of pundits and those claiming to be scientists; directed by Robert Kenner An Honest LiarA documentary about James “The Amazing” Randi, an illusionist who became a celebrated skeptic and debunker of paranormal and other pseudo-scientific claims; directed by Tyler Measom and Justin Weinstein This week’s review is submitted by the group Audiences for Critical Truth (ACT).* (It’s also the third installment regarding the nature of film criticism.) ACT is a think tank that’s composed of a group of experts on film and film criticism whose mission is to expose the folly of film criticism and the ways that critics distort what’s presented on the screen so as to propound a flawed — and sometimes politically skewed — understanding of the cinematic arts. In short, we review the reviewers so you don’t have to!

For many years ACT has taken issue with film critics and how they deceive the public. Film critics purport to be expert, objective evaluators and report to potential viewers what is and isn’t worth seeing. But we here at ACT have spent many years debunking such claims. We believe they simply reflect political and personal biases that are unsubstantiated and can even result in influencing the cinematic choices of filmgoers. At worst, if they are ever listened to, they could even influence what films are produced and offered for public consumption.They do this by invoking a series of techniques and tactics that seem innocuous to the casual observer but are in truth devious and malicious.

We have decades of evidence to support our claims. But, in the interest of brevity, we will examine just two recent films — the documentaries Merchants of Doubt and An Honest Liar — to make this case.

If critics like a film, they will find ways to overlook obvious flaws or even ridicule those who would point out such flaws. We found a document that is an authentic draft of a review that was written by a critic called Critic Man who writes for a newspaper called The Colorado Statesman. His draft concerned these very two documentary films. In it he writes that he happens to agree with those who claim that climate change is scientifically established and that paranormal phenomena are spooky hoaxes. Since these two films emphatically support these positions, Critic Man writes how much they are worthy of people’s attention, even though he confesses they resort to cinematic shortcuts and obvious documentary techniques that are pedantic and boring. As he writes in the margins of his draft, “Obfuscate the documentary elements, or at least suggest they come with the territory.” This “smoking gun” convinces us that critics selectively tout certain aspects and deemphasize others to get people to see what they want them to see.

Film critics also defend the fairly new phenomenon whereby documentaries have been transformed from objective explications of ideas and events into full-fledged editorials by the filmmakers. This transition happened so gradually and is now so widely used that it has become the new form of essentially all “documentaries.” As a result, gone are any efforts to present the other side, to critically examine statements and positions favorable to the filmmakers’ biases, or that matters depicted are not established with levels of certainty suggested by the films. Critics skirt this issue by simply succumbing to the editorializing, or, if they even mention the one-sidedness, suggest it’s to be expected. We have evidence of this from Critic Man’s draft as even though he suggests this is an issue, he writes, “Downplay the one-sidedness as audiences only want to have their preconceptions reinforced.” Here again is evidence of critical bias. These two cinematic documentaries/editorials give little or no time and attention to those who would present contrary positions — that some people can in fact communicate with the dead and make spoons bend or break using the power of telepathy, or that there is some scientific uncertainty associated with climate variability — which result in misleading the viewing public. That critics — like Critic Man — perpetuate such one-sided views makes them accomplices to such biases.

These two documentaries are also in love with their subjects. One is a “love letter” to a man who spent his life fooling the public through magic, illusion and escape-artistry (like a modern day Houdini) and yet became a person who purportedly exposes such deception by others. And the other is a “love letter” to those who blow the whistle on people who fool the public by casting doubt of and creating confusion on the findings of “legitimate” scientists regarding the ill effects of chemicals, products and phenomena like climate change. Critics excuse these obvious biases when they are lulled by such “hero worshiping.” Critic Man’s draft says it all when he writes, “Of course documentaries paint a rosy picture of their favored subjects, so move on to other items.” Here again the public is denied a fuller picture of the truth as critics perpetuate the fiction that these favored subjects are not also flawed and do not have a monopoly on the truth.Still another tactic is for critics to suggest that there is more to these films than meets the eye. Anyone who has paid even scant attention to the ill effects of things like cigarette smoking or flame retardant chemicals, or the debates regarding climate change or psychic spoon bending already knows that people will fabricate data or arguments — or deny counter evidence — so as to continue to harbor such beliefs or manipulate public opinion. In other words, there are no new revelations here. How many times do we have to see tobacco executives say under oath that their product is not addictive only to contradict that by showing documents proving they knew the opposite for years? How often do we have to be told that many climate change deniers/skeptics are in fact paid handsomely by fossil fuel companies that calls into question their motives and veracity? But critics hide these tired, well-worn concepts because they feel an obligation to review each film on its own terms and as if there has never been anything like it before. From Critic Man’s notes, “Review each film anew; the public’s memory unspools as the film does.”

Then there is the tactic of excusing films for engaging in the very deceptive techniques that they claim are being perpetrated by the bad folks. Mr. James “The Amazing” Randi is duped by his long-time companion when he learns that he is an illegal immigrant who perpetrated fraud by assuming someone else’s name and identity. It seems that he’s as easily deceived as those who shell out big bucks to mind readers. And that he continues to defend such illegal fraud again shows that he is not unlike others who would deny reality or the evidence right in front of their eyes. And the authors of Merchants of Doubt adhere so strongly to their beliefs that people paid by chemical and fossil fuel industries are beholden to the same that it becomes an unquestioned given. They also believe so strongly in climate change that they cannot even examine — or even strive to debunk — the deniers and in fact engage in the very character assassination techniques that they show are favored by the other side. Neutrality and objectivity is lost. Critics do the very same thing when they are so dazzled by a film that they deliberately ignore the ways in which the filmmakers resort to unquestioned dogma and unsubstantiated beliefs. They even ridicule the unexamined “dogma” of average filmgoers’ opinions when they produce box office bonanzas for products a critic detests or avoid in droves what the critic praises. But critics themselves get exceedingly dogmatic over what they prefer and what they pan.

Finally there’s politics. In Merchants of Doubt, the politics of the filmmakers are obvious — companies will lie to keep profits coming and create enough doubt to stymie or delay pernicious and socialist governmental regulation. In An Honest Liar the politics are more personal and involve the human need to make a leap of faith and believe something that may not be real or provable (or at least hard to disprove) but is comforting nonetheless. And, yes, critics engage in politics too. The very act of supporting or opposing a film is tinged with politics. But they won’t confess this. Instead their commentary sounds objectively obvious and their views are axiomatic and natural — unclouded by favoritism or personal proclivities and agendas. To do otherwise would have them sounding like those average filmgoers. Shying away from the political aspects is also safe as to do otherwise risks exposing their own political predilections and thereby alienate readers. So, the political is sublimated and murky. As scribbled by Critic Man in his draft, “Avoid political points; viewers bring that to the screen anyway.”

So, don’t be duped by critics. Take it from ACT, they are there to fool you and, like magicians or doubt peddlers, are motivated by the personal bias of having you subscribe to their opinions and interpretations. They can’t be trusted.

Doug Young is a the longtime film critic for The Colorado Statesman, exposing the folly in his own thinking for your amusement.

*This is a fictitious group, any similarities to actual groups is purely coincidental.