Take it from me, popularity isn't all it's cracked up to be

A recent discussion with a friend about movie ratings on IMDb.com got me thinking about how misleading they can be. Often times, they represent little more than the accumulated results of a gigantic movie popularity contest. At worst, they skew to 6.2/10 meaninglessness. Not surprisingly, the demographic that populates these “scores” inflate films made in the last 30 years disproportionally to those made before that time. To illustrate my point, the respected American Film Institute's top 100 films split by decade as follows;


2000s: 1
1990s: 11
1980s: 8
1970s: 20
1960s: 17
1950s: 16
1940s: 11
1930s: 12
1920s: 3
1910s: 1

….as compared to the films in the IMDb.com Top 100, by decade

2000s: 23
1990s: 20
1980s: 13
1970s: 11
1960s: 8
1950s: 12
1940s: 9
1930s: 3
1920s: 1
1910s: 0

The IMDb list noticeably skews to the last three decades, again not surprisingly given the demographic, but it also often skews to a different kind of film than those on most critic's lists. A significant number of people I know factor the IMDb ratings into the process of choosing what to watch, often citing the “score” as being relatively important in their decision. Bad move. Rating by popular vote rarely speaks to the quality of a given picture and more to the point, probably contributes in no small way to the perpetual dumbing-down of the cinematic audience in recent decades. Viewers seem to vote based on how easy a film is to watch while critics key on a film's comparative strengths. This seemingly subtle difference, taken together with the huge numbers of people that visit the IMDb site, lends an unwarranted credibility to these ratings when in fact, at least as a measure of quality, they are virtually useless.

To cite an example of how the IMDb Top 250 works (or more accurately, doesn't), let's look at its top-rated film. Number 1 on the list is The Shawshank Redemption from 1994, a fine film to be sure, but hardly the best movie ever made. In fact, if you scan various critics and viewer/reader polls, a rather odd thing happens, critics rarely include it at all and if they do, it's well down the list (75th on the AFI 100, it's never made the Sight and Sound poll, or Piero Scaruffi's top 1000 films, or the Mr. Showbiz Critic's Top 100). It regularly, however, shows up on various viewer's polls, often up near the top, which begs the question; why the disparity? How can a film be at the top of the heap by one measurement and not even make the top 1000 in another?

I'd like to speculate that there are two very different yardsticks being deployed by two distinctly different groups when it comes rating a film. The typical viewer votes on how a movie makes them feel, while a critic (at least the better ones) looks at how a film is structured and its merits in comparison to other films. The best films from a critical standpoint are often complex and challenging works that expand the cinematic experience. The viewer, on the other hand, would appear to be seeking entertainment, polish, escapism, emotional connection and most importantly, satisfaction. Certain films gain credibility in both camps, but mostly “popular” and “acclaimed” mean different things. My problem with IMDb's ratings is just how much stock people put in them these days. It's a step up from choosing a movie based on its box office performance, but not much of one.

If your goal is to watch films of merit, films worthy of your time, films that invite participation, or films that expanded the medium, you need to exercise caution with the IMDb rating system. A much better way to explore film possibilities is to find a critic who likes that same kinds of films you do, or visit something like Rottentomatoes.com or MetaCritic.com where an a cross-section of critic's scores are used to tabulate an aggregated rating for each film. To be sure, different films will appeal to some and not others. What needs to be reiterated and recognized is this... a popularity contest defines a film's accessibility, not it's cinematic merits. There's nothing startling here I realize, but differentiating good films such as The Dark Knight, Fight Club, The Usual Suspects and Shawshank from great films like Chinatown, Night of the Hunter, Sunset Boulevard and Apocalypse Now is something that IMDb's viewer rating system does an extraordinarily poor job of.

One of the best lists of great films published can be linked to here....

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films.htm

The IMDb top 10 list and the film's placement on the TSPDT top 1000 speaks to the differences between critical evaluation and popularity.

IMDb #1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994) TSPDT #583
IMDb #2. The Godfather (1972) TSPDT #6
IMDb #3. The Godfather: Part II (1974) TSPDT #15
IMDb #4. Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo. (1966) TSPDT does not appear
IMDb #5. Pulp Fiction (1994) TSPDT #130
IMDb #6. Schindler's List (1993) TSPDT #203
IMDb #7. 12 Angry Men (1957) TSPDT #473
IMDb #8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) TSPDT #149
IMDb #9. The Dark Knight (2008) TSPDT #890
IMDb #10. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) TSPDT #104

An inverse comparison is interesting too

TSPDT #1 Citizen Kane (1941) IMDb #32
TSPDT #2 Vertigo (1958) IMDb #41
TSPDT #3 Rules of the Game (1939) IMDb # does not appear in top 250
TSPDT #4 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) IMDb #19
TSPDT #5 8½ (1963) IMDb #168
TSPDT #6 Godfather, The (1972) IMDb #2
TSPDT #7 Searchers, The (1956) IMDb # does not appear in top 250
TSPDT #8 Seven Samurai, The (1954) IMDb #15
TSPDT #9 Singin' in the Rain (1952) IMDb #75
TSPDT #10 Battleship Potemkin (1925) IMDb # does not appear in top 250

A couple of weeks ago, I read David Cronenberg's fairly disparaging comments about the negative effect he feels the Internet has had on film criticism. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I think he might have been speaking to this same issue... the popularity vs. analysis dilemma. I've been noticing more and more lately that people seem far less interested in conversing than broadcasting (notwithstanding the obvious hypocrisy of making such an observation toward the end of a 1000 word blog entry). Perhaps it's a function of generational disconnect, but possibly one of the implications of endlessly telling the world what we think is a growing inability to listen to what others have to say. I think it's possible that the film industry has fallen victim to trying to placate and mollify an audience that isn't as receptive to provocation as it once was. The danger of continuing down this path is self-evident. With some exceptions, mainstream film making has begun to resemble an artistic suburbia – rows of big, imposing facades with very little soul and nothing to say.

They're pretty popular though.

Sporgey