The Solitary Life of a Film Critic

Film critic Kim Do-hoon describes his profession as inherently "crooked," a disposition he believes is necessary for critical analysis. He notes a common paradox: while most people engage in activities similar to critics, they often harbor a strong dislike for critics themselves. This sentiment, he suggests, stems from the perception that critics profit without directly creating anything.

Kim recounts his two decades in the field, starting as a magazine journalist before becoming a freelance critic. He observes that the landscape has changed significantly, with social media amplifying public discourse and making critics more accessible targets for criticism. While acknowledging that being criticized is part of the job, he draws a line at personal threats, recalling a past experience of receiving death threats over a negative review.

The article delves into the financial realities and diminishing status of film critics. Kim points out that critics are among the lowest-paid professionals in the film industry, with fewer print publications offering opportunities for critical writing. He also notes a trend where many film writers now opt for titles like "film journalist" or "film columnist" to avoid the negative connotations associated with "critic," while conversely, popular film YouTubers sometimes embrace the title to gain perceived authority.

Kim addresses a recent controversy surrounding director Na Hong-jin's film 'Hope,' where he faced significant backlash for his positive review. He refutes the common assumption that critics offer favorable reviews due to personal friendships with filmmakers. Kim asserts that such relationships are rare and often strained by the critical process itself. He emphasizes that his own critical assessments are based on the films themselves, not on personal connections, and that the idea of critics being swayed by favoritism is a misconception.