Experience vs. Exposure
A veteran critic walks into a screening armed with decades of historical context. They see echoes of French New Wave, the ghost of a Kurosawa epic, or the DNA of 1970s paranoia thrillers. Their analysis
is built on a foundation of film history, cinematic language, and an understanding of a director's broader body of work. Their interpretation is a dialogue with the past. Gen Z, on the other hand, comes armed with unprecedented exposure. Raised in the digital age, their critical lens is shaped by a firehose of content—TikTok, YouTube video essays, and Instagram Reels. For them, a film doesn't just exist in conversation with other films; it exists in conversation with memes, viral trends, and the entire landscape of online culture. They might not catch a reference to an obscure Godard film, but they will instantly recognize a visual trope that’s been endlessly remixed on social media.
The Text vs. The Vibe
This difference in background leads to a fundamental split in what each group values. Traditional criticism often prioritizes the 'text'—the formal elements of a film. A review in a legacy publication might dissect the cinematography, praise the narrative structure, or analyze the editing rhythms. The core question is often, 'How well does the film achieve its artistic goals?' For many younger viewers, the primary metric is the 'vibe'. Is the film's aesthetic compelling? What is its emotional impact? How does it align with contemporary social and political values? A recent UCLA study highlighted that Gen Z audiences are particularly drawn to narratives that feature emotional vulnerability over traditional hypermasculinity. So, while a veteran critic might praise a film for its stoic, complex anti-hero, a Gen Z reviewer might critique it for glorifying 'toxic' behavior, viewing the same character through a different ethical framework.
The Medium Is the Message
Where film discussion happens is just as important as what is being said. The veteran critic operates in a world of print deadlines and 1,000-word reviews, a format that encourages deep, isolated analysis. The goal is to produce a definitive, authoritative take. Gen Z's critical landscape is collaborative, chaotic, and instantaneous. Platforms like Letterboxd and TikTok have democratized film opinion, transforming it from a one-way broadcast into a sprawling, interactive conversation. A review might be a 60-second video, a series of witty, context-free observations on Letterboxd, or a thread of GIFs. These formats favor shareability, humor, and passionate, immediate reactions over formal, detached critique. Studios have noticed this shift, sometimes giving influencers and TikTok creators access to premieres before traditional journalists, sparking tension between the two worlds.
A Case Study in Contrast
Imagine a film at this year's festival, like Ryusuke Hamaguchi's 'All of a Sudden', a three-hour, dialogue-heavy drama about human connection. A seasoned critic might praise its long, patient takes and its dense, philosophical conversations, finding beauty in its challenging runtime. They might see it as a masterful exploration of existential themes. A younger viewer, accustomed to the rapid-fire pacing of online content, might find the same film excruciatingly slow or self-indulgent. Their review might simply be 'the vibes were off' or a critique of its lengthy anti-capitalist monologue as being out of touch. Conversely, a genre film with a wild premise, like the horror-comedy 'Inherit' with its 'ancient centipede spirit', might be dismissed by some traditionalists as silly but celebrated by online communities for its bonkers, over-the-top energy. Neither reading is inherently wrong; they just prioritize different things.
