10 · 21 · 26

“Criticism Is About Igniting the Imaginaries”: Dialogues Between France and Mexico at the 24th FICM

Omar Sosa

In celebration of the bicentennial of diplomatic relations between Mexico and France, the 24th edition of the Morelia International Film Festival hosted the discussion “80 Years of Film Criticism: Dialogues Between France and Mexico.” Under the moderation of French critic and producer Jean-Christophe Berjon, the panel featured Mexican critics Fernanda Solórzano and Alonso Díaz de la Vega.

“Good afternoon, everyone. Bonjour tout le monde. We may not be speaking both languages today, English and French, but we will certainly be thinking from both sides of the Atlantic,” Berjon said as he opened the event, after expressing his gratitude to the panelists and the French Embassy in Mexico for its support.

The occasion for the dialogue was the commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the Syndicat Français de la Critique de Cinéma (SFCC), an organization founded to safeguard freedom of thought and film creation through initiatives such as Cannes Critics’ Week, a parallel event to the Cannes Film Festival, created by the same association. From this starting point, the conversation addressed the current state of film criticism, including the ethical tensions generated by the market and the algorithmic culture of social media, the shortcomings of film exhibition in Mexico, and the need to understand criticism not as a guide for consumption but as a practice capable of igniting dialogue.

Discussing the value of both individual and collective work in the development of a critical perspective, Solórzano drew a distinction between two moments in her professional practice: “The first is a very solitary one, almost necessarily solitary [...]. This is an introspective process and that can become a disadvantage in these times of immediacy.” In this initial stage, the challenge lies in transforming a personal opinion into sustainable critical arguments capable of supporting an evaluation of the film.

The second stage involves sharing the text into a collective space in search of a sense of community and belonging, “a sense of belonging that may be rooted in passion, curiosity, and the willingness to discuss a phenomenon.” In describing this shift, Solórzano noted a persistent paradox in Mexico: There are critics who strive for intellectual autonomy while working within corporate environments that do not enjoy that same independence, a condition that ultimately determines editorial agendas. .

“Being a critic is about more than simply promoting culture; that is the domain of journalism. It is not that one is better than another; rather, we fulfill different roles [...]. The critic finds themselves in a sort of unequal power relationship and under a constant tension with the filmmaker. In that respect, we are indeed alone,” Díaz de la Vega remarked. According to the author, this sense of isolation intensifies when there is no connection with readers, not because of lack of obedience or agreement, but because of the inability to find people with whom to engage in dialogue.

Both critics questioned the ties of dependency between traditional press or digital content creators and film distributors. “If a given newspaper wants to keep getting access to an exclusive interview with a particular actor or actress [...], it will inevitably have to play by the rules of never criticizing the film,“ warned Solórzano. In agreement, Díaz de la Vega drew a parallel: “Entertaining journalism should maintain the same relationship with senators, governors, and presidents.”

Following this train of thought, they stressed how important it is to differentiate the critic from the influencer: whereas the former assumes the duty of scrutinizing and questioning images, the latter operates as a commercial promotion channel. 

When Berjon asked them how to push back against the market’s desire to control what is thought, what is said, and how films are received, Solórzano appealed to the emancipation of the viewer: “It is a call to the readers themselves, to the audiences themselves, a call to discern the origins from which opinions might be coming.” She contrasted today’s digital spaces, where sponsored content often goes unlabeled, and traditional print media, where editorial content and advertisements were always clearly delineated.

“Unfortunately, we’re getting to a point where we are an endangered species. Film criticism is experiencing a difficult period because paying for opinions has been normalized,” Díaz de la Vega stated. Furthermore, he warned of the risk of deception when certain influencers advertise themselves as critics, leading audiences to believe they are getting a personal and well-founded opinion.

Solórzano emphasized that drawing this distinction is not equivalent to invalidating formats or establishing hierarchies. She acknowledged in digital creators the ability to attract younger audiences and introduce them to reflections that frequently go against the official discourse. However, she pointed out the difficulty she has faced when bringing her work into digital media: “It happens to me very frequently that people ask me, ‘But did you like it or not?’ Sometimes I don’t even have an answer for that, and that makes things very uncomfortable for whoever is promoting us.”

For his part, Díaz de la Vega reiterated his point about the importance of maintaining a skeptical approach toward the critic, and of approaching films out of a desire to debate the text, the critic, among critics, or the film itself. On the other hand, he noted that the critic must avoid falling into the role of traffic cop by telling people whether they should or shouldn’t watch the film, because all movies deserve to be seen. For him, the work of a critic consists of sharing with people a way to approach a film that goes beyond whether you simply liked it or not: “It’s about igniting the imaginaries,” which opens up conversations about many other issues, such as aspects of everyday life or politics.

Berjon added that part of the enthusiasm shared by critics lies, of course, in discussing the films they enjoy, but above all in the opportunity to open up dialogues and discussions on certain topics by encouraging audiences to watch those films.

Solórzano brought up the complications that arise from film distribution and exhibition in Mexico, where numerous films she wishes to discuss fail to premiere on Mexican screens. When selecting which titles to address, she favors those accessible to the general public in order to generate dialogue and encourage going to the movies: “Not everything that gets released is always something I would choose to write about, yet I like to believe that some value can still be extracted from those titles. When films are able to serve as a bridge to other films, they function as a small Trojan horse.”

Díaz de la Vega criticized the absence of cultural policies aimed at safeguarding the diversity of titles reaching Mexican theaters, and outlined the dilemma facing the Cineteca Nacional, which has been forced to screen strictly commercial films in order to compensate for budget cuts and generate its own box-office income.

He also mentioned the increasingly prevalent situation in which critics are expected to provide a kind of consumer guide. Consequently, the way he sees it is that the only option left for critics around the world is a kind of activism. That is to say, taking a clear stand in what you write about, grounded in arguments that distinguish different points of view and invite debate is a fundamental component of critical practice, because “if you are on social media, you don’t know anything about the history of criticism, and your idea of criticism—especially when you’re 16 or 17 years old—is shaped by what you observe among influencers, from these people who always speak well of everything. By doing so, you will come to believe that a critic is merely someone who hypes films.”

When talking about bullying audiences, Berjon explained that visual literacy is essential to the French educational model. In France, special programs are held throughout the year so that middle and high school students go to the movies and experience movies they probably wouldn’t watch on their own, accompanied by an intervention from a critic who gives them the tools to receive, discuss, and even reject the film. “Do you or do you not feel that it could be part of your mission—from your own trenches—to say, ‘Let’s open things up, build excitement, whet their appetite’ among student audiences?” he asked.

Alonso Díaz de la Vega shared his thoughts on these educational programs, which he believes should be a solution implemented by the State, though their shortcomings are rooted in deeper issues: in the very conception of education—not as a mechanism to produce intelligent and critical citizens, but workers who serve the system. As an example, he pointed to literature programs that have failed in their goal of encouraging engagement with canonical literary texts, leaving bestsellers as the true cultural phenomena.

Through his work, he seeks a form of criticism that also functions somewhat as a form of pedagogy, a criticism that shares a way of looking, so that the reader knows there are many more possibilities than simply “I liked it or I didn’t like it” or “I related to it or I didn't relate to it”—instead, that there is an entire unstable, strange, and mutating language that can be understood if you pay enough attention to it.

To this, Berjon added: “It is not a matter of lowering the standards one should expect from a film or from critical commentary [...], but rather opening up the space so that it can be celebratory.” Solórzano echoed this viewpoint, stressing how important it is to make the spaces where films are screened and discussed safe spaces for everyone’s opinions, instead of making people feel like they don’t know enough to express a view. In that regard, Díaz de la Vega highlighted the accessible tone that Solórzano brings to her video essays on Cine Aparte, which helps tear down some of the stigmas associated with critics.

The conversation concluded in a lighthearted environment when Solórzano recalled her earlier texts, which she described as unreadable and written just to impress other critics: “I think we’ve all been through that in the early stages, mostly out of insecurity,” she added. By a way of example, she referenced Anthony Lane, saying she loved reading him precisely due to the entertaining nature of his writing without ever sacrificing rigorous argumentation.

Before taking questions from the audience, Díaz de la Vega concluded with a warning to the film community itself: “We’re at the point where we have to be the ones responsible for promoting ourselves and spreading the culture of criticism. If we isolate ourselves further through abstruse language and this grumpy old man attitude, what we’ll end up achieving is to alienate the audience even more.”