The job of the critic

The other day in The New York Times I came across this article by A.O. Scott. Noting that "Pirates of the Caribbean" grossed $130-odd million its first weekend, despite negative reviews, he limns the discrepancy between what critics think and how the public behaves, as well as some basic questions about taste, economics and the nature of popular entertainment.

I couldn't help but want to relate it to wine. Here's what hooked me:

"The modern blockbuster ... can be seen as the fulfillment of the democratic ideal the movies were born to fulfill. To stand outside that happy communal experience and, worse, to regard it with skepticism or with scorn, is to be a crank, a malcontent, a snob. So we [critics] are damned if we don’t. And sometimes, also, if we do. When our breathless praise garlands advertisements for movies the public greets with a shrug, we look like suckers or shills. But these accusations would stick only if the job of the critic were to reflect, predict or influence the public taste."

You mean, it isn't?? Not according to O.A.

"[It's] the job of the Hollywood studios, in particular of their marketing and publicity departments, and it is the professional duty of critics to be out of touch with — to be independent of — their concerns. These companies spend tens of millions of dollars to persuade you that the opening of a movie is a public event, a cultural experience you will want to be part of. The campaign of persuasion starts weeks or months — or, in the case of multisequel cash cows, years — before the tickets go on sale, with the goal of making their purchase a foregone conclusion by the time the first reviews appear."

Granted, wineries don't have tens of millions of dollars to spend on "persuasion" -- not even tens of thousands -- but shouldn't they share the same goal of making your purchase decision one that is independent of reviews, scores and medals?

Of course they should. But how . . . ?