Daily TribuneCritics, whether journalists, bloggers, influencers or ordinary moviegoers, bring different experiences and perspectives to the same work. That diversity enriches the conversation.
FILM and theater reviewer Stephanie Mayo.
Many lament the decline of traditional criticism. They point to the rise of influencers, podcasters, content creators, Letterboxd reviewers and KOLs as evidence that serious discourse has lost its place.
I disagree.
Criticism did not die. It evolved.
THE FIRST REVIEW
My journey as a critic began long before social media dominated the conversation. In 2003, a newspaper published one of my film reviews. In 2004, I wrote reviews during lunch breaks in the pantry of a corporate office, driven by nothing more than passion for cinema. I later created a Multiply.com account, where my movie reviews shared space with my essays and photography.
A guy I dated, who was a fan of my Multiply blog, at the time suggested that I create a blog dedicated solely to film criticism. I took the advice. He even came up with the name: Film Check.
He disappeared. Film Check remained.
What began as a passion project became the foundation of a career. The blog opened doors to online forums, cinephile communities and opportunities that I could not have imagined when I first typed out those reviews.
THE EVOLUTION OF A CRITIC
In 2013, I became a film review columnist for One Philippines, a print newspaper-magazine for overseas Filipino workers, where I reviewed local films for a year. Later, the now-defunct US-based website Cinema Geekly discovered my work and invited me to review Hollywood films. Other opportunities followed. I eventually found a home at DAILY TRIBUNE and also became part of the New York Asian Film Festival’s Uncaged section.
My career grew alongside the evolution of criticism itself.
That is why I find little value in arguments that dismiss newer forms of criticism. Some continue to romanticize an earlier era and elevate a select group of critics as gatekeepers of taste. Others insist that only journalists, academics or film-school graduates deserve a voice in the conversation.
I reject that notion.
An opinion about art belongs to anyone who engages with it honestly and thoughtfully.
NO FEAR, NO FAVOR
That principle defines my work and explains why I value DAILY TRIBUNE’s philosophy of “Without Fear, Without Favor.”
The paper never asks me to soften a review. It never demands praise. It never treats criticism as an extension of publicity.
A critic’s duty is simple: Respond honestly to the work.
And that response cannot depend on free tickets, friendships with directors, access to celebrities, gift bags, T-shirts or tumblers. It cannot bend to pressure from producers or fear of online backlash.
Sometimes, an opinion earns praise. Sometimes it attracts accusations of bias, ragebait or bad faith. Such reactions come with the territory.
GRIT AND GROWTH
Grit means standing by an honest opinion even when it proves unpopular. Growth demands humility. Thousands of voices now compete for attention. No critic owns the conversation.
And I do not chase outrage. I do not manufacture controversy. I simply write.
I write because I love film. I write because I love theater. I write because art deserves conversation from many perspectives, not just one.
Too often, some dismiss opinions because a critic did not attend film school or has never made a film. While I have a background in film production and have produced and directed short films (and community theater) myself, that is not the basis of my criticism.
If creating art were a prerequisite for evaluating it, filmmakers would need psychology degrees before they write characters, medical degrees before they write doctors, and law degrees before they write lawyers.
Art does not demand such credentials. Neither does criticism. Art does not work that way. Neither does criticism.
Critics, whether journalists, bloggers, influencers or ordinary moviegoers, bring different experiences and perspectives to the same work. That diversity enriches the conversation.
And perhaps that is the true lesson of grit and growth.
Filmmakers create despite obstacles. Critics write despite resistance. Both serve art best when they act with integrity.
No fear. No favor.
The platform may change. The mission remains the same.
