Critics for weekly magazines generally have a limited space to write on; whether they want it or not, they are limited in the number of words. Given this limit, criticism that explicates too much on description of work often fails to expand on meaningful interpretation of work. Therefore, works that are familiar to its audience, which requires relatively little description, leave more room for critics to convey meaningful judgment to its audience. Thus, the level of audience’s familiarity with the criticized work contributes to both style and quality of criticism. Two different critiques, one by Anthony Lane on the Korean film “The Handmaiden”, and another by Hilton Als on Amy Schumer’s performance, explicitly show how the nature of criticism is shaped by audience’s familiarity with the criticized work. “The Handmaiden,” as a distant foreign film, requires its criticism to spend much time describing its plot and its foreign background that it fails to reach a clear, meaningful interpretation. On the other hand, Amy Schumer’s familiarity with the general audience helps Als to talk more about implication and meaning of her work rather than about description.

“The Handmaiden” is a Korean film directed by one of the most acclaimed Korean directors, Park Chan-Wook. The film is centered around a handmaiden’s affair with her master, Lady Hideko, who is under the protection of her mysterious and dangerous guardian, Kouzouki. As she grows older, Lady Hideko increasingly senses the danger of living under her wicked and perverted guardian. Sookee, a handmaiden newly hired to serve Lady Hideko, feels pity and love for her. Together with Lady Hideko, Sookee eventually escapes Kouzouki’s influences through the series of dangerous and bold plans. When the film was first released, it was noted for its explicitly sexual scenes between Sookee and Lady Hideko. With director Park’s remark that their relationship is not of two homosexuals, but of two human beings who are attracted to each other, his film tries to show a relationship that transcends lovers’ sexual orientation.

Anthony Lane’s review aptly summarizes the basic plot of “The Handmaiden.” He describes what happens and lays out the tension between different characters. Furthermore, Lane spends his time discussing the director Park Chan-Wook’s previous works, such as Old Boy, providing where “The Handmaiden” stands in terms of Park’s work spectrum. However, spending too much time on plot and director, Lane’s critique lacks in its interpretation of the film. Though he tries to throw in bits and pieces of his own interpretation as he moves through the plot, they do not seriously question or interpret the crucial themes of the film. In the last paragraph, he tries more in-depth analysis of the film as he says the secret of the film is “its love of secrets.” However, such analysis is too short to achieve anything and falls short of touching the central theme of this film: the relationship between Sookee (the handmaiden) and Lady Hideko.

Because his critique is about an unfamiliar (at least to the popular American audience) Korean film set in the complex historical background of the Japanese occupation of Korea during the early 20^th century, Lane endeavors to summarize and let his readers understand what the movie is about; he even mentions the history necessary to understand what is going on in the film. In the process of doing this in a weekly magazine section, Lane fails to delve deeper into the central theme of the movie, or to provide a meaningful judgment. He provides necessary knowledge in understanding a foreign film, but in doing so, he fails to spend time interpreting its implication and conveying the film’s sensibility.

Hilton Als’s critique on Amy Schumer’s performances is more straightforward and relevant to providing a meaningful judgment to its audiences. Hilton Als interprets how the elements of sexual degradation, the language of schoolboy misogyny, and perversity are apparent in Schumer’s performances. Als then expresses how Schumer’s performance still can incorporate her identity as a woman, without degrading her own sexuality and relying on misogyny; he encourages her to talk more about her stories of her father, her time as a waitress, and so on, rather than to joke about misogynic and sexual stereotypes. His criticism is directed more towards providing a meaningful implication of her performances, and the direction that she should strive toward.

Compared to Lane’s critique on film, Als has certain advantages in writing about a familiar performance rather than about a foreign film. He starts his critique, “Amy Schumer is on tour just now, and if you’ve loved her on TV, as I have, I suggest you see her perform live.” As such, the premise of his criticism is that general American audiences are familiar with Amy Schumer. Because the audience is familiar with Schumer, Als omits writing about the extensive description of her performance, and starts right away with interpreting her performance’s implication.

Overall, “The Handmaiden” critique does not penetrate the film; it is only superficial. Though Lane’s review achieves to provide the general knowledge about the plot and its director, it falls short of providing a meaningful judgment; Lane provides knowledge, but he does not provide any unique sensibility in approaching this film. He has the task to both familiarize and provide sensibility to the New Yorker audiences, and it is a difficult one especially when the film is Korean. On the other hand, because the general audience of the New Yorker is much more familiar with the American stand-up comedian Amy Schumer, Hilton Als focuses more on talking about his own taste toward Schumer’s performances. To Als, knowledge that is needed to provide a meaningful judgment is already embedded, to a certain extent, in the general audience.

As such, audience’s familiarity with the criticized work influences the nature of criticism. If critics can write on and on in a weekly magazine, they are much more likely to achieve both description and interpretation; however, because the number of words are limited, they need to balance between the amount of description and the amount of interpretation. When audiences are familiar with the work, there is less need for description, which helps the critic to write more about interpretation. Critics by themselves cannot determine the distance between critics and audiences. Rather, the distance between the criticized work and its audience contributes to how a critic stays with his or her audience. For the critic to stand with the audiences, the audiences need to be familiar with the work; you cannot talk to someone in a familiar tone if that person has no or scarce idea about the work in general.