Ask JKM a Question #20: What is a "Guilty Pleasure?"

A reader, Robert, writes:

“Last September, APOLLO 18 debuted in theaters.  Critics lambasted the film.  It fared poorly at the box office, failing to capitalize on the success of other films in the found-footage horror subgenre, like the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies. APOLLO 18 might have played for about two weeks at my local multiplex, and then it was gone.” 

I loved it.  Of course, the movie has many flaws.  For one thing, the plot is pretty weak.  But it was the production design of the film that captivated me.  The filmmakers did an incredible job of recreating the technology and equipment of the Apollo program, right down to the grain of the film they used to make the movie.  

I recommended the movie to three or four different people, and they checked it out during its brief run.  None of them enjoyed it as much as me.  After reading various reviews of the film, I started to believe I was the only person in North America who liked the movie, and it got me thinking about the idea of “guilty pleasures.”  Did the term apply to APOLLO 18?  Was I supposed to use the guilty pleasure label to defend my enthusiasm for the movie?

I’ve always been annoyed whenever someone refers to a film or television show as a guilty pleasure.  If you enjoy a movie or a show, why do you have to feel guilty about it?  Do people label a movie or show a guilty pleasure because they’re too lazy to search for redeeming qualities with which to defend the film or program in question?   Or does the expression come from an innate, knee-jerk elitism at enjoying something deemed lowbrow by mainstream critics?

What do you think?”

Robert, this is a terrific and thoughtful question, and I am gratified to learn that I am not alone in my appreciation of Apollo18.  I loved and admired that movie -- despite the critical brickbats -- and reviewed it positively here.

Now, to the meat of your question: how to countenance the “guilty pleasure” nomenclature in terms of movie and television appreciation/criticism? 

I actually feel I am well-qualified to answer this particular question, because early in my writing career -- in 1997 -- I used the term, myself, to describe Battlestar Galactica (1978 – 1979) in my book, An Analytical Guide to Television’s Battlestar Galactica. 

I felt at the time that the term “guilty pleasure” was an adequate way of describing a program that had obvious, up-front flaws, but also was incredibly enjoyable and entertaining.  In the same book, I also came up with a better way of describing the series by noting that the original Battlestar had tremendous potential but didn’t always achieve or realize that potential. Today, I wish I had used that paradigm throughout the book rather than the “guilty pleasure” one which I featured in my introduction.

Honestly, looking back today -- as a far more experienced writer -- I feel that to describe a film or TV program is a “guilty pleasure” is to write from the unfortunate position of a defensive crouch.

Having used the term “guilty pleasure” myself, I can confirm that some writers label a movie or TV show as such because they know that their (positive) conclusion is going to be met with cries of disagreement and disapproval from the critical community or a segment of the viewing audience.   By throwing out the term “guilty pleasure” a writer reduces some of the heat, and throws a bone to the naysayers.

I suppose I outgrew, at some point, the need for approval from critical peers, and realized that “guilty pleasure” was a kind of a weasel expression that doesn’t really say anything about the work of art. 

It says much more, in fact, about the writer reviewing it.

I think you are absolutely correct that utilizing the term “guilty pleasure” is an easy way of not really addressing or excavating the reasons why you approve of a film or TV series.  It’s an easy shorthand or substitute for deep thinking, to be certain.  What I have come to understand is that I can -- if I gaze deep enough -- find the reasons why I feel as I do about a work of art.  Now, others may disagree with my conclusions, but if I explain those reasons well, at least they understand why I’m making the case, and whether or not that case is internally consistent. 

Labeling something a “guilty pleasure” is just, finally, a way of hedging your bets and deflecting (feared) criticism for one’s conclusions. There are many better ways of describing works of art, in my opinion.