Inspired by this thread:
How long has it been a convention, when criticizing a film, to speak as if the film – not the director or writer or star, but the film itself – were a person? “This movie tries too hard.” “This movie keeps its tongue in its cheek even at the tensest moments.” Etc.
Is this a defensible convention?
To what other art forms, if any, is it applied?
Well, I’ve heard things like “This painting really speaks to me” or “The opera definitely overstayed its welcome” or “This song kicks ass”. That’s all examples of p/a art forms.
I think it might be more of a convention in film criticism because film is more a collaborative art than any others. Sure, albums may have producers and arrangers, operas and plays have casts & crews, but in terms of sheer number of personnel involved in the creation of an individual work, nothing can really compete with your average film.
This means that it’s particularly difficult to assign larger ownership/responsibility to a movie’s merits and failings. The auteur theory has in many ways helped cement the Director as the driving force behind a film (not without some justification), but with screenwriters, producers, actors, and technicians making significant contributions, it may ultimately be easier to assign the movie its own personality, because a singularly distinctive “real world” personality may not always be available.