"The Searchers"'s besmirchers

This fellow seems to think John Ford's "The Searchers" is an inartful piece of offal.

This is the problem and the question:
"Its reputation lies elsewhere, with two influential and mutually reinforcing constituencies: critics whose careers emerged out of the rise of "film studies" as a discrete and self-respecting academic discipline, and the first generation of filmmakers—Scorsese and Schrader, but also Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, and George Lucas—whose careers began in film school. The hosanna chorus for The Searchers is impossible to imagine, in other words, without the formalized presence of film in the university curriculum. The question, then, is: Why did the curriculum attach so intensely to so obviously flawed a movie?"

And the answer, in the form of another question is, "Haven't you ever noticed how terrible method acting and method actors are?"

The love directors claim for the movie "The Searchers" might represent a shift towards the professionalization of movie production--in the sense that it has come to require film school credentials and, as a result perhaps, films are more formalized, sterilized, and shitty. But Hollywood, when it achieved pride of place as the locus of the worldwide movie industry following WWII, became one long navel-gazing session and as a result anything that some small cadre of trendsetters deems acceptable becomes amplified until it is exalted. Thus, the "art" of "acting" for the last half-century has been at times akin to the random shrieking of howler monkeys; at times it has been the beeps and boops of ineffectual machinery; mainly it has been flabby and awkward and unabashedly ridiculous, like a greased-up fat Marlon Brando.

Why is it so beloved? Why do art fags get all faggy over art?