Who knew there was more drama to be had on the internet that didn’t necessarily involve Oscar blogs? Well, AJ Schnack has dug one up. Give you a dolla if you can figure out who swirls in the eye of this latest shitstorm. The Caped Crusader knows how to drive up traffic on his blog by generated controversy. As far as I can tell, Patrick Goldstein criticized Manohla Dargis for her pan of the Weinstein Co’s The Reader. Then Spoutblog’s Karina Longworth got into the dogfight and finally, Schnack gave the play-by-play and practiced diplomacy in a Rodney King-esque “can’t we all just get along?”
Dargis is a controversial figure, much more so than Kenneth Turan. She didn’t like Slumdog Millionaire — there is no pleasing a critic, seriously. Those of us sheep grumble now and again but Dargis’ readers know, by now I think, to take her reviews with a grain of salt — meaning, her reviews tend to be more about her and less about the subject, I’ve always thought, which is why her reviews are interesting to read. It’s the Manohla Dargis show — and it’s a fascinating, entertaining one. It always feels a bit like going down the rabbit hole.
For more mindless rambling on this topic, click the jump link.
Dargis ascended because her writing, on its own, was that good. The trouble with critics who savage movies, in my opinion, is that they aren’t always right about it. Years later, they might revisit the same film and find their opinion has changed. Intelligence must be tempered with a bit of humility as age settles in. Maybe, maybe not. I’ve always wondered if, when Dargis praises a terrible film or dismembers a good one, whether she is absolutely certain of her opinion – or if she’s just another wrestler, in the fight for sport and blood. I have to think she is in it for the art of criticism.
Goldstein is right when he says what studios fear is her persuasiveness, or her power. Dargis can’t be bought off, she can’t be charmed at a lunch and she isn’t starstruck (oh maybe just a little by Clint Eastwood). It’s gotten her all the way to the New York Times. All she is doing is telling the truth, her own impression of what she saw.
I might add, though, that in this competitive climate everyone is out for themselves. The Weinstein/Rudin story probably did more damage to The Reader than Dargis’ review — a good film can survive one critics’ impression, even if it’s Dargis at the Times. And Golstein is the one who brought that story to light. He’s therefore shaming Dargis for exactly what he himself did in the name of “telling the truth.”
I like Schnack’s final paragraph on the matter:
In an age when film critics are underpaid, being bought out, termed out and forced out, I say let’s raise a glass for the good writers who love movies, whether we agree or disagree with their judgments. The democratization of film writing has reduced the power that critics once held – which is likely one of the key reasons (along with newspaper cutbacks) for the perilous state of film criticism. But the ability of so many voices – whether in the NY Times or on our humble blog – to join the conversation encourages us to engage, to expand, confront and continue the conversation for any film that’s worth a damn.
No Response for "Critics – A Nearly Extinct but Vicious Species"
To be a trusted critic, one has to earn it. Manohla Dargis hasn’t.
Personally, I disagree with most of her reviews.
And I find her writings “more about her” (e.g. Sex And The City The Movie review).
She’s not that good of a writer.
She’s given more credibility because she’s writing for THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Dargis had reservations about Slumdog Millionaire but she also acknowledged “He [Boyle] plucked my heartstrings in Slumdog Millionaire with well-practiced dexterity, coaxing laughter and sobs out of each sweet, sour and FALSE note”. I am not saying it is a rave but it isn’t a bashing either.
Dargis is a wonderful reviewer who, while idiosyncratic, actually gives due time and thought to the movies instead of herself. Her review of “Australia” for instance – a forgettable movie – was unforgettable; while giving a spot-on assessment, she was totally respectful of the intent and gave a fascinating commentary on what postmodern cinema could be, the values of kitsch, and Baz’s sincerity. She’s one of those reviewers who says what was in the back of your mind, but says it much better, and then says more. Also, not everyone loved “Slumdog”–the formulaic cheesiness can be a bit much.
A more appropriate movie “reviewer” that fits this description (movie reviewers who don’t like movies and spend the article babbling to see how amusing they can be) would be Anthony Lane. Great writer. Terrible reviewer. I don’t think he’s ever liked a movie (not even Star Wars). I will never know whether I should see or would like the movie he’s reviewing, because he hates them all with the same cynicism.
But the one I can always trust and admire is, of course, the great Roger Ebert
I take any critic’s opinion with a grain of salt, no matter how gifted I think they are. The fact is, there isn’t a person on the planet whose opinion and mine will match in every instance.
I don’t use critics to help me decide whether or not to see a film — I have my own instincts for that. What a good critic does is offer an intelligent interpretation of the work at hand which either challenges or affirms my own — but always expands it. In that regard, Dargis is one of the best out there.
Bottom line: Dargis was right about The Reader.
Karina Longworth’s dirty knife envy fails to cut very deep.
I have to add that she is one of the better reviewers and she is worth the read.
Not sure what you’re saying, RichardA. Longworth is “one of the better reviewers” and Dargis “not that good of a writer”?
You’re so funny today.
Alas, she was dead wrong about Australia.
possibly, but we can find a movie that every critic has been dead wrong about though, can’t we? If “wrong” is even a word that we want to apply to someone’s personal taste.
The NYT think they’ve hired Pauline Kael, who famously never apologized for her highly subjective, visceral, onanistic, even sensual reactions to films. Kael, of course, promoted auteur theory (by fighting over it with Andrew Sarris), eventually came to Hollywood to work with perhaps the biggest A-lister of the day (Warren Beatty), and maybe most importantly for the NYT, essentially forced the paper of record’s critic of record, Bosley Crowther, out of a job over Bonnie and Clyde. The Times sees itself staying ahead of the curve, never letting a Crowther-Kael happen again…but I’ve seen Pauline Kael. I was a friend of Pauline Kael’s writing. Manohla, you’re no Pauline Kael.
Pauline Kael wrote for The New Yorker, not the New York Times. She only worked alongside Warren Beatty at Paramount for a few short months, around the time that Reds was in development. She left L.A., and returned as The New Yorker’s critic for another decade.
Hard to see how Pauline Kael could’ve forced Bosley Crowther out of a job, since she never wrote a word for the Times, as far as I know — but then, I’m not “a friend of her writing” as much as you claim to be, Daniel.
Film criticism is dying in part because too many of us judge the quality of a reviewer by how often we agree with them.
We watch a movie, form an opinion and seek out the like-minded on the internet. We can use such a base form as IMDb comments for that.
And intelligent reviewers who disagree with us, challenge our opinion and threaten us. These are usually film critics like Ms. Dargis. That simply will not do. They have to go!
I think it’s been well-documented here that I disagree with Salon critic Stephanie Zacharek several times a year. She’s still my favorite critic and I crave reading her reviews like a smack addict needs the needle.
I don’t read critics to find out what’s worth seeing. I think we all have the ability to decide what we like on our own, without having a critic hold our hand when we cross the street. It’s comfy to find a review that makes us think “yes! exactly!” but the only reason I’d stop reading a critic is if their writing bores me or becomes aggravating on a weekly basis. Dargis and Zacharek are anything but boring.
But who really cares if some critics are your opinion or not? I´ve seen so many high priased films that turned out to be overhyped that I hardly do care anymore- I check out the metacritic-score to see how some movies are doing, but that´s it.
In the end, everyone has to form his own opinion.
Ryan – everything I wrote there is 100% true. Crowther had panned Bonnie and Clyde, as had Time magazine; Kael had loved and promoted it (as “the most exciting American movie since the Manchurian Candidate”). When college kids embraced it and turned it into an unexpected smash hit, Time basically started the New Hollywood by giving it that name, putting Bonnie and Clyde on their (Dec 1967) cover, and – this is key – apologizing for their earlier pan. This hasn’t really been done before or since. 41 years ago this week, everyone was asking if Crowther would follow Time and apologize or change or admit that some of these new films were ground-breaking. Instead, that week, he left the NYT. (His last review, interestingly, mildly lauded “The Graduate.”) And at the same time, Kael was hired full-time by the one you mentioned, The New Yorker.
So no, Kael did not call the Times and have Crowther fired. She led (or was savvy enough to seem to lead) the climate change that led to him leaving.
I mention the Beatty episode because even as an aborted stint in Tinseltown, this is still a high-water mark for critics – can anyone imagine today Will Smith or Ben Stiller (the biggest stars, right?) calling a film critic and paying her/him to help develop his next movie? Longworth is right to dismiss the canard “if you know so much why don’t you just make your own film?” but the truth is that most critics wouldn’t mind being paid to consult a bit. Would you Ryan?
Funnily, I never seem to agree with Zacharek. So much so that now I don’t even bother reading her reviews. I wish Anthony Lane would review more for New Yorker than he usually does. His review for In Search of a Midnight Kiss is a lesson in writing. This year, David Denby was more in action. I also sorely miss Jonathan Rosenbaum’s reviews for Chicago Reader. I know he writes regularly on the website but I can’t seem to follow it. Also, few can beat Peter Bradshaw in humour. Read RocknRolla. Howlarious!
Bosley Crother had a famous meltdown over Bonnie and Clyde. He’d panned it, and then it became a huge hit, so he wrote article after article for the Times, making a complete ass of himself, desperately trying to bash it and defend his weak position. He’d been a relic for many years, and this was the last straw with Times readers. The NYT was flooded with complaints and Crowther retired. (Pressure from Hollywood is rumored to have been part of his downfall, as well.)
It’s true, Pauline Kael began her full-time reign at The New Yorker the same year. The Chicago Seven were indicted in 1968 too, and students in Paris nearly overthrew the French government in May. Yes, all thanks to Pauline Kael.
If you hook me up with a job consulting in Hollywood, we can stop bickering
I trust Dargis when she likes a film. Usually when she loves a film, it’s worthy of her passion. (Her love for Eastwood, though, really clouds her judgment.)
When she dislikes a film, she seems to take it personally.
Her review of The Reader was not totally unfair but after seeing the movie, I think she was unnecessarily dismissive. It’s a much better film than I expected. And she didn’t seem to give credit to the fine acting in the film. I didn’t even know Lena Olin gave a striking performance in The Reader until I went to see it. Certainly the reviews are saying anything.
If the Weinstein-Rudin dialogue did any harm to the film, it was more within the film industry I think. I know NYC isn’t a typical film audience, but The Reader screening was packed when I attended and several audience members stayed through the credits so they weren’t ready to bolt out of the theater once the movie was over.
As for Anthony Lane, I love his writing but talk about ego. His film reviews are always showing how witty he is at the expense of everyone involved with the film. Sometimes his negative comments are valid–other times, I wonder.
Dargis is a fine writer, but I find myself disagreeing with her reviews more often than not. “The Reader” is a perfect example: it’s more about her and her personal views on a horrific event in our history rather than the film itself. Her take on Winslet’s performance was very strange as well.
Whoa Ryan – defensive much? I bring up Kael only in the context of Manohla Dargis. I’m saying 1) the Times thinks that it hired the next Kael – here’s why it wants that. I’m also saying 2) Dargis ain’t Kael – though I like Dargis (and Zacharek, for that matter). Want to disagree with either of those more debatable points, or keep with the cheap shots?
We can talk about how you know The Mind of The Times so intimately that you’re convinced “it thinks it hired the next Kael.”
My god, Pauline Kael stopped writing 17 years ago. One would think the Times would find something else to obsess about.
I’ll concede that probably dozens of critics wish they could become “the next Kael” but it’s been nearly two decades and nobody’s come remotely close yet.
Critics are a dying breed because nowadays anyone can be a critic. All you need is a PC a general understanding of sentence structure and you’re good to go!
Actually, Crowther was victimized and Kael lionized by the movies themselves. Crowther was right to pan most of America’s early-60s output – most of it is dreadful. Any critic, every critic, who had established himself during the 1940s was right to sound like a cranky old man during the mid-1960s – but as you said, of course people complained. As with many lovers of 30s and 40s films, Crowther didn’t jump on the post-Breathless, post-A Hard Day’s Night bandwagon of shaky cameras, jump cuts, fourth-wall-breaking, etc. Kael did, and she got lucky that the New Hollywood continued to be vital for another decade – she was able to look like the matriarch of it.
I don’t think we really disagree here. If I were the Times I might have hired Dargis too. But I would have called Sasha Stone first.
(I do see the point you were originally trying to make, Daniel. If I understand correctly, you’re saying important publications like the NYTimes like to acquire unique and iconoclastic voices to help boost their cultural
cachecachet. I agree with you. I just didn’t like the characterization that Pauline Kael singlehandedly forced an old curmudgeon out of his job. Crowther was on his way out, and he sank his own boat. Kael had more important things on her mind than trying to wreck other people’s careers. That’s why I sounded defensive.)The Times has had many film critics between Crowther and Dargis. I’m sure Janet Maslin is lurking around reading this discussion right now, and saying, “hey, what am I? Chopped liver?”
I am laughing at Richard A. and a few others who are deriding her “writing” skills. Whether the reviews are about her or not or whether you agree with her or not, fact is she’s probably the finest writer out there. Period.
Dargis did give the acting in The Reader short shrift, but in this case, as much as I appreciated Lena Olin’s work (and I always love Winslet), her vitriol about the film as a whole seems warranted to me. I needed a shower after seeing it, actually.
Her review of Gran Torino is another story entirely, however…
Does anybody have a carving knife left over from Thanksgiving? (we’ll wipe it clean, if it’ll make Goldstein happy.)
We can slice Ms. Dargis up in pocket-size pieces and each keep the part of her that we like best. Sam? Drumstick?
(where’s richard crawford? He knew Pauline Kael personally, and he’s a good buddy of Stephanie Zacharek too.)
I may have padded Kael’s resume a tad. Fair enough. As for Janet Maslin – she’s no Stephanie Zacharek. Let’s agree to agree!
I’m sure I’ll be spoiling for more fights after I’ve actually seen most of these films. I enjoyed your waxwork comments about Doubt and Frost/Nixon but I need to find out for myself. And…well at the risk of disturbing the peace…for what had to be the first time in my life I cried *and* sang along at the same moment during a film – when the groom sang “Unknown Legend” at the altar in “Rachel Getting Married” – but I still feel that film is a little slight for the Final Five. I’m just happy to know Demme hasn’t utterly lost his chops.
“Dargis did give the acting in The Reader short shrift, but in this case, as much as I appreciated Lena Olin’s work (and I always love Winslet), her vitriol about the film as a whole seems warranted to me. I needed a shower after seeing it, actually.
Her review of Gran Torino is another story entirely, however…”
****
Vitriol as a critical tool can be entertaining but it’s also easy and overrated.
But I agree about the Gran Torino review, made me wonder what she was drinking when she wrote it.
Has anyone heard of a movie called Zeitgeist?
It’s an awesome docummentary that I urge everyone to watch.
It proves Church lies to us and that 9/11 was made up by Bush Administration.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
The internet killed film criticism because anyone with an opinion can now be a critic, without any knowledge of film history, technique, structure, etc. Instead of being about how the film is a work of art, it is now about how much we like or dislike it. For example, I almost loved Slumdog while watching it, certainly it is infectious, but as it went along and became more formulaic and predictable, I had a feeling in the back of my mind that it wasn’t as good as it seemed. In my opinion, it isn’t (though certainly it is fine, well-edited and enjoyable), for reasons I won’t get into because it would be too much of a digression. However, a good film critic like Dargis does her job by standing back to reflect on what she has seen, as opposed to hacks like Ebert, Roeper and Maltin who deliver purely visceral reactions that have no more value than any other viewer (in Ebert’s case, at least he writes well; I have no idea how the others got their jobs!). I strongly disagreed with Dargis’ review of The Reader, but I respect her reasoning, she made me think.
As for Bosley Crowther being “victimized”, sorry, but he’s the guy who championed films like The Greatest Show on Earth (over Singin’ in the Rain and High Noon) and Around the World in 80 Days (over The Searchers and Giant) and Marty (over Night of the Hunter and Rebel Without Cause and Bad Day at Black Rock) so I have little sympathy. And they say he was a bully at the NY Film Crix voting. Ever see his book of 50 greatest films? He has Ulyseses (1967)!
But I agree about the Gran Torino review, made me wonder what she was drinking when she wrote it.
She was probably tossing back a Pabst Blue Ribbon, which in Gran Torino lost any cachet it may have gained in Blue Velvet.
ack! damn you, Paul, and your lickety-split wit! I was just getting ready to type PBR when I decided to refresh the page first!
(those two strange almost subliminal cutaway shots to the old tin Pabst Blue Ribbon sign hanging in the garage. Felt like something out of Theodore Roszak’s Flicker.)
(and doh! “cachet”… I must retire now, totally humiliated)
well, at least now i know that Manohla is a woman. i still think she’s the least of the NYT film trio.
Ryan, that is why I always win those eBay auctions…my own lightning refresh skills.
@ Rodrigo Junqueira Perticarari
!! Like this discussion is not already contentious enough! ha!
@ Daniel S-R
Janet Maslin might be no Stephanie Zachareck but she’s a multimillionaire heiress now, so she writes for the sheer fun of it. As do we, except for us without the coziness of the multimillionaire heiress part.
@ Paul
so you’re the one who bid the bootleg copy of Salo out from under me. [Clint-like grrr...]
gotta go. You kids play nice.
“She didn’t like Slumdog Millionaire — there is no pleasing a critic, seriously. Those of us sheep grumble now and again but Dargis’ readers know, by now I think, to take her reviews with a grain of salt — meaning, her reviews tend to be more about her and less about the subject, I’ve always thought, which is why her reviews are interesting to read. It’s the Manohla Dargis show — and it’s a fascinating, entertaining one.”
Sigh. Your message couldn’t be clearer, Sasha: real Dargis readers know to be dismissive of her Slumdog reservations becaause she has not actually *seen* it at all — not like reg’lar folk see it — let alone written about it. No, she looked up at Jamal’s face and saw reflected back to her a supersized Manohla Dargis, watching the film. Indeed, when she watches, it is an act of total solipsism. How, then, could she have really SEEN a film that saves puppies, that invented sliced bread, when she was so focused on watching herself watching?
Not like us who see the real Slumdog Millionaire. If only we had our own fascinating rabbit holes to take readers down…what a world it would be.
I maintain two things:
1) These sly Dargis takedowns? As polite as they seem, they just barely stop short of calling her delusional, or autistic. What is the goal here?
2) One is allowed to dislike Slumdog without being either delusional or a monster, and the repeated assertions here to the contrary are not just dismissive: they are insulting.
Maybe I’m just the stupidest person who reads Awards Daily but I really don’t see what’s so bad about her Slumdog Millionaire review. It doesn’t read to me like a pan or a rave. I disagree with the idea that Boyle’s motives aren’t sincere but I don’t think her perception is without warrant. Art is subjective, people.
And this is the problem with film criticism today. It’s all about extremes. Either you love Slumdog or you hate it. Either you love Dark Knight or you hate it. Either you love Doubt or you hate it. Nobody is allowed to weigh the pros and cons of a film and equally consider both. It all started with Siskel and Ebert’s “Two Thumbs Up,” and got progressively worse with RottenTomatoes shuffling mixed reviews into the Fresh and Rotten categories without reservation. It’s Fast Food Film Theory. No wonder cinema is getting worse and worse.
Ben and Noah both make good points – though I agree with Crowther about Marty.
To add to this interesting discussion, Richard Schickel was on AMC’s Shootout this past weekend also imparting his thoughts on Film Criticism today.
Schickel says
“The great days of film criticism are over. When I started reviewing movies back in the ’60s and ’70s, there was a buzz, an excitement about movies and commentary upon them, and a lot of publications upgraded their reviewers so there was vitality. A lot of that has gradually disappeared.”
To read more about his appearance on Shootout and his thoughts about the internet go to
http://blogs.amctv.com/movie-news/2008/12/do-film-critics-still-count.php
“2) One is allowed to dislike Slumdog without being either delusional or a monster, and the repeated assertions here to the contrary are not just dismissive: they are insulting.”
Yeah, seriously, this. I liked Slumdog okay, but is it that hard to understand how a reasonable person could hate that movie?
Who actually gows up wanting to be a critic? You all know the old saying…A “critic” is really a failed actor. Those who can’t do..criticise.
Take these critics view on films with a grain of salt. Especially if their reference point for filmaking starts from 3 years ago. I much prefer a film historian with encyclopedic knowledge point of view.
All of the above comments are most cogent.
However, the distinction between the print New York Critics CIrcle, whose history goes back to 1935, and their online counterparts, with a relatively brief history indeed, could not be more striking, particularly as to their preferances for best picture this year.
The old and venerable body, with a veritable flawless history of wise selections, whether acknowledging CITIZEN KANE, HIGH NOON, and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, over their now well-acknowledged inferior contemporary rival candidates, this year selected a brilliantly relevant piece of cinema verite in MILK. Instead, the NYFCC on-line counterparts opted for SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.
I personally do not believe both are correct; I believe SLUMDOG is a well-mounted film but will not stand the test of history as shall MILK.
Again, the passage of time alone will tell, but the print NYFC have the overall best record of any film critics group in history. I believe that the critics which constitute that group have, from the outset, a perspicacious sense of stepping outside their own time and their immediate gut reactions to judge a motion picture as it might be assessed decades afterwards.
In 1994 there were audiences that fawned over FORREST GUMP, just as in 2008 there are both critics and audiences fawning over BENJAMIN BUTTON and SLUMDOG. I believe that some of the print NYFCC have reached the point that the myopathy about them has become particularly frustrating.
I do not believe they are trying to be condescending of their critical peers. I think they are trying to goad them out of their immediate reverie, just as advocates of CRASH woke out of their critical slumber far too late.
After all, today viewing CRASH, much less advocating for it, is truly no more than embarassing.
Who actually gows up wanting to be a critic? You all know the old saying…A “critic” is really a failed actor. Those who can’t do..criticise.
Yup, we all know the old saying. And it’s still utterly false.
“Janet Maslin might be no Stephanie Zachareck but she’s a multimillionaire heiress now, so she writes for the sheer fun of it. As do we, except for us without the coziness of the multimillionaire heiress part.”
Is this true? How did she become a multimillionaire heiress? Does this explain why she keeps writing roundups of trashy novels?
Isn’t Maslin the daughter-in-law of the late John Cheever?
I think this might be true with all critics, but I find it far more enjoyable to read Dargis when I agree with her take on a film whether it be positive or negative, or if it’s a rave for something I’ve only heard a few things about. Her writing definitely sticks in the mind though, I can still remember the end of her “Children of Men” review, and her “Three Times” review is one of her most passionate. She also is the only critic I remember who liked “A Lot Like Love,” which I haven’t seen, but cannot believe is anything other than tripe. Dargis’ idiosyncracies are a strength, I think, but she’s definitely not one to use for any kind of “consumer reports” criticism.
How does one pick and choose a reviewer to follow?
There are so many on the internet and the few in the press.
I only follow Mark Kermode, I follow his radio show in England here on BBC Radio 5 Live (downloadable as Podcast), as his rants are funny and my and his opinions match up some of the time, and when they don’t, it is matched with his passion.
One reviewer I dislike is Cosmo Landsman from the London Times, his reviews are silly and assumes movies that might have 9/11 subtext behind them HORRIBLE without reflective thought. His reviews keep on having errors, and one wonders if he actually seen the films he is reviewing and not looking at his naval.
Back to the question, who else should I read?
I’ve been waiting for Richard Crawford to chime in here here on this thread. He’d have taken the opportunity to proclaim her as possessing the writing skills of a first grader.
Actually, I think I saw somebody walking into my local branch of Snobs Anonymous. Who was that person?
Being a film critic myself, I can’t resist to say something. The question of the possible extiction of film criticism as we know it, it’s a hot debate all over the world, and in Brazil is not different.
To me the status and all forms of criticism will drastically changed in terms of influence. The lack of space in the common media (newspapers, magazines), or the large number of resignations, will put, everyone agreed, the Web as the main force for this activity. Criticism won’t be extinct as the dinossaurs, but with a very little space in the mainstream, and and a increasingly low number of people working at it.
The main consequence: all forms of criticism will lost their capacity of achieving somehow, the “common” public. Criticism will be for the people already, and specifically interesting in that subject. So, the gourmet will read tons of texts about food and wine in the Web, the film-buff, about cinema, etc. Of course, a person with different interests, will enjoy more material from various subjetcts and sources.
What I mean with “all forms of criticism will lost their capacity of achieving somehow, the “common” public” is that: a plastic surgery which works 12-14 hours a day, likes cinema, but is not exactly a film-buff. From time to time this woman reads movie reviews, while opening the newspaper, when the actress who stars in the movie being apreciated is someone she cares for. The teacher who likes to eat good food, usually doesn’t go to four star restaurants, but will travel to Italy in the summer, and in the months before he begins to read articles and reviews about the culinary of the region he will visit; the guy who begin to pay attention to the reviews about the works of a writer who usually deals with a subject he is currently arguing with his shrink. Another thing: even a usual reader of some form of criticism, who once in a while read something about the other (the gourmet who search for criticism about her/his favoritte TV show, etc), will not do that as usually as did it now.
Whatever.
It’s improbable that this kind of current once-in-a-while-reader-or-with-some frequency-reader will consume criticism through the Web in a such a easy going way as he/she did while simply opens a newspaper, a magazine, etc, listening to the radio. He/she will not search to a website to read 12 pages of film analysis, or a essay about Picasso.
Criticism will be move away to the cultural diet of the people, even if this relationship is mostly residual, but with a real importance, and will be tie more and more with the cultivated tastes of the people. The cultural diet of the people will become more and more connect to a certain number of themes. The nowadays search for a cultural improvement that leads to the studies in a more profound mood is gonna be hurt. So, the chances that art, culture, will touch people, shortened.
The good aspect of it, is that the distance from the critic and the people who consumes criticism for sure, also will be shortened. A dialogue among equally interested will be the more common approach. Clearly that is consequence of the fact that many of the new critics develops his/her activities in a much more informal way to proceed, in blogs, forums, etc.
But in general I think that is a pitty. But that the way things will be from now on. I guess.
I like Dargis. Always look forward to the read whether I agree or not. I respect her standards and her intelligence and the woman can write and provoke thought. I, for one, thought she was dead right on AUSTRALIA.
Isn’t Maslin the daughter-in-law of the late John Cheever?
Does that make George Costanza her brother-in-law, Paul?
Here’s an article from Salon about Janet Maslin’s departure.
I saw Richard Schickel a few years ago, on a panel about Hollywood-on-Hollywood films (e.g. Sunset Blvd., The Player)…settling into his curmudgeon role like he was born for it. I’m sure at this point he thinks food tasted better in the 1970s too. But he may have a slight point about film criticism.
Joao I appreciate you chiming in. You seem to be saying that replacing print/TV media with electronic media means replacing the casual browse with the directed click, and thus audiences become more segmented and more scattered into narrow demographics than the presumably more-unified audiences of yesteryear. This is a popular idea in academics and it’s probably somewhat true, although the fact that Hollywood is shutting down its “independent-film” divisions suggests that these “marginal” demos aren’t viable for filmmaking, and that Hollywood is hoping to target/create some kind of (re)unified audience even for its “prestige” pictures (like, say, Milk or Benjamin Button or Revolutionary Road). So even as we in the crowd get sectioned off by narrow-casted taste, Hollywood is serving up product (let’s say, Juno) that has been diluted to taste good to the most people possible. You’ve identified a fascinating tendency of the 21st century, but I’m just as interested in the counter-tendencies.
In the era of internet equalization, my Social Darwinist-democracy-loving self likes to think that there will always be a well-paid place for the critic that is actually saying something worthwhile and interesting – for the HL Menckens of the future. I guess that’s why you have to tell your friends to click here and not to some of the lamer Oscar sites.
The good aspect of it, is that the distance from the critic and the people who consumes criticism for sure, also will be shortened. A dialogue among equally interested will be the more common approach.
That’s an excellent point, Joao. It’s true, when you say fewer and fewer people seem to be following film criticism as a regular part of their weekly cultural diet, and that drop in readership is an unavoidable factor as some newspapers seek to justify dropping their full-time critics. But those critics don’t disappear. If they’re passionate about their writing many are finding exciting ways to adjust to the new realities in media.
Like Glenn Kenny, formerly writing for Premiere, and now literally “master of his own domain” at his very fine website, Some Came Running. Kenny has established a following that doesn’t depend on readers buying a copy of a magazine or newspaper to follow one of their favorite writers.
The financial model must be tough to construct and maintain when writers set up shop as their own bosses (just ask Sasha Stone), but good film criticism will never go away so long as their are readers like us who know how to seek out the best writers and give them our support.
Roger Ebert still has the backing of the Sun-Times, but he’s adapted his methods to open up his ivory tower position to a much more interactive approach — and he seems to be thriving on the new source of energy. He sounds invigorated by the new opportunities to connect more directly with his readers.
As Joao says, through blogs and forums critics become more approachable. The casual attitude makes many of them more readable too, and the interplay with their readers might help expand their scope. It often makes them better writers.
“Isn’t Maslin the daughter-in-law of the late John Cheever?”
“Does that make George Costanza her brother-in-law, Paul?”
Ryan, you are a sick, sick person.
Dargis’s reviews are often thought-provoking and entertaining, but sometimes I think she really misses the mark (see last year’s review of “Lars and the Real Girl”).
On the whole, I’d rather read A.O. Scott — esp. for his illuminating historical and literary perspectives on the movies (see his recent review of “Che”).
Bottom line, though: I enjoy both reviewers’ work (not to mention Stephen Holden and the other Times reviewers). If only we could occasionally see them do a sort of “point-counterpoint” thing and offer contrasting perspectives on the same films. That’d be fun.
Thank for the replies, guys.
I may sound a bit pessimistic in my last message, but that is not the intention at all. Just wish that we – the world – never lose that pleasure of opening a magazine, a neswpaper, just turn on the radio, and casually stay in touch with a cultural matter that is not our daily or primarily object of affection. Hell, that happened to me today!
And I adore the tactile aspect of it. Love to carry my papers and magazines all around, making notes, underlining.
Some comments:
I love how some of you are actually saying that one opinion of a film is wrong and another right, and then following that up with the admission that you haven’t yet seen the film in question.
Also, people approach movies with different hopes, beliefs and opinions, so much so that the very idea of declaring a review to be wrong or right misses the point. If someone like M Dargis slams a film that you liked, she isn’t wrong and you right, you’ve both simply approached the film differently. To declare otherwise is to buy into the idea that your opinion matters beyond the confines of your skull (it doesn’t).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for critical discussions, spirited disagreements and all of that, but people, the idea of demeaning others for disagreeing with you about a film is just silly. Movies aren’t math. Sure, most of us can point to all of the reasons why Citizen Kane is great, but if someone watches it for the first time and says “you know? It’s not in *my* top 20″ they aren’t wrong! And their reasons are irrelevant; everyone’s favourite “last real critic” Roger Ebert gave Erin Brockovich two measly stars because he couldn’t stop staring at Julia Roberts’ cleavage. Is that reason any more acceptable than Dargis’ reasons for not celebrating Slumdog?
Anyhoo, sorry for the rambling, I just can’t stand it when people start thinking in absolutes about their opinions and movies, especially when their way of thinking is such a tiny minority of the film-going world. (Every critic slammed Titanic but people went to see it again and again; who was wrong? Was anyone? What if M Dargis had given it 5 stars?)
Thanks,
Tim
Critics tell you which movies are good and which movies are bad. I always enjoy reading a critic’s review because that gives me some insight, and more in depth opinion about the movie that I choose to see. I can also understand critics because their sharing information about another world or place. Their drawing us into the movie, holding our attention at a professional level. Critics major in all sorts of writing and journalism. They trie to make sense out of the movie. That’s why we should have them.
Jow, I don’t understand how you can write two such conflicting statements side by side. The best film critics are those who provide insight, who tackle a film’s heart and wrestle with it on the page with us readers serving as rapt audience. But to say that those critics tell you which films are good or bad doesn’t jive with the first part. I’ve read stunning reviews of films that have opened my eyes to meaning and depth I completely missed, but when I was done reading, I had no idea whether the writer was declaring the film to be a “thumbs up” or down, I just better understood the film.
By their nature, “star” ratings, thumbs up and down and whatever other kind of good or bad scale you can find kill the content of the review by changing its apparent intent. A true critic, in my opinion, should never end a review with a rating. It cheapens all of the work they did in writing the damn thing!
Don’t think though that I’m slamming film critics here, I love reading lots of critics’ work and used to be one myself. I just think that there are too many subjective, floating criteria out there that determine one’s own feelings about good or bad to place them as secondary to the opinions of others.
Thanks,
Tim
Leave a reply