You know, in Europe, they value film critics so much that they just passed a law over there making it illegal to advertise movies with misleading blurbs that quote critics out of context. Meanwhile, over here, as this American Journalism Review article notes, newspapers are laying off critics as fast as they can. It doesn’t help that industry figures, like the freakin’ editor-in-chief of Variety (who employs more than a few critics himself) argues that critics are unnecessary most of the time (except at awards season) because moviegoers will go see well-marketed blockbuster fare no matter what the reviews say.
I understand the economic argument — why pay a local staffer to review movies that open simultaneously across the country when you can use a freelancer or syndicated reviews? But I think local film scenes will suffer without hometown champions. In Boston, for instance (where * disclosure alert * I am a member of the Boston Society of Film Critics), the BSFC scribes help program screenings at local repertory houses, give lectures, and tout local filmmaking talent. Also, I think papers will suffer if they can’t offer someone who’s responsive to area readers; it’s a lot easier to get some feedback from an e-mail of praise or complaint to a local critic than a nationally syndicated one. Finally, I reject the short-sighted expert quoted in the AJR article who says he gets all the review info he needs by reading the average scores at Metacritic — ignoring the fact that there’ll be no sample of reviews for Metacritic to average if all the local reviewers get downsized.
Sure, I’m arguing out of self-interest, but I think the overall conversation about film is enhanced by having more voices, not fewer. I also think local critics are your last line of defense against the Hollywood marketing machine (like The Critic’s Jay Sherman, pictured, someone has to be willing to say, "It stinks!"), and that newspapers will be doing you a disservice by taking that line of defense away and leaving you to depend on solitary, homogenized opinions by reviewers who don’t have a stake in your community. Tell me, PopWatchers, do you depend on your local movie critics, or will you not miss them when they’re sent packing?
Comments (1-30) of 66 Add your comment
I used to be a movie critic in San Francisco and I don’t miss it. Mostly because I had to hang out with movie critics and they are the most overeducated yet unfulfilled lot I’ve ever met. After the screenings they’d stand around in a circle jerk, trying to impress each other with their witty putdowns. Knowing them made me rethink my choice of career. So even though I’m feeling for you Gary, I’m kind of glad to know that there are some of those people will be laid off and moving on to more fulfilling lives.
I don’t know about any of you, but our cities are already losing their character via Wal-Mart, McDonalds and the rest, this is just one more case of globalization gone wrong. Cities need their own character, their own celebrities, their own feel. We especially get this in Canada. Things aren’t deemed cool unless the stamp of approval comes from outside. I try my hardest to embrace whatever is local without shunning what comes from outside my community. Local critics fall into this category.
While I agree that people will still go see blockbusters despite what critics say, the movies that will be hurt are the smaller movies that rely on good reviews and word-of-mouth as a large part of their advertising. I’m sorry, I don’t care what anyone says, there are a large number of movies that we would not have seen if it hadn’t been for positive reviews. We may say that we don’t go see a movie because it got good reviews, but we are indirectly affected the things critics write about them.
Zach Effron on the main page = Donny Osmond
Reviews depend on the movie. For instance, I knew I would see ‘The Simpsons Movie’ no matter what any critic said. However, I had to comb through rotten tomatoes before seeing ‘Knocked Up.’
Also, critics are losing relevance. How else can you explain the success of any Adam Sandler film?
I think that local critics are needed because people (like me) want to be informed by professionals out of curriosity.I want to know if the movie I’m interested in going to is worthwhile.
Maybe critics are being fired because people don’t want to feel belittled by an educated professional when their favourite film gets called “trailer park, B-flick trash”. I’m personally the only person I know who reads reviews.That says alot about the intelligence of the people I choose to acompany.
Well, I guess it depends on what city you live in. I live near Buffalo (no jokes, please – born and bred here and I’ll love it ’til I die!), and our main newspaper critic definitely suffers from “big fish in a small pond” syndrome. Namely, he stuffs every review with all sorts of literary and obscure film references just to prove he’s the smartest guy in the room. He’s really gotten insufferable but since we’re a one newspaper town, he’s the only game in town. There are other reviewers at the paper, by the way, but since he’s an editor, he makes sure to assign himself all the big or important films to “critique.” Blech! Thank God for the internet (especially rottentomatoes.com), so I can read a variety of reviews and not just the pompous ramblings of that gasbag.
I confess that I am guilty of what the Variety article suggets – local criticism isn’t really a concern. I’ve always read and respect Roger Ebert’s reviews, and I usually look to Rotten Tomatoes for the rest.
Art cannot exist outside the discussion of art.
I’m a film review whore, and I’ve found it to be very useful to read what the critics have to say in The New Yorker and my local paper alike. As a film student, I see many films and I rely on critics to help me pick what to see. For instance, I wouldn’t have seen the amazing “Once” if it weren’t for critics. Same with “The Squid and the Whale” and “Pan’s Labyrinth”. They also help me steer clear from pictures that might have good trailers, but end up sucking the big one (i.e. last year’s “Trust the Man”). In fact, bad reviews kept me away from a blockbuster I was sure I’d go see: “Shrek the Third”. My boyfriend on the other hand (also a film student) avoids reviews like the plague so he can avoid spoilers and “make up his own mind.” Because of this, he doesn’t hear about smaller independent flicks or the failings of major blockbusters unless someone tells him. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t always agree with critics, but I love having them around all the same.
As a general rule, I don’t read critics if there is a movie I *know* i’m going to see and I know they’re going to hate. But I do check them for other films. I checked critiques for “Waitress” and was glad I read them in advance. Some critics give away WAY too much of the movie, or significant plot points. There has to be a way for them to review a film without giving out significant info. Just my 2cents
Local film critic? That went the way of the dinosaur in Central VA years ago. Not it’s all syndicated. I tend to read several of the national critics (EW’s included), but certainly do not count on local critics any longer.
Now that it’s all syndicated…
I think local film critics are important to help maintain an interest in criticism in general. My local film critic (Jack Garner, who has been used a couple of times in Reviewing the Reviews) just retired a couple of weeks ago. He goes back all the way to the first Star Wars, and now writes a freelance column every week about movies and other thoughts, but all the reviews are syndicated John Q. Critics who I don’t know or care about. It was interesting to hear the reliable local critics take on the movie, and I was more interested to see what Jack thought about the latest film I wanted to see than some person whose taste and history of movies I knew nothing about. I wanted to be able to put a face to the reviews, and the local movie critic allows that, and makes the reader want to compare his or her take with the other reviewers with different taste.
I see a movie every weekend, sometimes it is a blockbuster and sometimes it is a small independent film. I can honestly say that I do not read reviews at all. We have a great theater here in town that shows the smaller independent films and we have the major “big box” theatres as well. I just go with my gut when it comes to picking a film to attend. I saw “Once”, “Waitress”, and “Paris Je t’aime” because they were on the matinee and I thought they would be good – I was right. I have no idea who the local reviewer is in Phoenix – so I guess that I won’t miss him or her very much.
The local film critic where I live (Raleigh, NC) has a very distinctive style that I recognize and have grown accustomed to. His writing is rarely profound (or even thought-provoking), but I’ve grown accustomed to it, and I always check what the local paper says before seeing a movie, even just as a formality.
I love reading reviews, but not to help me figure out what movies I should see. Like most people, if there is a movie I want to see I will see it–whether it has earned a collective A+ or F. I like to decide for myself (though if I’m on the fence, a review is likely to push me one way or the other). I do, however, turn to the critics for insight and opinions. I love reading what other people think of films and why they think such things–especially when it’s well written and carefully thought out, and it really helps me gain a better understanding as to why I liked or hated a film. And many times critics pose questions or toss out ideas that may have never occured to me otherwise but encourage me to think deeper about film theory. Please don’t let fil critics disappear.
And as for local critics, they are 100% necessary. As a born-and-raised Boston girl, I just wasn’t satisfied reading a review of “Fever Pitch” by anybody but another Red Sox-loving Bostonian.
mscisluv,
I hope you’re not referring to the guy who reviews for the N&O. He has unreasonably high standards for all movies he reviews. He always seems to find something wrong. As for the lack of critics it’s unfortunate because I usually read several reviews if I’m going to see a movie. People have different tastes. Everyone won’t agree with one critic.
Yes, I will miss my local movie reviewers and any other movie reviewer, even if I don’t agree with them. If I want to see an indie movie that I haven’t seen advertised as much, I check to see what the critics have said – and if it’s a critic I usually agree with…I’ll go see it. In a way I think a lot of indie films or smaller, not as marketed films DEPEND upon the critics. Because, let’s face it, half the time American movie viewers just want to watch a bunch of crap.
I didn’t look at the source article yet, but could this be part of the way newspapers are grasping at straws to stand out and be meaningful? And I don’t mean just the economic pop you get from laying off a few people. I’ve lived in quite a few cities in the past ten years and, just as many of the people posting here, have seen great and horrible local film critics–actually more horrible than great. I shed no tears for many of these pompous bores. Sorry, Gary, I do understand the idea of film being enhanced by more voices, but too many of the voices deserve to be ignored. If a critic has something great to say about film, we can read their blog. You don’t need a newspaper chain to stand behind you. But what are newspapers trying to do by firing the local color? You can get syndicated-anything online or through a subscription to USA Today. Where is the win in getting rid of something that truly makes you different and worth reading? Unless your critic is no different from another?
Often the problem with movie reviewers is their pretentiousness and lack of understanding of the movie’s intention. You mean ‘300′ wasn’t intended to be an accurate historical portrayal? ‘Knocked Up’ is nothing more than adolescent humor? ‘Transformers’ is a 10-yr old boy’s fantasy with a brain to boot? Yea, no s***. I still went to see them. I don’t need some self-serving fool critic to tell me that and judge my viewing experience. Why can’t movies be fun for the sake of fun? Often the “Holy Movie Critic” doesn’t recognize this. These critics being offed is fantastic, because it knocks them down a peg and sends them a message. For years I’ve been going to movies based on the only opinion that actually matters: my own.
I read lots of reviews for the films I’m interested in. I even read reviews for those I don’t wish to see, just to see if I can guess the grade before I read the article. Also, I’m majoring in Film & TV Cricism so I’m a little biased.
First of all, the film critic survives for the same reason that the film itself survives — because people want to see the elements of life they agree/disagree with mirrored on bigger screens, or at least in the pages of the local alt-weekly.
Secondly, the syndication of film reviews is just another contributor to the death of print media. We need local voices, telling us in their colloquial tone, what they think about stuff. We always have. Pity that the folks currently buying up “local media” in various locations are clueless to that fact.
Thirdly, I hate to say it, but there should be a quiz before anyone – ANYONE – is allowed to access the internet. It’s not like I’m all for eugenics (look it up, douchebags), but if you’re going to spread your opinion, you should know the difference between “you’re” and “your.” And if you think it’s OK to use an apostrophe to denote the plural, you really, really need to get into a line of work that DOESN’T, DOESN’T, DOESN’T involve writing.
Well, I divide parasites (i.e. critics) into 2 kinds: reviewers, and critics. The reviewer who went through film school, failed to become a writer or director, and ends up having to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster so as to be able to deride not merely it, but also everyone else except himself, should and must die out. The critic who engages in Criticism, such as is taught in schools and discussed in journals, is sadly out of reach of such things as economics, and will continue to construct vast edifices of thought out of various modes of discourse dedicated to the sole end of alleviating the misery of the overexamined life. I’m looking at you, Paul.
Very interesting … and frightening article. I am a film critic trying to make a name for myself in Montreal It’s hard enough as it is to make your voice heard and a nmae for yourself when there are already established critics in place. Now you’re telling me thatwe’re being considered irrelevant. Lovely. It seems the arguments only pertains to marketability. I don’t write to encourage or discourage people to see this or that movie. They will do what they want. I write to engage the reader about what is going on on the screen, to stimulate their minds and not get them to accept the film passively. Now, could someone please hire me.
http://www.blacksheepreviews.blogspot.com
ALthough I have complained about critics through the years, they just laid off our local film critic here in Tampa, FL. Now we read the Associated Press reviews. I don’t like it, but I don’t like reality TV either. It’s the way the entertainment world is now.
It’s attitudes like, “to stimulate their minds and not get them to accept the film passively” that makes so much of film criticism unreadable for the rest of us. Ah, I need you, Joe, to stimulate my poor little brain and show me how to actively engage in watching a movie. I’d look at your sentence structure, too, if you want to be a better and more accessible (not dumbed-down) writer. Sorry-I don’t want to be mean, but you guys bring it on yourselves.
As a movie lover, I feel like I need critics. Sure, there are some movies I know I’m going to see no matter what, and some I know I’m going to avoid, but for all the rest it’s helpful to find reviews that help me separate the wheat from the chaff–especially since most trailers and ad copy are deliberately misleading these days.
As for critics being “pretentious”–please. When did we as a society get so insecure (or egotistical) that we can’t handle it when someone offers an intelligent opinion that we didn’t/couldn’t come up with ourselves?
I’m not going to miss Schwarzbaum.