I’m glad to see the New York TImes‘ David Carr reporting on the war of attrition against movie critics, a trend that’s been apparent for at least a year, and one that I’ve weighed in on a few times at PopWatch. Carr notes that critic jobs are being eliminated at papers all over the country and even at national magazines (like Newsweek, where David Ansen, the movie critic there since 1977, just accepted a buyout offer). Over at the Village Voice, they’ve laid off Nathan Lee, leaving them with just one full-time movie critic (Carr’s own paper still has three), which has some independent/art-house distributors worried. The big studios don’t care much for critics and generally don’t need their help (or notice their hindrance) in generating big opening-weekend returns for action blockbusters, horror movies, and other fare that people will see regardless of the reviews, but the so-called specialty films (especially subtitled movies and documentaries) do need critics to champion them (Carr’s article cites last year’s Best Foreign Film Oscar winner The Lives of Others, pictured, as a movie that critics helped make a success). And since most of those films may open only in New York or Los Angeles before heading to DVD, they need critics like the Manhattan-based ones at the Voice, the Times, and Newsweek to review them in order to gain any word-of-mouth at all. Hundreds of films open in New York every year, more than any one person can cover, as EW critic Owen Gleiberman notes in Carr’s story.
There are a few points I wish Carr had addressed. One is that, for local papers to replace their hometown critics with wire service reviewers does a disservice to local communities, as shown by the recent flap in San Diego over a syndicated review of The Other Boleyn Girl. I don’t think syndication serves the papers well, either; why would you turn to the Hometown Tribune for movie reviews when you can read the same exact reviews online at a dozen other papers’ websites?
Finally, I’m not sure why Carr gives the last word to two Web-based movie pundits, even ones as knowledgeable as The Reeler’s S.T. VanAirsdale and Movie City News‘David Poland, both of whom seem sanguine about the migration of filmcriticism from a few hundred professionals at print outlets tocountless amateur review sites on the Web. Yes, there are onlineamateurs whose criticism is as good as the best of the printprofessionals (and there are plenty of print professionals whose workis as hacky as the worst of the amateurs), but for now, print still hasthe cachet that the distributors seek in order to generate thepublicity they need to sell difficult movies; they generally don’t relysolely on Web outlets like The Reeler or MCN for blurbs, at least notyet. (After all, many readers still depend on the brand-name print critics.) Anyway, I don’t think the Web is going to kill print moviecriticism — not when self-inflicted wounds seem to be doing the jobjust fine.
Comments (1-17) of 17 Add your comment
There are movies I would have never heard of/seen if not for watching or reading critics’ reviews. Once is one of those movies. I sought it out after a glowing review by Richard Roeper, and I am glad I did. It’s one of my all-time favorites. While I don’t agree with them all the time, I appreciate seeing their points of view, and they really do champion the smaller films.
Popwatch: Didn’t you have a Video Patrol or DVD Patrol column a long time ago? It introduced me to several small straight to video movies and you killed that review column. Wish you would bring it back.
great article, and thanks again for posting about this topic. film just isn’t the only medium affected, of course. i’ve been a tv and film critic since 2000, and have been out of work and unable to find employment because of cutbacks. just wish this industry would turn around again…
I don’t really pay attention to critics anymore. I know what I like (and what I don’t) Sites like AICN that encourge readers to Talkback (shades of popwatch) with reviews and their thoughts on movies have much more draw then reading some biased review written by a film critic in a snit because they were forced to review a movie deemed beneath them even before the lights dimmed or even worse, heaping praise on something because they don’t want to appear uncultured.
I’ve turned to the Filmspotting podcast for really intelligent film reviews and discussion. I may not always agree with them, but they always give me something to think about before I make my movie choices.
I love critics, but maybe if they were more down to earth, and less snobby, about films, people would actually care more about what they have to say. They can loosen up a little without having to compromise their tastes.
I used to be a movie critic in San Francisco and to be honest, they really are over-privileged snobs who think they are better than others. One critic that I used to hang out with would call the people who had to stand in line for a movie “The Joes” as in “the average joe” because we were ushered into the theater while they had to stand outside like riff raff. After the movie, the critics would stand in the lobby in a circle jerk, trying to out-ponitificate each other, as if the cleverness of a quip equaled the size of their manhoods. I finally got out of the business because I decided I didn’t want to be like them. That’s not to say there aren’t some really nice people who are critics, but from my experience, the majority of them are a bunch of snobs who honestly believe that they are better than you. I believe in the importance and necessity of film criticism, unfortunately, I don’t care for the critics themselves.
I do appreciate the EW critics, as suck-up as that does sound…I am picky about what i see, and it helps to read the reviews before I spend money on bad movies…but for the most part, I don’t pay attention to the critics on Rotten Tomatoes or the local paper…it’ll be interesting to see where this all stands in 12-18 months…
But critics only matter to small, artsy films, and small, artsy films only open in NY or LA, and the only reviews of NY or LA that matter belong to the two Timeses, and each of those has 3 critics (with the NY Times fielding two alternates), and the people who make artsy movies or who watch artsy movies barely conceal their hatred for the masses, so what’s the problem?
I think a lot of papers have opted to go with freelance bloggers to fill space on their websites, too. (Heck, I’m a restaurant reviewer – I have no previous experience). If you can get away with paying someone who has a full-time job, on a per-submission basis, it saves them money in the long run.
Did Nathan Lee really name “Southland Tales” the best film of 2007? Somehow his firing doesn’t seem so drastic now!
I thought I was crazy a year ago here in Atlanta when I noticed all reviews were now from Roger Ebert (who with his health issues may not be as prolific these days)…no notice from the paper as to what happened or why…they were just gone one day. Too bad b/c they did a much better job of criticism than Ebert who seems more like Gene Shalit these days
Ebert is the gold standard as far as I’m concerned in judging movies on their own merits not his. Which is why he’ll sometimes praise well-done trash. After him there is a long fall-off to number 2.
The critics did themselves in with the elitist attitudes they displayed (and still display) when reviewing mainstream fare, as opposed to objectively reviewing a movie.
Their attitude became one of: “the masses do not know how to judge or watch movies, but WE do, and WE can set them straight”.
When a Washington Post critic begins a review of a James Bond movie with a statement that he “hates” the James Bond franchise, you wonder what the frak he is reviewing the movie for in the first place, and then cannot take anything he says seriously.
Critics, like the media in general, have lost their objectivity and therefore much of their credibility, especially since most movie fans can get reviews from fansites run by peers with similar tastes.
EW’s critics are guilty of the same behaviour, and their bias against certain franchises, like, say “Star Wars” was as obvious as it was pointless – and perfectly demonstrated why most critics today are essentially useless.
Now we have to put up with Leonard Lyon’s blathering GRANDSON??? Not quite the Bozo his father is, this fat, fatuous, gorpy clod is billed by Echannel as “FILM EXPERT” !!!!! Mankiewick’s kid is less annoying, but I cannot bear to watch “At The Movies” anymore. Ebert $ Ropert were AOK, but something should be done about this rampant depressing blatant nepotism…
iwovgjn uhvagqlcd cmioxuh kfxzw arfv ocpzxvbu csbigxor
Hi, I’m a movie critic, and I try to keep it down to earth. If you enjoy movies, stop by my site at:
http://www.chewypopcorn.com