AFTER THE SHOW
Movies, TV, Culture and Society
Number 495, April 18, 2010
===============================
IS THERE A FUTURE FOR
FILM CRITICS, GOOD OR BAD?
While fewer and fewer reviewers write
for print, Web criticism explodes
By John Greenwald
Since January 2006, Sean P. Means, film critic of the Salt Lake Tribune, has been posting on his blog a running count of movie critics who have lost their jobs due to reassignments, buyouts, layoffs, retirements or publication failures. As of last May, the number of the departed had risen to 55. He hasn't updated his list since, but eventually it will include Todd McCarthy, Variety's long-term, highly respected film reviewer.
Variety had been considered the bible of show business. With the firing of McCarthy and other critics and writers, Variety's less a bible than a street corner tract. McCarthy, by virtues of his experience and trustworthiness, was part of the glue that held Hollywood's business and creative communities together. No longer.
Means will also add the syndicated movie review TV show, "At the Movies," with the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips and the New York Times' A.O. Scott. While Phillips and Scott will keep their newspaper day jobs, the program itself will end in August when its current run expires.
Scott acknowledged there no longer was a place in TV's economic firmament for a half-hour show starring two critics talking about movies. That might have been true during the show's first two decades when it featured Chicago film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. Their love-hate relationship, which revolved around their respective opinions, usually was more compelling than the films they reviewed. One writer even compared them to Oscar and Felix of "The Odd Couple."
The most recognizable name on Means' list of ex-critics is David Ansen, who took a 2008 buyout from Newsweek. He's now a freelance writer and artistic director of the Los Angeles Film Festival.
At 12, Ansen began writing the name of every film he saw, its stars and his rating, from poor to excellent, in a lined notebook, 50 movies per page. That added up to 7,714 movies, and counting, as of October 2007, when Ansen looked back at the movies he reviewed and the history of films and the world they revealed.
In an interview about his leaving Newsweek after 31 years, Ansen said he wouldn't miss seeing and writing about all those bad pictures. (I reviewed one or two pictures a week for only 13 years, but I understand.) Judging from Newsweek's Web site, it's replaced him with other writers. As good as they might be, I doubt they have all those decades of seeing and thinking about films.
For the last few generations, we've been living in times when newness counted for more than quality. Determining newness is easy; determining quality is harder. That's the job of critics -- critics of everything from toasters to modern dance. They help us distinguish the best from the latest.
Ever since the departures of "At the Movies" and Variety's Todd McCarthy, film reviewers and bloggers have been keyboarding like crazy: Does film criticism have a future, and where -- in print, on the Web, on Tweeter, on Facebook, all of the above?
Given that this question is asked by people who, by definition, are opinionated, there is no consensus.
One side says all knowledgeable arts criticism, including film and maybe even TV, is essential for society.
"Art appreciation -- once a staple of a liberal-arts education that taught music, literature, and fine art -- derives from knowledge of a form's history and standards, not simply its newest derivations or mutations," critic Armond White, chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, told the group at its 2010 annual awards banquet. "Only critical expertise can provide this grounding and guidance," White said.
"All opinions are not equal," he stated. "The opinion most worth disseminating is the informed opinion, based on experience and learning." Critics must not follow trends. Instead, they must "maintain cultural and emotional continuity -- a sense of mankind's personal history --in their reporting on the arts," he said.
The other side welcomes the new Web-based bursting of film criticism, whether informed or not.
Movies have always been the most democratic of arts, open to all to enjoy and opine about, without requiring academic learning. But good reviewers still need a love of movies, experience seeing many, the insight to understand them, and the skill to convey their insights clearly and concisely.
Everyday opinions had been limited to friends gathering for pizza after a film, or for office-mates to talk about the next day (hence the name of this column, "After the Show"). Though newspapers and magazines once filtered out the worst reviewers, because of the Internet, film criticism now has mobs keyboarding away. On the Web, the exceptionally democratic nature of film reviewing has been reduced to the good, bad and ugly.
For film lovers, the challenge hasn't changed, to find the few critics in his mob who provide the most useful commentary and the most revealing insights, with writing that is helpful and challenging.
Those critics sadly may not be working at local papers, but they are out there. To find them, check out sites like Rottentomatoes.com or rival Metacritic.com. They compile reviews from the best critics. Find one or two you like and stick with them for your filmgoing guidance.
-- 30 --
0 comments:
Post a Comment