Vadim Rizoz at The Independent Eye implores critics to “put the ‘I’ in film writing.”
Tom Dowling, who works on the craft side of Irish filmmaking, wonders whether Irish film critics are “too kind to Irish Films.”
A British script consultant complains that screenwriters “rely on film critics to inform [them] about what films [they] should and shouldn’t see – and how badly served [they] often are!”
Filmmaker and film historian Michael Neelsen explores “The Myth of Objective Film Criticism.”
OFCS member Scott Weinberg delves into the mystery of “Variety and the Case of the Vanishing Review.”
Norman Lebrecht in New Stateman discusses the future of arts criticism.
Showing posts with label criticism chatter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criticism chatter. Show all posts
March 03, 2010
February 10, 2010
criticism news roundup
Chris Parry at The Vancouver Sun highlights the mysterious and repeated acts of plagiarism of junketeer Paul Fishcher, and laments the emergence of “a new kind of critic; one who is often accused of exchanging high praise for access.”...
...Vadim Rizov at IFC’s The Independent Eye parries to Parry: “Plagiarism, criticism: what's the difference?”...
And Edward Champion at Reluctant Habits connects the Fischer debacle to “the crisis in American film criticism and that the need for trust has reached an unprecedented level.”
From the Guardian’s Film blog: “Why Warren Beatty's attack on Pauline Kael failed: Warren Beatty’s disingenuous offer to employ the film critic Pauline Kael on his film Love and Money was motivated by neither love nor money – just spite for a powerful, critical woman.”
Robert Sietsema at the Columbia Journalism Review is a food critic, but what he has to say has a lot to do with the current state of film criticism, too.
Robert W. Butler at KansasCity.com defends critics by noting that “you can’t really love a movie if you've never really hated one.”
OFCSer MaryAnn Johanson at FlickFilosopher.com explains that critics have nothing to do with voting on Oscar nominations or winners.
British film critic Mark Kermode, in a profile at Scotsman.com, says, “I love being in a movie theatre and seeing a film with lots of other people, but I want them out of my line of vision and I don't want to hear them.”
SmartMoney purports to reveal the “10 Things Movie Critics Won't Tell You”...
...Vadim Rizov at IFC’s The Independent Eye parries to Parry: “Plagiarism, criticism: what's the difference?”...
And Edward Champion at Reluctant Habits connects the Fischer debacle to “the crisis in American film criticism and that the need for trust has reached an unprecedented level.”
From the Guardian’s Film blog: “Why Warren Beatty's attack on Pauline Kael failed: Warren Beatty’s disingenuous offer to employ the film critic Pauline Kael on his film Love and Money was motivated by neither love nor money – just spite for a powerful, critical woman.”
Robert Sietsema at the Columbia Journalism Review is a food critic, but what he has to say has a lot to do with the current state of film criticism, too.
Robert W. Butler at KansasCity.com defends critics by noting that “you can’t really love a movie if you've never really hated one.”
OFCSer MaryAnn Johanson at FlickFilosopher.com explains that critics have nothing to do with voting on Oscar nominations or winners.
British film critic Mark Kermode, in a profile at Scotsman.com, says, “I love being in a movie theatre and seeing a film with lots of other people, but I want them out of my line of vision and I don't want to hear them.”
SmartMoney purports to reveal the “10 Things Movie Critics Won't Tell You”...
February 02, 2010
criticism news roundup
Urlesque compiles, YouTube style, the darker side of Siskel and Ebert’s review show, noting that these outtakes “reveal [that] these friends’ relationship was far from perfect.” (Ken Tucker at EW says, about the video, “the thing is, they also make some good points about movie criticism in the midst of all this. These clips make me like these men even more.”)
OFCS member Eric D. Snider is profiled at Deseret News on the occasion of his professional attendance at Sundance.
Freakanomics explores the notion of whether withholding a film from critics helps rescue, financially, a bad movie.
“My Life Is Film Criticism” goodies at CafePress? Yes: T-shirts, caps, etc.
OFCS member Eric D. Snider is profiled at Deseret News on the occasion of his professional attendance at Sundance.
Freakanomics explores the notion of whether withholding a film from critics helps rescue, financially, a bad movie.
“My Life Is Film Criticism” goodies at CafePress? Yes: T-shirts, caps, etc.
January 25, 2010
criticism news roundup
Irin Carmon at Jezebel declares, “Roger Ebert Doesn’t Give A Shit, And I Love Him For It,” and praises how the new openness in the critic’s writing means “we've gotten the chance to know Ebert a little better, unleashed on every topic in film and beyond, full of righteous anger and thoughtfulness alike — and freaking hilarious.”
Leah Sandals at unedit my heart asks “A Plague of Bloggers? Really?” and pushes back against a detractor of online film criticism: “[A]ny argument that posits ‘bloggers’ vs ‘critics’ seems kind of old and tired, and frankly I’m surprised to see it even being tossed out as a helpful dividing line in 2010.”
Leah Sandals at unedit my heart asks “A Plague of Bloggers? Really?” and pushes back against a detractor of online film criticism: “[A]ny argument that posits ‘bloggers’ vs ‘critics’ seems kind of old and tired, and frankly I’m surprised to see it even being tossed out as a helpful dividing line in 2010.”
January 18, 2010
criticism news roundup
Bennett Marcus at New York’s blog Vulture discovers that director James Toback’s is planning “revenge on nasty film critics.”
Graphic novel writer and critic Jamie S. Rich talks about the current state of film criticism at the blog Talking with Tim, and specifically takes year-end listmakers to task.
A selection of the tributes to critic and filmmaker Eric Rohmer, who died last week at 89:
Glenn Kenny in the Los Angeles Times praises Rohmer as an art-house intellectual to the end, whose “work is strewn with... gorgeously felicitous touches.”
Richard Corliss in Time hails Rohmer for revolutionizing criticism, deeming him “a master painter... of fond character studies.”
The obit writers of The Washington Post call Rohmer’s films “long, philosophical conversations” that adhered to his “personal vision: to make films portraying the inner lives of characters without adding extraneous drama.”
Graphic novel writer and critic Jamie S. Rich talks about the current state of film criticism at the blog Talking with Tim, and specifically takes year-end listmakers to task.
A selection of the tributes to critic and filmmaker Eric Rohmer, who died last week at 89:
Glenn Kenny in the Los Angeles Times praises Rohmer as an art-house intellectual to the end, whose “work is strewn with... gorgeously felicitous touches.”
Richard Corliss in Time hails Rohmer for revolutionizing criticism, deeming him “a master painter... of fond character studies.”
The obit writers of The Washington Post call Rohmer’s films “long, philosophical conversations” that adhered to his “personal vision: to make films portraying the inner lives of characters without adding extraneous drama.”
January 11, 2010
criticism news roundup
Lisa Schwarzbaum at EW reveals the advice movie critics give to friends when we're not on duty, and sums it up: “I know the value of when to let go of my brilliant argument that Invictus is square and lazy filmmaking, and instead let the cousin who’s a big Matt Damon fan know that she’ll like him as a rugby player.”
Mick LaSalle at SGFate instructs us in “Movie Reviewing 101” and notes that “one of the mistakes movie critics often make is to start reviews by comparing a new movie to other movies.”
Patrick Goldstein at The Big Picture calls out Variety ex-editor Peter Bart on his disdain for critics, who has been “zinging critics for their top-10 list choices.”
Mick LaSalle at SGFate instructs us in “Movie Reviewing 101” and notes that “one of the mistakes movie critics often make is to start reviews by comparing a new movie to other movies.”
Patrick Goldstein at The Big Picture calls out Variety ex-editor Peter Bart on his disdain for critics, who has been “zinging critics for their top-10 list choices.”
January 04, 2010
criticism news roundup
David Chen wonders whether film criticism really is a dying art, and decides that “fragmentation is not death.”
David Kronke at Variety asks “Can critics push Oscar?”, and examines the films of 2009 that have been helped by critical love.
OFCSer Erik Childress runs down the quote whores of 2009, and despairs that “the rise of the quote whores and anonymous fanboy bloggers has gone ruefully under-reported.”
RTE News announces the death of Irish Times film critic Michael Dwyer, whom director Neil Jordan praised as someone who brought a “totally different energy” to criticism.
David Kronke at Variety asks “Can critics push Oscar?”, and examines the films of 2009 that have been helped by critical love.
OFCSer Erik Childress runs down the quote whores of 2009, and despairs that “the rise of the quote whores and anonymous fanboy bloggers has gone ruefully under-reported.”
RTE News announces the death of Irish Times film critic Michael Dwyer, whom director Neil Jordan praised as someone who brought a “totally different energy” to criticism.
December 28, 2009
criticism news roundup
Stephen Saito at IFC runs down the most memorable critical dustups of 2009, with a look at “some of the most thought-provoking film writing of the year [which] hasn't been done on film at all, but on how film writing is changing, where film journalists begin to consider themselves as film activists and critics engage in discussions that don't end with the final period of their reviews.”
David Berry at Vue Weekly offers a critics guide to critics, wherein he examines “the thought process behind art criticism.”
Anna Robinson at Alt Film Guide notes the controversy over how the London Film Critics treat Irish talent.
David Berry at Vue Weekly offers a critics guide to critics, wherein he examines “the thought process behind art criticism.”
Anna Robinson at Alt Film Guide notes the controversy over how the London Film Critics treat Irish talent.
December 21, 2009
criticism news roundup
New York Times critic Manohla Dargis rails against the endemic sexism of Hollywood, and discusses some of the issues that crop up for female film critics.
The New York Film Critics Circle gave a special award to Andrew Sarris for his contribution to film criticism.
Mark Lynch at The Wrap covers “The Last Gasp of the Film Critic,” and proposes that we “get back to writing about and promoting films [we] believe in rather than wasting column inches on a weekly reviewing routine.”
Rachel Abramowitz at The Envelope explains how review aggregators including Rotten Tomatoes can predict the Oscars.
OFCSer Erik Childress at Cinematical doesn’t like it “When Variety Gives Critics A Bad Name,” and ponders the true meaning of the term “critic-proof.”
David Hudson at The Auteurs collects the reaction from critics to the death of legendary Canadian critic Robin Wood.
The New York Film Critics Circle gave a special award to Andrew Sarris for his contribution to film criticism.
Mark Lynch at The Wrap covers “The Last Gasp of the Film Critic,” and proposes that we “get back to writing about and promoting films [we] believe in rather than wasting column inches on a weekly reviewing routine.”
Rachel Abramowitz at The Envelope explains how review aggregators including Rotten Tomatoes can predict the Oscars.
OFCSer Erik Childress at Cinematical doesn’t like it “When Variety Gives Critics A Bad Name,” and ponders the true meaning of the term “critic-proof.”
David Hudson at The Auteurs collects the reaction from critics to the death of legendary Canadian critic Robin Wood.
December 15, 2009
criticism news roundup
Andy Webb at HubPages explores the difference between “movie reviewer” and “movie critic” -- explains why he considers himself a reviewer.
Sharon Waxman at TheWrap reveals that “Laid-Off Movie Critics [Are] the New 'In' Focus Group” (though one nonparticipating critic worries about becoming “part of the merchandizing machine”)...
...and Anne Thompson on why critics being paid by marketers is a “slippery conflict of interest.”
Lynden Barber at Eyes Wired Open argues that “film critics should never give awards for editing because they're not qualified to judge.”
Sharon Waxman at TheWrap reveals that “Laid-Off Movie Critics [Are] the New 'In' Focus Group” (though one nonparticipating critic worries about becoming “part of the merchandizing machine”)...
...and Anne Thompson on why critics being paid by marketers is a “slippery conflict of interest.”
Lynden Barber at Eyes Wired Open argues that “film critics should never give awards for editing because they're not qualified to judge.”
December 07, 2009
criticism news roundup
Stuart McGurk at the Guardian on explains why he loves the world's worst film critic: Fiore Mastracci, who’s “so dreadful he's bordering on genius.”
Matt Zoller Seitz at IFC.com explains why he believes that David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson are the best critics of the 00s.
Patrick Goldstein at The Big Picture laments the departure of Leah Rozen as People’s resident film critic, “one of the only reasons to read the magazine.”
John Kenneth Muir at his self-named blog contends that “The Death of the Movie Critic is Greatly Exaggerated,” because while anyone can be a critic, “not just anyone can be a good critic.”
Norman Lebrecht at the Sydney Morning Herald discusses “the changing role of the critic in the 21st century,” and why “there has never been a greater need in democratic society for strong, independent arts criticism.”
Matt Zoller Seitz at IFC.com explains why he believes that David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson are the best critics of the 00s.
Patrick Goldstein at The Big Picture laments the departure of Leah Rozen as People’s resident film critic, “one of the only reasons to read the magazine.”
John Kenneth Muir at his self-named blog contends that “The Death of the Movie Critic is Greatly Exaggerated,” because while anyone can be a critic, “not just anyone can be a good critic.”
Norman Lebrecht at the Sydney Morning Herald discusses “the changing role of the critic in the 21st century,” and why “there has never been a greater need in democratic society for strong, independent arts criticism.”
November 30, 2009
criticism news roundup
Tom Roston at Moviefone wonders “Do Movie Critics Still Matter?” when non-pro “critics” can disseminate their “reviews” far and wide, and don’t have to adhere to the embargoes pros do.
Josh Tyler at CinemaBlend.com believes that the “New Poster for The Road Advertises Rolling Stone,” emphasizing one review over the movie itself.
Mark Asch at The L Magazine comes out “In Praise of James Agee” for almost singlehandedly inventing film criticism.
Christopher Beam at Slate answers the question “‘[Best] Film Ever!!!’ How Do Movie Blurbs Work?” by focusing on how studios cherry-pick quotes.
OFCSer Matthew Sorrento at FilmThreat interviews Bright Lights Film Journal editor Gary Morris, who loves the film blogosphere.
Roger Ebert decides that it’s “about time to share some of [his] thoughts about television and movie critics,” and he pulls no punches.
Josh Tyler at CinemaBlend.com believes that the “New Poster for The Road Advertises Rolling Stone,” emphasizing one review over the movie itself.
Mark Asch at The L Magazine comes out “In Praise of James Agee” for almost singlehandedly inventing film criticism.
Christopher Beam at Slate answers the question “‘[Best] Film Ever!!!’ How Do Movie Blurbs Work?” by focusing on how studios cherry-pick quotes.
OFCSer Matthew Sorrento at FilmThreat interviews Bright Lights Film Journal editor Gary Morris, who loves the film blogosphere.
Roger Ebert decides that it’s “about time to share some of [his] thoughts about television and movie critics,” and he pulls no punches.
July 15, 2009
15 July 2009: the weekly roundup of film criticism news
• Cory Doctorow in The Guardian defends critics against implied charges of piracy: “Let's talk about hypothetical risks. If you go to a big preview screening in Leicester Square – a privilege given to the press, entertainment industry VIPs, and a fair number of punters who win radio phone-in prizes – you'll be asked to leave your mobile phone in a baggie behind a counter at the front of the cinema. The film industry says that this is a necessary precaution against the hypothetical losses that would result should someone use a mobile phone to 'camcord' (that is, record from the audience) a pre-release movie and leak it onto the internet. ... When pressed, spokespeople from the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) and the Film Distributors' Association (FDA) admitted they had never heard of a pirated movie ‘in the wild’ that originated with a mobile phone, nor, to the best of their knowledge, had anyone ever been ejected from a cinema for attempting this.”
• In a story about wine journalism, an unbylined article at The Times of Johannesburg insists that “[c]ertainly film criticism as a profession has gone the way of night-soil collectors.” Really? (Maybe -- see the next entry.)
• Andy Kaufman at IndieWire laments the impossibility of making a living as a film journalist these days: “I’m finally starting to feel the economic crunch—personally. Over the last year, I’ve written about the crashes of ThinkFilm and New Yorker Films, tracked the demise of VHS, the collapse of indie film financing and followed the obsolescence of movie critics. Now, I, too, am seeing my occupation slip away from me with every passing week. Major publications have admitted to me that they ‘ran out of money’; others don’t have the room or budget for feature stories anymore; and fair compensation has dropped to the insulting ‘blog rate’—$35 to $50 for what would have been $100 to $200 for an equivalent amount of work a couple years ago. This shit is real.”
• Jim Quilty at The Daily Star of Beirut offers his insider’s perspective on film-festival jury duty: “On the face of it, film criticism and jury work look the same. While other festival attendees are presumably off being festive somewhere, journalists and judges should (should) spend inordinate amounts of time sitting in dark rooms – sober and alone – watching moving pictures. The guts of hackwork is entirely different from jury duty. The main difference is social.”
• Michael Powell at The New York Times profiles Andrew Sarris, “A Survivor of Film Criticism’s Heroic Age”: “‘We were so gloriously contentious, everyone bitching at everyone,’ said Andrew Sarris, 81, nattily attired in gray slacks and a blue sport jacket, his hair slicked back. ‘We all said some stupid things, but film seemed to matter so much.’”
• In a story about wine journalism, an unbylined article at The Times of Johannesburg insists that “[c]ertainly film criticism as a profession has gone the way of night-soil collectors.” Really? (Maybe -- see the next entry.)
• Andy Kaufman at IndieWire laments the impossibility of making a living as a film journalist these days: “I’m finally starting to feel the economic crunch—personally. Over the last year, I’ve written about the crashes of ThinkFilm and New Yorker Films, tracked the demise of VHS, the collapse of indie film financing and followed the obsolescence of movie critics. Now, I, too, am seeing my occupation slip away from me with every passing week. Major publications have admitted to me that they ‘ran out of money’; others don’t have the room or budget for feature stories anymore; and fair compensation has dropped to the insulting ‘blog rate’—$35 to $50 for what would have been $100 to $200 for an equivalent amount of work a couple years ago. This shit is real.”
• Jim Quilty at The Daily Star of Beirut offers his insider’s perspective on film-festival jury duty: “On the face of it, film criticism and jury work look the same. While other festival attendees are presumably off being festive somewhere, journalists and judges should (should) spend inordinate amounts of time sitting in dark rooms – sober and alone – watching moving pictures. The guts of hackwork is entirely different from jury duty. The main difference is social.”
• Michael Powell at The New York Times profiles Andrew Sarris, “A Survivor of Film Criticism’s Heroic Age”: “‘We were so gloriously contentious, everyone bitching at everyone,’ said Andrew Sarris, 81, nattily attired in gray slacks and a blue sport jacket, his hair slicked back. ‘We all said some stupid things, but film seemed to matter so much.’”
July 08, 2009
8 July 2009: the weekly roundup of film criticism news
• Anne Midgete at The Washington Post ponders the difference between critics and “user” reviews.
• Stendhal at The Unpersons defends the art and craft of film criticism... even in the face of the box-office juggernaut of the critically reviled Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: “A reviewer’s job is inherently narcissistic (just like, dare I say, a blogger’s). A reviewer watches a film, then writes down her observations on that film, using the experiences (both film-based and otherwise) that she has accumulated over the years. Her job is not to agree with the audience, because the audience is not her.... What we need in criticism is not a reinforcement of our existing values, but a challenge against the tastes we have developed and a demand for a different perspective on looking at a film.... [A] critic’s job is to serve her audience — through providing alternative perspectives, analytical acumen, and as Anton Ego would say, “the defense of the new”...
• Keanu Reeves tells Contactmusic.com that he loves his critics: “I want to see what they write, for sure. You know it's going to be whatever it's going to be and you have to take a review as it is. I mean, whatever they write is whatever they write, and I'm not going to be able to change it. The review is part of why you want to entertain. You want to know what your audience thinks about the film and the performance. I'm interested in what people think, even if it's just one person.”
• Sean at Film Junk wonders about “the sudden wave of criticism coming from moviegoers who now automatically assume that all handheld camera work is a sign of bad filmmaking”...
• Stendhal at The Unpersons defends the art and craft of film criticism... even in the face of the box-office juggernaut of the critically reviled Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: “A reviewer’s job is inherently narcissistic (just like, dare I say, a blogger’s). A reviewer watches a film, then writes down her observations on that film, using the experiences (both film-based and otherwise) that she has accumulated over the years. Her job is not to agree with the audience, because the audience is not her.... What we need in criticism is not a reinforcement of our existing values, but a challenge against the tastes we have developed and a demand for a different perspective on looking at a film.... [A] critic’s job is to serve her audience — through providing alternative perspectives, analytical acumen, and as Anton Ego would say, “the defense of the new”...
• Keanu Reeves tells Contactmusic.com that he loves his critics: “I want to see what they write, for sure. You know it's going to be whatever it's going to be and you have to take a review as it is. I mean, whatever they write is whatever they write, and I'm not going to be able to change it. The review is part of why you want to entertain. You want to know what your audience thinks about the film and the performance. I'm interested in what people think, even if it's just one person.”
• Sean at Film Junk wonders about “the sudden wave of criticism coming from moviegoers who now automatically assume that all handheld camera work is a sign of bad filmmaking”...
June 18, 2009
online critics don’t get no respect
Orlando Sentinel critic Roger Moore, at his blog Frankly My Dear, disses online-only and online-mostly critics in a recent post:
As the Governing Committee pointed out in an email to Moore, the well-respected reviewer societies for “off-line critics” such as the National Society of Film Critics and the many regional critics’ organizations are also created and policed by their own members. And to suggest that only “veteran print critics” are the “professionals” in the field is disingenuous. There are many online critics who are professional either because they are paid for their criticism by an online outlet (or by print publications for reprints of their reviews), or because they work to high professional standards even if they are “merely” running their own sites (which high traffic and advertising support render professional in the same way that high readership and advertising support render print publications professional), or because they adhere to professional standards regardless of whether they’re actually earning a living from their criticsm. And there are veteran online critics, too, some of whom now have track records of a dozen years, or more.
Moore goes on to reprint in its entirety (at the same link) a Los Angeles Times article by John Horn (which does not appear on the Times’s own site, as far as we could determine). Horn worries about movie-review aggregators, specifically Rotten Tomatoes:
Horn entirely fails to mention the OFCS as a vetter of Internet film critics, so we wrote to Horn, too, to point out to him that the OFCS has existed since 1997 to counter the idea that anyone with a modem can be a film critic. Horn also dismisses “the little-known Internet critics Rotten Tomatoes includes,” and we suggested that this is wildly unfair to many online film critics (some of whom who are members of the OFCS, and some of whom are not). The overall readership of Time magazine, for instance, gives no indication whatsoever of what percentage of that readership is interested in the movie reviews Time publishes, but any online publication that publishes film reviews can measure precisely the level of interest those film reviews generate... and that interest is, arguably, far greater and far more influential than Time’s, which caters to a general audience. Movie-themed Web sites cater to devoted movie fans, who frequently drive word-of-mouth on new films.
Both Moore and Horn plug the new movie-review aggregator Movie Review Intelligence as one they can get behind, specifically because it excludes those “little-known Internet critics Rotten Tomatoes.” As we also mentioned to Moore and Horn, while we clearly do not dispute that there are many so-called “critics” on the Internet who do not deserve to be taken seriously, lumping all critics working online in with the “fanboys” is a disservice to the clear direction in which film criticism has been heading for years: that is, away from print and onto the Net. Movie Review Intelligence is especially ironic in that it appears to entirely miss the boat in this regard, by ignoring the online-only critics with long histories who are well respected, including many prolific OFCS members.
We also emailed David Gross, the former Hollywood studio exec behind Movie Review Intelligence, to highlight that if his site is striving to offer, as the site itself says, “the most accurate and complete picture of movie reviews possible,” and justifies this contention with research that demonstrates that “81% of moviegoers follow movie reviews in a newspaper, magazine, on television or online,” ignoring one of those key mediums probably doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Ironically, many of the critics Movie Review Intelligence is surveying would not be eligible for membership in the OFCS, because we require that our members write at least 50 feature-length reviews per year, which we consider a bare minimum for a professional working critic. Many of the critics MRI considers worth paying attention to are producing less than one review per week, at word counts that cannot hope to substantially critique a film. We asked: How can such be considered the cream of the critical crop?
We’d have hoped by this point in the development of Internet journalism, online film critics would be getting more respect. Clearly, there’s still a long way to go. Which is a shame, because anyone who writes off online-only film critics is missing some of the best film writing being done today.
I've complained for years about the way Rottentomatoes weights its measurements of the pulse of the movie reviewing community, leaning heavily on the self-published members of self-policing, self-puffing online reviewer societies to credential a lot of critic-come-latelies, causing mediocre fanboy friendly fare to earn higher tomatometer "ratings" than worthy films that veteran print critics (professionals) see as worthwhile in ways that suggest a film that will endure past its run at the multiplex.
As the Governing Committee pointed out in an email to Moore, the well-respected reviewer societies for “off-line critics” such as the National Society of Film Critics and the many regional critics’ organizations are also created and policed by their own members. And to suggest that only “veteran print critics” are the “professionals” in the field is disingenuous. There are many online critics who are professional either because they are paid for their criticism by an online outlet (or by print publications for reprints of their reviews), or because they work to high professional standards even if they are “merely” running their own sites (which high traffic and advertising support render professional in the same way that high readership and advertising support render print publications professional), or because they adhere to professional standards regardless of whether they’re actually earning a living from their criticsm. And there are veteran online critics, too, some of whom now have track records of a dozen years, or more.
Moore goes on to reprint in its entirety (at the same link) a Los Angeles Times article by John Horn (which does not appear on the Times’s own site, as far as we could determine). Horn worries about movie-review aggregators, specifically Rotten Tomatoes:
The studios are always searching for new ways to sell movie tickets, and they are now looking to review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and newcomer Movie Review Intelligence to generate box-office buzz by amplifying the sound of the critical chorus. As the sites grow more prominent, however, they also are attracting questions about their methodologies, and who exactly qualifies as a film critic in the Internet age?
Horn entirely fails to mention the OFCS as a vetter of Internet film critics, so we wrote to Horn, too, to point out to him that the OFCS has existed since 1997 to counter the idea that anyone with a modem can be a film critic. Horn also dismisses “the little-known Internet critics Rotten Tomatoes includes,” and we suggested that this is wildly unfair to many online film critics (some of whom who are members of the OFCS, and some of whom are not). The overall readership of Time magazine, for instance, gives no indication whatsoever of what percentage of that readership is interested in the movie reviews Time publishes, but any online publication that publishes film reviews can measure precisely the level of interest those film reviews generate... and that interest is, arguably, far greater and far more influential than Time’s, which caters to a general audience. Movie-themed Web sites cater to devoted movie fans, who frequently drive word-of-mouth on new films.
Both Moore and Horn plug the new movie-review aggregator Movie Review Intelligence as one they can get behind, specifically because it excludes those “little-known Internet critics Rotten Tomatoes.” As we also mentioned to Moore and Horn, while we clearly do not dispute that there are many so-called “critics” on the Internet who do not deserve to be taken seriously, lumping all critics working online in with the “fanboys” is a disservice to the clear direction in which film criticism has been heading for years: that is, away from print and onto the Net. Movie Review Intelligence is especially ironic in that it appears to entirely miss the boat in this regard, by ignoring the online-only critics with long histories who are well respected, including many prolific OFCS members.
We also emailed David Gross, the former Hollywood studio exec behind Movie Review Intelligence, to highlight that if his site is striving to offer, as the site itself says, “the most accurate and complete picture of movie reviews possible,” and justifies this contention with research that demonstrates that “81% of moviegoers follow movie reviews in a newspaper, magazine, on television or online,” ignoring one of those key mediums probably doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Ironically, many of the critics Movie Review Intelligence is surveying would not be eligible for membership in the OFCS, because we require that our members write at least 50 feature-length reviews per year, which we consider a bare minimum for a professional working critic. Many of the critics MRI considers worth paying attention to are producing less than one review per week, at word counts that cannot hope to substantially critique a film. We asked: How can such be considered the cream of the critical crop?
We’d have hoped by this point in the development of Internet journalism, online film critics would be getting more respect. Clearly, there’s still a long way to go. Which is a shame, because anyone who writes off online-only film critics is missing some of the best film writing being done today.
June 15, 2009
how people see film critics
A commenter at the Internet Movie Database had this to say about the film The Stoning of Soraya M.:
What does it mean that a film might be “too visceral” for critics? Why does there exist the perception that critics are not lovers of film themselves?
Of course, this is merely one commenter on a site not known for a high level of conversation among its users. But the attitudes expressed here are not at all unusual. What should -- or shouldn’t -- critics be doing to counter such ideas?
It may be too visceral for critics (also like United 93), but film lovers should definitely seek it out.
What does it mean that a film might be “too visceral” for critics? Why does there exist the perception that critics are not lovers of film themselves?
Of course, this is merely one commenter on a site not known for a high level of conversation among its users. But the attitudes expressed here are not at all unusual. What should -- or shouldn’t -- critics be doing to counter such ideas?
June 11, 2009
11 June 2009: the weekly roundup of film criticism news
• Ryan Kelly at Medfly Quarantine alerts movie critics to “beware the Tomatometer,” for it is apparently “a new game in town” that is “pav[ing] the way for this ADD wave of film criticism” and offers a “false sense of objectivity.” Okay, then.
• Tirdad Derakhshani at Philly.com notes that once critic, now filmmaker Paul Schrader, in a new essay, “argues that the ‘great middle’ of film criticism - serious yet accessible film discussion - has disappeared, pushed out on one side by jargon-filled academic studies, and on the other by mass-media film reviews that are little more than consumer guides.” Like the Tomatometer, perhaps.
• Jim Emerson at his blog Scanners asks, “Can a movie ruin a good review? Conversely, can a review actually improve upon a movie?” And we can also ask, Can the Tomatometer ruin a good review?
• David Hudson at IFC’s The Daily comments that the New York Observer’s laying off of its legendary critic left him “a little confused about how to feel, much less react. On the one hand, Andrew Sarris helped reclaim American movies for Americans by importing and reinterpreting an appreciation of American directors. On the other hand, he’s been quoting from the press kits just a whole lot lately.”
• Shawn Levy at Mad About Movies also notes, about Sarris: “True, in the past 20-odd years, there wasn't the same passion or craft or reliability in his writing. But there is no denying his long-standing influence or his importance in the history of the medium and those who wish to understand it.”
• Tirdad Derakhshani at Philly.com notes that once critic, now filmmaker Paul Schrader, in a new essay, “argues that the ‘great middle’ of film criticism - serious yet accessible film discussion - has disappeared, pushed out on one side by jargon-filled academic studies, and on the other by mass-media film reviews that are little more than consumer guides.” Like the Tomatometer, perhaps.
• Jim Emerson at his blog Scanners asks, “Can a movie ruin a good review? Conversely, can a review actually improve upon a movie?” And we can also ask, Can the Tomatometer ruin a good review?
• David Hudson at IFC’s The Daily comments that the New York Observer’s laying off of its legendary critic left him “a little confused about how to feel, much less react. On the one hand, Andrew Sarris helped reclaim American movies for Americans by importing and reinterpreting an appreciation of American directors. On the other hand, he’s been quoting from the press kits just a whole lot lately.”
• Shawn Levy at Mad About Movies also notes, about Sarris: “True, in the past 20-odd years, there wasn't the same passion or craft or reliability in his writing. But there is no denying his long-standing influence or his importance in the history of the medium and those who wish to understand it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)