The LA Times’ ombudsman, Jamie Gold, writes today about complaints that the paper shouldn’t have run its review of the new Indiana Jones movie on the front page, which it did Monday. Here’s the justification from one of the paper’s editors:

Entertainment editor Betsy Sharkey explains why the story was pitched for that spot: “It was one of the most anticipated films of the year, if not this decade, with interest crossing generational lines in an almost unprecedented way (parents who saw it as kids, and now their kids, all keenly interested in the film) and A1 is home to the most compelling news of the day—in this case it was the first critical reaction to ‘Indiana Jones: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.’”

This is hooey, of course. Discussing the critical reaction to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is indeed a great idea for a front-page story. But that’s not what the LAT did. It stuck a review out there to pander to both the readers and the makers of the film. The movie itself is a tired fourth-time-around retread of a worn franchise, each one of whose entries has been a significant artistic and financial step down from the previous one.* (I”ve seen the new one and it is no exception, believe me.)

It doesn’t deserve to be reviewed on the front page of a serious newspaper; instead of discussing the matter in those plain terms, Gold just allows the paper’s editors to natter on with their straw man defense, and never focuses the argument. This sort of thing is why I think ombudsmen are a bad idea. With very few exceptions they don’t have the spine or the smarts to take on their institution forthrightly. Here, a bad journalistic decision is compounded by an intellectually dishonest defense of the decision in the paper’s own pages.

If the LAT had done a story on the critical reaction to the film—which has been the subject of decent stories elsewhere in the entertainment industry press—it could have talked about The Da Vinci Code, for example, the last shitty Hollywood blockbuster that became a famous artistic turkey. Variety’s account:

As usual with Cannes, “The Da Vinci Code” screened to the press a few hours ahead of its evening bow. Word spread quickly on the Croisette of sniggers from the jaded critics, and scathing reviews were posted on the Web quickly. By the time “Da Vinci” had its 7:30 p.m. screening, the verdict was in. Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Tom Hanks, et al., climbed the red carpet of the Palais, waving to the crowd and trying not to look shell-shocked.

The Da Vinci Code was panned by critics around the world. It has a Metacritic rating of 46, and is only that high because of a few slavering lapdogs at some minor papers; Roger Ebert was the only serious person who did not give the film a critical upchuck.

There again is material for a front-page story … but then, of course, the LAT would have had to note that that was the last time it put a review on its front page.

The reviewer in both cases is Ken Turan, a former colleague of mine and a distinctive and uncompromised voice. (He trashed Titanic, for example.) But it’s unfair to him to put his reviews out there. Consider this from his review of The Da Vinci Code:

While the story plays better on the page than the screen and some of the film’s elements work better than others, a proficient Ron Howard version of things is certainly competent if only occasionally thrilling.

The film was made by Howard a few years after he won a best director Oscar for A Brilliant Beautiful Mind. The phrase “certainly competent” in this context is a pretty funny thing to say—and so is “the story plays better on the page,” when the story in question is one of the famously turgid reads of our time.

* Remember, readers—Hitsville deals only in real dollars, not Inflated Hollywood Play Money™.

———–

Previously in Hitsville:

Indiana Jones Agonistes