A refusal to mourn the death, by downsizing, of the metro daily film crit corps
Roger Ebert mourns the majesty and burning here. He says film critics are being replaced by chroniclers of celebrity gossip:
A newspaper film critic is like a canary in a coal mine. When one croaks, get the hell out. The lengthening toll of former film critics acts as a poster child for the self-destruction of American newspapers, which once hoped to be more like the New York Times and now yearn to become more like the National Enquirer. We used to be the town crier. Now we are the neighborhood gossip.
His conclusion is apocalyptic:
The celebrity culture is infantilizing us. We are being trained not to think. It is not about the disappearance of film critics. We are the canaries. It is about the death of an intelligent and curious, readership, interested in significant things and able to think critically. It is about the failure of our educational system. It is not about dumbing-down. It is about snuffing out.
Ebert is right to characterize the problems newspapers have as self-destruction, but isn’t the rest of his heartfelt eulogy beside the point, even just wrong?
Fifteen years ago, the average American’s exposure to film criticism came from, in rough order of impact and accessibility, a) the critic in one’s local paper, b) some nimrod on local TV, c) Siskel & Ebert, c) whoever might be writing in any general-interest magazines one subscribed to (from Time and Newsweek to any incidental reviews in everything from women’s mags to Rolling Stone), and d) actual serious criticism in magazines like the New Yorker or the New Republic.
Today, if I’m interested in critical takes on, say, Australia, in a click or two I have at hand the writings of Manohla Dargis, Ebert himself, Ken Turan, Ella Taylor and Todd McCarthy on that film. A click or two more and I have at my disposal the collective wisdom of the internets’ collective film writing, the intellectual equivalent of that sandworm in Dune, majestic and slightly nauseating at the same time.
What in the world is wrong with this picture?
For virtually everyone interested in film criticism, today’s state of affairs is great.
Ebert’s vista is the too-narrow one of daily newspapers. That’s an artificial construct that has no resonance to anyone with a computer. And even in that limited sphere film criticism was not a savior. A lot of highly profitable newspapers never had anything but crummy critics covering any arts medium you can think of. (Even the NYT, remember, for decades kept Bosley Crowther, a menace to the evolution of American film tastes, as its chief film critic.)
Now, in the larger sense, many many years ago, obsessed with not digruntling even one subscriber, papers got out of the business of offending anyone, and a long process of self-censorship and overall blanding kicked in. But it’s not clear even the flipside of that approach could have saved papers from the biggest problem the digital convergence has created for them, and that’s the collapse of their advertising business plans.
Now, everyone’s fretting about the dwindling ranks of film critics. It does seem like that the number of paid professionals in this realm is shrinking (a lot of papers used to have two people covering film) , and it’s true they’ve been replaced (before the immediate downsizing era) to some extent by people covering sillier things.
But this has been going on for a very long time. This is a human problem, to be sure; the first real paper I ever worked at closed down. I was young at the time so it didn’t affect me all that much, but I saw a lot of people who’d spent many years at the paper lose their jobs.
And in a case like that, there’s a loss to the community, when local news disappears.
But local film critics? Come on. Most of them, either creations of or blithely accomodated to that blandness, dutifully detailed the charms of the latest blockbuster on the cover of their entertainment sections and tucked their appreciations of what trickle of art product came to town toward the back, where it belonged.
So today, to most folks who want to get a smart take on a given movie, the situation is, as I described above, close to ideal.
Is there cause for worry for us? Right now, for the hypothetical film fan who reads the writers I mentioned, I don’t think there’s a crisis on this count; none of them is in danger of being downsized. (The estimable Taylor, one of the LA Weekly’s stable of critics and now part of the Village Voice chain, will I assume continued to be used by the company, as will J. Hoberman.)
Mourning the daily newspaper is fetishizing a delivery product, and one that, let’s be honest, contributed to its own decline. As Ebert says, the papers trivialized themselves many years ago. There are many many bright and even brilliant writers at them, and I hope they keep their jobs, but there are many many more dingbats, many of them, to be sure, in management, but many others writing film criticism.
For the rest of his piece Ebert rails at celebrity gossip, which is driven not by newspapers but by … people. He thinks that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie should be able to wait and get their car from a valet unmolested. I think there are other things in the world to be concerned about. (I bet Pitt and Angelina do too.) They know that a lot of the paparazzi swarms are summoned by the celebs themselves or their agents—that there is a celebrity-driven economy behind the scenes that the celebs themselves largely profit from.
This infrastructure—let’s call it the Celebrity Industrial Complex—is built up around the desires of actual people to buy writing on paper about those celebs.
This bothers me only about as much as anchovies do, which is only when they are forced upon me unsuspecting. That almost never happens because the corollary of the instant access to all the critical thinking I linked to above is … that I don’t have to pay attention to the celebrity stuff. Ebert writes:
On one single day recently, I was informed that Tom and Katie’s daughter Suri “won’t wear pants” and shares matching designer sunglasses with her mom. No, wait, they’re not matching, they’re only both wearing sunglasses. Eloping to Mexico: Heidi and Spencer. Britney is feeling old. Amy is in the hospital. George called Hugh in the middle of the night to accuse him of waging a campaign to take away the title of “sexiest man alive.” Pete discussed naming his son Bronx Mowgli.
I’m in the business and I didn’t read any of that (I don’t even know who Heidi, Spencer, Amy or Pete are) because I chose not to. Why did Roger?
What Ebert is pining for is a world in which a genteel journalistic product is deposited on the doorsteps of each of us each morning, something that gives urbane film writing by his and my lights the prominence it deserves and keeps the gossip swept up in a pile on the back page.
But in fact that’s the way the world is today, if you look at the big picture and toss in the little added research it requires each of us.
16 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Mourning the newspaper is like mourning the 8-track tape. It’s not that people don’t want film criticism, it’s that they can get it in an easier-to-use format at a time of their choosing. Newspapers as businesses have made the same mistake the music industry made: Confusing the product and its method of delivery. There likely are more people reading now than at any time in human history. It’s a news organization’s challenge to figure out how to monetize that fact.
Regarding Heidi, Spencer, Amy or Pete…the only one whose name I recognized was Amy. I’m surprised you knew who Suri was. I didn’t. And I may have some sad news. The Village Voice chain is set to go nationally with Scott Foundras and Jim Hoberman as their critics, firing all their local writers.
No mention of Ella Taylor.[Roger wrote to say he’d since found out that Taylor remains at the LA Weekly–Hitsville.] I hope it isn’t true. The internet is great at giving you free access to writers someone else has to pay. Manohla Dargis and Tony Scott, for example, are paid by the New York Times to write for your pleasure. I don’t know of a single critic making a living from online work. Well, probably Harry Knowles, who has better critics writing for his site than you might guess by looking at it. I believe he pays for their reviews, but I highly doubt it is a living wage. Oh, also the Salon and Slate critics, although Salon laid off Charles Taylor. In fact, NO ONE can support him or herself off the web alone. Certainly not me. All five of the critics you mention are paid by their papers, if that still includes Ella. The New York Times used to send Canby to Cannes to hang out for a few days and write a couple of pontifications. Now Tony and Manohla do almost-daily blogs and video reports and chats, in addition to their print coverage. Like doing two jobs for teh price of one. When kids tell me they want to be movie critics, I say, “Great! How will you support yourself?” Most of the professional film critics in America earn their living wages and get their health benefits by teaching. Not that it’s a bad thing, just that I’m glad you enjoy the free lunch.When it comes to film criticism, hell, when it comes to just plain writing, Ebert is god. You totally ignored one of his central arguments — the fact that critics are now being limited to 500 words. It’s that USA Today effect. Even Rotten Tomatoes puts online critics in a lesser category — few take them seriously. The age of great film criticism is ending. It’s now all about celebrity gossip and E! The news is being dumbed down, just like in other areas. How sad.
But we’ll always have Paris.
Mr. Ebert also should admit complicity in his perception of the “death” of criticism. He and Mr. Siskel boiled 1,200-word film reviews down to two thumbs. He also is a branded name — a celebrity, if you will — whose criticism moviegoers will seek online over the reviews of their local film critic.
Across the board, we’re being weaned on an ADD-friendly, short-shorter news item diet.
And RottenTomatoes.com falls into that pattern; though it’s a great gateway to write-ups by critics of all stripes, most people simply scan the RT pages and excerpted blurbs. They don’t read full reviews anymore, for the most part. They plug into a Tomatometer figure, clck through a couple of pages, and that’s it.
I use reviews as an aid in deciding whether to spend the price of a movie ticket on a particular film. Over many years, I have depended on Roger Ebert’s commentary in the making of these decisions. Do I need to know all of Roger’s inner thoughts about a given film? No. In fact, most of the time I can depend on the number of stars he awards the film, but I do enjoy reading the reviews to the end and appreciating his insights and comments. I also consider TV critics’ reviews that run on the news shows I watch, and occasionally I scan the “reviews” section of the movie timetable web site I use.
To me, movie reviews are not to be considered on the level of brain surgery or Ph.D. theses. But for those who do take the issue that seriously, there are plenty of college courses available, and probably more than a few web sites that provide unlimited opportunity for deep thoughts and bloviations.
And as for reviewers in local newspapers, come on, give me a break.
I think you should consider Ebert’s insightful rebuttal carefully. The dilemma here is this: it’s great to have cheap access to the news services the new economy affords us. It is. But, across the board, if we shift the outlay we will make for media and entertainment down, the actual labor behind it is likely to dissipate. This isn’t a universal in economics, of course. In commodity markets, driving costs down with competition can be a very good thing. The concern is whether we are losing a baseline in quality with “online journalism”. As someone well acquainted with the bloggers working for the GawkerMedia empire, I can say their standards simply don’t match a real press outlet. And they know that. That’s why they pay so badly. This directly relates to Mr. Ebert’s point in that the long-term trend here is our criticism might be in the hands of IMDB type posters. If that doesn’t scare you, we just won’t see eye to eye… perhaps the age of elitism is gone, but I know I’ll miss some of it.
This amuses me. With the quality of the films a typical viewer has access to, it’s difficult for me to understand why we need critics. I don’t need anyone from the NYT to give me a review of the Pirates of the Caribbean part XXIII. I don’t need anyone to tell me that the latest comedy full of fart humor aimed at 15 year old boys or men who act like them might not be for me.
The declining quality of film and the average joe’s access to it has played a larger role in the lack of critical assessment than has any other factor. With most towns only availability to film being the pablum shoveled by their local nationally owned multiplex conglomerate how can most people even recognize good film let alone have the variety to be critical.
Blame Hollywood. They have dumbed down the offering until like network television, it’s difficult to find anything that isn’t like a huge steaming bowl of gruel. It fills a few hours if you can stand the boredom.
“A click or two more and I have at my disposal the collective wisdom of the internets’ collective film writing, the intellectual equivalent of that sandworm in Dune, majestic and slightly nauseating at the same time.”
What do you mean by this?
There is some intelligent and even vital writing on film online, if you know where to look. Not everyone blogging on film is a fanboy.
What is not addressed is that simultaneously, how films are viewed has changed. Just as the viewer is not dependent on the newspaper for criticism, the viewer does not have to go to a theater. That I can see more international films and classic films than before on DVD changes both how I see films and what I see.
Those that can’t create critique.
It’s an obsolete profession relegated to the status of internet hobby, and that’s a +1 in my book for all of humanity.
You mentioned Bosley Crowther with distaste, which naturally led me to look up the reviews of this man whom I’d never heard of. Surprise, surprise–they’re pretty brilliant. He writes with real zest, in that urbane, cyncial, British style that is a delight to read. He also seems pretty balanced in his reviews (e.g., Rashomon), far from a “thumbs up/thumbs down” mentality. It’s wonderful to encounter critical, perceptive, at-the-time reviews of films that have, over time, become sacred cows. He politely applauds “It’s a Wonderful Life,” for example, but pooh-poohs some of its sentimental and juvenile aspects (calling the banker “a parody of Scrooge”–which, let’s face it, he is).
Thanks for leading me to a critic whose work is such a treat. Too bad he retired in the 1960s. I’d love to have heard his opinions about the movies of the 1970s and on, let alone those that are out there now.
Roger Ebert has a valid point. Even Entertainment Weekly is getting into the act. I don’t think for a second that it’s a profound magazine at all, but over the last few months, it seems to have gotten just a teeny bit smaller. And now, on the review pages of any item, be it a movie, an album, a play, a TV show, a book, or a DVD, the editors actually highlight what they feel is the essence of their review in darker print than the rest of it, as if they were acknowledging that that’s all readers care about - the one basic idea. How convenient! Now we can go straight to the important point in the review without having to bother with the rest of it.
Oh, brother!
When even “Entertainment Weekly” panders to short attention spans, you know you’re in trouble.
I think you make a valid point that “mourning” the loss of the newspaper film critic is a little over-dramatic. However, I think the real problem is in regard to people like me: young, fanatic about movies, and wanting to get into the film critic business. If newspapers (and possibly other publishing outlets that pay in the future) downsize, then how will I ever make a living off my dream job?
Blogging sure helps, but if you are like me and can’t seem to find the time to blog every day about movies because you are struggling to make ends meet, what is a budding film critic to do if the newspapers that could potentially hire him aren’t interested?
Ebert wasn’t so much bemoaning the death of newspapers as the whole idea of criticism in the media (and that includes the web). And he’s right, mostly. I have many times seen TV shows do little more than show trailers or EPK interview soundbites where, in another time, they may have actually reviewed the film. Remember Leonard Maltin reviewing movies on “Entertainment Tonight”? There hasn’t been anything like a review of anything on that show for years.
For instance, the new “At the Movies” runs down titles coming out on DVD with no mention of the movies being good or bad. Followed by some recommendations, admittedly, but why no commentary on the new releases? Isn’t that the point of the show? Oh, it’s not? That’s what Roger was talking about.
And it’s not just there, it’s all over the media. His example of the “buzz” around Twilight is dead-on. How many articles did we see about the fans versus the movie (or the book) itself?
Where people used to actually discuss things, now they just mention them. “Twilight! Benjamin Button! Star Trek!” There. Can I have my press pass now?
The trend of replacing criticism with blurbs and scores and snarky one-liners means a whole lot of wasted time for readers like me, because so many of the reviewers are essentially anonymous. Ebert has such a loyal following because we know him so well. Mass quantities of Rotten Tomato-style ratings don’t tell me anything about why a writer liked or disliked a movie, which makes it useless to me.
Unless I know how a reviewer judges a movie and by what standards, the bottom-line opinion doesn’t mean much. Four stars from a blood-thirsty fan boy does not equal four stars from Dargis. That’s the real loss in the elimination of local film critics. The good ones (and yes there were very good ones) provided a range of personality and taste that is all but gone. Much as I like Dargis and Ebert, I don’t want all the substantial movie writing to come from only a half-dozen people.
Yeah but let’s be honest—did you read a half-dozen critics ten years ago?
And the virtue of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic isn’t the scores… it’s the aggregation of the reviews, allowing one to assess so many more critics so easily.
No one’s made what I think is the real problems with this form of reading, however, and that is that new off-the-radar movies might get lost. If I read Dargis just by looking up her reviews on Metacritic of films I already know about, I might miss her rave of something new I haven’t heard of.
Now, for a film fan, it’s not likely, because we have other sites, like those I mentioned, that monitor such things. And I get the NYT, too.