Happy Birthday, IMDB!

Martha, with regard to your first paragraph, and your writing in general, consider these words by Washington Post writer Jonathan Yardley:

"Like so many others who write books in these early years of the glorious new millennium, Almond is utterly, absolutely fascinated by himself, and he assumes that he is every bit as fascinating to everyone else. Self-absorption is the engine that drives most memoirs these days, and it's spilled over into scholarship and journalism as well. Many academics consider it not merely useful but mandatory to include their own experiences in the ostensibly scholarly inquiries they publish, and many journalists have persuaded themselves that the reporter is more important than the story."

He was reviewing a writer known mainly for his internet journalism.

I don't care that you went to college in 1991.

I don't care that you had an "email" (sic) address before most of your friends had one.

When I come to a site covering cinema, I don't want to read the sort of squealing babble that belongs on a teenager's Livejournal page. Either this is an amateur site, or it isn't. Whoever's in charge needs to decide.

Reply

aLEX, mate, you need to lay of your Martha-bashing. You may have your point and have every right to raise it but - from the ferocity of your comments - it seems to me that you have a personal vendetta against her (I don't come here to read as much as I'd like but even then I've seen similar comments in the past).

Personally, I won't say I'm advocating Martha to continue to channel her "personality" through posts; at the same time I don't see any harm in "journalists" for lack of a better term indulging themselves a little. And yes, I am clearly under the assumption that Cinematical is lite-reading. I come here to (1) unwind (2) learn something new. I think that's the majority vote. And no, I'm not saying pander to the masses. My expectations may be simplistic to you but I like them just fine, thank you.

If you want *serious* news reporting stick with the entertainment section on Reuters.com

Reply

Martha, if it helps: I also find Out Of Sight to be an extraordinary good movie.

Reply

Martha,
Please don't let aLEX (troll) rain on your movie parade. I enjoy your posts and appreciate that you try to bring a little bit of yourself into what you write. Cinematical is more of a blog than some "serious" movie website.

Apparently he is not content with free ice cream, but he has to specify the flavor and temperature. Let him find that somewhere else.

Reply

O Adnan of the 7 Stars:

I've not asked for flat or humorless writing. Read Wonkette or Defamer (or, best of all, the archives of Gawker from Choire Sicha's editorship) if you want to see very witty and knowledgable posts that put the writing on Cinematical to shame. You may notice that the people writing those sites simply seem to be TRYING harder. The attitude in so many Cinematical posts is just too casual, too dopey.

I'm not aware of any other site that's trying to cover film as broadly or as thoroughly as Cinematical is. (The Reuters entertainment section? Are you kidding me?) I'm annoyed by the wasted opportunity.

I am not "Martha-bashing" (at least you didn't call me a "hater" or complain about my "snark") and I absolutely have nothing personal against her. I've appended critical reactions to two of her posts. I haven't the slightest idea who she is.

I wish this site were better-written. You don't. That's our disagreement.

The remainder of your post is too paranoid and conflicted for me to address. Hope you get nice and unwound now, "mate."

Reply

Well, aLEX, as the person "in charge", I guess you should know what I've decided ...

The last thing Cinematical aspires to be is Reuters (in fact, we make fun of their "reporting", and especially their "criticism", constantly). But if you're going to critique us, please widen your field of competitors beyond the wire services and the Gawker sites. Gawker does what they do well, but we're obviously playing a different game, and we're also just not that cynical. The new Gawker, especially, is far more nihilistic than we are, or than (I think) Gawker even used to be; its writers are universally vitriolic. We've got a little bit more of a taste for affirmative dialectics. Call me a pollyanna, but at Cinematical I like to hire writers who are passionate about cinema, and I like to see that passion come through in the posts. If Martha needs to talk about herself in order to talk about something she cares about, that's not a problem for us, because we're generally interested in her ideas. If you're not, you shouldn't be reading.

But no - this is not academia. If you're looking for academic film criticism, email me privately and let's talk...

Reply

damn, karina, so now i have to scrap my 8,000 word comment ruminating on the intersection of negt and kluge's and lefebvre's theories of the production of public space in "Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" . . .

cel

Reply

Well, actually, in responding to aLEX, I *was* going to reference the lifelong argument Ted Adorno (he of Negative Dialectics) had with his friend Walt Benjamin (he of Smoking Hash on the Streets of Marseilles) over the role of the critic in popular culture. But, you know ... I have a blog to write.

Reply

If it's a choice between robotic press releases -or- a few stray threads about college and puppies, I'll stick with the personality stuff every time. Should I come across a particular paragraph that I find rambly, well, I'll just politely skip my eyeballs down to the next section.

I read a lot of "press release translations" on several different movie sites & blogs, and I find that the personality displayed here beats the clinical approach of some and the pointless venom of others.

Reply