Internet Critics Will Prevail
A few years ago, I wrote to Roger Ebert asking him what he thought the future for film criticism is. At the time, I was really fed up with the amount of amateur movie reviews flooding the internet and depreciating the value of professional critics. Thanks to the web, everyone gets to share their opinion, I complained. So where did that leave a writer like myself? Ebert replied with one sentence: "Good writing will prevail."
That was before the controversy over studios not screening for critics, and before publications began canning older, experienced, and better film critics. Hollywood Reporter's Anne Thompson has written an interesting article this week about the state of film criticism, primarily influenced by a column written by Wall Street Journal critic Joe Morgenstern a month ago. Both writers discuss the exaggeration of our profession's impending death, with Thompson mostly giving support to Morgenstern's ideas, and point out studios' need for critics to continue writing about smaller films, especially those put out by their specialty and "indie" divisions, if not blockbusters and sure things. Thompson goes on about the media's recent switch to writers who are younger and/or speak more to a youthful reader. She goes on to champion some bloggers, but she also brings up the unfortunate crowding of reviewers who do it for fun (this includes good writers, but moreso includes the really bad ones) and theorizes that internet film criticism will keep the practice (if not profession) alive.
So, my question is, do readers of film reviews favor a well-written piece, or one that simply gets to the point? Do they like critics who are simply journalists, or simply film experts? Will good writing prevail, or will the unpaid internet critics prevail?
(Read our own Bob Sassone's list of the 7 best critics out there.)
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-03-2006 @ 2:04PM
Ryland said...
I agree with Ebert, to an extent. I think the hack net critics will always be there whether we like it or not because the internet is here to stay. But who really reads Harry Knowles' reviews and takes them seriously? On the other hand, the internet is a great place to build clips and gain exposure for talented writers. Sites like Slate and Salon and Slant (weird, all S) offer smart criticism and I hope that's the way things go if film criticism spreads further and further and entrenches itself into the internet.
I prefer a review to have some kind of film analysis rather than pure journalistic reporting. I think I've told you my favorite critic is Mick LaSalle from the SF Chronicle. He has a weekly podcast. I don't always agree with him but he's got the writing skills of Anthony Lane without the kind of haughty New Yorker 'tude. That said, I like both New Yorker critics, too, because they can make me laugh as well. And Matt Zoller Seitz is my dog for loving The New World so much; his blog is pretty sweet.
Reply
6-03-2006 @ 2:17PM
Raven Sati said...
Roger Ebert is somewhat interesting maybe 70% of the time and total crap the rest of the time. If he is your god, you are a sick puppy.
Raven Sati
Reply
6-03-2006 @ 3:36PM
David Mulholland said...
I want to read a well written review that gets to the point. I believe everyone on Sassone's list fits that bill. Reading reviews not work for most people, it's a fun leisure activity. Why put up with bad writing when you are trying to enjoy yourself?
Reply
6-03-2006 @ 4:58PM
Scott said...
I'll take Mike D'Angelo (http://www.panix.com/~dangelo) and Theo Panayides (http://leonardo.spidernet.net/Artus/2386/) over hacks like James Bernadelli any day of the week. And, although I grew up on Ebert and partner Gene Siskel, I can't take seriously a man who gives 3 stars or more to every movie he sees. David Edelstein can turn a phrase like no one's business, though!
Reply
6-03-2006 @ 6:17PM
Ajay Shroff said...
Ryland, I have another S for you. http://suggestamovie.com :)
Ajay
Reply
6-04-2006 @ 2:09AM
MosquitoControl said...
Walter Chaw has been a favorite of mine for quite some time.
I don't always agree with him, but I often do. I quote him to my friends as "the critic who hates everything." Which fits well, as my friends consider me the guy that hates everything.
Chaw thinks everything through in great detail. He makes connections that are below the surface of films and often unintended. His arguments show that he's well versed in literature and entertainment. His reads are great, whether he loves or hates a movie.
He's arguably overly-negative, but that's part of the reason why he strikes a chord with me. He's too smart for much of Hollywood. I arrogantly feel as if I'm the same way (I think most of America is these days, though.)
Reply
6-04-2006 @ 8:15AM
Tom said...
Ebert. Feh. Anyone who calls MILLION DOLLAR BABY a "masterpiece" and names CRASH as Best Picture of 2005 should pack it in.
Reply
6-05-2006 @ 11:44AM
LRS62 said...
Yes, "good writing will prevail". So explain to me why you mispell "controversy"?
Reply
6-05-2006 @ 11:50AM
Christopher Campbell said...
Eh, there's always room for typos. Thanks, LRS62.
Reply
7-19-2006 @ 7:20PM
Edgeoforever said...
I agree with Roger Ebert. There's another thing, besides good writing: credibility.
I may read well written reviews, but I will go see the movies Roger recommends. Or Peter Travers from Rolling Stone. With the high prices of movie tickets nowadays, I am not taking chances.
A good writer who is going to sell out or simply have a taste different than mine will lose me pretty fast.
Reply