Jeffrey M. Anderson's 400 Screens, 400 Blows - Critical Discordance

For those who care, a flap has developed over whether or not film critics are actually needed. The string of events goes something like this: 1) Since January, several studios have opted not to screen certain movies (something like 17 titles in all) for the press, and said movies have mostly gone on to box office gold; 2) Longtime, established, intelligent critics like Jami Bernard and Michael Wilmington have lost their jobs; and 3) Despite crushing reviews, The Da Vinci Code went on to make a small fortune.

As a film critic, I'm obviously biased in this argument, but here's what I think. Firstly, those 17 movies that were not screened for the press will have a shelf life of about a year. After they make their run on DVD, airplanes and cable, they'll gather dust and disappear into the mists of time (all except Ultraviolet, which I will cherish as one of the year's great guilty pleasures). Secondly, the reason Bernard and Wilmington lost their jobs is not because they were not needed; it's because the internet (no offense intended) is killing the newspaper business. Newspapers can't afford to keep "frivolous" staff members around when it can't pay the bills, and this has happened to many of my colleagues (myself included) over the past several years.

It's true that the Friday paper traditionally has the highest circulation, and that's because of the movie reviews, but try using that argument against hard news reporters, photographers, editors, proofreaders, etc., whose skills come with a higher respect.

Thirdly, The Da Vinci Code made a fortune due to its built-in hype (from the Catholic Chruch, no less). Not to mention that this is not the first time a critically-panned bomb made money, and it won't be the last.

This current "critical" flap actually mirrors what happened last year. Does anyone remember the "what is Hollywood doing wrong?" discussion that lasted several months when it became clear that movie grosses were down? Writers from all over the map volunteered excuses such as the rise of DVD sales, the low quality of movies, the internet, bootlegging, the lousy atmosphere in most multiplexes, and so on. Those things have not changed, and the box office is back up this year. What happened? An ebb, a flow, the rhythms of life. Who knows?

And so, critics are still needed. They come as part of the package, just as they always have, just as any other art form has. Critics keep certain movies alive, and make sure that other movies stay dead. (Rest in peace, Phat Girlz.) We're also reporters, letting people know what's out there, spreading the word on good, smaller films.

In actuality, the discussion should be turned back around to "why are the movies so bad?" As a working film critic in 1999, I was constantly amazed by the high amount of brave, interesting and unique titles that came my way: The Matrix, eXistenZ, Election, Go, Cookie's Fortune, The Winslow Boy, Xiu Xiu: The Sent-Down Girl, Bedrooms & Hallways, Limbo, Besieged, Buena Vista Social Club, Run Lola Run, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, The Blair Witch Project, Eyes Wide Shut, After Life, The Iron Giant, Autumn Tale, The Limey, Princess Mononoke, The Sixth Sense, Eternity and a Day, American Beauty, The Straight Story, Boys Don't Cry, Fight Club, The War Zone, Being John Malkovich, American Movie, Bringing Out the Dead, Toy Story 2, Dogma, The Insider, Sleepy Hollow, Topsy-Turvy, All About My Mother, Magnolia, Mr. Death, etc. That's a hell of a list (it could be even longer), and I doubt anyone could make one even half as long for this year. Or last year or the year before, for that matter.

In 1999, people were comfortable. The internet was creating jobs, not taking them away. We'd had eight years of an intelligent, well-spoken president and the economy was in good shape. Now people are either scared or angry. When people are scared, they copy old formulas, and when people are mad, they preach -- with message movies and documentaries.

So instead of daring indies like Election and Limbo, we get muddled question marks like Lonesome Jim (3 screens), Down in the Valley (23 screens), Don't Come Knocking (20 screens) and The King (1 screen). Do I even need to mention that we once had Dogma, and not The Da Vinci Code? Animated films, documentaries, biopics, imports, comedies, are all pale and lifeless compared to their 1999 counterparts.

Of the 105 movies playing on 400 screens or less, here are the few that have stuck in my memory, the ones that I'd see again and that I would not hesitate to send people out to see: Spike Lee's Inside Man ($87.9 million gross on 171 screens), Terry Zwigoff's Art School Confidential ($2.9 million gross on 98 screens), Brick ($1.7 million gross on 39 screens), Sophie Scholl: The Final Days ($619,000 on 12 screens), Mountain Patrol: Kekexili ($138,000 on 4 screens), and Hou Hsiao-hsien's Three Times ($75,000 on 3 screens), with maybe half a dozen more runners-up. That's not nearly good enough. And that's why I'm here.