comment #1

sashastone says ...

Actually, that is not what I'm "implying" at all. I'm saying that film criticism has taken a major tumble of late but I still hold fast to the idea that are actual film critics and then there are journalists, columnists and bloggers. There is a difference between Roger Ebert's experience of writing about film for over thirty years and yours. Besides which, critics don't necessarily come in, or aren't supposed to come in, with biases one way or the other. In an ideal world, film criticsm and what you do, and even Oscar blogging (what I do) would be separate.

I realize this is a battle that has been lost; the critics no longer have the kind of power they used to and most of the time people don't recognize the difference, nor do they care.

I suppose that, for me (and perhaps I would exclude you in this assessment) film criticism is of great importance to film history itself, like art criticism. There is a difference between someone who works in a magazine, say, walking in and writing up an art exhibit and someone who has spent their lives studying art; film criticism should take into account all that came before.

So this has all changed with the blogs - fans are now critics too. Film advocates are now critics. If it were me, I wouldn't have described the group assembled at Indiewire "critics." I would have called them what they are: journalists, columnists, bloggers and critics.

But maybe I'm making something out of nothing.

comment #2

Bilge says ...

Jesus, how many metaphors are in this stew? I've got images of hairshirt-wearing priests scuba diving while being followed by sharks with robins on their shoulders, while someone projects the last 30 minutes of MOTHER & CHILD on the surface of the water. (Unfortunately, the diver-priests are too busy looking for algae and fish to see it.)

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Bilge: What about the "pilots flying rickety planes over the Andes" metaphor? Can't leave that one out. And if I didn't prove my Catholic hairshirt credentials by admitting to having had a very slight change of heart after seeing Mother and Child a second time and finally catching the last half hour...etc. A bop-boppin' red robin would have just let the first review ride.

comment #4

sashastone says ...

Just for the record, did I ever say "bop boppin'? I mean, I know what you're getting at but that wasn't my intention - I think all of the people polled in that Indiewire thing carefully considered their impression of these films. This was not a "who ARE these people?" It was more about Indiewire being more specific about whom they choose to call critics. Manohla Dargis, AO Scott, Ella Taylor, Scott Foundas, etc. We learned from the Ben and Ben thing that not just anyone can be trusted filling the shoes of film critics.

I realize that there are people who are paid to write reviews that don't really even seem like film critics anymore -- and they are still called critics. It's a big muddy.

comment #5

lipranzer says ...

The lines have been blurred, it's true, but there is a legitimate distinction to be made between someone like Jeff, who has paid his dues and pays attention to film history (anybody who compares THE INFORMANT! to an obscure 1930's film certainly qualifies there), and bloggers who, as you say, just toss out less than fully realized reactions to a film.

comment #6

btwnproductions says ...

"Defined as seeing every last film that comes along and sitting down like a rank-and-file machinist in Detroit and reviewing every last one (including and especially the awful-awfuls) and always with a five-or-six-paragraph plot synopsis."

To my mind, that better defines a reviewer, as in last-of-the-tribe newspapers and many weekly magazines. Critics write more deep-dish for the likes of Film Comment and Cineaste, and, yes, online.

comment #7

EDouglasCS says ...

I'd even go so far that people who do interviews or other movie writing (Oscar blogging or box office handicapping, for instance) can't be deemed critics, because they're being swayed by other factors that have nothing to do with what's on screen... for instance, the fact that they like a filmmaker, actor, producer, etc... not that critics aren't swayed by that stuff as well... but the strongest critics are the ones who don't water down their critical environment by talking to the talent.

comment #8

EDouglasCS says ...

And going by my criteria, that rules out (from those included in that piece) Greg Elwood, Eric Kohn, Matt Singer, James Rocchi, Karina Longworth and Anne Thompson, at least among those I know. That doesn't mean that none of them can be critical and offer a fair and balanced review of a film, but real critics don't do interviews, etc. for the reasons I mention above. They just see movies and write reviews.

I consider myself a movie writer... and that includes all of the things mentioned above. I can be critical when I need to be and I can enjoy a movie for its entertainment value when it applies.

comment #9

EDouglasCS says ...

BTW, thanks to whomever put together that list and didn't reach out to contact me for my opinion on the 32 films I've seen. I get kind of tired of constantly being disrespected by others despite having busted my butt in this biz for over six years, and I certainly will think twice before I send any of ComingSoon's volumnious traffic IndieWire's way in the future.

comment #10

Bilge says ...

Edouglas, what are you talking about? Plenty of critics, even some great ones, have done interviews throughout history. All the Cahiers critics did interviews. So did the Positif critics. So did Andrew Sarris. So did Jonathan Rosenbaum. So does A.O. Scott. So does Ebert.

comment #11

EDouglasCS says ...

Doing two or three interviews a year (which is the case with Ebert at least) is one thing... doing interviews as the main source of income and then using the fact that you get to see movies earlier to write reviews (not any of the names mentioned above) is another.

comment #12

sashastone says ...

I pretty much agree with Ed's take about the whole "movie writer" thing. But for their purposes they wanted to say "Critics Poll" - I don't know how you say that succinctly and be accurate doing so. It's the same with Oscar blogger/pundits. I hate the word pundit. HATE it. I also hate Oscar expert (there is no such thing unless you're talking about trivia or history of). But no one wants to say Oscar blogger because it sounds so lame. I don't have a better term than Oscar watcher.

comment #13

dinther says ...

Oy - Sasha, get over yourself.

The fact is, anyone - anyone - can be a film critic. It takes no particular talent or insight to review a movie. It barely takes a passing familiarity with English. The creation of artificial rules to demarcate a boundary between those who are "film critics" and the rest reeks of the provincial insecurities that drive academic tenure and state bar associations. The value of any such distinction is wholly artificial.

The problem is that too often, those who consider themselves "serious film critics" are so enamored with the sound of their own keystrokes that they lose sight of the simple pleasures associated with watching a film. I've read many a "serious film review" that was so intent on imposing onto the film the author's conjecture about what the director intended that the review stole the joy out of thinking about the film.

I will take Jeff's thoughtful reflections on films ten times over those of a self-important blowhard like Stephen Hunter - who I'm sure imagines himself a "serious" film critic. Honestly, the moment you consider yourself to be a "serious film critic" is the moment you need to stop taking yourself so seriously.

comment #14

Bilge says ...

>>Doing two or three interviews a year
>>(which is the case with Ebert at least)
>>is one thing... doing interviews as the main
>>source of income and then using the fact that
>>you get to see movies earlier to write reviews
>>(not any of the names mentioned above) is
>>another.

Well, I hope you'll agree with me then that that's a rather different beast from "people who do interviews or other movie writing...can't be deemed critics," no? What you're basically saying here is that people who regularly participate in press junkets and whatnot shouldn't be deemed critics.

comment #15

drbob says ...

A rose by any other name . . . . Who cares what they call you, Jeff. You do what you do and you do a bang up job of it.

comment #16

sashastone says ...

"The problem is that too often, those who consider themselves "serious film critics" are so enamored with the sound of their own keystrokes that they lose sight of the simple pleasures associated with watching a film. "

Right, you mean because bloggers or anyone who isn't an actual critic are never self-important or enamored with the sound of the their own keystrokes? Uh....

I don't believe anyone who can pay for a domain name and tap away at a blog can be called a critic, sorry, if that means you think I'm full of myself well, buddy, whatever gets you through the night. Quality has to come into play - I didn't diss the quality of Jeff's writing. He's not a film critic, though.

comment #17

Momus says ...

The distinction into film reviewers and film critics seems obvious enough to me.:

I'm still not sure where Jeffrey Wells's blog belongs. He loves certain films, but spends so much time ranting against studios and actors he hates. All the highly informative tidbits about the films he respects are, then, spoiled by the rather petty remarks which merely contribute to the insignificant media noise.

No, not a film critic. A film buff with an attitude, maybe? Remember what Madonna once said about Whitney Houston? "She doesn' have a fcuking point of view." At least Jeffrey Wells has a god**** point of view, although his targets are often too predictable..

comment #18

plastiqueelephant says ...

Of course, arguing that critics deserve special protection implies that their make an objective analysis of the films they review. Of course, this is both impossible and never ever happens. Critics write both their personal biases and for their media's audiences and we know that because we can guess pretty accurately guess from the trailer how critics from say the NY Times, Rolling Stone and New Yorker are each going to react to a non-consensus film. What the web has shown is that many people often prefer reading opinion from people who wear their passions on their sleeves rather than those who write from under a shroud of quasi-objectivity. It's both easier to weight opinion for smart bloggers like Jeff and it feels much less like homework. I'm with Dinther, critics who "lose sight of the simple pleasures associated with watching a film" make me want to retch.

comment #19

sashastone says ...

I think Jeff's a columnist -- someone who writes editorials about film, politics, his own life. It's all good. I'm not criticizing Jeff at all here, people.

comment #20

loyal says ...

Is Ben Lyons a film critic? Of course not. You need a critical point of view, whether its for a song, painting, literature, or yes, a film.

I think people like Ben and Jeff and Sasha are film journalists. That "one phrase fits all" works perfectly. You can review a film, interview an actor, wax about the award season or box office, or go off on studio rants, all without worrying about being saddled with the hoity-toity label of film critic. Even better, you can avoid the film blogger ghetto.

comment #21

dinther says ...

"Right, you mean because bloggers or anyone who isn't an actual critic are never self-important or enamored with the sound of the their own keystrokes? Uh...."

You're assailing a phantom argument, Sasha, and you miss the point: The difference between what you describe and what I described is that the bloggers aren't attempting to create class distinctions where none are deserved. You are.

Your proclamation, ipse dixit, that "Jeff is not a film critic though," as if you were the arbiter of such an appellation, or as if there are objective criteria that one must meet to become a "film critic," is laughable and evinces that you don't get it. Where does one get the application form to become a "film critic?" Where are the set of professional standards that one must meet to become a "film critic?" Is there a certification board? And how do members of this esteemed, exclusive society that you depict decide on who is fortunate enough to become a member?

Really, I have no idea who you are, and notwithstanding your apparent belief that the sun circles around your orbit waiting for your next proclamation, I do not. "Because I say so" doesn't cut it.

comment #22

Vernon Hardapple says ...

Damn, Dinther. That was some of the most intelligent, reasoned arguing outside of a Socratic symposium I have ever read here or any other movie related blog in the history of the Internet. And I'm assured that is no small feat.

Sasha's obvious solipsism has been laid bare, for sure. However, that whole "provincial insecurities" thing is going a bit too far. To assume that insecurity is the drivng force of legal and/or academic institutions is a bit of a stetch. It might be part of their M.O., but noire or less so than the self-preservationary aspects which underpin Sashas defense of the "true"critic set.

comment #23

Glenn Kenny says ...

dinther, who seems like a pretty funsy person, writes: 'Where does one get the application form to become a 'film critic?' Where are the set of professional standards that one must meet to become a 'film critic?' Is there a certification board? And how do members of this esteemed, exclusive society that you depict decide on who is fortunate enough to become a member?"

Well, right. The proof is only ever in the pudding.

The more I read (and the more mediocre twaddle is endlessly produced and reiterated), the more I believe that film criticism as a legitimate form is/was exemplified by Manny Farber and Robin Wood. Everyone else is some level of aspirant or other.

comment #24

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

Jeff, you got divorced due to a bad movie? That must have been some serious cinematic suckage.

As far as I'm concerned, when Jeff posts blog items that read like reviews and critically assess a particular movie, he is being a film critic. The idea that critics only do one thing is unrealistic now, and was even ten years ago when I started -- at least at actual print publications, critics ALWAYS got roped into other stuff, whether by cover-story quotas, editorial duties, or listing sections. Ask Scott Foundas just how many separate duties he has sometime.

Now, of course, critics have to multitask just to make ends meet.

comment #25

lipranzer says ...

Glenn - no love for Otis Ferguson or James Agee or even Graham Greene (both of who preceded Farber and Wood)?

Dinther - I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've only read awful critics. Because, yes, it takes more than a passing familiarity with the English language, and yes, it does take a knowledge of film history and the insight that comes with it. How many critics left who have all of those attributes, is, of course, open to question, but there needs to be someone whose critique of a film contains more insight than "this film rocks!" or "this film sucks!"

comment #26

lipranzer says ...

Oh, and that should have said "all of whom preceded Farber and Wood."

Also, Madonna really said that about Whitney Houston? Don't like either of them, but I just gained a little more respect for Madonna because of that.

comment #27

Glenn Kenny says ...

Lipranzer: I was employing hyperbole to further a point. In imitation of the way that Orson Welles once said "John Ford, John Ford, and John Ford" when asked about directors who had influenced him. Of course I admire all the guys you mention, and of course I revere Sarris, Carlos Clarens, Lopate, Kent Jones, Kehr, Rosenbaum, Wollen, Coursodon, Tavernier. And acknowledge the importance of Kael, etcetera.

The point, or one of the points, being that true criticism is a form and a discipline. (And here, finally, is where I part ways with Dinther.) One needn't have academic qualifications to practice it, but one does need perception, talent, a grasp of aesthetics and history, and so on. And they need to be evident in the writing. Everything else is just opinion-mongering. Of which there's always been quite a bit of, and nowadays, much, much more.

comment #28

Vernon Hardapple says ...

Good point, Mr. Kenny.

Though your reference to "aesthetics" had an altogether different intention above, I hope you don't mind if I open a brief dialogue on the topic as it applies to your own personal aesthetics, and that of many movie bloggers including Mr. Wells and Mr. Stone's.

Was does it seem that so few of you have any personal aesthetic criteria of your own?

You often crticize the style or look of a filmmakers work, only to post said comments on a blog whose style and/or layout is so decidedly lacking on it's own.

Do you guys give any consideration to the look of your sites? Most of them are eyesores, and are seemingly lacking in ANY aesthetic value, even according to the most basic rules regarding form and content and how they might be juxtaposed.

Why so?

And this is true of your site, Mr. Kenny, as well as this site, and Mr. Stone's.

comment #29

Momus says ...

lipranzer said to me:
@Also, Madonna really said that about Whitney Houston? Don't like either of them, but I just gained a little more respect for Madonna because of that.

She did say that. She was right. I've always respected Madonna and still hope she'll play Bette Davis in a biopic. I'm serious, by the way.

comment #30

dinther says ...

Glenn, I don't know that we part company that much - I agree with your last sentiment.

tho i don't think it is necessary to have an appreciation of film history, per se, to advance an interesting critique. I have read some brilliant, memorable reviews of films from philosophers and historians who had little or no understanding of the context of the film they were writing about.

My point was, as i think you said earlier, the proof is always in the pudding.

comment #31

Glenn Kenny says ...

@ Vernon Hardapple: I'm not a designer. Never have been. When I was arts editor at my college paper, I always had a devil of a time with the double-truck layout our center section forced me to work with. With a blog, one is generally working with a group of templates. Whatever "eye" I have, I use in creating screen grabs, which others tell me I'm pretty good at.

I wonder which movie blogs you consider to be attractively designed, if any. It's not a snarky question.

comment #32

sashastone says ...

Mr. Stone, lol.

comment #33

sashastone says ...

"The difference between what you describe and what I described is that the bloggers aren't attempting to create class distinctions where none are deserved. You are."

Oh they absolutely are. This is not about class - this is about a dying breed and blurring the lines between objective film criticism and people who are, essentially, "film enthusiasts" or fans - who are buddy buddy with the filmmakers on Twitter and asking them to read their screenplays - and then are called upon to give an objective opinion about their new "friend." There is a huge difference. You have to get out more. You simply can't judge a scenario you know nothing about. Spend some time reading other blogs for a couple of years and then come back and we'll have this conversation.

comment #34

dinther says ...

*sigh*

I suddenly have that much greater respect for special ed. teachers.

sasha, you are correct. I need to get out more. and tho I may not spend my days trolling film blogs, and will, sadly, never achieve the rarified heights of an "oscar blogger," I do know flawed logic when i see it. Once again, just because you say something is true, or that something should be categorized or classified in a certain way, doesn't make it so.

More disturbing is that you cling to these silly naming conventions as if they are somehow meritocratic. Your desire to create a hierarchy of film criticism, rather than judge each review based upon its content, evokes the petty, Victorian sentiment that actions should be judged not by their own merits, but by the place of their sponsor in society.

Or to put it in a context that you might understand, it's like, you know, that scene in "Maid in Manhattan," where, you know, the Stanley Tucci character TOTALLY doesn't want Ralph Fiennes to end up with JLo because she's like a maid, you know? I mean, it's just totally wrong.

comment #35

James Rocchi says ...

You can interview someone for a film, be polite about it, and not like the film in your review.

You can accept that interviewing people often pays as well, or better, than writing a review, and do so with dignity.

You can always recognize that the people you're interviewing are not your friends.

You can always remember that Pauline Kael said "there are two kinds of writing about film: A good, honest review .. and everything else, which is just publicity." And yet she wrote interviews and long-form pieces, and did so well, with principle, so if you have to do them -- and you do, to keep the lights on and the rent paid -- you try to do them well.

And I'd rather be a critic/reviewer/interviewer/columnist than not. There's a lot of people in this field who could write about Sam Fuller until they starve to death bathed in the applause of the 20-person circle of "friends" they write for in between MOMA archive screenings and meticulously rationalizing their out-of-a-hundred score for the film, where a 56 is different from a 57 and the difference between the two is made clear by a looped series of obscure references and how-could-you-not-have-seen-it-in-the-original-Esperanto? smugness all written in that horrible, snide, corkscrew English. I like writing, in clear prose, things that actual people actually read about where a movie fits in with the art of film and the culture that made it and that it, in turn made, and, yes, whether or not it's worth your time and money.

Anyone who tries to tell you what a critic is, or isn't, is either grinding their axe sharp or telling you the criteria by which they judge those grapes to be sour.

comment #36

the400blows says ...

You don't need to go to film school or take film history courses to become a movie critic. All you need is a love for the cinema. Francois Truffaut was a serious and respected film critic of Cahiers du Cinema and he dropped out of school!

comment #37

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Yes, I've deliberately chosen not to suffer through each and every film that opens because 60% to 70% of them are soul-sucking torture to sit through, and some of the worst suffering I've endured in my life (which has included getting punched and spat upon, being in car and motorcycle accidents, getting arrested and put behind bars, being fired just before Christmas several times, getting divorced and seeing friends and family members die) has been due to bad films."

No offense, but wouldn't this make you pretty close to the complete opposite of a stone Catholic about film? Not sayin' you aren't one passionate cat. Just sayin' the analogy is a bit off, that's all.

comment #38

Vernon Hardapple says ...

Despite the fact that I am reluctant to admit it cause you're a Canadian, it is clear to me, Mr. Rocchi, that you win.

Even though i found myself rooting for Mr. Stone, and his decidedly nostalgic elitism of the days of old, unfortunately, his thinking is anachronistic, which makes Mr. Rocchi's boilerplate commentary appear so bold.

comment #39

Colin says ...

You're distinction is very lacking, Stone. So column space and many years in cinema is what make critics "critics"? I don't care how many years Lou Limerick has been at the typewriter at the New York Post it still doesn't make him any more astute than Devin Faraci.

Not everyone can be a Roger Ebert.

Of course I am speaking from a biased perspective I am a blogger, shameless plug alert,(nevermindpopfilm.blogspot.com) I certainly I am not a critic, but if you can write with depth like Wells, Thompson and so on I think you deserve that label/

comment #40

jamalinkoo says ...

Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of download youtube videos mp4 and iscsi windows 2008 server

comment #41

arabia says ...

Thank you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that type of info in this kind of a perfect way of writing? I've a presentation subsequent week, and I'm around the appear for this kind of information.