Comments on: Detroit Free Press Drops Original Film Reviews

By: Ray Pride

Ray Pride — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:18:35 +0000

The more diverse the range of voices, by region, gender, age and areas of interest, the better. It’s a sorrow when one voice is repeated in dozens of publications, whether a wire dispatch or an esteemed career critic.

By: Karina Longworth

Karina Longworth — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:32:13 +0000

Ryan, I know of am award-winning documentary film (about a topic far more mainstream than local coal miners) that was potentially hurt by a widely-syndicated review that unfairly represented its content. But in that case, widespread support for the film on the internet may have balanced out the problem. But Noralil is also right that there’s no guarantee that anyone disenchanted with their local papers will immediately think to look online, and if they do, the easiest to find reviews will likely be from the highest trafficked critics/bloggers, most of whom fall victim to the “disregard” that you speak of.

By: Ryan Stewart

Ryan Stewart — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:07:57 +0000

I’m actually surprised that this trend isn’t further
along than it is — the transition from geographical
to online speciality — and I guess it’s a welcome one.
The limitations of the platform system mean that your
average critic in Hayseed, Georgia may have a provincial
style that suits your taste, but he almost certainly
hasn’t had the opportunity to see as many movies as I
have, as a resident of New York City. I couldn’t name
any film I’ve seen in the past year that holds ‘regional
importance’ unless we’re talking about some self-financed
documentary about the plight of coal workers in West
Virginia or something. I would also dispute that those
regional papers are still a crucial voice in holding
the torch for true independents. Where did all the
support for Once come this year? I remember reading
impassioned reviews on a couple of large movie websites,
and that’s more or less it. Also, you can thank the
movie websites for events like the late revival of
Zodiac — the major papers and trades are known to
scour certain sites for article ideas they can
appropriate, and that’s a good example.

My only major problem with this big trend towards the
online market is that with it comes a noticeable disregard
for editorship. Many of the sites that are coming to the
forefront in this new era have neither the patience,
resources or will to maintain writing standards
for the reviews on their site. There’s nothing worse than
sitting down to read a review that starts “Dude, this
movie fuckin’ ROCKS,” and under this new regime, those
people are free to call themselves critics.

By: Noralil Ryan Fores

Noralil Ryan Fores — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:17:38 +0000

While I really hope you’re right on that account, I’m hesitant to say that progress will be nearly as rapid as online writers and critics hope. By and large, regional ties are still staunch, and it’s a great irony I think that while print is desperately trying to re-localize coverage, they are also de-localizing it with regards to specific niches, particularly the arts niche. Reference, for example, hometown paper, the AJC. Those of us in Atlanta now interested in a regional voice of film criticism turn to our alternative weekly Creative Loafing, but I bet you money that more or less, at least right now, word of mouth is playing a bigger factor than are online critiques.

Again, I’m pulling for that thought too, that dedicated readers will find out their sources online, but right now, I’m personally disenchanted with the lack of support from major papers in terms of their arts coverage for readers. And, disenchantment, when widespread, usually means one thing: no reading goes down at all.