Advertisement
The first guest speaker on the first morning of the Moving Image Institute in Film Criticism and Feature Writing, New York Times critic A.O. Scott made a comment about the problematic nature of Iraq films that seemed to me to serve as a wider metaphor for the current crisis facing those of us struggling for security and longevity as film writers. To paraphrase, Scott suggested that dramatizations of the Iraq conflict have so far been generally disappointing because not only do we not yet know the outcome of the war, but it’s hard to hypothesize what either a positive or negative end would actually look like. This is essentially how I’ve come to feel about my chosen profession of late: unable to imagine what either a best or worst case scenario would actually look like, the idea of establishing long-term career goals seems unfathomable.
The Scott session, for me, reinforced the notion that there’s a divide between those of us who struggle to cobble together a living out of our engagement with the online film community, and those who, because of age or professional stature or other factors that I’m too young and naive to grasp, see the increasing empowerment of the audience as a nuisance.
It seems clear that The Changing State of Criticism is going to be a theme throughout the next chunk of days, as well it should be, but it’s so far been interesting to see how each guest speaker approaches the issue of impending critical doom. Scott joked early on in the session that the very idea of an institute for film critics is something like “an institute for typewriter technicians.” Later, sparked by an observation from MOMI’s David Schwartz that the NYT promotes their “Reader Reviews” section with the same emphasis given to the reviews by Scott and his fellow A-list critics, Scott suggested that such user generated content often “require a primary text”––ie: a review contributed by paid professional such as himself––as a starting point. This seems in line with what Stanley Cavell would call “setting the words for a conversation,” and I think it’s a totally valid way of looking at the ideal relationship between established critics and the opinionated masses.
But then Scott noted a certain distaste for the proximity of the Reader Reviews to his own, which is apparently especially problematic when readers use that space to criticize Scott’s writing. “Plenty of people can call me an asshole, but I’d prefer they not do it in my house,” he said. Scott went on to express frustration with the “one-sided” nature of blogs: in his mind, bloggers have free reign to use his reviews as a jumping off point for attacks, against which he feels like he can’t defend himself.
I honestly wasn’t trying to be difficult or aggressive––I rarely try, it usually happens by accident––but that idea didn’t immediately make sense to me. I guess I’m just so used to the idea that the internet is a place where, for better or for worse, all conversations are open to whomever feels the need to participate, all but the most delicate flowers understand that anything they put out there is subject to argument, and we all eventually learn to give, when necessary, as good as we get. So I asked: “Why does it have to be one-sided? Can’t you leave a comment on a blog post?”
Scott offered a number of answers. There aren’t enough hours in the day to comment on every blog, commenting on one blog begets commenting on another, many attacks don’t deserve the dignity of a response––all of this seems not unreasonable. Then came the issue of anxiety over not being edited: “I like putting things into the public that other people have read before the public.” That statement soon morphed into what was, for me, the thorniest part of the problem: alluding to the power and prestige inherent to being lead film critic for the New York Times, Scott said he’s reticent to “throw around the institutional weight” associated with his job title. “I wish it were a level conversation,” he said. “But it’s not.”
Maybe I knew that was the answer all along: there’s royalty and there’s rabble. This is the natural order of things. But hearing it out loud was disheartening, maybe because it’s hard for me to wrap my head around the power dynamic expressed in such absolute terms. I’m not particularly sensitive to personal criticism within the context of movie blogging, because I’m willing to absorb blows if they’re flying because people are passionate, engaged and enraged about movies. And again, maybe it’s just youthful stupidity, but I can’t imagine ever feeling comfortable in a position at the top of a pyramid where my job title precluded that, where––for whatever reason––it would not be in my best interest to muck it up with readers and other writers. Is that necessarily what the endgame looks like? If so, wouldn’t I be better off hanging back with the rabble? I don’t know, and that’s the whole point of this exercise, I guess.
Fortunately, the day’s other sessions offered some hope that, uh, rabble-rousing might have its own kind of validity. Bingham Ray (who requested that his session remain off the record) and a panel full of local publicists all seemed optimistic that The Great Divide is getting smaller––or at the very least, it’s ceasing to be quite as big of a deal to those responsible for the selling of films.
All in all, it was an intense first day. I almost feel like I need a week off before attempting it again in order to process it all, but we push on tomorrow.
Kevin Buist
FilmCouch #114: The Final Show
Christopher Campbell
Third or Fourth Look at Dakota Fanning...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
Ghostbusters, New York &...
Paul Moore
SITA SINGS THE BLUES available free...
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Hmmm…am I right in assuming that the Bingham Ray panel was very much worth attending?
This whole argument between the old guard and the new upstarts reminds me of similar struggle in the arena of filmmaking itself. There are the ‘old fogeys’ who stand by the sovereignty of their tried and true methods even as the young bucks (often inadvertently) circumvent them.
I love meeting the kids who share their predecessor’s woes; the kid who wants to be the next A.O. Scott and worries that, thanks to his peers, there won’t be a pyramid to ascend to the top of.
As someone who sort of straddles this divide (I’m on the print side of things, but I believe you and I are around the same age, Karina), I share your trepidation about what a positive outcome might even be. A few years ago it seemed clear that there was a pyramid (as David says) to work at ascending, and that by moving up to bigger and more prestigious publications I might one day get to, say, the A.O. Scott or David Ansen or Stephen Hunter level, and that would be the culmination of those years of hard work and building up clips and praise.
But now people at that level are being laid off and bought out left and right, and as much as I like reading A.O. Scott, I don’t see more inherent value in reading him than in reading Karina Longworth. Both are providing valuable, interesting insights into film, both are cogent and smart writers, both have opinions I respect. Does it matter that one has the NY Times stamp of approval?
(To put it another way, is there more value in Matt Seitz’s reviews for the Times than in his reviews for The House Next Door? Or in Jeannette Catsoulis’s reviews for the Times over her reviews for Las Vegas CityLife? I know I prefer the latter in both cases.)
But at the same time I’m somewhat sympathetic to Scott’s desire to keep the barbarians outside the gates, so to speak. Scott and Longworth may be roughly equal, but what about Scott and random IMDb commenter? Or Longworth and random IMDb commenter, for that matter? Karina, Spout is giving you a stamp of authority similar to Scott’s, even if it’s considered less prestigious (for now, at least). I think if we don’t have some system that we can trust to validate content, then we’re completely lost. (That doesn’t have to be the NYT, of course - when Matt Seitz publishes a writer I’ve never heard of, I trust that person will be worth reading.)
Anyway, I don’t have any answers either, and the only way I avoid existential freak-outs about the future of my career is not to think about it. But it’s interesting that in the last few years, full-time print critic and full-time film blogger have become about equal in their appeal to me as possible future goals, and the way things are going, the latter may surpass the former very soon. I’m not sure what that means, but I’m glad that people like you and A.O. Scott are at least attempting to have a dialogue about it.
“Scott and Longworth may be roughly equal,”
huh? like most discussions about critics, this is pretty ridiculous.
Fascinating post, Karina. It seems to me the issues here aren’t unexpected, just variations on the time-worn theme of the (older) status quo and the (younger) challengers looking to both topple it and repopulate it with themselves. This is generational stuff that happens in every endeavor. There’s also the fear factor — major cultural presences like the NYT (whose revenues and subscription base are declining) are scared of what’s happening in cyberspace. It’s the threatening Great Unknown. The egalitarianism of the Web (”everybody’s a critic!”) is not welcome, as it threatens their brand, their prestige, and their bottom line. Regular readers of blogs know how the mainstream (print and TV) constantly tries to marginalize the blogs as amateurish, shrill, superficial, no fact checking, etc. I think we’re in the middle of a paradigm shift and it’s better to join in than to batten down the hatches and complain.
I see no defensible reason for Scott (whose writing I like) being unwilling to comment on a blog post. Everybody is busy and overextended these days, including bloggers, and everybody’s time is as valuable as Scott’s, so that’s no excuse. “Royalty and rabble” sums it up well. And in fact, some of the best film criticism around is online-only or jointly disseminated by print and cyber. Ever check out the “a_film_by” yahoo group? Great stuff, though admittedly not mainstream.
Something to think about, too (though it may be anathema to the dream), is that for some of us, having a day job and writing film criticism on the side is a pretty good deal. Only a handful of people (a statistically insignificant number, undoubtedly) can make a full-time living doing this.
Thanks again for the post, Karina.
Amid all the hand wringing about the state and future of film criticism, this is one of the more interesting pieces Karina.
More than just giving a voice to people who don’t hold the keys to the kingdom, I think the internet also is helping to break audiences into smaller camps of fandom. With the exception of the increasingly desperate blockbusters (about which critical opinion is meaningless), audiences for movies are shrinking below a level that can attract the giant readership required by the old-school monolithic publications. Are even the audiences of modestly successful critical darlings like No Country For Old Men big enough to support Time magazine or the NY Times?
The internet provides exposure for smaller movies and communties for people to talk about them, to say nothing of the raft of movie alternatives that are available. If distribution truly goes the way of the digital download, I think that’ll really be the end of the old fashioned critic.
I don’t think professional critics are going to go away though. Their mass influence may decrease, but the good writers who can adapt to the community aspect of the internet (and the lower pay resulting from smaller readerships) will thrive.
In fact, with the increased fragmentation, a good critic is more valuable than ever.
That was kind of a long, unplanned ramble. Sorry about that.
Scott’s comments re: print vs. the internet, i.e. many in print seeing it as a “vs.” situation rather than a complementary one, doesn’t seem to be limited to film criticism.
Print — and TV — reporters seem very hostile to political blogs especially in regards that the “common folk” can criticize their work. I don’t understand that attitude of ever thinking that I’m above it all because I’ve earned the prestige for being associated with a brand name.
So, I don’t agree with Josh at all that there needs to be any kind of “system” that anoints certain people with authority that they can wave around with their airs of superiority. I liked David Hudson’s commentary on this post in which he talked about Roger Ebert, who is probably at the very top of the heap because he’s always seemed so accessible, particularly in regards with having a strong Internet presence. He created his own “brand” independent of the Sun-Times. He’s earned respect not because the Sun-Times or PBS bestowed it on him, but by just being visibly out there. What other A-level critic out there has a URL of just their name?
And one last note to Karina, to paraphrase an old saying: Your career is what happens while you’re making your plans for one.
Mike, I don’t mean to imply that anyone ought to be waving around their authority with an air of superiority; all I mean is that when I’m searching around for a critic to read, I like that there are outlets and brands that I know I can trust. They don’t have to be staid institutions, and they can earn their trust in different ways. But I think your Ebert example is actually a perfect illustration of this - I trust the Ebert “brand” enough that when he puts his stamp of approval on someone else (Jim Emerson, say), then I give that person the benefit of the doubt in a way that I wouldn’t necessarily if I just stumbled across a random blog online. For people who don’t have time to spend hours scouring blogs to separate the intelligent from the inane, gatekeepers of one sort or another will always be valuable.
For me, the question is whether anyone will be able to make a living writing about film. Because the barrier to entry is so low online, people get used to writing for free. Even many of the so-called “paid” blogging gigs pay a token amount ($15-20 for 200 words) while the people running ads on the site can potentially make much more than that.
I’m sure it’s been true for a long time in the print world, but it seems true now more than ever that the people making money in publishing are rarely the writers.
Building a reputation online helps but it seems like a very different proposition than building a reputation as a print critic. Some of the print critics resent how someone can build up online credibility in what they consider a very short amount of time. Unfortunately, credibility doesn’t pay the rent.
For those of you trying to make your living writing about film, I wish you good luck, but all I can see is a future of rapidly diminishing returns.
“Mike, I don’t mean to imply that anyone ought to be waving around their authority with an air of superiority”
Josh: I know you didn’t. I was just trying to say that that was going to be an unfortunate and difficult-to-avoid side effect.
Has anyone commented on how A.O. Scott and Jay Sherman, a.k.a. The Critic, look alike? To me, this is hilarious, even if it isn’t terribly thought-provoking.
Karina,
If in a time of financial crisis for print critics you consider a paying career in reviewing you’re bound to be disapppointed. Obviously when newspapers can’t afford to pay critics to write what readers don’t care to read anymore, it’s pointless to hope for a better economical model online. Anyway if you’re worried about making a way of living out of this you need to lower your standards and sell out to where the money is.
I just think it’s the wrong way to understand this crisis, to expect to keep the same privileges in an entirely different context. Maybe commenting movies was never an activity worth earning a salary…
A.O. Scott drawing the line between paid critics and amateurs is symptomatic of the irrelevance of this professional discrimination! A salary doesn’t make a good critic. The wide circulation of a newspaper (or a website) shouldn’t make the influence of a critic either.
Cultural awareness and critical education of the audience are far more important issues for critics to confront and improve. I’m more worried about the global state of artistic productions in cinema in the long term, than about the jobs of a few individual critics in the short term… When cinema will do without reviews there will be no job at all for ALL critics!
This said, I agree with your comments on the “great divide”, the absence of “level conversation” and “the pyramid”.
[...] with bloggers and traditional journalists going head to head on various topics. Karina Longworth writes up her taking to task AO Scott. Gotta love Karina Longworth: But then Scott noted a certain distaste [...]
[...] marks the final day of the Moving Image Institute (see my previous coverage here and here), and though I’ve been taking copious notes, I’ve been too busy actually [...]
[...] course, in a session just the day before, the lead critic of the New York Times had all but loosened his tie in discomfort at the very [...]
[...] was off the record (personally I don’t think anything discussed was terribly proprietary). Much has been made of the perceived antagonism between print institutions like the Times and the [...]
[...] have been impeccable hosts, and genuinely care about the dialogue we’re generating about the divide between print critics and online critics, or the shrinking publicity market for smaller, more [...]