Advertisement
Over our five days at the Institute, we kept returning to a series of binary oppositions: print versus online; doing it for the passion versus doing it for the pay; criticism as consumer reporting versus advocacy for artists. With such circular questions, it’s hard to get anywhere, making it easy to lapse into what filmmaker Kelly Reichardt jokingly referred to at one point as “glass half full of shit” thinking. But out of the morass of questions and unresolvable clashes came an emphasis on compromise and balance: nearly every guest speaker made some mention of making trade offs, of covering for noble failures with less-noble successes.
This seemed most prevalent on Saturday, with Reichardt and Tom Kalin’s independent filmmaker panel; Ryan Werner of IFC and Don Krim from KINO representing indie distribution; and, particularly, the online film criticism panel, featuring Eugene Hernandez (indieWIRE), Michael Koresky (Reverse Shot), Matt Zoller Seitz (The House Next Door and The New York Times) and Stu Van Airsdale (The Reeler and Defamer).
The issue of blogs as an alternative/corrective to the mainstream media came up early in the day, with Seitz’s explanation for how The House Next Door got started. “I was really irritated by the negative reviews of Terrence Malick’s The New World,” he said, “And I just wanted to write about how great it was like every day.”
Though Matt experimented with Google and Amazon’s ad programs, both “were just a pain in the ass to maintain,” and The House Next Door evolved into a not-for-profit clearinghouse for mostly-serious material that an interested community of professional and amateur writers wouldn’t be able to publish elsewhere. It’s an employed film critic’s outlet for non-commercial writing, but it’s also an effort to create a greater balance in the types of voices that get to weigh in on film culture. But to established print critics who whisper to him in confidence that they’d love to have an outlet to write the kind of stuff that appears daily, for no compensation, on The House Next Door, Seitz has no sympathy. “Where do you get off with your sense of superiority, Print, if you constrain your writers in a way that [blogs] don’t?”
Seitz says what’s happening online is not in opposition to journalism––it’s returning journalism to what it should be. “Blogs have returned human communication to its natural state,” he said. “Journalism has been a white collar profession for about 20 years now, and it didn’t used to be…a lot of the defense that critics feel has to do with impoliteness.”
Of 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 mention of the blogosphere, with the stated problem being comment section vitriol. Seitz referred to this factor as “Assholism,” in regards to which he shrugged, “There are certain people who only exist to show up on websites in order to tell you what an idiot you are.” He compared the blog space to high school debate: even though arguments get vicious, “there are rules, and you don’t take it personally.”
Newly-minted Defamer Stu VanAirsdale, who usually keeps at least part of a foot in the mainstream print world, concurred. “Blogs are famously kind of a caustic environment. I’m honest, maybe to a fault, but if something’s bullshit, I’m going to say it’s bullshit. That doesn’t mean I’m right, it just means I have an opinion. The print loyalty is absolutely afraid of that dialogue, and they can’t conceive of a world where they’d have to defend themselves.”
Stu noted that he had been hired to inject a sense of film culture into Defamer, a site maybe best known for posting images of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch, captured by former editor Mark Lisanti with cellphone cam pointed at his TV. Such successes for the site have apparently been few and far between of late, and with Defamer traffic down over the past twelve months, Stu noted that his talents were seen as desirable because they could potentially attract a new audience. One of my fellow Institute fellows, New York Magazine blogger Dan Kois, expressed surprise that famously lowest common denominator-mad Defamer publisher Nick Denton would consider deeper content as a viable traffic raising solution. But as Stu pointed out, the site already has the celeb sex tape beat covered by other writers. With that steady stream of traffic taken care of, Defamer can afford to take a risk on someone like Stu, presumably in the hopes of attracting a wider audience.
Over and over again, these discussions came back to compromise. Tom Kalin needed to cast an actress of Julianne Moore’s caliber in order to get funding for his incest-infused true crime movie Savage Grace; Julianne Moore can only make Savage Grace because she pays both her own mortgage and rent on her stardom/bankability by making movies like Next. Filmmakers care primarily about their movies seeing theatrical release, but as Ryan Werner pointed out, VOD is a new revenue stream that can not only support the cost of a theatrical release, but it supports long-term word of mouth for all ancillaries. Seitz even talked about bargaining with an editor at the Newark Star-Ledger: he’d get to do an interview he really wanted to do, if he interviewed Jerry Springer as well.
In my first post about attending the Institute, I mentioned something about how I was heading to Queens to confront an existential void. I can’t say that the future looks appreciably less murky just yet, although maybe it will when it dust settles a bit. At least I know I have one thing to look forward to: a never-ending series of deals with devils. Maybe it’s not “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”; maybe it’s more like “if you let me scratch your eyes out, I’ll make it worth your while.” Does it matter, as long as the rent gets paid?
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
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
[...] adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
[...] Alliance for Justice wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAt least I know I have one thing to look forward to: a never-ending series of deals with devils. Maybe it’s not “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”; maybe it’s more like “if you let me scratch your eyes out, I’ll make it worth … [...]
On the issue of comments:
Back when I used to run a big movie blog, I was frequently
chastised by my corporate betters for paying zero attention
to the comments section of my own blog. Even when someone
would ask me a direct question in the comments, I would
typically ignore it. Why? Two reasons. 1) There’s such
a thing as mental expenditure and the limits of it and
2) Comments aren’t essential to a blog, and are often
nothing more than clutter. I recently visited David
Poland’s blog and had to laugh at the fact that even
at an industry insider blog like his, Poland was
bemoaning the “insanity” of back-and-forth name calling
that had erupted in his comments sections between random
tards. If you read certain blogs long enough, you can even
predict this stuff. Any time Jeff Wells writes something
political, he’s going to get ten comments about how he’s
not allowed to write about anything but movies,
etc.
Should A.O. Scott be forced to sift through 65 comments
on the order of “U are a douche, tthis movie ruled!” in
order to get to the few serious comments? And once he
discovers those few reasoned, well thought-out
comments….what if he decides he doesn’t want to engage
with them? Why is he an asshole for wanting to put a
piece of writing out into the world and not have to
suffer a digital tap on the shoulder from every Joe
Passerby with an opinion? What if he simply wants to
be a writer and not be part of a “caustic environment”
where he’s forced to “defend” himself for the act of
writing?
Why do I think the word for Karina Longworth’s attitude in these posts is “entitled”?
Ryan: “Why is [A.O. Scott] an asshole for wanting to put a piece of writing out into the world and not have to suffer a digital tap on the shoulder from every Joe Passerby with an opinion?”
He isn’t. My use of the term “assholism” (originally coined in Whit Stillman’s Barcelona — credit where credit is due!) refers not to Scott’s reluctance to engage with commenters, but with the “comments section vitriol” to which Ms. Longworth refers.
There’s no policy at the House with regard to writers engaging with comments. Some contributors respond regularly to comments, some occasionally, some never — it’s up to the writer.
I do think, however, that in the relatively brief lifespan of online film writing, readers have come to expect comments threads — the livelier the better. Sites without comments threads — or where the writers don’t seem to read or engage with the commenters — are perceived as less lively, accessible and immediate than sites where the comments threads serve as a kind of virtual water cooler where readers can gather to discuss the latest articles or links.
“He isn’t. My use of the term “assholism” (originally coined in
Whit Stillman’s Barcelona — credit where credit is due!) refers
not to Scott’s reluctance to engage with commenters, but with
the “comments section vitriol” to which Ms. Longworth refers.”
You’re right — I see now that I read that incorrectly. Wow,
these blog comments sure are helpful. Just forget I said
anything.
Ryan,
comments aren’t essential to you, maybe, but they are to a blog. Without them there is no Web 2.0, so it’s just a backward “old-regime” website trying to pretend to be a “blog” without accepting the new paradigm of the participative community.
People who use the great technological potential of the internet just to paste a print-world tradition in digital characters are using a like using a Blackberry stuck to the fridge, as a Post-it, to leave a message. It’s a waste of all the creative capacity and facilitations the new modality offers.
If journalism moves to the internet, it might as well embrace all the new possibilities and make them its own.
Nice report Karina (are you covering Days 3 and 4 in a separate post?) - though perhaps I shouldn’t have read it in the morning - it’s a bit early for me to reach for the bottle for comfort.
For years, I’ve held a day job whose sole relevance to my career in film was the ample time it afforded me to go online and educate myself about cinema. I likened it to an 00’s version of Tarantino’s proverbial video store as film school. For me it actually made more sense than being a bottom-rung PA for a low budget indie production, especially when the filmmaking technology of the day allows people to be their one-man crews much in the way that blogs afford journalists more autonomy than ever. There’s never going to be a green pasture or job that offers everything you could possibly want. I think the most critical thing is to find what sustains and inspires the best of you and do what it takes to keep that going. This never ends. Older critics have to ask that of themselves every day, and the ones I admire come up with innovative solutions that can not only sustain their careers but revitalize their interest in what they love. I loved it when Molly Haskell openly wondered when The Observer would let go of Andrew Sarris and shrugged it off, speculating that they could review movies online possibly through new media like videos.
Jane, Karina’s perceived tone of entitlement has nothing on what you hear from some print critics who’ve had or are in fear of having their livelihoods taken away from them. I have little sympathy for a lot of them, at least those whose quality of writing is no more remarkable than a lot of what their younger counterparts are offering with no expectation of recompense. I don’t think Karina’s tone is so much entitled as despondently but actively searching for an answer in the face of these circumstances, which is more than what can be said for some of the older critics who don’t have a clue of how to react other than to bitch and moan about the way it was back when.
Jane, the only thing I think I’m entitled to is the ability to ask questions about the evolving future of the career that I’ve already devoted a decade of my life towards. If that’s untoward, so be it. Apparently, I don’t have much to lose.
Kevin: I wasn’t planning on covering day 3 at all, because the first part of the day feels like a conflict of interest––for those not in the know, we watched a rough cut of Gerald Peary’s doc “For the Love of Movies,” which I am very briefly in––and I was sick for the second half. As for Day 4, again, I missed the first hour of the day due to sickness. I will be writing about The Wackness as soon as Tribeca lets me. I do hope that somebody else writes about our session at the New York Times, but it would honestly depress me to write about it, and I’m depressed enough.
I think I have the same bug Karina suffered through earlier this week, but I would like to write about the NYT session (and everything else) as soon as I feel less woozy.
Sorry to hear you caught the same bug we did, Jette. Whether it was something in the redundant catering (smoked salmon?) or the (unwashed?) glasses at the Subway Inn Bar, we may never know…
Harry — everything you said is easily refutable, and the best
example I can think of would be Slant Magazine. The film reviewers
on that site are better than Tony Scott and Manohla Dargis and they
don’t feel the need to add comment features onto their reviews. (There’s
a talkback board well off to the side.) So you tell me — are they worth nothing more than post-its?
You seem to be accepting that “the participative community” is
unfailingly good without explaining why. Is it possible you’re
falling into the classic trap of thinking that every technological possibility must be taken advantage of simply because it exists?
Having a forum on the site, as Slant does, is actually being *more* generous to the audience than putting comments under a review, not less, as Ryan implies. The fact is, in the current online climate, if you don’t at least feign that a conversation in which both writers and readers can participate is important, a lot of readers will go elsewhere. Anyone who “just wants to write” and wants to pretend like their audience doesn’t exist shouldn’t be publishing online––that’s what academia is for. I feel more sympathy for someone like Tony Scott, whose work has been forced into the online realm against his will, than I do for someone who wants to publish online but isn’t willing to participate in or withstand the scrutiny of the online community.
K-Lo: I didn’t imply that Slant was being ungenerous, I was implying that they understand the importance of keeping a certain distance between the writer’s work and the feedback loop. I’m glad you agree with me on that point.
I think Slant is the perfect model of a modern movie website. I also think that Nick and Ed should only participate in the boards when and if they see fit, the same way Tony Scott can seek out letters to the editor right now if he wants to, or not. Fast forward to the day his reviews are online only — I think at that point it should be totally up to him whether or not there’s a comment feature under his reviews. So with that said, where do we disagree?
Places where Ryan and I disagree:
“…paying zero attention to the comments section of my own blog. Even when someone would ask me a direct question in the comments, I would typically ignore it.”
That shows a total disregard for your reader. No wonder they think “u r a douche.”
“Comments aren’t essential to a blog, and are often nothing more than clutter.”
Comments are what sets a blog apart from any other form of written media. The conversation that happens within them *is* essential to what blogs are all about. If you disagree, then don’t blog.
“I recently visited David Poland’s blog and had to laugh at the fact that even at an industry insider blog like his, Poland was bemoaning the “insanity” of back-and-forth name calling that had erupted in his comments sections between random
tards.”
David Poland may be an “industry insider”, but it’s not like he has a readership of pure studio execs––his blog is written with run-of-the-mill fanboys in mind. And Poland is smart enough to know that every comment represents another 2 page views, and a post about comment civility is going to attract comments. All good bloggers aim to get a response from their audience, because otherwise, the blog dies.
But other than that…
Notice that you had to jump back to an earlier topic and you avoided the entire Slant/Tony Scott thread. So I take it I won that one.
You’re also being completely disengenuous, knowing as you do that the blog I fronted, because of its design, does and always did receive an avalanche of bogus, crazy off-topic comments from the howling wilderness of the Internet, and that’s obviously what I was referring to. Not a boutique like this one. But you’re taking the low road now, which satisfies me that I’ve won this debate.
Your definition of what a blog is is also short-sighted — the conversation *between* blogs can be just as important if a particular blog isn’t attracting a healthy collection of readers.
The End.
Ryan, that’s because I already responded to the Slant comment, and Matt already clarified what you misread about my original Tony Scott comment. No one ever called Tony Scott an asshole or insisted that he be forced to answer comments to his reviews. I’m sorry you misread that. I guess we disagree on what a blog is. Oh well.
The funny thing is that I doubt our definition is that far apart, unless one of us has some unhealthy love for spam, but anyway. Have a nice weekend. See you at Tribeca!
What Karina said.
Just to clarify: my Post-It example only mattered to the form. I wasn’t arguing the content of film criticism… which entirely depends on the talent of the writer (regardless of where (s)he publishes)
Critics v Bloggers Redux (Or: I’ve heard this song before…)…
It’s with a sense of bemused fascination that I’ve been reading Kevin Lee and Karina Longworth’s dispatches from the Moving Image Institute in Film Criticism, which ended on Tuesday. Unlike my recent comments about the NYU workshop, it seems that…
[...] the pay criticism as consumer reporting versus advocacy for artists. With such circular questions,http://blog.spout.com/2008/04/16/moving-image-institute-the-deal/New releases Wichita Falls Times Record News???BABY MAMA??? In this comedy, a successful, single [...]