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…

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)

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.

“…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…

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

You’re right — I see now that I read that incorrectly. Wow,
these blog comments sure are helpful. Just forget I said
anything.

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.

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?