First, I’m happy to help James McNally shed his skepticism that any of the existing media outlets would dare hire someone focused completely on docs.

In fact, About.com (the eleventh largest Web entity in the world and a subsidiary of the New York Times) has a dedicated critic/reporter for documetaries. The position has existed for a decade and for the past year or so, I’ve been the journalist who’s filled it. I’m under contract and am paid, and held to the same professional standards as those to which all employees of the New York Times are held.

My job is to write reviews, let people know what’s breaking in documentary filmmaking, stir up interest in and create understanding about documentary film. The Website is http://documentaries.about.com.

You’re right, the distinctions between narrative and nonfiction film are blurring and I sometimes review narrative features–just to show the difference, or review narrative features along with documentaries to show how the two types of filmmaking cover the same ‘real’ story. And I cover narrative features that will stand in the public’s mind as ‘documents’ about an historic event or person because there limited evidence about the subject, nor is there actual archival footage of it, and the public record is sealed for one reason or another. Or I might cover a narrative feature, a work of art, that will define our culture and politics for future generations. The focus is on documentation.

The ste has a substantal following, but I’m not particularly surprised that you don’t know about it–I don’t seek the limelight for myself, rarely leave comments on blogs, and spend most of my time doing some serious tub thumping to get people to watch documentaries, to understand their relevance and aesthetic, to know what goes into making them and understand what makes them legit or bogus, smart, stylish or mundane.

There are a lot of documentaries being made. I’ve got a full time job.

There are bound to be differences of opinion about whether there should be special critics for documentary films. Whatever your stand is on that issue, I’d hope you’ll agree that documentaries deserve more and better coverage than they’re currenty getting. And that in order to provide that coverage, it’s important for the critic–generalist or specialist–to understand the differences in the documentary and narrative filmmaking processes and to consider how the differences impact the products. Beyond that, honesty, unbridled curiosity and a certain degree of humility seem to be qualities compatible with the job of writing about documentaries. And passion. But those qualities should be brought by critics of narrative films, as well.

In response to Thom Powers’ reference to Amy Taubin’s suggestion that critics might take a lesson from self-distribution consultants like Peter Broderick, I’d suggest that that is a subject worthy of its own ‘dedicated’ discussion.

However, that said, I’d like to mention that the Alliance of Women Film Journalists (of which both Amy and Karina are members, and I am president), is doing precisely that in that we have signed a contract to syndicate original content published in our online journal, AWFJ Women On Film, in Europe, Asia and Australa. All AWFJ members were invited to participate.

Well, maybe the syndication isn’t exacty the same as self-distribution–but the self-distribution idea, which I put before our members when they began losing their jobs, wasn’t embraced. Hopefully the syndication is a move in the direction of self-distribution, which would still be a longterm goal.

You ask a valid question about whether critics can have the same impact if they’re not backed by a hefty brand like the Village Voice. I’d answer a quick yes, from my own experience. In the late 80s, I was the managing editor for The Comics Journal, a monthly magazine that’s been the main critical forum of comics and graphic novels since 1976. During my tenure, we covered breakthrough work such as Maus, Watchmen, and American Splendor. The Comics Journal played a crucial role in giving a critical context for these works; and brought attention to unsung masters such as Harvey Kurtzman, Jack Kirby and Will Eisner. See

The Comics Journal’s circulation was less than 10,000 and its resources were minimal. Needless to say, none of its writers were making their living off comics criticism. But it had tremendous vitality from the distinct voices of its critics and the willingness of its founders Gary Groth and Kim Thompson to publish controversial opinions. (We fought and won 3 libel suits).

In the film world, one thinks of Cahiers du Cinema in the 1950s as a small player with a big influence.

Currently, that’s lacking in film. Amy Taubin was on to something when she said that critics might take a lesson from self-distribution consultants like Peter Broderick. If films like Objectified can flourish off an email list of passionate followers, maybe a group of critics can too.

I’ve devoted probably two-thirds of my film reviews to docs, but all that has done is to make me want to immerse myself further in the documentary world. There may be paid outlets to write about docs but they are pretty narrowly focused on other documentary filmmakers. I’m skeptical that any of the existing media outlets would dare to hire someone focused completely on docs, much as I’d love to see it.

On the other hand, I find it interesting that the boundaries between documentary and other kinds of filmmaking seem to be blurring now anyway, so maybe it’s best that critics not limit themselves to just one kind of film.