"As a generation of top critics move into their 50s and 60s, newspapers are chasing the same young demographic as advertisers and studios. Just as film distribution and marketing are adapting to the rise of digital delivery, the internet is altering the face of film criticism. [As] daily newspapers are losing circulation, [so are they losing] Hollywood advertising and their influence over moviegoers. As publishers struggle to hang on to their readers via online content, blogs and podcasts, some are replacing experienced critics with younger, less expensive models." -- Anne Thompson in yesterday's (6.2.06) "Risky Business" column, which obviously captures a portion of what's happening, although a moviegoing world without the usual array of older, seasoned and richly expressive print brahmins would be extremely distressing to me personally. The older dug-in writers can be 91 or 79 or 66 years old...age being immaterial unless the writer for emotional or biological reasons decides to start thinking and behaving like a somewhat older, less-open-to-the-here-and-now observer. Obviously the general ad-bucks swing away from Old Media towards New Media is real, etc., but the older writers can get into the groove if they want to...just start writing more, forget for the most part about "deadlines" (except when it comes to serving the print versions) and just keep it coming on a daily-hourly-nonstop basis....whatever feels right, whenever it surfaces.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 3, 2006 at 4:31 AM
comment #1
JD says ...
Film criticism is basically irrelevant. It always comes down to thumbs up or thumbs down and audiences want to decide for themselves anyway. These seasoned pro should put their talent and energy into write longer, more serious essays about films. Books even. The internet can't really compete with that and there's never enough strong, serious-minded film writing of more than a few paragraphs. Of course, they all want to make big bucks, which isn't really a recipe for serious writing of any consequence.
Posted by JD at June 3, 2006 8:56 AM
comment #2
Phoophey St. Boner says ...
Thompson shot herself in the foot in the article by praising Walter Chaw - the most arrogant and misinformed film critic online these days.
To suggest this guy is the best the internet has to offer shows that maybe Thompson should spend more time suring the web. Any critic who calls someone a "moron" in their review is clearly a subpar talent and an attention whore.
Posted by Phoophey St. Boner at June 3, 2006 11:02 AM
comment #3
Daniel Zelter says ...
>As publishers struggle to hang on to their >readers via online content, blogs and podcasts, >some are replacing experienced critics with >younger, less expensive models."
If Ebert's too stuck up to recognize videogames as a legitimate media, he deserves to be sidelined by a critic who can respect the original source material enough to give it a more balanced review.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at June 3, 2006 11:23 AM
comment #4
the king says ...
If anyone is looking. I'm only turning 30 next month. Would love to replace an old guard critic. Working for an online newsletter now.
Posted by the king at June 5, 2006 7:17 AM