comment #1

MPNeeb says ...

Oh the reviewers have it tough?
Think about the audiences. Down in San Diego, a lot of interesting films are not even getting a release down here.
I had to netflix Stephanie Daley and Teeth played in one theater (with iffy parking) for 7 days.
4 Months... at least got reviews and has hung around (gone after this week, probably).

comment #2

swhitty says ...

I find this not only depressing, but confusing. I don't want to slam my colleagues, but my paper's based across the Hudson, and yet I managed to get to screenings in NY -- and get reviews in print -- of "Lake of Fire," "Four Months..." and "Taxi to the Dark Side," all movies that went without print reviews in the NY tabs.

All movies, too, that people who care about movies should see, or at least be aware of.

I have to skip films all the time (sorry "Irina Palm") due to lack of time or space or help (unlike the Post, we don't keep three critics employed -- just me.) But these films were kind of big deals.

I wonder if what's really at work here isn't overwhelmed critics but underwhelmed editors -- with many other papers simply downgrading how important they think movie coverage is in general?

But I guess you have to have your priorities. The more arts coverage you cut, the more room you have for pics of Eliot Spitzer's call girl...

comment #3

EDouglas says ...

Pretty much agree with what Steven says, and it's not just print critics who have limited space, but online critics like me who have limited time and tend to like putting some time into my full reviews. What generally happens is that limited releases and smaller indies get mini-reviews in my column and only the major wide releases get full reviews (and sometimes not even that). There definitely have been a couple really good indies that I wasn't able to review or talk up as much as I'd like due to the time factor.

comment #4

btwnproductions says ...

It's inexcusable for the major papers not to have reviewed 4 MONTHS or TAXI, which The New Yorker has just gotten around to appraising. On the other hand, they'd be doing the cause of cinema a favor by ignoring the many sub-indie clunkers that wash up on our screens for a week before going off to DVD, or running them on the content-devouring web. (And if a diamond glints from the rough, put it in the paper.) Conserve scarce real estate for the good stuff, the films that advance, rather than retard, the cause of cinema--which requires keen editorial judgment.

There's more to be said on this, and the Reporter article opens the door to the conversation.

comment #5

btwnproductions says ...

...Or, conversely, reduce the amount of ink spilled on the latest Tinseltown clinker (what is there to really say about DRILLBIT TAYLOR?) and devote more to the interesting indies, but I can see where that would die the death with editors and publishers.

comment #6

the king says ...

And yet there are so many ... none make it down here to the swamps of North Florida. The last two were "The Savages" and "La Vie en Rose" (four months after its release on DVD). They played at a theater on a screen no bigger than at a library. Oh, yeah and the theater is 50 minutes away.

I can brave all that, or just wait and watch it on my digital TV.... let's see.

comment #7

T. Holly says ...

Time to whip out the microscope on Wells' quote: "People who support indie movies tend to be more Internet-fluent, and there are maybe eight or 10 online critics who genuinely matter and are, in the parlance of the trade, 'conversation starters.' Due respect, but insisting that review quotes are still about print critics is generational hubris."

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

Why should a newspaper waste inch count on films that aren't buying half page ads or bringing in a large amount of demographic eyeballs? The newspaper industry is in a downward cycle and art film reviews ain't gonna sell thousands of copies. People who want these reviews don't buy the NY Post for the art section.

And why should anyone expect a Rupert Murdoch paper to care about "Taxi to the Darkside?"

comment #9

George Prager says ...

There's an indie movie glut because there are too many crappy indie movies. Why are there so many crappy indiemovies? Because Charlize Theron thought she might get a nomination for SLEEPWALKING.

comment #10

Arizona Joe says ...

There is a glut of crappy indie movies, an indie movie septic tank the size of Lake Erie. A high percentage of indie movies do not have a critical mass of talent or financing to make a good film.

There is something to be said for lofty know-it-alls of superior taste and film knowledge. That is why I read this website, because I consider Jeff Wells to be one of those people. I read the NY Times daily, and I rarely miss an independent film worth seeing.

That's okay for me, I am the consumer in a market where there is a surfeit of films, independent or otherwise. But if I was the producer of an independent film, or the financier who took the film from the festival to wider distribution, I would be concerned. I would be worried.

The pipeline for movie distribution and release to the masses needs to be reconsidered. Yes, internet savvy people can go online and put together a constellation of critics and writers who give them the information to make a judgment on whether or not to see a film. But the hoi polloi, the masses who constitute a significant audience enough for a film to be profitable and to be considered for awards, they are more passive in the receiving of information.

There is an opportunity for someone to design a clearinghouse for films, but how that would be designed I don't know, other than being implemented on the internet.

comment #11

llumenick@aol.com says ...

Mr. Whitty, the esteemed chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, is partly incorrect; we reviewed both The Post reviewed both "Lake of Four'' and "Four Months'' in print, and my review of "Irina Palm'' will appear tomorrow. That said, our readership is quite different than the suburbanites who read The Newark Star Ledger.

comment #12

llumenick@aol.com says ...

Mr. Whitty, the esteemed chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, is partly incorrect; The Post reviewed both "Lake of Four'' and "Four Months'' in print, and my review of "Irina Palm'' will appear tomorrow. That said, our readership is quite different than the suburbanites who read The Newark Star Ledger.

comment #13

swhitty says ...

True enough, Lou -- and apologies -- it's the News that didn't review those two. But the Post didn't review "Taxi to the Dark Side," which I still can't understand...

comment #14

George Prager says ...

The NY Post should've given TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE to Kyle Smith so he could give it one star and call the whole thing a hoax.

comment #15

T. Holly says ...

Chris Thilk got it right: when it’s free, there will be a market. And I’ll add that Film Threat will be the AICN of that market. Snark.

http://blog.spout.com/2008/03/20/the-indie-target-shoots-back-blognosh-032008/

comment #16

T. Holly says ...

When it's free, there will be a market. And I'll add that Film Threat will be the AICN of that market.