Upcoming
December 31
January 2
Cargo 200
January 7
Silent Light
January 9
How About You
Yonkers Joe
January 16
Cherry Blossoms
January 21
Of Time and the City
Death of a Medium, cont'd
N.Y. Times media columnist David Carr considers the recent disappearance of all them film crickets -- Newsday's Gene Seymour and Jan Stuart, the Village Voice's Nathan Lee, Newsweek's David Ansen plus critics "at more than a dozen daily newspapers (including those in Denver, Tampa and Fort Lauderdale) and several alternative weeklies who have been laid off, reassigned or bought out in the past few years, deemed expendable at a time when revenues at print publications are declining," etc.
Carr quotes Defamer/Reeler columnist Stu VanAirsdale, MCN's David Poland, Entertainment Weekly critic Owen Gleiberman, Sony Classics co-chief Michael Barker, Village Voice executive editor Michael Lacey, ThinkFilm's Mark Urman, etc.
"Given that movie blogs are strewn about the web like popcorn on a theater floor, there are those who say that movie criticism is not going away, it’s just appearing on a different platform," Carr writes. "And no one would argue that fewer critics and the adjectives they hurl would imperil the opening of Iron Man in May. But for a certain kind of movie, critical accolades can mean the difference between relevance and obscurity, not to mention box office success or failure."
And for certain kinds of readers, critical huzzahs will never be fully real unless...I'm tired of saying it.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 1, 2008 at 11:45 AM
comment #1
Jay T.
says ...
I still just can't get worked up about this because so many film critics produce such unreadable shit, and too many of the "good" writers have trouble producing readable reviews without giving away too much.
Posted by Jay T.
at April 1, 2008 1:56 PM
comment #2
CinemaPhreek
says ...
This is one sad death spiral for papers, so consumed with the bottom and double digit profits (it was never the case that papers were losing money, it's just they weren't making the kinds of money those who took them over wanted).
One area that should have been safe was the arts section, as it is nothing but film and concert ads. Yet, again the short-sightedness is staggering. Because this is what will happen:
1 - Fewer/no critic, less readers who sought them out for non big budget films
2 - As box office numbers for those films decline, the distributors will curtail the print ads as they go elsewhere to drum up business for those films, mostly online chasing better DVD numbers.
3 - Fewer of those films will be made as it is believed the audience for them is "shrinking", so even fewer print ads.
4 - More cuts at the paper, which will cause even more of the readership to decline as the overall quality disappears with veterans.
What's even more depressing is what happens to the society as a whole as we loose these news organizations. More and more corruption will take place as fewer outlets have the resources to investigate them.
The information superhighway of knowledge that was so heralded as a boon to intellectual freedom might just end up helping to deprive us of it.
Posted by CinemaPhreek
at April 1, 2008 1:58 PM
comment #3
actionman
says ...
At least Ebert will be back
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080401/PEOPLE/994190446
Posted by actionman
at April 1, 2008 2:48 PM
comment #4
Edward
says ...
The future looms over us ... a few corporate entities feeding us their "objective" points of view. One minute news bites buried beneath the latest entertainment tie-in. A very sad state of affairs.
Posted by Edward
at April 1, 2008 3:02 PM
comment #5
christian
says ...
What cinemaphreek said.
But it's just part of the bigger picture which is our country's economic downslide. And taxpayers get to bail out out all those banking masters of the free-market universe.
Posted by christian
at April 1, 2008 3:05 PM
comment #6
corey3rd
says ...
what helps little film is pre-release buzz and not merely a review in a Friday paper. newspaper reviewers are a dying breed because on average, they're the self-important pricks who everyone on the staff resents for getting paid to watch movies.
When was the last time you really needed a critic to know if a film that's coming out truly stunk or was great?
Movie critics are a luxury item and not a stable to a newspaper.
Posted by corey3rd
at April 1, 2008 3:41 PM
comment #7
arch451
says ...
This is just the beginning of the death of many, many careers as our global economic downslide begins due to the impending energy crisis. It is disheartening that the arts always seem to be the first to go in tough times.
Posted by arch451
at April 1, 2008 3:50 PM
comment #8
Edward
says ...
Politicians usually talk about our schools needing science and math programs so we can better compete globally. I was very pleased to hear Sen. Obama speaking about the necessity of arts programs in the schools.
Posted by Edward
at April 1, 2008 4:10 PM
comment #9
MathewM
says ...
How many of you guys actually subscribe to a newspaper? Not many. How many of you guys read the news for free on the internet? Everyone. Newspapers are losing readership and money. The high-paid critics are the easiest cut. This is merely a shake-down thats finally taking place and has been coming for years. There will still be movie reviews only they will be written by someone willing to work for $20K a year.
Posted by MathewM
at April 1, 2008 4:11 PM
comment #10
Edward
says ...
It's not just the arts critics being layed off. From today's online NY Times: "News operations at CBS stations in several cities started a series of job cuts this week as the network itself, CBS News, moved ahead with plans to lay off about 1 percent of its nearly 1,200 employees."
Posted by Edward
at April 1, 2008 4:14 PM
comment #11
CinemaPhreek
says ...
Mathew - Every day, bro.
And yes, I base a good chunk of my movie money on the consensus of several critics. I have to, I live in LA where there is something like 50 new choices in film going every week between the major studios, the arthouse, the revivals and the school screenings.
It also informs my later DVD viewings for films that either didn't make the cut or I didn't make it to the theater in time to catch before they moved on.
When it comes to ANY critic - film, art, TV, spots, politics - I certainly hope they are self-important pricks in order to have an original voice.
However, I have never met one like that and I doubt Corey has either. College film types, sure. But a paper guy I highly doubt.
Posted by CinemaPhreek
at April 1, 2008 5:23 PM
comment #12
LYT
says ...
I certainly hope they are self-important pricks in order to have an original voice.
However, I have never met one like that and I doubt Corey has either.
Clearly you never met Kevin Thomas.
Posted by LYT
at April 2, 2008 4:03 AM
comment #13
TakeMeBackToManhattan
says ...
Does the Chicago Sun-Times still allow Richard Roeper to write film reviews for them on occasion? Literally the worst writing I've ever read in a respectable publication.
Posted by TakeMeBackToManhattan
at April 2, 2008 7:53 AM
comment #14
MathewM
says ...
"And yes, I base a good chunk of my movie money on the consensus of several critics."
Maybe in LA but by the time a "smaller" movie reaches St. Louis I have read enough about it online via blogs like HE that the local critic's opinion means very little.
What these critics who are losing their jobs need to do is follow Jeffrey Wells example and start "blogging". Develop an online readership and make money off of the ads. I'm sure the money won't be nearly as good but if they are shrewd enough they'll learn how to merchandise themselves. I can actually see a cottage industry form around assisting out-of-work news people with setting up an online presence.
Posted by MathewM
at April 2, 2008 8:36 AM
comment #15
Jay T.
says ...
CinemaPhreek nailed it -- if only the people running newspapers actually realized that they're killing themselves in the long run.
Posted by Jay T.
at April 2, 2008 9:15 AM
comment #16
Arizona Joe
says ...
CinemaPhreek is correct. The loss of film critics in city newspapers changes several things. It alters how films are distributed and marketed. It is a sign of the devaluation of newspapers. It is a sign that a new society is happening, and that the extreme populism and practical effects of the internet may not be a good thing.
If newspapers die, or are truncated so much that their power and identity are lost, the film industry is going to have to construct a new and different pipeline to market most films, in particular art films, foreign films and Oscar worthy films.
The Carr article was very interesting. It made one think about how opinions germinate and grow in society. For so long newspapers, magazines and professional journals were the place where the truth and the good were winnowed from a lot of chafe, crap, falsehoods, and half-baked ideas.
Now, on the internet, the crap has a lot longer shelf-life, and has the potential to fester into something a lot worse.
Posted by Arizona Joe
at April 2, 2008 10:03 AM
Post a comment