comment #1

pm123 says ...

Having been to USC and known many of these people, the dispiriting thing is that (at least for the undergraduate production majors) their goal is simply to make movies. Not to tell stories, not to communicate ideas, but just to make movies. Spielberg was their hero (I'm probably dating myself now), and David Lean, because these guys made MOVIES. The process was almost always more important the product. Everyone loves to talk about the PROCESS of Hollywood - how films are made, how the industrial dream factory works, who's making what for who with whom (Did I use who and whom correctly there?) but the final product never seems to live up to the thrill of MAKING the product. That always frustrated me. Many ended up being very good at making movies, but not so good at having something to SAY in the movies they made...

comment #2

actionman says ...

I read almost every "cream of the crop" critic each week on most of the major releases.

Ebert, Dargis, AO Scott, Denby, and Turan are my favorites to read. I don't agree with Turan a lot but I like the way he writes. I get a kick out of Sarris and Reed in the Observer as well; don't agree with them all the time but they know how to write. And Armond White is good for a laugh.

comment #3

Studly Semite says ...

As an ex NYU grad (mid-90's) I can honestly say without excpetion it was the same way back then, so why would I expect it to be different now? (Especially in industry-dominated Los Angeles.) The students I was going to school with were not only NOT interested in critics but were not interested in film history at all unless you had a class in it. Most peoples only frames of references were various cult movies they grew up on such as Taxi Driver, Clockwork Orange, Raider of the Lost Ark etc. And that was the motivation for them to come to film school, to basically become like their heroes Scorcese, Spike Lee, etc. Where are these students now? See Brett Ratner, M. Night Shamayaln, Todd Phillips. They all copied their "heroes" to much success. The "mavericks" never come out of film school these days and didn't back in the 90s. All the 90s genre-benders were all from Ivy Leagues who moved to NY and LA and came up from various underground movements who made independent films. These were the guys studying and inspired by critics from the 60s and 70s (see Tarantino) Film schools, by nature of their crushing and ass-kissing bureaucracy are institutions to stamp out duitiful employees for studios, and are not there to encourage real artistry or foster rebellion against status quo. To assume or even care that USC or NYU future filmmakers note critics is a pointless exercise in hand-wringing.

comment #4

Chris Willman says ...

Kids!
I don't know what's wrong with these kids today!
Kids!
Who can understand anything they say?
Kids!
They a disobedient, disrespectful oafs!
Noisy, crazy, dirty, lazy, loafers!
While we're on the subject:
Kids!
You can talk and talk till your face is blue!
Kids!
But they still just do what they want to do!
Why can't they be like we were,
Perfect in every way?
What's the matter with kids today?
Kids!
I've tried to raise him the best I could
Kids! Kids!
Laughing, singing, dancing, grinning, morons!
And while we're on the subject!
Kids! They are just impossible to control!
Kids! With their awful clothes and their rock an' roll!
Why can't they dance like we did
What's wrong with Sammy Caine?
What's the matter with kids today!

comment #5

Chris Willman says ...

But I don't mean that completely facetiously. Kids today really do suck. Especially Anne Thompson's students.

comment #6

Jay T. says ...

To be fair, USC will make us 20-somethings look even worse... ;-)

But I think the point being missed is this: does the decline of film critics say more about younger generations or the writing of the critics? I say the latter. So many reviews demonstrate such an obvious lack of simply paying attention to the movie. This week's EW review for 21 mentions how the main character only wants to build up $350,000 and then he's out. If you saw the damn movie you'd know it was $300,000, not $350,000 -- because this figure is mentioned about twenty god damn times. To be honest, that type of an oversight doesn't exactly give me confidence that the reviewer was paying much attention. But hey, that's just me.

comment #7

Jay T. says ...

Oh, by the way, Jeff, the brunette's response was good stuff... spot on.

comment #8

Walter Sobchak says ...

I weep for the future.

comment #9

scooterzz says ...

chris - it's sammy kaye (not sammy caine)

comment #10

LYT says ...

I think Travers, Ebert, and Gleiberman may have been the only critics I knew by name when I went to USC. After reading the free weeklies for a while, I started to learn those names too.

Given time I think these kids might learn, especially once they're out of school and have to rely on their own resources rather than classroom chatter to find out what's opening on a given weekend.

Provided there are critics left by then, of course....

comment #11

corey3rd says ...

A film fiend of the 21st Century doesn't need a film critic writing in a daily paper or a magazine or a weekly.

I really don't care about "real" film critics anymore. What gets me to want to see a film is a captivating promo photo. Or a trailer that knows how to tease. Or a pal asking if I've seen this film.

"Over the years, critics helped audiences appreciate the likes of...." Critics? More like TV programmers and that cool kid on the hall who had the VHS copies. And when it comes to 2001 - it's that hot coed who said you need to see it while high and guess what...

Movie Critics are basically whining "Why aren't you worshipping us like Pauline Kael?" What we are witnessing is an industry full of self-important jerks finally discovering that their intended audience pays less attention to their genius than the school lunch menu.

comment #12

Matthew Lucas says ...

As a college student working toward a degree in film studies, I can tell you that respect for critics amongst similar students is very low (outside of Ebert and Kael), while respect for film historians and scholars is very high.

But it never ceases to amaze me just what my classmates don't know. I was recently working on a presentation on post-war Japanese cinema, and my plan was to show something by Kurosawa or Mizoguchi, and focus on the classic directors, while maybe touching on more modern directors like Miyazaki toward the end. But the other members of my group (who continually mispronounced Kurosawa as "Kurowasa," and who had never even seen any of his films) insisted on modern anime and manga as the way to go.

Sometimes I worry that true cinephilia is dying. I don't know, maybe I am just a pessimist, but that recent experience has me doubting.

comment #13

Tim says ...

True conversation from an NYU dorm this past fall:

Film Student: American Beauty is my favorite movie of all time.

Me: Really?

Film Student: Yes.

Me: But isn't it kind of bad?

Film Student: No.

Me: And degrading to women?

Film Student: What?

Me: You know, how Kevin Spacey's materialism is good because he's a cool dude but Annette Bening's is bad because she's a frigid bitch?

Film Student: BUT IT'S A SATIRE!

I never did see her again.

comment #14

Joe Leydon says ...

By sheer coincidence: Tomorrow, I am showing Nashville to my Social Aspects of Film class at University of Houston. And, of course, I will mention Pauline Kael in my intro, and how note her influence in her time. I wonder if some students will find it hard to believe that a film critic was ever that important?

comment #15

Mr. Blood Vessel says ...

she's spot on.
whenever I mention Jeff's name and this site, the majority of them aren't that impressed..unless it was like some filmmaker who has just made the latest commercial shit.

thanks to jeff, I actually want to at least be a film critic on the side.

comment #16

Nate West says ...

Before the days VHS and DVD, and especially if you lived miles from any repertory cinema, one read critics and film writers because this was as close you were likely to get to seeing the movies themselves. So you read that nifty series "Focus on..." ("Focus on Science Fiction," "Focus on Orson Welles"), or Kael, or Agee, or Bogdanovich, or "The Parades Gone By," or the Truffaut-Hicthcock interviews in part because the movies themselves were unavailable. This is no longer the case.

Once students have absorbed an analytical vocabularly and understanding, I would rather have them go directly to the films themselves and develop their own observations. Movie "reviews," those pieces timed to the release dates of movies, can be missed without undue damage to the movie-goer. I look at them only after I've seen the film.

comment #17

Joe Leydon says ...

Nate: I fear you're confusing availability with exposure. Just because peple can buy or rent DVDs of almost every classic and recent contemporary film doesn't mean they do so.

comment #18

Chris Willman says ...

Scooterzz: Sorry, that's what I get for doing a cut and paste from a lyrics site.

comment #19

alynch says ...

Ah you kids and you're music.

comment #20

Terry McCarty says ...

Speaking of film critics, what became of Michael Dare, who used to be the LA WEEKLY's go-to reviewer of B-grade-or-exploitation fare about two decades back?

comment #21

Marty Melville says ...

Has the American movie-going public ever really been that interested in movie critics? Even good ones?

For whatever reason, the cult for critics like Kael, Farber, Agee, etc., seemed to spring to life and get some legs only in the late fifties/early sixties which eventually lead to the homogenized, accessible Ebert/Thumbs Up crowd we see today (and as fond as I've grown of Ebert over the years, the idea of invoking his name in the same breath as Kael still rankles).

The sixties became movie-mad in a very literary fashion; think of the volcano of film-related books in that decade, compendiums of every critic previously un-compendiumed... plus picture books of all shapes and sizes (Anobile's frame by frames of classic movies, the "Films of" books from Citadel)... this was a very heady (capital H) time for hardcore movielovers.

Some of this may be coincidental stuff.. the popularity of some of these critics may lie with the very films they were writing about... the films produced during those years were (I think) some of the best movies ever made in this country and the excitement about the art form was palpable... it was goosed along by the writers who seemed to be as excited about writing about the films as the directors were in making them.

But really, before the sixties, did the Mainstream American public check in with Frank Nugent, Otis Ferguson, et. al, each week to see how the latest Huston, Welles or Boetticher played out... or what it meant to us?

The cult continues to this day, but the shift from traditional newsprint shows that it's becoming more and more cultish... a sub-cult tucked inside another cult like a Russian nesting doll. We might be bemoaning something that was very transitory and relatively short-lived to begin with anyway.

comment #22

thatrader says ...

How can anyone take USC seriously when they REJECTED Steven Spielberg and Spike Lee, but accepted people like David H. Steinberg, Hank Nelken, Tim Story, Walt Becker, and Gregg Araki, to name a few?

I'd say NYU is better, but the most successful director from there these days is Brett Ratner who brags about getting in with the lowest scores ever.

Back to the topic at hand though, how can anyone take USC seriously after this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXF8Lhvjqa8

comment #23

EDouglas says ...

Man, I could post SUCH a rant right now, but instead I'm going to walk away until I've had some breakfast and coffee. :)

comment #24

Rosebudsthesled says ...

I think the kids in my International Film Class know more about film than a lot of these students. I heard a story about how Dustin Hoffman was at NYU film school and he asked the class casually how many had seen THE GRADUATE. Nobody raised their hands. The sad part is we aren't talking about some European art film they haven't had time to watch (I have several great foreign films still on my shelf) or some obscure heralded American movie. The fact that they hadn't seen THE GRADUATE is vaguely disturbing. You wouldn't get that kind of thing at my high school.

For the record, somebody said that USC film students want to be David Lean because he made "movies." Lean is my 2nd favorite director, not because he made epics but because the characters are so well written. I do want to make movies because I saw BRIDGE and LAWRENCE, but a little more because of my love of Renoir and Wilder.

comment #25

Joel says ...

I liked reading Ebert when I was growing up, but I was never a fan of Micahel Wilmington's reviews. If I recall correctly, he would do far too much plot summation. Now, I don't really bother to read the reviews...I go to blogs like this and other sites to try to find out about the more obscure films, but I'll rent anything that looks interesting to me, regardless of the positive or negative reviews.

comment #26

Mgmax says ...

I've just been reading The United States of Arugula, which is about the foodie revolution from the 50s to the present, very much the flip side of the film generation (a few of the same people even turn up in cameos, like Tom Luddy). One of the things that's striking about it is that back then, the media were so few and so universal that you could convince yourself that what happened on the front of the food section of the NY Times had world-historical importance. (The author writes for Vanity Fair, so a book about "the United States" takes place almost entirely in New York and the Bay Area.)

In reality, of course. 99% of America had no idea who Craig Claiborne or Pierre Franey were, but the media could convince itself otherwise and believe that its system of reviewing high end joints was real news. Yet in movie reviewing, that clearly hasn't been true for two decades or more-- we've been living in the age of the critic-proof one-good-weekend movie, and the main life of movies being on home video, for at least that long. Newspapers could have started evolving then to meet how people actually watch movies now; that they didn't makes this current situation sad but certainly not surprising.

comment #27

p.Vice says ...

By participating in a society that is driven equally by consumerism and entertainment, we tacitly condone the advent of idiot culture in kids and teenagers. It really shouldn't surprise anyone to wake up and be surrounded by a new generation of morons just hitting adulthood.

comment #28

Zimmergirl says ...

It was the same for me back in the 90s in college - the feeling was, and I mostly shared it, why should their opinion matter any more than my opinion? In fact, I still feel that way. I've rarely made a decision on whether to see a film or not based on what a film critic says.

The web has obliterated the need for most of the critics, I would think, since the user-generated content era makes everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, a film critic, a tech reviewer, a DVD reviewer...one thing that is unfortunate about that is that bloggers, or amateurs, can be so easily bought off. Film critics try to be objective (whatever their personal agendas may be) and thus, you can at least trust that they're not praising a film because someone bought an ad or gave them a set visit or a personal phone call. Harry Knowles started that sleazy practice and it has become the norm. Finding a trustworthy blogger in the film genre is becoming more and more difficult.

comment #29

tommysunshine says ...

Exhibit A upholding the decline-of-the-film-critic thesis is Burma Shave's revisionist plea on this website for Hudson Hawk to be regarded as a cinematic classic.

Burma Shave and his coterie would rather re-watch True Lies than experience Truffaut.The concept of examining an actor's career is so, like, 1996.

comment #30

Mr. Blood Vessel says ...

Exhibit A upholding the decline-of-the-film-critic thesis is Burma Shave's revisionist plea on this website for Hudson Hawk to be regarded as a cinematic classic.

Burma Shave and his coterie would rather re-watch True Lies than experience Truffaut.The concept of examining an actor's career is so, like, 1996.

Posted by tommysunshine at April 5, 2008 09:16 AM

yea, that and monsters movie that harry knowles raves about all the time.
how are these movies good?
i mean, hudson hawk isn't even a cult classic.
it's just bad.

comment #31

Aladdin Sane says ...

Before the prevalent internet, I would watch Siskel & Ebert almost religiously. True I probably never would get a chance to see like 90% of what they were talking about when I was twelve years old in '93, but at least I was aware of it. So when I finally did watch Pulp Fiction a few years later, I knew its pedigree and if it weren't for them, I probably never would have seen Fargo as a teenager.
Now I still occasionally read reviews, but I'd rather hear what people on sites like this one - not just Wells, but the commentators - have to say about any given film.
I learned the great names from Ebert and his Great movie series. I bought his Book of Film. But it's up to me to enhance my knowledge of Truffaut, Godard, Kurosawa and a host of others first hand.
I attended a few screenings at a Janus Films series at the Vancouver Pacific Cinematheque last summer, and it was somewhat disheartening that it wasn't packed out every night. Especially since Vancouver apparently has a bunch of rabid young filmmakers. I'm not even one of them, I'm just a fan. Still I got to see Truffaut's 400 Blows and Jules & Jim for the first time on a big screen. Got to see Seven Samurai on a big screen (even better than my Criterion!). Then there was the discovery of The Cranes Are Flying, which shot up into my top ten pretty quickly...
I can't say I would ever had started down the path of film righteousness had I not been a fan of Ebert when I was younger.
I totally understand that most 26 yr olds are not interested in old film. I feel sorry for them. Still I think there are enough out there that want to make films that will always want to explore the old stuff. Afterall if movies generally seem to be better, it means someone is paying attention to what's come before...right?

comment #32

Jay T. says ...

Tim, the way you dismiss American Beauty with a comment like, "But isn't it kind of bad?" doesn't exactly make you come off as that much more of a movie buff than the girl you're mocking. Sure, it has its problems, but it's still a good film. And who gives a fuck if it's "degrading" to women? I don't want all movies to be politically correct... that would be beyond boring.

comment #33

George Prager says ...

....channeling Arizona Joe....

Newspapers used to have at least one film critic whose opinions you could hang your hat on. The same with magazines. Tastemakers like John Simon, Pauline Kael, Stanley Kauffman, and Bosley Crowther could make or break certain movies. Even television stations retained the services of at least one highbrow critic, someone with at least a working knowledge of culture and the arts like Dennis Cunningham or Judith Crist, who would review films and plays with an eye on their contribution to our culture.

In the `70s, Siskel and Ebert debuted their highly rated television show, first on PBS and then syndication. As good as they were, they contributed to what Daniel Moynihan might call the "defining deviancy down" path that has affected film criticism over the past 30 years. Their "thumbs up/thumbs down" gimmick, while effective, tended to give more complicated and nuanced opinions the short shrift. Pretty soon, to emphasize their points, a film needed a "thumbs way up" from Siskel and Ebert to have any chance of a mention in a television or newspaper advertisement.

Lesser critics jumped into the fray, praising any film that wasn't an outright disaster in hopes of making a name for themselves and to climb up the Hollywood PR ladder. Meanwhile, the spectacular box office returns of such films as STAR WARS and E.T., encouraged journalists to focus more on the bottom line. Soon, television shows like "Entertainment Tonight" were reporting on the weekly box office returns of films; in the eyes of these so-called journalists, financial success trumped artistic merit.

This public relations/journalism circle jerk fostered resentment among those who cherished films and film history. Wasn't it true that TOUCH OF EVIL was a box office bomb in its day? Young people, especially, have little in common with the film critics of today, some of whom like Richard Schikel, have been cranking out the same tired reviews for over five decades, while others, like A.O. Scott of the New York Times, seem like pretentious fops. College students, especially, have always tried to carve a niche for themselves that pays little heed to the opinions of the overpaid corporate taste-makers. Wasn't the cult of Bogart, which took off in the late 50s in Cambridge the product of a similar alienation?

comment #34

roquentin says ...

I think the question of whether film critics should "tell us what to see" comes down to a question of narcissism rather than the legitimacy of criticism. If we go in seeking an authoritative position - one that should have the power to direct our viewing attention - of course we're going to resent them. But it says something about the reader's insecurity if they can't handle an opinion just because a critic is denouncing or glorifying theirs. At times the opinions of critics align eerily with my own; sometimes I am astonished at how differently two people can view one movie. What I read critics for is to interact with my opinion in the same way I interact with a movie - to enter into a kind of dialogue with and about art. But Jebus, if you're looking for or hating it criticism because you view it on a pedestal, it's your own narcissism that built it. (Or, if a critic espouses his "authoritative" judgment, it's his narcissism). Movies and critics are meant to inform the culture because they have authentic and interesting voices, ones that help us see things in a new light. Or, if they don't, they help illuminate what we love about the ones with whom we do interact. Period. Anything else is extra baggage that you or someone else brought to the debate.

comment #35

qwiggles says ...

You know, as a 23-year old grad student in literature from Canada who can easily name-drop Peter Travers or Owen Gleiberman and beyond, I have to wonder if Thompson's film students aren't just lazy. Or is she only polling the B-tier, here -- the people who aren't ambitious enough to make the cut anyway?

I'll grant that critic recognition may not be what it once was, but these 'kids these days' doomsday predictions tend to sound a bit goofy and melodramatic to me.

comment #36

mutinyco says ...

There is a very simple reason why film critics of a generation ago and further back had greater power and authority: movies used to platform city to city.

If a movie opened first in New York and the Times blasted it, that could do serious damage to the picture's prospects. Likewise, if a well-read publication raved about a movie, it could very well help it along.

But when you open a movie wide today and front-pack the release, then all of the critics' voices drown each other out in a haze of buzz. This has been exacerbated by the internet.

Ironically, the critic establishment might've reached its pinnacle last year by finally putting their favorite, No Country For Old Men, over the top -- only to have their legitimacy gutted by downsizing publications just after.

comment #37

Jay T. says ...

I think what's hurt film critics more than anything else is the blurb industry... quote whores have completely undermined the credibility of all of the good critics out there. Keep in mind, I mean this from the perspective of the average citizen, not a hardcore movie fan who knows the hacks from the writers.

comment #38

Hallick says ...

It's the writing, it's the writing, it's the writing. I'm a movie geek, and even I can't name more than a few critics off the top of my head; and the number of them that are worth remembering is considerably smaller. A great film critic makes you want to see the movie they're raving about RIGHT NOW. I'm gotten that from Roger Ebert's reviews, and from Pauline Kael's reviews, and god help me, once in a great while from Armond White's reviews. But most other reviewers, professional or amateur, don't move me one way or another and their words dissipate faster than your breath on a mildly cold morning.

comment #39

akstanwyck says ...

Let me make this clear. I am not putting down my students. Far from it. They are smart and film literate. If there is a future for the kind of print criticism many of us grew up on, these kids would be it. But they have different habits, glean their information about film in different ways. The film critics who want to continue to work and thrive will have to figure out how to adapt. That's it. I am not clucking about "these kids today." I'm trying to explain the way it is, and why.

Anne Thompson

comment #40

akstanwyck says ...

Let me make this clear. I am not putting down my students. Far from it. They are smart and film literate. If there is a future for the kind of print criticism many of us grew up on, these kids would be it. But they have different habits, glean their information about film in different ways. The film critics who want to continue to work and thrive will have to figure out how to adapt. That's it. I am not clucking about "these kids today." I'm trying to explain the way it is, and why.

Anne Thompson

comment #41

hiviper says ...

George Prager....channeling Arizona Joe....
yet, you're a John Hughes apologist?
no, rather you're a self-satified bore with nothing new to say, ie, more of the same. Try writing a review of a movie we can relate to.

comment #42

christian says ...

Film was more exciting in the late 50's, 60's and 70's as taboos were broken. Ergo, criticism was more exciting. One of my bookshelf treasures is every edition of the New York Society of Film Critics published works of their reviews; there was a sense of shared excitement from the era. John Simon disliked 90 percent of everything but his reviews were so catholic, filled with wit and vigor that he remains one of my favorites. I'm never disuaded from seeing a film by any critic, but what they say can amplify or engage my own feelings. And most of today's best film writing is being done on blogs and websites.

comment #43

Titus Pullo says ...

This isn't so much a statement about film criticism as much as it is a statement about the current state of print journalism. Its dead.

Tim, regarding American Beauty....wasn't the point of it that he was a material guy like his wife but that he had a moment of clarity/mid life crisis and longed for the days when he, and she, used to live in the moment? Wasn't it about about how a life of excess materialism can kill the idea of 'living for the moment' which is the essence of youth? I didn't see it as sexist...didn't think it was BP material, but I still like that flick, or elements of it.

comment #44

George Prager says ...

Not sure where hiviper is coming from with that post, but
here's a tip: if you masturbate while sitting down in front of your computer, it's important to take a break when you are finished. Clean yourself up. Maybe lay down on your sofa or bed and relax for awhile. This way your comments make sense; you're not dizzy and light-headed and likely to write feverish, nonsensical posts like hipviper's.

comment #45

Mgmax says ...

"Film was more exciting in the late 50's, 60's and 70's as taboos were broken. Ergo, criticism was more exciting."

Well, and that of course is the great hidden secret. People went to see Bergman or Fellini because you might get to see titties. Hollywood, like Detroit, eventually figured out how to give you what the foreigners were offering...

comment #46

George Prager says ...

And in BLOW-UP you got to see bush.