Todd McCarthy spoke to the issue of the current state of film criticism on Friday… and shockers, another Variety writer blames That Darn Web! He also takes on box office analysis, TV critics, and the newsweeklies.
I disagree on some, less on others, and wildly on a few.
I write: What publication instituted the bolded opening paragraph which offered the basic
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.
Well, McCarthy does end the piece with this:
“And it can also apply to film criticism, where well-wrought opinions will flow from the blogosphere as well as, like it or not, old-school publications. As in the democratization of any endeavor, the aristocrats will be humbled somewhat, but those with something valuable to contribute will continue to be heard, no matter the commotion stirred by the parvenus.”
So, I think the whole piece is just a lot of posturing, considering McCarthy works for a TM outlet that is increasingly losing traffic and ad revenue to bloggers. I think Variety will always be relevant, however, so I don’t think there is really much to worry about for them.
On behalf of fans of the Matrix trilogy; TODD McCARTHY GETS THE GAS FACE!
As insightful as ever, Joe.
“Speed is easy. Any monkey can do something fast. Internet audiences are built on engagement.”
Bingo. This is what it’s all about. Too many sites are keyed in on the first and fast ethos and so they live and die by their scoops and their early exclusives. Other sites try to build a brand and an identity and offer something that brings people in daily, no matter what the news or review of the day is.
Interesting that neither David nor Todd really mentions salary. A very real factor is that many self-proclaimed reviewers with websites don’t get paid for what they do, yet get given equal prestige by the studios who quote them. The result is that actual paying film critic jobs disappear.
This is not a qualitative assessment — there are certainly some people with personal websites whose opinions I value more than some print critics. But as a viable career, this field gets harder and harder. My own assignments in this area have shrunken substantially (to the delight of some, I’m sure).
totally agree with #2. As soon as I read the bit about reporting box office, I thought immediately of the fact that Variety and Todd are the only ones that include box office analysis as part of their reviews, which is a huge conflict of interest. That should not make a difference to the person reviewing a movie and even though I write reviews and box office analysis, I have separate compartments of my brain and never base my review on whether I think a movie will do well or people will like it. I save that for the analysis.
But you bring up a good point about Variety’s desire to have the first reviews up for any movie, because they’re partially responsible for this ridiculous “first is best” way of thinking on the ‘net now, when saving a positive review for opening week probably does more to help a good movie that needs attention because that’s when people are thinking of what to see that weekend.
Every single Variety review tells you when and where the screening took place that the review is based on. Why? Because it’s for the trade and it’s another way to keep up on what’s showing where, when and at what little fest or not screened. And since when is B.O. analysis the same as hunches about whether something will have limited appeal or be huge?
It’s true that Variety started the hype game, but they might point out that it’s one thing for a trade publication to do it and another for weekend revenues to be in every media outlet. True enough, but those distinctions between outlets has vanished. Like it or not, the trade pubs are competing for readers with the gossip blogs.
You’re correct that this battle between online and traditional media is tired. It’s a symbiotic relationship; you two need each other, so shut up already.
The notion that speed matters is especially inaccurate when it comes to film reviews. You can argue about the cause of getting it right as opposed to getting it first, but how does that even matter for reviews? Okay, if you get word out of a sneak preview that a major motion picture is a bomb, I guess that’s news and it might matter who got it first. But why doesn’t the movie work? What could be done to make it better? These are judgments that won’t be out-of-date if it takes two days to write them up.
Finally, one key point is that the rise of bloggers matter as an influence of where the ad dollars go to promote movies. A single blog won
LOL — I have this vision of DP leading a charge of internet writers in the snow. A stove pipe hat on his head. An axe in his hand. His glass eye has an @ symbol on it. Ladies and gents, it’s Bill The Blogger.
“A challenge between us natives, born rightwise to this fine land, or the foreign hordes defiling it.”
No offense, LYT, but I don’t think an individual’s opinion is more valuable because they were paid to give it. If more print jobs for critics are lost, well, find another job then. I would be more concerned if actual journalistic positions were being lost (and even then, not so much — the Internet has changed the game, so people need to prepare accordingly careerwise).
If more print jobs for critics are lost, well, find another job then.
The thought has crossed my mind.
I would be more concerned if actual journalistic positions were being lost
“actual journalistic position” defined as what? Just news reporting? If you don’t want opinion writers to be paid, all editorial columnists will go. And many critics do more than just write reviews — interviews, editing, scheduling, marathon viewing sessions at festivals, and soforth are also part of the gig, usually. And that’s not even talking about those who might have more than one position within a publication, as has always been my personal case.
And the end result, which may please you, is that lots of decent critics do lose their jobs. One may opine on whether that’s a good thing or not — but it’s certainly an issue worth discussing.
Another side effect of the money thing is you will get more junket-whores who are there for free food and swag…if there’s no actual payment coming from elsewhere, why not?
I don’t want to get into a long discussion here because, frankly, it’s always boring when somebody from Coke disses somebody from Pepsi, and vice versa. Also, while I have written for Variety for better part of two decades, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an official spokesperson for the publication, and I don
Luke: Not to put you on the spot, sport, but wouldn’t you agree that New Times has played a major role in diminishing the number of local film critics throughout the U.S.?
And BTW: What role did you play in The Lost? And when the hell is that movie going to be released?
True but it means that, since before the internet was invented, that Variety was primarily interested in business and box-office returns. That’s always been their mission, and not complex critical analysis.
Not to mention they DO distinguish between artistic success and BO prospects (e.g., great picture but won’t make a nickel, huge steaming turd will make a fortune).
Uh… Feisty Joe… you miss my point… and your country mouse/city mouse dance is beyond boring already.
Marjorie Baumgarten can be the greatest critic in the world… and when I look at a major review in Variety, I want to see Todd McCarthy’s opinion. And given that Variety, unlike The Hollywood Reporter, limited Marjorie’s review to a blog comment – which they linked repeatedly – suggests that this is their intention.
Marjorie’s opinion might be the best one I ever find… but it is not the long-standing representation of that brand. Moreover, the real point was that “first” was the outlet’s priority. And if it wasn’t, I guess we’ll all have to wait for the rest of the comprehensive Fantastic Fest reviews.
And by the way… branding is even more significant an issue now, as per Todd’s article. The now false notion that someone reads Variety to know what Variety thinks… we have all grown up and know there is no such reality. When you review for Variety, I know it is your opinion and it may not match Todd’s or Bob Koehler’s or whomever’s. That’s fine. But the Traditional Media delusion that the outlets are so important that they have an institutional voice is dead, dead, dead.
As for the comments about commercial prospects at Variety… duh! The simple question it, how can Todd complain about people discussing box office in some context of criticism if he does it every time he writes? Just because it’s a pre-existing condition doesn’t make complaining about everyone else following suit a non-hypocritical position to take.
Dave, click on the link to Marjorie’s story, which you provide in your op/ed piece. Just because you call it a review, doesn’t make it so. There is zero pretence or claim that what you are reading is a review or a piece of film criticism for that matter. It doesn’t read like, it doesn’t look like one, it doesn’t claim to be one and it’s not handled like one in Variety. Are you saying, there will be no review of this movie in Variety and that Marjorie’s story is it, as far as Variety reviewing this movie?
Plus you are really stretching to call what Todd does a discussion of box office in some context of his criticism.
You know that a TM outlet can’t have, let’s say, 2 critics and a second stringer and expect to cover all the releases. That you need to know the critic in order to hear what they’re saying is your blockage, not ours.
Actually, it reminds me of a discussion we had here on the blog a few months ago, when Dave insisted his early review of “The Kingdom” wasn’t really a review. Even though, at 400 words, it was longer than quite a few reviews I’ve written for Variety.
I totally agree with Dave on one thing: there are infinitely better ways for the public to guage whether they want to see a movie than what a critic thinks of it. Criticism, whether long or short, is entertainment. Life is just too short to spend an ounce of time r-e-a-d-i-n-g anything unless you are entertained, and by entertained, I also mean enlightened, or God forbid, educated. Criticism is the intersection of knowledge and a specific talent. I agree that Justin Chang doesn’t have it (I think).
So Dave, I don’t want you to save your 4000 words for your will or something, because you’re killing me, because ultimately, you’re very interesting. Difficult, but smart, and that’s your nitche, but pardon me when I have no interest in spending another minute reading your free-for-a-reason “film critism,” even though you know your shit.
I don’t quite know what you are trying to say in that last post T Holly (particularly the whole “free for a reason” and “knowing your shit” circle), but feel free not to read my criticism or anything else I write. I’m not demanding your attention.
And I called Marjorie’s piece a review because Variety did.
(http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2007/09/there-will-be-1.html)
You’re right, I’m not nearly naive enough to think you are demanding my attention or that you do what-you-do for free, as measured by income or oportunity cost — i.e. you could be doing this, or you could be doing something else; as my eco teacher once told me, “T. Holly, all costs are opportunity costs.”
Anyway, I linked this thread at Anne’s site at the address you gave, so maybe she’ll have something to say, or not — she could be too busy; darn opportunity costs.
At this time, I would like to officially apologize to T. Holly for every mean, nasty, snarky and/or rude thing I’ve ever said or written either about or to her, on this blog or anywhere else.
LYT wrote:
“actual journalistic position” defined as what? Just news reporting? If you don’t want opinion writers to be paid, all editorial columnists will go. And many critics do more than just write reviews — interviews, editing, scheduling, marathon viewing sessions at festivals, and soforth are also part of the gig, usually. And that’s not even talking about those who might have more than one position within a publication, as has always been my personal case.
———–
That was my point about journalistic positions. I appreciate interviews and technical articles more than any one critic’s opinion, so if those jobs are lost, sure, it does suck. But we all make choices with our careers. If the writing is on the wall and the pay is low or non-existent, find a writing job on a topic that pays and start your own entertainment blog for fun.
Honestly, junket-whore proliferation wouldn’t bother me. Outside of the thumbs, do audiences even know or care about some random quote?
All’s forgiven Joe, mwah. Everyone’s on it, Anne too.
I still don’t really understand what you are saying, T Holly.