Kirby,
The short answer to your question is "Yes, of course". I mean, with the
kind of success these empty-headed films have been enjoying for
many years now, why wouldn't we seen summers like this indefinitely? The
"summers" have now extended all the way through to Christmas now, and start
earlier as well. And while I agree that it's sad that the real
critics are being replaced by bloggers, it's kind of silly for Golstein
to lament something like what the New Line publicist says "...A review from
one of their peers is more important than a printed review..." because that
was *always* true. Most people have always paid more attention to the
word-of-mouth a film was getting than the printed reviews.
The problem with defaulting to the internet and bloggers is not only the
fact that most of them are idiots, but it is so easy for a studio to set up
its own cadre of bloggers as an integral part of the PR departments that
"reviews" of new movies will be meaningless, totally without context or
provenance. I think people are going to end up relying more and more on lists
like MOPO and other group forums where they can get opinions from people they
know. I have for some time now. At least that way I know the
opinions are not being bought and paid for by the studio, which you no longer
do with either the bloggers or the printed critics.
Although I've always read printed film critics, I have to say that I was
never all that impressed with them overall, and when Goldstein makes a
sweeping, mostly untrue and buzz word-laced statement like this:
"The vanguard filmmakers of the '60s — the era that spawned our last
great generation of critics — were Godard, Kubrick and Antonioni, filmmakers
under the spell of the intellectual fervor sparked by existentialism and
Marxism. The filmmakers with a youth-culture following today, be it Kevin
Smith, Quentin Tarantino or Wes Anderson, are largely ideology free, masters
of detachment and stylistic homage. Like their audience, they prefer irony to
Big Ideas."
... I remember why.
-- JR
----- Original Message
-----
Sent: Thursday,
August 17, 2006 11:09
Subject: [MOPO]
Music to the ears of the popCORN crowd
Film critics not as influential.
Does this mean we can look forward to more summers like this one?
All in all, it's been a rotten
tomato of a summer for America's embattled film
critics.
By Patrick
Goldstein
Times Staff
Writer
August 15,
2006
Who says
critics don't matter anymore? The new trailer for Paramount's upcoming
numskull comedy "Jackass: Number Two" is full of quotes from reviews of the
first movie. There's just one tiny twist: The studio uses the vitriolic
reviews attacking the first film ("A disgusting, repulsive, grotesque
spectacle" says an aghast Richard Roeper) to promote the new
picture.
With a sly,
leering note of triumph, the narrator intones: "Unfortunately for them, we
just made 'Number Two.' "
All in all,
it's been a rotten tomato of a summer for America's embattled film critics.
"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" broke box-office records left and
right, despite a yowling chorus of negative reviews. M. Night Shyamalan cast
Bob Balaban as a persnickety film critic in "Lady in the Water," then
gleefully killed him off, allowing a snarling jackal-like creature to do the
dirty deed.
Sony Corp.
chief Howard Stringer, asked after the huge opening of "The Da Vinci Code" why
the studio kept reviewers away from the film until the last possible moment,
merrily quipped, "Nobody ever built a statue to a
critic."
Kevin Smith
went even further, launching into an obscenity-laced blog tirade after
learning that "Good Morning America" critic Joel Siegel had walked out of
"Clerks II" in a huff. "Cardinal rule of movie-going — shut your ... mouth
while the movie's playing," Smith wrote. "Leave the drama-queen antics to the
movie stars."
To add
insult to injury, studios have released a record number of films this year
without any press screenings — two last weekend alone, with another, New
Line's "Snakes on a Plane," due Friday. Warners also has a no-screening plan
for Neil LaBute's "The Wicker Man," which arrives Sept.
1.
The media
have been full of stories questioning the relevance of print critics in an
Internet era that has ushered in a new democratization of opinion. The
prospect of babbling blogmeisters being the new kingpins of cinema has left
many critics in a sour mood. Reviewing a collection of critical essays by the
long-time Village Voice jazz critic Gary Giddins, Time film critic Richard
Schickel contrasted Giddins' work with "history-free and sensibility-deprived"
bloggers who regularly "blurb the latest Hollywood
effulgence."
Old-school
critics get little sympathy from their Internet brethren. Entertainment Weekly
founder Jeff Jarvis, who writes the provocative BuzzMachine media blog,
recently suggested that newspapers get rid of their critics, allowing their
readers to share their opinions instead. "If I launched Entertainment Weekly
today, I hope I'd have the sense not to propose starting a magazine by hiring
a bunch of critics."
It's no
secret that critics have lost influence in recent years. A recent Los Angeles
Times/Bloomberg poll found that among 18- to 24-year-olds, only 3% said
reviews were the most important factor in their movie-going decision making.
Older audiences still look to critics for guidance, especially with the
smaller, more ambitious studio specialty films. But during the summer months,
with studios wooing audiences with $40 million worth of marketing propaganda,
critics appear especially overwhelmed, if not
irrelevant.
For their
part, the studios insist critics still matter, but only for adult dramas, not
youth fare. Paramount marketing chief Gerry Rich says critical support for
"World Trade Center" was invaluable. "They helped address people's
apprehensions and preconceived notions in a way that made them feel it was OK
to see the picture."
According
to New Line marketing chief Russell Schwartz, "younger moviegoers want the
immediacy of text messages or voice mail. A review from one of their peers is
more important than a printed review from a third party they don't know, which
is how they would describe a critic."
What we're
seeing is not so much the death of criticism as the death of the culture of
criticism, the culture in which a critic such as Pauline Kael — despite
writing for a small circulation magazine like the New Yorker — could have a
huge trickledown influence, not just with the chattering class, but with
filmmakers and executives who hung on her every word, either in agony or
ecstasy, depending on the verdict.
But today
we're in an era in which shared enthusiasm matters more than analysis,
stylistic cool trumps emotional substance. The world has changed. The vanguard
filmmakers of the '60s — the era that spawned our last great generation of
critics — were Godard, Kubrick and Antonioni, filmmakers under the spell of
the intellectual fervor sparked by existentialism and Marxism. The filmmakers
with a youth-culture following today, be it Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino or
Wes Anderson, are largely ideology free, masters of detachment and stylistic
homage. Like their audience, they prefer irony to Big
Ideas.
This puts
them in perfect sync with the ethos of the Internet, whose great art form is
the movie-trailer parody. By nature, the Web favors immediacy and punchy
advocacy, not yeasty prose. When I was in film school, I read critics with as
much ardor as I watched movies, but intellectual argument plays better on the
printed page. I can't imagine inhaling Manny Farber's essay, "White Elephant
Art vs. Termite Art," on a computer screen — it would be like watching
"Lawrence of Arabia" on my iPod.
While it's
been marginalizing critics, the Internet has also leveled the playing field.
On the Web, old-school credentials carry little weight. We look for a sharp,
distinctive voice, not the heft of a master's degree. When New York magazine
was listing music biz influence makers recently, it bypassed Rolling Stone,
spotlighting blogger Sarah Lewitinn, saying her Ultragrrrl blog has "more
power than any print music critic."
As Joe
Lieberman can attest, the Internet is the ultimate engine of disruptive
technology, whether it's helping liberal bloggers oust a three-term Senate
Democrat, downloaders subvert the music business or wide-eyed enthusiasts on
Ain't It Cool News eclipse far more erudite print film
critics.
Most
old-school critics insist they're not threatened by the indifference of young
readers. "When I was a kid I never listened to an adult, so why should we
expect kids to listen to critics who are the same age as their parents?" says
New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis. "I had a rich, intellectual life,
yet I didn't read reviews. They weren't even on my
map."
She adds:
"The real problem is that even if a kid wants [guidance] today, what they will
find, overwhelmingly, is noise about celebrities and meaningless numbers
indicating what big movie 'won' the weekend box-office. Who talks about film
as something greater than a vehicle for celebrity and consumerism? Very few, I
think."
The biggest
knock I hear about critics is that they are out touch with average moviegoers,
a charge often leveled when films battered by bad reviews go on to make loads
of dough. "I'm sorry, but we're not supposed to be applause meters," says Los
Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan. "If you wanted to go to a restaurant for a
special occasion and someone said, 'Why not go to McDonald's? More people go
there than any other place.' Would that really be enough to convince
you?"
I've
learned too much from critics over the years to want to get rid of them, as
Net populists like Jarvis seem to suggest. But I do think newspapers, if we
want to ever develop any following with younger readers, must do a better job
of making our critics' voices more relevant and immediate. If we don't
champion our critics, who will? We need to reinvent their roles to combat the
$40-million mass-hypnosis marketing that occurs every weekend a big movie
opens.
If I were
king I would firmly plant our critics in the new media world with blogs and
podcasts, allowing them not only to have more of a dialogue with readers, but
extend their influence by addressing timely topics.
If Variety
reports, as it did Friday, that "Batman Begins" director Christopher Nolan is
near a deal to remake "The Prisoner," the ultra-cool '60s TV series — I'd love
to know what our critics think. Good idea? Or just as lame as using Led
Zeppelin to peddle Cadillacs?
We need to
get our critics up to 'Net speed. If studio marketers can spend weeks
bombarding moviegoers with 30-second spots to glamorize their product, why
should our reviewer almost always hold fire until opening day, long after most
of the audience has formed its opinion, not to mention after most bloggers
have had their say?
We never
let studios tell us when to run news stories or schedule feature pieces, so
why defer to their preferences when it comes to running reviews? If the
studios squawk, we can always review their marketing campaign, which would
probably be a treat for readers and, in all too many instances, allow us to
write about something far more interesting than the movie
itself.
For now,
critics seem to take solace in the old maxim — whatever doesn't kill you will
make you stronger. "I don't mind being an authority figure, but I like the
idea of having to earn it," says the Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern.
"More than ever, if we want to enjoy our status, we've got to have something
original to say. I think it's good for a critic to have to stay on his
toes."
"The Big
Picture" runs each Tuesday in Calendar. If you have questions or criticism,
e-mail them to [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at
www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing
List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF
MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely
responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at
www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing
List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF
MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely
responsible for its content.
