I’m sure you’ve seen the articles popping up all over the place in the recent weeks. Traditional true “Film Critics” are losing their jobs at a break neck pace and are starting to disappear off our movie community landscape. Prominent publications like The LA Times, The New York Daily News, The Chicago Tribune, Newsday, Newsweek, The Village Voice and countless others have been firing, laying off or just not encouraging to stay traditional print film critics.
There are lots of smaller reasons why this is happening, and each reason deserves to have a chapter in its own book:
1) Audience attention span – Let’s be honest, most people (not all) would rather read a 2-4 paragraph quick take on a movie these days than a 2-3 page insightful analysis of a movie.
2) Economic realities – Film critics aren’t the only people in North America getting laid off and losing their jobs these days. Most companies and corporations are trimming staff and reducing head count. The print industry is no exception.
3) Loss of trust in Critics – I’m not talking about trusting their honest opinions or not. I’m talking about the new trend of critics becoming “quote whores”. Certain guys who will say anything to get their name put on a poster. The audience doesn’t forget that stuff.
4) The Internet
Ah yes the internet. There is no getting around the fact that this is probably the biggest and most significant reason we’re seeing the disappearance of the traditional film critic. After all, in the time it would take you to grab the local newspaper or magazine, flip through it and find the actual review you’re looking for, you could have jumped online and scanned about 150 “reviews” of your movie.
Some of my online colleagues (whom I greatly respect) are cheering this development. As a matter of fact, some of my absolute favorite online guys (who are still some of my favorite online guys) have been standing on proverbial mountain tops holding these stats and figures of the loss of Film Critics aloft like the head of a fallen enemy.
And really, that’s how a lot of online guys like myself have viewed traditional film critics… as THE ENEMY! Let’s be honest, most online movie guys (myself included) have often lived in jealous envy of the status, popularity and respect that the traditional critics get while the online guys still (to a point) get relatively little. And so, like sniveling little whelps we lurk in the shadows like Scar to Mustafa or Prince John to King Richard… eagerly bashing our “big brothers” at every turn… calling them “dinosaurs” or relics… talking about how WE are so much better than THEY are. If nothing else, it has revealed just how attention starved we are and how much of an inferiority complex we in the online world suffer.
So while some celebrate the demise of the traditional film critic… me personally… I lament it greatly.
As an online film guy, I can list to you 20 reasons why what WE do is valuable and has a place in the larger film community. The interactive nature, the conversational tone, the speed, it’s relational, it’s debatable, it’s something from a fellow film fan rather than a film expert… yadda yadda yadda. These are all things that online film guys like myself bring to the table that the traditional film critics can’t. HOWEVER….
There is a valuable contribution that the traditional critics make to the film fan community that is not better than online guys… but rather DIFFERENT than what online guys bring to the table (or, quite frankly are even capable of bringing to the table). Knowledge, skill and expertise.
What makes a great film critic is not if they share my opinions or not. All opinion is subjective, it bends, it’s never 100% consistent and no one’s will ever be consistently the same as mine. But rather, what makes a film critic great is his/her ability and skill in crafting words, their theatrical historical knowledge, their journalistic training, their experience, their understanding of the medium, knowledge of the filmmaking process and their ability to put elements of film into an historical, modern and relatable context that makes the reader feel like they learning something as they engage the review.
Guys like Kevin Thomas, David Ansen and Roger Ebert are (or were) able to deliver that sort of contribution on a level that, quite frankly, no one at The Movie Blog, Slashfilm, FilmSchoolRejects, Screenrant or other sites of our ilk are capable of even coming close to.
These are different things than what online guys like myself deliver (or even try to deliver). It’s not our place to educate or do any of those other things the traditional guys do. We share our opinions, express our thoughts and simply open it up for discussion. And what we do is every bit as valid as what the traditional guys do. With that said, it also means what THEY do is still every bit as valid as what WE do.
To me, the loss of the traditional film critic is just another step towards the reality of the movie “Idiocracy”. We’re programing ourselves more and more to just listen to what is easy, to pay attention only to those that already agree with us. We want our information feed to us in quick sound bites rather than in exposition. Where there should be a healthy balance of the online style and the traditional style, there is now only 1, and that is a detriment to the movie fan community as a whole.
So while some people in the online world are gleaning a sense of self-importance from this perceived “victory” of the online world over the traditional…. I see it as a massive defeat to the movie fan community as a whole. And while some stand and cheer at the demise of the traditional critic, I will personally bend a knee to those people who did what they did for so long, so well, and who were quite frankly 1000x better than I will ever be.
“Yes there are some very insurmountable economical reasons why most of them can’t”
It does not cost anything to have a YouTube channel.
It costs about 60 bucks a year to run a website.
You’re saying they don’t have channels of being heard? We all do- they just have to use them. If they have content worthy of being heard it can be.
Pretty sad….I always look forward to a good review and I don’t mind lengthy ones either since many of the good critics from the established publication are very insightful.
Hey Brendan,
Regardless if you like to admit it or not, having a journalisim degree, formal writing training and a film history training DOES enable SOME of these guys to do things the vast majority of us online guys can’t do. Neither better nor worse… it’s different. But as I clearly said in my post, there are things we do that they never can, and vice versa..
And you said:
“there’s no reason why those people can’t be saying the exact same thing online”
Yes there are some very insurmountable economical reasons why most of them can’t
“DIFFERENT than what online guys bring to the table (or, quite frankly are even capable of bringing to the table). Knowledge, skill and expertise.”
“We’re insecure sniveling wimps with and inferiority complex”
You’re saying we online guys can’t bring to the table what the critics can- one being knowledge. You are exactly saying that the online community is uninformed.
Besides that my point isn’t that people who have a degree can’t write critically about films. What I’m saying is that there is a certain elitism that goes along with being ‘Published’ and that there’s no reason why those people can’t be saying the exact same thing online, but without the influence of mainstream media which DO effect the content of what they publish.
Hey Brendan,
I vehemently disagree with your opinion of professional film critics.
As far as me saying online readers are “uninformed” and “dumbed down” please show me where I said that… cause I just read my post over again, and I don’t see it anywhere.
I do lament that when higher analysis and critisism is taken off the map all together it’s a step in the wrong direction for all of us and the film community is worse off for it.
But that is radically different from what you’re suggesting.
Roger Epert is a hack. He as well as other professional critics believe that their word is gospel. You’re right that you’re a fan and you post your opinion, which is why I watch. When they write they try to influence opinion. That’s the difference.
Critics do nothing more than promote an obsolete engine of promoting crappy movies for a little extra money and put down movies that deserve a second look.
The fact is independent movie reviewers and the online community promote and review movies that not only would otherwise not get attention but might otherwise get bad reviews because they don’t live up to and elitist’s point of view.
The fact is YOU John, owe your success to the online community. By you saying that we are “Uninformed” and “dumbing down” opinions on movies is simply a slap in the face to the people and media that made you successful.
I think a lot of us old farts remember watching Siskel and Ebert way back when they were on public tv. Anyone remember those days… (Am I dating myself?).
They were the biggest thing back then. But now sheesh everyones a critic.
That’s not to say I don’t enjoy film critics – I enjoy historical film critics like Leonard Maltin or that dude — Jerry something, who is a cartoon historian.
Just, y’know, typical print critics – don’t care.
And even if you and Doug are wrong (in my eyes) on a certain review, at least you guys do it with incredible passion that is entertaining.
I don’t care. I’ve never been one to read movie reviews in newspapers. I’d much rather read online reviews from people who aren’t afraid to say whether a movie is shit or not and just tell it like it is. Like you and Doug.
Ebert can’t touch Doug’s style or the smiles he brings to peoples’ faces when he reviews a movie. I’d much rather read a review by someone like Doug than a “safe” review you’d find in print or on television.
There’s nothing I like better than insightful writing that makes me think a little bit. There are definetly reviewers out there who are capable of such a thing and they are on both sides of the fence, online and in print.
It makes no difference to me where I read the review, but the convenience and speed of the Internet is the reason I usually go online. But if I’m closer to a newspaper then I’ll check it out instead.
I think that a big problem with online reviewers is that they are more concerned with their own opinions and have a hard time generalizing their reviews for a wider audience.
I personally don’t even really buy into most reviews because I’ve disagreed with many in the past. Movies like “Rambo” and “30 Days of Night” got mixed reviews, but I loved them both. I can tell from the trailer if a movie will be good most of the time anyway.
I don’t think it’s a shame at all that print reviews are on the decline. Throwing in a bit of film history into a review does not always make it better, usually it’s just pointless. Congrats, you’ve seen a thousand movies, who cares??
Mike, I totally agree with your comment about “insightful analysis of a movie”. I have pretty much stopped reading reviews before I’ve watched the movie for exactly that reason: I want it to be fresh when I go into the cinema. By scanning the reviews on websites I can get a good idea of the buzz about a film without ruining it.
I usually wait until after I’ve seen the film to read the reviews because I find they give me a better understanding and appreciation of the film, written by a skilled professional. In that respect, I hope that the traditional movie reviewer does not disappear.
I agree that it’s bad news. Granted, anyone can become good at writing reviews, but I just love it when I recognize a background in film or literary theory in a review and, as good as some of the online film review guys are, most of them don’t really give me that.
It is an understandable change, but I don’t see it as a complete loss. The film critic ,in whatever forum, will exist. If you recall Mel Brooks’ History of the World Part 1, the art critic was in pre-historic times as shown when the artists work was pissed on by the critic. So, in our modern electric media, there are new ways to piss on other peoples art and piss off the respective artist.
Thanks Marc for eccoing my point of view/opinion.
John I think you make a great point about the attention span of the next generation. They can’t even look you in the eye there so ready to do anything else.
However I fully enjoy reading a long review especally if its a film I might see. And then on the other side I love reading negative reviews when I think the film deserves it. Sometimes those are more fun.
But yeah the nex gen is/are being assimalated by all the technology that’s grooming them right now….
I’m glad!!! Not only do I disagree with their views 99% of the time, but before the internet days, I would read pages about a movie and still don’t even know what the plot of the movie was. I even WANT to see movies even more when critics say they’re bad and avoid the ones they say are good!!! That usually works wonders!!!!!
I am a older male that grew up with films like “The Red Shoes”, “The Spiral Staircase”, “The man in the White Suit”, “Spartacus”, and all the classics from the Georges Melies, Le Voyage Dans La Lune, “A trip to the Moon” on up to the late 80’s. I have a collection of “The Velvet Light Trap”, “Millimeter” and other film rags that had like twenty page articles on a director that took a fair amount of brains to read. Recent film rags are all about the latest gear. I used to read about great films and their stories, how and where they came from.
It is bizarre to watch the dumbing down of the world as we grow older
We recently found youtube a haven of classic cartoons and all sorts of bits and pieces of great older films. The animation list leaves out some incredible pieces like “Dumbo” one of the greatest works of our planet. How much culture is left five years from now rests in the hands of the eternal typers on the NET.
Also all the fantastic drawings and color work on the MGM and TerryToons 1930’s to late 1950s cartoons is left out. An the history of those places also.
My girlfriend grew up in Encino and her father had a film business in Burbank. I have sold over three hundred vintage camera lenses alone from companies like Taylor Hobson-Cooke and Bausch & Laumb.
Lenses from the late 1920s on through the 1940’s like Mitchell Raptors that shot most of the classic films of our times.
There was once a time when our culture came from the hands of working men that made the artistic products we saw, heard or read. These men and women lived in places like HollyWoodLand, a small farming community that had pretty country roads and small elegant resturants.
We travel around LA and look at bits and pieces of the past. The RKO globe of the Earth, that was used on the opening of their early films sits pearched on top of the old RKO studios building above the cars rushing by in the afternoon sun. I stood on the corner a year ago, and looked up one day, as the glinting late afternoon sun dropped a few lonely rays on the globe, still there, after 70 years.
Vicky and I are glad that there are still places and peices around Glendale, Pasadena, Hollywood, and LA. The bare skelton of the pretty place it was is still there, in old neighborhoods.
The NET is a monster. I cringe at the lack of hard work and ability to do research do hack out a proper article. When we had a huge power outage a few years ago. I posted a article about “The Day The Earth Stood Still”, easy one. When Mars was at it’s closest a while ago, I waited for some hardy person that could spend more than five minutes to come up with “The Martian Chronicles”.
It is easy to say good, bad, ugly or other, There is acres of aimless conjecture, I look for the well researched, written with skill, spattered with history writing that is truly worthy of time spent.
gEorge
(Type your comment here. Make sure you’ve read the commenting rules before doing so)
Prior to the 1970’s being a critic was something a journalist did at the beginning or the end of their career. Then Ebert & Pauline Kael came along and changed that. I do not think be a movie critic for several decades makes one a better critic. I believe mental callous begins to develop after a few years of seeing every movie released. This deadens their ability to enjoy movies.
So what you have today are either people who wanted to be real journalists or “film school failures” who can’t get a job in the movie
industry which makes them a fairly bitter, arrogant, elitist hacks. Too often it seems they have reviews written before going to see the movie. Like calling Superbad “homophobic” what the hell in that movie
hateful of gays.
The Internet provides endless opportunity for people to write movie reviews as short or as long as they want. Rotten Tomatoes is not that tough to get on if it is something you really want. You might not get paid to review movies & they may even have to reach in to their own pocket (gasp!!!) for tickets but their voices are hardly silenced
Just to address a number of comments here, I think there is a common misconception that the world of print media is in some sort of decline or downward spiral. In fact, many newspapers are actually doing better than they were before the advent of the Internet — their websites are actually bringing in more customers. Newspapers and magazines aren’t anywhere near dead yet, folks.
These would be solid points, John, if they were made ten years ago. But the fact is, film criticism became a shell of itself with the advent of online. And critics, in the face of a dominating medium, became more and more petty, less and less relevant, and certainly, bigger and bigger blowhards. No one can totally blame then, because they saw the sands shifting underneath them (sands now gone), and freaked out accordingly. But I have to question holding them in such high regard in this way.
Will you really miss print film critics?? REALLY? Do you have a favorite review of all time? A top ten list of reviews? Do you quote from your favorite witty film reviews?
I just can’t fathom that (other than the attempt to go against the tide and appear like the cool outsider).
If you miss good writing, buy a book. The fact that Ebert or any other critic has SEEN more movies than you or I means little or nothing to what kind of review they write. Dinosaurs. All of them. I like movies. Don’t need a critic to tell me which ones to like or why. That’s my job. Not theirs. They are parasites in my honest opinion. The only thing separating them from the internet geek who posts his review somewhere online is that these “film critics” are arrogant enough to actually collect a salary for their opinions (on movies they saw for free no less).
Hooray for technology for helping rid us of some of the fleas on the dog that is film. Only sorry it took this long….
@sean and john
I read the entire article actually. The reason I said I only read to the fourth paragraph was because of what most audiences need everything in 2-4 paragraphs. I was trying to be funny… but I’m not very good at it :)
I’d just like to add that I love this blog and I really liked this particular article. So if John I hope I didn’t hurt John’s feeling with my first comment.
also I forgot to add….if good critics are getting laid off and we are losing out on their wisdom because they can’t create a blogger account then it is really sad….
wow I didn’t think this is a bad development at all….and certainly not comparable to idiocracy….Internet is giving more people a way to get their word out…..and as is always the case, in a perfect market….some people rise to the top (like the top blogs in each category) and there’s always going to be joe bloggers out there…..(which I think you were referring to by the idiocracy comment)
I think most traditional media outlets have online presence now and they are retaining good critics to write those reviews…..and people still read them at sites where they are all together…..(for eg. Rottentomotoes.com)
I mean seriously dude if no one wants to read a certain section why should the newspaper carry the overhead…..they should feel lucky that they were able to get the salary for so long…..
every new revolution brings its casualties and to compare this phenomenon to something like idiocracy is actually quite stupid…..
Well Said John. That being said, there are a lot of bloggers out there that are pretty in-depth knowledgeable about film, film history, and have the gift of word-craft.
I think someone over at Matt Zoller Seitz’s blog “THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR” made the perfect comment (and I’m paraphrasing), But Film criticism (even for those qualified) is rapidly becoming less an activity driven by a career and more on driven by just a passion.
The ‘free’ model of picking up even quality reviews and criticism via web-sites (even Cahier Du Cinema, Sight and Sound, etc. are free on the web) is taken over.
The film Critics are being laid off, because quite frankly the newspaper business is collapsing faster than the music industry.
While the internet is great for any aspiring artist–be they by music, pen, or otherwise–I wouldn’t say print is vanishing. Diminishing, yes, but not leaving this realm outright.
For one thing, there will always be those who enjoy having a physical object in our hands. Particularly those of us who still buy discs of favorite musicians, the text print of authors and on as such, so I find it very saddening indeed if print is on its way out.
Secondly, for people like me in smaller towns, it is much more convenient to pick up the local paper or magazine at the store than chance that the wireless at the local Panera (45 minutes away) is actually working and not overcrowded. Until internet access and economics allow for a wide spread availability ala ‘Ghost in The Shell,’ there’s no real advantage for communities to abandon their previously-beloved critics of ink print. I would argue after all, it is primarily about convenience.
I just wait for the day to see John or Doug, or, anyone from The Movie Blog to have a quoted line in some movie commercial. Waiting, waiting….
Print period is vanishing. Newspapers, magazines, and books are all on the decline.
Print critics need to embrace the internet. Adapt or die.
John, well done on a fantastic post. I don’t normally come to this site for top film journalism. I mostly enjoy it for it’s own opnions of the fantastic world of cinema but every once in a while these essays are really enjoyable to read. Well done.
When I first read the post I was very intrigued. Over here in the UK the traditional film critic that you find writing in newspapers and film magazines is still very much alive. Papers give their reviewers a lot of space to put their reviews of the latest releases in. Newspapers compare reviews with others and a magazine like Empire sells a lot of copies each month. Any poster you see for a new film will mostly contain quotes from reviews coming from traditional film critics and their influence is still great in the UK. The news that the interent seems to be taking over in the US is a sad affair but also a big surprise to me, someone who will always read and support traditional film critics.
It is sad… but the business decisions of old media companies will make it tougher for us to be exposed to great talent in certain realms. In addition to newspapers it will impact (or already has) books and music as well. New talent isn’t given the support or the time needed to really find themselves anymore… gotta make a hit right out of the box.
New business models will eventually come into play but right now artists aren’t getting the tools they need to grow… instead we get books from Jenna Jameson and music from Paris Hilton… OK, so maybe you were correct about Idiocracy!
Oh, and while we are on the subject of criticism John, here’s a bit of constructive criticism for you (once again):
Just implement a fucking “Edit-function” already!!
I finally want to be able to change mistakes that make me look like an imbecile just like that one in me otherwise very intelligent post above ;-):
“The point of a review never is not to tell a people whether to like a film or not.”
It of course should read:
“The point of a review is not to tell a people whether to like a film or not.”
i don’t like reading “2-3 page insightful analysis of a movie” because they spoil everything. Sometimes the “old guys” spoil things in a 3 paragraph “oh i saw that too” column.
And if i read those insightful things after i saw a movie, it’s like they’re telling me what to think, and i’m stupid if i don’t think that 3:10 to Yuma is a post 911 film for example.
sorry for my bad english.
John, first let’s get the ass-kissing out of the way: You are on a roll right now. Over the last weeks you put out quality posts that I tremendously enjoyed reading. This is no different. All I can say is: Keep ’em coming.
I really agree with you, the vanishing of the traditional film critic is an immense loss. The most important think you mentioned in my opinion is training and knowledge. Guys like Ebert, Siskel (RIP), Michael Philipps or Mark Kermode are very/were very intelligent men who have seen thousands and thousands of films and have given a lot of thoughts on the subject. You might occasionally disagree with Roger Ebert, but I like to meet the person who knows more about movies than he does. You may like INSERT RANDOM MOVIE TITLE HERE, but can you voice your opinion as articulate as he can? I doubt it. As John A above said: Give me a well written review over a rating any day,
The point of a review never is not to tell a people whether to like a film or not. It’s point is to make you think and offer ONE way of interpreting a work of art. That is what real film critics do.
Another point I think is very important and John didn’t mention is that getting rid of traditional film criticism in newspapers is really narrowing down the audience of criticism in general.
Some people (a lot of people actually) would never visit a website to look up a review to decide which movie they should see. The thought just wouldn’t cross their mind.
My mother for example would never check out reviews online, but she would read a movie review in her newspaper if she stumbles across it.
Now she is denied that opportunity to find something randomly and that is a real shame.
Thanks for adding a thoughtful post to the ongoing online debate about the declining critic, John.
I agree that the loss of more and more print critics is not a good thing, and that certain online voices championing the fall of such critics as a not only welcome, but deserved sea change (i.e. the old “dinosaurs” giving way to younger voices) is not only distasteful, but erroneous thinking.
Critics that have been laid off/bought out/transferred haven’t lost their positions because of the quality of their writing, but because they work for corporate conglomerates who are concerned with the bottom line. Newspaper revenues are declining, and critics aren’t the only types of staffers that are being cut or having their type space limited.
Besides, people like Nathan Lee of the Village Voice are hardly old coots, and certainly write with more panache (not to mention movie knowledge and analysis – two VERY important elements) that many online bloggers and even some online critics lack.
Now, I’m a fan of a lot of critics who write primarily in the online medium. I hate the generalization that “online critics” are just nerds in a basement with a modem. So I’m not saying one medium is better than the other – clearly, criticism is trending towards living on the Internet as more print outlets and positions fold.
If film criticism in general is to survive (across all media), then readers must begin or return to valuing film reviews more than they do now. And by film reviews, I mean more than just a “synopsis and what I think” post – I mean engaging writing, a singular personality, and demonstrated film knowledge. The golden age of film criticism, when critics like Pauline Kael were hot commodities because they recognized the value of groundbreaking films like Bonnie and Clyde, and expressed their views intelligently and entertainingly, is now over. But that doesn’t mean another golden age can’t happen again. Critics have to ditch the “safe” review and build readerships of their own, but most of all remember that film criticism thrives when it creates discussion about what really matters: the movies.
Hey KC,
I don’t disagree with you. The thing is, the point of the post wasn’t about WHY the Critics are disappearing… but rather why I think their loss is a loss to the whole film community.
Great article, but one glaring, GLARING problem. As a giant Lion King fan, it is nearly unforgivable for anyone to call MUFASA by the name of MUSTAFA as you did in this post. Shame on you!
We’ve had a few discussions over on our site about the fact that we have to put a basic rating score of some type to each review we do. All of us dislike having to do that because it is really too simplistic and generally doesn’t work. By assigning a number of stars or a thumbs up or whatever we are not doing justice to movies in that movies of different types can not be easily compared.
I disliked Transformers a fair amount but still gave it a half decent score at the time now I have to keep that in mind when I do later reviews and this throws out my numbering.
I’m stuck though now because a fair amount of people want the overly simplistic score as they don’t want to spend the time reading the full review.
Give me a well written review over a rating any day.
I agree
I admit that I don’t read the print film critics nearly as much as I used to, but I still will from time to time. But you’re right about the differences between the online and print guys, and how what the old print guys do is something no online guy (no offense John) is even 1 10th as good at.
Then again, this was a great post, so maybe you’re disproving your own point? :)
Nice points John.
Guys are getting fired though because of the failure of the print industry to adapt to the net. Newspapers are walking dead right now and what was once thought of as impossible, will cease becoming print organizations in a few years.
I don’t know if I’d go as far as saying this is a step towards idiocracy (a much better premise than a film), I would say it is a sign of things to come. 10 years ago, print organizations had the opportunity to do something special online, but now, like the record industry is beginning its death spiral.
Awesome and very accurate article John. I still love reading my local guys here. It is an industry that I hope will make a resurgence.
@ Bruce – Your comment is funny, becaues if you read the rest of it you’ll see that you just did exactly what the article says. LOL
I only got to the fourth paragraph…