Are there any wannabe amateur film critics out there who think their writing could one day be the equivalent of such opinionated and popular film critics as Vincent Canby, Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael, Gene Siskel and Bruce Williamson?
It's a question I have been asking myself now more than ever, given the recent firing in March of top film critic Todd McCarthy by the editors of Variety magazine. McCarthy had been with the publication since 1979 and was among several employees the publication laid off as a cost-cutting measure, according to a March 8 article on www.thewrap.com.
"We are not changing our review policy," said Variety's Group Editor Tim Gray. "Last year we ran more than 1,200 film reviews. No other news outlet comes even close, and we will continue to be the leader in numbers and quality. It doesn't make economic sense to have full-time reviewers but Todd, Derek (Elley), and David (Rooney} have been asked to continue as freelancers."
The larger blow to fans of film criticism, however, came late March with news that after 24 seasons, "At the Movies" (1986-2010), the popular show that started with Chicago film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, was canceled. Its roots date back to 1975 when the show was called "Sneak Previews" on PBS. The program's final broadcast with current critics, A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, will air Aug. 14.
God knows they've endorsed movies I loathed, like "Howard's End" (1992), "The English Patient" (1996), and "The Last Temptation of Christ" (1988), all of which I should keep on my shelf as a means to cure insomnia.
I looked to their reviews, whether they were positive or negative. It's the only reason why today, I still sometimes download their review segments on www.youtube.com and www.atthemoviestv.com. I want to hear them argue passionately why one disagrees on a title the other likes, such as "Benji the Hunted" (1987), "Full Metal Jacket" (1987), and "The Doors" (1991).
Back then, my reason for referring to such reviews that Pauline Kael wrote or Bruce Williamson of Playboy wrote is because I was interested in what they had to say. [Yes perverts -- there was more than one reason to read Playboy, and it wasn't just for the X-rated pictorials].
Despite "At the Movies" cancellation, Ebert has said on his blog that he is working on a new film review program to feature two new critics. The thumbs will return he has said. The question is, who he gets? I doubt they will have the same cultural impact as he and Siskel, who passed away in 1999, or Siskel's replacement, Richard Roeper, did.
Whoever is in the balcony, I don't think we will see their likenesses parodied in Mad magazine, in a Batman comic book, in an animated cartoon called "The Critic" (1994-1995) or in movies like "Summer School" (1987) and "Godzilla" (1998). Nor do I see them making appearances with Jay Leno and David Letterman.
There will always be film critics, probably more, now that anyone can do a blog, just not the notably famous writers I enjoyed reading on a regular basis. For me personally, the balcony closed a long time ago.
©4/28/10
It's a question I have been asking myself now more than ever, given the recent firing in March of top film critic Todd McCarthy by the editors of Variety magazine. McCarthy had been with the publication since 1979 and was among several employees the publication laid off as a cost-cutting measure, according to a March 8 article on www.thewrap.com.
"We are not changing our review policy," said Variety's Group Editor Tim Gray. "Last year we ran more than 1,200 film reviews. No other news outlet comes even close, and we will continue to be the leader in numbers and quality. It doesn't make economic sense to have full-time reviewers but Todd, Derek (Elley), and David (Rooney} have been asked to continue as freelancers."
The larger blow to fans of film criticism, however, came late March with news that after 24 seasons, "At the Movies" (1986-2010), the popular show that started with Chicago film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, was canceled. Its roots date back to 1975 when the show was called "Sneak Previews" on PBS. The program's final broadcast with current critics, A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, will air Aug. 14.
I know there are a lot of movie-goers out there who apparently can't make up their mind and don't feel like wasting two hours of their time sitting through a movie they may not like. They need guidance when it comes to movies, or anything else for that matter. So, they rely on the likes of Ebert, Rolling Stone's Peter Travers and reviewers in their local city paper, or they ask some underpaid, overworked customer service representative in a blue shirt at their neighborhood Blockbuster Video if a certain new release on the shelves is worth their money.Back when I lived in Chicago in the '70s and early '80s, I made it a weekly Friday and Sunday ritual to go through the entertainment sections of the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times to see what Siskel and Ebert said about the week's latest releases. It wasn't that I was hoping they would like a movie that I liked.
God knows they've endorsed movies I loathed, like "Howard's End" (1992), "The English Patient" (1996), and "The Last Temptation of Christ" (1988), all of which I should keep on my shelf as a means to cure insomnia.
I looked to their reviews, whether they were positive or negative. It's the only reason why today, I still sometimes download their review segments on www.youtube.com and www.atthemoviestv.com. I want to hear them argue passionately why one disagrees on a title the other likes, such as "Benji the Hunted" (1987), "Full Metal Jacket" (1987), and "The Doors" (1991).
Back then, my reason for referring to such reviews that Pauline Kael wrote or Bruce Williamson of Playboy wrote is because I was interested in what they had to say. [Yes perverts -- there was more than one reason to read Playboy, and it wasn't just for the X-rated pictorials].
Today, that's not the case. Movie reviews today read like press releases. Every time I read someone's review that says, "for a good date movie," or "for a good action-adventure movie," I cringe, because the writer has no idea what I like. I don't want to know if they claim I am going to like it. I want to know what they thought about it.There is a wealth of information on the Internet and in magazines now that I can go to for information and reviews on the latest movies from Film Comment and Empire magazine to Entertainment Weekly and even Variety, which says despite McCarthy's departure, the publication is still going to run reviews from other writers. They just won't be by the ones readers have come to know over the past three decades.
Despite "At the Movies" cancellation, Ebert has said on his blog that he is working on a new film review program to feature two new critics. The thumbs will return he has said. The question is, who he gets? I doubt they will have the same cultural impact as he and Siskel, who passed away in 1999, or Siskel's replacement, Richard Roeper, did.
Whoever is in the balcony, I don't think we will see their likenesses parodied in Mad magazine, in a Batman comic book, in an animated cartoon called "The Critic" (1994-1995) or in movies like "Summer School" (1987) and "Godzilla" (1998). Nor do I see them making appearances with Jay Leno and David Letterman.
There will always be film critics, probably more, now that anyone can do a blog, just not the notably famous writers I enjoyed reading on a regular basis. For me personally, the balcony closed a long time ago.
©4/28/10
No comments:
Post a Comment