Opinions

Water Cooler Discussion: Do You Care About the Death of the Print Critic?

Posted by Neil Miller (neil@filmschoolrejects.com) on April 14, 2008

Monday Morning Water Cooler Discussion

At this point, if you follow the happenings of the world of film, you have probably heard of the discussion that is raging around the “death” of the print film critic. All across the nation, critics at local newspapers have been cut from their posts, one way or another, because of the migration of readers to the web. Or at least, that is how many people see it.

This has brought the discussion to the forefront of both the online and print worlds. Our own Kevin Carr weighed in last week in his article The Death of the Print Critic. In his article, Kevin made reference to an article over on Anne Thompson’s Blog at Variety. There, our good friend Anne has been compiling links to film pundits across the web, creating a comprehensive list of opinions.

The Columbus DispatchFurthermore, there have been actual print critics who have begun chiming in on the discussion. One particularly interesting one was that of Frank Gabrenya, film critic for the Columbus Dispatch. In his Sunday editorial, Frank likened the rise of movie blogs to the reproduction of rodents and expressed his views on why real film critics are necessary. Allegedly, smaller films like The Lives of Others and The Band’s Visit could never thrive locally without a consistent voice to guide denizens of communities such as Columbus.

And while I can appreciate a good rodent procreation reference, and I appreciate Frank’s acknowledgment of our species (we in the movie blogosphere), I see this response as the whining of a man stuck in a desperate situation. Readers are migrating to the web, leaving print critics with little left to claim, so they must hold on to this aura of influence while it still exists. What they don’t seem to be willing to accept is that it is not their ability to write thoughtful opinions on film — something for which I personally have a profound respect — that is being rejected by the masses, it is their medium. Personally, I think that they would all do well to get their own blogs — just as the likes of Roger Ebert have done — and come play in our space for a little while. As a blogger, I can honestly say that we enjoy the sense of community and the diversity of the discussion created by such rapid, for lack of a better term, reproduction. There is always room for more voices, and the voices of these endangered film critics could do just as well if they would just embrace the world wide web as their readers obviously have.

But that is just my opinion. And even my opinion is one of bias, as is that of Frank Gabrenya. Mine is the opinion of someone who has something to gain in this Cold War of film journalism that seems to exist between those of us online and those who compose your local indoor dog urine receptors. What interests me, in the end, is the opinions of you, the readers, the lovers of film… What do you have to say about all this? Do you even care about the death of an entire medium? Better yet, do you even know who your local newspaper’s movie critic is? I know I do — but that is only because Frank and I sit in the same theater, at the same time for press screenings every week.

Please feel free to drop your opinions off in the comment box below.

Want some great additional reading? Check out an article from my Columbus cohort Kristin Dreyer Kramer on her site, Nights and Weekends. She has written an awesome article the likes of which this “rodent” just cannot create.


Read more articles by Neil Miller

Related Reading:

Discover More:
Opinions, Talking Points, , ,


3 Comments

Chris says:

Our local newspaper critic is a major D-Bag (giving movies 3 and a half stars, only to rip them apart in his review), so I’ve really no problem with him going the way of the dinosaur. To be honest, I think the majority of print critics are wastes. It’s obvious that many people don’t care what a critic has to say (just look at all the terrible movies hitting #1 at the box office for proof), and most, if not all, read the column just for a greater idea what the movie is about.

As for this whole “smaller films won’t have a chance without a critic” nonsense… please. It’s just like you said Neil, he’s whining in an attempt to justify his column. How many “smaller” films never get space in your local paper, but you knew about ‘em and sought ‘em out? I can think of several in just the past few months. “Diary of the Dead” recieved no ink in my paper, nor did films like “Hatchet”, or even the “After Dark Horrorfest” entries. Granted yeah, I live in a smaller midwestern town, but still. If it’s an argument for smaller/indie films these critics are pushin’ out, then it’s a weak one.

Myself, I don’t listen to critics. But I enjoy reading their opinions after seeing a movie to see if they meshed with mine. But I prefer blogs and websites. It’s like hearing a friend discuss a movie. Print columnists are like listening to some failed, bitter film teacher discuss a movie. At least with blogs and websites, I’m able to get a more passionate rundown of how and what the film is, good or bad, due to the fact that most times, the reviewer is somebody who is genuinely interested in the film. It’s not a “job” to them. Plus I know they’ll respect the genre more (wether it be horror, comedy, action, or whatever) with that mindframe.

Plus I dig the way most blogs and websites use colorful commentary to describe certain films. I mean, you can’t really describe “Meet The Spartans” in a corporate newspaper as “flaming shit”, now can you?


Caleb Reschar says:

Neil,
I personally believe that the reason behind the print film critic going by the wayside is the immediate gratification that one looks for when needing a review. There have been numerous time that I have wanted to know what is good out there, not wanting to wait for the newspaper to arrive the next day, and I hop on here and make my decision on what to see that way. If you look at the demographics of people who still read the daily paper, they are not the majority that go and see movies.
Also, with online reviews, it gives us, the audience, the chance to voice our opinions on the movie as well. How often do you see a print movie critic highly praise a good comedy? Im pretty sure there were few critics that enjoyed Talladega Nights because it had little plot or character development. But the audience loved it, not because of the fine acting, but because it made you laugh. It is the reviews that you find online to be more down to earth.
Will the print critic go away, no. The reason is that there are still the minority that get their news and information solely from the daily newspaper or weekly magazine.

Caleb Reschar


emad says:

But on the Other side of “Internet Democracy” is “Possibility of Bullshitism because of giving everyone a chance to say their opinions to everyone” i think an eligibility filter is necessary. you know,if internet becomes the General Review source(without that filter) then there is no Guaranty that a good movie will not be buried or a bad movie will not be hailed as greatest ever.
prospect of days that in them “meet the spartan”s sell more than “pan’s labyrinth”s frightens me.
sorry for bad English.


Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!