The ugly truth
Are print movie critics going the way of the 8-track tape - or cassette, for those born post-1978? Matt Eagan of the Hartford Courant thinks so (hat tip - Joe Leydon's MovingPicture Blog). The article brings up some ugly truths, and it also digs deeper into the subject than similar stories have done.
I created this Web site as a way to stay ahead of this reality, but for personal and professional reasons I still love reading the actual newspaper each Friday for the latest film reviews. It's a ritual I don't want to live without, but subsequent generations may find unfolding a gangly broadsheet a chore compared to surfing the 'net.
For related thoughts, check out this Newsweek piece. Again, trodding over familiar material but still provocative for anyone who cares about criticism.
posted by Toto @ 8:09 AM
2 Comments
Links to this post
2 Comments:
Eagan makes a valid point that by cutting good critics, learned critics, we lose the perspective of a studied historian. But too many of those midsized papers had critics who were "critics" because they were snappy writers and "fans," as opposed to having any real credentials.
With the Internet, at least I get to see what a LOT of fans think, and try to make a judgment based on an "ask the audience" lifeline, vs. just one erson. The world has moved to "crowd sourcing" over the "guru" model of problem solving.
Which is better? I dunno. Let's conduct a poll.
I once wrote for a paper with a critic who knew plenty about film. But he would spend the first six grafs of his reviews regaling us with his knowledge of Hollywood's Golden Age. Perspective is great, but what did you think of the movie I might spend $7 on? Film historians can cut both ways for consumers.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home