The Hot Blog

There are still art critics. They're mostly irrelevant to the broader culture, since their subject is mostly irrelevant to the broader culture. That's where movie critics are going, whether or not the movies follow.

Critics are having a marginal influence as films themselves have a marginal influence. As Mr. Poland keeps saying, the audience is a percentage of a percentage. Where critics may end up mattering is in the long tail...the accumulation of reviews in Rottentomatoes, reviews for movies that are Netflixed, the archive of Ebert's infinite stars and thumbs.

While I am a fan of Lane's earlies work compiled in his book Nobody's Perfect, increasingly I have to agree that he is not by nature a movie lover (though his literary astuteness originally made him a draw for me). He's much more fun when he's enveloped by a movie such as in his review for Speed.

In Chicago, Ebert doesn't review as many smaller pics as he once did; local writer Bill Stamets capsules several smaller movies each week under the rubric, "Art house films," the metro daily equivalent of "WRONG WAY! ... Do Not Enter."

Ebert didn't make Crash an Oscar winner but he sure helped an awful lot in making the film a hit. He pushed the film for quite a while. And I also remember Polar Express, another film he was pushing who had a late success.

Re: Blackcloud's point, which is correct. The question is, do we allow this to happen? Good mainstream critics are good for movies. An elitist like Walter Chaw, who's there to polarize and play to a specific base, not so much. But folks like Roger Ebert, who can still make a mainstream difference, are very badly needed, more every day.

I would also suggest that good mainstream film critics are good for newspapers as well. Editors are being incredibly short-sighted if they don’t see that supporting and promoting a film critic with a distinct (and sometimes contrarian) point of view can attract as much loyal readership (and, yes, spark as much debate on radio talk shows, etc.) as a high-profile sports columnist or human interest/humor columnist. There’s nothing like getting people talking about one of your writers to get people interested in reading your paper. Nowadays, people don’t really need newspapers for news, or even movie listings – that can be obtained for free, on the web. To survive, newspapers have to provide things -- news analysis, consumer reporting, sports coverage and, yes, arts coverage – written by local writers that local readers come to know (if not always love) and want to read. Whenever a paper (mainstream or “alternative”) depends largely (if not entirely) on wire-service movie reviews – well, the paper really isn’t providing something that readers can’t obtain elsewhere for free.

Along those lines: I have no idea how many people who frequent this site are not in NY or LA. I’m curious: All you folks in “Flyover Country,” how much does your local paper rely on wire-service coverage of film (and, for that matter, TV, pop music and home video)? And how much overage is homegrown?

D'oh! Of course, that last sentence should read: How much COVERAGE is homegrown?

I'm not in LA or NYC, but I'm not in flyover country, either.

MSM film coverage in Pittsburgh may not always be especially interesting or insightful, but it is almost exclusively homegrown. We have two dailies (The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) and one Alt-Weekly (The Pittsburgh City Paper)

Where are you, Blackcloud? Hawaii?

How could anyone take Defamer as a source for anything? He trashes people for ad money, from studios and coporations. He's sloppy, petulant and and represents the creepiest side of any media.

He openly admits that, but that doesn't validate him, or what he does. He sells bits of his soul on a daily basis. He sort of brags about that, and attempts to make soul-selling seem cool, but only to lure in more soul-sellers so he won't feel so lonely in the 9th circle.

Who is 'he'? If you're talking about Defamer, that's committee-written and corporate-published (Gawker Media). Not one guy.

I don't believe you are correct, J-Mc.

There are lots of cross references between the brand, but the history of Gawker Media has been individuals responsible for 8 or so pieces a day for very little pay. Each "editor/writer" has had a distinct personailty. Lisanti does have occasional help, but I believe it is mostly his work still. If not, there has been a change.

Really? Never mind, then. But it certainly reads like a group effort.
More importantly, it reads less like tabloid gossip and more like satire. Defamer's targets tend to be those who deserve it (Brett Ratner, anyone?). If Hackster is going to talk about soul-selling, that kind of thing is ten times worse on any Entertainment Tonight/Access Hollywood show every evening.

Satire? Really? Celebrity sightings? Celebrity pregnancies and celebrity babies? Seems like same ol' stale gossip fare to me. I see the same by the check-out line at Ralph's. But his is even creepier and meaner than Traditional Media. Which I guess makes him "cooler."

Obsessively trashing Bret Ratner? I'm no Ratner fan, but why him? I hear this X-Men has more soul than the average comic book movie. Same rationale as the British press, I think. He's successful. Trashing successful people attracts readers and sells ads. Sell, sell, sell. One person, or a group, Defamer's crass, dehumanizing and depressing.

I stand by the satire statement. Anyone can report on a celebrity sighting, but I have found Defamer to be smarter than the vast bulk of tabloid gunk. Obviously you disagree.

Would you like to recommend an alternative? Your complain seems to be a very broad-based ("Sell, sell, sell") indictment of our culture as a whole.

I'm in the Northeast.

Wow, Jeffmcm, isn't it extremely faint praise for Defamer to say Mark Lisanti's stuff is smarter than the vast bulk of tabloid gunk, or not worse than Entertainment Tonight/Access Hollywood? Are those your only comparisons?

I'm not turned off by all media selling, just gossip. Gossip and "defaming" for money is creepy.

I guess I'm talking more about selling out, than just selling. Selling is not a bad thing, inherently. Defamer and the gossip-based hucksters sell out by taking money for appealing to the lowest of the most debased instincts, conntected to our sad culture's celebrity obsession.

But selling good quality shows or artcles is more than cool by me. Even if they're about media, and especially if they spark discussion (like Poland's article does here). I like paying for the New York Times, and their critics. Same for the LA Times. For industry news and commentary, I think Anne Thompson is excellent, as is Michael Flemming in Variety. Elvis Mitchell on NPR, Charlie Rose on PBS. Great. Tavis Smiley on both. Great. There are others.

I just think most people realize the culture's gone cheap-celebrity bonkers. Don't you agree? Celebrity gossip is gross, and feeds the insanity, while pretending it's about dethroning fake royalty. Or, it's fake-sly people calling the fake fake, which seems pretty easy, no? Is that good satire?

Part of the price of celebrity worship is that we're force-fed boring, weak films and TV shows and music and articles driven by "celebrity power", rather than excellent content.

I'll stop now, since by bitching about fake-satire-based Defamer, I'm feeding the same creepy beast. Defamer becoming a celebrity is about as depressing as a slutty hotel heiress becoming famous for a sex tape. Or a hapless witness who becomes famous through a televised murder trial. If Lisanti's getting famous by trashing easy famous targets on a gossip site called Defamer, let's throw a VIP-hypocrites-only party for George Orwell.

I agree with you that it's all part of the media-industrial complex that exists in a constant cycle of promotion and self-promotion and getting people to be interested in meaningless crap.
That said, at least Defamer does this in a way that I, personally, find amusing. Anything to take Brett Ratner down a peg or two is a good thing in my book.

Okay, cool, Jeff.

If watching people taken down a peg is amusing, I understand Defamer's status for you.

I just hope you're never up too many pegs. At least by Defamer's standards.

If it meant that I had as much money as Ratner, I would welcome it.

Then all that's left is to bow to your righteous non-wealthiness, but wish you great financial success in the future!

Okay, we get it, you're better than me. Going to bed now.

Sorry. Not my intention, and not even slighlty true.

I just wanted to raise the question: Does Defamer deserve defending as a source for anything truly illuminating?

I think you're saying no, he's just entertaining, in that sort of public stoning way.

If people only defended sites that were truly 'illuminating', people would have a loooot of free time on their hands. Defamer doesn't advance the human condition, but it isn't the devil's spawn either. (I would not find a stoning amusing.)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: