« A Hot Blog Response Becomes A Hot Button | Main | Happy Penguins Put Their Best Foot Forward »
September 19, 2006
More Web vs Print.....Zzzzzz.....
Anne Thompson brought up this Rachel Cooke idiocy again and I don’t think I bothered to smack her down when it ran.
Here is the simple deal. There are many of us on the web who have more “movie plaque” on our teeth than critics at major papers… including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The New Yorker, yes, The New Yorker.
It is ironic, in fact, that Ms. Cooke chooses Anthony Lane as he apex of the critical world… a critic that really hates film almost as much as he likes the smell of his own farts.
But this is the stupid thing about balancing the web vs the print world. It is not the medium in which one publishes. It is the quality of the content. And there is no singular voice of the web anymore than there is a singular voice in print. Moreover, the awareness of critics like A.O. Scott (a movie critic infant who grew his muscle fast) and Manohla Dargis is enhanced massively by web access to their work.
In fact, no one in America would know who Rachel Cooke was or give a hoot what she had to say if she wasn’t saying it on the web. (And by the way, what are her credentials to have an opinion? She is best known as a celebrity interviewer, winning an award this year for being the first to get Hunter S. Thompson’s wife to talk to the press. Wonder if she asked what kind of tree she would be?)
But the bottom line is, those people who survive on the web or print, daft or supported by a massive print infrastructure driven by a massive ad sales team, survive by being read by people who have a choice. We sing for our supper daily. And unlike print subscriptions, we can get cancelled at any time simply by indifference.
“Thanks to the internet, everyone is a critic now, every opinion as valid as the next. The general tone of the movie bloggers, who review with such liberated abandon, is: we have taste, too, and who are you to tell us that it is inferior to yours? Which is fair enough on one level.”
But this is simply a gross exaggeration and projection. As usual, the word “blog” is used in too broad a way. And as usual, someone who feels like part of the firmament is going on about the rabble outside the gate starving.
The reason my taste is more important than yours on The Wicker Man, Ms. Cooke, is that I saw The Wicker Man on a movie theater screen when it first was released (a bit tardy in the U.S.) and you watched a DVD last month. It’s because I remember Britt Ekland and the blowing white orb she crotch bumped with which was used to sell that movie and so much around that time and you, apparently, don’t. So who has the plaque? I do.
And you know what. I am happy to bow to your opinion… because it is yours and it as valid as such. And those who embrace my view will embrace mine and those who embrace yours will embrace yours. And I will continue to love The Observer and think some things printed in it are stupid… and not just because I read them online... while other things are absolutely essential.
Can’t we all just get along?
Posted by poland at September 19, 2006 12:58 PM
Comments
Wait, you saw the original Wicker Man in theatres? How old were you? LIke 10 or 11?! That would certainly explain a lot... :)
Posted by: EDouglas ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 19, 2006 02:40 PM
"It is not the medium in which one publishes. It is the quality of the content." True, and the best critics create a separate piece of art with their review, because they accept the subjectiveness of taste and don't see their mission as thumbing-a-movie up or down. A well written review is enjoyable to read whether or not one has any intention of seeing or knowing if a movie is good or bad. It takes a seasoned or naturally gifted, curious and interesting person to accomplish this.
Posted by: T.H.Ung at September 19, 2006 02:42 PM
The Guardian's film coverage nine out of ten times is worse than you'd get from a roomful of monkey bloggers.
Posted by: Blackcloud at September 19, 2006 02:48 PM
I actually disagree with you on that, BC. for me, there is not more effective publication covering the wide world of film right now. But so it goes...
Posted by: David Poland at September 19, 2006 02:56 PM
I was a bit unkind to the Guardian there. They can be pretty good, but then there are times the haughty self-righteousness that mars almost all their political coverage infects their film coverage. Probably the only paper I know right away when I see a link to a story on MCN that it's from that paper, they're so obvious most of the time. So I'll revise my estimate downward a bit. Five out of ten times the monkey bloggers take it.
Advantage: monkey bloggers, still.
Posted by: Blackcloud at September 19, 2006 03:15 PM
White orb? What were you on when you saw it?
Posted by: frankbooth at September 19, 2006 03:58 PM
The Scriptland sophomore effort took the enterprise from controversial to boring. At the end of the column, Fernandez asks his readers to email him "tips."
Posted by: palmtree at September 20, 2006 10:50 AM
"The reason my taste is more important than yours on The Wicker Man, Ms. Cooke, is that I saw The Wicker Man on a movie theater screen when it first was released (a bit tardy in the U.S.) and you watched a DVD last month."
With all due respect, David: Since I'm older than you, and have seen many, many movies on theatre screens that you have not yet seen, or have seen only as DVDs -- does that mean my taste is more important than yours?
Posted by: Joe Leydon at September 20, 2006 09:09 PM
Obviously, the point - which you took out of context - was offered in the context of Ms. Cooke's piece.
But yes, Joe, there are areas of film about which your opinion is more qualified than my own. Absolutely.
I am sure you know more, for instance, about movies of the late 60s and early 70s than I do because your experience of them was not only in retrospect, after the media and popularity essentially curated my context for seeing those films. I can appreciate Budd Boetticher, but I can't truly understand the world in which he worked just by reading books and seeing his films and more popular films from the same years.
The ability to analyze films - which is ultimately opinion, not fact - does not discriminate between employers. But knowledge, context, taste, history, and experience are all part of that dynamic... which is, ironically, Ms. Cooke's argument. However, her argument of people will jobs at big Tradtional Media outlets vs people who write, for free or for pay, on the web, is inherently flawed.
I actually think you agree with that, Joe.
Posted by: David Poland at September 21, 2006 04:30 PM
Well, it's like I told D.W. Griffith on the "Birth of a Nation" junket...
Posted by: Joe Leydon at September 21, 2006 05:50 PM
C'mon Joe, give us the dirt on Lillian Gish.
Posted by: wolfgang at September 21, 2006 11:44 PM
She put out like a gum machine. And Mary Pickford? Don't get me started....
Posted by: Joe Leydon at September 22, 2006 04:56 AM
Gish lived 99 years without ever marrying. Do the math! ;-)
Perspective and time very frequently change our opinion of a movie, in both directions. I loathed BARRY LYNDON when it first came out. Saw it again recently at the Academy, and while I still think it could lose half-an-hour, I now understand what Kubrick was going for and have re-evaluated my opinion thusly. On the other hand, one of my favorite movies as a kid was TOPKAPI; saw it again 20 years later and was crestfallen--it seemed leaden and clunky for the most part. It almost seems mandatory to revisit films after a period--not only do we change, but so does the world around us.
Posted by: Cadavra at September 22, 2006 10:44 AM
The great thing about teaching film history is that I repeatedly re-view, re-re-review and re-re-re-review great movies -- with college students who have never seen them before. The questions they ask and the comments they make -- in short, their fresh perspectives -- often motivate me to rethink my opinions and assumptions. Indeed, sometimes a student will spark me to think about possibilities and/or interpretations I'd never considered before. For example: A few semesters back, a student asked me if I thought Joseph Cotten's Jedediah Leland in "Citizen Kane" might be a closeted homosexual. I must admit, that's the first time I ever considered that take on the character. But the more I thought about it, the more intriguing the idea seemed.
Posted by: Joe Leydon at September 22, 2006 11:41 AM
Post a comment
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.)