The Hot Blog

When I first started working for Jami Bernard in 2001, and was brought into that sort of elite playground -- screenings, NYFF opening night, New York Film Critics Circle Awards -- I held the opinion that most of the top critics were at least one generation behind where they needed to be to truly grasp what was happening in the medium. I didn't see any younger critics at any of the major publications -- most were of middle-age or well past that.

It seemed like there was pretty much a stranglehold on the critical establishment that wouldn't let go for new voices. Disregarding the fact that many of them had started young, they played the "experience" line.

I went to the internet in 2002, and maintained my NYFCC privilege until 2004. It seems that at least since then, heads have been rolling all over the place. Young critics went to the web, while seasoned critics were being let go for every reason imaginable -- budget cuts, politics, editorial disagreements, etc. Even Jami wound up leaving the Daily News.

What I would've liked to have seen was simply a generational switch over. What we've gotten instead is, for the most part, just a gutting of newspaper criticism. But at the same time, due to the web, there are now more critics and more opinions to read (even if most are dubious).

BTW/ I think SVA prefers STV.

And yet, the New York Times still has three good-to-great critics on their staff.

I guess they still give a shit.

Chocano is crap, BTW, and as much as I disagree with Turan at times, she should get the boot before he does. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the pattern with these recent firings of veterans.

Let me amend that last statement: Chocano doesn't have terrible taste, and has actually gone to bat for some difficult but admirable films, but I don't find her writing very impressive or unique. She certainly shouldn't be the "voice" of the West Coast's biggest paper.

Tells me the Liberal Media only want snobs, prudes or hacks as film critics.

Also, the "much-questioned New Times empire" is now known as Village Voice Media.

I'm just curious, Mutiny, what's an example of something that the older critics were 'behind' on that younger critics might have been on top of?

Despite my age, I actually disagree with you Mutiny. I think just because there is a new aesthetic, that doesn't make it a better one and if a film is truly great, it will appeal to critics of any age. I also think that as you get older, your opinions and viewpoints ripen. As you see more movies, you will clearly be less impressed because you're not as "wowed" by every innovative thing you see anymore.

I guess the bottom line is that I find age to be irrelevant when it comes to reviewing film. I think to dismiss someone's opinion just because they are older is silly ageism. Andrew Sarris and even Armond White write bold and inspired reviews (not that I always agree) in spite of their age. Mahnola Dargis is arguably one of the most erudite and respected critics I've read in years and she's no spring chicken. I still love the reviews of Tood McCarthy and he's no young'un.

Age matters little. Talent for writing criticism is what is important...at least to me. But apparently that doesn't matter to the Tribune company; Jan Stuart was very good.

I felt at the time that there was a generational shift going on in filmmaking. CGI had come in. A lot of the filmmakers White dubbed the American Eccentrics had come in (Wes Anderson, PT Anderson, Sofia Coppola, David Fincher, Spike Jonze). I just felt that a lot of the older critics just didn't get it -- or at least get it in the manner younger people did. And I felt there really wasn't anybody of that younger age who had a legitimate pulpit to express those views.

A lot of the critics were still stuck in the 1970's. If you'd asked them who the best filmmakers working were they'd have said Scorsese, maybe Altman or Lynch. I remember asking Peter Travers at the NYFCC in '03 how he could name Gangs of New York his #1 for 2002, even though it was a mess of peaks and deep valleys. He looked me seriously in the face and said the peaks were so much better than the peaks in any other movie.

I think that at a certain point most critics (people in general) stop growing, so to speak. They settle into their general thesis on the medium, and then they basically just keep repeating themselves -- same references, same comparisons, inability to recognize positive change or positive technical change, and so on.

Something like that.

I think that's often true, and it helps to partially explain why Roger Ebert would name Juno his top movie of last year, but I think a good critic should be able to transcend such issues.

And I wouldn't name GONY my favorite movie of 2002, but I would agree that it had some pretty excellent peaks.

Didn't Turan write an entire long piece dismissing pretty much that entire generation of directors? Not to mention his undercutting of his peer's (Manohla's?) rave of KILL BILL.

Still, I'd miss Turan, much as he annoys me in nine reviews out of ten.

That thing where gets all foreboding and acts as if the movie is a person AND presumptuously speaks for everyone reading ("This movie is not as smart as it thinks it is AND takes you down dark roads you won't want to travel," or essentially something to that tune) os is always frustrating/annoying/endearing in his little Turan way.

But he is seriously, seriously dry and stuffy.

And predictable. Is there any way THE CHANGELING (Eastwood) *won't* be his #1 next year?

Chocano does a whole lot of RECAPPIN'.

I see what you're saying Mutiny, but I think that's more attributable to just bad criticism and bad critics than age. When was Travers ever a respectable critic? And to say at that time that a filmmaker like Scorsese or Altman or Lynch was the best might have been accurate. I mean, they had a wealth of riches in their wake while someone like Wes Anderson only had three films released at that point.

I think it's important for critics to be open-minded, whatever their age is. But there are plenty of young folks who don't like Fincher or PT Anderson and plenty of old folks who adore them. But I'm with you, in the sense that I believe critics should appreciate the innovative.

Noah,

In no way, shape or form were they the best working filmmakers circa 2002. Altman had his first hit in a decade with Gosford (great for him), Lynch just had his first hit in a decade with Mulholland, and Scorsese was a dozen years past his last legitimate great movie.

The opinions I'm expressing are based on firsthand observation of the elite NY critical establishment, not just from reading their reviews (most of which aren't very good anyhow).

The major critics spend their days going from screening to screening to screening sometimes hitting 2-3 per day, at least 1 per day each work day. Plus, there are screeners. Plus, there's film festivals. Plus, there's the year end crunch where they need to both make sure they've seen everything (and I mean EVERYTHING), as well as re-watching movies they're considering for top 10 placement.

It is a COMPLETE BURNOUT. Try doing that for 20 years. It's almost impossible not to settle into form writing or relying on a bag of tricks. It's like living on a treadmill.

Adding to the slaughter is the rise of the filmmaker-critic, or the closely aligned. The best they can do is say "the film's not perfect," tell you what the film isn't really about, ooh and aah over craft and drop in a few critical words cribbed from a cheat sheet.

Like who?

Let's light them torches!

Anyhow, speaking of Jan Stuart...

Half a dozen years ago, I introduced myself to Harvey Weinstein at the NYFCC awards. He very politely shook my hand and told me how much he liked my work in Newsday. I told him that I was a filmmaker not Jan Stuart. He looked at me with the most vulnerable, embarrassed, caught-with-his-hand-in-the-cookie-jar expression, then quickly excused himself.

Mutiny, you're expressing an opinion about those filmmakers. You really think Scorsese wasn't one of the best working directors in 2002? He's still one of the best working directors now and this is coming from someone well under the age of fifty. I feel the same way about David Lynch, who is making groundbreaking films and is reaching for a new aesthetic just as much as directors half his age. So don't tell me that critics who appreciate their work only do so out of habit because that's just crap.

It really just seems like you have a bone to pick with the "elite NY critical establishment." I don't really care if you have first-hand knowledge of the way these folks work because all that should matter is the words they put on the page. As long as they write strong criticism, it doesn't matter. And if the job is such a complete burnout, then it would burnout people of all ages. But if that's the case, then maybe you can explain to me why Mahnola Dargis is writing unbelievable criticism while critics half her age are still struggling to understand the cinema that came out twenty years ago.

Noah, I'm not getting into this on a critic to critic basis. Or filmmaker to filmmaker basis. I have no bones to pick with anybody -- I loved every minute of going to those awards. And I still attend screenings from time to time.

But you're writing right now like you grew up in an alcoholic family and you're the one who viewed everything with rose tint where nobody can do any wrong.

There isn't a single point I made that isn't valid. It's based on observational reality.

"But you're writing right now like you grew up in an alcoholic family and you're the one who viewed everything with rose tint where nobody can do any wrong."

You want to make this into a personal thing? That's kind of a dick move.

You just expect me to take your sweeping generalizations as as fact and I'm sorry that I won't do that. And there isn't a single point that I made that isn't valid either, Jamie. Also "based on observational reality" because I read reviews. There are plenty of terrible critics out there of all ages. You try to pigeon-hole most critics of a certain age as over the hill and you're trying to shoo them out the door and I'm arguing that many of the best critics working today are older. So which is, Jamie? Get rid of all of them or not? Because if we switch over to a whole new generation of critics, we'd be losing a lot of the best ones.

Mutinyco: Why is it that whenever I read one of your postings, the term "arrogance of youth" immediately springs to mind? Sorry, but much of what you've written on this thread makes you sound like someone who's spent much of his life with his nose pressed against the window, looking at the party that you'll never be cool enough to be invited to. To quote The Boys in the Band: "Your grapes are, how you say, sour."

If I could muster up enough interest to knock down most of your facile argument, I would. But, frankly, when I have to write at such length, in such detail, about such self-aggrandizing nonsense, I expect to be paid for it. Suffice it to say that those who live by the demographic, die by the demographic. The day will come when you'll feel younger critics breathing down your neck, and hear them raving about your stodgy ways, because you insist that Paul Thomas Anderson (who, by the way, this 55-year-old fogey "discovered" at Sundance years ago) is still one of the Great American Filmmakers. It's like I tell my students: The day will come when you're driving around in your car, listening to Nelly or Fergie or White Stripes or Panic at the Disco on your radio, and you'll be feeling cool and hip until your kid, sitting next to you, says: "Dad, please! Turn that old crap off!"

We don't need to switch over. It's already happened. What I was talking about was 5-7 years ago.

Saying you understand critics because you read them as opposed to personally knowing them is like saying you know more about movies because you watch them rather than make them.

And I'm glad to finally see some anger in one of your posts. You're usually too nice.

Joe, is that why you're quitting?

When did I quit, sparky?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't you announce plans to retire from criticism to teach full time? Not that I follow your life plans that closely...

(BTW/ I'm not a critic, and I don't listen to a single band you mentioned...)

Your analogy is off, Mutiny. You saying you understand critics because you know them personally is like saying you understand film better because you know the director. You're not the only enlightened person in the world just because you've hung out with Jami Bernard. The majority of people don't know those people, so you're the only one who TRULY understands, right? Please dude.

And I try to be nice because I try to give people respect, which I was taught in my (non-alcoholic) family. I think the ultimate sign of immaturity is to pick fights or to let your anger dilute your opinions.

Noah, I'm not picking a fight with you. I simply manipulated you.

And I didn't hang out with Jami Bernard. I was her personal assistant. And furthermore, I'm the one who arranged for her to have a blog here at MCN. The point is, between being part of that elite crowd and from 2002-04 running a press/review site on my own, which had me going to quite a few screenings and being part of that marathon...it's a world and an experience I'm pretty familiar with.

Mutiny: Yes, you are mistaken. Obviously, your reading comprehension is about on the same level as your writing and filmmaking. LOL.

Yes, I expect to be teaching full-time in the near future. No, I don't expect to ever quit reviewing films. And judging from the response I've recently received from talented filmmakers I have praised, that's a good thing.

BTW: Just curious -- how old are you?

Older than you probably think I am.

Of course you'll get positive responses from filmmakers if you praise them. We like getting our bellies scratched. If you said some nice things about me, maybe you get me to roll over too.

You manipulated me? Into doing what? Pointing out that your argument was weak? You sure got me there, you master manipulator you!

You were a personal assistant to a critic; that doesn't exactly make you a part of that elite crowd dude. And even if you were, it still wouldn't make your original argument any more accurate. You insist that age has something to do with how well a critic does his job. The truth is, there is no evidence to support that this is true across the board.

Yes, I manipulated you into getting angry. It's something I've wanted to see for a while.

As per your second paragraph, everything I said earlier stands.

Well, let me ask this: Are you at least 30?

Sure.

Manipulated me into getting angry? It's not like you're a genius for doing that. Does that make you feel good about yourself, Jamie? Because that's really sad.

Doesn't make me feel good about myself. But it was enjoyable to see nonetheless.

Then don't you think you should have accomplished more by now?

Jamie, why would that be enjoyable to see? Aren't there enough folks around here that you could goad into being angry with a lot less effort?

I'm sorry if I tend to be even-tempered, but I come here to talk about film, not to "manipulate" people into being angry.

I tend to remain pretty even-tempered too, Noah. Just something about the fact that you're SO nice made me just want to see you pop once. Just once. Got it. You can go back to being nice again.

Like what, Joe?

Like growing up.

You can wait a while to craft what I'm sure will be an ever-so-clever response. You have bored me sufficiently, and now I'm ready to go to sleep. Good night.

Good one, Joe.

Nite.

Looks like no one else is going to defend Scorsese, so I will. In 2002, he was a dozen years past his last "legitimate" (whatever the fuck that means) great film? Excuse me for thinking The Age of Innocence & Kundun were masterpieces as well (and both completely different from each other, and GoodFellas, I might add). Also, Travers was right on the money with Gangs. A huge mess, but those peaks were higher than anything else I saw that year. You're telling me that the direction in that film was the work of an downward-sloping old man? How about The Departed? More uninspired, geriatric style?

You want to rail against veteran filmmakers playing ball with studio politics, that's great. Not everyone can be your deity Kubrick, or Bergman and live on their own island/insular bubble and do whatever they want. How arrogant of you to pass judgment like that. You're not a respectable critic with a print history that legitimizes your position, and as an actual filmmaker you're a wannabe. Where does that put your credibility?

Somewhere between little and nil.

Yawn. Great. Now that the crossfire's ceased, I still stand by my initial statements, which are plain and pragmatic:

-A generational switchover was needed 5-7 years ago. Ultimately that came via the internet. Check.

-A lot of critics, like a lot of people, stop growing at a certain point and don't keep up as well with new trends. Check.

-A critic's work schedule is grueling and after a number of years it can wear you down. Check.

Another yawn, Lazarus.

Gangs is, was and always will be an irrevocable mess. However, it was his first critical uptick after a flat decade that came after his masterpiece Goodfellas. The Aviator was good. And The Departed confirmed what Scorsese had always dreamed he'd be, a great genre director for the studios. My point was that in the early zeros, with a whole new generation of filmmakers making their mark, he was no longer leading the charge as he had in the '80s. The best movie of 2002, and I agree with Ebert, was Minority Report.

Noah, I'm a fan of the fact that you're an even-tempered fellow who's smart enough to stay above the fray and not get bogged down in petty dick-measuring. You may be the most mature person in the above melee.

Minority Report has a pretty problematic third act for the best movie of 2002.
My pick: The Pianist.

Guys...

Apologies to the Wells-resistent, but I couldn't find the original Turan piece where he dismissed all the "arty" hot new directors from a few years back.

Here's a piece ABOUT Turan's piece:

http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=movienews/confidential&pageid=19123

Why are you guys listening to MutinyCo?

This guy doesn't even understand what 720p is, much less the more complex aspects of filmmaking.

Also, his behavior here shows a very high emotional intelligence and empathy for the well being of others(sarcasm)..

And T.Holly, doesn't the filmmaker/critic go all the way back to Truffaut and Co. with the French New Wave? I don't think that's anything new.

Younger people in any profession are anxious for those over them to move on/retire, or worse. Go ahead and wish it. I did. I do. But in this case, the whole damned profession is going away.
Still we're missing the BIG point here. Jami Bernard had a "personal assistant?"
OMFG
Roger Moore/Orlando

Yeah, THX. I don't know anything about filmmaking. I don't know what 720p is. I've only been shooting/editing with it for the past year. You're allowed to continue your pissant ways. Have fun with your Canadians and demographics.

And yes, Roger, she did. She worked at home, not at the paper.

Some goon will argue, but what hasn't changed is we need film critics. The solution is an all-arts free-lance guild for critics, "The All Arts Critics Guild (AACG)," to do things like establish pay guildlines, network assignments around the world and help set minimum fees (and institute re-use fees, which I believe are zero, right Roger Moore?). With laws, elected board members and a paid employee to run things and administer a group health...

P.S. I think you're alright mutinyco.

I don't know what latent link caused an old variation of my name to come back.

THX, my theory goes: the more delicate, creative and innocent the art, the more you want the reviewer appreciating it for what's there than what it represents.

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: