Cineaste Review II

Film Criticism in the Age of the Internet: A Critical Symposium

Cineaste, Vol. 33 No.4 (Fall 2008)
The article starts stating that the denizens of the Internet have slowly and, more recently, more intensely misaligned the classical structure between “professional” criticism and “low” criticism. To quote Armond White of the New York Press, the Internet Horde “chip[ed] away at the professionalism they envy, all the time diminishing critical discourse.” Emphasis on “professional” critic (that is, a critic which uses the visual, aural or tactile sense rather than the “blogosphere”) has been diminished with the increasingly popular personal or dedicated blog, ranting about new, old and upcoming films. IMDb forums, Rotten Tomatoes, etc all come to mind. A partial (ha!) list of respondents that were present at the symposium were listed below. They were each given four questions to either answer to use as a basis for a different essay. Each critic gave about a page-or-more response. As a reaction to the article, I will answer these personally.

Zach Campbell (Elusivelucidity Blogspot), Robert Cashill (Cineaste and Between Productions), Mike D’Angelo (Esquire and The Man Who Viewed Too Much), Steve Erickson (Gay City News and Chronicle of a Passion), Andrew Grant (Filmbrain), J. Hoberman (The Village Voice), Kent Jones (Film Comment), Glenn Kenny (somecamerunning.typepad.com), Robert Koehler (Variety), Kevin B. Lee (Shooting Down Pictures), Karina Longworth (Spout Blog), Adrian Martin (Rogue), Adam Nayman (Eye Weekly and Cinema Scope), Theodoros Panayides (Theo's Century of Movies), Jonathan Rosenbaum (Jonathanrosenbaum.com), Dan Sallitt (Thanks for the Use of the Hall), Richard Schickel (Time), The Self-Styled Siren (Campaspe), Girish Shambu (Girish), Michael Sicinski (The Academic Hack), Amy Taubin (Film Comment and Artforum), Andrew Tracy (Cinema Scope), Stephanie Zacharek (Salon.com),

1. Has Internet criticism made a significant contribution to film culture? Does it tend to supplement print criticism or can it actually carve out critical terrain that is distinctive from traditional print criticism? Which Internet critics and bloggers do you read on a regular basis?
   
   
   Why is anything worth of value these days restricted to print media? Just because the mass content of the Internet is easier to edit and more available doesn’t meant that along the way, some magazine/newspaper/book writer/editor didn’t screw up a fact or two. You have to discriminate what content you read, you have to discern what content is biased or unfair. I had a hard time understanding what the requirements for being a film critic were. It certainly doesn’t require any field experience to judge or Robert Ebert wouldn’t have had two television shows and a column to express his (earned?) opinion. I believe the Internet has a lot more to offer us than it currently does in the critic and non-critic world, art and non-art world. It doesn’t need to carry this stigma of “incorrectness” or “incompleteness”. It’s a viable medium to express well-crafted messages.


2. How would you characterize the strengths and weaknesses of critics’ blogs? Which blogs do you consult on a regular basis—and which are you drawn to in terms of content and style? Do you prefer blogs written by professional critics or those by amateur cinephiles?
   
   Again, there’s the question of “professionalism”. At what point do you cross the threshold between amateur and professional in the world the film critique. For that matter, when do you cross the line between amateur and professional filmmaker? No one has taught me that and I’m almost half-way done with my degree. I believe I can consider myself an artist, and I’m still unsure if I currently do. Professionalism can be a mindset, I believe. And “content and style” are superfluous aesthetics. There’s no rule that says the most poorly written books in terms of grammar and literary techniques can’t contain something insightful or beautiful. Thoughts are thoughts, expressed poorly or expressed cleanly.


3. Internet boosters tend to hail its “participatory” aspects—e.g., message boards, the ability to connect with other cinephiles through critics’ forums and email, etc. Do you believe this “participatory” aspect of Internet criticism (film critics form the bulk of the membership lists of message boards such as a film by and Politics and Film) has helped to create a genuinely new kind of “cinematic community” or are such claims overblown?
   
   I think the cinematic community is still upheld in theaters and galleries (galleries less so, which I find to be a bit disappointing). There’s no difference between “online” community and “offline” community. The only difference between the two is the meeting place. You wouldn’t call an english class something different because the room switched for a day. The “cinematic community” is constant across all location. The Internet is just an enabler for people to express ideas without concern for spatial or temporal borders.


4. Jasmina Kallay, writing in Film Ireland (September-October 2007), has claimed that, in the age of the Internet, the “traditional film critic… is losing his stature and authority.” Do you agree or disagree with this claim? If you agree, do you regard this as a regrettable or salutary phenomenon?
   
   
   I think all critics should loose authority. There’s no place in the art world for someone to discriminate content for you. It’s up to your digression. How many gems are ruined by a bad review? The people that believe they have authority and the right to talk-down a film seem to be the same people that would promote Die Hard 27 over Meshes of the Afternoon. There’s no Film God. Projected art is not a dictatorship. I believe that the film review should be replaced, in its entirety, with analyses.