Pauline Kael, Dwight MacDonald, and John Simon were discussing this in 1963 and it's still very much on people's minds today, as evinced by the volume of internet chatter devoted to the subject these past few days.
At Peter Suderman's blog Film & Culture they're talking about video games and video game criticism (here and here). Peter's initial question, "Why is no one writing good, strong cultural criticism about video games?" is a good one. Whether or not "society will eventually choose video games over film as our dominant narrative medium," I don't know. But BAFTA has already announced that "video games are as important to popular culture as film and television," (to the approval of The Guardian) and I certainly agree that they're deserving of more serious consideration.
At The House Next Door Jeremiah Kipp interviews Walter Chow, an internet-based film critic at Film Freak Central. In a short post reflecting on Dave Kehr's thoughts about Jami Bernard's dismissal from the New York Daily News, Anne Thompson says, "Aggregate sites like Metacritic, criticker and Film Freak Central and blogs like The House Next Door are the future of film criticism."
She also says something that all of us "younger, hipper, cheaper" internet-based critics would do well to heed: "There's plenty of good film writing on the web, including Kehr. It's just a lot harder to get paid for it." (my italics) Anthony Kaufman might be on to something when he wonders if "blogs are helping to kill journalism." There are a lot of talented film writers on the internet who are willing to work for free. If you edited an Alt-Weekly, why wouldn't you try to farm out your movie reviews to them?
Maybe we, the unwashed but enthusiastic internet amateur brigade, are slowly driving professional film criticism into extinction. And maybe that's not even a bad thing. Responding to Joe Morgenstern's Wall Street Journal article "Rumors of Critics Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated", Peter Suderman recently wrote that:
"[...] because of the net, criticism will become more diffuse. There will be more peoplewriting [sic] it, and, because it will be done for fun in a low-risk environment, it may flourish in ways we could never imagine in the print world."
Morgenstern's article is a defense of the film critic, but is there anything in it that's defends the professional critic? Can't amateur critics support independent films? Why should we, the aspiring critics, expect to be paid for what we do? It's not as if this is a zero-sum game. There aren't n dollars reserved for film criticism.
Article comments
1 - Jonathan Scanlan
You make a very solid point there. Do we really need critics to act as cultural guardians?
Well, let's examine this delusional elitism that emerged some 400 years ago. Geniusism. This idea that there are individuals who are brilliant and once in a generation.
Prior to this, throughout the whole of history, art has been done for personal and community purposes. It's only when you have an audience that it tends to professionalise. Take the shakespearian stage or Noh theatre for instance.
The best approach to film criticism is, in my view, a deconstructionist apporach. If the critic is to best serve the public, they need to enlighten and help people appreciate the artform.
Knowing how ideology and experiences have shaped the material is far more useful than the passive acceptance of someone elses standard of "good cinema".
2 - Thomas M. Sipos
Many bloggers post free articles, punditry, and criticism because they hope to showcase their work and thus "move up to the next level" and get paid for it.
But ironically, all this free showcasing makes it harder for anyone to get paid for it. Why should editors pay when so many writers are giving it away for free?
I don't if there's any solution.