Comments on: Moving Image Institute: Days Two and Three

By: Slimming tea

Slimming tea — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:41:29 +0000

Slimming tea…

going to read more…

By: f i l m j o u r n e y . o r g » Blog Archive » Moving Image Institute, Entry 2

Fri, 23 May 2008 22:08:11 +0000

[...] filmmakers, distributors, and critics are, the more quickly artistic standards and the idea of specialty cinema evaporates from the agenda. But even academics talk of “smuggling” international or [...]

By: Harmony Korine Sells Bud To England. Clip of the Day. (Flix99.com)

Harmony Korine Sells Bud To England. Clip of the Day. (Flix99.com) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:22:51 +0000

[...] moratorium on talking/writing about What Happened In Queens, I can’t respond to White’s not original complaint that the MOMI institute (which he did not attend) seeks to turn young critics into shill [...]

By: Shooting Down Pictures » Blog Archive » Moving Image Institute: Days 4, 5 and beyond

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:10:28 +0000

[...] perceived now, when the door is wide open to define what blogging should be about. Filmbrain left a comment on my last report that ponders this question of where online film criticism is going. Meanwhile, [...]

By: On The Scene

On The Scene — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:38:51 +0000

In a Time of Change, Pondering the Tension Between New Film Journalism and Old…

Molly Haskell and Andrew Sarris speaking with participants at the Museum of the Moving Image Institute in Film Criticism and Feature Writing. Photo provided by the Museum of the Moving Image…

By: Like Anna Karina's Sweater

Like Anna Karina's Sweater — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:30:16 +0000

Critics v Bloggers Redux (Or: I’ve heard this song before…)…

It’s with a sense of bemused fascination that I’ve been reading Kevin Lee and Karina Longworth’s dispatches from the Moving Image Institute in Film Criticism, which ended on Tuesday. Unlike my recent comments about the NYU workshop, it seems that…

By: HarryTuttle

HarryTuttle — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:21:23 +0000

I didn’t see evil when reading Kevin’s phrase about “advocacy and activism” because it is indeed one of the key role bloggers could play, at least to build the “word-of-mouth”.
But Dave Kehr has a point, there is a fine line between an enthusiastic noble cause and giving up the big picture critical distance just because the niche markets are in dire situations. This is the difference between “positivism” and “complacency”. And unsurprisingly the filmmakers and publicists are joining the choir to weep on the death of print criticism precisely because they lose a branch of their marketing system. While the primary vocation of film criticism is NOT to save struggling films from extinction, which is only a hopefuly positive consequence of doing the job right.
The independence of critical thinking is only garanteed by the absence of interest in the commercial success of each movie. Like Kehr says, if a movie doesn’t meet its niche audience, only the publicist is to be blamed. The critic notifies the release of a movie, and gives a good or bad evaluation. Now if a critic needs to repeat articles over and over, to drag readers in theatre, to trumpet for the film at special screenings… then somebody else is not doing their job.
When a critic goes out of his/her way to promote a film deemed important enough to be so endrosed, it’s a bonus, for special personal reasons. We can’t have an industry funcionning systematically on this kind of interventions (which constitutes a certain conflict of interest between the judges and the market).

Great points Doug and Filmbrain!

By: Filmbrain

Filmbrain — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:05:47 +0000

Whitney — Your comment touches on an important issue that needs to be explored, but nobody seems willing to broach the subject. I think this gets back to the question of responsibility.

There are without question film bloggers who value hit count over quality. These are the sites that post multiple times per day, often regurgitating stories that have been printed on dozens of other sites. Then there’s the film blogger who plays the contrarian for no reason other than to attract angry readers to his/her comment section.

Perhaps this is a part of the problem with bloggers who are getting paid. Their sponsors are no doubt pressuring them to increase readership, and that’s not going to happen with 750 words about Tomu Uchida. It pains me to see talented writers trading in snark to survive.

At the same time, there are just as many excellent film bloggers for whom self-promotion is not at all a factor. (For example, the very blog we’re commenting on at the moment.) Yet when the subject of “film bloggers” is raised, what comes to mind first? Something more akin to your description, I’m afraid.

So how do we move forward? What can be done to change the impression, so that when esteemed critics are asked about bloggers we hear something other than the now-hackneyed “they’re unedited” or “they write without thinking” blah blah blah? We have to get past that and actually discuss the future of future of film criticism, and what can be done to make sure that “real” criticism doesn’t go the way of rumble seats. With corporate interests squeezing out critics in favor of syndicated hacks on one end, and bloggers who are happy to give rave reviews to anything in exchange for invites to screenings and junket round tables on the other, how can we ensure that film criticism doesn’t wind up becoming a Browning Society?

By: Doug Cummings

Doug Cummings — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:55:31 +0000

Dave, I think you might be turning critical endorsement into something more shrill–certainly Kevin and I are not about to promote film X just because it is released by Kino or IFC Films. But if smaller companies do release a good film, we might go out of our way to write about and bring attention to it rather than take up more space devoted to the latest blockbuster. As you told the LA Weekly a couple of years ago, “Both Manohla and Tony see it as their mandate to push the art films they love” and your decisions on what to highlight in your excellent DVD column are certainly a form of advocacy and activism, are they not?

I think Kevin’s point is merely that critics help create audiences for films and help shape film culture, and that it’s a basic role of criticism to do that rather than spill ink over each and every film, even if that would be possible.

By: badMike

badMike — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:59:42 +0000

Regarding the question:

“why are we doing this and what does it matter to others?”

The answer to the first part is obvious: we love writing about movies and we’ll do it even if we’re making little to no money.

And I think what it matters to others is the feeling of community and belongingness that’s fairly central to human behavior. Matt’s statement about us just writing for each other’s amusement is probably true, but so what? I don’t really know who reads my site except for some filmmakers, festival programmers and film bloggers. But I’ve met interesting people, seen some interesting films and that’s fine by me.