Critic Responce

I recently recieved an email regarding the episode of Celluloid Spotlight about the relevance of modern day film critics (which can be found here). I wanted to share it with you all:

Merrill,
Hey there.

I apologize that this letter is late in coming. I’ve been wanting to write you about this episode and have not had the opportunity.

I think that the conversation missed a huge portion of the way critics serve their readers, and how their job has changed over the years.

Kevin Carr touched upon this but didn’t fully hit upon it. The massive difference between critics today and critics in my time (I’m 45) is, as Mr. Carr said, the internet. Not the fact that each and every person can be a critic by setting up a blog, but in information access.

When I was growing up the only way to know who Alfred Hitchock was and his importance to film, was via critics. There was no imdb, allmovie or access to writers who knew about the history of film. There was no theater chain playing film retrospectives that might introduce me to a director whose name I’ve heard, but whose films I’ve never seen.

There also were no VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray that I could purchase or Netflix I could stream the films. My local Sears and Woolworth’s (The Target of its day.) didn’t have a movie section. There was no Best Buy 2 miles from my house, nor was there a deepdiscount.com or Amazon.com where I could read reviews/opinions or stream/purchase that film for leisurely viewing. If I wasn’t alive in 1940, I had no way of seeing Citizen Kane. If I didn’t live in Japan in 1956, I couldn’t see the original Godzilla (Gojira, which wasn’t released in American until about 5 years ago in its original, no Raymond Burr form.)

The only time you might hear about an Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Allen, Stanley Krubrick or Orson Welles was when they released a new film and a critic would not only tell you about the virtues, or lack thereof, of a new film, but tell you why you should care about their old films.

Today when any director is attached to a film I can find out their entire career at the flip of a switch and the speed of my connection. I can tell you their history, success, trivia and whether or not they create a decent commentary and extras for their films.

In the 70′s and earlier, the only way I could find out the importance of Alfred Hitchcock was either take a film course or, more likely, read about his history and importance when their new film came out. (If you were really lucky and had a nice set of rabbit ears, you might find a PBS station showing Nosferatu or Metropolis like I did.)

Even if that film wasn’t up to that directors standards, their great films will be mentioned in that review and suddenly I have a list of films to look for when I pick up the next issue of TV Guide. (Getting the new issue off the shelf of the grocery store and going through the movie listing and star rankings was a weekly ritual. I really did plan my movie watching week that way.)

Today the film critic tells me if a film is good or bad. The next article by that critic tells me why I should care. The film critic still serves a purpose, but film reviews have changed. When Woody Allen releases Midnight In Paris all I need is to know if the film is worth my $10.00 and 90 minutes. Once the director sells me on the product, then I’ll go to Film School Rejects and read Dr. Abaius’s article on why I should care about the other 30 great films he has released, what films I should NetFlix and what order I should watch them in. 35 years ago the only way to get that information was via my local film reviewer.

As for Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, they were merely the first to figure out a way of making film review accessible via new technology of TV. Did they destroy film journalism? Of course not. They didn’t stop writers from producing the articles that told you why a Fellini was important, but they probably got far more people to try a Fellini film in the first place.

Thanks for the great show.

What are your thoughts?