Which film critics do you trust (if any?)

It's a blog.

ok...

i guess i just dont think it's a problem full stop. who cares if 80% of newspaper critics dont like speed racer

I mean, not to be completely defeatist about it, but yes, the writing aspect would raise my ire a lot more if it appeared in Film Comment or something. But in blog form, I'm almost always paying more attention to whatever it is the writer's trying to convey.

I'm not arguing that stripping the entry of all reference to specific films would've done a lot more to bolster his argument.

that's what i was trying to do too! hard to take bad writing about bad writing seriously tho. i'm not even sure what exactly he's saying.

(Then again, in reading it again, that would've removed about 80% of the content.)

reference to specific articles would have helped. his ideas are almost completely unsupported.

it's a blog.

what year did "unpack" become a synonym for deconstruct? sounds like work.

isn't the whole post just about being hypersensitive to the sensation that talking about films in most internet quarters is a matter of liking the movies/filmmakers with cred and tearing down the usual suspects? It's all a completely subjective stance anyway.

On another note, the idea that the relentlessly self-assured Mike D'Angelo and his vocational nine lives can't even get work as a freelance critic these days has me pretty down in the dumps about the scene.

i guess it's just not an issue i'm too passionate about haha! xp

ya i'm holding onto my staff job with my fingernails.

(as well as thinking about other options just in case...)

although to be honest my job involves editing & planning, i'm a section editor and not just a staff critic.

which would be a sweet job.

Honestly, I can see why it's an anomaly such things exist.

And I have to hope that's not just schadenfreude talking.

(FT film critic jobs, I mean)

ya. it's really NOT full-time work unless you take 8-16 hours to write a review.

That's exactly what MDA admitted on his blog. He said it was rare he ever put more than 15 hours in a week on the gig.

It could probably be more if you're the sole critic for a city paper. Chris Hewitt at the St. Paul Pioneer Press handles the duties entirely by himself, to the tune of 8-10 movies a week sometimes.

xp: How about 4 hours?

If I've ever taken longer than an hour or two on a review, it's because my computer is connected to the Internet and it's entirely too easy to get distracted. That said, I'm sure I've had a draft open for 8 hours every now and again, especially when I feel like I have to make the review 1500 words or more for those features, et al.

I'm just perpetually out of practice, tho. When we were doing the Brian De Palma thing and I had to do about half of the reviews myself, I ended up banging out 1000 words pretty quickly.

i write ridiculously fast (and i'm sure it shows!)

A lot of the reviews I write fast are the ones that my editors like the best, but are also the ones I feel the worst about.

When it comes down to it, even editors at alts are probably fine, thanks, without the writerly BS.

how do you mean?

I mean, if I give myself enough time, that's when I start making conscious "decisions" (to put it nicely) as a "writer" and adopting weird structural strategies, rather than just getting the damned review out on paper. And then it comes back with one paragraph annotated with a note from the editor saying something like "couldn't you just write 'The dog jumped over the fence.' here?" ... Exaggeration, but you know.

Most of my most liked reviews and essays are the ones I bang out the fastest – the equivalent of a band's B-side or single recorded for commercial reasons.

Eric OTM about how quickly one can write blurbs for weeklong or daylong features.

Seriously, if you're in practice and in routine (and work for a paper where your editorial staff remind you that sticking to appraisals of the story/script/performances is best), I can't imagine how easy it would be to be a FT blurbslinger.

But also how easy it would be to burn out on it.

Just ask Dickens.

Like my man Chuck D said
What a blogger know?

I don't even try to write well until I rewrite.

Now that's where I think taking a little extra time isn't a bad thing, because I always hand in my first draft.

I've read too much Henry James to let anyone look over my shoulder.

I think I went to the dictionary at least once in the midst of Eric's last Disney DVD review.

haha!

Most of my most liked reviews and essays are the ones I bang out the fastest – the equivalent of a band's B-side or single recorded for commercial reasons.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, May 16, 2008 6:19 PM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

ya!

i think it really helps you as a writer to have to write lots of short fast things.

Writing short is harder, for sure.

Which word, MREs?

I think the only word I ever really stumped Ed on may have been crepuscular.

Ya, writing those 225 blurbs for City Pages was always a big chore. Those I would also send in as first drafts (at $30 a pop, I was not about to waste too much time on that), and frequently what I saw in print didn't even remotely resemble what I had submitted.

The trick is to squeeze the snark-per-syllable (SPS) count betwixt the synopsis.

And as for speed, I guess I dunno. This was probably one of the quickest reviews I've turned out as of late, and I think it's also one of the laziest.

I really have come to hate being on the Disney beat.

I don't remember, it wasn't "MREs." I'm hoping to stump Ed with refs to the Don Adams sitcom in my Get Smart review.

The Disney beat? Did you lose a bet?

xp Aristocats: OK, that'll do, I had to look up croque-monsieur!

(I saw that in '70 btw)