News & Features Feedback
New This WeekAround TownMusicFilmArtTheaterNews & FeaturesFood & DrinkAstrology
  HOME
NEW THIS WEEK
EDITORS' PICKS
LISTINGS
NEWS & FEATURES
MUSIC
FILM
ART
BOOKS
THEATER
DANCE
TELEVISION
FOOD & DRINK
ARCHIVES
LETTERS
PERSONALS
CLASSIFIEDS
ADULT
ASTROLOGY
PHOENIX FORUM DOWNLOAD MP3s

  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
FILM
Critical situation?
BY PETER KEOUGH

Every year at this time, film critics enjoy a sense of prestige and prominence as they compile their 10-best lists or vote in critics’ societies on their film favorites. This year, however, a couple of recent developments call into question the significance of these annual rituals, if not of film criticism itself.

In an article titled " Nix to the Crix " in the January 6 issue of Variety, the publication’s editor, Peter Bart, bewildered by the esoteric films chosen on some critics’ 10-best lists and those awarded prizes by critics’ groups, asks, " How could anyone conjure up such a mixed bag of cinematic effluvia? " He suggests that critics fall into three categories — the " ‘pop culture is yucky’ school, " the " obscurantist school, " and the " ‘I admit-to-brain-damage’ school " — and poses the rhetorical question, " What purpose do critics serve? "

Meanwhile, Steven Erlanger, the new culture editor of the New York Times, might have been posing the question, " What purpose do film critics’ societies serve? " when he reinstituted the paper’s policy of not allowing critics to participate in such organizations.

As reported January 13 by Roger Friedman for Fox News, Times film critics A.O. Scott and Elvis Mitchell, who are members of the National Society of Film Critics and the New York Film Critics Society, and Stephen Holden, who is a member of the New York group, will have to relinquish their memberships in these organizations. Erlanger was not available for comment, but his assistant, Ruth Strauss, confirmed the decision, and surmised that the reason behind it was concern about " conflict of interest."

As for Bart’s screed, Salon critic Charles Taylor swiftly responded in the January 13 issue of the online magazine in defense of his profession. " By taking the line that critics serve no purpose, " Taylor writes, " Bart is — intentionally or not — doing the bidding of the studios, which, while maintaining a blasé public attitude toward critics, would love to be rid of them. What industry chief doesn’t dream about being able to market his product in an atmosphere where the public has no information save that provided by the manufacturer?... When the editor in chief of the publication known as ‘the Bible of showbiz’ takes this public stand against critics, it’s a fair bet that Hollywood is no longer feeling shy about making its true feelings about movie critics known. "

Taylor makes no bones about his own true feelings about film critics. " In a culture increasingly dominated by promotion, " he claims, " critics are the only thing that stand between moviegoers’ wallets and the studio publicity departments with their kazillion-dollar ad budgets. " Whether their tenuous position will survive Bart’s and the studios’ assaults or the Times’ seeming vote of no confidence in critics organizations remains to be seen.

Issue Date: January 16 - 23, 2003
Back to the News and Features table of contents.
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend

home | feedback | about the phoenix | find the phoenix | advertising info | privacy policy | the masthead | work for us

 © 2003 Phoenix Media Communications Group