Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« They Sent It to Us: "Color Me ... | Random Text Message, April 1, ... »

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

“That the Village Voice doesn’t want to pay for two staff film critics is a joke. There is so much to cover.”

posted by on April 1 at 11:26 AM

David Carr has a piece in today’s New York Times called Now on the Endangered Species List: Movie Critics in Print, which hangs on the news about what’s happening to film critics all over the country—Nathan Lee was just laid off by the Village Voice, David Ansen is taking a buyout from Newsweek, etc.

Given that movie blogs are strewn about the Web like popcorn on a theater floor, there are those who say that movie criticism is not going away, it’s just appearing on a different platform… But for a certain kind of movie, critical accolades can mean the difference between relevance and obscurity, not to mention box office success or failure.

“For those of us who are making work that requires a kind of intellectual conversation, we rely on that talk to do the work of getting people interested,” said Mr. Rudin, who produced “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood,” two Oscar-nominated and critically championed films last year. “All of the talk about ‘No Country,’ all of the argument about the ending, kept that film in the forefront of the conversation” and helped it win the best picture Oscar.

(Not to put too fine a point on it but, uh, if you read Slog, you found out about the David Ansen news yesterday.)

RSS icon Comments


It doesnt matter if there is so much to cover if the reader doesnt pick up the paper for that reason.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | April 1, 2008 11:30 AM

Well, for better or for worse, the main reason anyone picks up any alt-weekly any more is to read Dan's column. So does that mean the rest of the paper should be printed on toilet paper?

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | April 1, 2008 11:44 AM

I must be a dinosaur but I still read newspapers and I still choose what movies to see based on what critics say about it. There is so much out there to see now and frankly very little free time to see the movies, so I appreciate the help in prioritizing what to see in the theater. I admit it makes me feel good to both agree with a critic "yeah, right on" and disagree "that boob didn't know what he was talking about Bruce Willis is still totally hot." I don't care if the critics switch to online media but please, don't eliminate their voices. And some yahoo's blog in Iowa is NOT the same as a well thought out review.

Posted by PopTart | April 1, 2008 11:51 AM

Who reads a print edition when the internet is so much handier and it doesn't dirty your fingers? The only thing I miss about reading the print editions of The Village Voice and The Stranger are the adds (seriously). Try to figure out how to put all your rock club ads into the web edition.

Posted by elswinger | April 1, 2008 12:51 PM

I don't miss the adds, I miss the subtracts and the multiplies.

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | April 1, 2008 2:35 PM

I almost never go to a movie without checking reviews first.

I used to read the reviews in the local paper, primarily because that was all that was easily accessible. That helps, to a degree, but only if my movie tastes coincide with the reviewer's, or if I can decode the reviewer's bias and decide if it's my thing or not.

With the internet, it's so much easier. I can read dozens of reviews quickly and easily. I can pick reviewers who's tastes match mine to some degree, without regard to where they are from or what newspaper they write for (or if they write for any paper at all). With sites like, you can get a broad consensus of what a lot of reviewers think of a movie.

Who needs newspaper reviewers?

Posted by Reverse Polarity | April 1, 2008 3:29 PM

Who needs a critic when you can enormous penis!!!

Posted by Christopher Frizzelle's Enormous Penis | April 3, 2008 10:06 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).