Re: Sideways as one of the worst films of the year. Can you really trust a guy who trashes Pierrot le Fou? The defense rests its case.

And poorly reasoned, semi-confessional prattle from A.O. Scott (the usual half-baked silliness that comes in the Arts & Leisure section on Sunday morning) simply doesn't constitute a "backlash." Scott fails to consider that some films get panned precisely BECAUSE the critics see themselves. Rio Bravo was almost unanimously panned upon its original release as "just another Western." Did the critics of the time see too much of themselves in drunk Dean Martin or crippled Walter Brennan?

As for Scott's argument that critics are attracted to "variations on the theme of a moody, cerebral fellow graced by the kind of romantic love," that general description could apply to almost any movie released last year: The Aviator (moody Howard Hughes graced by the love of building airplanes), Million Dollar Baby (moody, Yeats-reading boxer graced by the kind of paternal love he finds in a 31 year old boxer), The Incredibles (moody superheroes graced by the kind of love they find in being superheroes again), and Hotel Rwanda (moody fellow graced by the kind of love for Tutsis).

Yeah, the problem with praising a film one loves is risk of "Overrating Syndrome" - in which the more praise is lavished upon a film, the more likely a backlash.

It's all very predictable, really. I certainly hesitated before putting Sideways on my own list, until realizing I wasn't hesitating because I was unsure whether I liked it or whether it deserved a spot - I still thought it did - but much more stupidly, because I hate being another member of the chorus, another person adding to a film's "Overrated Syndome."

Alexander Payne himself said he thought it was a good little film but never expected such effusive praise nationwide, but he shouldn't be blamed for that and those of us who liked it shouldn't be suddenly made to feel stupid for doing so. Maybe someday, when all this has blown over and people can revisit the film with fresh eyes, will they see all over again why I, and many others, liked it. Is it Citizen Kane? No. But it's very good for what it is.

Thompson and Scott are entitled to their opinion, of course.

I'm frankly surprised there's been as much reaction to Scott's piece as there as been. David Poland, for example, writes what looks to be a couple of times as many words in reaction (albeit within a larger ongoing (and ongoing and ongoing) critique of the NYT's supposed misuse of its power, intentional or not). He remains just this side of civil (after all, I'm sure he appreciates the link), but his anger is palpable.

Then Eugene Hernandez works mention of Scott's piece into the very headline of a shortish piece on how all the critics' awards are panning out... I dunno. When I read the piece, I simply wondered: Who is Scott talking to? Why isn't that little gray "Critic's Notebook" thingie hanging over that meanish headline, "The Most Overrated Film of the Year"? Why isn't this, say, a blog entry somewhere instead, or better yet, an opening salvo in Slate's "Movie Club," a far less formal (and much more fun) forum where this would have been much more appropriate?

UItimately, though, it's not that big a deal... is it?

One can just as easily argue that reactions to bad films are just as intense.

But I know what you're talking about, Craig. When I practiced film criticism, one of the unexpectedly pleasant aspects was talking about the film with fellow critics (ideally, as far away from the publicists as possible) almost immediately afterward. If I'd seen a string of bad movies, eyes bulging out of sockets, I'd need someone who would sympathize. About the last thing I'd do is foist such a "burden" upon someone outside of the critical community. Outside of filmfest regulars, who else could understand so well that the sensation of seeing about four to five films back to back inevitably wore one down, no matter HOW passionate you were about the movies?

So inevitably I'd yak with other critics. Of course the downside of this was that my opinion become slightly corrupted, no matter how skillful or detailed my notes and observations were. And so like anyone, sometimes, I overcompensated in my writing.

I suspect the danger of aping one's critical peers might be one of the reasons Scott feels the need to rail against a Good Thing, just as another critic (Anthony Lane's review of Phantom of the Opera comes to mind) might savage another.

But then we're talking about meta big time here. As David quite rightly points out above, this sort of quibble is comparable to a tossed off blog entry.

As for Poland's lengthy post, I think he's onto something. The NYT's arts coverage in general has represented too much of a blur between fact and opinion, and its presentation has been less than stellar. (Witness Sam Tanenhaus's dumbing down of the NYTBR or Deborah Solomon's short attention span attack dog interviews.) So perhaps the gossip as intellectual review angle IS more of a problem than we realize.

Ed, good point about critical pile-ons going both ways. About the blur between fact and opinion, well, I wish there were a lot more of that going on, actually. The tradition that demands that American newspapers must pretend to an impossible objectivity is what makes them, in general, IMHO, inferior to European papers.

You've lived in Europe, you know this. [g] You know that when you're reading the Frankfurter Allgemeine you're getting a conservative take on the news; and a liberal one in the Süddeutsche and an old school lefty one in the taz and so on. Journalists are freer to report a fuller picture of political, social and cultural events precisely because they don't have to bleed them of their own perceptions.

Now that Americans can read the British papers online - and there, of course, the press landscape is mapped out just as clearly and openly - I wonder if most of us could imagine doing without them. I sure wouldn't want to.