Critics (again).

"If we don't champion our critics, who will?" asks Patrick Goldstein in the Los Angeles Times. "We need to reinvent their roles to combat the $40-million mass-hypnosis marketing that occurs every weekend a big movie opens." As Anne Thompson notes on her must-read Risky Biz Blog, Goldstein breathes new life into a dead horse (the "are critics relevant?" question) by suggesting what might be done about critics' widely perceived waning influence. It's a suggestion she "heartily endorse[s]: major news outlets should give their critics blogs and encourage them to weigh in before the official studio review dates."

She then takes it another step further by explaining how "various influential movie sites like Movie City News and Hollywood Elsewhere" are already part of Hollywood's marketing cycle (David Poland responds; Jeffrey Wells is thinking about it). This, she feels, could be short-circuited by shifting the moment long-established print and broadcast media critics weigh in on a film far earlier than when they do now, "on opening day. Which admittedly now seems very late in the day. I love this idea! And it will drive the studios nuts."

But will it?

Updated through 8/19.

Media companies know what they're facing; they've read The Long Tail. They've proven themselves to be faster on the uptake than many major newspapers and magazines. As Katrina Longworth, former Cinematical editor and now a Lead Anchor at Netscape.com, explains in an entry at her new blog, the studios rewire those cycles pretty quickly now.

New Line, for example, which, with Snakes on a Plane, has produced what Matt Dentler calls "a first of its kind, a 'user-generated movie' in the age of a 'user-generated' media revolution," now has, as Karina notes, "an internet marketing division, which first came out in full force earlier this year during the promotion of Take the Lead. On the one hand, New Line were rightly commended for reaching out to teens by inviting them to create online mashups of footage and music from the film; on the other hand, eyebrows were definitely raised when their publicists started sending out invites to a 'blogger junket' - an all-expense paid trip to Los Angeles, where attendees were shown the film and given 'face time' with the stars."

In short, as that vague nebula known as critical consensus spreads wider and thinner, studios are laying on the bribes wider and thicker.

Above and beyond all that is an entirely different set of questions. Should every critic blog? What makes a great critic isn't necessarily what makes a great blogger, and lord knows, vice versa. Then there's the question of how many critics even want to blog. Do they want a closer relationship with their readers? Do we, the readers, want them stealing from time they usually invest in their reviews so they can tend to yet another movie blog?

Don't get me wrong. If, say, Manohla Dargis were to launch a blog, that'd be the first feed I'd read each morning (and anyone who remembers the "Ask Manohla" columns for the LAT and the Cannes Journal of 2005 for the NYT will certainly understand). And there are plenty of other critics I'd love to read more often; I'd be intrigued to know what their voices sound like when they relax a little. But we should be careful what we wish for. First, because blogs won't throw a wrench into the works of the "$40-million mass-hypnosis marketing"; instead, they're only likely to feed it. And second, because, with 50 million blogs already out there - and counting - no one should be forced to add to the noise.

Updates, 8/19: DK Holm's modest proposal: "I for one think that the studios should drop all critics and not screen their films for any of them. Let the critics pay and see the films the first weekend like everyone else. Ban Snider, and all the rest of us, too."

In the Los Angeles Times, Carina Chocano surveys "the smoldering landscape of the critics-versus-audiences wars."

Posted by dwhudson at August 16, 2006 11:57 AM