Critics, 3/25.

As you may have heard, Nathan Lee has been "abruptly laid off" by the Village Voice and is now, "as they say, 'looking for work,' though presumably not as a staff film critic as such jobs no longer appear to exist." The quotes come from "an email to colleagues" passed along by Reeler ST VanAirsdale, who notes that "New York newspapers have now lost four full-time film critics in the last month." If you have any interest in the implications here at all, you'll want to check the threads running at the Reeler and the House Next Door. For example, Matt Zoller Seitz writes, "I think we're fast approaching the point where criticism will become, for the most part, a devotion rather than a job."

Updated through 3/31.

"Last week, I was invited among 10 foreign guests to Bucharest to take part in a round table discussion on 'Romanian Films Today,' generously hosted by the Romanian Film Critics Association," blogs Ronald Bergan at the Guardian. Naturally, where the current wave's come from was one topic; but where it's going was another: "[A]ll the directors I spoke to were determined to keep their independence even if it meant refusing money from a co-production which could mean profits leaving the country and some interference with the production. Of course, there was the danger that Romania might start producing the type of films that festivals expect of them, as Iran did previously."

Harry Tuttle comments on the recent Responsibilities of Criticism seminar.

Online comic relief. From Ty Burr.

Updates, 3/26: "Nathan Lee, a member of the New York Film Critics Circle, is a perfervid cinephile (I hope he'll appreciate that phrase), a writer whose insights and observations are penetrating, often pointed and even more often hilarious," writes Jim Emerson, who offers several entertaining snippets to back up the claim. Then, he gets into the matter at hand:

I'm afraid that the demise of writing and reporting for newspapers and magazines may be attributable to nothing so much as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once readers start feeling that a publication offers no particular personality, that one review or reviewer is interchangeable with any other, then the next step is inevitable: They realize there's no reason to pick up that particular publication. The web has more than its share of ignorant, inarticulate movie bloggers - but it also offers strong, distinctive personalities and points of view. I'm overwhelmed by how many smart, vigorous, thoughtful ones I find, simply by jumping from one blogroll to another (and I add new ones to my right column whenever I can).

Robert Cashill: "I side with the majority: The web has its uses, but the depth and breadth of coverage beyond simple reviews and gossipy palaver is lacking, online as well as in print (which, to its detriment, is apeing blog style, or what is thought of as blog style - snark, yelling, one-sidedness)."

Miriam Bale talks with J Hoberman for the Reeler: "'It's interesting,' he said as he then recalled that Karen Durbin, a self-declared sex-positive feminist (and current film reviewer for Elle), was his editor at the Voice [in the early 80s], and that his many conversations with her were probably assimilated into his view. Durbin said in a recent panel at the Woodstock Film Festival that Hoberman is indeed one of the most feminist men she knows, but when I asked if he considers himself a feminist film critic, he said that he was hesitant to be called any '-ist.'"

"For those of us old enough to have put a few years effort towards such a career but too young to have achieved any kind of institutional seniority, [the recent string of firings] is a pretty troubling state of affairs," writes Karina Longworth at the SpoutBlog. "Strippers are winning Oscars, but I have no future? There's a great joke here, but because it's on me it's up to someone else to unpack."

"Lee, a gifted writer with his own idiosyncratic taste and a brawler's verve, who earned attention for his work in the New York Sun and the New York Times, will surely land on his feet," predicts Phil Nugent at ScreenGrab. "It's not so clear how much of the Voice's reputation as a vital force in film coverage will be left standing by this latest development."

Update, 3/27: "[T]he recent fuss within the film community - namely, regarding what might happen to a highly circulated, printed form of published film criticism - seems impulsive," writes Ricky D'Ambrose in the Tisch Film Review. "What should matter - rather, what our anxieties should be directing us towards as viewers and thinkers of the cinema - is the fate of seriousness."

There may be yet more bad news and soon, warns Variety's Peter Debruge: "Word has it that revenues are way, way down at the chain and at least one of our friends at the LA Weekly will likely be pounding the pavements before the week is out."

Updates, 3/30: Via the House Next Door: "Imagine several prominent film critics writing under the same masthead," proposes Jason Bellamy:

Imagine these critics not having to waste their talents by writing reviews of three lousy February releases for the same Friday. Imagine being able to read your favorite critic as he/she dips back into the vault to write about films past. Imagine, in essence, if someone combined the best elements of paid criticism with the qualities of the best film blogs.

Can't this happen? And can't it provide money for the publisher daring enough to try it and provide a tremendous boost to film criticism for those of us who wish to read it?

I'd this is going through a lot of minds right now. Thing is, I can't think offhand of a corollary that's worked yet - e.g., a single one-stop, go-to site for political opinion or literary, music or art criticism. Online, writers tend to go solo (and of course, unpaid) and readers gather their own clusters, their daily, weekly or semi-regular reads via feeds and bookmarks.

At the Reeler, Kent Jones replies to a comment aimed at his 2005 piece in Film Comment on Andrew Sarris. Regarding Pauline Kael: "[S]he chronicled the sensation of taking part in the conversation, with devotion and care, and that was her great achievement. As a critic, however, I think that she assured her audience that they could take a pass on way too many movies - movies that necessarily disrupted the conversation, movies that were finally the inconvenient guests at the party."

Update, 3/31: "The staff of Newsweek will shrink dramatically, after 111 staffers on its news and business sides accepted a buyout last week," reports Radar. "Among those leaving are some of the magazine's best-known, most-admired and longest-service critics, including David Gates, David Ansen and Cathleen McGuigan." Via the House Next Door. And Glenn Kenny comments.

Posted by dwhudson at March 25, 2008 3:55 PM