No disrespect to you Mr. Hillis, nor to any of the fine writers involved in this podcast, but haven't we seen an awful lot of these future-of-film-criticism discussions lately? For those of us interested in movies who do not make our living in that particular profession, the seemingly endless deluge of navel-gazing shop-talk comes across as, well, just that. It's interesting and important up to a point, of course, but I'd encourage you (and all you other smart webcrit folks) to consider the general cinephile reader. I love reading about movies, but all this meta-stuff is getting old. That said, good luck with your new post here at GreenCine; I'll be a regular reader.

I don't think barry listened to the podcast before he posted his comment here. I think if he did he would've found it refreshing and important, like I did.
I am a filmmaker who has just begun writing about film and i am trying to present my work in an inclusive way. It's nice to hear loud demands for such writing. very enjoyable podcast. thank you.

Well, Peter was right — I posted that comment before listening. I did enjoy the podcast and found it interesting, particularly for Matt's points about giving people linguistic tools for things they already understand internally. But I think my point still stands: this is shop-talk, and there's probably been too much of it. Anyway, happy new year to all and I look forward to good daily reading.

As one of those writers who use arrogant hyperbole, I am offended at yr comments...NO, actually I am just kidding. Seriously though, as a film writer, I do want to dumb down my writings in any way to "reach" the common moviegoer (though I do that exact thing when I write pieces for my local paper) so I write as I think. My thinking process may be a bit like a meth-head Proustian beating his chest at cinema, so perhaps that does not get to the common people so much, but alas, most people don't know what I am talking about when I rant aloud anyway (much like you, I am guessing, right about now).

Granted, if one is writing a weekly/daily/whatever column for reviewing film, then it probably is best to dumb down so to speak, in order to get the written-about film the recognition it needs, but when writing for what are mostly cinephiles - preaching to the choir as it were - there is no need to bring yr voice down a level. When writing for such an audience, one should write about something as if their readers know as much as they do. No one of course knows everything that someone else knows but that is a great way to write, and a great way to learn. When I read reviews by the likes of Jim Hoberman, there are times he uses such obscure references, I do not get them. I end up looking them up though, and learning something. I would not expect Mr. Hoberman to change his writing style to grab a larger crowd.

Many times, I see movies based on the director, and I am a true blue Auteurist, so perhaps this is where my itchings come from, yet, I am still a big fan of the writings of Pauline Kael. My writings on film are sort of (at least influence-wise) a mix between her and some sort of Beat mentality of extended sentence structure and mixed-in modern colloquialisms, with a big-ass tongue-in-cheek arrogance. The writing is not for everyone (as I said I write differently for my local paper) and probably shouldn't be, but the idea of dumbing down a writer's voice is just a cop-out of sorts.

I know that dumbing down is not exactly what you are advocating, and I apologize for the term, but it is a roundabout end result to at least part of yr mission statement as it were. Perhaps I misunderstood though.

Anyway, that is just my one cent (recession and all) worth of diatribe. Carry on.

That last comment did ramble on (and a typo - I hate those) and it almost seems as if I was mad, but I twas not. Just disagreeing on one of yr points was all. Take care and good luck with the new gig.

Barry: You could call it shop-talk, but if the goal is to better ourselves and determine what we can do to help stop the ghettoization of criticism (which is exactly what has been happening), that also benefits you, no?

Kevyn: I understand your concern, but I don't think accessibility is equivocal to "dumbing-down." Not at all. I just think that sometimes (and not always, but when appropriate) we as critics should take time to explain the references we make, so as not to alienate budding cinephiles. It's more about inclusiveness, which shouldn't be every film writer's primary goal, but if nobody tries to bridge the gap, what we do threatens to become an academic niche at best. Trust me, I don't want to see J. Hoberman, Michael Sicinski or Acquerello change their flavor.

Yes I know. You are right Aaron. I do it when I write for my local paper. I just get crazy sometimes is all. Actually I am trying to hone my writing to be part academic, part modernist, part rant and part kitsch. My review of Valkyrie (and upcoming review of Ben Button) are my first attempts at a new style. A style that is a bit less rambling I suppose (or perhaps it is more so). Anyway, this really has nothing to do with the post, so...

holy crap, so I've been "pubcasting" for a year.

it all makes sense now.

"Your mom should be a film critic!"

I love it.