Have you actually approached Sight & Sound? Because I’ve seen loads of new faces in the reviews section since I started, including someone I myself recommended – and she’s not Oxbridge educated. (Neither am I, for that matter). The challenge, of course, is getting repeated and regular commissions, but there are no significant barriers to getting that first foot in the door that I’m aware of.
Roger Ebert used to be my favourite film critic, but he’s way past his expiry date and is starting to give out awful reviews and awful ratings to awful films. The day he gave “Zack and Miri Make a Porno” three stars was the day I lost all respect for the man.
My new favourite film critic is easily Mark Kermode. He’s just a genius. I agree with all his opinions, he’s smart, clever, funny, and he has superb taste in cinema.
Lachlan, just to play devil’s advocate, you shouldn’t think someone is a good critic just because you agree with them. And giving due to Ebert, even when he gives a good review to films that seem awful, he is at least honest and thoughtful in his appraisals. When he goes, I really think it will just be a nation of bookmarks.
I love love love Peter Bradshaw. Saw him at the LFF last year actually in a forum called ‘Is the internet killing the film critic’ and he was just as vivacious in real life. His one star film reviews are an institution in the UK. We do clash occasionally though – I still don’t get his Dancer in the Dark review. Nonetheless, I would say that I think he far surpasses Philip French whose reviews always seem so descriptive, with little real criticism, despite him being such a revered veteran. I love a bit of character in my critics.
I don’t believe film critisicism is at an end. As long as art is made there will be critique of it, objective opinions however are on the way out. I believe its because people finally realize that there is no such thing as real objectivity a bad review of an otherwise decent film might have been caused by a nasty head cold or a fight with the reviewer’s mom, wife, brother, or sister. i know this has effected my view on films and film reviewers are no different they live lives outside the theater.
Also it all depends on personal taste if a guy really likes zombie movies and gives something like “The Dead Next Door” a raving review of 5 stars well i’d say that someone more prestigous wouldn’t even look at it much less review it. I read two critics with any sort of regularity these are:
James Berardinelli of reelviews.net
Jeffrey M. Anderson of combustiblecelluloid.com
Jeff i have stopped reading as much as i find him really inconsistent. He gives a huge review of The Dark Knight and prasies it a decent sized (but thorughly angry) review of Apocolypto and slams it. but he gives a so so review to Mongol and only writes a paragraph the worst is when he gives a synopsis and literally two or so lines of review with no content (too many to list). He thinks everything Taratino shits is gold for no other reason other than its made by him.
James and I share very simular tastes however i rarely read his reviews sticking mostly to his “Reel Thoughts” section and only occasionally looking at a review when he gives a really bad one or a film that i’m interested in seeing. He posted his own thoughts about the fate of film critisism. I can’t sum them up as i don’t remember but if you head on over there and have a look i’m sure you could find it yourself.
The problem with film critics is every one of them has to come off as sounding like a goddamn overly-educated film historian that must use 75-cent words that require the reader to pull out the dictionary after every other word. I can watch a movie and write about it in 500 words or less, comparing and contrasting to other works, linking it to other important historic works and talking about how much I liked or disliked it without confusing the hell out of the reader and leaving them scratching their head half the time. I believe a whole new style of film critiquing needs to kick off in order to save this dying profession. Film critics should write for EVERYBODY, not just the elitist film historians. Journalists are required to write news stories in language that a 5th grader could understand, why should the rules be different for film critics? EVERYONE likes to go to the movies, and the idea is to get more people watching and appreciating these movies, so lets start writing do people can understand.
There’s a big advantage to the online film journals, in that you can use a lot of images and really show the reader what you are interpreting. In the print journal world space is very limited for that.
I have about 18 years’ worth of my published reviews from various newspapers and magazines carefully filed away; on the whole, I’ve always enjoyed reviewing films (whether on VHS, DVD, or for their cinema release,) but I’m aware that I always know what I myself do/don’t want to see. Reading film reviews – whether by career critics or on forums such as these – is always of interest to me, but they rarely influence my choice of film. So if I’m more or less impervious to others’ opinions over what is worth seeing, I guess I can’t expect people to see films based on my recommendations…
andrew kay
Michael, no disrespect to you, and I’m sure you’re not in the Nick James glee club, but it’s disheartening and depressing to see the same faces in Sight and Sound on a monthly basis. If it’s not Jason Solomons or Geoff Andrew, it’s Ryan Gilbey or Mark Kermode or another one of James’ inner circle. These guys have other critics jobs, which are usually highly paid, and the amount of remixing of their own opinions that they do for print or TV is just a case of media whoring. It leaves precious little room for new talent or other critics wanting to work for Sight and Sound or other places. It’s very much a closed shop; most national film critics in the UK are Oxbridge educated. Now there’s a surprise.
I’m aware the critics who write the reviews for Sight and Sound aren’t paid well, but there’s a problem there of going too in depth into a movie, with a tendency to over-intellectualize, which can be as off-putting as having to review crappy movies.
I wrote for the Morning Star and was pushed out because I wasn’t ‘on message’ enough and mostly apolitical in my reviewing, which pissed the readers off, and soon the editor, despite my lasting nearly 6 years there. For a newspaper that moans about the exploitation of the workers, they paid around £1 an hour for my services, and that was after two years of not being paid at all. I managed to maintain integrity and write decent copy, leaving there with 1,200 reviews. But it’s been next to impossible to secure freelance or steady work since 2004.
So, sitting in a room with smugly overpaid gasbags, was, for the most part, grating. Apart from Peter Bradshaw, most of them acted so stuck up and so self absorbed. The sense of artifice created from being in a private screening room with huge seats, food and drink and attractive female PR (most critics are male) is all too obvious. It would be nice if they came down to the real world, as I had to, working a 20 hour day, twice a week, for 6 years, add that to my other job, and I was clocking up nearly 100 hours a week, while these so-called critics did a two day week for around £40,000-80,000 pa. Nice work if you can get it… mustn’t be late for the gravy train…
I imagine that Chris Tookey is probably the highest paid critic in the UK. But in terms of coverage, he’s upstaged by Baz Bamigboye, the showbiz editor. The highest paid used to be Alexander Walker, but Associated Newspapers might as well have a bottomless pit of money, as they can afford to pay high prices for the best.