criterionforum.org

From the IFC Blog:

Goodbye, Village Voice, goodbye.

We'd heard talk of this a few days ago, and now it's being confirmed on Gawker and on blogs like Anthony Kaufman's: Village Voice critic Michael Atkinson was canned a few days ago, and now film editor Dennis Lim has been fired as well. J. Hoberman is the last man standing at what was once one of the great bastions of uncompromising film criticism and coverage, as well as the place several of our favorite critics got their start.

There's a lot of burbling media gossip below the surface here it's not our place to go into — but one thing we do have to wonder is, sans staff and, apparently, interest, will the new Voice continue to review all New York film openings? Alongside the New York Times (and Time Out New York, we suppose) the Voice has been the one of the only reliable print outlet to go to for reviews of the indies opening at theaters like the Quad and the Pioneer.

Tough times, tough times.

I had no idea that Dennis Lim was fired. Grimfarrow must be pissed (and rightfully so).

Anthony Kaufman wrote:Village Voice Watch: Film Editor Dennis Lim Fired
And so it goes. Many of us saw it coming. But just wouldn't, couldn't believe it. But after Ridgeway and Schanberg and Christgau got the axe, a half dozen other senior editors were forced out, and the national syndicate of arts reviewers moved in, it was inevitable that longtime Village Voice film critic/editor Dennis Lim would be next on the chopping block of New Times management.

As Lim leaves the Voice's pages, so, too, do the auteurs he's championed over the years, from Guy Maddin to Spike Jonze, Jia Zhang-Ke to David Lynch, Tsai Ming-liang to Hou Hsiao-hsien. Art-house lovers, we're at the end of an era. Independent distributors IFC Films, Zeitgeist, ThinkFilm, Roadside, Palm, Kock Lorber, Kino, and First Run, if you think you had a friend at alternative weeklies across this country, you can think again. Film critics can also say goodbye to the Voice's annual film poll -- a yearly rite of passage for many critics, both aspiring and established -- which I can't imagine will be renewed under the new management.

Lim -- who, full disclosure, edited many of the pieces I wrote for the Voice -- came up with some of the most hilarious, witty, insightful, political, sharp-fanged film criticism and film packages over the years. The inspired meta-Adaptation cover package was one of the great achievements, stirring rancor in some; praise in others.(The lead story is conspiculously not functioning on the web; for now, check out this exchange with a freelance writer).

Just this year, Lim bravely went ahead and published the first review of United 93, singling out the jingoistic ending later cut for public consumption. And in one of my favorite recent pieces, Lim had me in stitches with his ripping into Memoirs of a Geisha ("You are! To become! Geisha!").

I have no doubt that Lim will end up on his feet -- witness his several recent pieces for the New York Times. It's the rest of us readers I'm worried about. As venerable Voice critic J. Hoberman hangs by a thread, one of the last remaining vestiges of the original paper, it's come time to realize that for those who want a truly alternative newsweekly, throw in the towel, accept the end, the Voice is dead.

I didn't know where else to post this, so move it wherever it belongs (including the trash if necessary).

Does anyone still read the Voice? Time Out New York has much broader (but necessarily more shallow) film coverage. And anyway you can go online to read scads of reviews for even the most obscure films. I'd rather read Daniel Kasman (to name one of dozens) than the VV any day. Journalism is a dying field and people with that occupation need to prepare for the worst.

Barmy wrote:Does anyone still read the Voice? Time Out New York has much broader (but necessarily more shallow) film coverage. And anyway you can go online to read scads of reviews for even the most obscure films. I'd rather read Daniel Kasman (to name one of dozens) than the VV any day. Journalism is a dying field and people with that occupation need to prepare for the worst.

Oh, I think people still read the Voice. I know when I lived in NYC it was something I read cover to cover every week. But I'm sure this is changing with all these critics getting the boot. I would be willing to bet that a lot of readers are loyal to these writers as they have been around a long time.

The final nail will be when they can Hoberman. I know that's when I will finally stop reading it. It should be interesting to see where these guys pop up next. It was hinted that Lim might surface at the New York Times and I'm sure Hoberman will have no problem getting a regular gig but I wonder if he'll enjoy the same freedom he had at the Voice?

Jeff wrote:Yilmaz, is that you? I don't think that the unfortunate shitcanning has anything to do with Atkinson's (or Lim's) taste in cinema. As Barmy pointed out, this is about the changing face of journalism. If New Times has a cheap national syndicate of reviewers (however mediocre they may be), they're going to use them.

But there's a connection between the kind of reviewers New Times hires and their chain-store philosophy. They want people with a "hipper-than-thou" writing style and tastes in film that won't alienate readers in the broad selection of markets they publish in. For a market like New York City, this means a dumbing-down.

Living in a market with TWO New Times papers on newsstands (thank God for the competing SF Bay Guardian) I also note that the film coverage is decidedly apolitical, in line with the chain's "no endorsements" policy and vaguely libertarian "lets all make money and have fun" bent.

The Voice has been firing longtime contributors left and right over the past year - the music dept. alone lost Chuck Eddy and, last month, the legendary Robert Christgau, which was the last goddam straw for me. I've been reading The Dean for ten years, and couldn't believe they actually screwed up the balls to toss one of the architects of rock criticism onto the street. Lim and Atkinson are just another outrage, but hardly surprising.

The thing that's really sad is that the Voice has slowly been changing their format for several years now. Used to be, you could sink your teeth into long, juicy articles on music, film, literature - writers were given the deadlines and room to sprawl that most writers dreamed about. Luckily, a lot of Voice writers were good enough to be given that freedom. Now, you'll be hard pressed to find a film article longer than a couple paragraphs. And the reasons are, as Jeff suggested, largely budgetary. Here's hoping Hoberman leaves before the humiliation of being fired - or perhaps getting canned from the Village Voice is quickly becoming a badge of honor?

Andre Jurieu wrote:I had no idea that Dennis Lim was fired. Grimfarrow must be pissed (and rightfully so).

Alas, this doesn't come as a surprise. I'm not pissed - the turmoil has been going on for a while, so it was a matter of time. Sigh. But it really is the end of an era for smart, critical writing on film. Jim is there still, but really, it's last man standing.

Grimfarrow wrote:But it really is the end of an era for smart, critical writing on film.

In the US, at least, that end probably arrived over 30 years ago. These V2 guys were perhaps clever enough, and passable writers, but I never sensed they or any of the other East Coast based "elite" critics - read NYer, Film Comment, etc folks - had the least feel for filmmaking.

Godard was right. The best film critic is a filmmaker. And the best critique, a film. The rest are just pretending.

Grimfarrow wrote:... the turmoil has been going on for a while ...

In fact, I know well someone who was approached eight years ago to take over the film desk at V2 when Lim's predecessor was out on maternity leave. The clear impression he got was that his first act, should he take the job, was supposed to be to fire Hoberman. He didn't take the job, but he always regretted not being able to oblige the editor-in-chief!

yoshimori wrote:Godard was right. The best film critic is a filmmaker. And the best critique, a film. The rest are just pretending.

Sorry, but no. The reason why the voting for Film Festivals like Cannes, Berlin and Venice are utterly broken is because filmmakers are NOT good critics. At. All. After all, how do you explain to someone who has never seen a Ken Loach film that THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY is by far not his best film?

I know a boatload of filmmakers (and you know this is true). And I can count a handful that I'd trust to be a critic or jury on anything.

gubbelsj wrote:The thing that's really sad is that the Voice has slowly been changing their format for several years now. Used to be, you could sink your teeth into long, juicy articles on music, film, literature - writers were given the deadlines and room to sprawl that most writers dreamed about. Luckily, a lot of Voice writers were good enough to be given that freedom. Now, you'll be hard pressed to find a film article longer than a couple paragraphs. And the reasons are, as Jeff suggested, largely budgetary. Here's hoping Hoberman leaves before the humiliation of being fired - or perhaps getting canned from the Village Voice is quickly becoming a badge of honor?

I hear that. But you're right about the gradual changing of format of the Voice... I noticed the same thing with Film Comment. They used to have great, indepth interviews with the likes of Tim Burton (re: Ed Wood) or David Fincher (re: Fight Club) but hardly have any interviews any more. They also used to do excellent, indepth analysis of classic Hollywood films and hardly do that anymore. I used to subscribe to the magazine for years but stopped recently just because I felt that the magazine has changed too much for my liking. It's a shame because I think it still has a lot of merit.

For me the beginning of the end for the Voice was when Alexander Cockburn (their press critic) was fired and Andrew Sarris departed (I don't know if it was under his own steam). Since then, the Voice has been but a pale imitation of its former self, those of us who pick it up for free are paying too much.

The Times' once comprehensive coverage is fast going downhill as well. They stop reviewing New Directors/New Films Fest movies a couple of years ago, and this year they've stopped reviewing even NY Film Festival films (they do mash-up articles, but that is hardly the same thing.) A shame, because they do have good critics in Scott, Dargis and Kerr.

Grimfarrow wrote:Sorry, but no. The reason why the voting for Film Festivals like Cannes, Berlin and Venice are utterly broken is because filmmakers are NOT good critics. At. All. After all, how do you explain to someone who has never seen a Ken Loach film that THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY is by far not his best film?

I know a boatload of filmmakers (and you know this is true). And I can count a handful that I'd trust to be a critic or jury on anything.

I'm afraid I don't know much about the subject of the Village Voice, but I would second Grimfarrow's comments. I really enjoy hearing filmmaker's comments and particular films they like but I wouldn't expect them to take on the task of talking about other films and placing them in the context of careers or national cinemas. There are of course exceptions, such as some of the introductions Criterion does with directors for some of their DVDs but then there are also filmmakers who might not have the wide knowledge in order to compare a film with other similar, maybe obscure or much older films that covered similar themes. Also you can perhaps rely on a critic, especially a veteran to make an informed evaluation of whether a director's film is one of his best, a return to form, or perhaps not as good as previous works, when someone without such in depth knowledge might be wowed by a more disappointing piece because it is their first experience of that filmmaker's work.

I could also understand filmmakers not being too interested in other films generally since it might be too much like their working day and they might not look forward to seeing films when they weren't working!

I think that is where film critics come in, since I guess most of them are working in the area because of their love of film, and the lucky ones get paid to write columns. Since it is their main occupation they have the opportunity to see a wider range of films and can spend more time considering them. The best quality of a critic is when they can discuss a film intelligently and in context, and also have a forum where they can express their views with little pressure - so they can say they don't like a particular filmmakers new film or write about certain cinema trends. I also prefer critics who are unashamedly personal in their reactions rather than those who try to tailor their style to that of a particular paper, magazine or journal they write for, since reactions to films can only really be on a personal level, albeit less or more informed. It is one of the reasons I don't mind filmmakers offering opinions and even on juries at film festivals, since their reactions are just as valid as anyone elses, but I do think critics, both doing 'real' writing for commercial publications and on the Internet also have a very important role to fill increasing knowledge.

From reading this thread it seems like the main disappointment is to do with the paper wanting to rebrand and bring in critics who will parrot the main themes of the publication, whatever their own feelings about the film being discussed? Wouldn't this just lead to a general synopsis of the plot and then a liked/didn't like verdict? Well, there is that and the manner in which it seems the paper has treated a number of their critics.

Grimfarrow wrote:I know a boatload of filmmakers (and you know this is true). And I can count a handful that I'd trust to be a critic or jury on anything.

I challenge your handful of filmmakers to a duel to the death with my handful of worthy film critics!

I'm not really interested in "trust". [Give me 10 stills and a clip or two and I'll make my own decisions, as do you.] We function perfectly fine on vague art-film-world "buzz". I just think that a good filmmaker, responding to a film, is more likely to have something interesting (and, thankfully, brief) to say than a so-called critic.

The end of an era for smart, critical writing on film? Please send me what you're smoking.

Every day the internets have more and more smart, critical writing on film. Frankly I think it's never been better.

yoshimori wrote: I just think that a good filmmaker, responding to a film, is more likely to have something interesting (and, thankfully, brief) to say than a so-called critic.

Clearly, you've never listened to a great filmmaker do a terrible DVD commentary. Great filmmakers are not always the best people to articulate why or why not a film is good or bad or give insights into their own work. Likewise, there are critics who wouldn't know a good film if it walked up to them and shook their hand. The filmmaker vs. critic is an aside to a much larger argument.

I think the Village Voice firings are significant in that they are signalling that the mainstream print press is no longer invested in intelligent engagement with popular culture. This is not a sign of what readership wants - its all about budgets and advertising dollars at the expense of offering a wide range of choice for the general public in terms of critical assessment. And we should be concerned, because once the conglomoretes have sanitized the mainstream print world, they will be gunning for the internet next. We have to remember that internet criticism and blogging is still nascent and niche. Indie or foreign films that might have gotten a few columns of ink and spurred a few more ticket sales will all but be ignored. This will have a ripple effect right down to the kinds of movies studios will invest their time and money in down the line. As Snakes On A Plane proved, internet buzz doesn't translate into boffo box office which for Hollywood producers is the bottom line.

Its a painful loss that intelligent film opinion has now gone essentially underground.

yoshimori wrote:Godard was right. The best film critic is a filmmaker. And the best critique, a film. The rest are just pretending.

grimfarrow wrote:Sorry, but no. The reason why the voting for Film Festivals like Cannes, Berlin and Venice are utterly broken is because filmmakers are NOT good critics. At. All. After all, how do you explain to someone who has never seen a Ken Loach film that THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY is by far not his best film?

I read the oft-cited godard quote at it presents itself at face value: I don't think he was referring to filmmakers becoming critics in the standard sense, but the profession of film criticism to be null & void. I can't even hold half of one critic up anymore into the light without 98% of the rays passing through, and if I ever wanted an analysis of a certain director/etc., it's a filmography & films I gravitate toward (then interviews, but that's usually about it). I've never believed Godard had much respect for Pauline & the Paulettes, ever, even if they paid him $50 or whatever that legend goes (that mel brooks anecdote). It's not that tough, after all, to be a film cricket.

And festivals & juries are just what they are as well: week-long stroke fests & pats on the back, with a little booze for good measure.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I think the Village Voice firings are significant in that they are signalling that the mainstream print press is no longer invested in intelligent engagement with popular culture. This is not a sign of what readership wants - its all about budgets and advertising dollars at the expense of offering a wide range of choice for the general public in terms of critical assessment. And we should be concerned, because once the conglomoretes have sanitized the mainstream print world, they will be gunning for the internet next.

This gets to the heart of what's disturbing about these shake-ups. The Village Voice isn't or wasn't simply another paper, it was the flagship of the American alternative press, which is, by definition, an activist, reactionary, non-corporate, non-mainstream project. Whatever your personal opinions of the Voice may be - too entrenched in East Coast elitism, trapped in the 60s, etc. - the symbolic weight of the paper can't be denied.

It's clear that the alternative weeklies / monthlies across the country are being bought up by large conglomerates, and with one goal - homogenization. Listen to Clear Channel. Watch the networks. This is the toothless, squeaky-clean future we have to look forward to in alternative print media (it's practically already here). And I agree - the internet will be next. And you can bet decent wide-ranging film coverage will plunge accordingly.

gubbelsj wrote:And I agree - the internet will be next. And you can bet decent wide-ranging film coverage will plunge accordingly.

Well I don't want to be a whistleblower but I have a sneaking suspicion that matt was offered a six figure sum to step down by a major media corporation of which cdnchris (or should I say MR MURDOCH?(!)) is the head.

But seriously I could imagine, once the scare stories about war, immigrants, the clashing of culture, and being scared of everyone and everything reaches a fever pitch the Internet will probably be targeted under a 'protecting the children' crusade, that as an 'accidental' by-product attempts to restrict freedom of speech. I have a feeling that there was a hope that commercialisation and subscription sites were going to predominate and people are getting antsy now that it seems to be a 'free for all' online in both the best and worst ways.

I think it's also important to note that Hoberman actually IS/WAS a filmmaker himself, of the avant garde variety, so you really get the best of both worlds. This summer I managed to finally take a class with him, and the experience tells me that if he does get the honors of turning off the lights in the VV's film section, a full-time faculty position is probably waiting.

gubbelsj wrote:This gets to the heart of what's disturbing about these shake-ups. The Village Voice isn't or wasn't simply another paper, it was the flagship of the American alternative press, which is, by definition, an activist, reactionary, non-corporate, non-mainstream project. Whatever your personal opinions of the Voice may be - too entrenched in East Coast elitism, trapped in the 60s, etc. - the symbolic weight of the paper can't be denied.

Very well put, and while the loss is a sorrowful one, it's exactly why:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Its a painful loss that intelligent film opinion has now gone essentially underground.

is not painful at all, but exciting. Like every activist, reactionary, non-corporate, non-mainstream project, VV was destined to fail, either by mainstream assimilation or the financial infeasibility of long-term mainstream rejection. And since the VV went the way of assimilation, of course the next step is going to begin underground.

The mourning process for any quality alternative work applies: Take a moment of silence for the VV, revel in what it has done up to this point, rejoice in the fact that it provided something that Big Money felt was worth whoring out, and then back to the grindstone subverting the 'new' VV.

And that's damn titillating.

-Toilet Dcuk

pianocrash wrote:It's not that tough, after all, to be a film cricket.

Bravo, sir!

yoshimori wrote:

Grimfarrow wrote:I know a boatload of filmmakers (and you know this is true). And I can count a handful that I'd trust to be a critic or jury on anything.

I challenge your handful of filmmakers to a duel to the death with my handful of worthy film critics!

I'm not really interested in "trust". [Give me 10 stills and a clip or two and I'll make my own decisions, as do you.] We function perfectly fine on vague art-film-world "buzz". I just think that a good filmmaker, responding to a film, is more likely to have something interesting (and, thankfully, brief) to say than a so-called critic.

I really wish this was true. But it's not. Say, Cannes 2004. The person who championed for TROPICAL MALADY's Jury Prize was not a filmmaker. It was Tilda Swinton. And this is because she is extremely smart and knowledgeable and I'd put her in a jury any day. Then we have Park Chan-wook, who is a hyper-Christian and well, let's say he doesn't care for homosexual themes. How is he going to react to the new Tsai Ming-Liang? Haha - you guess! And like I said, how can you give THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY a Palm d'Or? By not having ever watched his films before. Everyone else, however, greets the film with a shrug (as do I).

And just because you're a filmmaker doesn't make you artistic or open-minded. I quote a certain director (will keep him anonymous) who thought Hou Hsiao-Hsien is one of the most pointlessly boring directors ever. And guess what - this director happens to also be very good.

On the reverse, one of the most impressive people I know is Bruce LaBruce - razor-sharp, great taste in film, seen everything, and has given awards to films which are unconventional and groundbreaking. Whatever you think of his films, he is someone whose taste I trust.

It's all relative. You can be an actor, director, musician, fashion designer, etc. - doesn't make you any better or any worse.

And I think I know just as many critics as you too, yoshi

Kyle Gann talks a lot about his relationship with the Village Voice, and this post nicely sums up his thoughts on the New Times takeover (as well as his thoughts on blogging).

And a quick snippet after they fired Robert Christgau.

Jun-Dai wrote:And a quick snippet after they fired Robert Christgau.

Kill Yr Idols, eh?

Grimfarrow, I think the point of Godard's quote---or the way I've always taken it, anyways---is that the best critic is a filmmaker, when he/she is criticizing through the medium of film, not when he/she is writing articles or acting on a jury panel. In film you can show by example, you can parody and reference other films, and you can work off of and develop others' ideas. The point is not that Wong Kar-Wai should be appointed to the New York Times or that we should only have filmmakers on any kind of jury panel; it's that you can interpret Wong Kar-Wai's films as a criticism of its own about all the filmmaking that has come before and about the filmmaking of his day. From a certain perspective, that's more valuable criticism than anything anyone's written on paper about film.

Not sure how much I agree with the sentiment, but I do think that the value of film as criticism, while often mentioned, is often underutilized and underappreciated.

I wasn't addressing Godard's quote at all - I was addressing yoshi's comment. Godard's quote is actually pretty much irrelevant to the topic we were discussing.