Writing online can be frustrating, invigorating, exciting, demoralizing and rewarding all at once. I've probably wanted to quit and walk away from it a thousand times and still do at least once a week. I usually get drawn back in due to the excitement of seeing a little known movie and wanting to review it. Or going to see a much-discussed new release of which I want to be a part of the discussion. Or just the desire to take a general belief in some aspect of movie-making and put it into words. All of those would fall under the rewarding part of online writing.But the frustrating parts are legion. In fact, they may be greater than the rewarding parts. Let's see, for starters, there's getting into fights with friends over movies, goddamn movies! Or avoiding fights! Yes, that's a big one too. I see some asinine opinion that I want to take down but know I risk my sanity if I get involved and so I avoid it and instead fume, quietly and impotently.
Or the feeling that the modus operandi of the online movie community is dull and getting duller. Specifically, take a movie or director not highly thought of and tout said movie or director as unappreciated and brilliant. Say things like, "One day this film/director will be revered, just you wait and see!" And then the comments say things like "I thought I was the only one" and everyone pats each other on the back for having the courage to recognize the artistry of some piece of shit low-budget craphole movie or some jackass talentless hack that the rest of us pay lip service to so as not to appear too cruel. "Well, yes," we say, "I can see your point but I just don't think Mike Mediocrity is that great a director," when what we really want to say is, "What in the fuck are you talking about? He sucks! His movies suck! And I've just lost what little respect I had for your taste with this latest salute to filmmaking half-assery!"
And then there's the homogeny of the responses, the trotting out of the same jokey phrases ("I love me some" - Guess what? I fucking hate me some of that stupid cliche!), the reliance on the same tired formats and the leaning on the same pantheonistic crutches that have propped up one worthless movie site after another. Christ, have
you looked around lately at some of the movies sites out there? I mean the commercial ones, the ones overflowing with up to the millisecond news items concerning the world of film, the ones that release a top 100 this or that every few months that we all discuss and argue about like the stupid fucking lemmings that we are, driven to mass intellectual suicide every time some idiot with a "History of the Movies" book writes a list proclaiming La Regle de Jeu or Citizen Kane is overrated while at the same time trumpeting the efforts of that dick you never heard of because it turns out he only made three movies in the 1970s and when you finally got a chance to see them on Netflix they turned out to be stinking, festering piles of horseshit. You know, that guy! He's a genius, Welles is a hack.Or how about the old switcheroo game we all play with director's credits. Boy, I love that game! You know, that's the game where someone sagely declares that, "Sure, I appreciate Vertigo and Psycho and Shadow of a Doubt but honestly I think I've come to view Topaz as Hitchcock's best work." Really? Then shut the fuck up and stop writing about movies because you have nothing important to add to the conversation. Or the reverse where someone declares that the director's most highly praised work really isn't that good. I love that game too! Love it!
So where's all this bitter bile leading? What's all this about? How should I know, I'm just writing it. I'm just spewing forth whatever comes to mind in a fit of frustration about all the things I have to do and all the things I have no time to do. I have to get paying work because this shit just isn't cutting it. I find myself reviewing CDs for the free CDs themselves, no money. Great! That's a pretty difficult transaction to make work at the local Trader Joe's, I can tell you. So there's that.
I also have to do things, lots of things, lots of random things around the house and around my life on a day to day basis, things that I enjoy doing and this online life cuts into the time needed for them. So the online life has to justify itself and more and more I see only the frustrations and fewer rewards. I'm trying to make short films and keep getting distracted from them by online activity. I'm trying to write a screenplay with a friend and can't focus on necessary
plot details because of online activity. And I don't mind the online activity, the tweets and facebook status updates and blog posts, as long as at the end of the day they pay for their upkeep but lately, I'm not seeing significant returns on my investment if you know what I mean. I won't stop tweeting and facebooking but honestly, I cannot point to anything worthwhile I've done with them. I have enjoyed many conversations but in the end, it's just background noise, nothing else. Maybe I'm not imaginative enough with them but if that's the case at least I'm not alone because we all seem to be using them in the same way. I did start a joke group on Facebook, "If a million people join this group Larry Aydlette will get back online." A few people joined, I didn't advertise it, so you had to see it in my updates to even know about it. But then I started thinking, "Maybe Larry's got it right. Maybe Larry's smarter than all of us put together." I used to find it funny how Larry would go on and offline with such regularity but now I think I understand. It's all just background noise and it's up to us to search for the patterns in the static. If we find them, great! If we don't, or we get tired of the same patterns, we have to look deeper to find some meaning to what we're doing. I'm looking now but I also need to make some art and not just write about it. I'm not going anywhere, I think, or at least not yet, just trying to clear the air. The patterns are clear but the noise from the static is sometimes overwhelming and I just wanted to speak my peace before my voice got lost in the noise. Thanks.
91 comments:
I loved reading this and found your anger kind of invigorating. I only wish you were here saying all of it to me and that, periodically, I could have kicked you in the ass so make you even more angry. But that's why we're such a good comedy team: you're the red-faced, apoplectic one and I'm the stone-faced non-reactor. Together: comic gold.
I recently expressed a desire to stop reviewing movies and write in other ways and lately I'm just cranking out reviews because... because it's easier than the other thing, which takes more planning and research. Maybe I went back to the old way because I had forgotten that my blog is an adjunct to my life, not my life. I began it as a way to download the free-floating stuff in my brain, to clear out... but somewhere along the line I deluded myself into thinking I could make something significant out of it. I'm kind of glad I came to my senses, so that I can go back to doing the easy thing online and the complicated/interesting stuff in my life, where it makes an actual difference... even if only to me.
Nice rant. I can fully sympathize. I also wonder if 99% of this kind of problem boils down to a writer's vanity. I agree that one can get into a bad rut cranking out reviews, so I look around for an original angle to try to offset the competition with a million other blogs writing on the same movie, or I look for good links, or something. It's hard not to have great doubts about the whole enterprise. It also raises the question: should one pursue print publication if much of the serious publishing is shifting to the internet? How far should one take the whole principle of working for free? Is freedom of expression worth exploiting oneself otherwise?
but somewhere along the line I deluded myself into thinking I could make something significant out of it.
That's why I feel like giving up so often because I fool myself into thinking this is something important and you know, it's not.
But boy, could I have made this rant longer. Much longer. You know what else I hate, and mostly because I'VE DONE IT SO MANY DAMN TIMES?! Saying you're going to do something, like you saying you're going to stop reviewing or me saying I've got a new series I'm interested in doing or this or that, and then NOT DOING IT! I hate that! Why do we so often announce something thinking that announcing it will make us follow through on it. It never does!
And lists! Boy do I hate lists! Put up a picture, a joke or just tell me a story of your childhood, anything, before putting up a list. Make listing the absolute, final, complete and utter LAST RESORT!
And so, there it is.
How far should one take the whole principle of working for free? Is freedom of expression worth exploiting oneself otherwise?
Not far and no. I mean, really, everyone says to just do it for the love of it but eventually you get offers to write elsewhere, people start wanting to put ads on your site, major media orgs start linking to you and soon enough you start thinking you're an authority and your words mean something and thus, you start thinking you should be doing something more dependable, more professional. In that respect, I'm the opposite of Arbo, in that I don't do many reviews. But I tell myself, constantly, that I should review every movie I see so I can become a part of this or that online critic community. Then I find I more enjoy writing pieces like this or something about special effects before computers and so I do it. Then I think I've done something wrong. Arrrrggghhh!!!
OK, I think you were expecting controversy and here everyone is agreeing with you.
I feel this way, to an extent. I think the work we do is valuable, engaging with works of art, and I think criticism bloggers put out is just as substantial, if not moreso, than much print criticism. If anything, blogging has made movies matter more than ever, because there are more channels for discourse than ever before.
But at the end of the day our work is just 1s and 0s. When people shut off their computer, we go away. So really it's just about the connections you forge when that computer is turned on, and I feel like I've become friends with a great many people in the just over a year I've been blogging.
And my biggest problem with discussing movies on the internet is that people tend to hang in cliques that have similar taste and thus it becomes a big circle jerk. One thing I find refreshing about our little circle is that we disagree, and disagree often (Bill and I never agree on anything, even when we do), and we don't take said disagreements personally. I really enjoy that element.
That being said, I constantly feel frustrated with myself due to my lack of output. You say reviewing new releases doesn't interest you too much, and that's primarily what interests me. I just find it to be the easiest lead in to writing about a movie. And I don't do it near enough.
I've been thinking along these lines lately. I have five good pages of a short story, and I hit a bit of a roadblock. Instead of working on that this weekend, I wrote a review of THE ROOM, which is what people need. Mind you, I was pleased with how that review turned out, because it was really more of a humor piece than a review, and I think humor pieces are a better use of my time than forcing myself to write a movie review when I don't feel like it, but it was still yet another piece about THE ROOM. But I was still happy with it, but it was still another piece about THE ROOM. And on and on.
I guess I'm at a tipping point to some extent because I've gotten a fair amount of recognition. I like getting screeners and into movies for free, which is one of the reasons that I keep Ferdy going. I've never gotten into the mainstream preoccupations with making lists or allowed any kind of mean-spirited arguing on Ferdy (nor do I go out of my way to engage in it on other sites) so that hasn't really been an issue. I've actually been very content with what I've been able to accomplish with Ferdy - I have fulfilled my mission statement for the most part of shining a light on offroad films - and still enjoy writing reviews, but only when films inspire me. That's a little harder to come by these days, finding those gems, but I've been on a hot streak lately.
Yet, I do see an end of the road eventually. I do want to do some different kinds of writing and do feel my enthusiasm for film waning a bit. It's a little disconcerting to see some of my film posse vanish into thin air. Rod and I hardly get any comments anymore on the site, but I do put some of that down to my return to reviewing new, limited release stuff (new docs, foreign films). Rod is reviewing a few hard-to-find films lately. The comments will come back or they won't. There's less energy at Ferdy that before because of the lack of comments, but that was never the first consideration for me.
I think I'm still humble enough to know that I don't know a hell of a lot about movies. My bigger concern is that I'm not inclined to read a lot of blog posts on other sites - I'm just not as engaged with the medium as I used to be, and I'm having concentration problems again.
I couldn’t help it. I just had to give you this award:
http://thrillingdaysofyesteryear.blogspot.com/2010/04/when-skies-are-gray.html
Keep up the good work!
But then I started thinking, "Maybe Larry's got it right. Maybe Larry's smarter than all of us put together."
YES! FINALLY! YOU GET IT! Could you talk to my wife about this?
I've been laying pretty low for a while on reading, writing and commenting. Obviously I've come back on all of those things a bit and I'm kind of enjoying them, but for all of the reasons, I think I should.
I've totally gotten to the place, like you described, of thinking perhaps there was some importance or that this was a gateway or whatever... and I've come to the realization that, for myself, I don't want that.
I just saw How to Train Your Dragon and had enough thoughts to throw out to run it up the flagpole. But I'm quite sure if I felt responsible to, and certainly if I felt responsible to write something decent, I wouldn't want to at all. I think that's one of the reasons I fade out on occasion already is the feeling of being responsible to something.
I enjoy writing my blog the best - and, for what it's worth, feel generally best about what I write - when I don't give a crap about it as anything but something I like and want to share with... who-the-fuck-ever... Hell, the fact that nothing I write, nothing I'm pleased with the points I've made or how I've made them even compares in hits to the posts titled "Flash flesh" and "Cannibal porn" tells me all I need to know about how important I am or how important my blog is capable of being.
But then when I search my heart and imagine what the best outcome of the other thing... that I got hired on by someone to write about movies professionally, as a blogger or in print, it gives me a massive headache. I'm pretty happy to have somewhere that my real world friends can - but mostly don't - check out my thoughts so I don't overwhelm them with boring rants too often. And the fact that I have a certain circle of folks I think are interesting in and read and comment on, that's been pretty terrific, too.
And I certainly agree regarding the " Mike Mediocrity" type things. All of that is an important thing for criticism to do. Unfortunately, bloggers - and I'm probably guilty myself on occasion - tend to half-ass the part where you actually build your case. Which leaves it as unsupported opinion... fine if one intends it as only that, but too often, as you suggest, it's done in a way that presents itself as a real challenge.
I have more to say on this. I may comment more or write a response post... but then that may be me doing what you just pointed out, the promising of something with no follow-through. I recently read/skimmed through much of my blog and the thing that made me most upset was the pure volume of unfulfilled promises of reviews or thoughts or columns or whatever...
Greg, this is a great post (not to sound like one of those bloggy sychophants you are disparaging, but it really is a good post).
I really like what you say about film blogging feeling like a duller and duller space-- there are still a number of sites I really love and visit (including this one, of course), but I feel sympathy with this point: my old professor used to talk about "path dependency," how a discipline or business or any other kind of organization finds a way that works and eventually that way becomes codified as "the One True Way" of doing things, to the exclusion of all others. It sometimes feels to me like that's what's happening in the blogosphere: a growing reliance on the familiar (like text-heavy posts meant to mimic newspaper or magazine articles), instesd of taking advantage of the way the web can play with image/text combination. This reliance on the familiar does feel like a gesture of professionalization (this is what it "should be," this is what makes it "proper"), but the downside of that is that, as you say, it can also lead to hermetically sealed, easily replicated, very boring viewpoints.
I'm also sympathetic to what you and the others are saying about work/life/blog balance-- aside from not feeling like I've had a lot to say lately, my blogging has slowed down precisely because I felt a similar need to pull back and try to regain that balance.
One thing I will say, though, for what its worth, is that you really DO make valuable contributions-- in your writing, your filmmaking, and above all your creation and sustaining of that sense of community (yeoman's work on promoting the Film Preservation Project, for example)--that I and others are super-grateful for. When it feels silly and worthless, please remember that there are a lot of folks out here whose lives you touch, even if we never meet you. (:
Sorry to be away, but I was doing those things I need to do that I don't, in this case, painting the upstairs bathroom I've been working on... and it felt good. In fact, it was downright satisfying!
OK, I think you were expecting controversy and here everyone is agreeing with you.
Ryan, honestly, I was expecting nothing and that was the point. I'm trying to work my way to a point where all of this doesn't hang over my head like it's actually important especially when I need to work on other things, like scripts and movies, instead of writing up my latest AFI excursion, much as I love those.
Your line about the big circle jerk is exactly why I stay out of conversations a lot of the time even if I find the movie everyone is praising to be rancid.
Bill - That's my biggest gripe. Why are we placing more importance on the blogging over the creating? I don't know the answer and I don't think, at all, that the blogging should stop, but why I wonder do we put it ahead of all else? I need to work out details of a story and its plot points for a collaborative work and I'm very proud of what I've got so far but I need to do more and here I am online - AGAIN!
I do want to do some different kinds of writing and do feel my enthusiasm for film waning a bit.
Marilyn, for me, I would say my enthusiasm for film is still there but enthusiasm about writing about it goes through dramatic ebbs and flows. You're about as successful a movie blogger as I know what with two huge blogathons under your belt as well as personal kudos from Roger Ebert but your admission to a lack of enthusiasm shows that none of it matters if you simply lose your focus. I'm not saying you have, just mumbling aloud.
Ivan, you even gave it to me twice, if you count me in the "et al" category for If Charlie Parker was a Gunslinger. I can't imagine I bring sunshine to anyone's life online but I thank you kindly sir for the award.
Larry, I've learned much in my years online, it's just that some lessons take longer than others. You ARE smarter than all of us put together. Eventually I may even start to act upon your wisdom but for now, I remain online.
Still, I'll forward this post to your wife first thing!
Neil, you put this a lot better than I did:
And I certainly agree regarding the " Mike Mediocrity" type things. All of that is an important thing for criticism to do. Unfortunately, bloggers - and I'm probably guilty myself on occasion - tend to half-ass the part where you actually build your case. Which leaves it as unsupported opinion... fine if one intends it as only that, but too often, as you suggest, it's done in a way that presents itself as a real challenge.
That's what I think (emphasis on "think" as in random guess) I was trying to do with my Unsupported Rant post, of which I look forward to many more. I was just trying to go through feelings without really backing anything up. I am too often unconvinced by opinions about undervalued films or filmmakers that then don't do the ground work of demonstrating evidence for said claims. And so I think, "Well, that's great that you think this crappy movie will be considered great one day, but unless you really give me something more to go on I can't really agree."
And brother, does Cinema Styles have a graveyard of unfulfilled promises! I have quite a few series with anywhere from 2 to 5 posts maximum. I finally decided last year I was going to be honest about my writing here on Cinema Styles. And the truth turns out to be that I don't like to have anything I'm supposed to pigeonhole myself into. If I end up picking up a series left off three years ago, great. If not, no big deal. But no more promises. In the end, I told myself, I should pick two things with video, because I love putting together clips, and everything non-video clip related will not have a series format to it. So, I gave myself The Land Before CGI and Openings I Love. And everything else is everything else, whatever I feel like writing. So far, so good.
You nailed it. I did a list last month. It was fun because I like lists, not because I felt obligated to produce one. It was a way of organizing the films that made feel great over the last ten years. That was a fruitful and fun exercise...especially in reflecting and revisiting a lot of those films. If a list is a personal project, then that's what I'll produce (although I agree with you in the sense that a lot of blogs simply produce lists every week for some arbitrary debate about the best of the Best Actor NOMINEES...what the hell?), if I want to write about a book or a screen cap from a film...then I'll do it. What has affected me and whatever moves me to a point of being compelled to write about it...THAT's when I'll sign into blogger and begin typing something.
I've been away from the blog for awhile (sans the week or so of material I produced during Spring Break when I had nothing going on) and I've come to the conclusion that I am just going to write about something that means something to me.
All that to say: I've learned to do this writing thing when I want to and if it further helps me develop ideas about something I'm thinking about, or works in a way to get me out of a writing funk.
Wow, Brian, thanks! I wasn't fishing for anything like that but I truly appreciate it nonetheless.
my old professor used to talk about "path dependency," how a discipline or business or any other kind of organization finds a way that works and eventually that way becomes codified as "the One True Way" of doing things, to the exclusion of all others.
You should write a piece on this because you capture the essence really well in just that short paragraph. It's very true. I like doing video posts and I like using video as a way to present an argument, something Jim Emerson does often and, in many ways, he has latched onto the new medium in ways that don't mimic print journalism.
If you've ever seen the deleted scenes from The Contender, and why wouldn't you, there's that gorilla story told by the President, Jeff Bridges. Four gorillas in a cage, banana hanging down from the middle. When anyone goes for it the whole cage gets an electric shock, floors, bars, everything. Doesn't take long of course before none of them go after the banana. Then, unbeknownst to them, the scientists studying them stop doing the shocks. They take one gorilla out and put in a new one. When the new one instinctively goes for the banana, the other three beat the shit out of him so they won't get shocked. After a few beatings the new gorilla no longer pursues the banana. Then another gorilla is replaced, and another and another until all four original gorillas who felt the electric shocks are gone. And each time a new gorilla is introduced and goes for the banana, the other three gorillas, who never suffered a shock, beat the shit out of him. Because that's the way things have always been done.
I was having some trouble really understanding your rant until the latter half of it - the frustration of trying to transition blogging into "paying work" must be huge (I have several local friends going through that now), so I can't really tell you to not take things so seriously (I was about to use the phrase "Chill pill", but thought you might reach through the interwebs and strangle me for its usage).
Having said that, I did want to comment on a couple of things...I know it's a rant, so it isn't supposed to be dealing with the "grey" zone of issues, but I can't help but look there.
I know there are numerous sites that fit the patterns you mentioned, but there are plenty more that don't. It frustrates me too that some of the bigger sites ("Ain't It Cool News" is still relevant? Really?) are, well, big, but I'm not sure there's any sense in railing against them...If the writers at those sites choose to respond to well articulated criticisms of their posts, well that's great. Then maybe there's a point to hanging out there and trying to get people to look at criticism a different way. But if they don't respond to that, then don't bother. If it's just about convincing someone they are wrong, then don't bother. If I'm trying to engage someone who doesn't agree with me, it's usually because I want to learn something - Why do they feel that way? What did I miss? OK, admittedly I occasionally want someone to bask in the glow of my own brilliant observations, but I've got pretty used to that not happening...
Yeah, it's frustrating. I attended a screening of "The Misfortunates" last night (a great Belgian film I saw at TIFF last year and which is making a short run in theatres) and shared the theatre with 3 other people. Three. I'm sure "Clash Of Titans" was packed, but all I can do is my part for trying to get the word out.
And as far as things like "the switcheroo" or "lists" go, I don't care what the format is as long as the writer can put something engaging together and maybe provide some context or make me look at something in a different way. Even if I don't end up agreeing with the guy who loves "Under Capricorn", if he can at least get me to approach it in a way I hadn't done before, then that's a big reason why I'm out there reading other blogs...Hell, I look at Ed Wood in a different light these days - I'm not gonna run out and watch "Plan 9" anytime soon, but that blog-a-thon certainly tweaked my viewpoint.
But you probably weren't looking for someone to argue the opposite points - it's a rant. The end of your post does clarify for me though - "finding the patterns". That's pretty much exactly it. Forget the static and find the meaningful, funny, intelligent or just plain "cool" stuff. Contribute back in a fashion you want people to use when engaging with you. Then you might find you'll build a community of people who want to talk to you about your own passion and you may even get some friends out of it.
Oh wait, you already did that.
Here's hoping you find that balance - it'll never be a consistent balance (it'll get way out of whack from one day or week to the next), but hopefully you find something that overall meets what you're looking for.
You nailed it. I did a list last month. It was fun because I like lists, not because I felt obligated to produce one.
Kevin, I hope you and everyone knows that I'm not trying to call anyone out with this. I've done lists too, it's just that on the food chain of things we can write about, I view lists as fat-free, cholestrol-free soy chips. Neil Sarver made a good point about what we write about using food analogies at Arbogast on Film (on the most recent review or the next one down) in that it's not either/or, not a filet mignon or a pork rind but a wide variety of styles and qualities we can employ with writing. Listing is but one.
Writing when you feel like it is something I have a hard time doing and something I need to work on. I feel I need to write something often because I convince myself it's expected. And that can drive a person insane.
And as far as things like "the switcheroo" or "lists" go, I don't care what the format is as long as the writer can put something engaging together and maybe provide some context or make me look at something in a different way.
Bob, I would agree that producing something engaging should be the final test of value. Like I said in a previous comment, I'm not trying to call anyone out, but I do have particular instances in mind and when I say "Mike Mediocrity" I have actual directors in mind. It's just that I knew if I actually used their names then the discussion would become about that rather than the idea. With my Hitchcock reference, I could have said Marnie for instance, because there are a lot of bloggers I've come across who have praised it far beyond the initial tepid critical response but since I'm not providing links to their posts on the subject the conversation would shift to how good or great Marnie is, not the general point about general modus operandi. Under Capricorn is quite obviously NOT Hitchcock's best work, so the general idea I'm making stands.
Unfortunately, when someone relies on a list or a switcheroo, they're purposely not being engaging, they're being lazy and feel like a provocative list or calling dull work great may get them notice or at least, won't demand much energy on their part for a big return.
Thanks for the kind words, Greg. That same prof wrote an essay for BFI on some of those "path dependency" issues, and you can read it here:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/69/
It's about a decade old at this point, but still feels relevant to me.
I think the problem with film blogging is one you'll find in any pursuit... the old cart before the horse dilemma. There is a part of me that wishes I could stop working at such a pace so that I could relax and read or do things/see things I don't normally do/see, which would ultimately feed and improve my film writing... but because I have to produce at such a volume and pace I can't/don't do those things. There is stuff I've turned in that I know is pure hackwork, salvaged only (maybe) by my wit and the fact that my facts are at least right. But I know I could do better and I want to do better, but I have to keep producing and producing and I wonder if the product I am producing is becoming less and less valuable because I'm starving it on the far end.
All that being the long way around saying that we all began what we do because of love... and somewhere along the line that turns to obligation. Our Inner Jed needs to show our Inner Charlie the Declaration of First Principles.
I'm in a kind of an awkward position here because I did write on Under Capricorn two days ago and I did call it Hitch's best work, but I also agree with a lot of your points here. But I didn't construct a list or do an intentionally provocative switcheroo; I wrote a (hopefully) coherent piece defending an opinion I sincerely hold. I don't even know if you really read my blog or if it inspired this rant in any way, but I don't think just saying "Under Capricorn is obviously not Hitch's best work" invalidates an opinion, including mine or Robin Wood's or Eric Rohmer's or Claude Chabrol's or any of the other people who do love the film.
Doniphon - Topaz was my first choice, I should've stuck with it. I apologize if I caused any offense by that. Here I go, trying to make a point and I use the wrong movie. See, this is why I didn't want to use a revered film, like Marnie, but thought Under Capricorn had... oh, never mind. I should've stuck with imaginary examples like I did with the director Mike Mediocrity.
Anyway, I still support my point because my point was about people being transparently iconoclastic for the sake of controversy. And that's not you, so certainly your opinion is not invalid at all.
Arbo, my inner Jed keeps telling me to drop the blog for a month or so, do all that other stuff and when I come back everyone will still be here. But my inner Charlie says, "No, no! You'll lose readers, subscribers! Don't do it old man, don't do it!" I do love my inner Charlie a lot. Really, I do.
And the change back to Topaz is complete.
If you were to take a month off and then announce your return via Facebook you'd get all the worthwhile people back.
And me and Bill, too.
Hell, I'd never leave! What the fuck else do I have to do?
I think it's rare that people who have film blogs, or any other kind of blog, can make enough money off of it to support themselves without having to get a side job. I also think there are a lot of components that need to go into a blog or site to make it even relatively successful. More than just what one writes about, I think site layout and design have a lot to do with it as well. What draws people to certain websites, even if they write shitty reviews? because here is money behind their sites and maybe because they work for a national magazine or something. Google Analytics and page ranking and such
But basically, I feel like blogging should be something people do for fun. It's so easy to get caught up in thoughts like 'Why aren't people commenting?! Why don't I have as many followers as X Blog when my posts are better informed?!" but in the end, if you're not enjoying it, then what's the point?
Greg - I think my age and the fact that I'm a professional writer and editor have made blogging a really different kind of thing for me than for a lot of other people. I've already found some career fulfillment (though not job fulfillment, if you understand the distinction). I don't consider myself a film critic first - that position belongs to writing. I LOVE to write, and I have certain areas that interest me greatly that I can expound upon through an analysis of film. Roger Ebert, is a newspaperman first and foremost, and I really follow in his footsteps and enthusiasm. He and I bring our experiences and enthusiasms to what we do - I don't think either of us are faddish, though he has more reason to be. We came up before all this virtual world existed and bring the best of both worlds together, I think.
You call me successful, but honestly I don't feel it. I don't see myself as different than any other blogger trying to get a point across, and that's not false modesty. I just don't feel that way about myself.
I admit to feeling hurt when the academics talk past me or ignore me entirely, but I have found a lot of acceptance among women because I tell their side of the story. That has meant a lot to me, and I know it's important for me to keep the counterstory going. I like what I do; it's fun and worthwhile for me. And having a partner as prolific and good and as good a friend as Rod is takes some of the pressure off to keep producing. I'm truly fortunate.
I actually really enjoy finding other people who have the same obscure cinematic obsession as I do. That's what my whole blog is about, really, not writing reviews as such, just discussing the movies I watch. I know what your saying about the drive to be hipper than hip and find the latest cool thing that is obscure and bring it to the world. This doesn't need to be to the detriment of Citizen Kane or whatever film is being touted as the greatest ever made (lately it seems to be Citizen Kane, The Third Man or Vertigo). My own pace for writing goes in cycles. In the winter I'm inside more, blogging more. In summer my productivity on the blog goes down. Usually I have two or three pieces in the hopper in various states of done-ness. I just don't understand why this rant is so bitter. I like this blog. It's well-written. If you feel burned out, blog less. If you don't like the "is Mr. Mediocrity wonderful" type blogs don't read them. Although kudos to you for calling out "I love me some." It is getting overused.
Excellent, sir. You win.
Arbo, Bill, good to know you two have nothing better to do. As long as I have desperate stragglers, I'm cool.
Kendra, as far as site layout goes, I generally avoid any site that's too busy. I like to keep the look clean and simple. Years ago I had text as my wallpaper and it drove me crazy so I finally removed it and I've never looked back. That's why a doc like Helvetica spoke to me. It's all about clean lines and open spaces. Most commercial sites are covered with ads, flashing banners, animated gifs, video trailers, etc. I can't take them. They give me a headache.
So like you say, even the sites we just visit, you still have to enjoy it or what's the point.
Marilyn, you really did get lucky with Rod. He's an excellent writer and a perceptive critic. And even if you are successful we're still talking about writing so unless you are like Roger Ebert, it's never going to translate to big bucks.
As for the academics, I'm not sure who online that is, but only because I probably don't visit their sites. I have made it clear here on many occasions though that I much prefer intuitive reviews of film rather than technical discussions of film grain and continuity and proper lens alignments. I mean, if you're so uninvolved in the film that those are your principal focuses then either the film stinks or your love of film is quite different from mine. I'm glad no one around here ever talks past anyone. That I know of at least.
I just don't understand why this rant is so bitter. I like this blog. It's well-written. If you feel burned out, blog less. If you don't like the "is Mr. Mediocrity wonderful" type blogs don't read them. Although kudos to you for calling out "I love me some." It is getting overused.
Jenny it's just a way to vent, get all my thoughts out in an unedited, unpolished way and start talking. Then I get opinions and stories from people like you, Marilyn, Arbogast, Bill, Neil, Brian, FilmDr, Ryan, Kevin, Bob, Doniphon, Kendra and so on, that really help to put it all back into focus for me. I've never shied away from using Cinema Styles as a makeshift therapist couch and I never will. It helps to get advice from my peers.
And Ivan even gave me an award for it!
In regard to my writing: what's in it for me?
In regard to the Higher Echelon, their bobblehead conservativism is stifling.
In regard to online readers who believe they know how to speed-read: they don't.
In regard to Twitter: pure assholism.
Meeting Rod in the first place was lucky, but luck had nothing to do with asking him to blog on Ferdy. We conversed on the film discussion board very easily and clearly had a more in-depth and curious approach to films than the rest of the participants. I told him to ditch them, that he was wasting his time trying to a bunch of morons (yes, really). It wasn't really a hard sell. I'm happy he has his own blog, too, because he needs to do his own thing as well.
Marilyn, I think counter-stories are valuable, from a multiplicity of perspectives. My own, never-ending project (which will someday end! (:) is about anecdotes and film history (which is one reason I love Siren/Campaspe's site, with its ongoing anecdotes series), and the notion that these forms are ways of writing within/against/alongside more dominant narratives of film history and theory. And I think the work you do, with writing and film preservation, is really valuable.
As for the academic question, I'm not sure how many of us are out here, actually. Aside from David Bordwell (who seems to get a lot of attention from folks like Jim Emerson), I generally find that when we are discussed at non-academic blogs, we are often used as straw people, to be pointed to as a stuffy example that said critic can then use to burnish his/her hip, populist credentials. I don't say that with any sense of bitterness-- the internet is just the latest technology (books, cinema, TV) to have fun with our pomposity, and I think of it as part of the game (and believe me, no one makes fun of academic silliness like other academics (:).
At the same time, part of me thinks of it with a sigh, because I actually think the academic and non-academic parts of film discourse have a lot to say to each other, if each of us would come out of our foxholes for a minute. The other end of the telescope from the problem Greg mentions in his comment is a technophobia among some academics, and a distrust of blogging forms-- certainly not everyone (there's Bordwell, and Girish, and Paul Johnson, and a really good academic on TV named Jason Mittel, and a few others who do hybrids of film and other multimedia.* And my students take to it really well, actually, when we use it in classes. But at a recent Society for Cinema and Media Studies conference (our annual shindig), there was definitely a Luddite faction in the discussions on using blogs in the classroom, which again goes back to that path dependency point I made earlier-- "What if this new technology changes us?" Well, maybe that's good-- it certainly opens up new possibilities for conversations across boundaries that I wish more academic folk would take care of.
*I understand this is necessarily an incomplete list-- if folks have others they love, please share! I'm always curious to read new stuff, or to find out that people whose work I like are now online.
When I first started blogging I never knew how much of a mine field it was going to be!
Today someone actually moaned at me for reviewing a film that wasn't available on Netflix! Good god!
By the way, Capricorn One was on cable last night. I hadn't seen it in years. Quite entertaining. After that I watched the Seinfeld where Kramer drove a hansom cab and fed the horse all the Beefaroni he bought from Price Club. There's some funny shit there!
removing a wallpaper that was splattered with text was a good idea. I think design (not just background, but typography, layout, graphics, etc) has a lot to do with what makes commercial or professional websites so successful, and it's why people pay big bucks to get professionally designed sites. I hear you on ads and flash banners being a pain in the ass, but I think that's how most of those sites get a lot of their money unfortunately
Brian - I haven't had a lot of experience with academics because of the aforementioned being talked past. I have found a number of these sites, initially welcoming (as with Girish) that then tend to reject the ordinary film blogger or behave in ways antithetical to my nature. For example, I tried to be part of Chris Cagle's Film of the Month Club, only to find the majority of the participants fretting about their writing to the point of not doing it. I thought that looking stupidwas the worst crime, but then what happens to dialogue?
In regard to Twitter: pure assholism.
I'm totally putting that up on Twitter! That's great. I like Twitter because I feel absolutely no pressure to do anything: comment, click 'like', add friends, etc. It's opinion without peer pressure but once those trending topics get going and everyone starts harping on one thing then brother, it's pure assholism! Thanks for putting it into words.
For the record, I avoid the trending topic crap.
Marilyn, I'm glad too because on his own blog Rod covers the sci-fi stuff I love from the old school sci-fi makers. I don't comment there enough, I should. It's a great blog.
I don't even know what Twitter's trending topic thing is. Ten seconds on Twitter -- anyone's Twitter -- and all I want to be is someplace else.
Greg, seriously, all writers get depressed about writing at intervals. It's normal, and it will pass. You have to stick to your own code about what you want your blog to be and the amount of time you devote to it and not let somebody else define it. I see more and more comments about how blogs can't be merely "opinions" or just dashed-off thoughts, but have to be deeply sourced and well-reasoned and blogs that don't do that aren't real blogs and blah blah blah. Who the hell made up these rules? Again, write your blog for yourself. If people don't like it, they can write blogs their own way. Somehow, a sense of competition has entered what started out as a fun hobby, and everybody is trying to one-up each other, or, frankly, impress some of the professionals who have entered the blogosphere. That can be draining by itself. Do it for fun. Greg, if it's more fun for you to go off and make videos and write screenplays, go off and do that for awhile. But if you really want to write about your trip to the AFI, do it! If somebody wants to write a blog consisting of silly lists and half-formed thoughts, do it! Where the hell did all these rules come from?
Brian, I wasn't thinking of you with the academic label. I don't actually intend it to literally mean "someone who teaches film" but those more mired down by the minutia of cinema, the technical aspects, to the detriment of the movie itself as a form of art and entertainment. I'm talking about writing that feels like a high school or college research paper, not a well-written, well-thought out essay like you would write.
I'm not going to actually say who I'm thinking about with these but I find some blog writing as dry as the Sahara to the point where I wonder if the writer has ever had a genuinely fun time watching a movie.
I love the fact that a rant like this has generated 50 intelligent comments. Which goes straight to the way that you engage people Greg. Well OK, 49...There was that one by Bill...
I was happy to see Doniphon respond and do so in an intelligent, calm and controlled way. As a matter of fact, as soon as I'm done posting this, I'm going to go over and read the defense of Under Capricorn. Then maybe I'll actually rent it and watch it. Ha!
Anyway, I know it wasn't about the specifics Greg...But I do disagree about your points about lists and switcheroos. I know what you're talking about - there indeed are many people who slap those things together and try to generate hits or controversy (which leads to hits). Like that one guy who had his list of Overrated directors and topped it with Hitchcock (I think Scorsese was 2nd). He was obviously just trying to generate the hits, because he had nothing of interest to say about anything. Of course, in that case his top choice is patently absurd (you can still hate Hitchcock's movies but recognize that he was extraordinarily influential), but if he had at least tried...Well, OK, maybe not with that guy.
Let's see if I can find my point again...What's wrong with a list if it's used as a jumping off point for discussion or as a vehicle to heighten awareness of some lesser known films? And why not have someone play switcheroo and proclaim Ed Wood as a maker of interesting films if it can lead to discussion about what a director's role really is and how creativity can spring from low budgets? I know it's not your main thesis here, but I don't see a bad list or pointless switcheroo being any worse than someone blathering at length in a single film review.
Today someone actually moaned at me for reviewing a film that wasn't available on Netflix! Good god!
How does that person tie their shoes? Seriously, the point in writing a review is to enlighten and analyze and discuss. If it's not available on Netflix, well, tough.
Flickhead, a trending topic is when people get tired of using their imaginations, find out what everyone else is talking about and then start talking about it too. It's insufferable.
I think it's interesting that a personal post like this will generate so much conversation, whereas a lot of well-reasoned, literate reviews and film commentary will get a couple of comments if they are lucky. Blogs used to be personal diaries until people who wanted to write for publication but couldn't or didn't try getting published in print migrated to them. I think people still would prefer to converse than discourse.
Greg -
I'm sure all the comments here are supportive and understanding - I rushed past them in order to tell you that you're preaching to the choir in my case. I've gone though periods of frequent blogging, followed by long absences, followed by more blogging. There are other things to do in life and other experiences to savor, and (as you note) sometimes - many times- you have to focus all your energy on that by which you make your living.
(Myself, I'm getting antsy and wanting to get back to blogging, but probably by creating a slightly different niche for myself.)
Still the online community we have, whether at out blogsites or on Facebook or wherever we meet, has been very enriching and enlightening for me, and that's what makes the blog most worthwhile. Thanks to you, Marilyn, Rick, Bill, Ryan and others, I've branched out and watched films I'd never otherwise have taken the time to see and I've always been glad I did.
Greg, I didn't think you were talking about me, no worries-- I've always felt really welcome here (if anything, I don't comment enough-- things are really busy-- but that's no knock on your welcoming personality). And if anything, I feel as frustrated by my own profession's slowness to get more involved in the more public spaces of blogging, with all the fun the form can get into.
And it's ok-- you can say it was Bill you were referring to with that "dry as the Sahara" remark. That's how we all feel, after all.
Larry, I know you're right, especially about this:
Somehow, a sense of competition has entered what started out as a fun hobby, and everybody is trying to one-up each other, or, frankly, impress some of the professionals who have entered the blogosphere.
I agree. One of the things I've never done is comment on Roger Ebert's blog because I feel that most of the people, present company excluded, only comment to get their name and link on his site. I know many don't do that, but when you're getting 2,000 comments, you have to realize most people are simply doing it because your famous.
I hate that sense of competition that's come up and I think it's why I feel stress about something of which there shouldn't be any, namely, taking a month off. I really want to, but can't!
Well OK, 49...There was that one by Bill...
Sometimes, he just says "boobs."
I felt bad about the Doniphon thing and wished I'd stuck with pure hypotheticals for this rant now. In the end, I guess I'm ranting against people not striving for more but instead falling back on the same tired mechanisms like a list or some kind of iconoclastic statement. And I said in my very first comments, I do this stuff too! I'm not saying it's all bad, just bemoaning the lack of effort I suppose.
But I disagree about a "bad list or pointless switcheroo [not] being any worse than someone blathering at length in a single film review." I much prefer the full review because time and effort has been put into backing up points and providing examples. It's the laziness that bothers me more than anything I guess.
Kendra, I've had a few offers for ad placement but it never pays enough to make it worth the fact that I'd alienate readers with flashing meat industry ads. Now, if they paid a couple thousand a month, okay then, put 'em up and screw it, people will just have to deal with the flashing meat industry ad. But it's like ten bucks a month, or worse, a small amount per click, like anyone ever clicks on those things enough to make it worth your while.
Sometimes, he just says "boobs."
Hey! That's my job!
Marilyn, blogs were, and still are for millions, personal journals first and foremost. I like to talk about movies with everyone so, for me, reviews are secondary and 'discussion posts' are much more common. But I do still like writing reviews, I just don't see enough lesser known films like you do. For instance, my wife and I saw Nights of Cabiria on Saturday at the AFI and while I certainly could write a review about it, why bother? I mean, it's Fellini's Nights of Cabiria. What the hell am I going to say about it that needs to be heard? It's got its audience, it doesn't need any help from me like, say, The Luck of Ginger Coffey which I reviewed a couple of years ago and may review again just to keep calling attention to it.
Pat, it may sound self-congratulatory (because it is), but we do have a great circle of film lovers we mix with don't we? I wish Rick were still a part of it, and Fox too, who, despite his sometimes off-color statements and forehead slapping observations, introduced me to quite a lot too.
I'm curious as to what new directions you'll be going in with your blog. Perhaps literature or theatre? Whatever it is I'm sure it will be excellently done as always.
And it's ok-- you can say it was Bill you were referring to with that "dry as the Sahara" remark. That's how we all feel, after all.
Yeah, it was Bill.
Sometimes, he just says "boobs."
Hey! That's my job!
Hey, if you're sleeping on the job somebody else is going to come along and steal your thunder. I'm just saying is all.
If somebody wants to write a blog consisting of silly lists and half-formed thoughts, do it! Where the hell did all these rules come from?
Nowhere! And they shouldn't be rules.
Although I'm focused on review type posts, I'm in it for very personal, thought sharing reasons. I have no desire to change the world with my silly thoughts.
My concern, and I don't know that it's Greg's exactly, but there seems a dishonesty or a less than honest intent in some of it.
If I post something on my blog that says "Mike Mediocrity is better than Orson Welles", I should expect to either make a reasonable attempt to argue my case or make clear that I'm just offering an unsupported opinion. Hell, I should do it for my own self. I shouldn't delude myself into thinking I've taken an important step in movie attitudes by just throwing it out there.
And it's unpleasant to read someone clearly deluding themselves... Hell, it's most unpleasant and lacking in any fun when I go back and read posts where I'm clearly doing it.
Greg, interesting post and comments. I'm scratching my head over this one because I don't identify with much of any of it.
Someone else suggested this in the comments (sorry, forgot who it was): But why are you going to sites to read hack "criticism" if it pisses you off? And, more alarming, why are you blogging if you don't enjoy it?
Please understand, I'm not saying the above to be combative, I'm just genuinely puzzled. To use your most recent example: Why write something about Nights of Cabiria? Because you want to. That is, if you actually want to. If you don't, then, no, you shouldn't feel obligated. But then you shouldn't feel obligated to do any of this stuff.
I write this comment not exactly knowing -- and maybe you said this somewhere and I missed it -- why you're blogging. That is, not "why did you start blogging?" (though that might be significant, too). But why do you blog now? Is it just because it's there and you've put all this work into it and you don't want to lose readers, hits, whatever? Or is the blog meant to be a means to some kind of ends? (This was implied by a commenter, but not sure it's true.)
To second what others have said, if you want to write a screenplay or make movies, do it! As I've said to other burned out or disillusioned bloggers: "This ain't the slave ship on Ben-Hur. Put down the oar for a while." I'm not quite sure why you're worried about losing readers/subscribers/hits at a site that you don't do for money and that has become a chore. But on top of that, I don't know why any of your regular readers -- me included -- would ever ignore you if and when you decided to return to blogging. Maybe others are different, but I don't read Cinema Styles because of how often you post. I read it (as I have time) because I identify with your passion for movies. If you work yourself into the ground and lose the love you have for film and writing, that would be the thing that would make me stop checking on Cinema Styles. But maybe that's me. I have no interest in blogs that post space-fillers. I want to read engaging content, at whatever length, in whatever style.
(cont in a moment ...)
I say this admitting that when I started my blog I worried it would become a job for me -- that I'd want to churn out content with the speed of someone who didn't have a day job. So I vowed not to let that happen, and I haven't. Honestly, and this is just me, the only pains that come from blogging for me are the times I very much do want to write something or read something and I just don't have the time to do it. (The past few weeks would be a good example.) But, so be it. I blog when I can because I've written about movies for years -- even before I blogged. I need to write. It's just a part of me. So for me it's a no-brainer to blog, I guess. I'm not trying to suggest you feel the same. But, honestly, it makes me sad to think you're putting your energy into something that you don't feel you're getting something out of, especially if it's keeping you from other things you do want to do.
Problems with lists? Problems with switcheroos? I don't see it, to be honest. Bad criticism is just bad criticism in any form. But, as I implied above, I don't waste my time on it. Then again, I've never been in the hits-counting game, so it doesn't get under my skin when those vapid movie sites flourish. I don't have the same mission statement as those sites.
Someone earlier said we get into this stuff for fun and then it becomes a job, or something to that effect. Honestly, I don't get that. I don't feel that at all. I spend quite a bit of my increasingly rare free time blogging, or reading blogs, or commenting. I've never loved it more, I've never found it more enriching. If you'd written up your latest AFI Silver visit, who might have been interested? Well, me. But, goodness, don't blog for me. Blog for you. And if you don't like blogging, wow, don't waste you're obvious love of creativity on it if you'd rather put it elsewhere.
Did any of that make sense?
Hell, it's most unpleasant and lacking in any fun when I go back and read posts where I'm clearly doing it.
Ha, me too! I've committed every sin I'm railing against here! Which is part of the point. You've got to rant to break yourself free from it too sometimes.
Also, like you said, one should try to back up a statement for themselves if no one else unless clearly marking it as unsupported ranting, as I did in my unsupported post a couple weeks back. It's a good cognitive process to try and work through it and sometimes you may find you don't actually end up supporting your own original viewpoint. I love it when that happens.
But why are you going to sites to read hack "criticism" if it pisses you off? And, more alarming, why are you blogging if you don't enjoy it?
Jason, there a bit of a misunderstanding here I think. I'm just talking about things that irritate me online, not saying I seek out these sites, but come across them or go to a blog I like and find them doing it, or me, from time to time.
I'm blogging because I love blogging, and sometimes I get down about it. When I do it helps to vent about the irritations I have and then my friends can commiserate or advise. It's a system that works well for me. I'm a sensitive person and can get easily depressed about the state of this or that online very easily. When I do I find that talking about it, or ranting about it, helps me work through it.
As for Nights of Cabiria, a movie I love, I just don't get excited about writing up well known classics too often, especially if I like them and don't want to hear a lot of dissent. So you see, I am blogging for myself, which is why I avoid things like that.
I prefer to review something I'm not wild about to get a discussion going about it which could very well change my mind. Case in point: Shutter Island. I gave it a lukewarm review but after the comment discussion with Bill and Sam Juliano and others I thought to myself, I'd like to see that again. With Nights of Cabiria it's more like putting something cherished on display. Sometimes you don't want to because you don't want to hear anything bad about it, or Giulietta Masina, who's wonderful beyond words.
I like to point to things like Shutter Island as proof that this blog isn't about rigid conceit but group discussion and intelligent debate. When I vent it's most likely because I know the capacity for that intelligent debate online and get discouraged when I see it pushed aside.
Ah! Now all of that I can understand. My bad.
Still, if you'd rather be spending your creative energy on something else, I sure hope you don't let the blog keep you from it. Trite as this will sound, life is too short. (Sadly, it's true.)
I've got nothing left to say, but I wanted this to hit 100 comments.
Boobs.
Well, I don't think this conversation has 25 more comments in it quite frankly but thanks for the effort.
I'm not much for lists either. I don't mind reading them, but I don't really like being asked to create one, which is why I limited the choices to a few films seen theatrically and on DVD for my best of 2009.
The person who had me start my blog was convinced that this would lead to something professionally. I was never too sure about that. But it's been nice to get a few free DVDs and discuss films with people who really know and love film. I don't talk about film much with non-cinephiles nor do I feel the need to butt in when I overhear people discussing anything film related.
My own direction in what I've been writing about is based on my own interests, but also that there aren't too many people who write about Asian films in English.
I still don't understand how Wikio comes up with their lists of top blogs, but what I find interesting is that my top postings, according to Wikio, are not necessarily the ones with the most, or any, comments.
Peter, I still remember when most of us started, between three and five years ago, there was still a feeling of people opting for print or online. Like Andy Horbal, who I remember specifically wanting to use his online writing as a springboard to print until by about a year or so ago it became clear that the top critics were getting the boot from the print industry and the online writers were, in fact, the real refuge of the cinephiles. Which is fine, this is where I like it.
And I'm with you, I have no idea how Wikio ranks. I know it's supposed to be based on external links to your blog, estimated hits and things like that but I don't know how they find that out. My technorati fluctuates wildly. I'll move up or down some thirty spaces in a week! Oh well.
I think it's weird, because Peter is one of the top people I'd nominate if someone came to me asking what blogger they should hire to write "legit" film criticism. I mean that utterly sincerely. I remember when I first Coffee, coffee and more coffee (No offense to any others, but seriously my favorite blog title) and I assumed that he was a notable movie critic that I simply wasn't aware of.
He's still among my top blogs and one of a small number, including this one, that I check even when I'm time crunched and checking very few.
I'm sorry, Peter, that I so rarely comment. My commenting - this thread aside - has gotten pretty weak at this point. I'll work on it.
I really appreciate the point about not having a lot of forums in real life for this. I find exactly the same issue in own. Sometimes it's good to just have an outlet for these thoughts, regardless of how many people actually are paying attention.
And that may be a better argument for not paying attention as anything...
... well I'm off to hypocritically check my Google Analytics...
Neil, it's funny you say that because I thought the same thing some 3 1/2 years ago. I was like, "Oh, I haven't heard of this Peter Nellhaus before but he's clearly an established critic." And Peter, that is sincere praise right there. You come off as utterly professional and knowledgable and you're a good writer to boot.
Thanks Neil and Greg! This helps me during my own moments of self-doubt.
Well, Rod has just quit film reviewing. It looks like Ferdy on Films might fold up soon.
I certainly hope not! I just commented on Rod's Facebook update. I hope he and most definitely Ferdy on Films stays ON!
We'll see.
Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.
He's alive. Alive!
Man, this made me laugh out loud, not just the quality of the piece but simply because I identify with it 100%. My site was beginning that journey into something other than it was, I got noticed! People linked to me from worthy places, I was starting to believe the hype and basically it was all hot air and I fell for it.
That's why I took the time out, the blog was getting in the way of life and it was never meant to be that way, it was really an extension of myself and that's all it ever has been. The time away has helped me reflect on the 'ego trip' I stumbled into and hopefully I can get back to reasons I began the damn thing in the first place. Simply to write about stuff I love and sod the rest of them.
Ibetolis, your comment couldn't be better timed. Please read my post tomorrow and you'll understand.
Thanks for the comment, and for expressing what I feel right now. I couldn't have said it better.
(Im retyping and reposting this just in case my original comment didn't make it)
If somewhat thought Topaz was Hitchcock's best film I would think they are a little bit crazy.It would be like saying Killer's Kiss is a better movie than 2001,Barry Lyndon,or Dr.Strangelove.
Im bothered by how pretentious critics can be.I have seen some them claim that a director least liked movie is their best but it strikes me as a way to seem hip
and contrarian.
Nothing is wrong with championing a director's least liked film (and I confess that I prefer Lang's Scarlet Street over Metropolis) but to value a director's signature style is to not lose a sense of perspective.
Sam, both comments went through but I published only the second since you said the same thing in both, but better I think in the second. And you state it very well in fact.
I prefer Scarlett Street as well, but think both are great films whereas I don't think Topaz is a great film and so I see the championing of obviously lesser films as either transparent contrarianism or, in many cases, a sign that many critics and reviewers quite frankly don't know a whole hell of a lot about film.
As magazines and papers get rid of their high profile critics who love and study and understand film, from Andrew Sarris to Jonathan Rosenbaum, they are replaced with much cheaper fresh-out-of-college journalism majors thrown into the reviewer's chair. It's one of the reason I pay no attention to sites like Rotten Tomatoes. Out of all those critics on every movie, maybe 10 percent really understand film at all. Why would I care what 137 journalism majors in their twenties think about the latest big movie?
Thank You responding Greg.I agree with you about Rotten Tomatoes.Alot of them are web critics.They are able to create there own websites and write about a movie.Yet,in their reviews they are usually are very brief and they don't look at the movies with much depth or offer new or unique viewpoints.
That being said,I do think their is very good web film criticism out there with Bright Lights Film Journal,Senses of Cinema,and Reverse Shot.
I do think their is very good web film criticism out there with Bright Lights Film Journal,Senses of Cinema,and Reverse Shot.
I agree. I think the real cinephiles are online, without a doubt. For some reason, the majority of the web-based critics on Rotten Tomatoes are not the cinephile bloggers we all know but people who started up a website to review movies, whether they know anything about the history of it or not. There are a few web-based cinephiles on RT, don't get me wrong (like Keith Ulrich), just not a lot. I wish more papers and magazines understood the importance of employing someone who has lived and breathed film since they were a toddler as their reviewers instead of the journalism grad just promoted from the copy room.
Post a Comment