Storming the Gates


In an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, Richard Schickel has jumped into the fray ignited by Motoko Rich’s New York Times article on the reduction in the number of pages devoted to book (and film) reviews in daily newspapers. I’ve already written at some length on this topic on my personal blog, but Schickel’s article, with its inexplicable condescension towards bloggers and its maddening inconsistencies, compelled me to respond.

First, I think Kevin Drum is right to say that Rich’s article hardly depicts any kind of “blogger triumphalism” at crashing the gates of the hallowed halls review writing. In fact, co-Newcritic Maud Newton expresses some ambivalence about the decline in book review pages, and I’ve said something similar about the firings of a number of film reviewers I appreciate, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Eleanor Ringel.

But what bothers me most about Schickel’s article is the smug elitism he displays towards bloggers, whom he characterizes as inadequately qualified to offer informed commentary on the latest books or films. Schickel writes:

Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author’s (or filmmaker’s or painter’s) entire body of work, among other qualities.

Of course, those of us who read and write blog reviews know that many of the best bloggers are in fact quite knowledgeable about the field they discuss.
Most of the film bloggers I read have, in fact, studied film either as undergraduates or, quite often, as graduate students. Many others work or have worked in the film industry. While there are certainly a number of bloggers who write their “hasty, instinctive opinions,” there are doubtless many others who have done their homework. To be fair, Schickel’s comments about bloggers echo a common misconception about blogging, one that takes a characteristic of blogging software–immediate publication–and uses that to define all blog writing as the immediate and spontaneous outpouring of unfiltered opinion. He later characterizes blogging as lacking permanence, as a form of “speech” rather than “writing,” which I find an odd distinction. While many bloggers write with the present moment in mind–after all posts appear on-screen in reverse chronological order–most of us are acutely aware of our archives.

But an even odder aspect of Schickel’s article–at least in my read–is his characterization of what film bloggers are doing, how we are reviewing or commenting on the films we discuss. He writes,

Opinion — thumbs up, thumbs down — is the least important aspect of reviewing. Very often, in the best reviews, opinion is conveyed without a judgmental word being spoken, because the review’s highest business is to initiate intelligent dialogue about the work in question, beginning a discussion that, in some cases, will persist down the years, even down the centuries.

Again, I hope it’s clear from my film reviews that my goal is intelligent discussion of the films I’m watching. I don’t give stars, thumbs, or grades to any of the films I watch (the same goes form most, if not all, of the film bloggers I read), which is something that cannot be said about many of the professional critics that Schickel seems to be defending. In fact the “thumbs up, thumbs down” model didn’t come from some online film bloggers but from two of the most prominent professional critics of the last thirty years (two critics I happen to like, but that’s another matter).

More than anything, Schickel’s elitism, his stuffy anti-democratic definition of reviewing rubs me the wrong way. Certainly not all bloggers measure up to the titans of criticism–Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve, Edmund Wilson, and George Orwell–he mentions, but that’s true of professional critics as well. Thus far, I’ve been a little restrained in this discussion because I know that the cutbacks on professional critics in the pages of major newspapers have financial consequences, but Schickel’s undemocratic defense of some obscure standards struck me as especially problematic.

Possibly Related Classroom Projects From DonorsChoose.org Powered by Social Actions

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
May 21st, 2007
Comments
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Uncategorized

Other Posts
I Love Joni
Philip K. Dick: American Original

Readers

Shop newcritics

Featured books:


Viewing 10 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Schickel is a fool. Look at most of his reviews compared to the better film blogs and pity the poor Time critic. Like so many "critics" today writing about film and complaining about blogging he has little visual acumen (or ability to relate how he sees a movie to an audience), isn't a particularly sharp writer, and has fairly limited take (via Time mag) of world cinema. Blogging has made film criticism more adventurous, moving it out of the standard review, breaking down its aspects (poetics, cinema as memory, opening shots, etc ,etc.)creating an atmosphere where thumbs up/down is the least of it. My only problem with blogs (in general) is the kind of run-on logic of interminable posts. Since most writers good (and esp. not so good) require another set of eyes, so many posts belabor points, drift, or drag or merely overstay their welcome.
    • ^
    • v
    Sean, I'm beginning to think that I was too nice to Schickel. You're right about many film and media blogs sometimes needing a second set of eyes. That's one of the other great strengths of group blogs and open comments. Even if the original entry drifts, drags, or digresses, someone can call the blogger on it.

    But more importantly, the "collective intelligence" of the blogosphere is bringing something new to film criticism, and that's pretty cool.
    • ^
    • v
    Too many goodie bags on the way out of the "interview" room for old Schickel - he thinks he's part of the industry, just like our Beltway brethren think they're part of the power structure in the USA. (Agree with Sean on the short-posts theory - it's almost always right).
    • ^
    • v
    I read your post, Chuck, and I found it a fitting response to Shickel's elitism, as you say. Interestingly, my most recent post touches upon some of the very same issues he discusses (I just read his article tonight), and while I agree with him that criticism is more than opinion stating (as I mention in my post), he is incredibly off base and uninformed himself in his blanket statements about bloggers. As you claim in your defense, there are intelligent film blogs out there that are far more contributory to film criticism than a great deal of published work. His points about speaking and writing make a lot of sense, and I think the blogging discussion is far from over (as I have my criticism of blogging as well), but his article exhibits his total absence of knowledge concerning the goings on of the film blogging world. It's world I'm happy to be apart of, one that is reshaping how we conceive of film criticism, a reshaping that is much needed.
    • ^
    • v
    Good, measured response here to Schickel. He has earned his bile by extensive writing on film history, but my first reaction to his article was that he clearly doesn't read much on the Web. If I thought Schickel checked his email I would send him some links. Thanks to newspaper cutbacks, there may be more thoughtful, well-informed film critics on the Web than there are in print. Schickel is playing King Canute to the blogging tide, which is a bit ironic considering his early role as a champion of young filmmakers over the more traditional Hollywood fare.

    Sean, I also agree with your point about blog posts; rambling is the enemy. My own blogging is a continual struggle to write short, one that I do not always win.
    • ^
    • v
    This entire site rebuts Schickel's desperate argument rather nicely.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for the additional comments (I've been traveling or I would have responded sooner).

    Self-Styled Siren, I think you're certainly right to connect these issues to the cutbacks in newspaper reviews.

    I don't really buy Schickel's attempt to identify blogging with "speaking" versus "writing" ("real" criticism), if only because I spend a bit of time revising and editing as I blog. So blogging for me is far less spontaneous than speaking (at least as Schickel seems to be defining it).
    • ^
    • v
    Type your comment here.
    • ^
    • v
    Very existential--hitting submit on an empty comment!

    I was going to say, I think that Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve should become a catchphrase for bloggers.
    • ^
    • v
    M.A. Peel, I think that's a brilliant idea.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus