Variety fires Todd McCarthy as they elect to no longer have staff critics...

...making for a sad day in movie land for all critics like myself. Here's an article from the Los Angeles Times:

In a striking move that reflects changing state of film criticism, Variety has laid off its longtime chief film critic Todd McCarthy.

Neil Stiles, publisher of the Hollywood trade paper, said that chief theater critic David Rooney is being let go as well. "We are eliminating all full-time review staff for film and theater," he said.

The paper will now rely exclusively on freelancers and in-house staffers with other duties to review movies and shows. Stiles claimed that Variety will not cut back on the number of movie reviews it carries, which last year totaled about 1,200.

Variety and its competitor the Hollywood Reporter have always been known for reviewing a broader array of films around the world and at festivals than any other publications. Within the entertainment industry, Variety reviews have traditionally carried a significant amount of weight.

McCarthy is hardly the first high-profile film critic to lose his post, as scores of critics have been let go or have taken buyouts as the publishing industry struggles with declining circulation and ad revenues. However, the loss of a reviewer with the title of chief film critic could be a blow to Variety's credibility and prestige. McCarthy has worked at the paper since 1979.

"People still want to reviewed by Variety and we want to make sure we do at least as many as we have always done," said Stiles. "The challenge for us is being flexible in the face of economic realities."

Variety's chief television critic Brian Lowry, who also writes a column and a blog and occasionally reviews movies, will remain in his job, Stiles said.

-Thoughts?

Surprising no one, controversial critic Armond White has panned Shutter Island...

...so take it as a good indication that this is a film of quality. White is notorious for doing this, and his opinions, while valid, are odd to say the least (he calls 'Bringing Out The Dead' Scorsese's last decent film and thinks he's miscast Leo everyone time he's used him). His review can be found here, and if you're curious why so many people are confused by White's reviews, here's the Rotten Tomatoes archive, where he's panned films like The White Ribbon, Up in the Air, Precious, The Messenger, Invictus, The Road, Avatar, and The Wrestler, to name a few.
-Thoughts on Armond White and/or Shutter Island?

No Country for "Actual" Film Critics?

It seems nowadays that the popular thing to do is to blame the internet for all the world's problems. The music industry sucks? Blame the internet. The movie industry is in the shits? Blame the internet. The economy is going down the tubes? Blame the internet. The Mets can't make the playoffs? Well, you get the point. But, as we learned in the first grade, the easy solution is not always the right one. For the last few days, some of the more intelligent and gifted online bloggers have aired their personal gripes about the watering down of the film critic. According to Sasha Stone (of Awards Daily), the line between an actual film critic and a 15 year old with a blog is dangerously close to blurring. For her, this is borderline blasphemous. She writes that:

Nowadays, anyone with a blog who sees movies is called a “critic.” I really think that should be amended to use the term “blogger” or “industry columnist.” Not everyone is an actual film critic. I feel like I’m the only person in the known universe who cares about the difference but that’s because I come from a time when there was a difference; not just anyone could write about movies and be called a “critic.”

I typically respect Sasha’s opinions. She’s very intelligent when it comes to writing about the Academy Awards, and her website is one of the dopest. However, her post on film critics was puzzling. First, she did not offer a proper definition on what it takes to be a real critic. Generally, when a person makes an assertion, it’s customary for that person to offer a defense of the assertion. Anyone can blurt out empty meaningless statements, but often one anticipates some sort of defense. Sasha offers nothing. All I know is that she believes people who write about movies on their blogs are not necessarily film critics. That seems fair, but what the hell is a film critic then? Also, is she arguing that people who just write about films on their blogs should not be considered critics? Or is she arguing that people who aim to critique films on their blogs should not be considered critics? There is a major distinction between the two. Some people just write, and others offer criticisms.

Also, I’m a little confused by her last statement. Any type of film critic just doesn’t write about movies. Any person aiming to be a film critic just doesn’t write about movies. It’s not that simple. Some try to offer objective and informative critiques of the films that they watch. Isn’t that what film critics do? I guess the real question is what distinguishes Roger Ebert from me? Am I just an impostor film critic? Maybe. I don’t get paid and my opinions are barely read. But, my passion for film cannot be questioned. I study it, I live it, I breath it, and I love it. Of course, I’m not in the same ball park as Roger Ebert. He’s in the major league. But can’t the rest of us impostors at least bat for the minor leagues? Sure, I'm not as good. I'm trying to become a better critic. That does not mean I am not a critic. It just means that I have a shit more to learn before I consider myself a somewhat decent one.

As Jay-Z once rapped, “You can’t knock the hustle”. Please stop knocking our hustle. We're not your Grandfather's critics, but we're critics.

(Brad Brevet chimes in.)

A Proper Defense of Minority Report

A lot of readers are busting my chops for stating that Minority Report ("MR") is the best Spielberg film. To clarify, I wasn’t trying to bad mouth the Color Purple or Schindler’s List or any of his other classics (the “Spielberg Classics”). I love a lot of Spielberg’s movie, so that’s not an issue. Also, the "best" is a term of art. My definition will probably differ from yours, but I consider a film to be the "best" when it's technically flawless and substantively engaging (a dope plot).

From a technical standpoint, Spielberg is operating at the highest level. I don’t think anyone has a problem with the editing, cinematography, or direction of MR. It moves like a fast paced novel, and he doesn’t waste any frames. It’s fluid, succinct, and visually stunning. (Note: Spielberg generally works with the same production team).

Perhaps MR is not culturally “important” as the Spielberg Classics. Maybe, but I think that response is weak. Who determines what films are “important”? Is it solely contingent on the substance of the plot? The impact? Box office numbers? There is no set standard in determining what films are more important. It isn't objective. If this criticism had any weight, there would need to be an objective standard in determining the "cultural importance" of a film. I don't think that standard exist, hence I'm convinced by this line of reasoning.

Someone might interject, and argue that MR did not deal with a substantive historical issue like some of the Spielberg Classics, and I’d disagree with that too. MR attempted to tackle an important philosophical issue. The freewill/determinism debate has gone on for centuries, so it’s erroneous to play down the magnitude of its importance. I might also add that it's one of the key reasons people decide to dismiss religion, which has led to much strife between the believers and non-believers. Yes, race issues and the Holocaust are important issues, but they aren’t by default the most important. Moreover, the significance of an issue will change depending on the person. So, if you are more interested with philosophy in film, then a movie like MR will resonate more with you.

Maybe one will argue that the acting in MR wasn’t on par with the Spielberg Classics. Maybe. Who determines that? Is there some sort of scale that we can place performances on to determine the best one? Personally, I thought the acting in MR was brilliant. Tom Cruise was at his best (probably gave a better performance in Magnolia). Colin Farrell also gave one of his better performances. Max Von Sydow was the true gem of the film. (and Samantha Morton is brilliant as Agatha - Thanks Fred).

What arguments are left? Realistically, the burden of proof is not on me. Unless there is some objective way to determine what films are the best, then most arguments don’t hold weight. I’m not saying The Mask 2 is better than The Spielberg Classics. I’m arguing that MR is his best film because it appeals to me more so than any of his other films. I’m not arguing that MR is of a better production quality (It’s the same group of dudes), but that philosophically it was more interesting.

Some people like Amnesiac more than OK Computer. I'm one of those people . . .