newcritics - Latest Comments in Storming the Gates

Re: Storming the Gates

Chuck Tryon — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:33:47 -0000

M.A. Peel, I think that's a brilliant idea.

Re: Storming the Gates

M.A.Peel — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:03:23 -0000

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.

Re: Storming the Gates

M.A.Peel — Fri, 25 May 2007 09:59:34 -0000

Type your comment here.

Re: Storming the Gates

Chuck Tryon — Thu, 24 May 2007 00:21:01 -0000

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).

Re: Storming the Gates

Tom Watson — Tue, 22 May 2007 09:31:59 -0000

This entire site rebuts Schickel's desperate argument rather nicely.

Re: Storming the Gates

Self Styled Siren — Tue, 22 May 2007 08:05:16 -0000

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.

Re: Storming the Gates

Ted Pigeon — Mon, 21 May 2007 23:06:33 -0000

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.

Re: Storming the Gates

Tom Watson — Mon, 21 May 2007 16:57:18 -0000

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).

Re: Storming the Gates

Chuck Tryon — Mon, 21 May 2007 15:38:43 -0000

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.

Re: Storming the Gates

sean — Mon, 21 May 2007 14:06:37 -0000

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.