Links for the Day (March 25th, 2007)
1. Village Voice critic Nathan Lee fired for 'economic reasons.' The former New York Sun and New York Times contributor, who was hired as a staff critic by The Village Voice just 18 months ago, was axed yesterday by the newspaper's parent company, New Times. In an email sent to friends and colleagues -- including House contributors -- last night, Lee wrote: ["In great Village Voice tradition, I was abruptly laid off today for 'economic reasons.' My employment at the paper ends immediately: someone else, alas, will be tasked with specifying the precise shade of periwinkle frosting atop the cupcakes in My Blueberry Nights. And so I am, as they say, 'looking for work,' though presumably not as a staff film critic as such jobs no longer appear to exist."]
2. "A Boy the Bullies Love to Beat Up, Repeatedly." By Dan Barry of The New York Times. Related: "Fear the Geek," a classic -- some might say notorious -- column by Dan Savage.
["It began years ago when a boy called the house and asked Billy if he wanted to buy a certain sex toy, heh-heh. Billy told his mother, who informed the boy’s mother. The next day the boy showed Billy a list with the names of 20 boys who wanted to beat Billy up. Ms. Wolfe says she and her husband knew it was coming. She says they tried to warn school officials — and then bam: the prank caller beat up Billy in the bathroom of McNair Middle School. Not long after, a boy on the school bus pummeled Billy, but somehow Billy was the one suspended, despite his pleas that the bus’s security camera would prove his innocence. Days later, Ms. Wolfe recalls, the principal summoned her, presented a box of tissues, and played the bus video that clearly showed Billy was telling the truth. Things got worse. At Woodland Junior High School, some boys in a wood shop class goaded a bigger boy into believing that Billy had been talking trash about his mother. Billy, busy building a miniature house, didn’t see it coming: the boy hit him so hard in the left cheek that he briefly lost consciousness. Ms. Wolfe remembers the family dentist sewing up the inside of Billy’s cheek, and a school official refusing to call the police, saying it looked like Billy got what he deserved. Most of all, she remembers the sight of her son. 'He kept spitting blood out,' she says, the memory strong enough still to break her voice."]3. "Detroit Mayor Charged with Perjury." By Corey Williams of The Associated Press. See also: "Detroit mayor, ex-aide to be arraigned today" ; "Resignation alone not enough to spare mayor."
["Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a one-time rising star and Detroit's youngest elected leader, was charged Monday with perjury and other counts after sexually explicit text messages contradicted his sworn denials of an affair with a top aide. Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy also charged the popular yet polarizing 37-year-old mayor with obstruction of justice and misconduct in office. Kilpatrick, who was to be arraigned Tuesday afternoon, could face up to 15 years in prison and be expelled from office if convicted. 'Some have suggested that the issues in this case are personal or private," Worthy said. "Our investigation has clearly shown that public dollars were used, people's lives were ruined, the justice system severely mocked and the public trust trampled on. ... This case is about as far from being a private matter as one can get.'"]
4. "High Schoolers Create a Car That Gets 1,693 Miles-per-Gallon." By Peter Mychalcewycz for Switched.
["Warning: This article may cause serious arousal in environmentally-conscious individuals and/or anyone distraught at the current price of gasoline."]
5. "Fox refuses to pay indecency fine; FCC objects to sexual nature of 'America'." By William Triplett of Variety.
["Fox Television is refusing to pay a $91,000 broadcast indecency fine that the Federal Communications Commission slapped on the network for a 2003 episode of its Married by America reality show. In a statement released Monday -- the deadline by which Fox had to respond to the FCC's official notice of forfeiture -- the net said it will instead file a request for the FCC to reconsider the fine. In 2004, the FCC initially fined 169 Fox stations $7,000 each -- a total of $1.2 million -- for the episode, which included images of contestants licking whipped cream off strippers. Recently, however, the agency reduced the number of stations to 13 and thus the fine to $91,000, saying it would fine stations only in markets from which it had received complaints. Fox has argued that the material was not statutorily indecent but rather was integral to the storyline."]
Quote of the Day:
"One day people will look back at this moment in history and say, 'Thank God there were courageous people willing to serve,' because they laid the foundation for peace for generations to come." -- President George W. Bush, speaking to reporters during a March 25, 2008 briefing at the State Department on the occasion of the 4,000th reported U.S. combat death in Iraq. For more, click here. Related: Iraq's Sadr threatens 'civil revolt'."
Image of the Day (click to enlarge): "Afghan Star" contestant Lima Sahar sings during a rehearsal at the Tolo TV office in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, March 12, 2008. Photo by Rafiq Maqboo, The Associated Press. For more, see "Afghan Idol: A Subversive TV Hit," by Aryn Baker of Time.
Clip of the Day: "Down in the part of town where if you hit a red light you don't stop..."
_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged.
posted by Matt Zoller Seitz at 10:16 AM
31 Comments:
See also The Reeler, which boasts a comment thread wherein Luke Y. Thompson, a fellow New Times employee, sucks up to management.
I'm seriously pissed off about the Village Voice firing Nathan Lee. Why would they let go of the writer who most epitomizes the tone of the paper right now? While some colleagues have given Lee some crap about his reviews of stuff like SOUTHLAND TALES, I have always appreciated his take on things even when I disagree. One of the strongest, most individual new voices in criticism just got shot down for bullshit "economic reasons". I mean, really. What is the Voice coming to, and are their critics ultimately going to be Hoberman, Ridley and a bunch of unpaid interns wet behind the ears? WTF, I say!!!
Write a letter to the Voice and ask them what the fuck they think they are doing. I'm reminded of when Charles Taylor got kicked out of Salon -- that was equally unfair and equally moronic!
Yes, I'm all fired up. The show is being run by a bunch of bloodsucking monsters, and it's the readers and writers who are getting screwed.
I have more to say, but let me catch my breath first.
Jeremiah
Lee's aside, "..though presumably not as a staff film critic as such jobs no longer appear to exist" is really the key phrase here. In recent months, a hell of a lot of staff critics have been fired, given buyouts or otherwise had their positions eliminated. It's clear that the newspaper business no longer considers it necessary or even desirable to employ enough critics to really cover a local big-city film scene, or even to provide a locally-anchored voice on movies. The thinking seems to be, "Well, movies are an international medium, so why do we need local critics? Let's just run wire copy." That's what Long Island Newsday, which just bought out its longtime film critics Jan Stuart and Gene Seymour and its equally established TV critic Diane Werts, will do (utilizing copy from other papers in the chain). Ditto The Detroit Free Press. The New York Daily News axed Jami Bernard last year, and has yet to find a comparably experienced replacement for her colleague Jack Mathews, who retired last month.
One could argue, I suppose, that the explosion of web-based criticism will pick up the slack -- and speaking only for myself, I find these days that I'm more likely to find lively writing and original viewpoints on blogs than in print outlets.
At the same time, though, it's important to acknowledge that the idea of criticism-as-profession (as opposed to vocation or hobby) has a lot of merit. There's no way that a blogger who isn't independently wealthy can cover the full spectrum of current releases as diligently as somebody who's getting paid to do it, much less be able to get newsworthy film people on the phone for thinkpieces, features, obituaries and the like, or cover local, regional, national or international film festivals, as film critics for large and even medium-sized papers have traditionally been encouraged to do (depending on the outlet).
What we're seeing here is the passing of a notable and vibrant phase of movie writing. It'll be replaced by something else, yes, but something very different.
I think we're fast approaching the point where criticism will become, for the most part, a devotion rather than a job.
I'm not quite sure what to make of that. There are definitely a lot of hack-y film critics (and there always have been). But some of the great ones that came along during the era of newspapers and magazines could not have reached a national or international audience without the support of a paycheck, editors, and the rest of the superstructure that professional publications have in place. And that's still true. The best film blogs are influential within the context of the film buff community, but the fact is, on their best days, even the biggest independent, halfway serious film blogs don't have a fraction of the readership of blogs that are attached to advertiser-supported big media outlets.
Will that change as the print medium dies out and becomes mulch for the next phase of journalism?
I wish I knew the answer to that.
The Village Voice "Letter to the Editor" page is here.
#5: "FCC Objects To Sexual Nature Of 'America'"...Am I the only one who finds this line slightly hilarious?
Re: the quote, the current President Bush is George W. Bush.
George Herbert Walker Bush is his father, an immensely flawed and fallible man and President in his own right but a shining jewel of virtue compared to his offspring.
I'm reminded of when Charles Taylor got kicked out of Salon -- that was equally unfair and equally moronic!
The former Liberian dictator used to work for Salon?
I'll get my coat.
Charlie actually just left a blistering reply on The Reeler to LYT.
Piercing.
All of this slow critic downsizing means that Roger Moore is slowly becoming the most-read film critic in the nation, which is. . .disspiriting.
You know I can't access The Reeler. It says "Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /the_blog/lower_your_voice_nathan_lee.php on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."
Blerg.
re: #1.
worst birthday gift ever.
(speaking of, i think we've all been to angry to notice: these links are from THE FUTURE!!!!! RUN!!!)
re: john.
*too.
idiot.
Todd - Read Roger Moore's reviews while imagining the actor Roger Moore were reading them. More fun than you can imagine.
I'm a Detroit area resident and Monday's news regarding the indictments againts Mayor Kilpatrick drowned out all other discussions.
Including that of famed sucide doctor Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian who picked that SAME day to announce his run for U.S. Congress.
As I asked in my blog post from yesterday:
If someone jumps off a building, and no one is around to listen, do they make a "smooshing" sound on the concrete?
#2: "Bullying," in this case, should be called what it actually is: assault. In what other setting would repeated brutal assaults on one human being be tolerated?
"There's no way that a blogger who isn't independently wealthy can cover the full spectrum of current releases as diligently as somebody who's getting paid to do it..."
The Slant boys being a notable exception.
"a comment thread wherein Luke Y. Thompson, a fellow New Times employee, sucks up to management"
More like: Thompson gossips about a colleague, speculating (bullshitting) about what are surely confidential, in-house matters in a public forum.
Matters that are none of his damn business
Way to stab a guy in the back, Thompson.
Way to go.
Filmbrain: True. Emphasis, though, on "boys," plural. The Slant guys are great, but I guarantee you that every one of them doesn't see every significant release that's out there. Except maybe Ed Gonzalez, who as we know is actually a pseudonym for five identical twin brothers all living in the same Weehawken apartment.
To be more specific: a publication or website that wishes to adequately cover the hundreds of theatrical releases that appear in the US each year needs (1) a well-off, unemployed writer who can afford to do nothing but attend movies and churn out coverage (2) one or two critics getting paid to do it for a living, (3) a coordinated group of paid freelancers or unpaid movie fanatics working on concert, and not duplicating each other's coverage.
Plus, staff critics for commercial publications can do reporting, interviews and other types of film writing in addition to reviews/columns, because they have the institutional weight to get the contacts they need, and because being a paid critic gives them the breathing room necessary to develop sources AND see everything they need to see.
As Nathan indicates, the latter is a model that's going the way of the passenger pigeon and the dodo.
I'm commenting here to avoid any proximity to LYT, lest some cyber-contagion rubs off.
But haven't much to add except, "What Matt said." And that, in spite of the fact that I've always had issues with certain features of Lee's writing, as Godard characterized "New York, New York" as "un vrai film" I'd characterize Lee as a *vrai* film critic and regard his firing as a disgrace. But a not entirely un-anticipatable one.
Now excuse me while I go back to not asking for whom the bell tolls...
Some devil's advocate questions for Matt and anybody who wishes to respond: Is there something about the nature of today's films that have made editors across the country question the need for a local film voice when facing cutbacks? Why does film seem to be a beat that publications feel comfortable in sacrificing? Is it because it no longer seems of importance in the cultural scrum? Especially outside of big cities? And is there something in the nature of today's film writing that makes it less essential? Has film, in the larger mainstream sense, become a limited genre that doesn't seem to require any specialized attention? And do the writer/critics themselves bear any responsibility? Has the writing become boring or so predictable that it seems as though any voice on film is interchangeable with another in most publications? Have critics been the tools of their own destruction by not making film seem important enough? Or becoming part of the entertainment complex in the way they cover film? Does criticism need to be in some way reinvented for a new era? And is there anybody out there who is rethinking forms of criticism for a new time? Interested in hearing any responses...
a well-off, unemployed writer who can afford to do nothing but attend movies and churn out coverage
Throw a brick, you'll hit one. And do me a favor... throw it hard.
As I once said of LYT, you've got to be seriously screwed up to be liberal and friends with Cathy Seipp.
Anonymous, how's "no" for answer? The medium is changing more than the message, I think.
I agree with Bob Westal. With blogs and user comments on the likes of the IMDb and Yahoo! Movies, everyone's a critic, so to speak. Why hire someone with a breadth of film knowledge when an Average Joe Bloggs can deliver his insightful two cents ("This movie sucks! It is soooooo self-important. Like, I want two hrs of my life back, alrite?") for free?
On a semi-related topic, there is a thought-provoking discussion ensuing on Rotten Tomatoes. Following news of Nathan Lee's departure, a handful of RT posters expressed schadenfreude, resorting to the populist defense (i.e. "He was out of touch with the masses.").
Consider RT writer Jen Yamato's post here:
"These seem to be across the board buyouts due to corporate newspapers tightening budgets and thinking movie reviews don't need to be carried by individual voices - most, if not all of them, can just pick up wire reviews or reviews from other critics in their corporate family."
And consider the contrasting rebuttal below by a poster named bigbrother:
"I actually don't really care for any critics in general. That's why I prefer RT. If you get a strong enough cross section of people offering opinions you're bound to get a more accurate assessment than an individual who's opinion regardless is going to be tainted by personal preferences, likes and dislikes."
In the wake of our cyber culture, I think criticism has experienced a dramatic shift: once an individualist paradigm in print, it has since transitioned into a collectivist one on the web. And while I embrace the interactivity that the Internet continues to offer, I cannot help but lament the downsizing of individual voices.
"I actually don't really care for any critics in general. That's why I prefer RT. If you get a strong enough cross section of people offering opinions you're bound to get a more accurate assessment than an individual who's opinion regardless is going to be tainted by personal preferences, likes and dislikes."
That voice you hear from across the pond is my head exploding to due to the myriad logical fallacies in that paragraph.
Ali Arikan: That voice you hear from across the pond is my head exploding to due to the myriad logical fallacies in that paragraph.
No kidding. The fallacy of the value of critical consensus . . .
From James Agee, via Vinyl is Heavy:
I suspect I am, far more than not, in your own situation: deeply interested in moving pictures, considerably experienced from childhood on in watching them and thinking and talking about them, and totally, or almost totally without experience or even much second-hand knowledge of how they are made. It is my business to conduct one end of a conversation, as an amateur critic among amateur critics. And I will be of use and of interest only in so far as my amateur judgment is sound, stimulating, or illuminating.
Yeah, it would be nice to make a stable living off this stuff, but ultimately the stock that matters most rises and falls to the degree that we have something to say.
Few in the mainstream like/read/respect critics, anyway. We're somewhere below Jews, gypsies and negro pickpockets in the clueless estimation of many. But we keep at it because there are artists and writers listening out there. This here webocracy has revived a cultural discourse that was sorta dead (or stashed away in the big cities) for decades. Thank God for it.
Let everyone have their say, let the chips fall where they may. I've found that many of the most fascinating voices are hungry ones.
Yeah, it sucks to see another fine writer tumble out of the Voice, but I doubt we'll be deprived of his insights for too long. I'll bet he might even turn up at The House. That would be cool.
Steven:
Few in the mainstream like/read/respect critics, anyway. We're somewhere below Jews, gypsies and negro pickpockets in the clueless estimation of many.
This is so true. People feel downright *entitled* to be rude to me; I'm thinking of the drunk guy from back home I hadn't seen in a couple of years who started off with "You're a critic, right? Critics are just failed artists who are bitter and tear stuff apart, right?" It just got worse from there.
Lest this turn into a woe-is-us convention, let it be said that being a critic is a pretty great job, even if it pays little, because you get to spend a lot of time watching movies, sometimes for free.
Or maybe I should just refer everybody to Lester Bangs, who said, in "How to be a Rock Critic," "...if you stay at this stuff long enough you’ll start to get free records in the mail, and if you persevere even longer you may wind up on the promotional mailing lists of every company in the nation, which will not only save you a lot of money on payday and ensure that you’ll get to hear everything and anything you want, but help to pay the rent on occasion when you sell the albums spilling into your bathroom to local used records stores, at prices ranging from $.05 to over a dollar apiece."
It ain't medical, but it's something.
See also: Jim Emerson's excellent column on this topic, with a lively discussion thread.
Lastly: Revisit The Reeler for a lengthy comment by a reader who goes by the name Garrett. It's insightful, provocative and beautifully written -- and maybe the best summing up of all-around good criticism that I've read recently.
Post a Comment
<< Home