Film Criticism

[Professor Wagstaff]

David Denby steps down from his post as The New Yorker's film critic

[Oedipax]

I find Richard Brody frustrating at times (and his Godard bio is obviously rife with problems to say the least) but he's about a million times more interesting than David Denby.

[hearthesilence]

I've always had a mixed assessment of Denby's reviews. His criticism was rarely insightful and some of his hyperbolic pronouncements could be ridiculous, but once in a while, his style was quite good, so perhaps it's best for everyone that he's focusing on a book.

[Randall Maysin]

I pretty much find him completely useless. some writing talent, but I always felt he was just pretending to have his opinions, not out of perversity or guile but just a profound personal cluelessness.

[Perkins Cobb]

Well, contrary to the initial reports, Denby will still be around writing occasional longer pieces on film (and other stuff), so there'll still be plenty to ignore.

[Numero Trois]

not out of perversity or guile but just a profound personal cluelessness.

My breaking point with him was when he gave a positive review of The Life of David Gale. The less said about that one, the better.

[hearthesilence]

I've been helping a friend with a film analysis website called Screen Prism. They're still finding their footing, but they're also looking for constructive feedback, so I thought I'd post about it here.

Right now, it's focused on very small number of films (hence the emphasis on awards season contenders) but eventually they want to be as comprehensive as imdb and have films open to discussion in a reddit/rottentomatoes format, albeit with curating. In terms of tone and style, I want to say it would be along the lines of Roger Ebert. They're hoping to grab a broad audience, but they're also seriously hoping to get people more interested in film as an art film. So it's not going to be a film journal, but more like a university level class filled with educated, presumably sophisticated students who aren't well-versed in film but are definitely engaged.

[warren oates]

I guess I have trouble understanding what this site's reason for existing is, who it thinks its target audience is, what it imagines it's contributing the global conversation about film. You say that they want to foster discussion, but the bland, unsigned voice of authority articles up there now just feel like a dumbed-down film aggregator version of something like the Atlantic Wire. If it stays the way it is I can't imagine ever going back there or recommending it to any film nerd friends young or old.

As for the actual content of the posts, I was underwhelmed and annoyed by so many details. The Q&A format seemed concocted so as to pitch obvious softballs to themselves, but the answers were riddled with predigested sentiments and inaccuracies (Russian Ark isn't a faux long take; Rope isn't "digitally stitched together"). The format also seemed really insufficient for addressing some of those questions, which don't have easy answers like, for example, "Does American Sniper have a political agenda?"

I'd urge the site's founders to take a long hard look in the mirror, to look at every other film website they say they admire, to really ask themselves why they think the world needs another one and what they're going to offer us with it. Ebert's site, IMDb and reddit already exist. So do dozens of other smaller film criticism websites that I'll check in with periodically. All it takes to get me to start coming to a new place is one or two writers with a strong voice and real insights. Absent that, I won't be clicking back again.

[Perkins Cobb]

Indiewire reviewer tries to underwrite career as freelance film critic with a sideline in underage sex trafficking; fails.

[domino harvey]

Holy shit, from the Playlist. I know at least one of his colleagues posts here, but he himself doesn't does he?

[Perkins Cobb]

Dunno. Googling his name (his byline was Gabe Toro), it sounds like he was a contentious poster at Rotten Tomatoes (who was outed, presciently, as an internet creeper by his haters there), so we'd probably remember if he was ever here.

He looks familiar; I'm sure I've seen him at screenings in NYC, although I don't think I've actually met him. His abrupt "disappearance" was noted on Facebook, at least, back in August, but I guess this is the first public disclosure as to why.

[cdnchris]

Holy shit, Fabfunk. I haven't seen that screen name in a long, long time. I don't think he ever posted here but he was on a number of other film forums.

[domino harvey]

The only voice anyone wants to hear from on this says something

[Perkins Cobb]

Well, OF COURSE he does.

[MichaelB]

I still remember my shock at discovering that someone I interacted with online was:

(a) the son of an A-list celebrity (or at least the British equivalent, in that practically everyone in the UK has heard of Ronnie Barker);
(b) then a wanted, now a convicted paedophile.

I first heard about it via the police, who wanted to know if I had any personal details, knew of his then whereabouts, etc. I don't think I knew of the celebrity connection at the time (he posted under his real name, but "Barker" is a common enough surname), but as soon as he was caught and jailed it was all over the tabloids - it didn't help that his father was dying as well, which allowed them to turn the ghoulish prurience up to eleven.

[Highway 61]

Holy shit, from the Playlist. I know at least one of his colleagues posts here, but he himself doesn't does he?

He used to post on the CHUD forums all the time before they ran him off. He became infamous for posting what was purportedly necrophiliac pornography, stalking one of the writer's sisters, and for asking David Cronenberg about Viggo Mortensen's balls. I was genuinely stunned when I realized that he was writing for the Playlist, and his byline there is one of the reasons I stopped reading the site. I couldn't believe they didn't look at his internet history before publishing him. If you read through his CHUD posts, it was self-evident that he had deeply unhealthy attitudes about sex and women.

[Perkins Cobb]

Den of Geek takes the troubling step of deleting all of Gabe Toro's reviews from their site.

Also: CHUD founder makes it all about himself and posts a short film featuring Toro in a supporting role. Ick: no thanks to both. I bet the buyers of the ads embedded before said film are delighted about that.

[MichaelB]

Den of Geek takes the troubling step of deleting all of Gabe Toro's reviews from their site.

Their gaff, their rules.

I don't think there's anything "troubling" about not wanting to be associated with a convicted sex offender (even innocently), any more than the Bright Lights Film Journal overreacted by deleting everything by one of their contributors when I demonstrated that one of his pieces was so blatantly plagiarised that the understandably shocked editor said "these are is friggin' edits, not original writing at all." His other stuff might have been as pure as the driven snow for all they knew.

In any case, the authors in question have plenty of alternative platforms on which to (most likely self-)publish their work, so nobody's free speech is being suppressed. Although admittedly Gabe Toro might find it a bit tricky right now.

[Perkins Cobb]

Well, when plagiarized pieces are deleted, it's because the work itself is corrupted. Toro's writing had nothing to do with his illegal behavior. While I'd not censure any of these outlets for choosing not to continue using a convicted sex offender, expunging the historical record is another matter entirely.

[MichaelB]

Well, when plagiarized pieces are deleted, it's because the work itself is corrupted. Toro's writing had nothing to do with his illegal behavior.

So why did so many people who'd never met him and who only had his writing to go by call him a creep in no uncertain terms well before his conviction and then express a total lack of surprise when it happened?

[Perkins Cobb]

Mainly from his posts on various film forums like this one, I gather. Many of which were deleted (or at least avidly rebutted) on the grounds of perviness at the time.

[The Narrator Returns]

It appears that Nathan Rabin will be leaving The Dissolve (his Twitter bio lists him as looking for work and "formerly of The AV Club and The Dissolve").

[Cold Bishop]

There's a lone tweet among his ICP adventure that suggests the hammer was dropped on him today.

[Lemmy Caution]

Indiewire reviewer tries to underwrite career as freelance film critic with a sideline in underage sex trafficking; fails.

Someone in those comments quotes that guy saying that he had three jobs.
I don't want to guess what the 3rd one was ...

[domino harvey]

Richard Shickel's new book gets a D- from the AV Club