Print Journalism Critics: Endangered?

I was in Rhode Island over the weekend at a conference with my wife and I wasn't able to make it to the theaters to see Stop-Loss. By tonight I'm hoping to post a personal response and analysis regarding the chapter "Technostalgia" in Timothy Taylor's book Strange Sounds: Music, Technology and Culture. Until then read this excerpt from a NY Times article today and then check out the article. I'm interested in hearing your responses.

Nathan Lee, one of The Village Voice’s two full-time critics, was laid off last week by Village Voice Media, a large chain of alternative weeklies that has been cutting down the number of critics it employs across the country.

The week before, two longtime critics at Newsday — Jan Stuart and Gene Seymour — took buyouts, along with their editor. And at Newsweek, David Ansen is among 111 staff members taking buyouts, according to a report in Radar.

They join critics at more than a dozen daily newspapers (including those in Denver, Tampa and Fort Lauderdale) and several alternative weeklies who have been laid off, reassigned or bought out in the past few years, deemed expendable at a time when revenues at print publications are declining, under pressure from Web alternatives and a growing recession in media spending.

Given that movie blogs are strewn about the Web like popcorn on a theater floor, there are those who say that movie criticism is not going away, it’s just appearing on a different platform. And no one would argue that fewer critics and the adjectives they hurl would imperil the opening of “Iron Man” in May. But for a certain kind of movie, critical accolades can mean the difference between relevance and obscurity, not to mention box office success or failure.

“For those of us who are making work that requires a kind of intellectual conversation, we rely on that talk to do the work of getting people interested,” said Mr. Rudin, who produced “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood,” two Oscar-nominated and critically championed films last year. “All of the talk about ‘No Country,’ all of the argument about the ending, kept that film in the forefront of the conversation” and helped it win the best picture Oscar.

The Bank Job

There are no spoilers so feel free to read on. Also, if you're not familiar with my method of critiquing movies check out an explanation here. If all goes well next week I'll review the film Stop-Loss, if all doesn't go according to plan I'll review something from my library.

There is much too be explored concerning heist movies. They are almost a genre to themselves: from The Great Train Robbery, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, the Oceans franchise, and Inside Man, to the latest offering, The Bank Job. Why do we love them so? Do we wish that we had the guts to do something stupid and get a huge pay-off? Do we like to see them screw-up and get caught? Who knows? But, whether they’re westerns, action films, comedic capers or serious films that deal with the serious consequences of a heist we are drawn to them over and over. The plots are remarkably similar: a heist is planned, something goes wrong, and we—the audience—hang on for dear life while the crooks try to (and sometimes do) escape.

So, it was with great anticipation that I recently screened The Bank Job. I have long been a fan of Jason Statham. His understated portrayal of Frank Martin in The Transporter hooked me, followed by three turns with director Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Revolver) which reeled me in even more. He has popped up in small roles all over the map including a supporting role in The Italian Job (to be followed next year by The Brazilian Job) and a small cameo in Collateral. He brings an authenticity to the small time criminals he plays that was honed through his childhood (his mom was a lounge singer, and his dad ran a black-market operation) and draws you in like the victim of a good con. I’m extremely thrilled that he’s finally been given his due and is the proper star of modest-sized blockbuster, but, that being said, I’m no fan of The Bank Job. Part of my problem had to do with my expectations; they were admittedly high, partly due to reviews which I read and partly due to The Bank Job’s advertising campaign. However, I place no fault with the actors and instead squarely lay the blame with executive production decisions concerning the final edit.

The film is set in London in 1971, a time when (much like the current US situation) excessive inflation and a near recession were imposing severe strain on the lower middle class and poor populations. It is based on the real life events of what is often referred to as the walkie-talkie robbery (warning: possible spoiler towards the end). Statham plays Terry Leather, the owner of a small car dealership who’s gotten in over his head with some bad loans from some shady characters. He’s a generally decent guy with a wife and two kids, but he’s not above some small time skullduggery here and there to make ends meet. When he’s presented with the opportunity to rob a room of safe deposit boxes in the Lloyd Bank for what seem to be decent odds, he reluctantly agrees to do it so he can set his family up for good. I don’t want to completely spoil the film for the reader so I won’t discuss the plot any further. Mostly I feel betrayed by the promotional poster (above) which clearly tries to evoke the seventies and this statement from Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune:

Director Roger Donaldson's film isn't merely set in 1971; despite being shot on high-definition digital video, in deceptively warm, bright tones, "The Bank Job" moves and feels like a film made in '71, albeit with slightly less errant zooming going on.

It makes me wonder if Michael Phillips has actually seen a film made in 1971. That was the year that Dirty Harry, Shaft, and The French Connection were released, and a cinemagraphic connection between those films and The Bank Job could easily be established. In recent years films such as Munich, Michael Clayton, and No Country for Old Men have clearly displayed their seventies influences in new and exciting ways. But director Roger Donaldson (The Recruit, Thirteen Days, Dante’s Peak) chose instead to use quick edits and a throbbing score to create a pseudo action film, where instead dialogue and a minimal score should have provided the suspense. The problem with this approach is that the desperation of Terry Leather’s situation was never vividly portrayed. I didn’t really believe that this was a man at the end of his rope, and I sincerely believe that was due to post-production decisions. I was also completely unhappy with the portrayal of a peripheral yet very important character known as Michael X. Michael X was black power leader in London in the late sixties and seventies who modeled himself after Malcolm X. This could have been an arresting performance, but instead Michael X was portrayed almost as and over-the top caricature and thus lost any of the impact he should have had. If I had been a good movie watcher I would have tried to go into this film with as blank a slate as possible, and perhaps I would have been more rewarded. The script is extremely smart, the acting was mostly good, and the story clearly deserves more exploration (especially the process of issuing D-notices, most recently used while Prince Harry was in Afghanistan) and if you like a decent action movie, this could serve as two hours of solid entertainment. But if you’re like me and prefer your action flicks smart and fresh then don’t let this film perform a bank job on your wallet.

Rated R for language, violence, and scenes of a sexual nature

Open Letter to the Readers of Coffee Talk

For the few loyal readers of this blog: I have returned from my hiatus with a new direction. For various reasons posting 3 times a week was beyond my capabilities. Mostly this had to do with my desire for every post to be meaningful and that took a lot out of me. I don't like to post things of a personal nature for various and sundry reasons, so I was scrambling to provide an intelligent, articulate, and well researched post on such a frequent basis.

For those who don't know, my favorite things to read are criticism. I seriously considered pursuing a graduate degree in art history and criticism with the intention of being an art critic. The first sections I flip to (or click to as the case may be) in papers and magazines are the reviews. Whether it's art criticism, film criticism, literary criticism, dance reviews, or music reviews I'm hooked. It's been this way for several years now, and my secret wish is to be an art and film critic for a major magazine or paper. So, after analyzing my blog traffic and realizing that my reviews (especially my review of Vik Muniz's work, and the film Gone Baby Gone) still receive a significant amount of hits daily, and much prodding from my wife (who says she really likes my reviews even though she kind of has to say that) I've decided to post a weekly review.

You might ask what value criticism has in a culture already over saturated with entertainment. You might ask why I don't focus on something more useful to society and the world at large. I would respond by saying that is a valid question, and that through criticism I try to understand why our culture is the way it is, and we we focus on we do. I would say that every culture tries to express itself in some creative way, because of the creative forces that created us. I try, in my own way, to provide more understanding and perspective so that we may be better agents of hope and renewal. I hope you enjoy as I explore criticism through this blog, and I sincerely hope you'll comment on my reviews (whether you agree or disagree) and thus help me hone my critical skills as well as become a better writer.

Steven

Evolutionary Theology

From Salon:

Evolution remains the thorniest issue in the ongoing debate over science and religion. But for all the yelling between creationists and scientists, there's one perspective that's largely absent from public discussions about evolution. We rarely hear from religious believers who accept the standard Darwinian account of evolution. It's a shame because there's an important question at stake: How can a person of faith reconcile the apparently random, meaningless process of evolution with belief in God?

It's a good interview and the book looks interesting. Check it out.

Wednesday Review: Vik Muniz

Today's artist of the day is Vik Muniz. I encountered Vik Muniz's work last week when I was in Montreal with my wife. He had an exhibit at the Musée D'Art Contemporain De Montréal. It was a fascinating exhibit and it was one of the best art exhibits I had seen in quite a while. Quite frankly I had given up on representational artwork sometime ago. I felt that photography could handle that and that other visual artists should focus on other things. Well, Muniz has changed my mind. He does his work with nontraditional media and then takes a photograph, which is his final piece. One of my favorites is this piece made with sugar sprinkled over black construction paper.Most of his portfolio can be seen on his website. I also highly recommend watching the PBS documentary in the video section of his site.