“[T]he existence of full-time staff film reviewers is a nutty aberration in the history of periodical publishing…I’d love to see every magazine employ an army of full-time culture reviewers, and pay them millions, but it doesn’t make very much sense, for the simple reason that it’s not truly a full-time job.”
—Michael Atkinson, from his Zero For Conduct blog, quoted in Vincent Rossmeir’s “Where Have All The Film Critics Gone?”, Brooklyn Rail, June 2008 issue
Gee, thanks, Michael. Whether you know it or not—and I rather suspect you do—you’ve just given a long belt of ammunition to the Sam Zells of the world. The gutters, the “cost-cutters,” the content-haters, the obscenely rich resenters who think this whole “journalism” thing is a racket enacted by a bunch of smarty-pants elitist slackers. Way to be, pal.
And while we’re at it, define “full time.” “I’ve done the job. I know how much time it takes,” you puff to Rossmeir. (And um, just when did you turn into John fucking Milius, anyway?) What was it Red Smith said? “Writing is easy. You just sit down at the typewriter and open a vein.” I know, Michael, I know—Red Smith was probably some kind of pussy.
“Film criticism is a dead-end,” you continue. “You don’t want to devote yourself to it. You have to have something else to pay the bills. It’s not really a viable profession. And it never has been.”
Unfortunately, you don’t provide too many useful suggestions as to what else to do to pay the bills. Given the general tenor of your remarks, I assume it’s something along the lines of sawing down trees. And to tell you the truth, that’s something I’d love to see Anthony Lane take a shot at.
But let’s, just because it could be fun, break down the whole “time” issue.
Left: Michael Atkinson portrait not available
You told Rossmeir that you didn’t think critics who only work 10 to 12 hours a week should be paid like other professionals who work 40. Well, you know, that’s why there’s freelance journalism, which pays by the word, or by the piece. Generally speaking, if you’re a staff member at a magazine, the amount of time you spend at your job is compounded merely by the fact that you’re a staff member. NYT critics A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis aren’t woolgathering when they’re not writing reviews. Frequently, they’re writing other pieces, for Arts and Leisure or for the magazine. Scott does video reviews. Both do on-line stuff. And both partake in the culture of being a staff member, that is, they go to meetings and such. David Edelstein is the “full-time” film critic for New York; he also has gigs at CBS This Morning and on NPR. He’s also obliged to blog at New York website, although he’s not quite up to speed on that. When I was the chief film critic at Première magazine, I was also responsible for commissioning and editing features (sometimes really long and involved ones, by the likes of Mark Ebner, John Connelly, and David Foster Wallace), writing features and front-of-the-book stuff, and editing the back-of-the-book home entertainment section. At the website, I had to blog and do features, and if I didn’t have enough to do, I had to come up with the idea of initiating a “High-Def DVD Consumer Guide,” forcing me to watch a lot more lousy movies than I normally would in my 10-to-12-hour-a-week schedule.
Add to that the fact that movie screening are frequently scheduled at times which conflict with one’s having of a life. Seven in the evening, when the rest of the world is settling in for a family dinner or restorative cocktail or some such, we New-York-based scribes are tucking into a Diet Coke at a crowded AMC in midtown, waiting for the lights to go down. Or whenever. And we’re not even getting into the time expenditure for those film critics who want to go through the Nathan Lee Six Point Plan On Being A More Well-Rounded Film Critic (Read a “great” 19th_Century novel; learn what’s going on in painting; ditto music; read more books; go to a restaurant; get laid). What are they gonna do, rush through getting laid in order to brush up on Richard Prince?
And then, of course, there’s the writing itself, which requires not just time but a certain mental solitude that’s often difficult to come by. But in Atkinson’s world, it’s all a breeze, apparently. Lucky him.
Atkinson is a provocative and frequently astute critic. And if I ever get to disperse any kind of freelance budget again in my career (not that I particularly aspire to), I’m gonna have to think long and hard before letting him see a penny of it.
UPDATE: Interested parties might want to view this post on Atkinson’s blog, in the comments section of which he pats Mr. Grayson on the head and tells him he’s “very right.” I’ve been extending Mr. Atkinson the benefit of the doubt since his review of Jill Morley’s Stripped in 2002 (he knows what I’m talking about); now, that’s all over, too.
Excellent rebuke, Glenn. I’ve always wondered, though, if any of your many previous rebukes have resulted in any tense face-to-face moments with the rebukee?
I think I speak on behalf of anybody’s who ever had a magazine staff gig when I say of Atkinson…Wotta maroon. Wotta tar-ra-ra-goondeeyay.
I love it when you get pissed off, Glenn. Well, I don’t ALWAYS love it, but I do when I’m in agreement with you. And I always hope the critic who has raised your ire will respond in the comments section, or on their own site, but they almost never do. Oh well.
PS – What did John Milius ever do to you!?
Owain—nothing too awful, although the opportunities for face-to-face confrontation aren’t as plentiful as you might think. I’ve verbally tussled with Atkinson before, and he’s not averse. In fact, I can’t imagine he imagined he could talk such shit and NOT provoke some angry objections. I believe I’ve achieved a certain détente with Nathan Lee (although his recent “Mother of Tears” review sorely tempted my inclination to stick to any non-aggression pact). As for others, no bad experiences yet.
Bill: Like “Zeroville” author Steve Erickson, I’m actually pretty fond of John Milius. It’s guys who aren’t John Milius coming on like John Milius to whom I take exception.
I wonder if Atkinson also thinks teachers only work eight hours a day and enjoy their summers off.
Glenn: Ah, well, THAT I can understand. Also, “Red Dawn”. But we’re none of us perfect.
I need to buy a copy of “Zeroville”. I get the sense that it’s becoming the new “Flicker”. I have the short story from which “Zeroville” was expanded, but I’m not sure I want to read it first.
I think the only point Atkinson was making was that in an era when papers are failing fast the movie reviewers are the first to get cut. Who to cut? The foreign correspondents covering the war or that guy we pay to watch movies? And that’s an easy choice to make. It will only get worse. If it weren’t for the simultaneous US occupations newsrooms would be ghost towns now too.
Plus, your argument did nothing but reinforce Atkinson claim that reviewing is a part-time gig. In order to make it a full-time job it has to be padded with other odd jobs. A combination of increasing media conglomeration and free online personals has threatened everyone. There’s really no sense in declaring it a real job or not. Even the heavy-lifters (war correspondents) are effected.
I think if Atkinson had meant to say that when papers are failing fast the movie reviewers are the first to get cut, he would have said THAT. Instead, he said that “the existence of full-time staff reviewers is a nutty aberration in the history of periodical publishing,” which is a whole other kettle of fish. Whether I reinforced Atkinson’s point or not is open to question—I don’t think I did, as I was largely taking issue with his “let-ME-tell-you-how-much-time-this-job-takes” bluster—but to bring war correspondents into this admitedly very circumscribed, inside-baseball argument is hardly germane. Except insofar as Atkinson’s implication that the film critic is some kind of lazy sot can easily, in the mind of some mogul, go viral and extend to war correspondents. Not that, as you imply, it already hasn’t.
Glenn, judging from the thinness of your skin, I would say that Atkinson has a point, and he must have a very sharp point if it cheesed you off so much. If watching movies and writing about them doesn’t pay the bills, then go find an f’ing job that does. I think that’s all he’s trying to say. Pretty simple. And if you don’t have any other discernable skill than watching movies and writing about them, then that’s your problem. It’s not your right as an smarmy, pop-cultural referencing, Knowing-How-The-World-Works type of guy to get paid to have your adolescence extended. No one is saying that people who write about movies don’t have their place; they do. I just think that the market is finally getting around to showing exactly where your place is, and it’s closer to the street than you think. The world won’t end if no one gets paid to write about obscure dvd releases. I’m sure you have something very cutting to say about what I’ve said, so let ‘er rip. You seem like a very clever guy. Being clever doesn’t pay the rent, though, now does it? Bwahahahahahahahah!
Yeah, I do have something to say about what you’ve said—as cheesed off as I’ve ever gotten at anything or anybody, I don’t think I’ve ever been quite enough of a fucking prick to wish unemployment on a person. You, however, don’t seem to have that problem.
And save your “bwahahaha,” pally. I’m not out yet. To tell you the truth, I’m not even down. Just making conversation, is all.
Good god, man, what are you talking about? No one is wishing unemployment on anyone. As a matter of fact, I am bidding you a hearty mahzel tov on finding regular employment should you find that your days of watching movies for a living comes to an end, which is seems will be soon. You could be a subsitute teacher or something. The world needs more good teachers, you know, people with your kind of education. You see, this is the crux of the matter. You and your kind don’t want employment that doesn’t have to do with watching movies, which is fine, but don’t expect anyone other than those who share your predicament to give a hoot. I have been a faithful reader of your blog, and find you, along with Atkinson, to be one of top men in your field. If you made this a pay-to-play kind of blog I might even subscribe. But other than that, what do you expect? Sympathy? Sorry, chum, my sympathy extends to people who have real problems. Unemployment, even of the temporary kind, is not really a problem for someone like you. There are plenty of jobs out there. Jobs you might not like, but hey, c’est la vie. That this is even an issue shows how little sympathy you have, big boy. Put your life into perspective. You got it pretty good, considering. I mean, you could be one of the other 2–5 (estimate) billion people presently living in terminal shittiness. Man, thank god we’re not one of them, huh! Bwahahahahahahah!
Peter, you sound like someone who wishes he could write about films for a living, but judging by the way you write, I doubt anyone would even want to read what you have to say, let alone publish it. Either that, or you’re some kind of failed screenwriter working a 9–5 temp job. You suck.
Okay, now I feel like Im in that SCTV sketch where the Pauline Kael figure says: “Did Isay I hated it? I actually LOVED it! Also, I’m Woody Woodpecker! Ha ha ha HAha!”
I’d love to stick around and help clear this up, but I gotta go get some stitches out. (n.b.,not a veiled plea for sympathy here, honest!) Hope to be back soon.
I don’t think Peter Grayson sounds like a failed critic; I think he sounds like a person who is very stupid. Not only that, but he’s a member of that delightful hoard who get off on saying incredibly rude and meanspirited things to people, as long he’s got the internet between him and the other person. Were he and Glenn to meet in person, Mr. Grayson would most likely say things like, “Hey, buddy, sorry to hear about your job. Man, what is up with all these film critics getting fired?? It’s outrageous!”
And if he thinks that his inane “bwahahaha” signature doesn’t indicate that he’s taking pleasure in the misfortune of others, then he is, I repeat, very stupid.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that Peter Grayson is a miserable asshole.
I’ve been under the impression that unemployment, even temporary, is not a fun time. Mr. Grayson seems to think one can move on. I guess he hasn’t been out ther lately.
I’ve always held the belief that the coverage of the arts is what sustains us. It IS a job, but like any job it must be done well. I always bristle at the notion that a periodical can just put anyone in the critic’s position and the rest will take care of itself. Any job must be done well if an employee expects to hold onto said job.
The way newspapers (and magazines) are treating their Arts sections is sad, but predictable. It is always the “frivilous” positions that get cut first. No one relaizes how vital the Arts are during times of war, recession, depression, transition. Movies, television, music, art reflect what we are feeling at any given moment. It is the critic’s job to interpret how we are feeling during uncertain times.
Atkinson fucked up with his flip comment. He would’ve been better off trying to come to terms that it looks like an actual profession is being eleminated, a job that seems to go unnoticed or unappreicated.
Bill, judging from the comments you regularly post on this site, if anyone where to be hideously obsequious in Mr. Kenney’s presence, it would surely be you. And if you think you are even the third, fourth or fifth person to remind me that I am a miserable asshole in the last 24 hours, then you sir, are as deluded as you are transparently naïve and pollyanish. Anyway, I know you are a lover of film, Mr. Bill, so may I suggest that you check out Payday, starring Rip Torn? The film Walk the Line should’ve been had it any cojones, although it is marred by it’s de rigeur miserabilist ending, it being made in 1973 and all. In other words, because Maury Dann is such a miserable asshole (and if you think I’m killing your preternatural buzz, Mr. Bill, then you have no idea what lies in store for you once you enter the sordid world of Mr. Dann), he, like all miserable assholes, must die.
Grayson,
I think I see your point, but the point of Glenn’s post is that writing about films is not a critic’s only job. For me, Glenn’s greatest accomplishment at Première was not his review column, but his commissioning, editing, and (for the porn article) first-hand reporting for David Foster Wallace’s two pieces. No arts columnist gets a staff position on the basis of just his or her writing talent alone. At least I don’t think so. These are full-time salaried jobs, with many duties. Otherwise, people who just write about films are paid as freelancers. Does that clear things up?
Yes, Aaron, you are right. Kenneth Turan’s or [your local reviewers name here] reviews of the latest offerings from Adam Sandler and Judd Apatow is most definitely what, as you say, “sustains us.” And Michael Atkinson, if anyone, has earned the right to make such a comment. He’s forgotten more movies than you have seen, I’m sure. I think someone who has written a such a delightful book as Ghosts in the Machine should be taken a little more seriously and not written off so easily with facile pejoratives and snide mockery. And the whole “hey, it’s tough out there,” school of rationalization is for children. You want a job you’ll find one. You need to eat you’ll figure out a way. You have a child to support, you will do whatever job is handed to you in order to do so. Short of being mentally incapacitated, physically handicapped, or 9 years old, that kind of reasoning is pathetic, and only serves to highlight the entitled world view some of you have.
Sorry, but was Peter Grayson put on this earth to make us retrospectively think better of Michael Atkinson? Some gig.
TC, your Team Kenney t‑shirt is in the mail and should be arriving shortly. If you have any questions about how to put it on, or which arm goes in which hole, please do not hesitate to call this office. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing discussion. Your pithy and rather astute comment has been entered into a raffle. Should you be chosen as the winner, please be on the lookout for your Glenn Kenny WigHat, which comes complete with bald pâté and furrowed brow. I would like to warn you though, that due to the materials that were used in the making of your WigHat, you should refrain from wearing it outside during the summer. Any skin lesions or rashes that result from wearing your WigHat can be treated with common household vinegar. If you would like to contribute another of your patented zingers to our raffle, please feel free to do so.
Sorry, is Mr. Grayson making all these terribly acute comments about growing up, becoming an adult and finding a real job in such rapid-fire succession…while possibly sitting at a day job, tied to a computer? Where he, perhaps, doesn’t have a whole hell of a lot to do (as seems to be the case with many of the people I know toughing it out in corporate?)?
Because, if so, I’m not sure what the value of this so-called higher work is. And if it’s not, well…get some exercise? Read a book?
“Bill, judging from the comments you regularly post on this site, if anyone where to be hideously obsequious in Mr. Kenney’s presence, it would surely be you.”
So you’re new here, I take it? And believe me, I never for a moment thought that I was the first person today to call you a miserable asshole.
Yeah, Vadim, because everyone who works a desk job is busy for nine straight hours. Wow. It sounds like I can safely assume that you’ve never actually had a job, in which case, please don’t forget to give your father something nice this Sunday. He is footing your bill, after all, or at least, that’s what it sounds like.
Atkinson, a resident of Long Island, is somewhat notorious amongst NY film publicists for having screeners – of movies screening in Manhattan – sent to his house. Perhaps that accounts for all the extra time he has on his hands.
OK, at this point we all know the guy’s deranged. No more gasoline on the fire, I say.
Bill, obviously I’m not new to this site, if I already know how firmly planted your nose is in Glenn’s considerably ample buttcheeks. How else would I know such a thing? This is just the first time I’ve ever felt compelled to comment. I’m just tired of listening to all these movie reviewers grumbling about the lack of respect and money they get. No one cares, except for those who fancy themselves involved in the profession under fire. I’m also assuming that most of you here are under the age of 45, as your generation is without a doubt the most egregiously self-entitled generation of them all. And very, very sensitive. So sensitive that I find it rather comical. It sounds like most of you are always on the verge of tears. Someone says boo to you and your ready to sue. Get over yourselves. You’re not that great. You’re not that smart. And you’re not that funny. Watching movies is a luxury. Talking about them is a luxury. Reading about them is a luxury. Writing about them is a luxury. You don’t have the right to write. Do you think you do? Is that what this is all about. Your rights? You have the right to pay your taxes and die, that’s it. Everything else is gravy. You want to earn some respect? Go fight in a war, even one you don’t agree with. Then maybe people my age will take you whiners seriously. Because I would bet anything that not one person on this site has ever been out of their comfort zone for more than a week at a time. Most of you are soft and without courage or conviction, and I mean that in all sincerity. Call me an old man, or out of touch. I don’t care. I’m not going to live much longer, but at least when I die I won’t have spent most of my time complaining about the things I should’ve been given. No, when I die I’ll look back at my life and see that I’ve spent most of my time commenting in this particular thread, or whatever it’s called.
“I’m not going to live much longer…”
Finally, some good news today.
Can I interest you with a trip to Self-Awaria?
(Obvs. directed at the lovable ol’ Hobbit, “Peter Grayson”, not, as it now seems, Aaron Aradillas)
Pithy comments. That’s all you have in your arsenal, huh? Yes, Aaron, I am going to probably die before you. That’s all you have over me and people my age, and nothing else, excpet for your smartypants comments and your weak stabs at humor. Because everything is a joke to you, right? That’s why no one takes you seriously, Aaron. Except yourself. I’m sure, when push comes to shove, you take yourself very seriously.
And Bemo, I’ve already been there, so let me know when you need the directions and I will happily oblige. Bemo. Great name. I’m sure you gave a lot of time and consideration to that handle. I’m not kidding. I can just picture you in your tiny studio apartment, or your parent’s basement, smoking grass from a makeshift pipe, checking off all of the names it took you weeks to come up with.
I’ve often disagreed with Aaron (whom I’ve never met) on this site’s predecessor. But I’m pretty sure that he’s incapable of pretending to be “Peter Grayson.” He’s a)too honest, b) too smart, and c) is so far from being an asshole that he couldn’t fake it if he wanted to. Which I don’t think he does.
Oh, TC, that was sweet. Along with your Team Kenney T‑shirt and WigHat I’m also going to send you a limited edition I Heart Aaron temporary tattoo.
»
I think you confuse Self-Awaria with Knee-*Jerk*-Reactionia.
Great extrapolative skills, by the byt.
Wait. Did I write “great”? Must be the grass.
I must say the repeated “WigHat” references make me wonder if we’re up against D***d E*******n.
Boy, the things you miss when you’re sitting in the ER. I haven’t been in a flame war of this ilk since I ticked off old Ann Althouse.
Still, we’ve gotten a bit off-topic. Peter, if I say “my bad,” rescind the “f***ing p***k” crack, and add “pretty please,” can we cease with the ever-spiralling ad homenizing?
I actually commented on the initial blog post – but MA and I got waylaid by an issue related to, well, intellectual snobbery and the whole “the world is going to hell in a handbasket and everything was just great forty years ago” (which is repeated every forty years).
But, here’s the thing, even given the other duties of a full time critic and the whole getting to the theater issue and the actual watching of the movies issue, he STILL seems to be an incredibly fast writer. I don’t know about you pros, but this semi-pro takes probably two or three hours to write a fairly serious review (say, 700 or words or s0), sometimes longer. Of course, if I had editors, copy editors, and proofreaders to clean up all my mistakes for me, maybe I could bash out that “unchallenging copy” more quickly.
Frankly, he is a good writer, but I totally take Glenn’s point.
And, Peter Grayson, I hope that you work at something you find to be absolutely no fun, because I guess you think that’s the only real work. I wouldn’t want you to think less of yourself.
Thanks, Bob. These are some points well worth addressing. As I said in the post, I consider Atkinson a provocative and often astute critic. And yes, his output is enviably prodigious—of late, I’ve enjoyed his lengthy eviscerations of some of his more politically-minded commenters on the Zero For Conduct blog. And that said, I doubt that he would deny that there’s a polemical element in almost all his work. That is, that if he’s going to lob the kind of argumentative grenades that he does in the blog and Brooklyn Rail piece, he can’t possibly believe that the rest of us are going to stand by and say, “Why, look, there’s a rhetorical grenade being thrown our way, let’s just stand here and let it blow up on us.” Does anybody think that he would say such things, and that everybody else in some related field would respond, “That’s a jolly good point, I’ll summarily go about giving up every hope of making a livelihood out of film criticism”? Of course he wouldn’t. He was trying to start a fight, and I was trying to give him one. Didn’t quite work out, alas.
Bob, I work in Immigration. Most thankless, tedious job in the world. I’ve hated every moment of it since I started back in 1973, when, due to circumstances, I had virtually no choice but to take the job. That doesn’t mean I don’t love my daughter to death, because I do, and now it looks like I have. Please don’t take that the wrong way, Clara. I know she’s reading this because she’s the one who turned me on to this website. Anyway, you kids don’t have to worry about me clogging up your comments section after tonight. I’ve been perfectly content to stay on the sidelines for all of these discussions so far, and I have no problem going back to doing that. I’m just glad I got a chance to get my two cents in. Nothing that any of you has said has changed my mind one bit. I might be deaf in my left ear, but I can still hear perfectly. My voice hasn’t sounded this clear to me since the night my father died. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to go get in bed and watch Big Rig, some documentary I bought myself as an early father’s day gift, along with Fanny and Alexander and Typhoon, a Korean movie about nuclear terrorism. I can only assume that a good percentage of you will be watching There Will Be Blood for the 20th time. Enjoy.
So much of this argument, not to mention Atkinson’s original claims, and the American market he’s describing to a miserable T, are largely predicated on a misconception about intellectual labor. Since it is not *exactly the fucking same* as spending eight hours driving a truck or fitting pipes, we are lazy entitled parasites. What drivel.
I make it a point to never violate Godwin’s Law, but when I originally read the Atkinson piece my mind immediately shot back to that scene in “The Counterfeiters.” Solly arrives at the new cellblock print shop, pauses to survey the area, and a Nazi guard grabs him and says something like, “What are you standing around for, you lazy Jew? Get to work!” At which point the Nazi commandant upbraids the guard: “Standing around? This man is *thinking.* You should try it sometime.”
Peter, you have a slight problem here, concerning your credibility and superior attitude.
What do we actually know about you? That you’re a person who has little else to do than lurk on blogs and occasionally be insulting.
This means you either A) are lying about having a “real job” and are just some sad, pathetic bastard who needs the attention or B) you have an empty, unfulfilling job that doesn’t challenge you or give you enough to do, and you probably don’t enjoy it, either.
You’re not provoking anger in me. Just pity.
What’s up with all the anger? And who is this Kenney Peter Grayson keeps mentioning???
To think the greatest thrill Peter Grayson will have had in his life is to strip down on this blog and show the world his shortcomings.
I remember Peter Niven, De Luca, and you sir, are about as far from Niven-esque as possible. But if anyone should talk about exposing their shortcomings to the general public, I guess it makes sense that it would be you.
But seriously, thanks, kids. This has been rather therapeutic for me. I shall now go back to being a silent observer of this website, but don’t think I won’t be snickering at most of your comments.
Bill, please look into a serotonin-uptake inhibitor. I mean it. You sound like you’re suffering from chronic depression.
And everyone don’t forget to read the new book that Michael Atkinson edited, Exile Cinema.
Ah, the theatre of the Internet. Now that’s a new gig for a critic!
“Peter” Niven, ay?
It sucks that everybody in America has a job doing something they really love that isn’t physically demanding, and that they can count on having a job like it until they hit retirement age, regardless of what the market forces dictate…except for film critics, who, in addition to (gasp!) attending screenings at inconvenient hours, (blanch!) seeing a lot of movies that aren’t very good, and (faint!) struggling to get into the right frame of mind to write a movie review, now find their livelihood threatened by a populace that’s forgotten how much they need and will always need movie criticism, and by big money-grubbing corporations that Just Don’t Care.
Sorry, Glenn, but I’m with Atkinson on this one; unemployment sucks, and it sucks even more when you’re (say) accustomed to relatively cushy jobs and maybe contemplating decidedly less cushy options for the first time in a long time, but we’re all at the mercy of folks who decide whether or not what we do is worth paying for, and complaining about how movie criticism is harder than it looks and takes more time than you think and hence you deserve to always be able to make a living at it…well, it kind of starts to sound like self-important whining after a while. Peter Grayson sounds like a dick (can anyone who ends more than one purportedly-serious statement in a row with “Bwahahahaha!” be otherwise?), but he’s right about the basic point behind Atkinson’s post: if you can’t make ends meet doing A, start looking for a B, because clinging to A like it’s your god-given right will get you approximately nowhere. Your ability to make a living has nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic value of your work; sadly, it’s about convincing the right people to pay you and keep paying you. And that’s all it’s about, whether you’re Roger Ebert or some dude hunched over a conveyor belt on an assembly line.
But here’s my problem. Sleeper, you say:
“if you can’t make ends meet doing A, start looking for a B, because clinging to A like it’s your god-given right will get you approximately nowhere.”
Who, precisely, has said that making a living being a film critic was anybody’s God-given right? Nobody. But if you HAVE made your living as a film critic for a long period of time, only to find yourself abruptly out of a job, it’s reasonable to want to look for work in that same field. And it is also reasonable to get angry when someone publicly claims, in midst of this job search, that what you’ve been doing for a living is not something anyone should aspire to, because it’s not an actual job.
Sleeper—
I believe I’ve created the wrong impression, given the number of people who seem to think my quarrel with Atkinson is an ill-disguised self-pitying wail apropos my own layoff and job prospects. I’d have said the same thing if I still had my cushy job, or any cushy job. (What defines a job as “cushy,” by the way? The amount of anxiety you DON“T have in performing it?) Nobody who’s posting comments here—well, almost nobody—has any idea what I’m up to in terms of current or prospective employment, first off, and there’s a reason for that. Also, Michael Atkinson’s advice about how to make ends meet pretty much means sweet fuckall to me—I’m a grown man, I can take care of that shit myself. As I said before, I’m not down. And I’m not complaining.
What I object to is Atkinson’s know-somethingish bluster, and I am more than a little bemused to see a guy who writes for—at least part of—his living give the signal to the money boys that writing ain’t no big thing. That’s pretty much all. Not “the world owes me a living because I’m so clever.” Where that exactly is in the original post I can’t quite see.
Mr. Grayson -
Might one be able to find you on IMDB under your real name?
Typhoon > There Will Be Blood? Yeah, ok, whatever.…
Oddly enough, I make my own money, my dad’s probably dead (we don’t know) and if anything I’ll end up paying off his debts, and my mom makes enough to sustain herself and no more. And I’ve worked day jobs too!
So are we done with the knee-jerk assumptions yet? About everyone who doesn’t have the pleasure of being you?
I remember someone at that paper Michael Atkinson used to work at equating Michael’s ability to see a movie and turn a review in to one of the world’s mysteries: Like, sometimes he’d get two or three or four screeners one morning and he’d have reviews of all of them in his editor’s inbox by the next morning (at the latest). Not that Michael’s reviews ever sound rushed, but they do feel like purges, no? So there’s your context, if anyone is looking for one: Writing comes easy to Michael, and it’s either a sign of his self-absorption or total obliviousness, that he feels it’s the same with everyone else.
This also touches something M.A. wrote in the first post quoted in “Brooklyn Rail,” called “Fireworks”, when he describes what David Ansen does/did and then notes, “The cops, bartenders, union agents, managers, editors and public school teachers I know would look on that job as a vacation.” This pronouncement serves two functions: it announces Atkinson’s bona-fides as a denizen of the “real world”—we’re meant to infer that Ansen would never mingle with such plebians, leaving whatever contact would be necessary at a given time to his indentured eunuch—and it executes a nice left-wing reversal of an old wingnut theme, currently circulating as “Barack Obama is a latte-sipping elitist out of touch with the American people.” Feh.
I’ve always considered myself terrifically fortunate to have been able to make a living at this game. And you know what? When I discuss the work I do with the bartenders and cops of my acquaintance, they may say “cool job” or some such thing, but they never act affronted that I get paid for my labor, or state that they’d be able to switch places with me because what I do sounds like a vacation to them. They respect what I do just as I respect what they do, bartenders particularly. But maybe I know nicer, more-well mannered cops and bartenders than Atkinson does.
Okay, all that said, let me further state that (even in spite of my overly pissy and inappropriate update) I am quite looking forward to reading “Exile Cinema.” If someone wants to point me to a copy that already has Joshua Clover’s contribution scissored out, I’d be mighty grateful. You think this has been bad, you don’t even wanna get me started on THAT guy…
Here’s what I want to know: who thinks seeing movies you don’t WANT to see, as a professional requirement, is fun? I can’t imagine any critic waking up in the morning and saying “Today is a good day, because I’m going to see ‘Bratz!’ For free! And get paid to write deep thoughts about it!”
The argument is kind of analogous to the one frequently made about ballplayers and entertainers, albeit on a much smaller scale, in that A) the ones who do their job well spend a lot more time on it than they do on the field or on the set and B) they’re the ones that put the asses in seats. No one ever bought a ticket because it was Steinbrenner’s team or Sony’s studio.
These newspapers are not cutting their costs so that they can charge us less, or because it improves their product in some way; they’re cutting their costs so that they can make bigger profits. And most of them are still making a profit, with or without their film critic.
Some people are fortunate enough to have jobs that they love. If J. Hoberman is the only reason I and many others pick up the Voice every week, then he’s earning his meager salary. Why would I begrudge him that? Bitter jealousy is the only reason I can think of. Certainly, plenty of people make more money doing less valuable work.
I’d like to comment on what Peter Grayson has said. Yes, he’s been condescending and insulting, even a bit incoherent, which as someone over 45, reminds me of myself during one of my “golden” moments. But he’s also right that our ability to see, read about, and write on a computer about movies is a luxury that many of us accept as a necessity because we’ve never had to go without. While I don’t agree that film criticism is less worthy as a human pursuit than other forms of gainful employment–the arts in all their forms, including criticism, are absolutely vital to the health of any society–I can see how someone working in immigration, seeing a lot of people from desperate circumstances (I imagine) happy to get a job washing dishes, might think this belly-aching about movies is just a little more than trite.
As for Atkinson, he’s just doing the new thing in journalism– acting as provocateur to generate all that buzz that will keep him employed.
Well put, Marilyn. And let me reiterate: I consider myself very fortunate to have forged a career as a (mostly) well-compensated media professional.But make no mistake: all the good fortune in the world wouldn’t have mattered if I hadn’t applied a pretty strong work ethic to that career. And if mentioning that makes me self-important, so be it.
Thanks, Glenn. I feel the same way about having been able to make writing and editing a career (I do the movie stuff for fun). It was relatively easy for me to find a way into publishing, and for that I am grateful. And, yes, a strong work ethic is important to remain in this world because many aspire to it and, unfortunately, the opportunities to get in at something like a living wage (or even not) seem to have shrunk considerably since I started out. I, too, think Atkinson’s cavalier attitude was just what writers don’t need!
Without comment:
http://www.amazon.com/Keepers-Castle-Paul-Nicholas-Weyland/dp/1424184495
So has this all been Internet theatre? Hilarious!
Huh. If the circumstantial evidence offered above is more than merely a coincidence, then this wouldn’t be the first time that a, er, writer has hopped into the comments section of a film blog, using the name of one of his characters, and started acting like a worthless dickhead.
Even if this IS a coincidence, I would still like to point out that the novel in question is one of the many self-published books one can find on Amazon that has mysteriously generated nothing but five-star reviews. That must mean it’s really good!
As soon as “Mr. Grayson” dropped the name of his daughter – Clara, it all started to make perfect sense. The style, the tone of voice, the message – it’s all here:
http://jonjost.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/parabens-clarinha/
http://jonjost.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/talking-dogs-and-other-pleasures/ etc. etc.
Those who remember his posts to the Frameworks mailing list would also recognize the hand of the Master.
The above anonymous “av,” presumably a reader of Frameworks, is as astute in his perceptiveness in reading as perhaps he is in his (unknown) views on film, etc. For Mr. AV’s information, I ain’t “Grayson” and I never use or resort to fake names, anonymity, etc.
So carry on the detective work. (This comment owing to a “reference” listing on my blog.)
I never thought av’s surmise held any water, but thanks for clearing this up.
And what fun it’s been to revisit this thread!