I flew home from the Oscars to find half a dozen e-mails awaiting with the same unbelievable message: Variety had fired its chief film critic, Todd McCarthy. Its spokesman was hopeful Todd and its chief theater critic, David Rooney, who was also fired, could continue to review for the paper on a free lance basis. In other words, Variety was hopeful that without a regular pay check, McCarthy would put his life on hold to do a full-time job on a piecemeal basis.
Todd McCarthy reviewed films for Variety for 31 years. He was the ideal critic for the paper -- better, we now realize, than it deserved. His reviews and the reviews of Kirk Honeycutt at the Hollywood Reporter were frequently the first reviews of a new film to see print. Honeycutt fortunately continues.
Films are traditionally screened for the "trades" before anyone else. Historically, when independent theater owners around the world booked their own theaters, they depended on Variety's advance reviews to plan their bookings. These days theaters are booked by accountants in Hollywood, often before a film has been completed. Now that it's "product," it doesn't matter so much if it's any good or not.
Todd was always mindful that his review might be the first objective opinion a film received after emerging fresh from the lab. The first notice for a new director or star. The bellwether of a film's future. His reviews and all Variety reviews contain some judgment about a film's box office potential. In his recent review of the forthcoming "Remember Me," he predicted it "should enjoy a short but sweet B.O. life." That's about right. Todd was level-headed and fair. I am searching for a word. He was judicious.
He knows everybody. He is known throughout the film world. He was Variety's ambassador at film festivals, always the best-known Variety person there. He stood for Variety. We now discover it did not stand from him.I met him so long ago. When I was new in my job at the Chicago Sun-Times, I got a letter one day from a high school kid who said he loved the movies and wanted to have a talk with me about them. The letter struck a note. I met Todd and his friend Charles Flynn at Andy's, a place with pretty good hamburgers, outside the back door of the Sun-Times.
They knew everything about the movies. They had seen them all, debated them all, written about half of them. They became for me examples of a species I thought of as "Doc Films Kids," named after Doc Films at the University of Chicago, the nation's oldest film society. Other Doc Films Kids included Dave Kehr, now at the New York Times. They'd seen so many movies I didn't see how it was possible in such brief lifetimes. Once at O'Rourke's, Flynn was telling me how much Otto Preminger hated over-the-shoulder shots, and I nodded wisely while asking myself, how in the hell does he know that?
McCarthy and Flynn later edited Kings of the Bs (1975), a landmark anthology of writings and memoirs about auteurs of B movies past and present. Copies now sell online for as much as $186. In 2000, Todd wrote Howard Hawks: The Grey Fox of Hollywood.
I ran into Todd in the early 1970s at the Sunset Marquis, the legendary hotel half a block down from Sunset near La Cienega. Elaine May had been in seclusion there for months, editing her "Mikey and Nicky." As I recall, the problem was that she had photographed the entire film in master shots, and it was a challenge to assemble. Todd was her assistant. We logged time at poolside, but he spoke only in prudent terms of Elaine May's project; he betrayed no confidences. He follows that sort of code.In the 31 years he wrote for Variety, I saw Todd countless times at film festivals. Every year at Cannes, Toronto, Sundance, Telluride. Those were just the ones I went to. How he produced such volumes of high-quality copy, I do not know; I was running as fast as I could, but he lapped me.
Todd is tall, looks grave except when he smiles, is handsome in a Clint Eastwood way. He always has information to share about a last-minute screening or who has just arrived in town. He was the master of festival logistics. Quick, Todd! What in God's name is a "VIP screening room" at Toronto's Varsity? "Up that little ramp."
Todd directed four documentaries inspired by his love of film. The first three were "Visions of Light" (1992), the most intelligent film I've seen about cinematography; "Claudia Jennings" (1995), about the Playmate of the Year and B movie actress, tragically killed by a car on Pacific Coast Highway, who I believe Todd went to high school with; and "Forever Hollywood" (1999), described by Variety itself as "a valentine to both the movies and the town with which they've become synonymous," and intended to play daily to welcome visitors to the American Cinematheque in Los Angeles.
Then there was "Man of Cinema: Pierre Rissient" (2007), an extraordinary film about an extraordinary man (at left above at Telluride, with John Simon and Todd). I have written much about the film and its subject, and the links are below. Todd made this film as a labor love about a man who has tirelessly campaigned for the films and directors he loves (and often discovered) among a circle that apparently includes, for example, at least half of the directors, festival programmers, exhibitors and critics at Cannes. Pierre very often wears a T-shirt, and Todd liked to wear one quoting Pierre: "It is not enough to like a film. You have to like it for the right reasons."Todd always had reasons behind his reviews. They were clear and potentially helpful to filmmakers. His prose was considered. It began in the closing days of slangy Varietyese and evolved into a style fresh and witty. He didn't miss a thing.
What I'm saying is that Todd McCarthy is not a man Variety should have lightly dismissed. He is the longest-serving and best-known member of the paper's staff, and if they made such a drastic decision, we are invited to wonder if Variety itself will long survive.
Variety used to cover everything. I remember a magical night in Rome in 1967, when I sat late at night on the Via Veneto and gawked at the last remnants of la dolce vita. A held a copy of Weekly Variety, all black and white on newsprint and easily more that 100 pages thick. I became fascinated by the back pages, the items two paragraphs long about cabaret performers in Boston, dancers in Miami, magicians in Philadelphia, lounge acts in Las Vegas, jazz clubs in London. Variety got its name from variety artists, and for decades they lived off a favorable notice in its pages. The paper then truly was "the showbiz Bible."Well, those days over with. The glory days of the famous Variety critics are finished. I knew one of them, Gene Moskowitz, who signed his reviews Mosk., and was the Paris bureau chief who directed coverage at Cannes. In the 1970s, dying of cancer, he came to what he knew was his last Cannes, bringing along his wife and the young son he was so proud of. Under an umbrella on the beach, he looked toward the old Palais and said, "I saw a lot of good movies there." Another man of the cinema, another lover of T shirts.
About Todd McCarthy I am not very worried. He's one of a kind. I can think of no better candidate as the director of a major film festival. Or as a professor, or of course as a film critic. What I lament is the carelessness with which his 31 years of dedication were discarded. Oh, the paper cites its reasons. "It's economic reality," Variety President Neil Stiles said of the move. Sometimes "downsizing" is necessary cost-cutting. Sometimes it symbolizes the abandonment of a mission. If Variety no longer requires its chief film critic, it no longer requires me as a reader.
•
•From the 2007 Toronto Film Festival: Pierre Rissient: One t-shirt after another.
•
•
An early blog entry of mine: "Critic" is a four-letter word.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I'm an avid reader of the blog - though at times it makes me feel as if the world is coming to a slow and steady end.
Can't say I disagree - and I have to thank you for approaching it with so much humor, optimism, and humanity.
Variety's getting rid of its two most prominent writers as a cost-saving measure proves to me that they don't know the first thing about business.
A fine tribute to McCarthy and a fitting wave goodbye to the trades as we know them. It's hard to see this as anything less than Variety saying "We are no longer viable and what better way to demonstrate (without quite articulating) it than to surgically remove our face?" Here's hoping McCarthy emerges unscathed, as I suspect he will: it would be a big adjustment for this particular zealous TIFFgoer and others like him to sit around in Toronto in May, endlessly refreshing without hope of hearing his instant word out of Cannes.
Was this as big a surprise to him as it was for you, and everybody else? I can't imagine it would just come out of nowhere, like it does for most other people who get fired.
What do you think he'll do now? Is he really going to start writing freelance?
I always found the Variety reviews to be the most useful one-paragraph reviews on the net (I realize they were usually much more than one paragraph, but I rarely needed more than that). Almost always spot-on, not weighed down with the reviewer's explanation of his trip to the theater or what he ate before the movie. Sometimes eerie in their accurate prediction of box office (BO) potential.
On IMDB I'll read your review, but if that isn't there I'll read the Variety review. And if neither is there that tells me all I need to know.
If nothing else, this entry will inspire me to seek out more of McCarthy's archived reviews. I admit that I largely dismissed or skipped over his work at Variety precisely because it included potential box office performance; I assumed his criticism was largely a business endeavor, rather than an artistic one. I am ashamed of myself. What honorable work he did, and how disgustingly glib and callous was his dismissal.
Already, he's provided me with a bit of service. I've been eagerly anticipating critical response to Remember Me, which I felt had promise since it was written (or, more precisely, re-written) by Jenny Lumet. But I'm assuming the "short-but-sweet" box office prediction (which you said was accurate) means the film is no great shakes. I thank Mr. McCarthy, and wish him employment at a publication worthy of his talents.
Apparently, money is more important than talent, which makes me wonder: has anyone in the business world learned ANYTHING from this recession that we're in? We need to start valuing talent and beauty and intelligence and PEOPLE over money. Our love of money is destroying those things which we should value more than money, which can actually lead to more money being earned than the pursuit of money itself can. Valuing money over these virtues makes them disappear over time, virtues that should be esteemed forever. And money, with nothing of value to attach itself to, eventually runs out. The question is, what will fill the void when it does?
Variety = Epic Fail
This makes me sad. I suppose it's more sad that this type of occurrence no longer surprises me. Hopefully your journal entry will produce some sort of public outcry.
Beautiful and truthful post...it's sad to say the least Roger, but as this article (http://bit.ly/9xIuh2) states, I believe it is a sign of our times today: "...younger audiences have zero interest in critics. They take their cues for what movies to see from their peers, making decisions based on the buzz they've heard on Facebook, Twitter or some other form of social networking...criticism isn't valued enough to keep one critic in a full-time position."
(LA Times: Variety lays an egg: Is firing its critics really 'economic reality'?)
I commend you for your act of solidarity to a man who is AWESOME and your loyalty to what was. I won't be reading the rag either!
This is distressing news but I'm afraid it's only the beginning. Newspapers and magazines as we knew them are all in various stages of obsolescence.
Spot on, Roger. I can predict a trend developing following your reasoning. I'm a fan of McCarthy's work as well and with his termination, so dissipates any remaining interest I might have had in Variety. My guess would be that many long time readers will find themselves of a similar mind.
I share your belief that McCarthy will do just fine without Variety. Variety however, is screwed without McCarthy. That publication has gone from setting the standard to representing the substandard. This is a stupid, poorly conceived maneuver that drives the dagger of mediocrity further into what was the once beating pulse of entertainment journalism (Thank God your site and this blog exist to counter that). At this point, I'd rather read Entertainment Weekly than Variety..and that's saying something.
All you can do is shake your head at such a move. The road to ruin is paved with cost cutting this reckless.
I enjoyed Mr. McCarthy's reviews and will miss reading his take on the latest films. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors. May he find a place where he is actually appreciated and respected.
I'm sorry that McCarthy lost his job, and sorry for dedicated journalists in general during these hard times for the print media.
But I always hated the Variety (and Hollywood Reporter) reviews. You rightly point out, Roger, that these reviews always considered box office potential. But more than that, McCarthy and Honeycutt frequently seem to chastise movies for having narrow audiences or little box office potential.
It's tragic that modern print is so easily discarding away fine film critics these days under the umbrella of "economic necessity" while simultaneously continuing to print trash likewise. I never read Todd McCarthy up until this point (though much to your recommendation I will start immediately) but I can't help but feel partially at fault for this current trend in print. It is indicative that my generation is no longer reading, and it's incredibly sad. As you said, I'm sure Mr. McCarthy will fare well and that Variety will invariably realize their grave mistake if not in the immediate future.
Welcome to the internet age.
IMDB, rotten tomatoes, and google search lets you see whatever review you want, from whatever perspective you desire. With the studios' seemingly popping out two types of films these days (1. big budget "blockbusters" with a giant wave of hype and either big special effects or big names or 2. "indie" type films that are either organic works by hard working newbies or just designed to make good money b/c of low overhead) then the role of critics is much reduced.
Couple this with the rise of perez hilton type celebrity gawking and it is obvious what Variety needs to do to sell papers. More gossip, more scandal, cheaper reviews.
Of course this means that quality loses out to quantity and lowest common denominator principals, but hey, follow the money, ya know?
I certainly hope that this firing is not watershed. I have been worrying for a while that the job of Film Critic may be becoming obsolete since what it takes to make a profit has more to do with marketing than quality film making. Oh dear.
First I'm hearing of this. I read McCarthy's reviews regularly. Sad surprise.
Hi Roger -
It's telling that Variety's announcement of Todd and David Rooney's dismissal is at the bottom of a story about the promotion of Kirstin Wilder to Managing Editor. The paragraph doesn't name names: "As part of the new newsroom structure, Variety has also eliminated its full-time review staff for Legit and Film. However, Variety is not planning to change the number of reviews it publishes." Whoever wrote it knew that this was a very shameful, low moment in the history of Variety and film - it's Variety committing suicide. There is not much more reason for it to exist.
I know times are tough in the media business, but when Variety decides they can get by without a film critic, they really are announcing to the world that they no longer see covering "news" as an important part of their mission. And at that point, why would anyone read them?
Maybe some lucky students somewhere will get him as a film professor. Good luck to him.
I probably never would have considered seeing 'Visions of Light,' if not for this piece. Now it's in my Netflix queue and I'm really looking forward to it. Thanks.
I personally don't read Variety myself but have read several of Todd McCarty's reviews. They're informative and dare I say, fair. I've known him as a film critic who ranks up there with the very best.
What I didn't know is that he directed "Visions of Light". As an aspiring camera operator/cinematographer, "Visions of Light" was required viewing for me at film school. At that time I thought that the documentary captured pretty much everything I love about the visual aspect of film making. I'm ashamed to say that I didn't delve in depth and find out the genius who made it. Here is a man who truly understood what made film visuals work. Thanks for the heads up Roger.
I wish Mr McCarthy all the best but with his qualities, I doubt he would run into any problems with employment.
Milton
I did not know (though I probably should have guessed) that you knew Todd McCarthy or had such a high opinion of his work.
For me, he is a good third opinion (together with my own and yours) on whether or not a movie is good (given the full subjective weight of that term). Often his negative reviews are less frank than yours but if he hints that a movie stinks, it generally stinks.
Clearly he will not disengage himself from a 30+ year career in movies simply because his ex-employers did not value him, but I hope he keeps on writing reviews and publishing them on the internet in some form or another.
I wish him well.
With regard to Variety, financial trouble or not this would seem to be a huge own goal. I for one will not be visiting Variety.com unless I can read Mr McCarthy's new movie reviews there.
The disregard of employees because of the bottom line is the norm today. Employers talk about enthusiasm, effort and loyalty while simultaneously treating their employees like disposible napkins. The days of company loyalty have long ago sailed and it is no wonder at all why this country is skidding downhill so rapidly. All the political correctness, the empty smiles and the phony back slapping is obvious to all with eyes to see, and sadly, it is ever present accross America. Employees have learned to respond in kind: most go through the motions but inside, it's all empty. Why care about you if you don't care about me? Welcome to today's Corporate America. And companies wonder why they are failing. In a soulless society there is no reason to value each other. And no one does .... and it shows.
This isn't probably the worst of Variety's bad bit of news of late. Though I've heard nothing of this story since I first heard of it, maybe it was simply brushed underneath the rug.
http://gawker.com/5481280/
Mr Ebert,
I didn't know as many things about him as you did but your thoughts are the same as mine.
You seem more pessimistic about Variety's future than you do about that of professional film criticism. Did you just choose to focus on that or do you think it doesn't really mean something for the profession in general?
Personally, I saw this as a sign. I hope I'm wrong.
Roger:
A sad day. What surprised me most was your implication that Mr. McCarthy writes faster than you do. That can't possibly be true, unless it is.
I enjoy his style, which I favorably compare to a clean pressed shirt. Yours is more like a monk's finely-cropped beard.
This is utter insanity. I would like to think that if Variety were in fact sinking, it would take Todd down with them. I cannot fathom not seeing his Variety reviews anymore. Hell, I just turned 31! During my whole lifetime, both Variety and Todd McCarthy have been intertwined. This is pretty shocking.
Of course like you said Roger, there isn't a huge worry for Todd because a person of this caliber will be fine. But it is just the symbolism of it all, you know?
Good for you. The greed and shamelessness as businesses take advantage of the bad economy as an excuse to raise their profits is revolting. My husband has had the same thing happen where he works, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt publishers. And when the people left complain that talented hard-working co-workers should never have been let go and their jobs outsourced to India, the company says "you should just be happy to have a job." Sometimes it seems businesses will do whatever they can get away with. It's disheartening to say the least. I really worry about what kind of world will be around for my kids. It seems all the strides that have been made over the years regarding worker's rights are crumbling away.
First of all let me say I hope the Suntimes doesn't lose their compass like Variety did. I think the new generation running things is greedy and unappreciative. And also let me say I was in Rome in the summer of 1967(July) and stayed on the Via Veneto. What a glorious time it was.
Mr. Ebert,
Does Mr. McCarthy maintain an archive of written critiques that he, himself, owns that people on the Web can read? I ask because I would like to familiarize myself with some of his work as would, I am certain, many readers of your blog and doing so at Variety's Web site would seem counter to the intent.
Thank you for your analysis. I believe that as downsizing in the name of the bottom line of the dollar continues, the essence of what made so many institutions great hollows us all out, not just those institutions.
Yours,
Dave
Ebert: His reviews remain online at Variety.
Sadly, about the only thing that doesn't get outsourced or 'casualised' these days is the geniuses who make these ridiculous decisions. Are they so short-sighted that they cannot see that the value of these people is much more than a salary and expense account. It's a wonderful world we live in.
This is disheartening. I don't know what else to say. What a sad era.
Brilliant summation of Mr. McCarthy's work and his importance to the film world, Mr. Ebert. I have read Variety since I was kid and aslways looked forward to his reviews. And David Ronney was one of the astute observers of the theater world as well. I have used Visions of Light in classes to illuminate
students on what goe son behind the scenes of making amovie. Now, if I could just figure out how to see that Claudia Jennings documentary...
Variety no longer coveres new movies? Then what does it cover? What use is it at all?
I was thinking about "Visions of Light" earlier this week. It's a great documentary, and anyone who loves movies should see it.
It always amazes me how quickly today's companies will jettison the people and practices that made them great - jeopardizing their reputation in the temporary pursuit of cutting costs. I have no doubt that Todd's duties will be soon handled by a group of college interns who probably think film history began with Star Wars, that anything without CGI is boring, and have no idea who Ford, Welles and Hitchcock are -- let alone the rich history of cinema around the world. So much for progress....
Your last sentence packs the punch, Roger. It's not just Variety that's tossing overboard the talented professionals who have long been the backbones of long-running publications. It has happened at the beloved local (and I do mean "local") daily paper in my hometown, where veteran staffers with years of loyalty, not to mention talent, were "let go" under some corporate dimwit's directive. We, the community readers, and in some cases, former staffers ourselves, (like me), shake our heads in complete dismay at the reckless presumption that a paper can continue to uphold its once-renowned reputation for quality reporting, photography, and presentation without paying for experienced professionals in those positions. We cancel subscriptions or pull ads in protest, and the dimwits still don't get it.
We too, wonder how long it will be before the corporation running it the last few years realizes it has destroyed the very thing it promised to preserve. We almost wish they would just close up shop now rather than see this once-beloved community icon die slowly and painfully from the supposed "remedies" prescribed by its new owners.
I'm curious, Roger, how you would diagnose the current malaise in the publications world. What's gone wrong out there, and for goodness' sake, how can it be fixed?
Hi Mr. Ebert,
I have not often read your reviews online; however, reading this article and your post about attempting to make money off the internet made me realize how valuable critics like you are and the current danger to the continued and future existence of venues in which people can access your thoughts. Therefore, I will be joining the Ebert Club and will encourage others to do so. Even if I do not often read your reviews, I do appreciate that they are always there when I do want to read a review.
Perhaps you could consider inviting other critics to contribute content to your club? The internet may have made it an auspicious time for the reemergence of medieval guilds. Groups of very specific professionals banding together to insure the quality of their product and protect access to their markets.
I can see that you are big fan of McCarthy. From what I read from him, I liked him, too. He was always caught blurbs from his reviews on Rottentomatoes and they frequently made me read the full review. I hate unceremonial dismissals, but I'm not sure if that's the case here. Perhaps Variety did their best to keep him on at some capacity, but couldn't swing it. These are only guesses, but, in all honesty, what did you expect Variety to do? They don't have the money to keep around a full time film critic. Apparently. I'm sure they didnt' want to let him go. I bet you there are some people there who are heartbroken over it.
That being said, I have no interest in buying Variety anymore. I only ever bought it because of film reviews. I can appreciate the possibility of finding a new and talented freelancer, but I like coming back to the same guy, with the same seasoned voice, over and over. It seemed essential to that magazine to have a veteran reviewer around. They just can't afford to be "that magazine" anymore. I'm not sure anyone can.
How sad that in these modern times they can simply dismiss loyalty like that and call it necessary cost-cutting.
I've been working for 2 years at my current company. If a company can treat someone like that who's been working for them for 31 years, what can someone like me expect when they want to 'cut a few costs?'
A sweaty handshake, a dirty wink, a greasy pat on the back and then a boot out the door.
Hahaha how nice
As a young reader, it's often distinctly depressing to continuously discover wonderful people by learning about their misfortune.
I think shall watch this 'Visions of Light'.
I wonder how many people are going to cancel their subscriptions in response to this?
I got an offer in the mail a few months ago to subscribe to Variety. I think the price was $250 for a 1-year subscription. If I could have afforded it, I probably would have gotten it.
This is why The Ebert Club makes sense: Every job market is in duck-and-cover mode, and They would be happy if everyone became a blogger, expending energy for free or cheap. So grab your $4.99 while you can, Roger, because downsizing, like that b-tch Justice, is blind.
On a brighter note: Yes, "Visions of Light" is a wonderful intro to cinematography.
Hi, Rojay.
There was a brilliant league of poets and philosophers in the Pre-Islamic period called - this is the closest translation from Arabic - "The Vile Ones". Most of them were mystic, and there was one particular poet called - the closest.. - "The Evil in His Armpit" by his own mother.
A poem written, I think, by the latter begins with : ( The closest translation )
They've wasted you and what a lad they've wasted
For a rainy day or a backbone to a frontier.
Now, believe it or not, I've never read a full review by Todd, only rather long quotes in Rotten Tomatoes.
I know that your admiration is profoundly conspicuous in this article, and you can't specify a certain piece made by him as a "masterpiece", if you can call an essay that, but could you please give me an article about a movie or any essay on film, written by him of course, you think that I'd find the classic Todd in it? Only to begin with.
Thank you and forgive my silliness about the notes of translation, I'm only a sophomore.
I hope I can be a critic like him one day, or do something like what he has done.
Plum
Don't Be a Plum
I'm reading the news about Todd McCarthy the day after another of the local grocery stores installed those self-serve check out lines designed to eliminate the need for a living check-out clerk. It strikes me that both of these moves are part of the same problem: consumers want service without paying for it, and businesses want us to pay for service without offering any.
I'm not a starry-eyed idealist. I'm a lawyer, I believe in supply and demand and a reasonable profit. My dad, who's been gone thirty years now, was a successful businessman and something of an uber-capitalist, but he built his business and reputation on ideas that I'm afraid would now be regarded as passe: that you have to be scrupulously honest in business, even if it costs you a buck in the short-run, because a customer isn't coming back if you've cheated him or given him less than an honest effort, and you have to be honest even if it costs you money in the long-run because whatever fraudster you're in league with winds up owning you. He also believed that the only way to make a quality product was with an educated, stable workforce that made a living wage. I remember him telling me about men who failed in business because they didn't take into account the hidden costs of constantly having to train new workers. Yes, their labor costs on paper were cheap, but so were their products and productivity was low. He also thought you couldn't expect loyalty from a customer or a worker without giving loyalty in return.
And before I make him sound like a figure from a Frank Capra movie, he also taught me some other useful things, like how to calculate a price point for a product that would return a profit. But I'm pretty sure that the notion that a CEO should make eight figures while shoo-ing his workers out the door would make his head explode.
But you already know all this. The thing is, the rules haven't really changed. We only think they have. Like the dot.com fraudsters and the credit-default-swap slicky boys who convinced themselves and us that the old rules of supply-and-demand and profit no longer applied, only to discover that they applied with a vengeance, Variety is going to discover that there's more to a company's long-term health than this quarter's bottom line. It'll go belly-up eventually -- either in the form of outright bankruptcy or eeking out a marginal existence as a ghost of its former self -- and it will need look no further back than the firing of Todd McCarthy to figure why.
Great post, Rog. It's always amazing to me how disposable the heads of media outlets consider their critics to be. Quite often they are the most visible and familiar faces to readers -- old friends (or enemies) they enjoy spending time with. When newspapers, magazines or whatever dump their critics, what's left is a little more impersonal. I'm a freelance critic myself, but even I know a paper would be better served by a permanent, full-time guide to the movies (or theater, or art, or anything). Everyone is left poorer -- and the bottom line will reflect it eventually.
Business decisions of the negative kind - cost-cutting, division closing, what have you, are rarely made with heart or consideration. The passion and heart is at the beginning of a business, present in a vital and successful business, but gone from a business merely hanging on, surviving, or doing business as usual.
I wonder if this is related to the Iron Cross scandal. Perhaps McCarthy was part of an editorial camp that pushed for independence from the sales guys, as hypothesized by John Cook:
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/03/05/06
Ebert: Considering the Variety I grew up with, this is a heartbreaking speculation.
I read an article about 3 or 4 years ago about how studio execs and movie studios were beginning to threaten to pull advertising from publications that printed negative reviews of big summer blockbusters. I cannot help but wonder if this incident is related.
Gosh! What a shame.
In many ways, Todd McCarthy WAS Variety. It seems like anytime I was reading a review with that trademark green logo, his name was attached to it. Even for lighthearted film fans, Todd McCarthy was synonymous with quality film criticism.
Sadly, a man who committed thirty-one years of his passion, integrity, and life to a firm is ultimately shown the door. What lesson should I be learning from this? Does fashionability supersede proficiency? Does labor still induce loyalty? Or is it simply a case of economic repercussions?
I enjoyed your post. It is a genuine, thoughtful tribute to a man and his continued devotion.
When Todd was named chief critic of Variety I said “for once in the Hollywood industry, the right man in the the right place”.
It was a long time ago, today in this day and age, in our world not only Hollywood it is no value to be the right man.
I wish I would have the talent of Albert Maltz (his admirable The Citizen Writer) Dalton Trumbo and less known but equal Guy Endore to protest against the ousting of Todd Mc Carthy, David Rooney and Derek Elley from Variety for the trendy Way of the World to save money from the payroll of an enterprise.
As I am writing I am thinking that “The Way of the World” was the play of Ted Allan where he, an harsh communist, secretary to Norman Bethune in the long march when one could believe in the ideals of Mao Zedong, immediately denounced Budapest and the Kremlin.
Variety has been a great trade newspaper, we who are old enough to have known the wonderful Gene Moskowitz, the Renaissance MOSK, remember how from Paris, Cannes and European Festivals, he defended as well the classical cinema, enlightening as well the Free Cinema, the New Wave, Czech, Polish, Hungarian new cinematographies in the fifties and sixties, the German new wave, the new American Cinema of the late sixties, finally spontaneously embarking with King Hu, Lino Brocka, before his untimely death.
Variety under the signature of Todd was the first newspaper in the world to report the arrest of Lino by the Marcos regime, two or three days before anyone else printed that he was in jail.
The industry should know and mourn the departure of the three guys as a proof that an era is gone, that history is going down the gutter.
The general high quality of reviewing, the freedom of opinion, the integrity of such people as Todd, distinct qualities of Variety until now may be gone for ever, for the loss of the industry, and of the Great films which Mosk, Art Murphy, Stu Byron, and Todd saluted even way before the specialized monthlies and quarterlies.
I trust that Todd, David and Derek will find new jobs where they will still support worthy films, plays and our centuries old values, but will their reviews reach as wide and as fast, being so helpful ?
Ebert: Ah, Pierre, this is a sad day.
I suppose I shouldnt even bother planning a career in film criticism anymore. All hope, it seems, is gone.
Though I'm willing to bet that if Todd followed your example and set up a website (without Variety's backing, however) he could charge a cent a review and have a good life.
I was at Berlinale in February, watched the same press screening that Todd did of Shutter Island, and came back straight to the office to write my review. Boy I was quick, and yet his review was already out before mine.
What a sad, sad day this is.
I'm sorry that Variety is doing themselves such a disservice by laying him off. I love Visions in Light, it really changed my whole view of film and gave me a greater appreciation for just how ground breaking Citizen Kane was. I make everyone I know who likes film watch it.
Another enlightening entry, thank you. I just added Visions of Light to the top of my queue. I look forward to learning more about that magical aspect of film making. I also look forward to what Todd McCarthy will do now.
This is staggering. Of all the employees they could have let go in their 'downsizing' procedure, Todd McCarthy? Their chief critic?! When you hear about an obscure film and head over to Rotten Tomatoes to see whether it's worth watching, even if no other 'top critics' have reviewed it, there's always an entry from McCarthy. How he manages to see so many films and still have time to eat and sleep I have no idea. Well, here's hoping he'll get a new gig soon and we can all once again experience his intelligent, incisive reviews.
A tragically shortsighted and just plain dumb move by a publication that can scratch me from its readership list. I have always marveled at the speed with which Todd can turn out a well-reasoned review. He will be sorely missed. A sad day indeed.
The 'half glass full' part of me thinks that it's Variety's star that is descending, and the 'economic reality' is that it can't afford quality like Mr. McCarthy, whose worth is unwavering. Let's reconvene in a year and see who has better recovered.
Because I run a little TIFF film circuit site in Canada I have to do a significant amount of research on the many independent films I consider bringing in. Some of them are very small films and have few reviews at the time I begin researching them. I can't count the number of times Todd was the only significant film critic with a review out of the handful available. I always found his reviews very fair, extremely well-written and enlightening and never mean spirited and am really saddened to think of what this decision may be saying about the future of newspaper and magazine film criticism.
I thank Todd for his incredible contribution to film criticism and wish him all the best. I will continue to look for his thoughts on film wherever he may go.
I'm sure there is a hidden agenda at work here. It most likely has nothing to do with "the bottom line" or cutting costs. Since when is business in America these days concerned with doing things efficiently or effectively?
Considering that newspapers are now propaganda ministries for corporate/government lobbyists - I'm surprised that any traditional film critics are still around. A potentially egative review could have a profound impact on the Box Office and advertising revenue that these horizontally integrated corporations could extort from uniformed moviegoers.
I would like to mention as a topical point that Todd "discovered" both James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow. I recall his excitement when he called me after a screening of THE TERMINATOR, and his Variety review of that film was a wildly enthusiastic endorsement of Cameron's talents, hitherto known only for a lousy Italian horror film and the usual Corman apprenticeship. He also gave a first review in Variety to Bigelow and Monty Montgomery's debut film, which was encouraging to her career, although co-director Monty never made the big time.
Todd was always supportive of my efforts when I was a critic and motion picture editor at Variety coterminous with his years at Daily Variety. Of course Variety, the New York institution founded by Sime in 1905, essentially died over a decade ago, and the various comments here are really about the surviving tail that ended up wagging the dog, Daily Variety.
I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise, really. Theater criticism was the first that suffered in Los Angeles. The LA Weekly let Steven Leigh Morris go as a staff writer. He was the theater editor and now freelances for them. A few other local papers did the same thing, usually with writers who did both theater and movie criticism and features. They let those people go and you can't really make a living now freelancing and there is the high cost of health insurance.
I thought the poor outlook for theater criticism was perhaps why Michael Phillips, who was the theater critic for the LA Times, decided to switch when he was at the Chicago Tribune.
In any case, someone asked me about going to school for a degree in journalism and I honestly do not think it is a stable job market.
As for Variety...just what do they do if they don't do film criticism. Why would a company want to depend on freelancers? What happened to company loyalty, building up a brand name and relationships? Is it really the economy or just an excuse?
I also worked for a company that was supposed to be fun and talked about company loyalty, but also began to outsource jobs to India. I often wonder how the conditions are there since people in the U.S. were be intimidated from filing workers comp claims. As a result of being a loyal workers, I'm partially permanently disabled but at least I didn't cave in and work while paying for my treatment like some people...including a few still working there.
That's when you know we need health insurance reform--when people play for treatment for injuries that are job-related because that's the only way they can keep their jobs. The company I worked for also had a high percentage of temps. That's basically what freelance people are.
When a company wants you as an employee to work harder because you are one big family, you can only really understand if they mean it by how they treat their injured and/or respected workers and by whether or not the upper management is also belt-tightening.
Great Essay.
You're right, he will be fine- but what a terrible decision on Variety's part.
How any publication can choose to cut off a functioning limb is beyond me. Dumb.
Neil Stiles also said, "internally, we hope the changes -- which will include several new hires coming aboard -- will make things more streamlined and efficient”, i.e., we’re getting rid of our expensive, long-term staffers and replacing them with several cheap 24-year-olds.
The conventional wisdom is that younger audiences are supposedly much more influenced by friends' recommendations via social media and so the role of the professional critic is becoming more and more irrelevant. Leaving aside whether or not this theory is true, what are the consequences of completely devaluing expertise? Without knowledgeable film critics to champion them, thoughtful films for grownups will sink even further below the horizon.
I should really have something more articulate to say than "this sucks" in order to comment on this blog. But in general support of Todd McCarthy I'd like to say something, and in general exasperation that's all I can really say.
This sucks.
Rag Bags Noble Stag. Drag!
Thanks for putting your seal of quality on another film-writer. Can you name a couple of your all time favorites. I'm chasing Kael's "5001 nights" and it will be some till I get my hands on it if at all.
Perhaps strange that I love words more than movies and hence film-writing more than films. Main charm of films is as a grist to translate into language. Watching a movie can't teach us much about life, but the creative endeavor of writing, is a self transformative catalyst.
I don't know what to say, it's just so depressing. I have nothing intelligent in my mind. Other than Todd McCarthy was probably one of the top five film critics, was a savvy and reliable source and that, What the hell is Variety going to do without film critic coverage? I don't need them now either.
I have a theory that's probably blatantly obvious to everyone here:
Variety, along with a certain show now on CW, were trying to "youthanize." The attempt on the CW prompted my husband and I to refer to it as "the Douchebag show" and, given that the individuals who prompted said response are now gone, replaced by older, less smug critics who actually have insight, we now call it "the unDouchebag show." We still dearly miss the old days, where we got to see Kevin Smith threaten to beat the daylights out of Roper, for instance. Good times.
The problem with this choosing of youth over ability is that it's not working. I'm in the target demographic, and the last thing I want to hear is a kid my age with the depth of a mud puddle holding forth on the intricacies of film. It's not that someone my age or younger can't do this; it's that I've yet to see someone my age do this well. My generation's in-depth critics, alas, are Beavis and Butthead, and I'd rather listen to an older person whose vocabulary extends beyond "sucks" and "rocks." Even if you resort to sign language, at least you're demonstrating use of opposable thumbs.
This is a sad time for film critics. Alot of backlash for film critics and the Oscar voters because Avatar didn't win best picture. I'm an 18 year old college student and I would love to have a career as a film critic. I had a discussion with my classmates about Avatar and I said that it's a goof film with great special effects. They took offense when I called Avatar a "good film" and that it should be a best picture nominee. I love movies, but there is a craft that goes into the film. The screenplay was the film's downfall and I believe that the script/story is important to every film's sucess. Without film critics, more garbage like Transfromers 2, New Moon and Alvin and the Chipmunk 2 will be weekly box office winners-and that's unfortunate.
*BLEEP* happens...
What I've always liked about McCarthy is that he seems to be a particularly objective critic, letting the film's potential itself overcome personal views. This is helpful to a viewer like myself, and I find that his reviews are generally accurate. I wonder who they could replace him with? Someone for a lesser salary, I'm sure, but Variety's biggest selling points are insider information on Hollywood and its reviews. Without McCarthy, their cutting of the nose and I think the face may follow.
Hello again, Roger; do you know if any larger firm owns Variety that might have made this decision? Not to invite too much CONSPIRACY THEORY, but it does seem strange as a choice; are they making other cutbacks? Unless he was being paid a million dollars a year, it seems like he would be a strange place to start.
VISIONS OF LIGHT was released the same year as IT'S ALL TRUE, which I shepherded at Paramount. The Los Angeles Film Critics Association awarded IT'S ALL TRUE Best Documentary that year (1993), and Todd told me at the luncheon that he'd voted for TRUE, even though he was permitted to vote for his own film. What better example of genuine class?
We have all become cannibals in our race to the bottom. We read for free online. We choose the store label in the grocery. We buy clothes made for pennies in sweatshops. We watch "reality" tv. Is this progress? There will always be beacons of light (Roger at the top of the list), but we Americans are slowly but surely trending down in the quality of our consumption and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I didn't know that streamlining over quality could be considered economically sound. If Variety survives tough times by streamlining, how can it survive when lush days return and all it can offer is the skeleton of its former self? Someone newer and fresher takes its place, of course.
The print newspapers are going the way of the dinosaurs. When the business model of your paper is to insult and disparage approximately 50% of your potential readership as rubes, hicks, "bitter-clingers", "tea-baggers", racists and fools, you should not wonder when your readership goes down. A lesson for you Roger: Your recent (mostly twittered) nastiness towards those who disagree with you politically (not cinematically) has left me very un-inclined to indulge in your pay service.
When I was in college my dad was worried about my insistence on majoring in theater, and asked if I'd ever considered reviews and criticism as a "side career."
I laughed then, because the idea of planning a steady income generator by writing for a living was beneath only joining the circus in terms of fiscal responsibility, but also because I knew that since everyone was a critic, you'd have to be a thousand times better at it than anyone else just to get a twice monthly spot in a local weekly. And this was when the internet was really just getting started, before it became the all-swamping Dominar that it is today.
But I also had an inkling (possibly encouraged by the fact that I was trying to act) that people's work was becoming less and less appreciated, whatever the field. That the things that make someone good at their job--study, practice, time--were becoming so rapidly devalued that they wouldn't even have currency as museum pieces. Is this because of globalization, the rise of modern instant media, the fully formed sense that in this age of point and click, there is no future, only an eternal now now now? People roll their eyes at the idiot shortsightedness of corporations as they tear through businesses like so much dough, but if their assets are transitory, why shouldn't they? You buy Variety not for what it can generate as an entity, but what the income it can generate as sellable parts.
I remember when I was a young lad in Ohio, I took the bus downtown to the only newsstand in the city who sold Weekly Variety. They would only carry a few copies, so I had to get there early enough to get one. The ink black saturated my fingers as I read it cover to cover, devouring each section.
It's a sad day for all of us who love good film criticism. Todd McCarthy's work was excellent.
I would also like to see the Claudia Jennings documentary, as she was one of the first starlets on my radar growing up.
Hello, Roger -
A few minutes ago I went back to re-read Todd McCarthy's review of "Up in the Air", and I couldn't get through it. I suppose an executive editor with a much higher salary made him fall on the sword. It's likely he'll be replaced by a much cheaper shill for the industry, one of those illiterates who likes to describe a film like "The Hurt Locker" as "the summer's biggest thrill ride". I'm done with Variety.
Thanks for this wonderful testimony to a great, dependable voice in entertainment...
As for your skewering of Variety, guess you haven't lost your bite along with your taste....which we all love.. (ahhh rootbeer!)
Do you have any comments on the story that Variety killed a negative review of a movie for $400,000? This link was posted on your Facebook fan page:
http://gawker.com/5481280/
I find it extremely strange that Variety's first impulse to cut costs was to fire their most well known and respected writer. There must have been much less controversial methods they could've taken that would've saved just as much money. Has McCarthy spoken publicly about his dismissal yet? I'm curious to hear his take on it.
Anyone who frequents RottenTomatoes or Metacritic should be familiar with McCarthy's work. Having been going to those websites for a while now, I've grown accustomed to reading his reviews; I'm hoping he'll continue to write them regardless of where they're published. Like you said, there's very little doubt that he'll land on his feet; it's not the journalist we should worry about, but journalism in general. If a well-respected and widely read publication can toss out their most well-respected and widely read writer the same way they would an empty ink cartridge, then something is seriously wrong. Variety may have succeeded in cutting costs, but they've also succeeded in degrading their own publication. I hope McCarthy tells them to shove it if they come crawling back to him.
This is extremely disheartening. In a movie-crazy world with billions of viewers, we can't afford to employ a handful of gatekeepers? Can't afford to provide a livelihood for the very few who can write about films with a skill and insight worth reading? Just this week, I committed to writing more than my usual three-reviews-per-year. Reading about Mr. McCarthy and his approach to his work, I realize that my reviews, while sincere, lack something vital, and Roger nailed it--judiciousness. I hope soon to have time to show a little more respect toward some of the movies I cover; in the meantime, they're here: http://www.madeinhead.org/anism/?p=377
I hope to someday be half as good as pros like McCarthy.
The bigger picture here is the Variety itself is increasingly irrelevant - doing a job that is literally not necessary anymore. I'd be shocked if Variety is still publishing in 5 years, if not 3.
The "movie" business now all about spectacle. The products being sold as "movies" are closer in spirit to rides at Disneyland than they are to what were considered even big "event" pictures in the past, such as, say, "Lawrence of Arabia", or even "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", which still had reasonably original characters and a story.
New rides at Disneyland don't require critics. You go and give them a try if your friends tell you they are fun. Thus the paper for the "movie" industry doesn't need critics either.
Ironically, one of the sharpest voices pointing out these trends is Peter Bart in the pages of Variety itself. In his column in Weekly Variety this past Sunday he says Hollywood is now two completely separate businesses - "tentpoles" (Variety's term for the big budget FX spectaculars that make or break the studios financially) and "cinema".
Having mostly gotten out of the "cinema" business, Bart writes, "the studios are free once again to focus on what they do best - tyrannizing young audiences into seeing their sequels and tentpoles."
Variety's management is faced with a choice - try to be the paper of the big studios - a lucrative role it has played for decades - or try to be the paper of "cinema" - a culturally more respectable role, but one that has a lot less money in it. The firing of McCarthy tells you what choice they have made. They're deluded though. The studios now need a newspaper about as much as Disneyland does.
It makes more sense these days for McCarthy to be on the web, publishing as much as he wants. The new "cinema" economy is tough for everyone, but with a devoted readership already, he should be able to carve out a successful role. No question Variety handled his firing terribly, however.
So what is this rag about now, just "who is doing what deal with whom and for how much?" That's always been a big part but the trend seems to be to focus more on product not content. Like, who cares what's inside the sausage, what matters is packaging and profit.
I wonder how much longer Variety will survive in print form. I suppose there is a certain cache' to walking around with it folded under one's arm, but other than that an insider's paid website would be more efficient and timely.
Sadly, this is a sign of the times. A few years back the Detroit Free Press eliminated its film critic, Terry Lawson, and replaced him with somebody from the wire service. Where I used to seek out the Friday Free Press to read Terry's reviews, now I don't bother. In the past if both Ebert and Lawson raved about a movie, it was a can't miss for me. Now, its just Ebert, Metacritic, & Rotten Tomatoes.
Roger, Thank you so much for your heartfelt endorsement of Todd, who by my good fortune, is my brother-in-law. You surely know Todd is your greatest fan, and your statement of support means the world to him and his family. I can assure his fans that he had not an inkling of ill winds blowing. This hatchet job was delivered without warning, and is most certainly the gruesome self-inflicted death blow of Variety cutting off its own nose to spite its face. But after the outrage and incredulity, we know Todd will find greener pastures in another position where he will enlighten a whole new generation of buffs with his amazing knowledge of film.
So in Variety-speak, maybe those of us who love movies should "ankle" Variety.
Thanks for the Todd McCarthy comments. I'd be canceling my Variety subscription, too, if I hadn't already let it lapse over the high price and the thinning theater coverage. I've gotten to know and like David Rooney as a colleague. He's a big loss. I'm also friendly with the second stringers, who will remain, I assume. I'm sure you're aware that although the Variety movie coverage isn't nearly what it once was, the theater reviewing and reporting is that much less. It would be a shocking development if it weren't so familiar by now.
Please forgive my sarcasm but I wouldn't be surprised if McCarthy's place is taken by that Ben kid.
It's lamentable for film critics to be fired from papers across the country, but for one to be let go from "Variety," whose entire purpose is to cover the entertainment business, is like saying "The Washington Post" no longer needs political reporters. If this could happen at "Variety," then it can and will happen everywhere, and soon.
Sad. Very sad.
We need more critics like him... His colume was the last of the NO BS ZONE...
He's usually dead on about a movie and the acting in it. (i.e. Remember me) with Robert Pattinson.
What on earth was Variety thinking? perhaps the Mag. is going to fold?
Roger, what a credit to this man that you should write so eloquently and personally about him. His removal from the Variety team is but one more indication of the gutting of good journalism. Some days I feel like wearing a black armband.
Truly sad day. Former Variety staffer here, they gave me my first paid writing gig straight out of college. Todd was always gracious, kind, intelligent, and extremely knowledgeable -- the kind of person you want to impress as a young intern -- a class act and a gold standard in his field.
He wasn't the only top quality person they let go yesterday, nor, sadly, were those who lost their jobs yesterday the only ones. Variety has been on a bloody cost-cutting spree for years and has sent many a prized talent out their doors. It's hard to produce a quality product when you've let most of your best people go.
Thank you for posting this lovely homage to someone who truly deserves it.
An another example of how people and businesses and organizations don't understand, much less value, critique. Or, if they do understand it, get rid of it, the more to muzzle and put to sleep the masses.
I agree with John Parker's late Dad's viewpoint of business -- the ethical and moral do also prove to be the practical. I also agree that it's related to what's happened against Todd McCarthy.
And I admit I stopped reading Variety years ago, eventually finding it made little difference. I'd never even thought to look at the film reviews, since I had Roger's to read.
I doubt Roger's assessment of Todd McCarthy is any less accurate than his movie reviews, so, barring any other statements from McCarthy, it looks like he's been booted by corporate groupthink.
I wonder if some character like George Clooney's in "Up In The Air" was hired to do the booting.
John Parker's dad, I'm presuming, was of the 1920s WWII generation, where people sought jobs they expected to have for the rest of their lives.
A good portion of the baby-boomers felt stultified at the thought of that, and so, eventually changed things. I'm thinking that the plug-in-n'play mentality things got changed to, to some extent, makes Todd McCarthy and other unique talents like him seem expendable.
"We had a guaranteed contract for parts and service! Who cares if it worked or not?" -- Dick Jones
Does this spell the end of published film criticism as we know it? I hope not. But it's true that with anyone being able to blog about films online these days, and gain a following, publications might not want to spend space and money to print pieces that are available for free elsewhere. What will follow? I can't imagine a day when holding a newspaper, magazine, or book is a thing of the past. Looks like that's where we're headed.
What's left in Hollywood? What is alive and well about this city now that Todd's been fired?
I've been a film publicist for 30 years and first met Todd then when I was launching a revival house, the Loyola Movie Palace. His support began then, in his first year at Variety because he too loved movies. He'd recently co-written King of the B's, the definitive portrait of genre filmmakers, as you mention. One thing you did not mention was the Emmy he won for his smart, lively Preston Sturges portrait for American Masters.
Here we have someone like yourself, a master film critic. That Variety does not need such a person overseeing their film reviews is simply a lie!
Ebert: His reviews remain online at Variety.
Has no one else noticed? Todd's reviews are only "sort of" available.
I, like may others here, check out films at Imdb, then use the "External Reviews" link in the left-hand column to see what my favorite reviewers have to say. This means I check for a review by Roger, as well as James Berardinelli, Todd McCarthy & the NY Times.
I now have to skip the reviews at Variety due to their new policy, because as the following pop-up says the third time you access their site:
"We offer our readers two articles, columns, photos or videos per month, but you can get three more by completing our free registration."
I didn't note the exact day I first saw this, but it was certainly within the past few weeks. So Variety graciously grants me two movie reviews a month? And a whopping three more if I register with them?
Bah. Humbug.
I check reviews at least a couple of dozen times a week, and sometimes more. I had briefly considered investigating what Variety demanded should I wish to read more than five movie reviews a month, but the news of the firing of Mr. McCarthy has just insured I will never consider the idea again.
As I mentioned in another thread, I will certainly be among the first to subscribe to the NY Times Online when that becomes available behind their planned paywall, because they offer original and valuable content I cannot get elsewhere. For the same reason I was thrilled to join The Ebert Club (note to Roger: I would pay far more than five buckadingdongs for the incalculable value I receive here).
The key factor in my willingness to subscribe to pay-content online is: Is the value received commensurate with the cost?
In the case of Variety, the answer is simply and obviously: No [expletive deleted] way. First they remove the value, then demand I make sacrifices to access what remains?
As my 90 year old father loves to opine (please note the spoken emphasis, pause included):
"What were you, thinking?
I can't be the only one who's craving a column from you on the future of film criticism, especially given how much attention the topic has received over the last couple of weeks thanks to news like McCarthy's axing, Doherty's eulogy, the Schickel denunciation and others.
You've already poked around it in your pieces about "the gathering Dark Age," your nostalgic looks back at the newsroom and the incarnations of your television show, your columns on critics Dan Schneider and Armond White, and your professed affection for your readers' blogs. What's happening in film criticism right now is driving new and burgeoning critics, writers and bloggers nuts.
What do you foresee happening to critical thought, to valuable opinions, to the role of consensus? Is all of this film criticism funeral talk superfluous? What do you make of the recent rash of critics speaking out on their decades-long professions and, in some cases, against the next wave (nay, tsunami) of people who write about the movies?
I've committed to writing about film for the rest of my life. What's my 2045 (or 2075, goodness willing I have Stanley Kauffmann's fortitude) retirement party going to be like?
Give us the column, Roger.
I'm very surprised that a successful (in appearances) publication outright terminated an employee who contributed as much to that success as Mr. McCarthy did. And while I'm not sure that the age of critics helping make or break the performance of some films is A) over or B) a bad thing to be over if it is, Mr. McCarthy's reviews were sharp and insightful and connected to the real world those films would have to compete in. Whatever factors were involved, this feels like a bad long-term decision by VARIETY.
Hi Roger.
I've never read Variety, so I don't have an opinion - other than to say sorry to see a talented man let go.
Is it a surprise, though?
You said in "Gathering Storm" that we "have to tighten our belts". Business has been doing that for a year now, to survive. I've seen a lot of talented people leave our company over the course of that year. We lost a lot of experience, wisdom, and knowledge. That's probably not an uncommon experience in the business world.
Plus, you observed in your last post that the economics of media are changing dramatically.
Add those together and you have the poor but perhaps predictable decision at Variety, and elsewhere around the country.
What can you do? Do what you are doing. Excercise your choice as a consumer. Send a message.
I can't help but wonder if we will still have critics like McCarthy in the future. There will always be people loving film and having incredible knowledge of the craft, but when newspapers and magazines are changing their business models, having someone whose well paying job is to just review films seems like a luxury that can not be afforded. The internet, of course has, been the both the bringer of this change but a hope for it's salvation. Anyone can be a critic now and share it with the world. The real question is how many of them will be Ben Lyons on-line, and how many of the McCarthy worthy ones will have enough resources to spend as much time as possible in the world of film, AND get noticed enough to be on the inside as you and McCarthy are. I suppose it will turn out all right, but it is a little discouraging to know being the next Ebert the way Ebert became Ebert isn't in the cards for my generation...but we will find another way.
On another note, because I like to brag, the Oscar winning film @ Veronica Cove was worked on by a high school friend, Corey Drayton. I guess he has some bragging rights over the rest of our class now. Of course, Philip Seymour Hoffman went to our high school too, so maybe we've got something special there!
All the best. I love your blog.
Hi Roger,
On a sidenote: is there a page to comment on your tweets?
Just to be picky, your tweet:
Blogs abuzz that the Palins often used free Canadian health care, slipping across border from Alaska
is factually wrong. She was, if I'm not mistaken, talking about when she was growing up and living in Skagway with her parents - which is near Canada.
That would be "the Heaths" then, not "the Palins". (She didn't become a Palin until she married.)
You would know that if you read "Going Rogue"! :) (You are going to read it, aren't you?)
That would also be her father's decision, since she was a minor, and not hers.
Picky, I know...
Thank-you Roger for shining a light on yet another injustice. I work in the film business and would on occasion print out Todd's reviews of upcoming films or films myself and my colleagues had worked on and pin them up on a bulletin board in a high traffic hallway. People always thanked me for keeping them informed and Todd's review's were always one of the highlights. I will follow his writing wherever he may go next.
My subscription to Weekly Variety (which I've had since 1988) expires in about a month. I was deliberating whether I should cough up another $319 for another year. Variety just made the decision for me.
This is a sad state of affairs. In an age where quote whores outnumber legitimate critics, Variety should be holding itself to a higher standard then the usual entertainment rags.
Hopefully McCarthy will find a publication that can appreciate his talent.
To me, Todd McCarthy has been one of more reliable critics in external review section of IMDB and I'm sad to hear this news. The economy is hard and downsizing is inevitable, but why do they cut heads instead of tails or fat?
I'm also sorry to hear Derek Elley was fired. Some of his articles have been posted on weekly movie magazine in our country and they were good to read. It's true that nothing lasts forever, but that does not mean this.
This post should discourage me. For the last few months I have been practicing my own critical style in preparation to try and convince the paper I currently deliver for to allow me to write a column. Hearing about this dismissal made me think I should be worried. I am not.
I will take instead the implied ideal that art criticism remains a vital and valid part of the American discourse, and I will continue to build my presentation. I will get an appointment with the editors, and I will plead my case.
Thank you, Mr. Ebert.
William
Hi Roger, the other day, I read this article by Thomas Friedman at NYT, "A Word From the Wise." I think the gist of his article has some relevance to what happened at Variety. Mr. Friedman's article is a dire warning about the losing edge of U.S. competitiveness. Though Mr. Friedman didn't implicitly say it, I think what he was lamenting is the loss of Quality brought about by the economic downturn.
I strongly believe we should always keep and build on what matters despite any economic downturn.
Eric Lerdal is on to something, I think. Medieval guilds did indeed function in the way he mentions, and they also had standards for achievement (you created your 'master piece', showed it to the guild's senior members, and became One of Them).
There needs to be a place where reasoned and coherent commentary can exist, and where experts in their fields can be read and heard and paid fairly for their knowledge. And those experts need to have apprentices to carry on the work.
In the meantime, the market for writers and editors seems pretty craptacular. Even some laudable online journals expect their readers to supply valuable content rather than hire professionals. (Yes, I'm looking at YOU, Salon.com and nytimes.com - shame on you.)
What an extraordinarily depressing situation. The only positive I can see is, as you stress, that McCarthy's reputation and talent will mean his career is undiminished by Variety's actions.
Of course, that's a positive from his point of view. From mine, as film critic for all of two years, there doesn't seem to be any positive all.
Incidentally, it is one my chief aims in life to write an ending for one of my articles that is a fraction as pertinent and powerful as the endings you routinely write for yours.
It is only a matter of time that they replace McCarthy with Ben Lyons.
I think film critics have lost a lot of respect in the past ten years. It has a lot to do with internet-based film criticism and your typical user reviews/web dweller who only think movies either RULE! or SUCK!. They see seasoned critics as old and stuffy, and the movies they like are consider "boring". The new generation wants the quick fix, just the synopsis and none of the analysis.
Over the past few years the art of film criticism has been going by the wayside. Their relevance and influence has nearly disappeared. All you have to do is look at where independent cinema is today to see how little their opinions matter nowadays. One critic after the next is getting fired by their local newspapers. With McCarthy getting axed, the end is near. It really makes me sad.
Thank you for putting so eloquently what I felt into words.
I live in a state where our governor would rather cut educational programs and freeze teacher's salaries than lessening his own budget and finances. While what happened at Variety is much smaller in scale and affects less people, it still feels like an equal loss. It's such a shame that, instead of keeping the vital parts of something- the hardest workers or elements of something essential, we abandon them. I wish McCarthy and Rooney all the best in the future; I sincerely hope that they are able to get the positions you mentioned above, men like that shouldn't be put aside so easily.
Wow! Another miserable story. Another reason to feel sad.
I used to subscribe to Variety and read Todd like my life depended upon it. then I started to read Variety on line and as my job changed I unsubscribed.
I feel some personal guilt in this as I've been "stealing" his reviews for about 5 years. I dunno. i hope he starts a blog like yours because he too is a great film critic and one of my faves.
You recently suggested $4.99 for your site. I'd pay $4.99 to read Todd's reviews as well.
I feel the need to make the point that this is another nick in the eroding stone that is marked quality. I don't care where you look but it's happening bit by bit and that's because we as consumers continue to make the wrong and thoughtless choices.
At some point someone has to stand up and stop blaming the political parties, the corporations, the whatever. We make the choices with our wallets and too many of us, these days, are doing a bad job.
I have two young sons - what will they inherit?
Rob
I considered subscribing to Variety, to a significant degree because of his reviews. This is a move I do not understand. They lost a cornerstone.
I am so struck by this news, so sad, so in despair for my beloved passion.
I just wonder what's next? I wonder if I'll be reading about the demise of Variety completely - with no Todd it's a real likelihood. I mean, will I next read that the Chicago Sun Times fires Roger Ebert?
Is the future really the god awful AICN and Rotten Tomatoes.
Trust me - 84% tells me absolutely nothing
Rob
I asked this question back in 2008 on this very blog, is film criticism dead? When Variety no longer respects its validity what major platforms are left for the next important film critics? Mr. Ebert, you and Mr. McCarthy have influenced my own criticism efforts immensely. You and Mr. McCarthy, however, know film and through your reviews have imparted a great deal of that knowledge to your readers. What will be imparted to readers when all that is required to be a reviewer for major publications is an interest in movies? I have nightmares of Transformers making Sight & Sound’s top-ten list in 2032.
Guilds online? Being that people who play MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games) often band together with other users at a set time each day to accomplish tasks in a game, perhaps bloggers and others who use the Internet could do the same, taught by the wisest and most experienced among us (i.e. people with high reputations either in print media or online). And then, out of the ideas of those guilds--quality equals money, not money equals quality--new businesses and corporations can be formed. Of course, consumers have to become smarter and wiser, as well. They must be exposed to high art and culture at an early age, and it must be made relevant to them, something worth spending money on.
Plus, being a poet--in addition to being a blogger, short story writer, and (one day) novelist--I know all about being considered obsolete, or not important enough for value to be channeled into dollars. I hope the same is not becoming true for critics. If we had more great poetry critics in America, perhaps more people would read good poetry, and more good poetry would be written. After all, how many of us have checked out a book based on a positive review in a newspaper, or checked out a movie because it's featured in Ebert's Great Movies section?
This is indeed bad news. Unfortunately, it is isn't limited to Mr. McCarthy - such things are happening at newspapers across the country. But then, you already knew this. However, with his connections, Mr. McCarthy should be able to find a new job without too much trouble.
I write the obituaries at one of the last family-owned newspapers of any size in the South. Unlike most papers these days, the obituary desk is still in the newsroom and we have a staff of four writers that take care of this most delicate of tasks. We fact check, proof and edit - all to make sure that this final tribute is as good as it possibly can be. Or, we'll write it for you if you don't know where to start. At most newspapers, it is now handled as part of the classified department and what you send in is what you get.
We had our first round of lay-offs in May of last year. The paper laid off a total of 50 employees - at least one person from every department. I feel like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Do I wait it out and see what happens? Do I need to be proactive and find a new job, leaving the one that I love?
My point is this: Yes, the folks at Variety were a bunch of damn fools to fire their most easily recognizable name/face and expect him to write freelance for them instead. However, as at all major print publications, the writing is on the wall. It is only a matter of time until we are all without work. Hopefully, Todd will be one of the lucky ones and have something lined up and ready to go.
Ach, Roger! I wrote in a previous entry, "Though Mr. Friedman didn't implicitly say it, I think what he was lamenting is the loss of Quality brought about by the economic downturn."
Apologies, but what I meant to write was explicitly. Often in a rush during mornings and lunchtimes.
Roger, I am outraged by this article, I had no idea.
Straight after the Oscars as well.
Talk about times a changing, even Tarantino is out of favor.
I think the day will come when Twilight ( whatever sequel or rip off) might be up for best film, and it is fast approaching.
Will Todd never review for Variey again to save face?
I think he should start his own blog, I will donate money.
And as for david Rooney, he is another wonderful critic of his field of Broadway.
i am so sand and screaming with outrage.
Beware Roger the Chicago Sun Times might follow
then the world of cinema will end
Jeff Dowd commenting on the Variety layoffs:
While I don't always agree with them-- Todd McCarthy, David Rooney and Derek Elley are brilliant, insightful critics and axed Variety reporters Anne Thompson and Mike Flemming are as good as it gets. Sharon Swart (another great reporter) axed by
Variety did Variety's Ten Filmmakers to Watch which really was a contributing factor helping to launch deserving filmmakers before, during and after Sundance. That's
one example of how filmmakers will suffer--it was a lot of diligent
work that Sharon did--Variety will probably keep it for the profile, but
this is an example of what happens when people run a company from
afar—Variety honcho Tim Gray is just the guy who takes the phone calls from the
bean counters ordering him to layoff folks-I don’t know the man but I’m sure it wasn’t easy for an editor to have to axe his exceptional colleagues and then give a pep talk about why it was okay. Because I have two daughters, I know some of the kids of those Variety colleagues he dumped and I know the pain and uncertainty that has been afflicted.
Let's get to the bottom line here--Yes in the viral world print media has
suffered a great deal. Yet the other reason for layoffs has everything
to do with debt load and high costs servicing it because of mergers,
acquisitions and highly leveraged buyouts. This is not only true for print media but also all the closures of indie distributors, for example: Warner Independent, New Line and
Picturehouse (I believe that Warner's interest payments alone are more
than $2.5 billion because of their TimeWarnerAOL mergers and
acquisitions. This isn't just because of the downturn in the economy--
it is the Casino Economy, in which deals and the big bucks made by the
dealmakers at the expensive of better production, their employees and
stockholders, that are a major contributing factor. (Enron is one of
thousands of examples and where I live The Los Angles Times buyout has been a painful disaster.) This is pervasive in almost all industries. Unfortunately the victims in this Variety travesty are filmmakers, audiences and
of course dedicated staffers and their families.
What do we do? We come together with trusted colleagues and start new companies (like
The Wrap or Google)--that understand people who work there are their
Lifeblood--something that conglomerates unfortunately by their bottom
line nature don't fully appreciate because they often don't even
understand the business that specific divisions are in (remember a French sewer company owning a big piece of Universal). For example--
in places like the auto industry--the engineers need more power not
the bean counters that run most of them and for various reasons
short change innovation. If America is going to be competitive and if
print media is going to evolve it is because of talented people not
bottom line debt service.
And if starting a company is beyond our means, we can at least use the internet to communicate, because if we don’t we will blindly stumble off the cliffs edge and the future will be dark. Let me paraphrase Washington Post Editor Ben Bradllee (played by Jason Robards in All The Presidents’s Men) to Woodward and Bernstein at the end of the film: “Not much is at stake here—just the future of democracy and our country.”
If the Dude wasn’t the laziest man in Los Angeles I would get up, go over to my shelf, get out the DVD and quote it correctly.
The good news is that thanks to the internet and our collective imagination and passion we have a damn good chance of making the future the best of times. So write on!
Jeff Dowd
THE DUDE ABIDES!
Ebert: From the original for The Big Lebowski.
I just realized the Dude's full name is Jeff Lebowski. Why was I surprised?
On Sunday, the Dude aboded.
Randy Masters said:
Just to be picky, your tweet:
That would be "the Heaths" then, not "the Palins". (She didn't become a Palin until she married.)
That would also be her father's decision, since she was a minor, and not hers.
Picky, I know...
_______________
You do realize there is a 140 character limit on twitter tweets, right?
I must dissent with the prevailing opinion. I always found Variety a paper little more than a combination of the worst of the Wall Street Journal, Entertainment Tonight, and the Star.
It was always far more concerned with the business of film than the art. One would find information about a Lucas over a Tarkovsky, as if anyone in 100 years will care of the former.
McCarthy was an ok critic, but he did not have your writing ability, he did not have Siskel's mind, he did not even have Kael's ability to annoy a reader. In a word he was generic.
And for the readers who are complaining that Rotten Tomatoes is so bad (and I am no great fan of it) I would ask them to pick a half dozen reviews of any film by a critic there and compare it to McCarthy's and show me any substantive difference in the manners I mentioned that you, Kael and Siskel differ from each other and McCarthy. There is none.
And this gets back to your plea for the Ebert Club. Economics doomed McCarthy. He put out a product no better than that readers could get for free online with reviewers who were not jetting off to this or that little festival around the globe.
The Internet has been proven to be, at its best, the equal of or superior to the MSM. Late last year you highlighted a great critic, Dan Schneider, who runs a popular website (Cosmoetica) that is unattached to even the online Mafia of Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic/ MRQE, etc. Some years before that you championed James Berardinelli as the best of online critics, even blurbing on his books for him, and I agree that he IS equal to or better than any of the MSM critics you mention, including McCarthy- and YOU.
Times change. Variety has always been a bottom line denizen of the worst in entertainment. Should we have expected any more of it? The Sun-Times, at least, still practices journalism. Variety never did; it is and was a long and glorified advertisement. Period.
Berardinelli, Schneider, and a few other online do it yourselfers are still out there, and doing it BETTER than Variety and McCarthy ever did, so I'm not worrying.
Let McCarthy run a festival. He can then gratis himself without depending on Variety. He benefits then, and so do the readers, by having one less anonymous voice to filter out whilst trying to find the good stuff written by folks like you, Schneider, Berardinelli, or Siskel.
Respectfully yours,
My name is Corey. I'm an 18 year old college freshman who wants to earn a living by being a film critic. Every industy-films, music, television, etc.-needs critics to keep the people in the industry honest to make better products for us. If we're going to change critics from being honest to seeling out to companies just for money, then same on those people who changes critics. A critic's job is to give the people han honset feeling about what they're watching or listening. A perfect example is when I had a discussion with my classmates about Transformers 2. I told my class that TF@ was one of the worst films I've ever seen and I gave them a very good reason why. Everyone just yelled and stared at me as if I was a serial killier. If you listened to our discussion, then it's clear as day that I won. They have their own opinion, but don't say mine opinion is wrong. The art of criticism is going fast and we need to save it.
If Variety is dumping its main movie critic, who is the paper keeping? Who, at Variety, could be more key to the character of the publication?
One of the seldom noticed aspects of newspaper downsizing in general (which, by the way, is much more the result of insane overleveraging and outright thievery than competition by new media) is that the first to be laid off or forced out are the most talented and experienced journalists. The rolls of the disemployed are far more distinguished than the payrolls left behind.
Ebert: Actually, they retain a talented group of freelancers, including Peter Debruge, Kevin Chang and John Anderson, who I respect, so I've decided not to cancel my sub after all but just remain pissed off at them.
Not to undermine your excellent points regarding the injustice of the decision, but this is probably good for Mr. McCarthy. And good for us. I rarely read any of McCarthy's reviews in Variety, because I've never been pleased to have read anything in Variety. It's a shallow publication. McCarthy's talents have just been freed from some ugly manacles. That's a win for everyone. Everyone except Variety, of course.
Memo to Variety Group Editor David Gray:
Lop off those who provide quality content for your publication, and your content suffers. D’oh!
When content suffers, readers drop off. When readers leave, circulation drops, and advertisers bid adieu. When enough advertisers exit, your publication folds.
What part of this downward-spiral scenario do you fail to understand?
Hello Mr. Ebert,
There is a wonderful comic called "Non-Sequitor" that sums up most of today's problems in a few panels. Here is one that sticks out for me:
There is a large Roman Warship in the middle of the ocean. A group of Corporate Executives are on the top deck. They are puzzled, and one says:
"I just don't understand. We laid off workers to streamline the workforce, but the ship seems to be going slower."
Down in the galley, only one man is rowing the ship forward.
He was the first guy who told us that TITANIC actually had merit. Remember? How brave it was at the time, when everybody "knew" different. He had only one advantage: he'd actually *seen* it.
I agree with your Thumbs Down. The writing was on the wall, of course. I can remember being equally dismayed when the Voice summarily canned Nat Hentoff (and others) and then a few years later, Robert Christgau. When the media becomes overly focused on profits, serious thought and criticism is a casualty. Fortunately, Hentoff - who still writes freelance for the Voice on an occasional basis - and Christgau are doing fine in their post-corporate-media-employee lives, as I'm sure McCarthy will, but what about all the lesser known men and women seeing their livelihoods snuffed out? Even sadder, what about the other commenters on this blog who are going to give up on their dreams of being serious journalists? Doing quality writing and earning the respect of your peers is great, but people have to eat and provide for their families, too. It's a shame that critical thinking and writing is no longer considered to have "value" in our society, while the Becks, Palins and Coulters continue to preach dumbness to the masses and rake in millions.
The last sentence of this entry is exactly why I read this blog. I believe you won't read it again - and that speaks not only to the content of your character, but to the loyalty you feel for your peers and profession.
Variety is down a great writer and a great reader. In the parlance of our times, it sucks to be them.
Just like suicide colors impressions of a person's life, so retrenchment stains a company that gains from talent then casts it aside.
To be authoritative, one needs authors.
Call it corporate suicide.
All that remains is the loss of an invaluable archive.
I guess I will be relying on Paul Wunder of WBAI for his timely reviews. I don't think the man ever disliked a movie he ever reviewed. I knew when the advertisement would say "Paul Wunder of WBAI said that ......" I needed to stay away.
Probably Bush's fault...
The following is going to be somewhat off-topic.
Or maybe not, given the tone of some of the comments.
Over in the red corduroy section, you have pulled from your archives the obit you wrote for Jayne Mansfield in 1967, when you were a weathered sage of 25 years. Your judgments of her career and talent were quite sweeping, given your experience to that date. As my own memory serves, you were largely echoing the conventional wisdom about Mansfield's life and career. True, it reads as rather mild in the modern cabloid context; there was certainly more than enough lurid side detail to have kept the 21st century gossip gang going strong for years. What I think I'm trying to get at here is:
Why on earth did you decide to reprint this one now? With a 40+ year context to work with, it only makes you look like a young snot displaying superiority. By way of contrast, you might compare what you wrote years later about John Belushi, which was considerably more compassionate.
Back to Jayne Mansfield:
Your assessment of her career to date is accurate as far as it goes, but I'm guessing that you didn't see one performance that was probably her best, due to its atypicality.
In 1962, The Alfred Hitchcock Hour aired an episode titled Hangover, starring Tony Randall as an advertising man whose drinking had gone out of control. He wakes up with the title hangover and a strange woman in bed next to him. This was Jayne Mansfield's character: not a dumb blonde at all, but a tough dame straight out of Noir. Not a large part, but a good showcase for Mansfield, and she handled it well (my opinion, of course; your opinion may differ). That it didn't lead to producers c0onsidering her in a different light might be ascribed to TV's eternal stepchild status (even a well-regarded show like Hitchcock's). Looking at this show today, I see some qualities in Mansfield's performance that can be seen today in her daughter, Mariska Hargitay of Law & Order:Special Victims Unit - qualities that have won her an Emmy.I daresay that had Mansfield been given more opportunities like Hangover, she might have been more willing to depart from the image. We'll never know, of course; still, What-If continues to be the true national pastime.
OK, miles off-topic, but still the question remains: why would you choose to resurrect a prime example of your early callow self-importance, unless to contrast with your current experinced self-importance? :)
Just so you know, the day before you posted this, I happened to dig out my old copy of Kings Of The "Bs" . I find the the combination of snobbery and condescension perversely fascinating.
But, hey, maybe that's just me.
Ebert: I WAS a young snot. Most of the archive stuff is chosen by Emerson.
Like you Roger (although I never had the pleasure of meeting you personally), Todd McCarthy was a familiar face in my younger years, when I worked in the press office at TIFF (1994-1996; I was with TIFF until the end of 2007.)
I facilitated for Todd once or twice, but his presence was always seen and felt every year.
It was always a bit of a rush to have Todd in town. It was a kick to be able to walk over to the entrance of the press office, on each of the ten days of the Festival in September, and read his latest reviews, which had been written/wired/faxed/emailed to the paper in California from Toronto the night before, then printed in issues that were then delivered straight to us the following morning by Variety, for industry and media (and TIFF staff!) to hungrily consume.
It was always fun to learn what Todd's thoughts were on so many new film discoveries premiering at TIFF. Those issues of Variety were always gone by the end of the day of course. Everyone in the industry read Todd, from all over the globe, as the world came to Toronto every September.
For years Todd has been a staple for so many of us cinematography lovers. His Visions Of Light documentary from 1992 is a film to which I often return, just to marvel at the aesthetic glory of movie history, so well compiled by Mr. McCarthy. I just watched it again a couple of months back, with a friend.
I question Variety's judgement and business sense in letting go a man who is – let's face it – synonymous with the (sorry to have to use the term, but it's apropos in this instance, for some who may be reading this) BRAND.
Not to sound like a conspiracy-theorist, but my wife is a small town critic up here in Oregon, writing for the local weekly paper. There's no independent cinema in this town, just two corporate-owned multiplexes, but to be fair, one of the multiplexes gets a steady diet of arthouse movies, movies which are mostly the ones my wife opts to review. But that multiplex doesn't do so well, and so for example when we went to see 'A Single Man' the management explained they were only keeping the film for a week. My wife gave the movie a five-star review, and the film stayed for two more weeks, and then Colin Firth got nominated for an Oscar, and it stayed another two weeks. It's a town of under 100,000 people, so my wife's reviews do get around and help appreciate movies in that way. People even approach her on the street: 'Oh, I went and saw such-and-such a movie because of you and I never would've otherwise.' But in spite of quite obviously reaping the rewards of her five star reviews for the likes of 'An Education', 'The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus' and 'Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans', two weeks ago the multiplexes' powers-that-be informed my wife that her weekly pair of free tickets were defunct, directly after she'd blasted 'Dear John'. Now, no more free tickets is a small thing, I know, compared to Mr. McCarthy being fired, but one wonders if, as movies become evermoreso products of corporations, if film criticism is going to be ever-increasingly seen as a minor nuisance that can be done away with. Why risk anything whatsoever harming the bottom line? Corporations already tried and have by-and-large failed with the tactic of semi-fake reviews, as in the 90s and early '00s when you'd see terrible movies advertising in the paper with an overdose of glowing reviews from obscure television stations. So is the corporations' next tactic going to be to simply no longer fund film criticism? Will they never mind thoughtful appreciation of film over the horrific thought that a bad review might cut into the profits for 'Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel'? I know this sort of thing has been discussed far and wide for a long time, but in these days of movies cresting billion dollar grosses, the bean counters might be starting to really lose their s*** in crazed hopes of perfect cinematic storms...
Interesting how this happens at the same time as the Iron Cross scandal -- it really does look like Variety has seriously lost its way.
Variety:
1) Draw pistol
2) Cock the hammer
3) Chamber a round
4) Take off safe
5) Aim carefully at foot
6) Fire
I'm tired of hearing about "economic realities" from people who obviously have no idea how to intelligently run a business. You hear that reasoning from 2 types of people - the cannier socialists and the dumber capitalists. A good business is loyal to valuable employees.
I read Variety for years in the late 80s and early 90s, back when I found films much more interesting than I do now. I always turned to the reviews first and I remember McCarthy was a good critic. He deserves better.
Cinema is on the way out as an art form though. Within 10 years adult cinema will be a minority art like theatre. It's well on its way. The movies will be for dropping the kids off to see the 3D sequel to the remake of the movie based on the videogame.
I had already decided to let my Variety subscription lapse after 27 years. The magazine started its decline when it was taken over by Chaners (sp) and it turned from a Show Business magazine into a Business magazine. Nonetheless, as you said, it was very helpful for knowing about films in advance. It's been several years since it has been at all useful, or informative, to me.
I probably disagreed with McCarthy about every film he reviewed (he rally has it in for Lars Von Trier) yet can still respect him as a critic. That Variety would treat him and the magazine this badly just re-affirms my decision to let it go.
Hope Todd lands someplace he can support him self doing what he does well.
We should have seen it coming when they started firing copy editors because the computer will fix spelling and grammatical mistakes just fine. Which is why, some years, past, my local newspaper referred to people "pouring" over a map.
I write, as you will see from my URL, a daily review journal on Rotten Tomatoes. An interesting aspect of their otherwise terrible site "upgrade" from last year is that, when you're writing your review, it gives you the start of three other members' reviews, unless--as I seem to do all the time--you're reviewing a movie no three people on RT have reviewed it. These are the reviews people my age (I'm 33) and younger seem to use as their go-to source. And, yes, most of the user-generated reviews are terrible. I like to think that my own are better, and certainly I can promise you that they're more in-depth (one simply said, "Wow!"), but I also seem to have fewer readers.
However, I cannot but speculate that the reason my generation and younger are willing to settle for such nonsense, that we expect and even prefer it, is that we have been spoken down to our entire lives. As I've told you before, I was raised on you and Gene, and after your show, we watched the news. On weekdays, my mother watched as much as three hours of news, and I grew up more aware of the world around me than anyone I knew. We don't know how to be adults in the way previous generations were, because we were raised caring more about, well, the late and, to us, lamented Corey Haim than about our elected officials.
Now, of course, we might be expected to get beyond that. It may well be the pretend news, but one of the most respected men to us today is Jon Stewart, which means at least we have some news. But if a fake newscaster is our primary source of news, and they're trying to foist Ben on us, how can we be expected to know the cream?
It is a young man's world.
I watch the faces of early retirement solemnly swallow and set their coffee on the counter as they sift through their pockets for some change. "What am I to do?" "What else is there?" they ask as I hand them their change and try to assure them that life has a habit of surprising you. They sigh and say "Thanks." for their coffee as they trudge out the door.
How do you work for an organization for thirty years and get let go? "Thanks for all the fish." I wonder how many twenty something kumquat marketer's and business suits made the decision, though we can be rest assured that they never met Mr. McCarthy. Thirty years. I'm not thirty years old so his career is more than a lifetime to me, but off he goes. Off we sail.
I'll raise my glass to that; the future is inevitable.
What I liked about Todd McCarthy's reviews is that not only did he tell you what the film was about, but he also told you about the film.
I would say good riddance.
To Variety that is, meaning: Mr McCarthy should be glad he got rid of the dying employer with a financial handshake.
I am sure you, Mr Ebert, will see the parallels with the SunTimes. What would be better to expand your new club and invite Todd to partner. Stop blaming the newest economy, but use the wonders to your advantage.
You both do not need a rotten building with dusty cabinets, whether physical or metaphorically. You need a laptop, a large screen, any random comfortable place and eachother's wit and knowledge. The rest will follow.
Enjoy the next steps!
It seems the "economic reality" for print news and entertainment can be used as an excuse to do anything now. What do you think this means for the future of critics? All I ever hear about is how critics are really only around now for older audiences (although I think the box-office revenue of many small independent movies rely on critical reception to garner any kind of attention and even big blockbusters like "Avatar" and "The Dark Knight" only outgrow their initial niche audience because of the critical acclaim).
In a completely unrelated subject, I just heard that you're going to be coming to the Bay Area for the San Francisco International Film Festival. As a long time reader of your writings, I very much look forward to seeing you.
You said [and others agreed]: ... if they made such a drastic decision, we are invited to wonder if Variety itself will long survive?
To use a quote oft-used by you, "Isn't it pretty to think so?" Variety will probably continue with eager, interchangeable critics.
Intelligent, informed, and thoughtful commentary seems to be an endangered species, and not just in the arts. Unless Mr. McCarthy continues to contribute to Variety as a freelancer, his place will be taken by someone with less knowledge, less experience, and less insight, and the world of film criticism will be the poorer for it. All opinions are not created equal.
Gary of Phoenix came up with the idea first, but here's another: Prix Nix Pix Crix.
(English-only pronunciation, please.)
Roger --
I think you may be conflating two early meetings with Todd. I believe the first time you met him was when he, Ken Levis (subsequently a film editor for Armand Hammer) and I were high school students at Evanston Township High School and were fans. I believe the three of us took you out to lunch. Can't recall where. And then later, Todd and Charles probably met you when Charles was connected with Doc Films (which sounds as though it dates from college days). Anyway, that's a small point of correction.
I teach most summers at the National Critics Institute (based at the O'Neill Center) and wonder sometimes what world the people who are studying with me and my colleagues (including the wonderful Linda Winer, who used to write in Chicago) imagine awaits them at a time when serious writing on the arts has largely turned into an avocation rather than a profession.
The idea of Todd running a film festival is an enticing one. I rather doubt there are many out there who have his programming skills much less his network of friends and colleagues in every corner of the business.
As for VARIETY, this amounts to a gesture of self-mutilation. What now will it offer that will justify the large subscription price? What information do they distribute that is not available elsewhere for less or free?
Something about this makes me think, "We have heard the chimes at midnight."
Ebert: I'm sure you're right.
Re your students:
Q. What do you need to be a film critic? A. A tin cup.
Hi Roger,
I have never read and probably never will read Variety, Weekly Variety or any other trade publication related to the entertainment industry. Why? Because I am a consumer of movies not a producer, actor, writer or any other of the many varieties of industry personnel out there.
Thus I had never, until your column, heard of Todd McCarthy or any of the other critics noted by you and your readers. Gene Siskel excepted.
That doesn't mean that I don't feel for those displaced writers you so eloquently spoke of. On the contrary I feel a great sorrow for those who work their entire adult lives for one company only to have that company dump them unceremoniously and suddenly and leave them without even the dignity of a hail and farewell.
However, Mr. McCarthy's story is not a lone one. Not by any means. His is just one of the millions out there who share that same feeling of disenfranchisement and desolation that happens when the world you thought you knew comes crashing down around you.
In today's world it seems that the bottom line is always the excuse and humanity is always the victim. We are all affected by this type of thinking even if we manage to hold on to our work and our world while those we know and love are on the edge of theirs.
Yes I do feel for Mr. McCarthy and because he is a friend of yours and someone you admire and respect your pain will always be larger than mine. My pain is for the world we live in and my relief is that I will not be around long enough to see the outcome of the current direction it is taking.
Found a website and put all of the out of work critics to work there. Charge admission and still sell advertising. Try to figure out a way to put people back to work instead of lamenting the fact that they are collecting unemployment. You must know someone out there with more money than sense.
As always,
John
PS to Mr. Corey Weaver
If u dont lern to spll thn u wont be abl to get a job writng anythng and nobdy will evr heer u.
If you are a freshman in college then the high school you graduated from sent you out the door with a poor excuse for a diploma. What you had better do is hire a proofreader full time unless professors don't require readability.
Ever heard of a spell checker.
I can remember about eight years ago that a small town weekly newspaper in texas let go its film critic. I asked him why, and he said, "I don't know. I am going to find out." Every year, he would give his pick of the top ten years. The following week, he would announce the Oscar contest. The grand prize was 20 free passes. Unfortunately, I would have to wait a week or so to use them. Anytime he reviewed a film, he would ask a simple question, "Did it entertain me?" It's a fair enough question. I don't know when you review a film if you yourself ask the same question.
Anyway, I am writing this in relation to the sacking of Todd McCarthy. I have to admit I did not read Variety that much. It struck a nerve with me in any case. Ta Ta for now.
I'm sorry but I didn't know where else to write this. It's regarding your review of the Red Riding trilogy. The films were in fact first aired on channel 4, not bbc. Also, the chief of police is played by Warren Clarke (who played Dim in A Clockwork Orange). OK, with that out the way I just wanted to stay that it was a great review. The fact that they were created for a commercial channel, rather than the government funded bbc, makes them all the more special. Together they were some of the best work of last year, am i've been interested as to what you would think of them for a year now!!
Cheers and Regards
At 68 years of age I truly believe I have adapted fairly well to the changes happening within the media world. I read a number of newspapers and other sources of information online everyday.
However, these kinds of moves being taken at Variety and other media sources in the name of efficiency, cost control or whatever you want to call it continues to the further erode the quality of source information we receive on varied subjects.
These two individuals will survive, maybe even continue to contribute on occasion to Variety, but we will be the losers in the long run.
Mike
Hi Roger,
Off-topic but just to let you know that The Red Riding Trilogy was actually a Channel 4 financed series rather than a BBC one. It premiered on that channel also. Channel 4 was ground-breaking when it was first set up in 1982 and is connected to Film Four, hopefully The Red Riding Trilogy will signal a return to more adventurous programming.
Keep up the good work,
Geoff
Ok, let me put it this way.....
What is wrong with people????
I guess that's why they call it the "bottom line." Nothing else matters. Lately, however, it seems to go further than that. Nothing matters but the profits for the investors over this quarter. That's the entire goal. Considering that, more and more, we are a bunch of large conglomerates and nothing else, this is a scary prospect. If intelligent alien life forms looked down on us and saw our little business machinations, they would shake their heads (or whatever the alien equivalent is) and conclude that we were not logical creatures and that we were incapable of assessing our situation or acting towards a larger goal... But we knew that already.
Now I see that Jim Emerson got there first ("Trix Nix Pix Crix"). One should always (not just on Thursdays) read to the bottom of the page and stay through the end of the credits.
I've seen "Visions of Light" twice. It's an excellent documentary about film. Perhaps Todd McCarthy should take this opportunity to continue making more of those.
It is so sad that you people don't get it in 2010. The Golden Age is over! Our being inundated by the media with images of and quotes by a young woman whose claim to fame is birthing eight children over a number of years is of infinite more importance than letting people know that a critic of the first order is now redundant.
The question is when do the critics of the NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Sun-Times and others of that cadre start to experience the same redundancy as McCarthy and others?
It should be said that this is not entirely the fault of Variety. Someone here mentioned that things began to go downhill when the journal was taken over by Cahners - which eventually became Reed Business Information (a division of Reed Elsevier) - and that's absolutely true.
All of the unfortunate publications under the RBI umbrella have seen these drastic and often insane cuts... A few years ago, Reed Elsevier decided that they no longer wanted to be saddled with a publishing company. They tried to sell RBI to no avail, so instead they've cut costs so drastically that they're destroying the publications. Multiple editors-in-chief have been laid off and not replaced, and countless other crucial editors as well. Sad.
Memo to Phillip Booth - I dont see the equation. You change the 'content' you change your audience, meaning you lose some and perhaps gain many more.
Variety has spoken, people, and now we must all fall in line. Dry your tears, and move on.
All staff critics should be thrown from their high horses and made to scrub toilets -- builds character!!!
Maybe now we can elevate some of the known plagiarists from the IFC blog up to the V table. That is progress in Amerikkka today.
Leonard Maltin's response:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/archives/a_tale_of_two_critics/
It is an unfortunate situation that I'm all too familiar with.
A company is strapped for cash, so it decides to fire the workers that earn the highest salaries. These guys are the ones that are the long-term moneymakers; but the company isn't thinking in the long term. They fire the people who have been around enough to be knowledgable, and hire people with one-tenth the skill who will work for one-half the wage.
It works in the short term, and the people in charge can brag about their "money-saving" cuts to the shareholders. But in the long term, all of their clients and customers bolt, because they're putting out a crappy product. By then, those who orchestrated it all are long gone, leveraging their "money-saving" skills to another company for an even higher salary. Usually getting a hefty bonus in the process. Essentially, struggling companies are paying people to drive them out of business.
It's something that's been going on for a very long time in the print industry. (Here, "the print industry" means people with ink stains on their shirtsleeves, not people who chain smoke in front of a typewriter.) It never ends well, but nobody in any modern industry pays attention to how anything ends.
Other than a couple of good reviewers, Variety was never all that great to begin with, so I predict financial ruin in three years at most. McCarthy can at least take some small comfort in that, I guess, if he wants to. I'm guessing he'll be around long after his former employees are gone.
M'eh.
Maybe it's good to thin the herd. Let's just add some diversity while we're at it.
Watching the Oscars reminded me yet again of what an disproportionately white-male-dominated world Hollywood is and has been, especially that tribute to John Hughes and his so-called exploration of the teen experience in the 80s. Sad when Long Duk Dong is the only minority in a Hughes film anyone can remember. Thanks, John, you were a true visionary. Hollywood pushes that agenda onto the rest of us, year after year, decade after decade and actually has the nerve to see it a great leap forward that it took 82 years to recognize a (white) woman as best director. Kudos, fellas, kudos.
Your photos here don't do much to counter that point.
Maybe some more women and -- gasp -- minorities deserve a chance -- finally -- when they are 30% of the American population but only 3% of the focus of Hollywood films, and they can have an effect on improving the monocultural vision that dominates American entertainment. After 31 years, maybe McCarthy can give somebody else a chance. It's easy to be a liberal when you've got a cushy job and the best seat in the house.
Thank you for your life as a critic. I just wanted to tell you that in case you get sacked. I have appreciated your words for quite some time. Thanks.
In real life, people get fired all the time. I can't be expected to feel like a horrible injustice has occurred: a man who probably made a 6 figure income lost his job, while I struggle to find low-5-figure work. We're acting like they murdered Mr. McCarthy. But in reality, it's not like we'll never be able to hear from him again; of course he will be able to find new, relatively high-paying work (as he deserves), so we're going to hear from him again in one form or another. The fact that he no longer works for a magazine that covers the superficial world of entertainment is not a tragedy.
Will Variety go broke as a result of the loss of readers due to firing McCarthy? Perhaps. But perhaps by cutting costs, they've allowed themselves to survive just a little bit longer than they otherwise would have, and continue to provide jobs to people for a little longer too. Mr. Ebert, unless you have access to Variety's financial statements, I'm not sure how you can judge the business decisions they're making, any more than I can judge the business decisions you make without actually knowing your financial circumstances intimately.
I'm a big fan of yours, Mr. Ebert, and love reading your articles and reviews. But I just found this article kind of bothersome. Otherwise, keep up the excellent work, and I will continue to recommend you to friends.
Wayne
Though I've always liked McCarthy as a critic, I typically avoid reviews in the trades, because I am annoyed at the amount of time they spend trying to gauge a film's potential gross. But I suppose insiders do care about that sort of thing. Hopefully, Todd will land a job writing "crimitism" for a publication that cares about art more than money.
Another nail-in-the-coffin of thoughtful, insightful print film criticism. McCarthy knew how to write about film as an art, a craft and as a business - balancing all those aspects into a meaningful review without superficially focusing on celebrity and money.
"La dole vita"? Beautiful welfare? Stop baiting the right-wingers.
And so the dumbing down of American media continues. Invariably if he refuses to work for them under the given conditions (freelance) they'll replace him with some cheaper "entertainment" columnist to compete with the ever-growing mainstreaming of tabloid journalism.
I had had enough when I heard the AP was capping their entertainment articles (including film criticism), at 500 words, as you observed in your Nov. 26, 2008 entry, titled Death To Film Critics! Hail to the CelebCult!.
Then the swaths of layoffs. Now this. How, exactly, do we fight back? I'm an online journalist. I refuse to succumb to the 24/7 news cycle, offering up every banal tidbit possible just to increase traffic. I've pushed hard to keep some kind of respectable editorial standards in place.
We're competing with guys who think that regurgitating another outlet's article is journalism, as long as they cite their source... even if they added absolutely nothing further to the discussion.
But the joke may be on them in the end. Noting a decline in online ad revenues in 2007, the New York Times recently began toying with the idea of subscriptions (interesting how you mention micropayments in another of your recent blog entries) now that advertisers are getting wiser, and the volume game isn't producing the returns that many dot-commers thought it would.
To wit, 4chan.org, a site responsible for most of the emerging memes that eventually filter through the rest of the web, states they generate over 300 million pageviews a month but this translates into roughly just enough money to pay their $6000 a month hosting costs.
Now that the signal to noise ratio seems to have reached terminal failure, the only way to really stand out amidst the zillions of sites all showing the same footage of some teenager getting kicked in the nuts is to start offering compelling content that isn't easy to come by.
This is a job for a real writer!
I could just leave the comment "how pathetically typical of our day and age," but I really want to say Mr. McCarthy's "Visions of Light" and "Forever Hollywood" are two wonderful films which no film fan should miss.
How pathetically typical of our day and age.
"Ownership Society"
Fewer and fewer owners, more and more day laborers.
"Second prize; a set of steak knives."
I also followed Variety since the mid seventies and I remember how vast, important, vital, comprehensive and accurate it was. Then of course, it moved, with the rest of this world, from love of journalism and movies to all business and we don't care for anything else status. Todd MaCarthy, and most of the other film critics the magazine was so fortunate to have, were the only good thing left that any film fan cares to read there. If the magazine president wants to save money, he should know where to save it from. And I might have a few suggestions, such like: lower some egos of some names hanging there on administrative department, then lower their salaries starting with his own. I don't know any of them so I don't say this due to an agenda. Just want to say that if a business is suffering, why only the best should pay for it?
I am now really beginning to fear the dissipation of a true critical dialogue in our culture's apprehension of the popular arts. I began reading trades when I was 10 or 11, just completely fascinated with all of it. That was the late 1970s, and the success of a movie was often molded campaign and quality could beat the odds, once in awhile, rather than a roll the dice one weekend onslaught. Ah, shock and awe, you're here to stay, I am just sitting here shocked, or sh****** here socked. Awe.
The holocaust sifteth not. Dollar is king.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
it is truly a tragedy that Todd McCarthy was let go. It is such a shame. Variety, I fear, will go down the tubes. They have it coming now that they fired McCarthy. Todd will be fine. Nobody turns down a guy who has a resume that says "former film critic for Variety." He's had a wealth of experience as a critic and journalist--someone is bound to want him. He will still be a success, just as you said.
Also, Mr. Ebert, I don't know if you're interested or if you have the time, but I have written a blog (my first blog entry, as a matter of fact). If you would like to read it, I would love for you to do so and I would also love any comments you have about it as well as any suggestions you may have for me. I completely understand if you don't have the time to read it though.
Here is the link if you are interested:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Days-in-the-Life-of-Me
I really hope you like it,
Sincerely,
Bobby
Welcome to my world. For almost 10 years now, I've been working on a "Contract" or "Consulting" basis doing the same stuff I used to get paid for via salary and benefits. In this world, periods of under/ unemployment are not counted in national statistics and most must scrounge for health care.
This sort of thing is happening everywhere nowadays - the internet has caused a loss of local culture, to be replaced by a global one that is far less satisfying, personal, or artistic.
With everyone being able to write their own blog, who needs to assemble writers in a magazine you have to pay $$$ for when you can get the same information and viewpoints on the internet for free?
I'm sure Todd McCarthy will land on his feet. Regardless of the loss of his readers in Variety, a gorgeous article like this one will win him more new fans that those he will lose from no longer being at Variety.
Thank you Rodger for sharing your thoughtfulness
on highlighting your friend Todd's career.
You were straightforward and critical of
Variety to a T.
Vary Tiet
Sad, and ironic considering I was just laid off from my job on Thursday because of the poor economy...
Best of luck of to Todd.
It makes me wonder: when journalists of this calibre are laid off, what hope is there for me, (young and hopelessly inexperienced)? Though graduating in a Comm./Journalism (and law) degree, working as a practising journalist barely factors into my calculations. Seems the party is over.
This is certainly melancholy, although from your description I think Todd McCarthy himself will be fine (I confess to never having read any of his work before - I certainly want to now though!) And it's obvious to everyone I think that the real culprit is the internet. The internet jeopardizes the economic viability of information (as well as anything that can be translated into "information" i.e. anything digital), and, as you were discussing in your last blog entry, selling information online is not that easy to figure out.
The party (which wasn't all that uproarious to begin with) was over for journalists and other professional writers when they started calling us "content providers." Writers and artists just furnish the wadding to keep the walls of the carton apart. The people who make and sell the package are still partying, but for how long is an open question.
To borrow a phrase from the late Desmond Donnelly, this is the sound a nation makes as it "sinks giggling into the sea."
Film critics should 1) quit their jobs; 2) form a union; 3) create a Web site, ala rottentomatoes; 4) release reviews for pay; 5) have a legal department that does nothing but go after copyright violators.
I'll lead the movement. Or maybe not.
I still value critics. I always read the reviews of critics at top publications before and after seeing a movie. Maybe not everyone in my age group (25) does, but I truly think we need the critics voice. But this is just awful. If a 31-year veteran can get fired, how am I ever gonna make it in the journalism business? A commenter above me said that we need to value talent over money and I wholeheartedly agree. I think greed will destroy us all.
Maggie: start your own blog, focus on quality, and do it because you love it, as an avocation.
When you say "make it" I assume you are talking about money not a love of film.
So, how are you not valuing talent over money?
Yours,
Dear Roger,
You have written a beautiful acknowledgement of Todd's genuine love of film, the integrity of his work, and the dignified quality of the man.
From the looks of this comment section, Todd has walked way something that Variety will continue to seek: Audience.
Todd: It's your move now.
Nice job on the article Roger. I heard about this news on CNN... and was just in shock.
Another good critic down the drain. Variety doesn't get it -- people need and appreciate film critics who actually are good at what they do.
'What I'm saying is that Todd McCarthy is not a man Variety should have lightly dismissed. He is the longest-serving and best-known member of the paper's staff, and if they made such a drastic decision, we are invited to wonder if Variety itself will long survive.'
Definitely second that one. That's how I feel about it as well. How will they do now without such talent?
'"It's economic reality," Variety President Neil Stiles said of the move. Sometimes "downsizing" is necessary cost-cutting. '
True the economy is in a downswing... but pure BS right there. The usual excuse from any company for letting someone go.
'If Variety no longer requires its chief film critic, it no longer requires me as a reader. '
That's me as well.
I have read Todd McCarthy for the entirety of his Variety tenure and am quite shocked to hear that he's been KO'd to the curb like this. Akin to Barnum and Bailey sacking the Ringmaster.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where little value is placed on knowledge. Every decision is keyed towards short term profit. The long term is irrelevant because the architects of the short term decision will not be around for the long haul. And they know it.
McCarthy was a master at evaluating a film's commercial and artistic merits in an entertaining, intelligent way. He was the still beating heart and soul of the mag.
Unfortunately, what we learn from history is we don't learn from history.
Variety, you just inched closer to the abyss and you're too blinded by temporary gain to see that.
Sad.
Thanks, Rog, for the wonderful tribute to Todd's time at Variety.
Wow, feels like someone of some thing just died.
Flash! Grocery stores to discontinue carrying eggs, butter, and milk!
Nice article, Eeebs.
My comment is fairly unrelated to this blog entry, other than the fact that Todd McCarthy might agree with my opinion on how frustrating this article is:
http://www.theledger.com/article/20100305/COLUMNISTS/3055020/1096/COLUMNISTS0402?Title=Picks-for-Oscar-Are-Slim
Talk about a total discouragement for audiences to pursue worthwhile filmmaking or, perhaps more importantly, to even pursue the recommendations of those that have a more cultured opinion, such as the Academy, yourself and Mr. McCarthy.
Ebert: Tell me about it.
I'm still not over Ella Taylor and Glenn Kenny—and now what fresh hell is THIS?! These are truly the latter days.
After reading this I got on Netflix and rented Visions of Light. It's great. My favorite part was getting to see Wexler and Almendros talk about shooting Days of Heaven. I had always wondered what they thought of each other since reading your Great Movies entry about the film:
``Days of Heaven's'' great photography has also generated a mystery. The credit for cinematography goes to the Cuban Nestor Almendros, who won an Oscar for the film; ``Days of Heaven'' established him in America, where he went on to great success. Then there is a small credit at the end: ``Additional photography by Haskell Wexler.'' Wexler, too, is one of the greatest of all cinematographers. That credit has always rankled him, and he once sent me a letter in which he described sitting in a theater with a stopwatch to prove that more than half of the footage was shot by him. The reason he didn't get top billing is a story of personal and studio politics, but the fact remains that between them these two great cinematographers created a film whose look remains unmistakably in the memory.
Man, this totally sucks. I only just now found out that he was fired when I started hungering for some recent reviews by this guy. I typically read reviews about movies that I enjoy. At first, I did it mostly because I like to read about how other people agree with me. But then I got fascinated by the insight some reviewers had on the material. Just by reading lots of reviews I started to notice that certain reviewers stood out. First was Roger Ebert. Second was James Berardinelli. Third was Todd McCarthy. At this point, those are the only 3 reviewers who I can trust to give me a consistently enjoyable review - regardless of whether or not they enjoyed the movie that I enjoyed. Their input remains valuable. He should get a site up like Roger and James. I would make it a regular stop.
I'm also sad to hear that he is no longer at his post. I always like to read reviews of a movie before going to watch one, as I feel that it saves me time. I liked reading this guys reviews mainly because there was a realistic twist to it. Everyone is so busy these days and if I go and watch a film and not like it, I feel a sense of wasting my time with regrets ringing through my brain. A bit weird I know, but hey that's just my take on things.
seo maestro
31 years at his post and then he was relieved of his duty - kinds sucks, but hey I guess that is life. I think Todd was good at his job and the fact that he spent that long at his post proves it. I wonder how the new person is doing?
made to measure blinds
When the people left complain that talented hard-working co-workers should never have been let go and their jobs outsourced to India, the company says "you should just be happy to have a job."
Find the definition of outsourcing.
If you tell stories better by talking, do that and record what you're saying. Then sit down and transcribe.
I still value critics. I always read the reviews of critics at top publications before and after seeing a movie. delete myspace account Maybe not everyone in my age group (25) does, but I truly think we need the critics voice. But this is just awful. If a 31-year veteran can get fired, how am I ever gonna make it in the journalism business? A commenter above me said that we need to value talent over money and I wholeheartedly agree. I think greed will destroy us all.