What if you had a full-time job that you could get done in less than 40 hours a week? I've never really had one of those, but I've rarely had a 9 to 5 job, either. Most of my gigs (the ones I've really liked, whether writing for a daily newspaper or walking and boarding dogs) have averaged more than "full time" because the hours are not fixed -- that is, they are always in flux, somewhere between "flexible" and "unpredictable." In part, they involve being constantly "on call" -- available for unforeseen events. Drop everything: The death of a famous filmmaker requires a career-spanning obit/ tribute/ appreciation right now! A beagle with diarrhea demands comparably urgent attention, and a Great Pyranees with the same problem compels quick, decisive action no matter what hour of the day or night it is. There's no such thing as overtime (or "time off," really, either). That comes with the job.
At Zero for Conduct, film critic and former Village Voice staffer Michael Atkinson asserted the following about those whose job it is to cover the movie front:
I'd love to see every magazine employ an army of full-time culture reviewers, and pay them millions, but it doesn't make very much sense, for the simple reason that it's not truly a full-time job....
If you're David Ansen [the Newsweek critic who recently took a buyout offer], say, you might see three or four movies a week, and be asked to generate maybe a 1000 or 1500 words of unchallenging copy reviewing them, and the time thus taken shouldn't take you more than ten, eleven hours, max. That's a part-time job. I treated it, and continue to treat it, as just one part of my work-life and income, because I've had to. But when I was handed a staff position, I felt as if I was running a scam. All of the hubbub surrounding the firings and buyouts [of film critics] seems, from anywhere out there in the real world, like a lot of whining, about how certain writers won't be paid a full-on living wage for watching a movie a day and then writing for a few hours about them, every week. The cops, bartenders, union agents, managers, editors and public school teachers I know would look on that job as a vacation.Yes, and investment bankers and plumbers and travel agents and fighter pilots, too. But I don't think I could -- or should be able to -- get a job tomorrow as a cop, a bartender, a union agent, a manager or a public school teacher (I've been an editor for quite a few years). And I'm not sure how many people could suddenly begin producing readable or publishable movie reviews (much less actual criticism) tomorrow, either. So, what is the comparison? Everybody's a critic, I guess. Not everybody is a cop.
Now, I've never had to support myself by working at a weekly or a monthly, and I don't know what Atkinson's situation was at the Voice, but if all he had to do as a staff critic was see "three or four movies a week" and then knock out "1,000 or 1,500 words" (apiece? altogether?) -- and he could live on the money he made from doing that -- then, wow, that's a really sweet gig and I don't blame him for feeling that he was running a scam. Somebody was.
Because, in my experience, those numbers don't come close to adding up. Three or four movies a week wouldn't even cover major-studio wide releases. Who covers the rest (four? eight? a dozen?) for the week, the "art house," revival house, museum and nonprofit venue pictures that rely on reviews to find an audience? And since when do writers of any kind get paid by the hour? You're cashing checks just for the time you spend actually sitting at a keyboard, but for all the things you have to do in order to enable you to write. So a salary for a writer, reporter and/or film critic (and all three job descriptions fit the "critic" designation) isn't exactly an hourly job, nor is it the equivalent of tenure. It's more like a retainer, for your work and what goes into producing it, but also for your availability. What's actually published is just the tail end of a much larger and longer process.
True, freelancers usually get paid by the word, but as any editor will tell you, that can be a little like paying a cab driver to take the longest route. (Think it's harder to write 1,000 words than 500 -- or 5,000 words than 1,000? It's not.) Besides, it's the quality of the work, not the amount, that matters, isn't it? Words are cheap -- you've got to chose the right ones and then get them all in the right order, as John Cleese once said of memorizing Shakespeare.
Glenn Kenny, whose job at Premiere and In the Company of Glenn was recently eliminated in some kind of corporate merger thing, responded to Atkinson at his new "bought and paid for" blog, Some Came Running" ("Thanks a pantload, Michael Atkinson"):
Generally speaking, if you're a staff member at a magazine, the amount of time you spend at your job is compounded merely by the fact that you're a staff member.... When I was the chief film critic at Premiere magazine, I was also responsible for commissioning and editing features (sometimes really long and involved ones, by the likes of Mark Ebner, John Connelly, and David Foster Wallace), writing features and front-of-the-book stuff, and editing the back-of-the-book home entertainment section. At the website, I had to blog and do features, and if I didn't have enough to do, I had to come up with the idea of initiating a "High-Def DVD Consumer Guide," forcing me to watch a lot more lousy movies than I normally would in my 10-to-12-hour-a-week schedule....Oh yes. Editorial meetings. Fielding and making story pitches. Balancing screening schedules (don't laugh -- that can be tricky). Actual editing and fact-checking (newspapers don't have a separate staff of "fact-checkers"). Doing interviews (arranging, researching, conducting, transcribing, writing, editing -- even a straight Q&A isn't finished when the talking's over). All the research -- conversations, reading, viewing -- that goes into working a reporter's beat.
And, of course, there are those inevitable last-minute surprises: "We need a piece about why 'Speed Racer' tanked over the weekend"; "I think this piece needs to be re-structured"; "We need to cut six inches from that story because we just got an unexpected ad"; "We need to cut six inches from every one of your reviews because the movie section just got cut back four pages"; "We had a 12-inch hole for that review, but now it's only eight"; "Because they're not screening it, we need you to go to a Friday matinee and file immediately for Saturday's paper"; "They've changed the release date -- that movie's opening this Friday, not next week"; "It's now opening on Wednesday, not Friday"; "Three more are opening this week"; "That review you just filed -- um, the movie is now opening sometime next year..."
Wah, wah, wah. It's a great job, it never ends, and (as we should constantly remind ourselves) those of us lucky enough to have one are mighty fortunate. I've written plenty about the exaggerated influence of movie criticis, and about why I think criticism is an essential part of our cultural life (immeasurably enhanced by, but not limited to, contributions by freelancers and bloggers).
But all that aside, if you find somebody's writing valuable, what's wrong with a little appreciation and human empathy (hell, even sympathy) when he or she gets squeezed out of a job? Cops, teachers and bartenders stand up for the good ones in their professions when they go through hard or uncertain times. Why shouldn't critics?
"Oh yes. Editorial meetings.
I would imagine meetings suck at any job. I know I hate mine (the job and the meetings).
If you can find a job that pays a full time salary but only requires you to work 10 hours a week I say you should feel lucky, not guilty. I spend half of my days looking busy when I'm actually writing a comment on a blog. Isn't it the American dream to get paid to do nothing?
Also, you don't have to prove to me that you do a lot of work, I really don't care. You should just count yourself very lucky that you found a job you truly enjoy, because most of us haven't yet or aren't able to.
JE: That's exactly the way I feel about it.
I think film criticism should seem like one of the most fun job to have because you get to see movies all the time and just tell people what you thought.Many critics hate the fact that their job requires that they have see and review movies all the time but hey it's better than working a nine to five job.
I will say that I'm the only person on this earth does not believe film critism to be an art form because whenever they talk about film critism being an art form they mention critics like Pauline Kael,Andrew Sarris and Jonathan Rosenbaum but I more respond to their writing styles and their passion instead of their opinions because these critics look at films differently then normal people do and they have unique and irreverent reasons as to why they praise or pan a film and do not tolerate certain types of movies.To me a great film critic is one who truly inspires me to see or skip a film because I think critics that I can read for a reccomendation are more valuable then critics I read for insights because I think anyone can say hey that's a well written review and that the critic shows passion but if their opinion on a film doesn't affect me then as critics their wortless to me, your just a great writer nothing more.My favorite critics are not the"art" critics like Stanley Kauffmann,Andrew Sarris,David Kehr or John Simon but the "average joe" critics like Leonard Maltin,Roger Ebert,Gene Siskel and Nick Martin and Marsha Porter and I think people are going to hate me for this.
So Overall I think film criticism is far from an art form but it is certainly alot fun to do as a job.Do I expect everybody to agree with me? No because after all it's just my opinion but I'm just voicing my opinion as creating a springboard for more discussion.
Geez, I wish I could write a 1000-1500 word review in an hour or two, as Mr. Atkinson's numbers suggest.
I just wrote my first full length movie review for Cineaste. I spent the better part of two weeks on it. Granted, it's 2000+ words and the standard for Cineaste is higher than for deadline copy. And of course I didn't put in 8 hour days for those two weeks, but I certainly put in a good 20 hours. And the pay, well, let's just say that if the 20 hours is accurate my hourly wage is about the same as a busboy's... without tips.
If I may be allowed to link to it, you are free to judge whether the time spent was worth it or not:
http://www.cineaste.com/articles/encounters-at-the-end-of-the-world.htm
I review DVDs as a regular gig. I would each DVD counting viewing time, watching extras and writing a review takes up 4-8 hour of time, depending on the release.
And I only WISH I got a busboy's wages for that.
Yeah, I'm really in clover with this soft work.
I think Glenn may have already mentioned this on his blog, but we must also account for a film critic's sense of film history, criticism, and culture. Of course, these are not things that are required of some critical positions, even at major newspapers -- Mick LaSalle comes to mind. But if we are to take the term, "critic" seriously, and not just as a substitute for "reviewer", than s/he must be invested in more than just the everyday politics and struggles of writing review. The critic should constantly be exploring the media that influence and constitute film, it's history as a cultural artifact, and various theoretical inquiries into its practice and viewership. On top of this, as Nathan Lee has noted, a film critic must be learned in cultural traditions, practices, and exposure. A critic should have engage the world in a unique way, offering a fresh perspective into cinema as a practice, an art, and as site of narrative voice. The more one sees and engages the world and its infinite possibilities, they better s/he will be as a critic.
Of course, these are all idealizations that can't possibly be true of a great majority of critics. This is perhaps due to the overwhelming sense that film criticism is now a consumer practice, where the critic's job is to "recommend" a film. This fast food mentality is appropriate for multiplicity of bad films that fill the multiplex, but it's depressing that professional film criticism has lost all relevance among people who go to see movies now. It's all a part of the cycle, I suppose. That is why film critics are (partly) becoming so expendable. The old model of journalistic film criticism simply doesn't apply to newer frameworks of journalism, or even most commercial cinema, most of which is (and has shown to be) critic-proof. Studios and newspaper chiefs realize they don't need them as marketing devices, and therefore are cutting them wherever they can.
Whether it's in a professional or non-professional setting, criticism is an art. Call me naive, but true criticism is not a matter of professional involvement. It requires a commitment to honest inquiry into something, even if that thing is commercialized beyond belief.
I doubt that this idealized notion, or even some shred of it, has any place in the current sea of punditry and cable news journalism. It's looking more grim for film criticism by the moment, and there are a number of reasons for this. Unfortunately, the interaction of poor circumstances are making it even harder for conditions to improve.
How depressing.
I have to say I am really surprised by the comments coming from Atkinson, and they may very well illustrate why people say that film criticism is on the decline. If you have critics who are just watching some movies and throwing together 1000 words on the thing, then the quality is not going to be anywhere near good, much less great, criticism (or just a simple review...)
As has been mentioned a bit, if critics are taking their jobs seriously (from Atkinson's comments it seems to suggest that some people are not doing so...) then the amount of work Jim mentions are only part of a much larger equation. To be a little self indulgent here, my site has waned in "hits" because I/we don't post as frequently as lots of other sites that constantly post links, pictures, and basically anything they can to have 4 posts a day. Maybe it is just a different set of blogging priorities, but I'd much rather see two thoughtful pieces a week (with less "bloggy" language), like I find here and on Bordwell's site, and know that the writers are taking their time with pieces and working to have the best "product" possible. That's what criticism (and reviews) are about to me and, as has been made clear, any gross simplification continues of "what a critic does" takes away from a lot of the work done by those paid or unpaid.
Ted's point is spot on.
Note that I am in NO WAY comparing the importance of a film critic to a medical doctor in this example. However, there's a reason a doctor gets paid hundreds of bucks to spend 10 minutes with a patient and tell them to take some Alleve. It's because he's got a world of knowledge (and hard work to get that knowledge) that goes into each visit.
A (good) film critic spends a lot of his or her "free" time watching movies, reading about movies, and studying them. And that's just movies - a familiarity with multiple fields (art, music, literature) is, if not absolutely necessary, certainly very helpful.
I was only able to write a fairly detailed review of Herzog's new film because I have watched EVERY film Herzog has ever made that is in distribution(except Transformation of the World Into Music.)
Granted, those were pleasurable hours spent watching some great movies. But it's still a lot of time put in simply to have the knowledge to, at some point in the future, be able to write something at least vaguely useful. I watch 7-10 movies a week on average. I spend another 10-15 hours per week reading film magazines/books. Again, that's all pleasurable (well, not always) but it's also part of being a serious critic. Heck, some of us even spend years in film school, though by no means do I think that is required to be a good film critic. What's worse, I look around me at all the critics who also bring such sharp political insight or knowledge about music (like Royal Brown) or other fields to their writing and I realize how much MORE work I need to do if I ever want to even be considered in their league.
There's a lot of "amateur" film criticism out there and some of it is damn good. Most of it is drek, often of the fanboy variety. If Atkinson was referring to that, I could understand his argument. But here he's referring to some of the Village Voice critics, some of the better writers in the game. People for whom, I suspect, film is a way of life, not just a cushy part-time job.
Roger Ebert once wrote "To have joyless work means you have employment but not an occupation." Maybe Atkinson was having such a fun time that the job felt like it only comprised seeing "three or four movies a week" and then knocking out "1,000 or 1,500 words." Considering how many critics are now obliged to produce material for both the traditional and online outlets of their respective publications, I can only assume that their job has got harder.
And lets not forget what bums football players are. They only work 16 days a year.
I have a "DVD Extra" blog on the MySanAntonio.com web site, which is the web site for the San Antonio Express-News. I started it three years ago for two reasons: my wife was pregnant with our first and I knew I wouldn't have money to spend on DVDs anymore; and I had just bought Season 1 of "The Cosby Show" and was incensed that it contained the syndicated edited versions of the shows.
I've since posted over 100 reviews, concentrating on the extras on the discs. I don't pretend to be as good as Roger Ebert in my reviewing skills, but I don't think I'm too bad at the job either. I have written some reviews that surprised me on my ability to wax rhapsodic. I also use Ebert as a source link on occasion, because he can wax rhapsodic more eloquently than I can.
My blog isn't the highest rated in the site's collection, but I do well enough. I spend about 4-8 hours per disc on review, depending on how many extras are included. If I was lucky enough to have already seen the film in the theater (not easy with a two-year-old at home), then it's a little quicker. I tend to follow a formula for my reviews: intro, recap, review of extras, personal opinions and wrapup.
My only compensation for this is that I get to keep the DVDs I review. I am on some automatic mailing lists, but on the whole I only ask for discs that I plan to review. I have this policy because it's not fair to ask for a disc I'm not going to write about. I do have a few stringers who review the genres I don't care for (i.e.: horror) and that gives me some diversity.
I envy folks who get to do this for a living; but my experience has also taught me that it's not as easy as it looks. Like anything else, it improves with practice. It's great when I get to see a film that I find truly amazing (and probably wouldn't have watched otherwise), like "No Country For Old Men." And then there are other films which others consider great, but I couldn't finish, like "There Will Be Blood."
So I just count myself lucky and keep on plugging away at it. I doubt that the Express-News will offer me the post of mainstream movie reviewer. I honestly doubt that I would want it. But this little gig allows me to indulge my love of film and writing. For the record, I am grateful.
Great piece, Christopher -- and a perfect example of how a background of film knowledge comes into play when writing about a single movie. That one article represents years of watching and thinking about Werner Herzog's life and films, following his development as a director -- and, no doubt, re-watching some films (and quoting moments directly from them). And that is no off-hand achievement! (I agree that "mellowed" isn't the right word for Herzog. He's been drawn to landscapes and portraits, but he's always been a humanist, interested in the people who inhabit and attempt to dominate those landscapes. Aguirre's heart of darkness is in his own soul, not in the jungle, but the two get all tangled up...)
Jonathan,
If you find the right job meetings rock. I can attest to that.
Can we please keep talking about Aguirre? ...love that movie.
To quote Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything is crap.
That applies to movies (hence the film critics who hate their jobs - imagine being forced to see 100 movies and 90 of them aren't good - and you don't even have the option of walking out). It also applies to film critics. That one in ten who are good, are to be treasured.