criticism news roundup

Chris Parry at The Vancouver Sun highlights the mysterious and repeated acts of plagiarism of junketeer Paul Fishcher, and laments the emergence of “a new kind of critic; one who is often accused of exchanging high praise for access.”…

…Vadim Rizov at IFC’s The Independent Eye parries to Parry: “Plagiarism, criticism: what’s the difference?”…

And Edward Champion at Reluctant Habits connects the Fischer debacle to “the crisis in American film criticism and that the need for trust has reached an unprecedented level.”

From the Guardian’s Film blog: “Why Warren Beatty’s attack on Pauline Kael failed: Warren Beatty’s disingenuous offer to employ the film critic Pauline Kael on his film Love and Money was motivated by neither love nor money – just spite for a powerful, critical woman.”

Robert Sietsema at the Columbia Journalism Review is a food critic, but what he has to say has a lot to do with the current state of film criticism, too.

Robert W. Butler at KansasCity.com defends critics by noting that “you can’t really love a movie if you’ve never really hated one.”

OFCSer MaryAnn Johanson at FlickFilosopher.com explains that critics have nothing to do with voting on Oscar nominations or winners.

British film critic Mark Kermode, in a profile at Scotsman.com, says, “I love being in a movie theatre and seeing a film with lots of other people, but I want them out of my line of vision and I don’t want to hear them.”

SmartMoney purports to reveal the “10 Things Movie Critics Won’t Tell You”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.