The cinetrix spent the day catching up with the latest issue of Film Comment [the mail's being forwarded this summer; it's like living in the lake house, I guess].
In the editor's letter, ol' Gavin makes nice+ with us mouthbreathers on the Internerd*:
... I tend to think that blogs are more important to people who want to write than they are to people who like to read; that they are long on opinions and short on ideas and insights. The speed with which people can write and post is exciting,** but isn't conducive to more considered, reflective viewpoints. As exponents of the DIY philosophy, bloggers, just like writers in other media, would nevertheless benefit from a little editing (but then, as an editor, I would say that, wouldn't I?).
But if the hotbeds of online cinephilia are, to paraphrase Lester Bangs, oftentimes a space where people who can't write chase the attention of people who can't read, they are also a vital training ground for developing writers. Talent will out. There's no reason why today's bloggers can't be tomorrow's professional film critics and journalists. (Some of them already are, sort of: Dave Poland and Harry Knowles*** may not possess the most scintillating critical minds, but apparently they have become indispensible.) Sure, some blogs are conduits for diaristic solipsism, trivial buzz, and endless smackdowns, but the best are about community building, engaged debate, and promoting a genuinely discursive approach to criticism--and the overall result is a tremendous vitality. Moreover, as general-interest newspapers and magazines dumb down and ditch knowledgeable film critics in their quest for the next Anthony Lane,**** the online world has been and will continue to be a haven for migrating print writers who haven't run out of things to say--as Dave Kehr's thriving website***** attests.
Donald Wilson repeats the refrain several pages in, as part of a piece on w[h]ither foreign-language film distribution:
...It doesn't help that web criticism is largely dominated by yobbos who actively position themselves as anti-intellectual regular joes (cf. www.filmcritic.com), but efforts should be made to court and reward the quality****** writers plying their trade online.
So, Film Comment is suggesting that foreign film distributors should maybe throw themselves at film bloggers "quality writers plying their trade online" the same shameless way publishers have sucked up to litbloggers? "Screeners for all my friends"? Of course, then print guys like Paul will just go and do something venal and scare 'em all off. Again.
+And, to be fair, has always been nice to me in our limited contact.
*The temptation is incredibly great to live link this thing six ways to Sunday. Oh, hell, why not? I'm going to try and behave, but you should feel free to get loose in the comments.
**Dude, "as an editor," I gotta say you should know better than to throw a comma before a conjunction introducing a clause that can't stand on its own. Someone running a little behind with the Editor's Letter this month?
***That old thing?
****Mrow!
*****Just call it a fucking blog, already.
******As in tradition of quality? L'internet de Papa?
