question of the day: What makes a film critic “professional”?Following up on yesterday’s question about the ongoing mass extinction of local newspaper film critics, if you’re interested in this issue, you should be checking out the regularly updated list over at Movie City News over the last 121 (at the moment) critics who made their full-time living from reviewing movies. My question today is, though: What makes a film critic “professional”? In David Poland’s posting at The Hot Blog introducing the list and soliciting suggestions of names that belong on the list includes this: The criteria is a bit subjective, but here is the idea... if you have a full-time job at an outlet and your primary responsibility is being a film critic, you are in. If you are a very, very busy freelancer... you are not. If you have a staff job and happen to post a review every week or two... you are not. Are things that blurry, though? I don’t qualify for MCN’s list -- because I’m merely a very, very busy freelancer -- as lots of other people writing about film today do not, but I’m not sure if eliminating so many of us gives us an accurate representation of the situation. In the comments section of Poland’s post, Sean Means -- who runs the blog The Movie Cricket I also mentioned yesterday, where he also tracks the slow picking off of print critics -- suggested this: 1) Is film criticism the bulk of what you write? Unfortunately, many professional creative writers, no matter what they write, could not answer “yes” to all four of those questions. Those criteria would eliminate almost all novelists, for instance, even those who sell millions of books (because they're still "freelancers") from the ranks of “professional” writers. It’s deplorable that the mainstream press is increasingly deciding that film criticism is superfluous, but it’s not an accurate representation of the state of film criticism to suggest that only those who fall into this extremely narrow definition are “professional.” (Maybe MCN’s chart should be called “The Last 120 Corporate-Employee Film Critics in America.”) Am I wrong? What makes a film critic “professional”? (If you have a suggestion for a QOTD, feel free to email me.) support
Disqus commentsblog comments powered by Disqus |
posted:
Thu Apr 16 09, 10:43AM categories: talk amongst yourselves permalink 6 pre-Disqus comments Disqus comments tip jarshare
read morerelated· question of the day: Do you miss your local film critics? · question of the day: Is Ignatiy Vishnevetsky too young to host Roger Ebert’s new review show? · Metropolis Film Critics Circle moves year-end awards announcement to April; 2011 winners will was on-nameding via quantum tunneling · Roger Ebert hates 3D; is Sacha Baron Cohen worth $20 million?; Brits playing American; and more: leftover links · reviews of ‘Watchmen’ embargoed! or not! · because everybody on the Internet is an annoying, stupid little boy · question of the day: Who deserves to be called a ‘film critic’... and does it matter? · For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism (review) · poor little rich movie stars, NetFlix and ‘Variety’ sued, God as a film critic: leftover links · Roger Ebert’s eight-minute review bloggyprevious post: 2009 ranking up to date next post: trailer break: ‘Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead’ -- so NSFW |
|
|
search
follow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in case of site outages or other emergencies, I'll update my status on Twitter and Facebook)
|
||
follow FlickFilosopher.com no matter where you are online
|
||
share and enjoy
shop to support
support FlickFilosopher.com when you click through here and buy almost anything at:
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
pre-Disqus comments
posted by Mathias (Thu Apr 16 09, 7:06PM)
That's a very tough question.
10 years ago, it'd be anyone who had a column at a newspaper.
These days, the line is very blurry and depending on which side you fall on, old media vs. new media, there's an attempt to draw the line that's most favourable or beneficial to you.
To me though, a professional critic is anyone who writes reviews weekly without fail, and has gained suffiecient prominence to be listed on rottentomatoes.com.
I could've care less about whether or not they get health benefits or whether they sell ad space on their site or not.
posted by canadiana (Thu Apr 16 09, 9:36PM)
My criteria would simply be:
Does 50% (or more) of your income come as a direct result of your film reviewing?
If so, film reviewing is your "profession". If not, it's a (possibly part-time, semi-lucrative) hobby.
I guess a refinement could be made to require at least a livable total income to exclude those without any "real" income.
So if the livable yearly wage is $20,000 and you make $21,000 / year, and 10,500 or more of that is from your reviewing efforts, you're a pro.
If you make $70,000 / year, and $30,000 of that is from reviewing, then it's still a sideline for you - it's not your primary profession.
'tis not a perfect definition, but it might have some use.
posted by Mathias (Thu Apr 16 09, 10:28PM)
$20,000 is not a livable wage and in NYC, it's one step up from homeless. ;P
posted by Paul (Fri Apr 17 09, 6:15AM)
Most short story writers and probably all poets actually live off teaching gigs at universities, but they are paid a little for their writing. Lots of literary novelists, do, too. Lots of SF writers are actually scientists as their day jobs. So why hold film critics to a higher standard than other writers? A professional writer is a writer who is paid for their work. I've heard too many writers get into nitpicky arguments about pro vs. not, art vs hackwork, genre vs. genre, to have much patience for them anymore. It causes more bad feelings than enlightenment.
posted by bitchen frizzy (Fri Apr 17 09, 9:56AM)
IMHO:
You're a professional if you get paid for doing it and it's something you do often or regularly. That's it.
The narrow and restrictive definitions are as yesterday as traditional newspaper columnists.
I agree with MaryAnn. There are plenty of writers who make most or all of their income through writing, yet their work is mostly or entirely freelance. Saying they're not "professional" because they aren't The Man's bitches (of which I am one, myself, in a traditional office job) is wrong and so 1950's. Applies to many other fields and professions, too. Lots of consultants, independent contractors, and freelancers out there.
posted by Newbs (Fri Apr 17 09, 2:39PM)
Yeah, I agree with with bitchen frizzy, and I'll take it one step further. If you write reviews of movies, and people are actually interested in reading them, you're a professional.