It seems like the old adage that "everyone is a critic" is becoming a literal reality with the explosion of the Web (including sites like this one), which allows a larger collective voice to offer opinions on a film's quality, which would seem to push a lot of critics out the door.

While I don't like it and have always enjoyed reading critics (not to mention that writing about movies for pay fulfills a lifelong dream of mine every week), I'm surprised with myself to say that I understand why it's happening. It's an unfortunate side effect of progress, and of newspaper consolidation.

I personally liked Bonnie's and your reviews much better than any of the wire pieces (and would have liked perhaps the chance to take that mantle myself one day if the stars aligned properly), and it gives the newspaper a bit more of a face in the city, but like all others, the newspaper business often stresses the second word in that phrase over the first and the pursuit of profits makes critics one of the most attractive options to lose to the detached corporate presence making decisions from some other city.

It's unfortunate and disheartening.

This isn't about movie criticism, but I did hear some encouraging buzz about two classical music critics who were silenced, then brought back to the pages of their newspapers. One was an Atlanta journalist, allegedly laid off, then rehired. Closer to home, I heard that the newspaper in Bloomington started running classical reviews, including coverage of the IU School of Music, online only. The editor was supposedly deluged with feedback from readers wanting reviews in the print product, and the editor acquiesced.

As a former Nuvo restaurant critic who is now posting reviews here, I think that what any kind of local critic (restaurants, movies, music, theater) brings to a publication is trust and obligation. Readers trust an established critic to give them a fair, honest, balanced review. And a good critic feels an obligation to provide that to the reader and to the subject of the review.

I mean, readers often pay a lot of money to go to a restaurant or attend a performance, and a good critic helps them make informed decisions. You want to be able to trust them. Good critics also know that a negative review can truly affect a restaurant's business (or the attendance at a performance) and so they don't dash off a negative review lightly.

When you lose established local critics, you lose that element of trust and obligation.

Sometimes bloggers or do-it-yourself sites like this can fill the void when newspapers eliminate local, full-time critics. And I think sometimes a blogger develops a big enough following so that readers trust them, and the blogger feels a responsibility to their readers.

But I've read local blogger replies to readers taking them to task for bias and unfairness only to be told that they aren't journalists and don't claim to be unbiased and they can say what they please. So there.

And there's the drawback of web postings. Even a lot of big-time sites, including Ain't It Cool News, can fall victim to that. On AICN, posters regularly accuse Harry Knowles and Co. of skewing reviews based on which studio gives them the most set visits and free stuff (and there was even an episode of "Entourage" where a Knowles-esque character played by Rainn Wilson threatened to squash a movie because of an interview snub).

Also, this "formula" of relying on your "average" moviegoer has the additional drawback of studio reps giving fallacious glowing "reviews" of a film, which also has happened on sites like AICN (not to single them out, but they're probably the best known movie/entertainment site that has issues like this), so you often have to take reviews on that site with a grain of salt and a dash of skepticism.

That's one thing that journalism and professional critics bring to the table is more impartiality and integrity that Internet reviewers can't ensure.

My knock on wire reviews is two-fold, echoing some of the sentiments expressed here.

Newspaper executives say, "We can get it off the wire for free (or nearly so)." That's true, but the corollary is also true: There are eight million Web and print resources out there that have access to the same Associated Press and other wire reviews. By giving audiences a generic product, you're opening the door for them to go somewhere else to get the exact same thing. And you've given them one less reason to see your product as indispensable.

My second point sounds like a joke, but it's not: Why do we cover the Colts? No, really, I mean it. The AP has people covering the team regularly, including photographers. You could fill the sports section with Colts material without spending dime one on your own staff. You could say the same for the Pacers, and athletics at IU, Purdue, Notre Dame, etc. My point is to highlight the absurd lengths you can take this "the-wire-is-free" mindset.

I love the Colt's analogy Chris, it's spot-on. This shift to hyperlocal coverage strangely coincides with losing educated local voices. The bottom line might look good but no one takes into account that I may not care what Nameless/faceless wire critic thinks. I have been reading Ed Johnson-Ott's reviews in Nuvo for what seems like my whole life. I know his quirks, his preferences, and his prejudices. I know that sometimes his thrashing of a film is a stone cold lock that I will love it. I know a little bit about him, so his opinion actually matters to me even when I disagree. You don't develop that same relationship with wire material.

Yeah, but Chris,...it's only movies. If it was something important...

(I hope you caught the sarcasm there).

That is a good point, though I suppose they argue that the Colts are local, and they have more of a connection to the city than a movie would, though that isn't exactly a rock-solid argument either.

Keeping a staff of local critics is important for lots of reasons. As theater and orchestra tix get pricier, I agree with Jolene that our consumer advocate role is vital. There's the traditional "newspaper of record" function, and critics also provide a "reality check" to help balance the relentless onslaught of PR and advertising.

There are two critics that I trust. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone and Christopher Lloyd of the Indianapolis Star. Both write with wonderfully intelligent metaphors and a fresh, fire and brimstone style that places them in the "don't want to miss" position at the forefront of your brain. Travers still writes at Rolling Stone. Lloyd has, for the most part, been silenced by the Star; as has Bonnie Britton, Rita Rose and other local writers. There are good local critics deserving of print exposure and getting lost among the "bar guides."

In fairness, I am writing as a 62 year-old who doesn't read very many pages in Intake Weekly or Nuvo Newsweekly or follow on-line because everything seems to be screaming "let's go to the nearest night spot." How about a publication called BOOMER targeted more to the the age and tastes of us baby boomers. You better get our money before the social security runs out.

As a theatre owner, I'm at a loss to explain this nationwide newspaper policy of decapitating film critics in favor of wire service reviews. Wire service reviews, for the most part, offer a cross section of opinions. "A valid review in one part of the country doesn't," as the old time neighborhood movie house owner used to say, "necessarily play well down the street."

If we continue to lose critics, sooner or later, there won't be many wire service reviews from which to choose. Do the needs of the few (corporate consolidation) outweigh the needs of the many (loyal readers)? [Shades of Spock!] Let the Star know that you want local reviews! It's good for you, it's good for me!

Refreshing this old thread with a great story from the Hartford Courant that says the phenomenon isn't restricted to film, but all arts criticism:

http://www.courant.com/entertain...

I particularly loved this line, which echoes my (admittedly) snarky analogy to sports coverage:

"Mark Stryker of the Detroit Free Press likened the trend to a newspaper deciding it was going to cover all aspects of a sports team except the games."

Everyone who came to see THE BUBBLE this weekend said they loved the picture and couldn't understand why the review was so negative. It was a wire service from the Washington Post. I don't know the reviewer or if he is a film critic or part-timer assigned to the piece. I do know that quality reviews are done by journalists who know how to pick out the elements of a film that provide the arc from beginning to end and then comment on those elements. Their personal opinions are important, too; that completes the piece and makes it interesting to the local community.

THE LOCAL COMMUNITY!!!

If I have to read reviews from strangers across the nation then let them only say, 'this is what the film is about, go see for yourself.'

We should start a petition or something to lobby the higher ups at the Star about this. Think they'd listen?

As far as the Star screening and reviewing all of the short run movies, I think it is probably just a resource issue...

There have always been a lot of topics, communities and scenes that get under-represented because there simply aren't enough writers to get the job done. Like all businesses, there is a line of balance where the product inputs are just right to make a profit. In their eyes, the calculation must not value smaller productions and independent films as a priority.

Tisk tisk tisk.

Coverage decisions in newspapers are based on what the readers want. The same is true for what's screened at movie theaters. It's all about demand. If I think Key should be running only silent films because that's what I like best, Ron will most likely say that's not what his audience wants. So he'll say no. He might screen a silent film here and there. He might not. Nobody but me will complain if he doesn't. The same is true for newspapers (which I no longer work for, by the way). They have to go where the audience is because newspapers are a business not a public entity. And I know the audience for short-run independent films is pretty small because I'm part of it. And I can also find reviews of those films online very easily. So I don't need or look to the Star for this kind of arts coverage. I never have. Also, you can look at it this way: I'm part of a small art gallery in Fountain Square. Should our little, independent and low-budget gallery with a relatively small audience receive the same coverage as the IMA? We don't expect that. So -- instead of griping -- we work harder to promote what we do in other creative ways and see any media coverage as gravy.

Another new development for a post that's (unfortunately) evergreen.

David Elliott in San Diego Union-Tribune is the latest critic to go. He was laid off in the latest round of cuts in the Bay area.

http://voiceofsandiego.org/artic...