The debate about the state of film criticism has settled—or calcified—into two camps: traditional print critics claim the Internet has replaced expertise with amateurs, fanboys, and obscurantists. Web enthusiasts counter that we’re in a new golden age of film criticism …
This article was basically 2 articles in one. Part 1 was about film criticism on the internet, and it transitions very awkwardly into Part 2, which is about … online discourse in general, and how it relates to democratic ideals? Seemed a little forced. I guess that can’t be helped, though, because of what Dissent Magazine is all about.
Nevertheless, there was one moment which resonated with me:
Critics condescended to The King’s Speech, calling it “a crowd pleaser” despite the fact that movies that win Oscars, as this one did, are now part of the niche market, no longer expected to attract the big audiences. A few weeks after it won, it was released on DVD, reduced to background noise in the big box media stores.
I have certainly felt this way. I’m glad I’m finally able to put it into words.
This article was basically 2 articles in one. Part 1 was about film criticism on the internet, and it transitions very awkwardly into Part 2, which is about … online discourse in general, and how it relates to democratic ideals? Seemed a little forced. I guess that can’t be helped, though, because of what Dissent Magazine is all about.
Nevertheless, there was one moment which resonated with me:
I have certainly felt this way. I’m glad I’m finally able to put it into words.
Edited to add: my response to the blockquote