Unless you’ve had your head under a rock, you’ll have some kind of idea that the media industries are going through some pretty rough times at the moment, with newspapers and various other outlets haemorrhaging jobs, and this is something that Peary’s film touches in its opening titles and its last minutes: film critics are losing their jobs and the times they are a-changing for what the job entails. As the final part of the film touches on the impact the Internet and writers like Harry Knowles of Ain’t It Cool News, there’s visibly a line drawn between those who have decided to adapt film criticism to match the changing media landscape and those who believe that the Internet is, well, ruining it for everyone. For The Love Of Movies ends on a cautiously optimistic note, noting that while veteran critics are getting laid off day by day, such writing will be necessary for certain films to make any sort of impact. The problem with people who subscribe to this school of thought and their attitudes towards the new turks is that they are built on truly reactionary opinions. Veteran critics are fired from jobs and now it is a usual sight to see them replaced by a younger critic with far less experience, as detailed in Peary’s film. This does not make it right to tar young critics with the same brush, a move that I believe teeters close to reverse ageism. And plus, wasn’t Pauline Kael part of the new school that helped move aside out-of-touch critics such as Bosley Crowther? I guess what I’m saying is that this is all cyclical. At the start of film criticism, there was no real art to criticise or comment upon like there was with theatre, leaving only synopsises to be written. We are facing a switch back to these days, and if you pick up your local newspaper, if you are like me, you will read jaded, uninformed and dull reviews of recent releases that are description and little insight. There are people waiting in the woodworks, new and exciting talents ready to take what has come beforehand in new and exciting directions. Just like beforehand. Great critics, young or old, have always taken the ball and ran with it when it comes to the smaller pictures that really need it – and they still need it. Before I came to the festival, I read an editorial by James in Sight and Sound which challenged filmmakers to provoke, not only other critics, but to influence film. I am optimistic that a new generation of critics can do this, and if it will take years, I will wait. We need these new voices and we need them now. So were any of you at the screening? Please let me know what you thought at twitter.com/sitartattoo because it’s a great thing to debate about, and check out For The Love Of Movies if you get a chance. It’s an entertaining and big-hearted history of film criticism and is definitely worth your time, if only even for the conversation you’ll have afterwards with your friends.
title: “Edinburgh Film Festival For The Love Of Movies The Story Of American Film Criticism Review” ShowToc: true date: “2025-08-10” author: “Brian Gilmore”
Unless you’ve had your head under a rock, you’ll have some kind of idea that the media industries are going through some pretty rough times at the moment, with newspapers and various other outlets haemorrhaging jobs, and this is something that Peary’s film touches in its opening titles and its last minutes: film critics are losing their jobs and the times they are a-changing for what the job entails. As the final part of the film touches on the impact the Internet and writers like Harry Knowles of Ain’t It Cool News, there’s visibly a line drawn between those who have decided to adapt film criticism to match the changing media landscape and those who believe that the Internet is, well, ruining it for everyone. For The Love Of Movies ends on a cautiously optimistic note, noting that while veteran critics are getting laid off day by day, such writing will be necessary for certain films to make any sort of impact. The problem with people who subscribe to this school of thought and their attitudes towards the new turks is that they are built on truly reactionary opinions. Veteran critics are fired from jobs and now it is a usual sight to see them replaced by a younger critic with far less experience, as detailed in Peary’s film. This does not make it right to tar young critics with the same brush, a move that I believe teeters close to reverse ageism. And plus, wasn’t Pauline Kael part of the new school that helped move aside out-of-touch critics such as Bosley Crowther? I guess what I’m saying is that this is all cyclical. At the start of film criticism, there was no real art to criticise or comment upon like there was with theatre, leaving only synopsises to be written. We are facing a switch back to these days, and if you pick up your local newspaper, if you are like me, you will read jaded, uninformed and dull reviews of recent releases that are description and little insight. There are people waiting in the woodworks, new and exciting talents ready to take what has come beforehand in new and exciting directions. Just like beforehand. Great critics, young or old, have always taken the ball and ran with it when it comes to the smaller pictures that really need it – and they still need it. Before I came to the festival, I read an editorial by James in Sight and Sound which challenged filmmakers to provoke, not only other critics, but to influence film. I am optimistic that a new generation of critics can do this, and if it will take years, I will wait. We need these new voices and we need them now. So were any of you at the screening? Please let me know what you thought at twitter.com/sitartattoo because it’s a great thing to debate about, and check out For The Love Of Movies if you get a chance. It’s an entertaining and big-hearted history of film criticism and is definitely worth your time, if only even for the conversation you’ll have afterwards with your friends.
