Directions for Online Film Criticism

[balmakboor]

I had applied many months ago to the Online Film Critics Society and I finally got my form rejection email today. Most of the email read:

"Unfortunately, we cannot extend membership in the OFCS to you at this time. Although you are meeting the basic membership requirements for admission -- such as writing at least 50 substantive reviews over the course of a year and maintaining a professional-looking Web site (or contributing to such) -- we don’t feel that the quality of your reviews is up to the standard it could be.

"OFCS members should be offering meaningful and distinctive contributions to film criticism 1) through a voice or perspective that is not already well represented online, particularly for current new releases that are already garnering many reviews, and/or 2) by covering older or niche films, or writing for a niche audience that is not already well served."

Now, I'm not complaining or whining or anything, but they are pretty vague about what they are looking for and they've refused to be more specific when I've asked. I'd like to spend the next 6 months heading in some potentially profitable direction. So I thought I'd raise a few questions here:

By expecting that one offer a distinctive voice or perspective, what do you think they are after? Obviously, they don't expect everyone to invent a persona like Joe Bob Briggs. In the glut of online criticism we now face, what would make reviews of new releases stand out as being meaningful and distinctive as opposed to still another review of Paranormal Activity?

By looking for niche reviews, are they suggesting that D_Davis, for example, was on the right track by writing extensively on martial arts movies? Should I pick a genre that interests me and extensively review films within that genre? (This is actually something I'm thinking about doing although spending the majority of my time reviewing, say, films from India wouldn't sit very well with my constantly changing moods and tastes.)

Or, to put it more simply, where do you all think online film criticism needs to go from here?

(Btw, anyone around here belong to OFCS?)

[Qrazy]

Well do you review your favorite films? Some of those seem a bit niche/obscure for the average viewer. Perhaps also just pick an arbitrary angle to take while reviewing. What's your background in and how could you bring that knowledge base to your reviewing?

[balmakboor]

Well do you review your favorite films? Some of those seem a bit niche/obscure for the average viewer. Perhaps also just pick an arbitrary angle to take while reviewing. What's your background in and how could you bring that knowledge base to your reviewing?

Those are good suggestions. I could do my own variation of Ebert's Great Films. I often try to pick some sort of angle with a review. I'll continue doing that, maybe even more consciously now.

As for my background, hmm. I'll have to think about that. Several possibilities ranging from being an engineer/programmer to being a dad to being a life-long religious non-believer.

[Grouchy]

What strikes me as kind of weird about the e-mail you received is that they reject you on the basis that you're not contributing a new angle, but they don't explain why that's a requirement to be part of a society of film critics.

I mean, it's not a fucking black ops task force. It's not like one is the demolition expert, the other the jewel thief, the sniper, etc. It's a society of people doing the exact same thing, reviewing movies online. If you meet every other requirement, why do you have to find your niche to be represented in the society?

[balmakboor]

What strikes me as kind of weird about the e-mail you received is that they reject you on the basis that you're not contributing a new angle, but they don't explain why that's a requirement to be part of a society of film critics.

I mean, it's not a fucking black ops task force. It's not like one is the demolition expert, the other the jewel thief, the sniper, etc. It's a society of people doing the exact same thing, reviewing movies online. If you meet every other requirement, why do you have to find your niche to be represented in the society?

In the email, they also apologized for it taking so long to give me an answer because they had so many applicants. I figure it went down something like this: They had a number of applicants they would allow in this year already in mind. They had far more than that apply. Only the very best made the cut. Everyone else got one of two form emails. One informed you that you didn't meet the requirements. The other gave this strangely vague reason for you not getting accepted even though you did meet the requirements.

I'll be honest. I was surprised to not get in. My reviews aren't professional quality, yet, but they are pretty well crafted and sometimes at least a bit insightful. I've read reviews by many of the people already in the OFCS and, while there are some fine critics in there, many are actually pretty terrible.

[Sycophant]

I mean, it's not a fucking black ops task force. It's not like one is the demolition expert, the other the jewel thief, the sniper, etc.

It should be.

[Winston*]

What does a black ops task force need with a jewel thief?

[balmakboor]

What does a black ops task force need with a jewel thief?

I love your avatar btw. So, which do you think fits better? Smart-ass or cutie-pie?

[balmakboor]

It should be.

Please elaborate, unless you're kidding of course. Are you saying it is very important that a critic establish a unique voice?

Along that line, what do people think of a critic creating a character to write as such as Joe Bob Briggs? (I love Briggs by the way. I used to read him all the time.)

Should it be a goal to sniff out a niche like Michael Medved did with his -- in my opinion -- total sell-out to the Christian Right?

[BuffaloWilder]

Welcome to the big leagues, muddaphucka.

[BuffaloWilder]

Please elaborate, unless you're kidding of course. Are you saying it is very important that a critic establish a unique voice?

Along that line, what do people think of a critic creating a character to write as such as Joe Bob Briggs? (I love Briggs by the way. I used to read him all the time.)


Vern.

[baby doll]

Fifty reviews a year? I can churn out maybe one a month--and that's in a good month. A few more if I'm not busy.

[Grouchy]

In the email, they also apologized for it taking so long to give me an answer because they had so many applicants. I figure it went down something like this: They had a number of applicants they would allow in this year already in mind. They had far more than that apply. Only the very best made the cut. Everyone else got one of two form emails. One informed you that you didn't meet the requirements. The other gave this strangely vague reason for you not getting accepted even though you did meet the requirements.
Yeah, that sounds logical.

[Adam]

James Berardinelli is a member of the Online Film Critics Society

Just sayin'

[Skitch]

What does a black ops task force need with a jewel thief?

That would be your small asian Ocean's Eleven fellow who can fit in places most can't, and like ju jitsu...and...stuff...

[Raiders]

James Berardinelli is a member of the Online Film Critics Society

Just sayin'

Great. Make him feel worse than he already does.

[balmakboor]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that D_Davis' 100 Films That Rock list is the best bit of online film criticism I've read. Not that the write-ups were masterpieces or anything, but they were so passionate and idiosynchratic and effective at getting me to check out movies I never would have otherwise. My movie watching over the past two years owes a great debt to the list.

I think I'm going to embark on something similar.