Look, I really do enjoy lots of foriegn and art house movies. Independant films often give a human perspective lacking in most of the product of big Hollywood.

But when almost all your favorite movies are movies that are only seen by 50,000 people, mostly in NYC or at film festivals, then you are not serving your public.

There is something to be said for big productions, when they are done well, and honestly, I've seen just as many independant turkeys as big Hollywood turkeys.

C'mon Dana, mention some films that I might be able to find at the multiplex. I can't afford a plane ticket to NYC or Sundance every time the latest cinematic "genius" reveals his quirky take on humanity.

Tex,

It's not Dana's fault that the small indie movies aren't distributed throughout the country by the major studios who think they can't make any money. While the latest Adam Sandler comedy gets 3500 screens, the arthouse gems suffer.

Dana is just doing her job as a professional movie critic and valueing what moves her regardless of if anybody else saw it. Its really subjective and she does not have an obligation to the public, only to her own taste and reaction. In fact, I think a central job of the critic is to champion what otherwise would get ignored by the public. The critic provides opportunity to us to see and appreciate the film and and by advertising the movie and supporting it, he/she gives the opportunity to a little known film maker to make more movies and have a career. Besides Dana's not averse to the blockbuster if it is good--see Wall-E (and lots of other prominent critics have included the robot and the second biggest film of all time involving a guy in a bat suit on their lists, so they don't look at money made as a sign of inferiority).

I dunno, blame the movie studios who release dumbed down crap most of the year and expect us to see it, which we do because there is nothing else playing. If intelligent smaller films were to be given the same marketing and distribution as the crap, who knows maybe we the audience would make them hits and popular would equal good again.

A list of favorite films is highly personal and subjective and i wouldn't really press Dana to pander to the multiplex hordes, but i have to ask : worthy as they may be, how many people go to see documentaries at the cinema ? How many documentaries feature on the average person's (or even intellectual's) list of favorite films ? I'm not saying they aren't skillfully made or that they aren't an art form, but they seem to lack the imaginative input that makes for greatness.

Rosseau:

It's not Dana's fault that the small indie movies aren't distributed throughout the country by the major studios who think they can't make any money.

No, it's not, but it's still useless to me. And I can pretty much guarantee you that the major studios are absolutely right about a lot of those indie movies. they won't make money, because they appeal only to a very narrow cross section of people.

Rosseau:

Its really subjective and she does not have an obligation to the public, only to her own taste and reaction. In fact, I think a central job of the critic is to champion what otherwise would get ignored by the public.

I do agree that critics should champion deserving work, but I do not agree that that is central to the job. Beyond that, in my opinion, Dana does have an obligation to the public. Dana is not an artist. Dana is a critic. An artist has no obligation to do anything other than pursue their muse. A critic is hired to help people decide what movies, books, music, etc. would be worth their time to look at. A good critic doesn't just tell you what they liked, they try to tell you enough about the work in question to help you decide whether you will like it or not.

In my opinion, Dana may well be a sensitive observer of the indie film world and quite perceptive. But Dana is not a good critic. She is useless to me, because there is such a gap between her sensibilities and mine, and rather than write with that fact (that not everyone has the same likes and dislikes as she) in mind, she chooses instead to simply champion more of the same indie film crap that speaks to her personal, insular hipster tribe. I can say that because I have seen quite a few of these much ballyhooed independant films where quirkiness stands in for a truly original point of view and randomness and obliqueness is somehow seen as evidence of depth and genius.

I'll get pilloried for saying this, but all things being equal, I'd rather watch a big budget hollywood movie than a typical film festival critic's darling. I think I'm smart enough to spot the stupid ones. Plus, I read other critics, besides Dana.

Tarquin Machismo:

Worthy as they may be, how many people go to see documentaries at the cinema ? How many documentaries feature on the average person's (or even intellectual's) list of favorite films ? I'm not saying they aren't skillfully made or that they aren't an art form, but they seem to lack the imaginative input that makes for greatness.

God help me, but I think that a filmmaker who entertains me is much more talented than one who informs me, enlightens me or shows me their intensely personal vision of reality. To entertain intelligent people is a mark of greatness.

BTW, I'm not saying intellectual stimulation isn't entertaining.

Not to rain on your thesis here... but we live in an age where every film will be available to everyone shortly after it finishes it time in cinematic distribution.

While grading and sorting movies everyone has seen may in fact be the best role for a film critic, it seems to me the critic could just as equally be the guide to the films you probably won't have seen. No film on her list, no matter how obscure, will remain unavailable once it goes to DVD. Wouldn't a list of great but obscure films make the critic much more useful than your neighbors, friends, and others, who already have ample opinions on the best popular films?

Yeah, but Dana doesn't know your likes and dislikes; she only knows hers. The critic is responsible for his/her own opinion, not ours. Though the basic requirement would be that they have to be broad minded and like the popcorn movies as much as the arthouse films, and like all genres and generally be catholic in their tastes. Other than that, they are not omniscient shamans who can divine the taste of each and every moviegoer and write a review that will allign perfectly with Bob's and Ted's and Alice's. If your sensibility doesn't match a particular critic's, stop reading them.

And a good critic is, IMHO, is in the writing, analysis and insight. Just being an opinion on what to see a film on Friday night is the least part of the job of a good critic.

But regarding indie cinema, the ones I've seen this year were not smugly satisfied with themselves and did have original voices and stories: see I've Loved You a Long Time, Frozen River or The Edge of Heaven.

she chooses instead to simply champion more of the same indie film crap that speaks to her personal, insular hipster tribe.

Yeah, she champions all of that and Iron Man, and Wall-E, and Jean-Claude van Damme and Batman.

Hi, PV. I loved Iron Man, liked Wall-E, but the best movie of the year was Happy-Go-Lucky. Go see it. I pretty much gave up on Dana for not liking it. (I'm like that.) So much about this movie is really original and true to life - check the use of colors, trust the portrait of North London, be surprised. You're a grown-up, this is a movie for you.

Thanks Falcon. I will check it out.

I'm still trying to digest The Fall, or trying to decide if it even requires digestion. I think I've concluded that it's so beautiful to look at that I don't care if offers much of substance. Some critics have called it one-of-a-kind, but I think my son has described it more accurately as a cross between Pan's Labyrinth and Holy Mountain.

The Fall. I'll check it out.
Despite my grumbling about our critic not getting the point of a movie I liked (the nerve of some people) I appreciate being pointed toward things I might otherwise miss, and think that's her job and she's doing it. My grudges, while intense, are frequently short-lived. Re: the top topic, Sonyco is capable of pushing their latest unaided. While I loved Iron Man - I saw it on a plane, and Wall-E in a hotel room - It's fun to step further afield.

is the problem with Dana that she promotes movies that aren't accessible, or that what she loves is crap?

Personally I love Dana's reviews, although her taste doesn't always track with mine (I saw Mamma Mia on her recommendation and didn't like it; I loved Happy-Go-Lucky, which she panned). For the most part, her tastes are my tastes. I do find it frustrating that a lot of movies she recommends aren't available on the big screen where I live, but that's a distribution problem, not her fault. Even when I don't agree with her, I enjoy reading her reviews for their combination of technical insight, movie history, and overall sensibility.

Now, I'm probably not the average movie fan. I like strong characterization and good scripts and dialogue, I don't mind slowness or weirdness (although those things alone don't make a good movie), superheroes bore the spit out of me, and if a movie's best feature has something to do with CGI then I'm skipping it. But there are plenty of critics out there who love the typical Hollywood flick (who's that one guy, Kevin Thomas, who's quoted on all the DVD boxes?). And there's always Joe Bob Briggs, whose ratings sound like "One dead body, three severed arms, fifteen bare breasts--Joe Bob says check it out". Maybe you should be reading them instead. Personally, I'm keeping Dana.

Rosseau:

Its really subjective and she does not have an obligation to the public, only to her own taste and reaction. In fact, I think a central job of the critic is to champion what otherwise would get ignored by the public.

Yeah, but she has an obligation to the editors of her publication, who want to maximize their advertising revenues. The longer Dana bloviates about obscure, indie films that I can't see (without pirating) in my town, the less I read her critiques and the less advertising revenue they get from me.

Preach on Tex!

I love how I can throw out a hastily worded, ill considered screed, based on some writer's having pissed me off on a day when everything pisses me off, and come back a day or two later to find a bunch of thoughtful, intelligent replies. And nobody called me an idiot, at least not directly.

What it really comes down to is that I have a love/hate relationship with all critics. My real point (what I was clumsily trying to get at in my original post) is that many people are pretty much like me. We are intelligent and thoughtful consumers of movies, books, music, basically all the stuff that critics write about, but, unlike critics, we don't spend our lives devoted to films, books or music. We don't read the NY Times Literary Supplement every week and rush down to the bookstore to get the first copy of the new book by Dave Eggers or Salmon Rushdie or whoever is currently hot on the lit scene. We don't troll around on Pitchfork for an hour and a half a day wondering which new indie wunderkind is currently the most brilliant. And we don't haunt the Angelica for all the latest film fest entries, see three or four movies a week and dissect them over coffee with our film nut buddies.

Granted, some of you may do just that. That's what you're into, and that's great, but understand that you are in the minority compared to the general American public. As are critics, and therein lies the rub. They view films (or books, or music) in a fundamentally different way than I do. This different level of experience does give them an expertise that is required of those who would rate and expound on films. But it also colors their perceptions.

That is why I will stick to my statement that a critic's primary job (at least those who write for mainstream newspapers, magazines and websites) is to tell me, not simply whether they liked the film or not, but tell me enough about why they liked or disliked it to help me know whether I would like it or not, because (unlike some of you, apparently) I really don't have the time (or the inclination) to watch several movies a week, especially if I'm likely to dislike a number of them. I have to ration my attention and a good critic helps me to do that.

Someone did make a very good point that you have to make a determination if a given critic is too far away from your own sensibilities. My sensibilities include a marked lack of patience for movies that trade overmuch in subtlety. I don't mean I dislike subtlety, or that I prefer to be talked down to or hit over the head with the point, but that one irritating trait of a number of indie films I've seen is that they seem to feel that if there isn't a lot of confusion as to what the hell is going on, then they are being too heavy handed. I like for movies to make sense. Ambiguity, intelligence and depth are not necessarily synonymous. I also dislike overly serious films. I don't mind if your subject is deadly serious, but if you address it without any shred of a sense of humor, then it lacks the humanity I look for. Life is funny, even when you're about to die.