TLDR AI summary : the essay functions as a eulogy of sorts for serious film criticism — mourning the conditions that once allowed critics to matter culturally, while holding up Hamrah as a stubborn, perhaps quixotic example of what that tradition looked like at its most uncompromising.
I really like authors that respect their readers enough to put the summary at the top of their articles. Do people really just go around reading large blocks of random text they find on the internet hoping they'll find it interesting?
> Do people really just go around reading large blocks of random text they find on the internet hoping they'll find it interesting?
Yes. That's why I'm on substack. Good writing can be a pleasure to read even if it's about something I don't care all that much about. A summary can tell you about the subject matter, but fails to capture the quality of the writing itself.
To put it another way: I'd rather read an idlewords post about taking a boat to the Antarctic - something I care little about as a subject - than read AI generate slop about some Python programming subject that's immediately relevant to my career.
Interesting to see this on HN, I'd be curious to know OP's rationale, but I'm glad they posted it.
Film criticism itself has suffered greatly in recent memory; at the end of the day, whatever trouble a critic might have gone to to watch, process, and articulate their thoughts on a given film is now reduced almost entirely to a number on Rotten Tomatoes.
Good movie criticism is alive and well. You simply need to expand your vision beyond anyone who relies on Rotten Tomatoes or (probably) Letterbox. That's probably not it.
Youtube is a great place to start looking. It has a lot of trash, but there are some extraordinary essayists and writers giving robust and insightful looks into films new and old.
These channels (expect for #2) all diverge from straightforward reviews, but what they give you are the tools to articulate what the film is doing, how it is doing it, and therefore equip you to become your own critic. Someone capable of thinking critically.
Not sure what OPs reasoning was but you have to wonder if this far-more-human type of film criticism will see a revival in the age of AI assisted writing.
I always like to remind people that before talk heads were battling it out on cable news or ESPN we had Siskel and Ebert shaking things up. They made me realize that movies could carry subtext, nuance and meaning. They made reading ABOUT movies more interesting.
Siskel and Ebert the TV show was a good example of the dumbing down of criticism; that trend started already before the internet age. The twentieth-century American television medium simply didn't allow much informational depth and nuance. (Edit: after I posted this comment, I saw that the show's Wikipedia article notes that it attracted such criticsm, so it's not just my own opinion.) Ebert's newspaper criticism was rather better.
I think Dan Olson and Folding Ideas is doing a fantastic job of bringing thoughtful criticism to all kinds of modern media, most recently Mr. Beast Games.
The problem with "criticism" from the perspective of the average person is that "Is this film worth my time and money" isn't really a question criticism answers. The linked article touches on this when it bemoans "the consumer guide approach" but until we firmly separate criticism from reviewing we're bound to keep going around and around on this.
reminded me of how much i loved reading this: "Lost Highways: An Illustrated History of Road Movies by Sargeant, Jack" https://www.abebooks.com/9781871592689/Lost-Highways-Illustr...
TLDR AI summary : the essay functions as a eulogy of sorts for serious film criticism — mourning the conditions that once allowed critics to matter culturally, while holding up Hamrah as a stubborn, perhaps quixotic example of what that tradition looked like at its most uncompromising.
I really like authors that respect their readers enough to put the summary at the top of their articles. Do people really just go around reading large blocks of random text they find on the internet hoping they'll find it interesting?
> Do people really just go around reading large blocks of random text they find on the internet hoping they'll find it interesting?
Yes. That's why I'm on substack. Good writing can be a pleasure to read even if it's about something I don't care all that much about. A summary can tell you about the subject matter, but fails to capture the quality of the writing itself.
To put it another way: I'd rather read an idlewords post about taking a boat to the Antarctic - something I care little about as a subject - than read AI generate slop about some Python programming subject that's immediately relevant to my career.
Interesting to see this on HN, I'd be curious to know OP's rationale, but I'm glad they posted it.
Film criticism itself has suffered greatly in recent memory; at the end of the day, whatever trouble a critic might have gone to to watch, process, and articulate their thoughts on a given film is now reduced almost entirely to a number on Rotten Tomatoes.
Good movie criticism is alive and well. You simply need to expand your vision beyond anyone who relies on Rotten Tomatoes or (probably) Letterbox. That's probably not it.
Youtube is a great place to start looking. It has a lot of trash, but there are some extraordinary essayists and writers giving robust and insightful looks into films new and old.
Off the top of my head:
1. House of Tabula - Essays on art and culture, with a heavy emphasis on film, old and new. https://www.youtube.com/@TheHouseofTabula/videos
2. Deep Dive - Lewis from House of Tabula doing 10-15 min reviews of recent theatrical releases: https://www.youtube.com/@DEEPDIVETHOT/videos
3. Spikima Movies https://www.youtube.com/@SpikimaMovies/videos
4. Thomas Flight https://www.youtube.com/@ThomasFlight/videos
These channels (expect for #2) all diverge from straightforward reviews, but what they give you are the tools to articulate what the film is doing, how it is doing it, and therefore equip you to become your own critic. Someone capable of thinking critically.
Not sure what OPs reasoning was but you have to wonder if this far-more-human type of film criticism will see a revival in the age of AI assisted writing.
I always like to remind people that before talk heads were battling it out on cable news or ESPN we had Siskel and Ebert shaking things up. They made me realize that movies could carry subtext, nuance and meaning. They made reading ABOUT movies more interesting.
Siskel and Ebert the TV show was a good example of the dumbing down of criticism; that trend started already before the internet age. The twentieth-century American television medium simply didn't allow much informational depth and nuance. (Edit: after I posted this comment, I saw that the show's Wikipedia article notes that it attracted such criticsm, so it's not just my own opinion.) Ebert's newspaper criticism was rather better.
I think Dan Olson and Folding Ideas is doing a fantastic job of bringing thoughtful criticism to all kinds of modern media, most recently Mr. Beast Games.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyNtlmLB73-7gtlBz00XOQQ
The problem with "criticism" from the perspective of the average person is that "Is this film worth my time and money" isn't really a question criticism answers. The linked article touches on this when it bemoans "the consumer guide approach" but until we firmly separate criticism from reviewing we're bound to keep going around and around on this.