The glass-half-full view on Ansen
The internet is abuzz on Newsweek movie critic David Ansen's acceptance of a buyout from the magazine, and tea-leave readers see yet another indication of bad things for movie criticism in the print world. Probably so. But close reading of the accounts of David's not-yet-imminent departure from the pages of the mag indicates the move is a pretty good thing for David. 
Newsweek's buyout offer, which was accepted by over 100 staffers on both the biz and edit side, is one of the sweeter ones I've ever heard of. Two year's salary—hell, that's enough to get engaged twelve times!—plus health coverage up to age 65, improved pension, etc. And in Ansen's case, he's on staff until year's end, whereupon he signs on as a freelance contributing editor, a perch from which he can still be in the game, writing, albeit away from the grind of weekly movie reviewing, which the 62-year-old critic has been doing at Newsweek for, like, 30 years.
Good for him, I say. David and I aren't close pals, but he's a droll, companionable fellow, always a good face to see on the festival circuit. He was part of the giddy gaggle (now it can be told!) that bonded over the nitrous-oxide-like effects of Julie Taymor's Across the Universe at last year's Toronto Film Festival. The after-screening dinner—with David, fellow vet Leonard Klady, my buddy Tom Carson of GQ, and the peripatetic Elvis Mitchell—was a welter of hilarity, and Leonard and David had the best stories. David will be missed, absolutely. But he's not quite gone just yet.
What do you ever write when you're not recylcing other people's ideas and stories?
No one cares about your private times with other writers.
The least you could do was quote one or two things from Ansen's work or say something about what makes him unique as a writer.
Clueless.
Posted by: Libby | March 31, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Yeah! Knock it off, you jerk!
Posted by: bill | March 31, 2008 at 01:06 PM
When I read the name attached to your comment, I thought, "Wow, Gelman Waxner's gotten BITTER!" But I immediately recalled that that Libby could never be so utterly humorless.
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | March 31, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Glenn, I would like to apologize for allowing myself to be swept up in the mob frenzy.
Posted by: bill | March 31, 2008 at 02:00 PM
MEDIOCRITY!
Posted by: Libby | March 31, 2008 at 02:04 PM
DEATH TO TYRANTS!!
Damn it, I let it happen again.
Posted by: bill | March 31, 2008 at 02:08 PM
Wow, David Ansen is my all time favorite movie critic (no offense, Glenn). I have been reading his reviews since the late 70's. This is a real bummer, but I hope you're right and that he'll still get to contribute to the magazine. Newsweek has been running fewer and shorter reviews for some time. Maybe he'll find a new (online?) outlet for some longer pieces.
Posted by: Elizabeth | March 31, 2008 at 02:09 PM
I've been kind of wrestling with this idea of the "demise" of print critics and the rise in 'net critics and figure this is a good place to approach the subject.
As a strictly internet based film critic I constantly feel torn because "anyone" and "everyone" can be a net film critic. As much as I love working for FILM THREAT, we have some writers that can barely write and it's frustrating to me as I've been writing for over 15 years, have degrees in journalism and screenwriting AND I'm getting a masters in cinema studies as we speak. Not tooting my own horn, just saying...I take this shizz kind of seriously.
But I can't break through to a print mag or paper and I've been trying to for years by building my background with FT. Now, I'm not even sure I'd want to move into print. But I digress.
I get annoyed because FT gets lumped in with other crappy net sites like AICN and CHUD and whatnot and, while I can see why, I wonder how I can differentiate myself from the masses of slathering fanboys equipped with a press pass and a lap top. We're not gossip mongers or movie news aggregators and we're one of if not the only sites that still reviews just about anything sent to us AND covers every film at every festival we attend.
I guess my question (by way of rant) is...how can we writers differentiate ourselves from the thousands of other 'net critics and not only that, but how can readers differentiate between sites and writers?
I wonder if something like those health code ratings at Los Angeles eateries would work. Like...you get an "A" tag if your writers fit a certain amount of experience, education and amount of reviews. plus maybe you have to take and pass a grammar and spelling test.
I mean, I sure as hell don't want to sound elitist, but you guys n gals must know what I'm talking about.
Posted by: don lewis | March 31, 2008 at 02:41 PM
To Libby:
Oh cmon Ma, willya knock it off already?
To Don:
Damn you bring up some big questions-too big to grapple with on a Blackberry. More later!
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | March 31, 2008 at 03:38 PM
To the mysterious "Libby," who cannot possibly be the great Gelman-Waxner, may I say that Monsieur K. alludes to his fellow critics rarely -- and then only when there is something newsworthy about them. When he does, he humanizes things by reflecting on his personal knowledge of them, if any.
This is called "blogging," I believe. And as Carly Simon would say, nobody does it better.
Posted by: crazysummerswithbrigitte | March 31, 2008 at 06:44 PM
See, this is what happens when W pardons ol' Scooter.
Posted by: wwolfe | April 01, 2008 at 11:48 AM