Ekkehard Knörer, Mick LaSalle, Dana Linssen, moderated by Peter Cowie

The mushrooming of internet bloggers appears to be hijacking the discussion on films. The Internet not only provides a dynamic platform for reviewers but also free access to film reviews, both from established media as well as an ever-increasing horde of bloggers.

With film criticism no longer under exclusive purview, where virtually anyone can write a review and post it online, what happens to the professional film critic? How does this apparent democratisation affect the style of writing and quality of reviews in terms of ideas they present? The proliferation of blogging is not alone responsible for the declining status of film criticism: The internet is today more proficient in attracting advertising; marketing and promotion strategically aim more and more at the internet for their campaigns. Film reviews are often manipulated by distributors; print editors afford less space to reviews, change ratings in compliance with advertising allegiances and often opt for the review of blockbusters. In contrast to print reviewers, bloggers have the advantage of free speech, owing no allegiance or responsibility to anyone. Society in general seems more to prefer "sponsored slogan to judicious assessment” as Nick James proclaims in his introduction to "Who needs Critics?" (Sight & Sound, October 2008).

Esteemed film critics will address the questions we are all asking: Is the internet today, as its proponents claim, a gold- mine for discovering new cinematic gems? Has the penetration of a more informal internet-like writing through the advent of blogs, social networking website such as Facebook, etc. seeped into print reviews? Do these changes enrich or impoverish film criticism? And finally, what is the fate of film critics as their destiny is bound to the dictates of their editors and the wishes of the public at large?

Nick James, David Thomson, Stephanie Zacharek, moderated by Dana Linssen

In cooperation with Berlinale Retrospective.

A large number of film critics feel increasingly embattled in their efforts to write serious criticism because of commercial pressure from publishers, publicists and film distributors, all of whom seem to be interested in using critics as marketing aids. As print circulation declines, bloggers appear to have the advantage in virtual space with few professional responsibilities or interventions holding them back. This may on the one hand, constitutes the “crisis“ of film criticism, if one can call it that. On the other hand, this “crisis“ seems also to arise from the waning influence of critics, the once-villains of the film world, hated by filmmakers and distrusted by readers. Film critics seem today to have opted for the safety of pure admiration, focusing more on disappearing film magazines and newspapers, than on the quality of film criticism itself. In his article “On Provocation“, the editor of Sight & Sound, Nick James recently questioned the obedient and hardly provocative role film critics play in reviewing films, resulting in filmmakers challenging and provoking critics, take Tarantino or von Trier. Shouldn’t critics take the lead again and write forcefully and with a clear voice? Questioning the role of film criticism today, leading critics David Thomson, Nick James and Stephanie Zacharek debate the current state of press affairs.