Nobody still seriously clings to the idea of the critic for an important magazine or newspaper as gatekeeper of high culture and embalmer, for all posterity, of What Is Important. Still, Richard Brody, a New Yorker blogger, in a post about film critic Andrew Sarris (and it does indeed suck that Sarris was fired by the New York Observer, together with a bunch of other people we really wish can find another newspaper job very soon), writes:
...if you were to watch only the movies Sarris endorsed, I’d predict that
you’d have a pretty good sense of the best of world cinema at the time;
if only Kael’s picks, you’d likely have a very skewed and narrow view
of it.
It's not really about appearing "skewed" and "narrow" a few decades later -- more simply, a critic who still considers herself a gatekeeper of everything proper and highbrow and tweedy represents a journalistic template that just doesn't work anymore.
Michiko Kakutani, for example, probably mistakes her juice, the residual power she obviously still has, at least in part, in the book business, as long as she still writes for The New York Times and as long as the NYT is still business of course, for an actual wider role as bouncer of high culture, who'll either keep an author out or will let that author in the club. Pauline Kael -- the anti-Kakutani in so many ways -- has influenced so many critics who came after her not simply because she could write circles around the many Bosley Crowthers determined to bore their readers to tears. Kael mattered -- and still matters -- because for all the flaws in her arguments, for all her (frequent, but not that frequent) bad calls, she wrote reviews, not entries for a future textbook about Important Films. She didn't even call them films, to her they were "movies". She wrote about what mattered to her, one way or the other, as a way to engage the reader. That's how you stay relevant 30 years later, you don't accomplish that by having been "right".
Sarris himself once wrote, leaving Kael horrified, that a chronology of his ''represents a weighted critical valuation". Give us critics who engage us, and that we'd love to disagree with (what's the point of reading someone you agree with most of the times? And who seriously will still avoid a movie or an opera because The New York Times or The New Republic wrote that it's not good?).
"Weighted critical valuations" are so terribly dull, if you lost it at the movies -- or at the opera, in Opera Chic's case.