New York Times Limits Film Reviews: A Response

After reading this article from the New York Times regarding a change in their film review policy, TFC staff would like to offer their take on the decision and whether it will affect many independent films.

Bryan Glick (Film Submissions & Theatrical Support):

Last year the New York Times reviewed over 900 movies! While the announcement did not say how many films they will/won’t review, it’s reasonable to assume that this will work to deter some of the gluttony of Oscar Qualifying Docs and what otherwise would be straight to digital genre fare.

These films rarely get positive reviews anyway and I would argue there are better ways for them to generate exposure.

The business most impacted by this are companies like Cinemaflix (Formerly Quadflix) that have been profiting immensely from Oscar Qualifying runs, in part, by guaranteeing a NYT review.

Because of the major advertising $$ the NYT still will review the majority of films opening and certainly just about anything from the top festivals.”

Sheri Candler (Social Network & Digital Marketing Advisor) :

I think this has been in the works for a while, starting with this Manohla Dargis Times article in 2014  There ARE too many films being made with no thought to who is going to know about them or view them.

Does a Times review, on its own, help a film’s financial success all that much? Probably not. A good review probably did help with getting other cinema bookings, though. It is also something the industry read and measured the worth of a film by, even if consumer interest in watching independent films in the cinema is waning.

Newspapers themselves are in a waning industry and staff cuts, especially in arts criticism, are inevitable…so I can understand that is just impossible for every film playing in a New York cinema to get a written review from a dwindling newspaper staff.

Ultimately, I believe people go to see a film based on what their friends and colleagues recommend, so it is time to consider how to reach a passionate audience directly, without having to rely on media entities to reach them for you. Word of mouth has always been stronger than a critic’s voice, so concentrate on making something that excites rather than mourning that a New York Times critic won’t help you.”

David Averbach (Creative Director and Director of Digital Distribution Initiatives):

These reviews have always served a dual purpose. On the one hand, they inform New Yorkers as to what is going on in the city in any given week. On the other hand, they are an arbiter of taste that will, for better or worse, live on in digital archives until the end of time.

It’s hard to imagine, however, that the New York Times would divest its influence in either of these arenas, which is why I think that for films that have something to say, things will probably stay the same.

If we see some attrition in the number of films released theatrically because of this, perhaps the NY Times will still be able to remain completely current while at the same time cutting the corners it needs to cut.

Jeffrey Winter (Co-Executive Director):

“Since last week, I’ve already had an actual experience regarding this.

On Thursday (the day the article was published), I met with members who were raising money for the standard DIY four-wall in NYC/LA and who were counting on a NY Times review to help the digital. Then I got home and found that article and showed it to them. They immediately decided they didn’t want to raise the money if they couldn’t get a NY Times review.

Of course we all know that these NYTimes reviews can’t make enough of a difference to make their digital work, but filmmakers have a hard time hearing that absolutely nothing is going to make their digital work because their film is too mediocre that nothing will make it stand out.

So I think this will discourage the admittedly tired DIY standard, and theaters that have come to rely on that revenue will lose some business.

But I agree with the New York Times’ decision. Most of those film had no business being in the NY Times anyway.”

Orly Ravid (Founder and Co-Executive Director):

“On the one hand, this suggests what we already know, which is that media and information dissemination and influence is increasingly decentralized, giving more voice to non-traditional speakers.

But, on the other hand, this puts a lot of pressure on one’s ability to captivate people without a centralized or very widely consumed platform.

A great New York Times review still makes a difference in ticket sales and digital distribution success (DVD, too, of course, for now). It also helps get financing. It’s a stamp of approval—it’s good for ego, yours and your investors’.

Will that ever change?

Only if the folks not relying on NYT because they cannot actually manage to influence audiences en masse some other way. There’s still the issue of stamp of approval—I think many in the industry and many audiences still want to rely on known critics—but it’s true that many of us see a film because someone we know personally and trust told us to.”

The times they are a-changin’.

Orly Ravid May 27th, 2015

Posted In: Uncategorized