During the 1970s, the critic became a celebrity. The "Paulette" (her followers) and the "Sarrisites" debated with the ferocity of political
These critics shared one thing: a deep, unironic love for the medium. They weren't deconstructing movies to destroy them; they were arguing for their preservation as art.
This is the essence of the phrase: "for the love of movies the story of American film criticism." It is a history not just of writers and newspapers, but of a passionate struggle to legitimize the most influential art form of the 20th century. It is a saga of gatekeepers, poets, intellectuals, and bloggers who fought to elevate motion pictures from a disposable novelty to a subject worthy of serious intellectual scrutiny. for the love of movies the story of american film criticism
Peary’s film is essentially a loving, 80-minute genealogy lesson for film nerds. It starts with a radical idea: In the early 20th century, movies were considered garbage. They were nickelodeon peep shows for immigrants and illiterates. No "respectable" person would dare critique them.
Because the love remains. And the story is still being written. During the 1970s, the critic became a celebrity
Released in 2009, For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism
Suggested SEO meta-description: Explore the rich history of American film criticism, from James Agee and Pauline Kael to Roger Ebert and the digital age. Discover how "for the love of movies" shaped a century of critical thought. This is the essence of the phrase: "for
In the earliest days of American cinema, the concept of "film criticism" barely existed. In the nickelodeon era and the burgeoning days of Hollywood, movies were viewed as a product—cheap entertainment for the masses, devoid of artistic merit. The earliest reviews were barely more than plot summaries or consumer reports found in trade journals like Variety (founded in 1905) or Motion Picture News .
Harry Knowles ( Ain't It Cool News ) and Karina Longworth ( Spout.com ). Critical Reception
Simultaneously, at Rolling Stone and Owen Gleiberman at Entertainment Weekly brought a rock-and-roll energy to the trade. But the most influential critic of the late 1990s wasn't a print journalist—it was a man with a video camera and a college sweater: Joe Bob Briggs , the drive-in movie critic, who celebrated exploitation, gore, and bad taste with a wild, populist glee. He loved movies not despite their trashiness, but because of it.
However, this era also saw the rise of the "beholden" critic. The studio system was at its peak, holding a stranglehold over the press. Columnists like Louella Parsons and Hedda Hopper weren't critics in the analytical sense; they were extensions of the studio publicity departments. To love movies in this era was often to play by the rules of the moguls. Serious criticism was largely confined to intellectual journals like The Nation or The New Republic , written by giants like Manny Farber, whose 1951 essay "Underground Movies" famously championed genre filmmaking (gangster films, war movies) over the prestigious "white telephone" dramas of the time.
