Since I was kid, before I even knew what a film critic was, the meaning of “Siskel and Ebert give it two thumbs up!” on a film’s trailer was insurmountable. I am of course referring to the late Gene Siskel, the brilliant film critic for the Chicago Tribune, and Roger Ebert, the Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, and their syndicated movie review show Siskel and Ebert at the Movies.

I mention this because, after years of trials and tribulations, At the Movies (the show’s current incarnation) is being canceled, with its final episode set to air Aug. 14. This, combined with the unfortunate March 10 dismissal of Todd McCarthy, the film critic for the high-profile Hollywood news source Variety, only hammers home the unfortunate health of film criticism, and perhaps even the film industry (as both a business and an art form).

I’m only 22, but I yearn for the good old days when movies were seen in movie theaters because that’s where people wanted to see them. But rising ticket prices, the death of
theater etiquette, web piracy and shortened theatrical windows make theaters a less important venue (unless we’re talking 3-D, which is a gimmick more out of desperation than artistic benefit in most cases). Even DVD development has become lazy; companies used to spend time filling them up with extras, and now, even the Blu-Rays for Where the Wild Things Are and No Country for Old Men fail to provide anything of real substance in comparison to the innumerable extras of the first DVD releases.

Now, I’m not foolish enough to think movies are the most important thing in our complicated world. The reality is that many, if not most, could care less what they’re watching so long as it’s compelling on a basic level. The people who cared before are moving online, the only place where I believe “The Film Critic’s Last Stand” is taking place.

The Internet has become a fantastic platform for film viewing and critiquing, but the unfortunate truth is there is no money in it. Perhaps the problem with the Internet in a capitalist society is once people get something for free, it becomes very difficult to get them to pay for it again. Maybe that will be tested when The New York Times throws up their new firewall next year. But websites like Rotten Tomatoes (which I love) have devalued the financial gains of film criticism. This is why McCarthy gets canned and At The Movies gets dismissed — it’s all online. Advertisers are confused by the platform, and they don’t want to pony up any cash on something as expendable as a mouse-click.

Will academia become the only place for film to be critiqued as an art form? God, I hope not. Academic film conversation is usually handled by people too disconnected to see how some viewers won’t be interested in Casablanca (not out of ignorance, but because they just don’t care), while not understanding the potential artistic value of Avatar.

So what is the future of film criticism? I have no idea. I’m a film critic for a print edition of a newspaper. Everything I know could be going the way of the dinosaur.

But I don’t think it will. Whether consumers realize or not, they still love movie reviews. They love them because they are entertaining. They love them because, when offered an opinion of a movie, they see themselves as film critics, too.

A world of NetFlix and online distribution means more people, regardless of background, have access to more film content than ever before. The independent film industry has a whole new way to reach audiences — so long as they can find a way to make money on it. But film people, thankfully, are a creative bunch, and they will always find a way to survive.