In Defense of Slate

Undoubtedly, N.P. Thompson will get some attention for this seething, bile-laced letter to Slate’s editors slamming the publication’s post-Edelstein film coverage, but his criticisms seem rather spurious to me. To begin with, most of the specific examples he points to are taken out of context. Metcalf’s Match Point review, for example, goes on to elaborate on what he means by “good solid movie,” making a case for the film’s sturdiness in the wake of multiple shaky films from Allen. It’s not a perfect review, but it doesn’t deserve such wrath. Dana Stevens’ New World review is an even sharper bit of work, and Stevens’ comment about Malick’s reticence to speak to the press was intended only as evidence for Malick’s mysterious personal tendencies—the same tendencies that very clearly weigh heavily on The New World.

More to the point, Thompson’s primary argument--that Slate is both unadventurous in content or clubby and New-York centric in who it chooses to publish with regards to its film coverage--is just flat wrong. The DVD Extras column regularly publishes any number of contributors from outside New York, and its editors have shown themselves willing to run all sorts of wonderfully eccentric material. If anything, Slate’s DVD column is one of the few places that curious, quirky essays on film can still get mainstream attention.

Thompson also calls for “much needed voices of dissent” on a slew of critical darlings, but doesn’t seem to consider that not only is it not necessarily Slate’s job to provide that dissent, but that to do so would rob the publication’s critics of their independence. It’s true, of course, that Slate’s reviews of theatrical films are written primarily by a small group of people (these days mostly by Stevens), but that’s to be expected. Most publications of note tend to stick with a small stable of regular critics. Not only does this maintain a consistent point of view, it frees critics from editorial interference by keeping editors from too much picking and choosing of reviews based on their viewpoint. Thompson may not like this, but if anything, it serves as a protective measure for critics.

I’ll be the first to admit that Edelstein isn’t served as well by the limitations of print as he was at Slate. His stuff is still fantastic, but the word limit, the less-timely publication schedule, and the more formal style all seem a bit of a burden in his recent reviews. But in the meantime, Slate has marched forward without him, proving itself to be one of the few publications still willing to pay serious attention both to film and smart writing about it.