I take your point that some of Moehringer's piece was cheesy. I still thought the entire thing was salutatory for anyone thinking of being a writer, a ghost writer, or even a journalist. He's been all three, and is highly regarded, he's what we ordinary people would call both high achieving and successful. Yet, his failures, humiliations, insecurities, and vanities are shared, and this was the carefully considered, prettied-up version. Being a writer, who would roll those dice, hey?
I thought this warranted being further up in your list.
I thought Leah Finnegan's piece in Baffler was easily the strongest review (and I would have linked through to it here, except Rusty at Today in Tabs reached the same conclusion and I didn't want to crib so heavily.) She's fairly charitable but manages to score more points against Smith's book than Heller does with his more negative take https://thebaffler.com/latest/traffic-jam-finnegan
Lane must have seen a different cut of Air than the rest of us. The film depicts Nike at a time when they were at the bottom of the heap, not a little bit at the bottom, a lot of bottom. His implication that Nike was a 'rise and rise' story is dumb, as is his statement that "rise and fall is always more gripping, and more morally provoking, than rise and rise". On those terms, Air is both gripping and morally provoking, the story itself and the postscripts. I enjoyed the film, more than I expected to, great acting, great script, inspiring and moving, and more than enough to make the rest of us feel like tiny little people who have achieved nothing and will leave no mark, so quite humbling in that regard. The nostalgia was also pretty cool, the framing of the era.
Lane made the Blackberry film sound uninteresting. He gave no hint of his moral learnings. If you're going to make that claim, then the reviewer should at least add some hints, some color and movement, which might inspire an urge to view the film. Lane gave jack-shit.
Richard Brody, who does the online reviews, is, while certainly sort of a weirdo and sometimes a contrarian, also clearly a close watcher who's deeply invested in cinema and has a unique perspective. Lane is often a funny read, and he knows film history, but he pre-judges films a lot and often seems most interested in getting his bits in.
I take your point that some of Moehringer's piece was cheesy. I still thought the entire thing was salutatory for anyone thinking of being a writer, a ghost writer, or even a journalist. He's been all three, and is highly regarded, he's what we ordinary people would call both high achieving and successful. Yet, his failures, humiliations, insecurities, and vanities are shared, and this was the carefully considered, prettied-up version. Being a writer, who would roll those dice, hey?
I thought this warranted being further up in your list.
Traffic is a good book title, but there it ends. Trite review, trite book. A history with genuine understanding and insights has yet to be written.
I thought Leah Finnegan's piece in Baffler was easily the strongest review (and I would have linked through to it here, except Rusty at Today in Tabs reached the same conclusion and I didn't want to crib so heavily.) She's fairly charitable but manages to score more points against Smith's book than Heller does with his more negative take https://thebaffler.com/latest/traffic-jam-finnegan
Viral journalism: oxymoron?
Lane must have seen a different cut of Air than the rest of us. The film depicts Nike at a time when they were at the bottom of the heap, not a little bit at the bottom, a lot of bottom. His implication that Nike was a 'rise and rise' story is dumb, as is his statement that "rise and fall is always more gripping, and more morally provoking, than rise and rise". On those terms, Air is both gripping and morally provoking, the story itself and the postscripts. I enjoyed the film, more than I expected to, great acting, great script, inspiring and moving, and more than enough to make the rest of us feel like tiny little people who have achieved nothing and will leave no mark, so quite humbling in that regard. The nostalgia was also pretty cool, the framing of the era.
Lane made the Blackberry film sound uninteresting. He gave no hint of his moral learnings. If you're going to make that claim, then the reviewer should at least add some hints, some color and movement, which might inspire an urge to view the film. Lane gave jack-shit.
Yeah his actual review of "Air" a few weeks back was even worse.
Ah, I didn't see it, and I've watched the film now, so have no need to read a poorly considered review. 😁.
Should they assign someone a little more knowledgeable, a little more enamored of cinema, for the film reviews?
Richard Brody, who does the online reviews, is, while certainly sort of a weirdo and sometimes a contrarian, also clearly a close watcher who's deeply invested in cinema and has a unique perspective. Lane is often a funny read, and he knows film history, but he pre-judges films a lot and often seems most interested in getting his bits in.
Lane always strikes me as shallow, conveys his points poorly, and often fails at rudimentary understanding, or even context, of the films he reviews.