Is the NY Times becoming increasingly like USA Today? Two artists are profiled on page one of the Arts section in today's NY Times (Sun, Apr 18). Whom did they choose to profile? Courtney Love and Demi Moore. Isn't it a massive stretch even to call these two women artists? Do these women produce interesting works of art worth front-page coverage in the premier artistic newspaper in the nation?
Where are the front-page profiles of serious actresses such as Samantha Morton, Isabelle Huppert, Juliette Binoche and Nina Hoss? These women consistently put artistic depth and quality first when they choose projects. Isn't that exactly what makes them perfect for a NY Times profile? Instead we get a profile of a shallow pop celeb like Demi Moore.
What about fascinating filmmakers like Karen Moncrieff ("Blue Car" and "The Dead Girl"), Laurie Collyer ("Sherrybaby"), Zoe Cassavetes ("Broken English"), Sophie Barthes ("Cold Souls"), Lynne Ramsay ("Ratcatcher" and "Morvern Callar"), and Tamara Jenkins ("The Savages")? Courtney Love is more interesting than these women? What is happening to American culture when even at the NY Times serious cinema artists don't register on the radar? The more brainless and pop-confectionary someone's work is, the more we're interested in them?
It would seem to me that the reporters and editors at the Times would see it as their responsibility to draw attention to significant artists. Instead, they draw more attention to pop celebs who already get wall-to-wall coverage in trashy tabloids. Is the Times now aspiring to be the print version of 'Entertainment Tonight'?
In all the other arts (such as dance, painting, and classical music), the Times skews toward the deep and intelligent. Have the Arts editors at the paper forgotten that intelligent films are still being made? They are getting made; it's just that everyone in America is overlooking them. Apparently this now includes the Arts editors at the Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment