Auteurism had Andrew Sarris. Abstract expressionism had Clement Greenberg. Punk rock had Lester Bangs. Where is the equivalent voice for today’s documentary scene? In the past, nonfiction film has drawn the attention of a few notable critics. Starting in the 1920’s, John Grierson actively championed the form. His generation gave way to the breakthroughs in direct cinema, covered by Jonas Mekas for the Village Voice and the “Living Room War” of Vietnam, analyzed by Michael Arlen for The New Yorker. Back then, documentary filmmakers were still dreaming of a future when equipment would be cheaper and distribution more accessible. Now, thanks to digital technology, that future has arrived. But America’s critical arbiters have lagged behind. Newspapers and magazines still follow the customs of an old era, squeezing in the occasional documentary review between saturation coverage of Hollywood dramas and comedies.
Two years ago, I lamented this state of affairs for an Indiewire survey titled “Wrapping 06 and Looking Ahead at 07.” Around that time, I was plowing through myriad Top Ten lists with dismay over the propensity of critics to name ten fiction films and one token documentary. I suggested that newspaper and magazine editors look to the example of book reviews by distinguishing between fiction and nonfiction lists and cultivate critics who can specialize in the latter.
Now the situation has grown even worse. Documentary filmmakers are increasing their output, but publications are decreasing staff and space for reviews. Bloggers fill some of the void. But the pressure on blogs to be quick and current leaves a gap for more thoughtful analysis. For any critic who wants to delve into documentary, an exciting job awaits. But the job is not likely to be offered. It has to be seized.