Hello readers and welcome back to Advice Cred, a resource we run here at Film Cred for talented new writers who might need the right push or a word of advice to help them deepen their understanding of film criticism and culture writing. There’s a wealth of knowledge held in our community amongst writers and editors who have been doing this successfully for a long time, and we want to put that knowledge on display for those questions that new (and seasoned) writers might find themselves asking from time to time. This time we talked to Jason Bailey, a frequently published writer and author with a passion for film that trickles down into reviews, essays, books, and podcasts.
FC: Hi! Can you please introduce yourself and where you’ve been published? Feel free to mention any cool accolades.
JB: My name is Jason Bailey. I’m currently the editor-in-chief of Crooked Marquee and was previously film editor of Flavorwire; my byline has appeared at the New York Times, Vulture, The Playlist, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vice, and others. I’ve also written five books, the most recent of which (“Fun City Cinema: New York City and the Movies That Made It”) was released by ABRAMS last fall.
FC: What was your first published movie review?
JB: If we’re REALLY going back, my first published review was for Uncle Buck, in fall of 1989, for my middle school newspaper — a nice it of circularity, since I’m currently working on a biography of John Candy for ABRAMS Press.
FC: How did you get into film criticism?
JB: Tale as old as time: I initially wanted to be a filmmaker. But I always had an interest in film criticism — I grew up watching Siskel & Ebert, and asked for Ebert’s annual movie book every year for my birthday — and I started writing reviews for alternative papers in my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, while I was making films. Eventually, I realized I was better at writing about movies than making them, and here we are.
FC: Do you follow a particular film theory (formalism, structuralism, etc.)?
JB: Not particularly, though I guess I’m a bit of an auteurist.
FC: What do you think the structure of a good review should be?
JB: I’m pretty meat-and-potatoes, structurally speaking; I feel like the reader should kind of know what to expect, and it’s more important to dazzle with prose and insight than formal ingenuity. So I tend to do the classic thesis/summary/analysis and criticism/wrap-up thing.
FC: Who is a film critic you admire?
JB: So many! My biggest influences from the past are Kael and Ebert, who I still read religiously. As far as contemporary critics, I continue to be dazzled by Stephanie Zacharek, Bilge Ebiri, Alissa Wilkinson, Manohla Dargis, A. O. Scott, Glenn Kenny, Alison Willmore, Matt Zoller Seitz, Brian Tallerico, Scott Tobias, Keith Phipps, and many more I’ll certainly remember as soon as I hit send.
FC: Do you read other reviews before you write your own review?
JB: Not if I can avoid it — I’m just always afraid of someone else’s thoughts creeping in.
FC: What is your method for note-taking for a movie review? Do you take notes as you watch films?
JB: I take CONSTANT notes, and couldn’t write if I didn’t. I sit close to the screen so I have reflective light (though I’ve gotten good at taking notes in the dark) and jot down anything that I might want later — stray thoughts and observations, good dialogue, a particularly strong scene, why a particular performance works, etc. Then I’ll type those up into a Word doc and put them into something resembling an order, and then use that document as the starting point for my review.
FC: When sending a pitch to a publication, how long do you wait before checking in?
JB: Two days. I don’t think you should wait too long; speaking as an editor, I usually know right away if I want to pick up a pitch.
FC: How do you handle writer’s block and burn out?
JB: I read. It sounds simplistic but I’ve never had a block or burn-out that reading a few pages of Kael or Greil Marcus couldn’t knock me out of; I read their work and I’m dazzled and I’m reminded anew that I’m lucky to do the same thing they do (albeit not as well), and then I’m off and running.
FC: Do you have any advice for aspiring film critics?
JB: Read everything. Watch everything. Listen to everything. I’ve always got a list of dozens of movies I want/need to watch and books I want/need to read, because every good thing you take in (and some of the bad things) could make you, in one way or another, a better or at least more informed writer.
FC: Are there any books or articles that you would recommend a new writer read?
JB: “For Keeps” by Pauline Kael. It’s my bible.
FC: How did your experiences writing reviews and film criticism inform the way you went about writing the books you have published? There are very obvious differences, but what are some similarities you found particularly comforting?
JB: When I sit down to watch a film for a book, I still approach it like a review — taking notes, thinking analytically, putting it into context. A book allows more time for revision and reconsideration, but I always try to keep my initial, sometimes visceral response to the work in mind, and keep it intact.
FC: What would you say to newer writers who are concerned with developing a consistent and recognizable voice within their work?
JB: Developing a voice is one of the toughest aspects, because it really cannot be hurried or forced — it just comes, eventually, after you’ve done it long enough. So I guess my advice there would be to just be patient, and in the meantime, do what the rest of us did: imitate the writers you like, hahahaha.
FC: Are there any common mistakes you see amongst up-and-coming film writers, and what advice do you think you could give to help curb some of those mistakes?
JB: These are two big things, both of which I see a lot as an editor. First of all, when you’re pitching an editor (especially at a new outlet), make sure to send examples of your work; just the other day I got an email that read, in its entirety, “I am available to review movies and TV shows,” without even so much as a link, much less a pitch. Secondly, to that point, assume most outlets have their reviewers set, and pitch analytical pieces, retrospectives, and so on. But most importantly, and this isn’t discussed much: understand the difference between a thesis and analysis. I’ve worked with a fair number of young writers who will send me a compelling pitch, and I’ll give them the go-ahead, and then get a piece where the analysis goes no deeper than the pitch email — stating an idea, and giving examples, but going no deeper. Always go deeper. And then go deeper than that.
You can read more of Jason Bailey’s thoughts on film and writing @jasondashbailey on Twitter, or directly on Vulture, Rolling Stone, and The New York Times. You can also support his book FUN CITY CINEMA and the podcast of the same name, available wherever you listen to your podcasts. As for more advice useful to writers, editors, and everyone in-between, make sure to check out http://film-cred.com/advice.
