Don’t worry, I don’t expect the same kind of shock that I’m sure is reverberating around the indie film world this morning with the announcements that Peter Scarlet is leaving the Tribeca Film Festival, but I am leaving my post as blogger-in-chief of Resources. I started the project a little over 2 years ago now and have been feeling like I did what I set out to do, and I don’t have the time or inclination to take it in a new direction. So, expect some new blood there soon, and in the meantime, my au revoir post:

It’s with mixed feelings that I tell you this will be my last post here at Resources for the time being. I had a great time doing this blog. Reading other people’s thoughts and ideas and putting my own spin on it, alerting folks to new grants, programs and studies they may not have heard of, and on occasion, thinking about the art of filmmaking, are all pursuits I enjoy. But it was also a frustrating experience because talking about policy and technology issues to filmmakers is a little like banging one’s head against a wall. It was Ted Hope’s rant about NY film credits that reminded me of my frustration and why closing my chapter on this blog has been bitter sweet. Read the rest>>

Thanks to all who supported my endeavor there, and especially Brian Newman for giving me the platform to do something I love to do!

Via GreenCine, there is yet another bloggers v. critics discussion going on over at The Guardian. I wanted to comment on the post but The Guardian requires that you register with the site in order to comment (blog error #1, as far as I’m concerned, along with not feeding whole articles in favor of headlines). I don’t need to get too deep into this but I do want to add one thing that I haven’t heard discussed much. From Jay Rayner:

How do [bloggers] describe what they do and what do they think about those who are paid to do what they do for free? It turns into an intriguing and complex dialogue. The problem with such arguments is that they risk becoming terribly binary: you are either for the critics or for the bloggers; happily the responses from both sides in this debate are more complex than that. Read the whole post>>

There is no editorial mandate for a blog. What you read here is entirely what I choose to post. I tend to skip talking about films that are weak, unless I think there is some compelling reason to discuss what I don’t like. I prefer to support the work I am excited by. While I’m the last person to argue that there is any objectivity in news these days, I’d venture that there is at least an attempt at objectivity in broader outlets. The Guardian will choose to review as much as they can afford to and probably pick the movies, dance, art, food that will appeal to the broadest audience, but they’ll post all those reviews, good or bad. There is value in that. Newspapers help guide us to the culture in our city. How many blogs would you have to visit to get such an overview, and if you are looking for reviews, sure, it’s easy to Google but how do you know to trust this blogger or that one?

I’d also add that Rayner mentions Rotten Tomatos and Metacritic as free sources for information, but behind both of those sites are veted critics. They don’t compile just anyones opinion. If the papers lay off those contributing critics, the opinions on those sites will either be reduced to fewer contributors or they will have to open up the ranks to bloggers. I’m just saying that those engines are fueled by the so-called professionals.

One last thing to keep in mind, blogger doesn’t equal unpaid. I know plenty of bloggers who make money, and even their living, off of writing online. I don’t make money on this site specifically, but it has fueled many other writing opportunities that I do get paid for. In a sense, this site is my advertisement for myself and I never got asked to write before I started it. If you like what you read here, maybe you’ll hire me for something. The returns have been many, financial included.