Seattle is home to one of the nation's best film critics
A couple of nights ago, I saw There Will Be Blood, a grim, and undeniably powerful movie about a California oil man. It stars Daniel Day-Lewis.
I always measure the power of a movie if I wake up the next day and think about it. And when that happens, I often seek insights from the Post-Intelligencer's William Arnold. I wasn't disappointed.
I got to know Arnold in the 1980s, when I worked at the P-I as its theater critic. I was in awe. I still am.
Writing reviews year after year is unbelievably hard work. It's easy to go stale or get lazy. And yet, then and now, Arnold packs more into a 600-word essay than nearly any critic I know.
A newspaper critic's job is to announce a film, report on what the work is trying to do, say whether it succeeds on its own merits, and give a recommendation. Arnold does that and more.
Many of his reviews put the film in a larger context -- the history of a genre, the work of a director, the evolution of an actor, or a trend in the industry. So you come away from an Arnold review not only knowing something about the film but also something larger about the art. He does so with an accessible writing style.
For a long time, Seattle had two strong movie critics -- Arnold and his colleague at the Seattle Times, John Hartl, who retired from daily reviewing a few years back.
I don't always agree with Arnold's reviews, but that's not the point. I've read him enough to know what his tastes are and to make up my own mind. I trust him.
I've heard stories about how Arnold's work is closely followed by people in Hollywood. I'm not surprised. He's one of the best in America.









Comments:
Posted Tue, Jan 22, 1:49 p.m.
What am I missing?: I don't quite see this. A good writer, sure, but what about him fills you with "awe"? His review in this case says, as usual, pretty much the same thing most other reviews do.
Posted Tue, Jan 22, 3:54 p.m.
RE: What am I missing?: I read a lot of reviews by other writers and I have no idea what the reviewer thinks of the film. So much is just narrative of plot and tiny points here and there. Arnold pulls it together, the words, the photography, the director's vision. I feel I'm learning every time I read his work.
Plus he's a big fan of Stanley Kubrick. Need I say more?
Posted Thu, Jan 24, 9:35 a.m.
How much longer?: You have to wonder how much longer regional newspapers will carry full-time movie reviewers as they reduce staff. It's easy enough to get quality freelance reviewers, and there's no shortage of syndicated stuff. The only local film event of note is SIFF, and again you could easily do that with freelancers.
I'm not advocating this; I like to get to know my regular reviewer the way you know Arnold. But if I'm running the P-I (or other regional newspaper) and I'm cutting staff (as every newspaper is) I've got to question whether a full-time movie reviewer is my best use of limited resources.
Posted Fri, Jan 25, 6:17 a.m.
Is this a joke?: I couldn't tell. If it is, it's very funny.
Posted Fri, Jan 25, 11:27 a.m.
William Arnold and John Hartl: These guys were probably the best same-city duo writing for the dailies in the country. BUT in my humble opinion they weren't the best critics in Seattle. Jim Emerson of the Rocket and William T. Jameson of the Weekly were absolutely fantastic. They were among the best in the country. I really miss them. (though a little searching turned up a blog for Emerson and a fair amount of freelance work for Jameson.
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 8:05 a.m.
New online drugstore!: No fake pills
buy lamictal online
buy levaquin online
buy aldactone online
buy doxycycline online
sildenafil citrate