Ryan McNeil
About a year and a half ago, I threw the switch on this website and took things in a whole new direction from its predecessor. In case
But now that I’m past the push to get the site launched on time, and have survived the TIFF gauntlet, it’s time to get to maintenance. And for that, I’d like your input!
Be as brutally honest as you want to be – feel free to cut it down to splinters if you like. I might not take every single note and run with it, but I can’t make any improvements if I don’t face critique. It’s all fair game – What do you want to see? What should I ditch? What am I doing right that I can expand upon?
And not just the site, the podcast is up for discussion too. What about The Matineecast have you ever thought about, both for better or for worse?
And most of all – be specific!
Ryan, I don’t have any big criticisms about the site and the podcast. I think both are great. Still, I’ll give a few thoughts to help out.
For the site, I do think it would be fun for you to delve into more classic films. The blind-spot posts are excellent, and that type of regular series would be really interesting. I also like the essays about general issues in cinema, so those have been great to see. Looking at recent posts, I don’t find that discussing trailers is very exciting. However, that’s just a personal feeling about blogs covering items that are readily available elsewhere. Still, I know this is a small part of your site.
For the podcast, I know this is probably tough with your schedule, but I’d love to see episodes every week. The Inbetween Days episodes were great, so maybe having more of those in off weeks would be a welcome addition to the show.
Good point about the trailers, and I readily agree. I’m going to think of some other sort of easy placeholder that I can start dropping in on Wednesdays (sorta this space’s unofficial “day off”).
Writing about classic cinema is something I like doing, and want to do more of – so it’s good to know when I do I can count on some readership.
There are two details I’ll look at working out. The first is just becoming better-versed, something I notice anytime I look at spaces run by people like James Blake Ewing or Marya Gates.
The second is to settle on an angle. Simon Columb and I are of the same opinion; that writing reviews of classics is a waste of time. So much has already been said, and so much can change after a film’s release, that it’s a losing argument. (note the Blind Spots never come with any sort of score). That’s not to say there’s nothing to be written about them, quite the opposite…it’s just figuring out what approach to come at them from.
Yeah, “recommending” established films is pointless – expanding upon film analysis and adding your own thoughts is what I try and do (though, there is only so much info I can find on Superman 3… much easier when writing about The Searchers!)
But you’ll always have your own thoughts and, as long as you are building on other established writing and author, then its new and wholly your own.
The fact that everything has already been said about classic films, though, is exactly what’s so liberating to write about them. Like Simon says, you don’t need to recommend them and you don’t have to tip-toe around spoilers and all that jazz. The restraints are off! You can get personal! You can free verse! It’s practically limitless!
I don’t think that reviewing classics is a waste of time. There are so many people who don’t know about older films that it can be educational if you approach it the right way. Of course, I do see your point when you’re talking about a famous movie like Casablanca or Citizen Kane. Trying to grade those movies is pretty much impossible. I think you’ve done a good job in finding a way to personally connect with the blind-spot movies, and that’s the key when writing about older movies. I agree that finding the right angle is even more important than when talking about new releases.
In terms of what Simon says below about posting frequency, I think that’s different for every writer. It’s beneficial to write a lot, which makes everyone better. However, it’s true that setting goals of posting every day or so many times a month can become more of a crutch than a benefit if it gets overwhelming. Every person’s situation is different, though.
Note taken, guys.
I’ll see what I can do about that, perhaps even working it in to the regular weekly rotation.
Some Condorman love would make this site peerrrrfrffeectttt. Or something like that.
I don’t know what to tell you to help. Always I say, with blogs I like such as yours, is your voice is your strong suit. So as long as you Chanel your voice inti something youre good. More general posts on cinema would be great (loving your Oscar related posts recently) so just keep them coming. One thing I’d love to see (maybe can work into more podcasts) is a classic discussion bonus episode every so often. But thats just me enjoying more content to love.
You just reminded me – I think I’ll be talking to you about Matineecast 79.
You unintentionally raise a good point – in the dozen or so episodes where we’ve done “The Other Side”, the films discussed still tend to be from the last twenty years. I’ll try to stretch that a bit more.
I’ll also see what I can do about a classic series. Perhaps an offshoot to replace the now-defunct ‘In Between Days’.
Well you know where to reach me.
PS. let me know if you need any help with that offshoot.
Well “The Other Side” is naturally going to be about films from the past 20 years since it’s supposed to somehow “pair up” with the main film you’re talking about which is always a new release. Which often entails the same director or actor.
Sure you can pick older stuff that has a similar theme or plot or something, but I don’t mind (in fact I like it better) when the movie you’re talking about is something I’ve seen.
Actually, ‘The Other Side’ can also marry-up thematically. Recall that on our episode I chose to discuss COLLATERAL with KILLING THEM SOFTLY as a “Hitman Double Feature”.
As it turns out, one of this week’s two Other Sides comes from 1956!
Well, you know a lot of my thoughts and I personally stand by one: stop writing daily. Focus your attention on the posts that matter and resonate with you. Scrap all the ‘quick’ posts because you – and the reader – know they are not the quality of your theatrical reviews, so don’t even waste time doing them.
A film critic in England tweeted me a few words of advice with regards to a blog and said its only a shop-window: the best stuff you should be paid for/it represents who you are. Make of that what you will – but I have taken that advice to heart and try hard to focus my attention on high-quality regular writing and hopefully when I write the best stuff, i’ll decide to submit it to a website before putting it straight onto my blog (i’ll put a link for all 3 followers who read my site daily! ha ha). Its a different ballpark completely when your blog is merely advertising – you name and your writing is what should be the brand, and its not limited to your blog.
feel free to ignore – but hopefully its food for thought. I know these are the thoughts which i think about when i consider how to get better.
That’s advice we could all follow.
I was thinking about that film critic after you told me about him in the first place, and I discovered the fly in the ointment:
That equation works if one is established, and writing for mutliple outlets. I’m not at the moment, so this space cannot serve as “a shop window”. If/when I get more avenues for my work, that’s what will happen – likely in a space with a very different design. For now though, that’s putting the cart before the horse.
I’ll give some thought to the short-form entries and what to do instead of them.
I’ll echo a couple of suggestions other have already made: more coverage of classics/older films and less filler posts. I know you take great pride in your streak of a post every day, but there are a lot of days where it’s pretty clear you’ve thrown something together just to have a post. Trailer posts, in particular, serves as little more than filler. I think you could roll Days of the Week and Everybody’s Talkin’ into one feature. I’d rather have 3-5 Matinee posts a week with a good deal of content than 7 posts where only half are substantial.
And as for classics, I’ve harped on this more elsewhere, but I’d love you to take dead weeks (no pun intended, given your last theatrical review) where there’s no must see release and spend it talking about an old film. I’d love it if you had podcast episodes covering classic films, especially in this upcoming time where there’s not much interesting coming out for a month or two.
Didn’t realize there was as much demand for my take on classics. As I mentioned above, note taken and I’ll see what I can hatch up for the future – especially in those “dead weeks”.
I didn’t think there were “a lot of days” where I was mailing it in. Granted the last few weeks have been tough after the marathon that was year-end.
All the same, I think there’s something to be said for the daily routine. It’s not easy (I dare anyone to try it for three months, let alone three years), and keeps me in somewhat of a rhythm. Were I to shelve all of the filler and focus only on the big pieces, I could easily see a pattern where one day off turns into two…turns into five…turns into a week.
There’s a balance to this whole thing I’m trying to hit. Something between the immediacy of a tweet and the revisions that come with long-form.
As always Mr. Ewing, you give me lots to think about.
Others have commented on “more substantial posts” and less of the trying to get something every day in there. To this I sort of agree but at the same time, you can’t sluff off on content. Not that your loyal readers will stray, but for a site to continue to grow and be relevant, in my opinion it’s kind of important to have content constantly flowing through. You want people to check in every single day and see what’s happening at The Matinee.
That said, maybe bring on some more people to help write the filler stuff and you can focus more on the podcast and longer, more thoughtful op-eds.
Because I agree, more podcast is a good thing. Also more “up to date” podcast would be nice. I know scheduling around others is difficult, but when your podcast comes on and it’s covering a movie that came out two+ weeks ago, it’s hard to get exited to listen to since it’s already been covered in other place extensively. But that could be just me.
As for the site itself, I think it looks great and is easy to navigate. So no complaints there.
Indeed.
As I just said to Blake – it’s about a balance I’m trying to find, and maybe I need to work on my footing and find a better balance. That and the call for classics might be the two best notes I’m taking from all of this.
The podcast note is good too, it comes on the heels of my most ‘out-of-date’ episode in a long time. I try to keep the release/episode upload gap to 1 week or less. The combination of an early Oscar announcement and a shitty release slate for January threw me for a loop. Oughta be better going forward though – good point.
I’m going to take a slightly different approach to this. I feel like your layout could use a little tidying up. It’s nothing drastic- actually, I think your site looks great. But your top navs are a bit much. Each one of your top nav items has at least a few of their own sub-navs, and three of the five (not counting subscribe) is 3+ sub-navs. I think that’s too many. When I’ve used them, I’ve had no clue where to go.
As for content, I think that’s in good shape. You probably focus on indies and newer films more than I’d like, but that’s really all about what YOU want to write about. And I can’t bust anyone’s chops over that. If that’s what grabs you, then go for it.
Great note – gives me something I can work on immediately.
So for you, what would help make things easier? Less options? A sitemap? Better explanations? Do tell!
For instance, I think Reviews could be a standalone. And then when you go to the actual “Reviews” page, maybe there’s a breakout there, as a right nav or anchored top nav or something (or… wherever; it really doesn’t matter). And really, you could do that with all of them.
movies.com does it well, I think. Or Film School Rejects. In both cases, all of their top nav serves as a standalone, with no further navigation. In short, I think simpler is better.
And I should clarify, too- I’m really only talking about the top nav items. The rest of your stuff works out great. Having the tiled landing page with the most recent stuff is a great way for people to get a quick snapshot of what you’ve been doing for a few weeks, and gives you the diversification that you may lose by not having it buried in the top nav.