Old Magazine, New Problems

The magazine I subscribe to is The New Republic. It was the best magazine I knew of because it adequately mixed articles and essays on both political and art subjects. The magazine didn't prefer one side to the other. The political came first in the magazine, but their art section was considered by many outside critics to be one of the best in any magazine.

I went to the magazine because of some of the writers. They were Stanley Kauffmann, the longtime film critic, and Robert Brustein, the theater critic. Then there is James Wood, a collegiate professor who also writes literary reviews. I've also come to like the music critic, David Hadju. Finally, Jed Perl was the art critic who made me understand an avenue of the art world that only mystified me before. These writers were fundamental teachers for me in my education.

To top it off the magazine had weekly political columns by people like Peter Beinart and Jonathan Chait. Most political magazines give portraits of politicians to better understand their motives. The portraits aren't meant to be define the politicians by their issues, but by their personal and political history. I always felt like I never got an accurate portrait of the world, but these writers wrote about issues first and foremost. They were very helpful in giving a true perspective of the political world.

I began to subscribe to the magazine three years ago, but the magazine I once loved is beginning to change for me. First, a few of the writers on staff are seemingly on hiatus or gone. James Woods has left the magazine for The New Yorker and Robert Brustein is a non-entity these days. He's still listed as on staff, but he hasn't written a piece, I think, in over a year. Other writers have written about theater for the magazine since then. Jed Perl writes now and then, but his presence isn't mandatory for subscription to the magazine. All his pieces end up in books later on. I've begun to just collect them to catch up on his work. David Hadju and Stanley Kauffmann are still the only regular contributors.

But Stanley Kauffmann is in question. He's been with the magazine since 1958 and is now a respectable 91 years of age. The fact he is still working is amazing, but his future can't last much longer. It seems The New Republic understands this because they have hired an online film critic in Christopher Orr. His position first was a video critic of new releases to DVD, but he has moved to theatrical releases as well. The magazine kept separation between him and Kauffmann by having him deal strictly with Hollywood releases as Kauffmann took on the latest art films, but now Orr is starting to review the same films as Kauffmann. The overlap happened recently when both Kauffmann and Orr reviewed Kenneth Branagh's remake of Sleuth. Kauffmann liked the film while Orr didn't. Kauffmann's review was published in the magazine, but Orr's hit the front page of the website.

It's understandable for two critics to be employed, but to have both of them reviewing the same films is ridiculous. It's showing that the elder critic is being moved out in favor of the younger one. The worst thing is that Christopher Orr is a terrible critic. He began by seriously reviewing Hollywood slop like X-Men 3 and his critical expertise hasn't gone beyond the general candidates for Academy Award consideration. His insights are no more professional than the good online film critic and his critical judgement seems geared to over praise the best Hollywood has to offer. At best he is a very good popcorn critic. Stanley Kauffmann has seen his best days already past him, but even Kauffmann's worst effort is still better than Orr's best. Kauffmann is a true critic with larger perspectives and ideas.

The political side of the magazine has lessened as Peter Beinart is no longer a constant presence at the magazine. He's simply a sometimes contributor and the magazine has shown greater weakness by having less columns about issues and problems and more about political profiles - the kind of profiles that look more the sale of a candidate than a critical rendering of them. The New Republic is the analysis side of the political and art world, but I'm not so sure I am comfortable with all their losses and who they believe are adequate replacements. My subscription ends next summer. I don't think I am going to renew it. The only reason I do is that if their aren't other magazines that look like the better option.