What do you think?
Rate this book
Do the Movies Have a Future?
One of our most important film writers draws from a selection of his published pieces over a dozen years to examine the art, business, and future of what used to be America’s primary popular entertainment and is now an endangered species.
David Denby chooses from among his much admired essays from the prestigious New Yorker to trace the radical evolution in the commerce and art of movies, which now compete more and more with television and the Internet in a global marketplace that drives the film business toward spectacle, digitalization, and perhaps eventual extinction.
Examining the history of films and their centrality to our popular culture, Denby contemplates “fandom” and declares that a movie culture without star adoration is impossible to imagine. He praises the directors he admires—those who have temperament, are unique to themselves, and “make more than car crashes.” And he honors two great critics, James Agee and Pauline Kael, as he places them in the movie history they both embodied and transcended.
Denby’s essays are passionate, wry, both admiring and skeptical. He writes about films as only a lover of movies can. eBook
David Denby chooses from among his much admired essays from the prestigious New Yorker to trace the radical evolution in the commerce and art of movies, which now compete more and more with television and the Internet in a global marketplace that drives the film business toward spectacle, digitalization, and perhaps eventual extinction.
Examining the history of films and their centrality to our popular culture, Denby contemplates “fandom” and declares that a movie culture without star adoration is impossible to imagine. He praises the directors he admires—those who have temperament, are unique to themselves, and “make more than car crashes.” And he honors two great critics, James Agee and Pauline Kael, as he places them in the movie history they both embodied and transcended.
Denby’s essays are passionate, wry, both admiring and skeptical. He writes about films as only a lover of movies can. eBook
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
6 people are currently reading
188 people want to read
About the author
David Denby
32 books89 followersDavid Denby is an American journalist, best known as a film critic for The New Yorker magazine. Denby grew up in New York City. He received a B.A. from Columbia University in 1965, and a master's degree from its journalism school in 1966.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
July 3, 2013
Since the '80s, when conglomerates first displaced directors as cinematic auteurs, critics have been actively engraving the tombstones of a twin burial plot: that of the movies and of their own function. These verbose laments for the transition from Truffaut to 'Transformers' are often slapped together with a best-of review collection and put out in book form. The New Yorker's David Denby is the latest intellectual-at-the-exit to be so marketed. His conclusions about a cinematic afterlife are the same as that of his brethren: a decided "not in my lifetime," save for the welcome contradiction of a handful of cult artists (Coens, Fincher, P.T. Anderson.) The probing is earnest and informed but not much fun; Denby isn't the lyric poet his hero James Agee was, nor the acidic showman of one-time mentor Pauline Kael (both of whom are profiled in the book.) He's a brainy serviceman whose writing is unlikely to live on after the form it's so devotedly tended to meets its maker.
October 7, 2012
Movies are commerce. Studios often produce bad movies. (As if they didn't in the 40s, 50s and 60s)Audiences love movie stars. There are too many movies with explosions and car chases. Technology has taken over the movie businessa -- and it ain't good. etc etc.
This is pretentious and superficial at the same time.
This is pretentious and superficial at the same time.
April 9, 2016
This is a model for how a film critic (or any critic, really) should re-present and anthologize their work. Rather than just collecting every review from the past five years, say, Denby organizes reviews and essays he's written by theme, and allows certain ideas to repeat, come to the fore, and be expressed in different ways. Denby curates his work, instead of just amassing it.
At first, Denby appears to fall into the fairly conservative critical position that everything made by Hollywood has fallen into empty CGI spectacle. A closer, full reading of the writing here shows that he's concerned mostly with the closure of traditional film culture, and posits that the best way to revive it is to have excellent work of all stripes. He's no elitist (or at least, not a horrible one) - there's an excellent essay reminding us that he was an acolyte of Pauline Kael, and his perceptive review of "Rises of the Planet of the Apes" demonstrates a desire to have filmmakers push the emotional limits of what's possible with digital effects work. He succeeded in making me want to visit films I hadn't considered before ("The Devil Wears Prada") and re-visit those I hadn't seen in some time. I suppose I have high praise for the book, mostly because it did what any good work of film criticism should do - make you want to watch movies!
At first, Denby appears to fall into the fairly conservative critical position that everything made by Hollywood has fallen into empty CGI spectacle. A closer, full reading of the writing here shows that he's concerned mostly with the closure of traditional film culture, and posits that the best way to revive it is to have excellent work of all stripes. He's no elitist (or at least, not a horrible one) - there's an excellent essay reminding us that he was an acolyte of Pauline Kael, and his perceptive review of "Rises of the Planet of the Apes" demonstrates a desire to have filmmakers push the emotional limits of what's possible with digital effects work. He succeeded in making me want to visit films I hadn't considered before ("The Devil Wears Prada") and re-visit those I hadn't seen in some time. I suppose I have high praise for the book, mostly because it did what any good work of film criticism should do - make you want to watch movies!
March 21, 2014
Here is what David Denby thinks of . . .
The Passion of the Christ: "A sickening death trip."
Leonardo DiCaprio: "the kind of sexually unthreatening cat-faced boy . . . that girls love to dream about"
Zac Efron: ditto
Russell Crowe: "ungovernable"
the Coen brothers: "The Coens may be the first major filmmakers since Preston Sturges to exploit the dramatic possibilities of stupidity."
The Big Lebowski: "a tribute to harmlessness, friendship, and team bowling"
Kill Bill: Vol. 1: "Coming out of this dazzling, whirling movie, I felt nothing."
This book taught me the phrase execution dependent, which applies to films that aren't sequels or designed for kids: In order to succeed, execution-dependent movies actually have to be good. Therefore the major studios avoid them because even when modestly priced, these films aren't worth the risk.
The Passion of the Christ: "A sickening death trip."
Leonardo DiCaprio: "the kind of sexually unthreatening cat-faced boy . . . that girls love to dream about"
Zac Efron: ditto
Russell Crowe: "ungovernable"
the Coen brothers: "The Coens may be the first major filmmakers since Preston Sturges to exploit the dramatic possibilities of stupidity."
The Big Lebowski: "a tribute to harmlessness, friendship, and team bowling"
Kill Bill: Vol. 1: "Coming out of this dazzling, whirling movie, I felt nothing."
This book taught me the phrase execution dependent, which applies to films that aren't sequels or designed for kids: In order to succeed, execution-dependent movies actually have to be good. Therefore the major studios avoid them because even when modestly priced, these films aren't worth the risk.
January 17, 2013
In Do Movies Have a Future, Denby is the most insightful when he discusses the films and directors that affected him positively. When he's negative, he seems, to me, whiny and old. He states clearly that his preferences are for realism and, guess what, he doesn't like modern CGI spectaculars. The CGI spectaculars may be emblematic of our time, but they also represent a point where old critics don't get it anymore. Still, I have enjoyed Denby's writing in the past and this book is especially helpful in considering American film over the last 25 years.
July 7, 2021
I started this year's ago and finally finished it up. The opening essay about the effect of market-driven franchise and blockbuster movies on exposure and production of more fulfilling independent films still makes sense though cable viewing and series TV has changed things a bit.
There are always accusations of snobbery for preferring smaller more humane films but I think the push and acceptance of these escapist, faux-mythological entertainments serves to enslave the masses who willingly turn away from themselves as a means of navigating life and embrace a fantasy ideal - a dangerous turn, now fully embraced in movie culture.
The book also has essays, previously published on Genre, Directors, and the critics, Agee and Kael. Denby is readable and the sum of the writing serves well the theme of celebrating cinema at its best.
I'm glad to have finally wrapped up the reading.
There are always accusations of snobbery for preferring smaller more humane films but I think the push and acceptance of these escapist, faux-mythological entertainments serves to enslave the masses who willingly turn away from themselves as a means of navigating life and embrace a fantasy ideal - a dangerous turn, now fully embraced in movie culture.
The book also has essays, previously published on Genre, Directors, and the critics, Agee and Kael. Denby is readable and the sum of the writing serves well the theme of celebrating cinema at its best.
I'm glad to have finally wrapped up the reading.
June 4, 2025
Do the movies have a future? Does mediocrity have a future? Does white male privilege have a future? Does the New Yorker have a future? These are the questions that kept me up nights for years, until I read this fascinating book. The high point was unquestionably David Denby's spirited defense of Pretty Woman, which he insists is "funny and likable." Somehow it brought tears to my eyes. I mean, the way David Denby needs to defend a prostitute, insisting that she's "not a whore at heart." I mean, I guess he'd know. Writing for the New Yorker and all. I mean like Bernardo says, "every dog knows his own."
April 13, 2018
Superbly insightful and intelligent essays that cover many aspects of film. Denby covers a wide swath- everything from Joan Crawford to the Coen Brothers. From Victor Fleming to "Knocked Up." He shines a light on what has been lost in the modern cinema but also points out some recent masterpieces that you may have missed.
August 26, 2016
David Denby has carved out a decent place for himself in recent years as the staunch defender of blockbusters of above average quality, a place he ended up in part because he seems mostly to prefer writing about movies that are seen by millions of people, as long as they aren't based on comic books. This, after all, is the guy who got actual death threats for pointing out that the Dark Knight marketing team should hold off on promoting their Keysi fight choreography until they hired a cinematographer who could shoot it in a comprehensible fashion, ever since, superhero movies will find him loaded for bear. He's also somewhat well known amongst internet types for what is reportedly one of the worst books ever written on contemporary culture, "Snark", a book about how you shouldn't make fun of things, ever, unless you're David Denby, who does it the right way, because he's...older than you? It's not an argument that makes a lot of sense.
That's who he is--and yes, some of that old marm-ishness does come through in this 2012 collection of his movie reviews. He never whips out a full on tsk-tsk, but like many old guard critics who remember what it was like before Ain't It Cool came along, Denby has a tendency to play his age a little too expressively, consistently hinting at a time when things were a little bit simpler and entertainment was a little bit smarter. Even when you agree with him on the dwindling of the American movie star or the merchandised megalomania of corporate transmedia intellectual property farms, it feels a little too obvious, a little too stale. "Corporations suck" is something you write in sharpie on a skateboard, it's a little too short to be a thesis past those years. Better to focus on what you like, David. You don't seem to have an actual case against the things you don't.
That's who he is--and yes, some of that old marm-ishness does come through in this 2012 collection of his movie reviews. He never whips out a full on tsk-tsk, but like many old guard critics who remember what it was like before Ain't It Cool came along, Denby has a tendency to play his age a little too expressively, consistently hinting at a time when things were a little bit simpler and entertainment was a little bit smarter. Even when you agree with him on the dwindling of the American movie star or the merchandised megalomania of corporate transmedia intellectual property farms, it feels a little too obvious, a little too stale. "Corporations suck" is something you write in sharpie on a skateboard, it's a little too short to be a thesis past those years. Better to focus on what you like, David. You don't seem to have an actual case against the things you don't.
April 17, 2013
As with many books I decide to read, I came upon this one through an interview with author on RadioWest http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/do-mov..., which is worth listening to. I would give this 3 and half stars. Denby is the film critic for the New Yorker and this book is a collection of reviews and other essays which have appeared there and a few that have not been published before. With the death of Pauline Kael, Andrew Saris, Gene Siskel and most recently Roger Ebert, the film critic might be considered an endangered species. Certainly Denby argues that the dearth of intelligent movies for adults may put the craft of film criticism out of business. He bemoans the conglomerate aesthetic and the branding/franchising of movies as a product. I don't think he gives enough credit to the exciting numbers of smaller independent films that find their way to audiences through the Salt Lake Film Society or BBF here. The chapters I enjoyed most were those on Joan Crawford, and the directors he highlights, especially my favorite, Pedro Almadovar. The most revealing chapter was the one where Denby confesses to having been a "Paulette"' those young acolytes who surrounded Pauline Kael, and his own maturation process in finding his own voice. I am not sure if Denby fully answers the question of his book's title, but it was very pleasurable and insightful reading.
August 28, 2013
Highlights here are an excellent essay on Pauline Kael and her legacy (Denby was one of the much-discussed "Paulettes" back in the day), and numerous cranky observations on the state of film in the digital age, albeit with some rays of hope spraying through the increasingly thick clouds of doom. Enjoyed Denby's erudition and passion - a good book for film buffs looking to delve deeper into the art form.
October 31, 2014
I liked it more than I thought I would in the beginning but it really just made me miss Roger Ebert all over again. I didn't always agree with him but even when we were on opposite sides of an opinion I would love the way he hated something. Denby just makes me wish that he would avoid the things I like so that I wouldn't have to hear his obnoxious, judgmental opinion on it.
January 26, 2013
A fine collection by a fine critic. Although I disagree with Denby about many individual films, his reflections on the "conglomerate aesthetic" that may be the death of film art are dead on. More of a collection of New Yorker pieces than the title indicates, this is still a coherent and insightful book that any serious movie lover should look into.
May 30, 2014
A very perceptive critique of movies. I, especially enjoyed the excerpts on genres.
July 10, 2018
It seems weird to criticize a book of criticism, or review the work of a reviewer, but here goes. This slightly dated book (based on material written between the 1990s and about 2011) brings together some critical essays by a veteran New Yorker film critic who has seen a lot of movie history during his career, which (like my life) started in the early 1970s. He also studied film at a university level, which adds even more credibility to his opinion. And though there are some details on which, nevertheless, I am convinced he is full of it, his major argument comes across pretty solidly: the film business, as it has been operating during the last couple decades, is killing the movies.
That is to say, it is killing their ability to bring audiences together as a community, to communicate with them meaningfully, to create emotional experiences for them, to leave an impression on them that they will think about and talk about later, to tell stories and depict images that come to life in their imagination. The film business is doing this, he argues, by devoting all its large-scale investments to crappily made blockbuster franchise/genre flicks full of meaningless fantasy spectacle, investing only meager crumbs in a few "art-house" movies, and omitting the whole middle range of quality entertainment - including whole genres that are sadly fading away. The blockbusters bemuse the eye with movement and the ear with noise, while seldom showing anything real.
Denby reminds the reader that there are alternatives, selecting examples of his own previously published (and some unpublished) articles organized by director, genre, critics, and other issues. Yes, they're just movie reviews, and I've read a lot of them by other writers; but they're very thoughtful and thought-provoking ones. His appreciation of the film critic Pauline Kael was very personal and touching. His ditto of James Agee includes samples of super-intelligent prose, as well as a few tid-bits of awe-inspiring bitchiness. His review of a movie that I have never seen, and still may never see (I'm not sure I have the strength for it), actually made me cry. I kid you not. Also, I laughed out loud several times during this book. Did I mention it's a book of film criticism? Either there's something wrong with me, or David Denby has the stuff.
I thought he was wrong about a couple of movies. I agreed with his opinion about at least one film, but not with his reason for arriving at it. I thought his views about the work of at least one director, one film, and one whole school of film-making were half-baked. Criticism is, after all, opinion; everyone has one and is welcome to it. But in this book I also learned a lot about the history of film and how to watch them and evaluate them. Will I tell you which bits I most enjoyed learning about? No. You go ahead and read this book, or don't read it, and learn what you like. What I will say is that a writer who can express himself as well as Denby deserves some credit, a reasonable doubt at least, for having the ability to think clearly and, when he applies that ability to something worth thinking about, his opinion is worth reading. This book, for what its moment in film history is worth (and it's still recent enough to apply today, for the most part), is still out there, searching for readers who have the clarity of mind to consider Denby's opinion about the movie business - its past, present, and future. Perhaps by helping train those minds to see and understand what is and isn't happening on the silver screen, this book will affect the answer to the question opened by its title.
That is to say, it is killing their ability to bring audiences together as a community, to communicate with them meaningfully, to create emotional experiences for them, to leave an impression on them that they will think about and talk about later, to tell stories and depict images that come to life in their imagination. The film business is doing this, he argues, by devoting all its large-scale investments to crappily made blockbuster franchise/genre flicks full of meaningless fantasy spectacle, investing only meager crumbs in a few "art-house" movies, and omitting the whole middle range of quality entertainment - including whole genres that are sadly fading away. The blockbusters bemuse the eye with movement and the ear with noise, while seldom showing anything real.
Denby reminds the reader that there are alternatives, selecting examples of his own previously published (and some unpublished) articles organized by director, genre, critics, and other issues. Yes, they're just movie reviews, and I've read a lot of them by other writers; but they're very thoughtful and thought-provoking ones. His appreciation of the film critic Pauline Kael was very personal and touching. His ditto of James Agee includes samples of super-intelligent prose, as well as a few tid-bits of awe-inspiring bitchiness. His review of a movie that I have never seen, and still may never see (I'm not sure I have the strength for it), actually made me cry. I kid you not. Also, I laughed out loud several times during this book. Did I mention it's a book of film criticism? Either there's something wrong with me, or David Denby has the stuff.
I thought he was wrong about a couple of movies. I agreed with his opinion about at least one film, but not with his reason for arriving at it. I thought his views about the work of at least one director, one film, and one whole school of film-making were half-baked. Criticism is, after all, opinion; everyone has one and is welcome to it. But in this book I also learned a lot about the history of film and how to watch them and evaluate them. Will I tell you which bits I most enjoyed learning about? No. You go ahead and read this book, or don't read it, and learn what you like. What I will say is that a writer who can express himself as well as Denby deserves some credit, a reasonable doubt at least, for having the ability to think clearly and, when he applies that ability to something worth thinking about, his opinion is worth reading. This book, for what its moment in film history is worth (and it's still recent enough to apply today, for the most part), is still out there, searching for readers who have the clarity of mind to consider Denby's opinion about the movie business - its past, present, and future. Perhaps by helping train those minds to see and understand what is and isn't happening on the silver screen, this book will affect the answer to the question opened by its title.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews