The state of Chrisicisms
It’s been a good four years.
It’s hard to believe I’ve been writing this newsletter for four years. I have a tendency to bounce around platforms and, over the last decade, I’ve written for newspapers, magazines that haven’t gotten off the ground, blog networks, and other websites. None of them have lasted as long as this newsletter.
In fact, when I launched Chrisicisms on Sept. 11, 2020, my plan was to simply use it as an aggregate of the writing and podcasting I was doing elsewhere. At the time, I had my own blog on Patheos and I was writing reviews for a local website. I had two podcasts – one devoted to movies (We’re Watching Here, which still runs on this site) and another dedicated to Christian culture. This newsletter was created as a weekly digest of what I was publishing elsewhere and was little more than some random thoughts from me, followed by a collection of links.
But I quickly began to realize that having a subscriber-based publication, as opposed to a blog people had to seek out, created different opportunities. Because this was a publication that ran under my name, and because people were subscribing to hear my specific thoughts, I could be a little more personal. My writing didn’t have to fit a house style. I could indulge my specific, nerdy interests. So, I shifted, reviewing new releases for other sites and using this newsletter for longer-form thoughts on movies, mostly older ones. I experimented with posts on faith, politics and personal matters. My desire was to have this place be a place of conversation about cinema and, on occasion, other matters.
Earlier this year, I took a big step. I was still writing new release reviews for another site, and I began to wonder what good that was doing me. New release reviews are a good way to draw in an audience, and yet, I was directing them toward a site that wasn’t my home. Was I losing potential readers by publishing elsewhere?
It actually caused a bit of existential wrestling. I asked why I was writing for other sites when I had a perfectly good outlet that I managed under my own name. The answer was – who was I to think I deserved any access to seeing and reviewing new releases for my own site? It was a question of legitimacy, one that I think comes up a great deal in online film criticism. If I was reviewing them for a site I created, what was the difference between me and just an average run-of-the-mill blogger? Who was I to think I deserved any access without a bigger site behind me?
It’s a valid question, and it’s one more online critics should be asking themselves. When I composed my graduate thesis on online film criticism, the question of legitimacy came up a great deal. It’s how we learn who to gravitate toward as trusted voices in an age when anyone can publish a movie review. And so, I asked myself: What made me legitimate if I didn’t have a bigger site I was working for?
It’s easy for these questions to cause me to fold in on myself and shrink away. I’m not Roger Ebert, David Ehrlich or Alissa Wilkinson, either in terms of audience or critical prowess or writing ability. Rotten Tomatoes still has yet to accept me. This isn’t a full-time job (although most critics don’t do this full time); it’s a hobby that sometimes makes me a little bit of money.
And yet, the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was simply selling myself short. Because I have been reviewing films for a variety of professional sites for nearly 20 years. I was “legitimate” enough to be asked to become a founding member of the Detroit Film Critics Society in 2007. I’ve been “legitimate” enough to be able to write my thoughts on film for websites I respect and appear on podcasts that are doing solid criticism. I’m “legitimate” enough to have been asked to contribute a chapter for a book on movies and faith. I’m on the leadership board of another local critics group. I have a graduate degree in media arts and studies.
Basically, the only one questioning my legitimacy was me (and Rotten Tomatoes – we’ll get there one day).
So, I decided earlier this year that I would make this newsletter my main outlet and began writing reviews for new films here to go along with my other thoughts. I’ll admit I was a bit afraid readership would suffer without the influx of readers catching my reviews elsewhere. But then, a funny thing happened. I don’t pay too much attention to subscriber numbers – that’s just asking for more anxiety and existential angst – but I’ll occasionally look back. And while the newsletter has seen slow but consistent growth over the last four years, something crazy happened recently. Within the space of this summer, my subscriber base doubled and I was having the highest number of visitors I’ve had since starting. So, something’s working.
I thought now would be a good time to stop and assess what’s working, where I need to make some shifts and what you can expect going forward.
But before I do that, I just want to thank each and every one of you who subscribes, reads, comments, shares and, in some cases, have even pledged financial support. It’s incredibly gratifying and touching to know that there are people who have chosen to receive this email because they appreciate my voice. When you write for a site, you don’t know if people are just clicking over from Google or who returns. With a newsletter, I have access to a growing list of readers and – judging by open rates – they are engaged. Thank you. My goal with my writing has never been to position myself as an expert or have my reviews serve as some sort of “consumers guide.” It’s been to create a space for conversation, be that about film, television, pop culture or faith. Thank you for taking part in this conversation. The writing here has been the most fulfilling I’ve done in years, and I firmly believe that’s because of the community that is being cultivated.
So, just a few notes on what I’ve been thinking and planning for as Chrisicisms enters its fourth year.
To change the title?
I toyed a little bit with whether to change the title of this newsletter from Chrisicisms to something that sounded a bit loftier. I quickly decided against it. I like the pun on my name. I’m a dad; puns are in my blood. Plus, silly as the title might be, it sums up what I want from this site – it’s my views and perspective. So, it’s going to stay Chrisicisms.
Frequency
When I began Chrisicisms, my goal was to publish a newsletter once a week. That made sense; I was writing and podcasting elsewhere, and this was just intended as a digest. I quickly learned I liked writing here, and began writing and publishing more frequently. Sometimes, I pushed myself a bit too hard – I initially had to have posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and the way I set myself up with Franchise Fridays was that I had to have seen and written about an old movie every single week. And, well, with a full-time job, kids and other responsibilities, the mental energy wasn’t quite there to watch and write at that pace. So, I had to strategize.
My goal is to ensure that there are at least 2-3 entries every week. I’ve set up an editorial calendar that right now takes me through December and, when possible, I’ve written and scheduled posts early (that’s not always possible with new releases). I’m not going to hold myself to certain days of the weeks for newsletters simply because life throws curves and because embargo dates sometimes mean a review hits earlier in the week than on, say, Friday (or, in the case of movies like this week’s Transformers One, the review goes live a whole week early). But 2-3 posts a week – and sometimes more – is a doable rhythm, and if there’s a reason I need to step back and take a break, I’ll post it in the notes.
Old or new?
This newsletter began with a focus on older movies simply because I was writing new release reviews elsewhere. As I said, I started incorporating new release reviews this year and it’s been good for the site. But you’ll still see essays and thoughts on older films here pretty regularly. There are two reasons for that. The first is logistical; it’s obviously easier to watch an older movie and write about it early. It’s a good way to ensure content continues to flow. But I’ll also be honest: I think writing about older movies is often more rewarding from a critical perspective. There’s more ability to take context into account and see where it sits in a filmography. Plus, I don’t have to worry as much about spoilers. Writing reviews of old films exercises a different critical muscle. Reviewing new releases also presents its own challenges and, let’s be honest, draws in new readers. So, there will continue to be a mix of old and new reviews. Sometimes, the balance may shift toward one or the other – in the late fall, for instance, it shifts pretty heavily toward end-of-year releases and catch ups, while January and February will likely focus on older films because of a traditionally anemic release schedule.
Features
One thing that helps me keep focused in my writing is to have ongoing features that I try to spread out. That started with Franchise Friday – which is actually the hardest to keep ongoing because it requires watching multiple movies for one entry. In the summer, I often do a retrospective series and this year I’m revisiting movies from 1999. I’m also a big fan of seasonal-themed features, so expect some horror-centric stuff in November and another Christmas series in December. I’m toying with some other features, including:
Jesus Junkyard: I wrote a few weeks ago that I’m writing more about faith. I recognize that might not be why many people subscribe to this newsletter (I also realize it’s exactly why others subscribe), so I’m going to try to make these regular features that publish on Sundays and call them out. Because many of my faith thoughts have to deal with Christian culture, and I’ve been fascinated by the term “Jesus Junk,” I’ve appropriated the name on an old blog I used to have. These are fun posts to write, and right now I have about a month’s worth of posts lined up and scheduled.
Saturday coffee: I’m still toying with how frequently to write these. Basically, I think this will just come up if I have a random thought that doesn’t fit neatly elsewhere, maybe about film news or a cultural item. And my plan is I’d just sit and crank it out quickly on a Saturday, maybe even limiting my writing time so it’s a quick hit. Eventually, this will be a paid subscriber only feature.
Chrisicisms: I haven’t done one of these in awhile, but I’d like to bring it back. Consider it a lengthier and maybe more serious version of a Saturday coffee entry. If I have something on my mind, this is a feature where I can write what is basically an editorial column. Some might eventually be for paid subscribers and others will be free; I guess it just depends on the column. I assume you’ll see a few of these as the election draws nearer.
Franchise Friday: I haven’t done one of these in awhile. It’s one of my favorite features but, as I said, it’s also one of the most time-consuming because of how many films it demands. I strive to keep these on a monthly schedule, but I haven’t done one in awhile. I’m hoping to get back to this in October for a horror-related one. But this is one to hold loosely.
So you want to be a critic. This is a monthly series I’m thinking of starting this fall or early next year. Like I said, I’ve been doing this for nearly 20 years. I’ve seen the world of film criticisms change dramatically over that time; it was the focus of my grad school thesis. I’ve toyed around with eventually writing a book about film criticism for people interested in the craft. So, I hope to occasionally write about my experiences with criticism and how it’s shifting as a way to gauge interest and see if there’s something there.
Podcasts, videos, etc.: For five years, one of the highlights of my month has been recording the podcast We’re Watching Here with my friend and fellow critic Perry Seibert. Given that life is insanely busy, I struggle to keep us on a rhythm. But We’re Watching Here will continue monthly(ish) because it’s too much fun to talk movies with Perry. I would love to experiment with some other audio/visual elements on this site – it’s been something I’ve considered for a few years – and my hope it to start playing around with it in 2025.
These features are mainly guides to help me organize my editorial calendar. But because this is something I do in my spare time along with family responsibilities, church responsibilities and life in general, consider this more of a guide than a set in stone schedule. But I hope it gives an idea of what I want to move toward in this newsletter’s future.
Support is appreciated, never expected
I love what is happening here at Chrisicisms, and I feel fulfilled in my reviewing in a way that I have not since I first started doing this at a newspaper in 2005. That said, I have to admit it’s time consuming. It takes an evening out of my schedule to go to a screening (which normally happens after work and a good distance from my home). It takes time to sit down in the evening and write a review. As such, pledges for financial support or tossing a few bucks in for a subscription and some special features is always appreciated.
I’ve always maintained this newsletter will have regular free features, and I intend to keep that. I’ve experimented with a few subscriber-only posts, and will probably move a little more heavily into that in 2025. For now, I’ll simply say that pledging a few bucks a month is a great encouragement for this site that helps justify the time I spend doing this. If you are willing to kick in a few bucks every month, just click the “subscribe” button. But please know that free subscriptions, comments, and sharing or recommending this newsletter are also deeply appreciated. I’ll do some more subscriber-only stuff in the future to justify that extra that’s being pitched in, but there will always be free content here.
Thank you again for your support over the last four years, and I look forward to what’s in store!