Quantcast

Elvis Theories: The Mitchell Variations


The NY magazine piece about Elvis Mitchell's departure from the Times, the one Gawker hinted at last week, is online It's an interesting look at Mitchell's enterprise as film critic, professor, social butterfly, media personality, and black journalist. If you're into film criticism, you'll find it a good read, as it marks a fascinating turn of events from five years ago, when Mitchell and newly promoted chief movie critic, A.O. Scott, were first annointed - Sean Elder wrote a great piece for Salon back then about, what Mitchell dubbed, the I Spy like hiring of himself and Scott - when Roger Ebert and others were skeptical of the moves, especially since Scott was coming from book reviewing; now, according to NY magazine, many think Scott is the more talented writer. Also, amid the questions about Mitchell's opportunism, Gothamist finds a Salon article quote from Eric Celeste (he edited Mitchell at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram) telling, "You treat your superstars different than you do everybody else. And Elvis is a superstar."

In the end, the Times wanted to reinvigorate their movie reviews, and they did that by hiring Mitchell and Scott (they weren't going to do it with Stephen Holden, bless him). Gothamist will be sad to see Elvis Mitchell leave the Times, but we're sure he'll back in some way, shape or form.

In the meantime, check out Mitchell's KCRW show, The Treatment.
Ken Auletta's 2002 New Yorker profile of former Times executive editor Howell Raines contains the teeniest mentions of the Times movie desk: "At first, he believed that three movie reviewers were too many, and worried that none had the authority of the late Vincent Canby, he does not want all three to appear on the same day and wants them writing on broader subjects as well."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • I'm so sad to hear he's leaving the Times. I thought he was the best reviewer they had by far. He did what a good critic should: connect the piece being reviewed to a larger continuum. And his little explanations of why a movie got a particular MPAA rating were often gold nuggets just by themselves. He is indeed a superstar -- it's a shame the Times didn't recognize him as such.

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com