A starry but superficial Netflix doc

With Marshall Curry The New Yorker at 100A magazine famous for its erudition and its conservation receive a polishing, fun and generally superficial Reader digest Summary of a documentary.

Very little, it is not bad with the 96 -minute version of The New YorkerThe story of Curry (Street fight) Tells (first at Telluride before a possible launch of Netflix) – other than the completely inevitable consciousness of all the pieces in history which are not told with a desirable depth, or at all.

When Tina Brown resumed the magazine in 1992 as only her fourth editor -in -chief, there were fears of the outside that she would deliver a product that was brighter, more starry, but generally less substantial than what the devoted readers of the magazine were looking for. The New Yorker at 100 is a brilliant, more starry, but generally a less substantial documentary, that the devoted readers of the magazine probably want.

My parents subscribed to The New Yorker Throughout my childhood. I loved the cartoons and some of the snooting content and more investigation, but what I really loved and what shaped me as a writer and thinker was Roger Angell’s reflections on baseball and film critics of Pauline Kael. Kael is presented in the pre-creation of the Doc prelude as if she were going to play a major role in the documentary, but she has never mentioned again, while Angell is simply never mentioned. Can you tell the story of The New Yorker Without Roger Angell? I guess. Can you say without Pauline Kael? Not well.

But I suppose the most New York Opancies will feel similar gaps, leading me to my results: The New Yorker at 100 should have been a six -hour documentation. The magazine and its sometimes complicated heritage deserve nothing less.

Curry approach to The New YorkerLinked to the 100th anniversary number of this spring, is more like the kind of too excited tribute problem that you may see in your grocery checkout, bringing together a collection of pretty photos and parts pointed out in a hurry to honor a deceased cinema or a new Star Wars movie.

David Remnick, winner of the Pulitzer Prize and New York A publisher since 1998, is the kind guide to the documentary on what is a trip to several levels through the past and the present of the magazine.

There is the production of the 100th anniversary issue, which we are witnessing the first history fields to design concept meetings at the artistic arguments at different stages of the publishing and production process.

This is an opportunity for Curry to make superficial capsule presentations to a number of currents New York Heavy goods vehicles, including longtime artistic director Françoise Mouly, comic book editor Emma Allen, chief editor of fiction Deborah Treisman and director of the veteran office Bruce Diones, key writers like Nick Paumgarten, Hilton Als and Rachel Syme, and chief researcher Fergus McIntosh, current Short facts ”.

Then there is a booming trip along this 100 -year story, told by Julianne Moore. It makes us guide through capsule summaries of key moments of the New Yorker, including the publications of John Hersey Hiroshima And Rachel Carson Silent spring and the rise and the brutal departure of the aforementioned brown. It is left to Moore to give overwhelming statistics on the exclusion by the magazine of black writers for most of its early history, then to highlight the recruitment of William Shawn by James Baldwin to write “The letter of a region in my mind”, which is treated here as a complete and total solution to a problem which has been barely studied.

Then there are many pretty and funny and fairly funny celebrities – Jon Hamm, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jesse Eisenberg and many others – sitting in a completely white room in a chair of the original New York The offices that talk about how much they love The New YorkerWhen they became aware for the first time The New Yorker And, in many cases, what it meant when their writing appeared for the first time in The New Yorker.

The number of times my notes on The New Yorker at 100 Say: “It was fun, but tell me more” exceeds a dozen.

Hearing about the cartoon selection process, Allen’s strategy to influence Remnick’s selections and see the person behind Roz Chast’s name is fun! But tell me more!

Assisting the rigor of the process of verifying the facts and having a suspicion of the kind of people who would revolve towards this demanding work is fun! But tell me more!

See how some of the magazine staff editors have these extremely open rhythms that allow them to walk in the streets of Manhattan, regularly frequent marginal art exhibitions or trips to foreign countries just to find a potential story is fun! But tell me more!

In my ideal world, the 100th anniversary number and its production could have obtained a full hour. The story of the long -form journalism magazine could have spent an hour. Caricatures could easily receive an hour. The evolution of the magazine of a mainly male and entirely white thing that its current staff looks like could have obtained an hour. Criticism, emphasizing Pauline Kael, could have spent an hour. The covers, with more discussion on the emblematic avatar Eustace Tilley and several controversial questions, could have received an hour. I am not sure that everyone would have liked an hour on the verification of the facts, but I would. All that and I have always left Roger Angell.

It’s like that: The New Yorker at 100 is an advertisement for The New Yorker And it is not a clearance like something else. But at that time, it should at least be an advertisement for the magazine that suits the voice, aesthetics and ethics of the magazine significantly. The approach of this film would have been entertaining and rightly jointly for more magazines that I cannot count. It just hurts for The New Yorker.