After two decades and 1,000 episodes of Filmspotting, you could say that podcasters Adam Kempenaar and Josh Larsen are on a mission. Every week since 2005 (2012 with the current hosts), Filmspotting has fostered discussion about movies new and old through reviews, top-five lists, and listener polls. Kempenaar and Larsen regularly invite filmmakers like Rian Johnson (a longtime supporter) and Jeff Nichols and fellow critics like The Chicago Tribune‘s Michael Phillips to go on deep dives or just provide additional perspectives. In that light, you might also look at the first-ever Filmspotting Fest, which runs February 28 through March 2 in Chicago, as the culmination of their work.
But, as Kempenaar and Larsen tell The A.V. Club, the podcast’s main objective remains sharing their passion for movies with listeners. Their genial expertise helped them establish a loyal following, buffering them from the algorithm-ravaged landscape of cultural criticism. They know enough to know what they don’t know—and they remedy the gaps in their knowledge of cinema with marathons—but also to recognize that their beloved podcast is poised for a new stage in its evolution. Though there’s no end in sight for Filmspotting, Kempenaar does see the Filmspotting Fest as reflective of the ethos of the podcast. “We would not be here 20 years later if it wasn’t for the community that’s been built around our show,” Kempenaar says, and now he and Larsen “get to take in these films on the big screen that have been really important to the show’s history with guests, filmmakers, and critics who’ve been crucial parts of the show’s history, and all kind of celebrate together and all process these films together in the moment. It just feels like it is what the show ultimately has always been about.”
Ahead of the inaugural Filmspotting Fest, The A.V. Club spoke to Larsen and Kempenaar about how criticism and podcasting have evolved alongside each other, as well as the importance of speaking to a specific audience versus aiming for the broadest one.
The A.V. Club: After 20 years of the podcast, 12 years co-hosting together, and over 1,000 episodes, do you still think of podcasting as new media?
Adam Kempenaar: It’s funny you asked that because previously talking with someone, they were referring to us almost as legacy media now. And I suppose that’s true when we’ve been doing podcasting for 20 years and we certainly feel like the medium’s evolving. We’ve even had to figure out how we’re going to evolve with the times and go from a podcast that traditionally has been explicitly audio and has really utilized that format. What I mean by that is taking advantage of the fact that it is edited and we know we have that freedom, and we also know that we’re going to work in clips and we’re going to work in music and we’re going to try to augment and provide context to what we’re discussing. You can’t do that so much with a video podcast, but this is the world we live in now, and you need to have a video version and you need to be on social media with your clips. We’re trying to evolve with those times as well and have taken some steps recently to do that. So, I see it evolving in a lot of different ways. It’s always expanding, but yeah, I suppose now I feel like podcasting is pretty well entrenched.
Josh Larsen: It feels like it’s entrenched, it’s viable, it’s still thriving, but it is morphing. It’s not so much that something else is coming to replace it, but it feels like podcasting is morphing into a new form that yes, we’ll incorporate video in some way. So, that’s kind of exciting to think about looking ahead beyond 20 years of this show, what it might look like. I feel like we’re well positioned though, because whatever the form it’s taken, even if you go back to the best critics in print media that you may have enjoyed when that was the dominant form years ago, as long as we have the passion for the movies and for discussing them and digging into them and going back and forth about them, that’s going to translate into whatever it might look like, whether it’s different format or video or audio or how those two things are combined. As long as that passion is there for the films themselves, I think we’re well set up to continue to thrive in terms of film.
AK: Passion—and hopefully delivering some kind of benefit for the listener as long as that’s there. I do think that starts with the interplay between us and if we are engaged with each other and having a conversation that we’re enjoying and that is drawing out interesting ideas. If that’s there, if that chemistry, if you will, is there, then I agree with Josh, hopefully it can translate.
AVC: Adam, that’s very similar to a sentiment you shared with Chicagoist back in 2005: “It’s better in a way to serve yourself. The show will be much better if we care about what we’re talking about versus trying to please everyone.” It sounds like that’s something you have really tried to stick to the last 20 years.
AK: Yeah, we definitely have. I think that’s the beauty actually of podcasting versus broadcasting, where broadcasting is trying to broadly appeal to people and try to bring in as many folks as possible. Of course we would like as many listeners as possible, but we always recognize that we can serve whatever audience turns out to be the audience for this show. And it starts with they’re going to have a connection to us if we are really connected to what we’re talking about.
Yes, we ask our listeners all the time for input and sometimes they weigh in through polls that directly dictate what we talk about, but for the most part, our guide is our gut and our minds, as far as what we want to talk about. And we hope that if we’re engaged in that way, then our audience will be as well. Part of that too is reflected in things like a segment we do on the show that we’ve done now 50 of these over the years, which is kind of crazy to consider, but we have segments called Marathons where we just acknowledge cinematic holes in our education. Somehow we’ve never seen films by this filmmaker or from this region or this genre or this performer so let’s dive in, and we do like a six-film series. In a lot of cases, these are more obscure filmmakers or genres, and we recognize that it’s probably not going to appeal to a mass audience. There aren’t a lot of people out there that are looking for deep dives on films by Russian master Andrei Tarkovsky. But you know what? We really want to see these films and we really want to talk about ’em. And we know that there are people out there that if we are passionate about ’em, they’ll be engaged in the conversation.
I’m always amazed and pleased at the number of people who write in and say, “I love listening to the show, and I’ll be honest, I don’t get to see even half the movies you talk about.” They just enjoy the spirited conversation and the exchange of ideas. They like hearing people talk about film even if they’re not going to see that movie themselves. So, I think that spirit’s very much still alive, and what drives us is as long as we’re into it—as long as we can’t wait to talk about this every week, then hopefully the audience will follow.
JL: Well, when it comes to those marathons, that’s where the passion often emerges in an unexpected way, because what we’ll talk about with each marathon, we tend to have a discovery. Quite frequently it’s the same discovery, where it’s a movie in that marathon that just reignites the enthusiasm for cinema, even if it may be a film that’s decades old. And we’re including one of those titles at Filmspotting Fest. That’s why we put in Satyajit Ray; his filmography was a great example of this. Neither of us were familiar with him and we were both embarrassed by that when we did that marathon a number of years ago. And I think a couple of those movies in that marathon, we considered discoveries for sure, but Pather Panchali was absolutely one where that just reignites the engine for years more of movie watching when you see something like that. And so we did want to represent that experience with Filmspotting Fest too, and that’s why we programmed Pather Panchali.
AVC: You have both approached film criticism from a few different ways, through writing, teaching, and the podcast. There’s been a shift lately where film criticism has become almost this battleground, and many people are misunderstanding its purpose. What do you think the average person’s biggest misconception is about film criticism right now?
JL: Right now, I would say the misconception is that there is a correct answer on social media. There’s a lot of policing that goes on about everything, but certainly opinions about art and opinions about movies, and this can come from all directions and all angles, but there seems to be this mindset where we as a collective on social media—as if that could be a thing—but within our own social media bubbles, we as a collective need to make a final decision on this movie. And I don’t think film criticism has ever really been about that. Every good critic should speak with authority about their position and what they feel about a movie, but also allow space for other opinions, otherwise it’s a one-way channel. This is where film criticism within podcasting is vital because the very nature of it is, yes, often we agree, but there are plenty of times when we don’t. That sort of conversation is making space for different vantage points, different interpretations of a film, which is what the best filmmakers are hoping for anyway. In my mind, the best filmmakers are not the ones who want to necessarily have everyone gobble up the message that they hope to deliver, but they want to create something mysterious, intriguing, thought-provoking that people can then chew over. That’s what we’re doing on the show, is chewing over what they’ve made.
AK: Yeah, I’ll piggyback off that and say I’m surprised still, in 2025, the number of people who think that criticism and film criticism specifically somehow is about objectivity or should reflect objectivity as opposed to recognizing how fully subjective the act of engaging in criticism is. Now, one of the things we definitely try to do every week on the show is make sure that we are backing up our points with textual evidence. You have to have a point of view and you have to make an argument. You have to be able to support your argument. You have to explain why you feel the way you do, but at the end of the day, you are articulating why you feel the way you do.
There isn’t one correct answer, to Josh’s point, and part of it is, especially as the country obviously has become even more fractured and divisive. You’ll get arguments or you’ll get comments sometimes from people who will take issue with certain political things that we might say or other critics might say. They’ll effectively give you the stick to the film argument like stick to basketball, but stick to film. Just tell me that the cinematography is great. Tell me that the acting’s great. That’s not what criticism is about. And it is fundamentally personal. Personal can be political; personal can be a lot of things, but you’re bringing the entire spectrum of who you are as an individual to your movie-watching. And that needs to translate to the conversation. I am surprised, I think there’s still a lot of people, maybe in some ways they’re bad actors and they’re using that to try to make other points or to try to just keep people in their place and not encourage those conversations. But I still see that sort of objectivity argument pop up here and there, and I’m surprised by it.
AVC: In that vein of there being no correct answer, I’m always struck when—even if it’s kind of lovely that a reader would take someone else’s taste this much to heart—in response to a podcast like Filmspotting or a critic sharing their review, people immediately say “Thanks for telling me this is terrible, I’m not going to watch it.”
AK: Yeah, an idea that I latched onto many years ago, honestly even before Filmspotting, when I was writing reviews as a grad student for The Daily Iowan in Iowa City, and I probably was informed, certainly from reading people like Roger Ebert, and not just their reviews, but reading their other commentary and the way they engaged sometimes with their readers. And Roger used to do a Q&A mailbag every week, I think, or every other week, and I’d read those and you’d get some of the insights into his process. What I realized was the only thing you can do is to articulate the experience you had with the film. And if you do that and do that well, then you can never be wrong.
If someone does ultimately find that their taste seems to so align with [yours] that every time you say “This movie’s bad,” or every time you say “This movie’s good,” that is helpful for them in terms of discerning, “Yeah, I’m busy, maybe I’m on a limited budget. I can’t go see every movie I want, so I’m going to listen to that critic when they say that.” That’s fine if we serve that purpose, but that can’t be the goal. The goal of criticism can’t be, “I’m going to be the box office guide for people. I’m going to tell them how to spend their money.” And I’ve seen other critics that informed us where I thought they had the wrong approach. I read a critic once who said, “I write my reviews knowing that my readers are people who may have to get a babysitter and make a decision about what they’re going to go see. So I have to help guide them about what they should go see.” And I’m like, the fallacy in that is that you’re assuming that that audience is monolithic and that every couple that has to get a babysitter all have the exact same taste and want to see the exact same type of film that you’re recommending or not. I just found that so absurd to kind of approach it that way. So again, I understand that we even serve that role for some people in trying to make a decision sometimes about what they’re going to see, but it’s never where I start. It’s never where we start.
JL: For me, it’s a matter of outlet and audience. If I think back to the days where I was writing for the Sun-Times Group—largely a group of suburban newspapers—as the daily critic, it was a bit of a more consumerist situation where you had people who opened up the Friday paper before they were going to the movies that weekend, and it was more functional. While I was always trying to offer thoughtful, well-researched opinions and background, at the end of the day, I knew that there were readers who just opened it and looked at the stars, and that’s what they did. [Laughs.] Thankfully, podcasting has more space and more room for nuance beyond that. And yeah, it can certainly serve the purpose, to Adam’s point, I’m sure many people listen to our conversation and make a decision about whether or not to spend their time on a movie based on it. But I would like to think first and foremost, they’re there to just enjoy the back-and-forth and take what they can from it in relation to that movie, hopefully discover something about the movie that interests them or if they’ve already seen it that they may have not noticed or affirms an opinion they had or challenges an opinion they had. Those are all the nuances that a podcasting conversation, that film criticism in that form allows that maybe something like the old school newspaper review doesn’t.
AVC: I appreciate anyone that’s holding the line for criticism right now, especially when there’s this intense focus on positivity in promotion. Critics or journalists all do this because we care about these things, no one’s reflexively rejecting anything. But now studios have basically their own press arms, and you often see this push from fans who think that if they don’t support something, they’re not going to get more of it. What are your thoughts on this “poptimism” movement?
JL: Great question, because this is absolutely a new phenomenon, and I guess I would start by saying that I understand and am sympathetic to the impulse rooted in the same passion and enthusiasm for movies that we have, but it does get blurred with the marketing arms, to your point. I think as an independently produced show we’re fairly separate from this, but for a lot of outlets it’s continual attention in terms of access, information, and “What then do I feel I need to give in return in terms of my review if that’s what I’m doing?” This is the other thing, studios have lowered the bar for access because the volume of information is so wide—studios are now looking for attention from anywhere at any time.
I think back again, before I was hired as a newspaper critic and working as a freelancer just struggling to get on publicist lists, even though I would have a weekly movie column, it took years to get that recognition. Nowadays, my impression is that they’re just looking for anybody they can send invites to and get coverage from. And so that’s great because it speaks to this diversification of voices that has happened in the last probably two decades in terms of critics, but it also makes things murky in terms of that tension, in terms of what you owe. It’s very tricky, and I would say just as a consumer of criticism—lemme just put that hat on—when I am listening to other podcasts or following people on social media, if I’m continually seeing someone who loves everything enthusiastically and uncritically, I am just not interested in that. I think there has to be an element of holding that enthusiasm for movies, but also holding them to a certain standard. And those standards vary whether you’re talking about an art film or the latest MCU movie, there’s that reality too. But still, the enthusiasm, if you’re going to do criticism at some point, needs to be tempered.
AK: Sometimes our best conversations are the ones where–look, we love to be enthusiastic and gush about a film. That’s why we got into this. But sometimes our best conversations are ones where one’s positive and the other is mixed to negative, or we’re both just kind of in this mixed positive but we are conflicted, because then we have things to discuss and we have things to work out with each other and get into and really discuss the nuances of the film. That’s where the podcast, as Josh was saying earlier, allows us to do something a little bit different where you have to be, you can give a mixed or a middling star rating, but you don’t have as much space or there’s not as much allowance for you to be wishy-washy in a newspaper review. And I’m not saying we are wishy-washy because hopefully there’s some substance behind it, but at the end of the conversation we don’t say, I give it this many stars, or I give it this a thumbs-up because that’s just not for what we are trying to do on the show. That’s not important to us. And I am really comfortable with people taking off their AirPods or their headphones after listening to one of our reviews and saying, “I’m not totally clear on whether or not Adam liked that movie or disliked that movie.” That’s okay. That’s completely fine with me.
AVC: I love a C-plus or C-minus review because it really tries to dig into what the goal was of whatever the piece of art is versus just like, “I am accepting this uncritically and this is what I liked about it.”
JL: Those are the hardest to do, whether you’re writing or talking about it when you’re unsure or mixed and you don’t have that immediate strong opinion, that’s where you got to put some work in.
AVC: And right now, especially on social media, what cuts through the din is always the most positive opinions and the most negative ones. I just used the term “holding the line,” but do you see what you’re doing that way?
AK: I think it could be seen that way. We don’t talk about it behind the scenes that way, we’re focused on just producing the next show and doing it as well as we can. We’re still just thinking about the process every week, but I think that that’s the really important part of it. So, I don’t necessarily see us as serving that loftier function. Filmspotting isn’t keeping film criticism viable or real film criticism as a thing, but we want to practice it. It’s all we know how to do or all we care to do. If for some reason our impulse has changed, then there wouldn’t be a reason to keep doing the show. I suppose I say I don’t see it that ambitiously, but at the same time, I do recognize that we’re hopefully going to be a place that’s going to look at a movie like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 40, 50 years later and talk about that movie for an hour and talk about the ideas behind it and the filmmaking. And you know what? There may only be a few thousand or tens of thousands of people that are really looking or don’t even know, that’s the other part of it. They don’t know that they want to hear that conversation, but then they do and they find it really fascinating. I do want to be that beacon for that, I suppose.
JL: To your holding-the-line question, I think the reason we don’t have an immediate answer is we don’t really talk about ourselves in that way behind the scenes, and I think it’s because we’re somewhat protected as an independently produced show. We are supported by our listeners, and we have some advertising support. We have a relationship with WBEZ in Chicago where they will air a radio version of our show. But all of these decisions we make about programming and so forth, we do alongside our producer, Sam Van Hallgren. I think we feel freedom in that. But when you ask a question about holding the line and where we fit alongside the other forms of film criticism going on, I realize, wow, we’re really fortunate to be somewhat apart from that because we’re not competing against other media empires or outlets in any way. And I feel it inoculates us a little bit from having to feel like we have to respond to the winds of criticism elsewhere. We all love criticism, so we keep tabs on it. We read other people, we listen to other podcasts, but it feels like we’re in some ways fortunately set apart from that sort of stuff as well.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
