When asked to distill a documentary's worth, Marshall Curry takes a nuanced approach: "There are stories that make great articles, but they're not movies." This philosophy guides his latest project, The New Yorker at 100, a new Netflix film exploring the magazine's storied history and enduring relevance.
A year-long immersion into the magazine's archives, Curry's film offers a unique glimpse into the inner workings of an institution that has maintained its editorial independence despite the shifting media landscape. From David Remnick's leadership to the rise of prominent contributors like Julianne Moore, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, and Sarah Jessica Parker, the documentary showcases the New Yorker's commitment to high-quality journalism.
Curry's approach reveals a magazine that is as much about curiosity-driven storytelling as it is about authoritative reporting. With expertly crafted profiles, investigations, and cultural observations, The New Yorker has long established itself as an essential publication. From Truman Capote's groundbreaking In Cold Blood to its rigorous fact-checking department, the film highlights the magazine's dedication to quality over quantity.
Yet, as Curry notes, concerns about the magazine's future persist. With David Remnick set to step down and a protracted collective bargaining fight with Condé Nast, some worry that The New Yorker may become a relic of the past. However, Curry believes in the magazine's unique approach: "They're making handmade, exquisitely crafted sushi for two seatings a night... They're not trying to be McDonald's and sell billions and billions of hamburgers to everybody in the world."
Ultimately, The New Yorker at 100 serves as a testament to the power of sustained editorial excellence. With its meticulously researched storytelling and dedication to high-quality journalism, this iconic magazine remains a vital force in contemporary culture.
A year-long immersion into the magazine's archives, Curry's film offers a unique glimpse into the inner workings of an institution that has maintained its editorial independence despite the shifting media landscape. From David Remnick's leadership to the rise of prominent contributors like Julianne Moore, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, and Sarah Jessica Parker, the documentary showcases the New Yorker's commitment to high-quality journalism.
Curry's approach reveals a magazine that is as much about curiosity-driven storytelling as it is about authoritative reporting. With expertly crafted profiles, investigations, and cultural observations, The New Yorker has long established itself as an essential publication. From Truman Capote's groundbreaking In Cold Blood to its rigorous fact-checking department, the film highlights the magazine's dedication to quality over quantity.
Yet, as Curry notes, concerns about the magazine's future persist. With David Remnick set to step down and a protracted collective bargaining fight with Condé Nast, some worry that The New Yorker may become a relic of the past. However, Curry believes in the magazine's unique approach: "They're making handmade, exquisitely crafted sushi for two seatings a night... They're not trying to be McDonald's and sell billions and billions of hamburgers to everybody in the world."
Ultimately, The New Yorker at 100 serves as a testament to the power of sustained editorial excellence. With its meticulously researched storytelling and dedication to high-quality journalism, this iconic magazine remains a vital force in contemporary culture.
I think it's great that Marshall Curry is bringing attention to The New Yorker's commitment to quality journalism 
. As someone who's grown up with the magazine, it's easy to take their influence for granted, but they've always been pushing the boundaries of storytelling and investigative reporting. What I love about this documentary is that it doesn't shy away from exploring the challenges the magazine faces in today's media landscape 
... but I think what Curry gets right is that they're still committed to making thoughtful, well-researched content that resonates with readers 
. And let's be real, who wants a magazine that churns out fluff like McDonald's? 
Not me!
, you know? I mean, people say it's old-school, but that's what makes it special! They're not just churning out fluff pieces like every other mag. The attention to detail, the in-depth reporting... it's like they're making a piece of sushi, one piece at a time 
. And let's be real, who else is gonna put Truman Capote on the cover and make him a household name? Not just some fast-food media outlet. I'm rooting for The New Yorker to stay independent and keep doing what it does best 
.
. I mean, can you even imagine a world where The New Yorker isn't still publishing the most in-depth investigations and commentary pieces? It's crazy to think that some people might actually be worried about this being a "relic of the past"... like what would we do without it? 
The way Curry talks about how they're not trying to be some mass-market publication, but instead are committed to making high-quality content is just so on point 
. I also love how he compares them to someone who makes handmade sushi - that's such a beautiful analogy 
️. And I love how he highlights the New Yorker's commitment to quality journalism – it's like they're saying, "Hey, we might not be flashy like some other mags, but our writing is just as good" 
. Anyways, it's definitely given me a new appreciation for the mag and its rich history 
.
I love how the doc highlights their commitment to curiosity-driven storytelling and authoritative reporting - it's like they're making these beautiful, handmade pieces just for us! 
And let's be real, who doesn't love a good story about Truman Capote? 
The fact that they're still going strong after all these years is really inspiring. I think we can all learn from their dedication to excellence. 
... I mean, the way they're still committed to telling stories that matter, even when everyone else is just churning out clickbait news. It's like, we need more of their quality over quantity approach 
. I'm also curious about what's next for David Remnick and the team - they're not going down without a fight 
There are so many great articles out there, but most of them aren't gonna blow your mind like a good movie does 
. But at the same time, I can see why some people might be worried about its future... with Remnick stepping down and all 
And let's be real, those Truman Capote stories? Game-changer.
. I mean, sure, David Remnick leading the charge has been great, but who are these fancy writers like Julianne Moore and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie? 
The part that really resonated with me is when Marshall Curry compares The New Yorker to making handmade sushi - you know, the whole "making art for a select few" vibe 
. Anyway, I'm all for preserving the art of in-depth reporting and thoughtful analysis 
. But hey, if it makes us feel better about our precious free press, who am I to argue? 