The demise of the mainstream arts critic: It’s old news by now, with each prominent departure followed by an array of predictable commentaries that blame Web log writers and newspaper executives alike. In a new era of home entertainment, audiences have shifted to DVDs and studios have realized that strong trailers make publicity and reviews nearly irrelevant.

Yet while the refrain has become familiar, the uptick in statistics has been swift and stark: At least 28 major film critics have vacated their positions in the past two years — an average of more than one a month all around the country. Until late last year, the wave of downsizing and downgrading was occurring mostly in smaller markets, where only a few art-house movie theaters reside and where “critic-proof” blockbusters dominate the multiplexes every week. But in the last six weeks, this trend, which has left cities such as Tampa, Denver, and Fort Lauderdale without movie critics, has infiltrated New York — and at a pace that has left many in the local film community dazed and confused. Since late February, such trusted names as Jack Mathews (New York Daily News), Nathan Lee (Village Voice), David Ansen (Newsweek), and Jan Stuart and Gene Seymour (Newsday) have lost or relinquished their jobs.

Why are film critics being pushed out, or opting to leave? Is it pressure created by the Internet? Is it the tunnel vision of major studios, which no longer need critical raves to secure their $100 million opening weekends? Is it the bottom-line thinking typically practiced by the conglomerates that own most newspaper chains? All of these factors play a role, but in trying to explain the trend, commentators have neglected to address a more sobering thought: How might a critic-less New York City alter the movies we get to see and the theaters that get to show them?

“You used to have critical buzz to go on, but now you’re starting to see this miniature version of the mainstream film world in the independent film world, where it all hinges on a celebrity director or a major star,” an analyst with Exhibitor Relations Co., Chad Hartigan, said. “Unless you have a name on the marquee, films that have very little to go on, other than maybe their reputation from a festival, are now finding it impossible to break through.”

While some esteemed writers may still contribute in some fashion to their outlets, there’s a possibility that Ms. Stuart and Messrs. Lee, Ansen, and Seymour could lose their active memberships in the New York Film Critics Circle. That would constitute a sudden 12% decrease in the 33-member organization. Stephen Whitty, film critic for the Star-Ledger and former NYFCC chair, said the larger ramifications of these lost members could well be a “homogenization of critical voices.”

“The great fun of reading a critic regularly is figuring out his or her likes, biases, quirks,” Mr. Whitty said. “The great advantage of having a local reviewer is that he or she understands the likes, biases, and quirks of their readers. There’s a relationship that develops, and it’s specific to the newspaper and its audience. That’s an intimate bond, and at some papers, it’s going to be lost.”

In most cities, where blockbusters already dominate each Friday, the loss of a local critic or two may not hurt that much. But here in America’s cultural capital, where a dozen or more art-house and critic-dependent films open on small screens every week, each hoping to elicit a wave of critical and audience support that will convince theater bookers in smaller markets to give the title a chance, the consolidation of film coverage could have a devastating impact. The notion that New York’s most trusted local press outlets no longer care about in-depth film coverage suggests not only that the decline of print journalism is in full swing, but that the chasm separating the art-house crowd from the multiplex crowd will continue to grow.

“In terms of print publications, this is accelerating the centralization of authority, that there are now only going to be a few outlets that people can rely on for valuable criticism,” the vice president and general manager of IFC Center, John Vanco, said. “That’s not the way it used to be in this city, where every paper weighed in.”

Mike Maggiore, the programmer and publicist for Film Forum, one of the country’s most respected repertory houses, added that a resulting trickle-up effect could push independent distributors to take fewer risks.

“When you have papers running shorter reviews, or no reviews at all, written by people who readers aren’t familiar with, it starts to affect not just audiences but also the distributors with more modest budgets who rely on that critical enthusiasm,” he said. “Without those reviews, the equation changes as to what movies distributors will even take a chance on releasing.”

But some say this has less to do with movies, audiences, or newspapers than with a larger and more profound shift in cultural attitudes. “It’s not just newspapers that are thinking of themselves more as a commodity for profit-making for their owners, and less as a business that also provides a public service,” said Alisa Solomon, an associate professor at Columbia University’s School of Journalism and director of the school’s specialized “arts and culture” concentration. “Our entire culture is so focused on the quick delivery of some kind of value — movies themselves are being produced and treated more and more in this kind of way. The value of criticism as criticism has been falling. Criticism shouldn’t just be about providing consumer reports, it’s meant to contribute to an intelligent discourse about our works of art and the artifacts in our culture that reflect on our times. On the international market, the only thing the U.S. is exporting in large measure is culture — that’s our primary export product — so coverage of it should be expanding, not shrinking, right?”

ssnyder@nysun.com