Welcome to the Deep Dive. This is where we tackle
the tough research so you can stay informed.
You give us the sources, we give you the insights,
the context, everything you need to know. Today,
we're doing a deep dive into the career of Karina
Longworth. She's, well, officially an American
film critic, author, journalist. But her career
path, it's really more like a masterclass in
building intellectual weight in the modern media
world. Yeah, absolutely. She didn't just navigate
the huge shifts from print to digital blogs to
audio. She kind of helped shape them. It's really
quite a story. It is. And that's our goal today,
right? We're not just listing jobs. We want to
unpack how she built this success. Starting with
her really strong academic background. Right.
Then looking at her role in defining Internet
film criticism. Those early blog days were crucial.
And finally, how all of that led to You Must
Remember This, arguably the podcast on Hollywood's
hidden histories. That transition is key. Exactly.
It's about seeing how someone recognized that,
OK, the medium changes, print, blog. Podcast,
but deep research, compelling storytelling. That
stays valuable. And just the basic facts for
everyone. Karina Longworth, born July 10th, 1980.
So she's 45 now in 2025. Based in LA. Okay. And
yeah, her main thing now is writing, hosting,
producing. You must remember this. Yeah. And
that shows focus. The Secret and or Forgotten
Histories of Hollywood's First Century. That
tagline really tells you a lot about our whole
project. It really does. It sets the stage perfectly.
So let's start at the beginning then. If we want
to understand the authority she brings to the
podcast, we got to look at the foundation, the
academic work. Absolutely. Because she didn't
just, you know, fall into criticism. This was
built intentionally. She has a very specific
educational background for this kind of work.
And it's quite unusual, that background. It is.
It's this dual thing. First, a Bachelor of Fine
Arts. BFA in film from the San Francisco Art
Institute. OK, so the practical side first. Right.
Understanding how films are actually made. Framing,
lighting, editing the craft. And then she followed
that with a master of arts in cinema studies
from NYU. NYU. So the heavy theory. Exactly.
Deep, critical framework. Film history, theory,
cultural context, psychoanalysis, all of it.
How to analyze film, not just as entertainment,
but as like a cultural text that reflects society
power. That combination is fascinating. The BFA
in making, the MA in analyzing. I can see how
that lets her talk about historical films with
such depth. She gets the why behind the creative
choices, but also the how, the technical side.
Precisely. She understands the constraints, the
context, the whole picture. And I think that
gave her the confidence later on to really tackle
Hollywood's power structures, which is a huge
theme. And you must remember this. She had the
credentials, the bona fides. She did. And she
knew how to use them. But importantly, she didn't
stay purely academic. She took that knowledge
straight into the exploding blog scene back then.
Right, the early blogging boom. And she wasn't
just writing posts. No, she was founder. One
of the founders of Cinematical. Which was a big
deal back then, late 2000s. Huge. Cinematical
sites like it. They weren't just diaries. They
were building internet film culture. Fast, opinionated,
building community. She was right there at the
start. Editing, shaping what online film talk
looked like. And she edited Spout Blog too, right?
She did. Cinematical and Spout Blog. So she's
not just a writer. She's an editor, a curator,
a gatekeeper, really, in this new digital space.
Setting the tone. Yeah, setting standards. And
that experience, managing content, keeping a
consistent voice, deadlines that's basically
podcast production training, just in a different
format. That's a great point. And interestingly,
that digital work kind of bounced her back into
more traditional media for a bit. It did. While
she was in New York, she started doing audio
spots, regular appearances on PRI's The Takeaway.
Ah, okay. So the seed for audio was planted early,
using her analytical voice, but without visuals.
A really important step, looking back. But then
came what looks like a pivot, maybe even a surprising
one. From 2010 to 2012, she becomes the film
editor and lead critic at LA Weekly. LA Weekly,
that's proper old school print, right? A big
established role. Exactly. High profile, institutional.
So wait a minute. If her story is about pioneering
digital, the new wave. Why jump back into a traditional
print job like that? Doesn't that kind of contradict
the narrative of media evolution? That's a really
sharp question. And I don't think it was a step
back at all. I think it was strategic. Yeah,
so? It cemented her authority. Getting that LA
Weekly title, that's establishment validation.
It meant that later... When she went fully independent
with the podcast, nobody could just wave her
away as, you know, just a blogger. Ah, OK. So
she proved she could win by the old rules, too.
Exactly. Secured the traditional credential before
fully committing to the nontraditional path.
It was smart. That makes a lot of sense. It was
like the final piece of legitimacy before launching
her own thing. And you see that versatility in
just the sheer range of places she was published
back then. Oh, the list is incredible. You've
got the highbrow stuff, New York Magazine, Filmmaker,
Time Out New York, Cineast. Very academic, some
of those. And then the big online players, Slate,
IndieWire, The Daily Beast, HuffPost, The Village
Voice, even Vanity Fair's awards blog, Little
Gold Men. It's an amazing spread. She could do
the deep analysis for Cineast, the quick takes
for The Daily Beast, the cultural commentary
for Vanity Fair. She was fluent across platforms.
Before that was even really a common thing. Which
is exactly the kind of flexibility you need if
you're going to eventually pour everything into
one very specific medium like a history podcast.
Absolutely. That adaptability was key. So this
period, it wasn't just about getting bylines.
It was happening during this huge, well, philosophical
battle, wasn't it? The whole internet versus
print criticism debate. Oh, the blog wars. Yeah,
it was fierce. The established paid print critics
versus these rising, interactive, often unpaid
bloggers. And Longworth was right in the middle
of it. She's even in that dialogue. documentary
for the love of movies. Right. And her take on
what made blogging valuable is really telling.
It is. She didn't focus on speed or clicks, though
those were factors. She said the main thing,
the primary virtue, was creating a back and forth
dialogue with readers. Dialogue. That's the key
word. Totally. Think about traditional criticism.
The critic writes, maybe you send a letter, maybe
it gets printed weeks later. That's it. Very
one way. Right. Longworth champion dialogue.
Criticism becomes a conversation. The critic
might actually have to engage, defend their points
in real time. It was a fundamental shift in the
power dynamic. And that leads straight into that
famous quote of hers, the one about her qualifications.
It's so clever because it nods to her training,
but also kind of pulls the rug out from under
the traditional gatekeepers. The master's degree.
Yeah, it's brilliant. Can you remind us? Sure.
She said, I have a master's degree in film studies,
but I'm no more qualified to blog than a high
school student in Vermont. Let's unpack that
for a second. It does two things at once, doesn't
it? It really does. On one hand, she's saying,
look, I did the work. I have the academic background.
Establishes her baseline. Yeah. But then immediately
she says the platform itself, the Internet, makes
that credential kind of irrelevant for just starting
the conversation. It democratizes access. Completely.
Expertise helps you write better, maybe argue
more effectively. But the barrier to just publishing
your thoughts, gone. That high school student
in Vermont, if they're passionate and smart,
their blog post sits right alongside the MA graduates.
It shifts the value from the institution, the
degree, to the actual argument being made online.
Exactly. Quality of thought, passion, voice.
Those become the currency, not just the diploma.
And the established media, they had to react
to this. They often use Longworth as the example
of this new challenge. They did. Even the New
York Times, you know, the bastion of traditional
criticism called her freakishly smart. They recognized
the talent, even as her model kind of threatened
theirs. You can almost feel the anxiety in the
industry trades back then. Oh, yeah. Look at
Variety. In 2008, they wrote about these ever
-proliferating bloggers. And they specifically
named Longworth Spout, saying they'd become the
instant barometers for how a film plays. Instant
barometers. That's a huge shift in power. Massive.
It used to be the next day's newspaper reviews
that set the initial buzz. Now, judgment was
immediate, decentralized, coming from people
like Longworth. Print felt slow. And Variety
saw this coming even earlier, didn't they? They
did. Back in 2007, they predicted that as the
pool of well -paid print critics shrinks, the
next generation would come to trust critic bloggers
like... Spouts Karina Longworth. So she wasn't
just part of the trend. She was named as a future
authority figure. Explicitly. And the debate
got so big that the New York Times itself in
2008 basically asked out loud, are print critics
really so all important with the web full of
debates? Right. And they name checked her sites
again. Zillmanical .com, blog .spout .com. Wow.
So yeah, she wasn't just participating. She was
the visible proof that forced the establishment
to reckon with this new reality. Expertise, passion,
accessibility, she showed, it could thrive outside
the old walls. Okay, so she conquers the blogosphere,
proves her worth in print. What comes next is
the big audio transformation. Right. All that
experience. The writing discipline, the voice
she honed, the dialogue she fostered, it all
seems like preparation for what came next. You
must remember this. You must remember this. Yeah.
Launched April 2014. And this felt like... Like
the perfect synthesis of everything she'd done.
The academic rigor, the critical eye, now focused
on those lesser known Hollywood stories from
the 20th century. And the format itself is crucial.
Absolutely critical. It's written, narrated entirely
by her. One voice. One voice. It's not interviews,
not a panel. It's pure, detailed, historical
narrative. That requires immense listener trust.
And it rests completely on the authority she'd
built up over the previous decade. And launching
in 2014. Podcasting was really starting to professionalize
around then, wasn't it? It was. YMRT wasn't just
dropped onto a free server. It was distributed
by Panoply, which was associated with Slate magazine.
Ah, Slate. So serious journalistic backing. Exactly.
Panoply represented that move towards more polished,
networked podcasts. It gave YMRT immediate reach
and a level of production quality that made it
stand out from the thousands of totally indie
shows. And the sheer volume of work. That level
of commitment is pretty staggering. It really
is. We're talking over 200 episodes as of 2025.
And think about the research involved for each
one. She's digging into archives, obscure sources,
complex histories. Hours and hours for each episode.
Easily. Producing that much original narrated
history. It's just a massive undertaking. A feat
of intellectual endurance, really. And it found
its audience almost immediately, didn't it? People
really responded to this format. They did. While
she was respected as a critic. The podcast really
cemented her role as like a public historian
of Hollywood. It quickly became seen as one of
the absolute top film podcasts out there. The
reviews really capture the appeal. The Washington
Post called it knowledgeable and laceratingly
funny. That combination is key. It's not dry.
No, not at all. And Podcast Magazine gave it
five out of five mics. Perfect score. That mix,
deep research, sharp wit, plus her very engaging
personal delivery style. That's the magic, I
think. That's what allowed these complex histories
to, you know, cut through in a medium that loves
intimacy and personality. And the industry noticed,
too. Awards followed. Yep. Academy of Podcasters
Award for TV and Film in 2016. Finalist again
in 2017. These aren't just participation trophies.
It's peer recognition that she had successfully
created something unique and dominant in the
audio space. If we want to really understand
the show's depth, maybe we should talk about
a specific series. The Polly Platt one gets mentioned
a lot. Oh, the Polly Platt series. Yes. Yeah.
That was huge. Reportedly the podcast's most
talked about series to date. And it was adapted
from Polly Platt's unfinished memoir. Polly Platt.
Not exactly a household name like a movie star,
but a major figure behind the scenes. Production
designer, producer. Exactly. Yeah. Hugely influential,
complex, often overlooked, especially as a woman
working in that male -dominated system. And Longworth
chose to dedicate, what, six incredibly detailed
episodes to her story. A massive investment.
A massive investment in someone pushed to the
margins of the standard Hollywood narrative.
And that really underscores the core mission
of YMRT, doesn't it? It does. Complex, forgotten
stories, power dynamics, exploitation, the contributions
of women. She's deliberately digging beneath
the glossy surface. Yeah, she's not doing puff
pieces. It's investigative history, but crafted
beautifully for audio. The Polly Platt series
is probably the quintessential example of what
makes YMRT so compelling and important. And this
dedication to history, to deep research, it's
not just in the podcast. She's got a whole bookshelf
of nonfiction work, too. Absolutely. And looking
at her books, you can actually trace a similar
evolution in her focus, moving closer and closer
to the kind of historical deep dive she does
on the podcast. How so? What are some of the
key titles? Well, early on, there's the Portal
Spout blog in 2009, basically capturing her work
from that digital frontier. Right, a snapshot
of that era. Then she moves into biography and
analysis, Masters of Cinema. George Lucas in
2012. Then those two anatomies of an actor, books
Al Pacino in 2013, Meryl Streep in 2014. Analyzing
the greats requires deep dives into performance,
filmography, connecting the theory and the practice.
Exactly. And then also in 2014, Hollywood Frame
by Frame, which is fascinating. It's about unseen
contact sheets from 1951 to 1977. Contact sheets,
so like... The photos between the famous shots.
Yeah, the outtakes, the process. It shows this
incredible focus on archival material, the stuff
left behind. That's pure YMRT skill set right
there. That archival digging is the bedrock of
the podcast. It absolutely is. And her later
books move even more directly into the podcast's
territory. They shift from analyzing individual
careers to really dissecting historical Hollywood
power structures. Like the Howard Hughes book.
Exactly. Seduction. Sex, lies. and stardom in
Howard Hughes's Hollywood from 2018. That's not
film criticism. It's pure history about manipulation,
power, the dark side of the studio system. It
sounds like a YMRT season in print form. It really
does. The research focus, the themes, it's totally
aligned. It just reinforces that she's not just
a great narrator. She's a serious historian of
Hollywood's underbelly, working consistently
across different media. So the books, the blog
work, the print criticism, the academic training.
It all feeds into the podcast. It wasn't an accidental
success. Not at all. It was built layer by layer.
Rigorous intellect sharpened by digital journalism
synthesized for audio. And just to round out
the picture, any relevant personal background?
Well, the sources mention her parents' British
father, Duncan Longworth, and American Jewish
mother, Joan Lee Scheinman. And of course, her
connection to modern filmmaking through her marriage
to director Rian Johnson in 2018. Rian Johnson.
Right. Yeah. And there's that little detail.
She got a special thanks in the credits for Knives
Out. She's still very much connected to the industry.
She spent so much time analyzing. OK, so let's
try to wrap this up after diving deep into Karina
Longworth's career. What's the big picture? What's
the main takeaway here? I think her career is
just this incredible roadmap for how intellectual
authority is built and maintained in our current
media landscape. Yeah, she successfully navigated
what, like three major media shifts? At least.
Academia. pioneering web criticism, establishment
print, and then defining a new kind of historical
podcasting. She mastered each stage. Starting
with that solid MA foundation, getting scrappy
in the blogosphere, earning the traditional credentials
at LA Weekly. And then taking all of that experience
and pouring it into this very specific, very
personal, very intimate audio format with YMRT,
over 200 episodes deep. It really shows that
expertise isn't tied to one platform, is it?
It's about the person and how well they can communicate
their knowledge for the medium they choose. Exactly.
She moved her knowledge from print to pixels
to podcasts, and her authoritative voice came
through consistently. She proves that, yeah,
credentials help build the knowledge base, but
it's the passion, the consistency, and finding
the right format for your specific expertise.
That's what bids the dedicated audience. Which
brings us back to that really interesting quote,
maybe a final thought for you, the listener,
to chew on. The Vermont high school student quote.
Right. Longworth said her M .A. didn't make her
inherently more qualified to blog than that student.
But that expertise clearly became absolutely
essential for the kind of deep, specialized historical
work YMRT requires. There's a tension there.
There is. So the provocative question is, where
does authority really come from today? Is it
the institution, the degree, is it the platform,
the reach of the blog or the podcast? Or is it
something else? Or, as Longworth's career seems
to suggest, does the ultimate authority now rest
with that singular compelling voice? The one
that just consistently proves its expertise through
the quality of the work itself, no matter where
it's published. Institution, platform, or voice.
It's a central question for how we think about
knowledge and influence right now.