The House Next Door

Three words: "worth the wait!" I'm glad that this blog-a-thon afforded y'all the occasion the commission what is, in effect, a tribute to cinephilia itself! And I thought I had amassed a lot of reading before...

Thanks again for participating, everybody!

Thanks to you, too, Andy. I love an excuse to whip up a project. This also gave me a pretext to do a long analysis of another writer's review, Pauline Kael's piece on Casualties of War, which is number one on my own list, and is at the forefront of my mind whenever I think about what criticism ought to be.

Speaking of lists, somehow House contributor Dan Jardine's list fell through the cracks of the production process when we published last night. That situation has since been amended. You can read Dan's list by clicking here, or by clicking on his name in the alphabetical list in the post above.

Great idea to open a standalone blog for this project.

I can't see the full homepage of the blog though... the display stops in the middle of Bilge Ebiri's post. So i can only access all posts from the list here. Maybe the glitch is only on my computer (IE 6).

Hey, Harry--

Dunno what the problem is. I clicked through from this item, and also typed in www.housecrit.blogspot.com, and it showed me the whole lineup.

Maybe hit refresh? I've been doing coding tweaks all morning, so maybe you went there when I was in the middle of something.

If anyone else has been having this problem, let me know.

Apparently the problem was unique to people using Internet Explorer, and I fixed it. Should be fine now, no matter what browser you're using.

Matt, are you doing computer programming now?!

That's MY job! :)

I'll add my couple of cents.

1. That Roger Ebert piece which identified movie reviewers that he liked, and which lead me to Kauffmann and Rosenbaum, both who I admire for their writing style as much as for their movie knowledge. The investigation from that Ebert piece eventually led me to Cheshire, Sarris, and Farber, also all great writers.

2. Jonathan Rosenbaum because he likes a much wider variety of world movies (though at that time, Cheshire would apply too). And that's the one thing I noticed that even though I assume most of the contributers to this blog thon are young, none have mentioned how Asian movies or criticism on Asian movies became a "life changing" thingie (I expect the older guard to be all about classic Hollywood, French New Wave, etc, but I thought the kids would be finding new heros). Rosenbaum piece on Ed Yang was probably the piece for me (though his review for Chabrol's La ceremonie and his listing of de Oliveira's Inquietude as his top film of I forget which year were memorable too).

3. My friend David Lau. If you got access to cable television, he does a bi weekly new york public access show called Action dealing primarily for his love of HK, Korean, and Japanese movies. I wouldn't be so impressed with the Korean New Wave of sort (My Sassy Girl, Christmas in August, Failan, Barking Dogs Don't Bite) (or disappointed these days as Korean flicks have sputtered of late) without his enthusiasm.

4. Cheshire. I was just getting into his reviews at the NY Press when he got axed. And I'm glad he's getting some love here. But I mentioned him if only because he's probably the biggest (sort of) mainstream movie critic giant I know who got let go. I don't know, the innocent in me sort of believed the publications/media allowed movie criticism because they love movies also and believed it was important to provide great criticism. Cheshire's departure from the NY Press just weirded out that perception.

5. I don't have anything. Interesting project and good read all around. Thanks.

These citations of influential criticism have been informative for me. I have also found it indirectly legitimating of my last tirade here. The last time I visited The House the topic was movies about which people had changed their minds. I highlighted that we usually have our minds changed for us by checking in with a community of opinion, by consulting influential criticism. So I am pleased now to hear about some of the reviews and reviewers that have proved especially educational for the contributors.

While my own relationship with cinema is woefully underdeveloped, my knowledge of film criticism is even sadder still. Nevertheless, I do have one offering for this "Life-Changing Criticism" symposium. The topic of my selection is not a particular film critique nor a particular film critic. In fact, the topic is not even film per se, although film features prominently in the discussion. I am pointing to a work of social theory that addresses the political potential of aesthetic objects of mass industrial production; again, with special attention given to film.

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," (1936) by Walter Benjamin has had a profound impact on my appreciation of film. Benjamin argues on behalf of the radical democratic potential in film, even under the most extreme commercial conditions. Prior to the advent of reproductive technology, works of visual art existed as singularities. These subsequently generate cultural significance and economic value according to social factors entirely external to the object itself. Based on its one-of-a-kind status, a sort of fetish surrounds the object, an "aura" Benjamin called it, perpetuated though institutional reaffirmations of its originality, (offical record of ownership, publication of authenticity, limited museum display, and so on.) Benjamin critically linked these affirmations with seriously anti-democratic political structures; read fascist - hello, he's a German Jew writing in 1936. He theorized the aura as a reactionary ritual employed by bourgeois bulwarks of fascism to aestheticize politics.

In opposition to this, he advanced the politicization of aesthetics. Benjamin regarded forms of art made in industrial batches with no unique physical particularity to be subject to a mass audience capable of undermining elitist cultural aura by taking aesthetic ownerhship, so to speak, on a broad social scale. In turn, the anti-democratic political structures supported by aura would be vulnerable to radical transformation. In this campaign, film held pride of place for Benjamin.

One of his collegues, Theodor Adorno, was much more negative about the dismantling of aura, fearing that with its destruction all political and aesthetic critical reflection would go by the wayside as mass produced art became escapist fodder. History appears to have been with Adorno insofar as the culture industries have successfully created markets for so-called pure entertainment and political disengagement; read most movies - hello, Hollywood. Personally, I think this is a one-sidedly negative take on the matter. Perhaps it is nothing more than a reflection of my temperament but I think history reveals instances of Benjamin's positive assessment of mass art. At the very least, there are contradictory tendencies in mainstream movies and it continues to be worthwhile to struggle over matters of interpretation.

For a relatively less ambiguous promotion in the present period, I would make a case for the veritable golden age of documentary film-making we are experiencing. Is it just me or have documentaries become as aesthetically meaningful as any other kind of film? No doubt, this lends itself to all sorts of postmodern interpretation about bogus objectivity, false neutrality, so what the hell, why not be artistic while you're up on your soapbox? I prefer to think of it in terms of Benjamin's politicization of aesthetics. Ironically, the political potential of documentary film-making may prove to reside more with its increasing concern for artistic values than for its established concern with reporting facts. This is not to denounce the demand for reasoned exposition and argumentation. It is to pronounce the need for emotional narration and persuasion. Or are we to leave all that to the Pepsi commercials?

Spike Lee sure doesn't think so. Check out his documentary about New Orleans if you haven't already done so. All the factual ducks are in a row but give it up - that's a work of art. I hope more directors with artistic backgrounds will venture into documentary film-making about real subjects that concern them. Whereas someone like Kieslowski had to move from documentaries to fictions in order to burrow out from under the weight of state repression in Poland 20 years ago, it is the tyranny of the market that thwarts creative truth-telling in the current cultural climate, so the most subversive way to politicize aesthetics may prove to be movement from fictions to documentaries.

Maybe. Maybe not. Just talking. Time to shut up. That'll give you all the chance to rush right out and borrow Benjamin's essay from the library. No not me. WALTER Benjamin.

Then - Ben

Hey, Ben--

Far from being an out-of-left-field selection (pun intended), your two recommendations are quite on-point. I particularly like your observation about the movement from fictions to documentaries and the ongoing, sometimes irksome (to mainstream critics) cross-pollinization between the two. You write, "Ironically, the political potential of documentary film-making may prove to reside more with its increasing concern for artistic values than for its established concern with reporting facts." I agree completely, and soon I hope to argue that thesis in a piece that will prod you to elaborate further.

Matt, thanks for the feedback. I look forward to your proposed article. I am confident that it will be worthwhile in its own right; but of course, I am delighted to be told that I will have an opportunity to elaborate further.

Then - Ben