1. The NYPress 20th Anniversary Issue hit stands yesterday. Some highlights: Armond White addresses "What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Movies" (excerpt below); Russ Smith mugs for the camera; Mishka Shubaly writes about "Not Making It" in The Big Apple; and Eric Kohn tries out Tribeca.
["These desperate stakes became even more alarming with the recent announcement of the Museum of the Moving Image’s Second Annual Institute on Criticism and Feature Writing—a project seemingly designed to further confuse the profession. Offering a session on marketing and publicity, the MMI’s Institute implies that flackery is part of critical journalism, and that’s really the root of the problem—sanctioning the way in which critical journalism has blurred its mandate into promoting the industry, not the art form. It overlooks any chance for criticism to unite while enlightening the audience, keeping it divided. There is no “conversation” when what we say when we talk about movies is driven by elitism or commerce, both now horribly combined in Queens. Hollywood’s emphasis on impersonal product then holds sway over art. Ideas get smothered in formula, and hype becomes the language of so-called discourse."]
2. "Meet a Critic": The second part of Rotten Tomatoes editor Jen Yamato's interview with Nathan Lee, in which he weighs in on leaving The Village Voice, why critics are ineffective, and what's next.
["As many people have pointed out, there's no lack of film writing going on right now. There's more than there has ever been. The Internet has opened up huge areas of new writing, some of which is quite good, the majority of which is quite bad -- which I think is the same of print. I mean, it's really sad that all these film critics are losing their jobs, but I think most film criticism is terrible. And not useful. And frankly, really boring. I read very little of it, and find very little of it to be useful. So it's a shame that my colleagues are losing their jobs, but on the other hand I don't read many of them. One of the underlying issues in all of this is...people are losing their jobs because of economic reasons, for the most part, but also film criticism - at least mainstream print criticism - is dominated by the Baby Boom generation and older. There's almost no one my age writing on a professional level at a major outlet. There's Scott Foundas in LA Weekly, there's Wesley Morris at the Boston Globe, very few. Very, very few. I think that's a little bit problematic."]
3. "White noise": Glenn Kenny responds to Armond White's piece (linked above in entry #1). As GreenCine Daily editor (hattip to you, sir) David Hudson notes, comments ensue. More at Hollywood Elsewhere.
["But here's the thing, finally. White's wrong about the demise of the print publication; it went down one year, a month and two and a half weeks ago. And when Premiere magazine was "trimmed away," as White so charmingly puts it, a lot of close friends of mine—good and talented people—lost their jobs. Now, White's known for spewing bile at his peers in print, and then turning around and being quite affable to said peers in person—I've experienced it. And I've had it. So: screw you, Armond. Don't say "hi" next time you see me at a screening because you won't get a "hi" back. You think you're applying some form of moral rigor to your work, but the fact is that you're a bully and a hypocrite, and I don't want to know you."]
4. Gracias also to Mr. Kenny for his news on the Cannes Film Festival line-up. Linked in his entry: Todd McCarthy's Variety article "Few U.S. pics set for Cannes festival" and the official Cannes press page where a PDF of the film choices can be downloaded. The L.A. Times has the complete line-up here.
["Among the surprises were eleventh-hour additions of "Changeling," starring Angelina Jolie and directed by Clint Eastwood, and Steven Soderbergh's two Che Guevara films. The Che films, "The Argentine" and "Guerrilla," will screen back to back at a running time of four hours on May 21. The other American in the main competition is writer Charlie Kaufman with his directorial debut, "Synedoche, New York" starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Michelle Williams, Emily Watson and Catherine Keener. ... Among the other well-known names in the lineup are Wim Wenders with "The Palermo Shooting," Atom Egoyan with "Adoration" and Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas' "Linha de Passe." Meanwhile, Marina Zenovich's Roman Polanski documentary, which competed in Sundance, will benefit from a special screening."]
5. "Body Language": Michael Koresky's review of Forgetting Sarah Marshall delves into Apatow-house's limp dick aesthetics.
["Forgetting Sarah Marshall, which has an appearance so singularly ugly (even Hawaii looks washed out and brown) that it makes the visually incoherent Knocked Up seem visually splendid by comparison, will undoubtedly be regaled for its “sweetness.” That this is in and of itself not necessarily a virtue is mostly lost on today’s critics, and only speaks to the film’s ultimate tonal flatness, platitudinous nature (Segel’s script isn’t exactly breaking any new ground when Kunis gets stunted sad-sack Peter to open up by jumping off a high cliff), and noticeable split from its mean-spirited ad campaign (the misleading posters, which simply display the words “I hate you, Sarah Marshall” or “You do look fat in those jeans, Sarah Marshall” in handwritten scrawl, portend a far more bitter break-up comedy than what’s delivered). In fact, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is such an average guy-gets-unattainable-girl scenario that perhaps its everlasting image, of a flaccid cock, dangling pathetically, is all too fitting."]
Quote of the Day: Eddie Cantor
Image of the Day (click to enlarge): A recently discovered holiday postcard from Anne Frank. MSNBC reports.
Clip of the Day: "'Charlie Rose' by Samuel Beckett" (seriously one of the funniest things I've ever seen). (Hattip: Todd VanDerWerff)
_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged. Suggestions for links are also welcome. Please send to keithuhlich@gmail.com.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Links for the Day (April 24th, 2008)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
46 comments:
Re: Clip of the Day -
Brilliant. You can cut the sexual tension between the two with a butter knife.
Admittedly, I have not read as much of Armond White's work as I would like to have, and I am relatively unaware of his impact on film criticism in the nineties. Nonetheless, I have observed that his pieces remind me of Steve Buscemi's character in Ghost World, who pronounces, wistfully, "I hate my interests."
Armond's deeply confused screed makes me glad I quit the Press so that I don't have to attempt to explain to people out of professional courtesy what point he thought he was trying to make.
My admiration for Armond's originality and the impact of his 1980s and '90s writing on my own have been detailed at length here many times, so I won't rehash it again.
Cutting to the chase: It has become increasingly and sadly clear in recent years that Armond's as much the establishment as A.O. Scott, in that he derives much of his impact from the institutional weight of a print publication and from the insulated status that this one-way model of communication affords. His implicit championing of the gatekeeper model of critical discourse -- caveats about most print critics sucking to the contrary -- is as culturally conservative as it gets. His description of the MOMI program seems to have been based on reading the program but not the blurbs telling what each panel is actually about. (The marketing panel was not about the importance of marketing or about how critics should help marketers; how could he not know that?) His simplistic denunciation of the meaning and impact of Roger Ebert -- who has done more to widen the tastes of the moviegoing public and popularize basic cinema literacy than any critic in the history of print -- is shameful, and would be so even without the "I wish him well as he recovers" parenthetical.
Ultimately I'm not convinced there's really anything going on here besides self-aggrandizement. The gist: Most print critics suck. Most of the amateurs writing on the Internet suck. The people who like the same movies as Armond suck, too, and they don't appreciate the movies in the enlightened way he does. Nobody appreciates "No Country for Old Men," this year's best picture winner and a hit with almost no negative reviews, except him, and he has a special appreciation of "Shotgun Stories," a movie that received, as near as I can tell, no negative reviews of any kind, and that Armond himself did not deign to see and write about in advance of its release.
And in whose universe are "Chen Kaige, Zhang Yimou and Stephen Chow" "rejected"? Chow's last film didn't make an impression in the U.S., but his previous two were surprise art-house hits; Yimou's last movie didn't do well, but "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers" were quite successful in the U.S., with critics and audiences. You get my point: there is no such universe, but Armond pretends there is, because the alternative is admitting that not every verdict he renders is unique to him, and that some of the values he professes are shared (horrors!) by critics he doesn't respect or personally like.
There are valid points strewn throughout the piece, as there always are in Armond's writing, but these too are muddied by specious self-promotion. I'd agree that Carlos Reygadas is a more significant filmmaker than Alexander Gonzalez Innaritu, but Armond makes the point in such a way as to falsely suggest that there's no positive writing about the former (who in fact has been championed by quite a few English-language critics as an internationally significant artist) and that nobody besides him finds Innaritu overrated (21 Grams and Babel got wildly mixed reviews, the latter receiving probably more pans than raves).
As for the assertion that Internet critics are not populist enough while print critics are too populist, there are enough exceptions in both areas as to render such a statement meaningless as anything other than another advertisement for the writer's own personal, superior taste.
This is self-promotion posing as bold truth-telling.
What's really going on here is plain to see: like a lot of print critics, Armond is deeply threatened by the changes affecting journalism and technology (digital cinema and blogging being different aspects of the same cultural sea-change) and rather than attempt to understand it, much less learn from it and bend it to his own unique ends, lashes out at it, denigrates those who practice it, and folds the attack into the same "Me vs. the corrupt world" routine that has rightly become fodder for deconstruction, refutation and satire on the very sites he deems worthless, and that he no doubt reads religiously.
Ebert's persona is built on a foundation of ritualized shtick, too -- but at least he owns up to it.
I can't wait until print media, the Internet, television and radio are all folded into one amorphous information delivery system known simply as "the media" so that we can stop having these ridiculous, soon-to-be dated conversations about the innate merits of print criticism vs. blogging, which will soon seem as charmingly clueless as the various jeremiads that were written a century ago about the automobile's inferiority to the horse and why the airplane would never catch on.
In fact, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is such an average guy-gets-unattainable-girl scenario that perhaps its everlasting image, of a flaccid cock, dangling pathetically, is all too fitting.
"Everlasting image?" It's on the screen 3 seconds, unlike the anonymous one in Walk Hard, which seemed ready to move in with you by comparison. 3 seconds of dick is hardly worth mentioning, let alone forming a thesis around it.
Maybe Armond White should have also mentioned how dick-obsessed film criticism has become, how far too many critics have penis envy, and how "two thumbs up" really meant something else was up. It would fit right in with all the other bullshit in that article.
About a decade ago, I attended a lecture/screening White gave at the Walter Reade...just so I could write a negative review and send it to the NY Press.
I was actually about to post something here ripping into Armond White's piece, which may be the most self-serving writing he's ever done (and that is saying something), but Matt summed it up much better than I ever could.
It's amazing to me that Armond White spends so much time flaming other critics' thinking, but seems to spend little time tending to his own. For someone like him to accuse others of elitism is the sheer height of irony,
Mind you, my distaste for White has little to do with whether I agree with him or not. It has more to do with his opinions on movies being decided before watching them and him making bizarre and illogical leaps of thought to justify why he thinks some directors are geniuses and why he thinks others are not merely bad, but amoral. I simply suspect and, in my heart, believe White is being dishonest.
It has always been my theory that White serves an agenda that is about himself. That he's trying to prove his superiority over the critical establishment and convincing people like me who love movies that I don't really love or understand them because we are such idiots. Even though, as Matt pointed out, White isn't even being honest in describing the critical consensus of any particular movie.
I believed I compared him before to Fred Leuchter, the subject of Errol Morris' "Mr. Death". The need to prove that he's right overcomes his common sense.
On a final note, I posted this on the Hollywood Elsewhere thread, but I felt there should be a contest where people can write White's forthcoming rave review of "Indiana Jones" next month with the winner being the person whose review closely resembles White's. Extra bonus points if you can name the movies or directors he despises that he will randomly bring up during the review.
say what we will about armond.
but "Internetters" is an awesome term and I am co-opting it so hardcore.
"John, how's that thing coming?"
"Oh, fine. I've got a few Internetters on it. Should be done in a day or so."
or
"John, what do you do?"
"Oh, I'm an Internetter."
besides, Armond has taught me so much. Mainly, how to successfully troll not only the Internet, but real life people!
Thanks, Armond. You're the best.
My only question, both to Armond and the crack team of editors at New York Press: What's Ye-Ye?
I've thought Armond White was a little more than faintly repulsive ever since his self-serving takedown of Lisa Schwarzbaum w/r/t the Academy screeners issue (which included him going so far as to note that he uttered an epithet in response to something she said, as if noting it proudly as another example of his fearless individuality). And how anyone who could like a certain Hong Kong film was morally corrupt. And his constant implicit-to-explicit championing of his own view...or, not his own view at all, but how he's superior to other critics because they don't quite get cinema in the manner that he does, and when he tries to make a point in his own favor (rather than taking others down a notch) he does it in such a vague, barely-there manner that one wonders if he's merely reacting to what others say and if he's actually seen the film in question.
The "ye-ye" with which I am familiar is a sort of '60s girl-group French pop music.
To Matt's comment. I agree with the way in which you interpret Armond. But just a quick clarification to get your Mexicans straight. Armond has been unique in championing Julian Hernandez, not Carlos Reygadas. And in fact, I believe very little has been written about Hernandez. In truth, they are both part of a new and exciting Mexican aesthetic, but you may want to differentiate them. Just because their names sound Mexican it does not mean that they're the same.
Matt wrote:
Armond's deeply confused screed makes me glad I quit the Press so that I don't have to attempt to explain to people out of professional courtesy what point he thought he was trying to make.
Yes, yes, but by definition, isn't anything that upsets KilGlenny KenKen automatically wonderful, simply one-der-full?
Verily!
Re: "Ye-Ye."
I suspect Mr. White was attempting to dis Edward Yang's YI YI.
I also suspect that Mr. White's ultimate philosophy of a critic can be summed up in three words: "Because I say."
"This is self-promotion posing as bold truth-telling."
That's a line worth remembering.
Anon: You're right, of course. Armond hasn't written a word about Reygadas.
Thanks for "clearing that up," all, but yes, I'm aware that he meant Yi Yi. At this point I can predict every Armond softball before it's lobbed.
I was simply doubly aghast at the Press' consistently hands-off approach to editing and fact-checking and at Armond's (as usual, specious) claims that Yang's film has no worthwhile political or social content. In fact, that a serious film critic can put forth such a thought in print (web or ink) makes whatever he says not worth getting into.
A good friend of mine, who used to run, under cloaked identity, the blog Armond Dangerous, only had this to say after today's screed:
"Armond is the Ann Coulter of film criticism, and in order to properly respond to the nonsense of people like that is to just ignore them. Getting worked up only feeds their egos and sense of importance."
"'Charlie Rose' by Samuel Beckett"
If you are a fan of both, this is, indeed, raucously funny.
How do we say it?
BWWWWWWWWWAAA. Ha. Ha.
Ha.
BWA.
Matt, perfect response to Armond's article (and his critical position in general). I find his attacks on Ebert now to be particularly dispiriting and distasteful (given Ebert's health problems). I may be one of those idiot amateurs sloppily blogging away on movies as a hobby that Armond hates so much. Ebert was the first one to turn me on as a kid growing up in Chicago to many serious films - from Ozu to Kurosawa to Bergman. Of course, Ebert's been on the wrong side of the argument with many films like Blue Velvet and Rushmore (in my opinion) - but to accuse his criticism to lack any moral or intellectual heft is absurd. The sad irony is that I'm one of Armond's most faithful readers. Even when he's way off base - I find him provocative & there have been plenty of occasions where I agreed with him (when it certainly wasn't popular). But then he'll turn around and disparage a movie or filmmaker I love & claim that anyone who sees quality in said work or artist is not only stupid but immoral. And as you pointed out, many of the films he praises aren't exactly obscure & receive both popular and critical approval. Yet even then, that's not enough. None of this will keep me from reading his work in the future. I'm still always curious to see what he thought of certain movies - but I think you're dead on when you point to insecurity and fear about the changing media landscape driving this extremism.
I'm something of an Armond White apologist- that is to say, I think he's really great even when he's shitting on tons of movies I like- and this article's pretty spot-on.
First, he spends plenty of time praising 'Shotgun Stories' as a kind of antidote to the kind of dopey movies that professional and blogger critics love ('There Will Be Blood' for example), so this sense that it's nothing but an angry screed is wrong.
He also highlights the self-obsession critics and bloggers have when he makes the point that you know, Nathan fucking Lee will be alright without his Voice job, steelworkers and school teacher? Not so much. Don't forget this killer line: " It may be a coincidence of social class that most movies are made by people espousing a liberal bent, but it is the shame of middle-class and middlebrow conformity that critics follow each other when praising movies that disrespect religion, rail about the current administration or feed into a sense of nihilism that only people privileged with condos and professional tenure can afford."
The problem with critics but really, people at large, is this awful, convenient oscillation when its convenient. They discuss and praise Hollywood films to not be "elitist" but at the same time, cream over the art or I should say "art" films that have nothing in common with the "Average" person. Even with something at least vaguely "crowd-pleasing" as 'No County', as White points out, the OBVIOUSLY Christian and moralistic themes are glossed over.
And really, whether Ebert's in good health or half-retardo, he's a REVIEWER, not a critic. Can anyone provide any evidence of actual criticism he's done?
That's not to downplay Ebert's importance, but White's right about him essentially, not being a critic and about his unfortunate influence, an influence Ebert encourage by being obnoxiously populist and then randomly, elitist.
The place where White fails is in his annoying sense of how things used to be. His implicit contrast between Kael (I'm not a fan of Kael mind you) and Ebert highlights how dumb a populist or pseudo-populist critic's become. Still, it isn't 1968 anymore and things are different and that has an influence on how films are made, reviewed, digested, etc. He should accept that.
Still, it's a good and important article and if one can get over that he doesn't like the same movies as you, I did.
Brandon,
Whether one agrees with White's opinions is not exactly the relevant matter here. Even when I agree with him, I find his arguments to be elitist, insulting and undercooked in the logic department. When someone like White often desperately tries to convince everyone that he understands the average person, you can pretty much guarantee he doesn't understand a damn thing.
I'm personally getting tired of people like White making these generalizations about the movies Hollywood makes (which are more conservative in morality than actually acknowledged) and the critical reaction to them. He lists Rendition and Redacted as two movies that were praised by critics, but were actually universally panned.
And, as far as the critical establishment praising films that disrespect religion or allegedly promote liberalism, I think it is ridiculous to judge movies based on theological or political litmus tests. What's worse are those like White who simply assume others' opinions are just about that and not actually about the film's quality.
Since he brings up "Passion", I can bring up Mel Gibson's last two movies as perfect examples where those who hated both "Passion" and "Apocalypto", like me, were essentially accused of hating religion and going after Mel Gibson.
As if it were impossible to believe neither movie bothered to tell a compelling story and were bogged down with repetitive actions (with the most abuse of slow motion in the history of film) and one-dimensional characters with every actor wearing exactly one facial expression during each movie's runtime.
Mel Gibson's religion or politics weren't the problem, but his maturity as a filmmaker is. Even great directors wallow in silliness once in awhile. Scorsese's "Cape Fear"? Spielberg's "Hook"? Several Altman movies?
Sometimes, some people, can think a movie is not very good. And, sometimes, a movie connects with someone. Why do we have to assign artistic opinions to movies to politics, religion or White's warped view of morality? Yes, many critics are not very good, but when critics spend so much time reviewing one another, as an outsider, I consider this practice self-serving on their parts. If White wants to think he's such a superior critic, then he should offer more than the simple-minded nonsense he often offers up in his own writings.
This article is officially Armond White in martyr mode, as he senses his years of bitterness and irrelevancy has him branded as a nutter, and rightfully so, I must say. As Matt mentioned above, this is White basically saying that everyone sucks, but him. Except White complains that there isn't a dialogue when his hysterical rantings are what shut down dialogue within a second.
White: equal parts insightful and dopey. Deal with it. Fact is, at his worst he both out thinks and out writes the aggrieved Nathan Lee, of whom, I'm really tired of hearing about.
Nice grammar.
I would like to point out the following metacritic stats for these highly praised 2007 films Armond White is going on about:
205 out of 594 - in the valley of elah
310 out of 594 - the kingdom
320 out of 594 - rendition
357 out of 594 - redacted
Armond White deals in issues of his own making, not actual issues. If he didn't rely so much on creating a fiction in order to make himself look prescient and smart, he might not be so corrupt.
"being obnoxiously populist and then randomly, elitist."
Is Brandon talking about Armond White here?
Brandon: Great points, but I have to take issue with a couple of them.
"First, he spends plenty of time praising 'Shotgun Stories' as a kind of antidote to the kind of dopey movies that professional and blogger critics love ('There Will Be Blood' for example), so this sense that it's nothing but an angry screed is wrong."
Yeah, but his praise for this movie is another example of the kind of straw man argumentation he clings to like a security blanket. One can only set up Shotgun Stories as an antidote to other sorts of movies that critics and bloggers (note the lack of specifics in Armond's argument) praise if Shotgun Stories were neglected. Point of fact, it was not; in fact it was one of the most widely written-about and critically acclaimed no-budget American indies of the last 10 years. David Edelstein, a fine critic who tends to favor Hollywood films when he allocates space, gave it the lead slot in his New York review that week. The Post, which often ignores films under a certain budget level, went out of its way to praise it. And for a list of blogs and websites that praised the movie, click here.
The short version: Shotgun Stories was reviewed by every New York publication upon opening, and a hell of a lot of Internet-only publications that Armond trashes, and nobody had an unkind word to say about it. So for Armond to position his love for the film as insightful or unusual is simply ridiculous -- especially considering that the only New York critics of any significance who ignored the film upon first release were the New Yorker guys and, well, Armond himself. The only part of Armond's account that's accurate is the part where he admits he didn't see it till after it opened.
Then:" The problem with critics but really, people at large, is this awful, convenient oscillation when its convenient. They discuss and praise Hollywood films to not be "elitist" but at the same time, cream over the art or I should say "art" films that have nothing in common with the "Average" person. Even with something at least vaguely "crowd-pleasing" as 'No County', as White points out, the OBVIOUSLY Christian and moralistic themes are glossed over."
Armond oscillates between the two poles you mentioned as wildly as anybody writing today. For him to position himself in opposition to anybody in this regard is ludicrous. And Armond's not the only critic to write about the Christian and moralistic themes in No Country. For him to imply that this is the case is likewise self-serving nonsense.
As for Ebert not being a critic, don't even get me started. Ebert has been less significant in recent years -- more an institution than a critical force -- but from roughly 1968 through Siskel's death, he was among the most eclectic, passionate, freethinking critics writing for any daily newspaper in the country -- a that's saying nothing of the impact of his TV show, which made the careers of too many significant American and international directors to mention here, and urged the same middle American readers Armond sentimentalizes to get to the nearest multiplex or video store and see the latest by Kurosawa, Bergman, Antonioni, Spike Lee, Jim Jarmusch, you name it. And his writing about the movies themselves was often a perfect merger of serious thought and accessible language, more so than anybody since James Agee.
I've said my piece so I'm done talking about this. I'm also done apologizing for Armond. The considerable good he's done was long ago eclipsed by the obnoxious qualities highlighted in this latest piece.
Matt-
Thanks for the kind and thoughtful response. I also like that you're willing to politely reject the work (or more recent work) of a former co-worker. One can only imagine as you suggested, having to end up in conversations with others where you're forced to discuss the other critic's batshit-crazy opinons...
As for 'Shotgun Stories' (What got me excited about 'SS' was YOUR Times review) but I think White's onto something in the sense that even if it gets praise, most critics don't know or get why it's actually good. That's to say, what makes 'SS' different from most of the stuff critics praise is unknown or ignored.
I think the consistency to White's oscillation is movies that have heart or are you know, are sympathetic or empathetic to the human experience.
Chigurgh as bad-ass and jokes about his weird hair, Plainview and milk-shake jokes. These things dominate even seriously critics and that's depressing because I'd argue. one can't rightfully praise both of these movies and be anything of a critic and it's sort of awful to be all funny and ironic about both or either of them...
As for Ebert, I just don't think I get it and I'm willing to admit that; he's always seemed like a reviewer more than a critic to me. I'm not debating, just adding stuff to my thoughts, but I think Ebert's sort of definitively middle-brow and instructive. The fact that Ebert has praised people like Jarmusch or Spike Lee kinda proves the point: What could the "Average" person get of such smug movies??
Re: critics like it but they don't even know why
So...evidence suggests that people have in fact praised it, but now that's not enough. Now they don't know HOW to praise a film effectively enough.
"one can't rightfully praise both of these movies and be anything of a critic"
Why not? What exactly makes "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men" so far different from each other that no critic could possibly like both films and still be a "real" critic? What's the line? At what point do we decide that two films are too different for a single (intelligent) person to possibly enjoy both? And doesn't the fact that there's someone in the world that loves both "Private Fears in Public Places" and "Norbit" testify to the infinite possibilities of eclecticism in film taste? Or are you going to argue that "There Will Be Blood" is even more "dopey" than "Norbit", and that there haven't been any intelligent fans of "There Will Be Blood" who have written clear, intelligent, analytical pieces praising the film? And that some of those same people also intelligently praise "No Country for Old Me"? (In which case... Well, you oughta look a little harder.)
Besides, both "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men" are, uh, "sympathetic or empathetic to the human experience", even if the former film (especially) chooses to show this through a negative example. Both films have "heart". They can both evoke strong emotion, they can both be "edifying" - even if some failed to be "edified" or "moved" by one or the other of them (though of course, White's failure to be moved or edified means that none of the "common man" who he so bravely champions could possibly be moved or edified.) Yeah, "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" (about as dopey as Einstein) are two different films - but I believe critics are allowed to be eclectic. And since both films share brilliant filmmaking and "Christian and moralistic themes" I'm not really seeing the problem.
As others have mentioned, it's this very attitude of "either this or that, and never both" that bothers me about White. (And it's that attitude that I believe is bringing down the level of film criticism more than anything else.) I personally love a fair amount of films on both of his lists of "ignored" films and "irresponsible and retrograde but critically beloved" films - and there are others I dislike mightily. I'm not sure what that means about myself (no, yes I do. It means I'm the death of the art of film.) And I'm also not sure what it means that "Vera Drake" received more acclaim than several of the films on his "irresponsible" list, in spite of his statement that critics have "only" given their imprimatur to the "irresponsible" films.
And he might have made a good point with his claim that critics are falling over themselves praising those films that are "critical of the current administration" except for the fact that those films aren't really getting much praise at all. Yeah, there were positive reviews here and there, but the overall critical opinion of "Redacted" and "Rendition" (and so forth) was actually fairly negative. (And even the more acclaimed ones like "In the Valley of Elah" still got quite a few negative reviews.)
Overall, any good points he may have had are obscured by the nonsense, by the inaccurate (at best) "facts" he presents. There are points that could have been interesting, that could have been good "conversation-starters" - if only they had been presented in a reasonable or honest or respectful way. Instead he just slams all those that disagree with him, who don't have the same views of film as him, who don't agree with every single one of his points (and lets face it, the only person who would agree with everything he says and thinks about film is himself) - and all intelligent discourse is ended. There are critics who have some very strongly "contrarian" (yes, contrarian) viewpoints about many aspects of film, but who are able to share those viewpoints in a way that is provocative to intelligent discussion, rather than a way that is calculated simply to create annoyance and frustration in the vast majority of readers - White is not one of those critics.
It's astonishing how this champion of the "common man" comes off as such an elitist (far more elitist than most other members of the critical community.) And that for all his supposed humanism, for all his "championing of the heart" - he sure lacks much empathy himself. If someone doesn't like something he does (for the same reasons he does), then that person is not honest or intelligent. If someone doesn't feel the same emotions he does while watching a film, then that person is not honest or intelligent.
That's just not an interesting form of criticism, in my opinion. It all (vaguely, very vaguely) reminds me of Tolstoy's screed (sorry) "What Is Art?" in which he boldly proclaims that the only true art is that which effects everyone equally; that which conveys emotions that are tied to our deepest (religious) sensibilities (and whatnot.) And everything else is "counterfeit" art - those works which are praised only by art critics (who are all "perverted") and which cannot be understood or appreciated by the "common man" and is therefore perverted and counterfeit (and whatnot.) He then offers some examples of counterfeit artists: Shakespeare, Beethoven, Raphael, Milton, Michelangelo, Wagner... And, well, I never found his constant cries of "pervert!" and "counterfeit!" to be particularly interesting - and I don't find White any more interesting. Of course, White is nowhere near as smart or compelling as Tolstoy, but it just sort of reminded me of that.
Here's the thing - White is smart. But whatever good points he's capable of making are almost invariably drowned by arrogance and condescension. And hypocrisy, in his elitist tearing down of "elitists" (those with different opinions than himself) and in his building of an ivory tower for himself.
timec-
My point is not that liking one makes one a "critic" and liking the other not (this was my fault, I phrased it weird) but that if one is a thoughtful critic, one of these movies (and it could be either) would irk you. No one's worldview encompasses what's said in 'No Country' and 'There Will Be Blood'. It just doesn't! 'Norbit' is better than 'Blood' at least in terms of accomplishing what it sets out to do. I had a discussion about this on my own blog. I set-up or continued White's point that the over-the-top performance of Lewis is seen as Academy-Award winning while Murphy's over-the-top-ness is seen as buffoonery. Okay.
White's elitism shines in his protection of print media, and beliefs in stuff like some kind of ultimate "good" but his film tastes are not elitist. They simply aren't.
The tension most critics participate in is one where they celebrate very bad Hollywood movies and also, very bad and smug "art" (mind the quotes!) movies.
As for the current administration thing, he's referring to 'There Will Be Blood' in part, which you know, a lot of critics thought was pretty good (and in 2 years will be throwing out their "I Drink Your Milkshake" novelty t-shirts...).
No one's worldview encompasses what's said in 'No Country' and 'There Will Be Blood'. It just doesn't!
Why the hell not? You raise some other good points (as does Armond, beneath his own folderol), but this is exactly the kind of false dichotomy that drives me crazy, whether it be movies or other subjects. I love both movies. Stephanie Zacharek hates them. I don't see how either point of view is automatically invalid, other than some imaginary doctrine that we're supposed to follow to determine which film is "good" and which is "bad."
In my opinion, the only worldview that a critic need have is an inclusive one. You needn't like every movie, genre, or filmmaker, but you should be open to their possibilities.
Actually, aren't both films kind of close on the nihilist/existentialist "good deeds are not rewarded and evil is not punished" end of things? (Not that anyone does much of anything good in THERE WILL BE BLOOD, but Plainview's story ends in a way both triumphant and pathetic.) They're not saying the same thing, but they don't strike me as diametrically opposed in what they say.
Of course, I disagreed with NO COUNTRY's nihilism, but that's what made it a powerful film- it disturbed me. A film that was not as well-made, but with the same philosophy, wouldn't have accomplished that. It would just have been grotty, ugly, and worth forgetting about quickly. The Coens made a film that stuck with me.
I think this may be the fundamental disconnect between White and Ebert, whom he criticizes. Ebert stated the (IMO quite true) principle that a film is good not because of what it's about but how it's about it. White is obviously more of the "praise films that say something worthy" school- which would be a valid difference of opinion if he could express what he's ranting about more coherently. He spends too much time in that piece just listing films and filmmakers (and at one point Dogma 95, which- I dunno, is that still a big thing? I haven't really followed that at all.)
Anonymous wrote:
at his worst [Armond] both out thinks and out writes the aggrieved Nathan Lee, of whom I'm really tired of hearing about.
Thank you! Thank ya, Jee-sus! I cannot tell you how noxious and offensive Nathan Lee's SELF-SERVING pity party has been. Lee's all-too-public boo-hooing ain't been nuthin' but a tawdry publicity stunt.
And it's worked--unfortunately. The grossly incompetent Mr. Lee will all-too-soon be fouling up some rag somewhere, thanks to those "freelance offers" he's been "fielding."
I enjoy reading Armond White. Even when he's "wrong," he's the liveliest critic we've got right now in a "major" outlet. (Though I will nod along with Koresky that that NY Press's copyediting is abysmal.) Nathan Lee, on the other hand, is at the bottom of the trash heap. The zombies in George Romero's last film are going to need a MySpace page?? Oh, that is the soul of wit, Nathan. And yet Armond is under attack and Lee has all the handmaidens at his disposal he could sucker.
Great points made already. As Matt and others have exposed, White attacks his topic like a sports talk radio host, where emphatic speech supposedly equates with truth, even if it contradicts previous arguments. Some of the contradictions:
* In one passage White suggests that the low box office numbers of movies like "United 93," "Zodiac," "There Will Be Blood" and others is evidence that "critics have failed to rouse the moviegoing public in any direction." Then he follows that up by noting critics' "allegiance to Hollywood blockbusters" and stating that paying attention to popular films isn't the way to "build an enlightened public or a healthy culture." So critics are wrong when they cover good movies that the public doesn't race to see, and they're wrong when they cover movies (good or bad, considering his love of Spielberg) that the public will race to see. In short, no one does it right but White.
* He spends his entire rant arguing, essentially, that he's the only one who gets it and that "layman" critics might as well be hanged, yet when convenient he anoints himself the barometer of the masses. He apparently knows that everyone except critics was filled with "passion" when Dakota Fanning asked "Are we still alive?" in "War of the Worlds." He, apparently alone, "appreciates when an audience wants to be moved," and seemingly only "World Trade Center" and "War of the Worlds" would allow "them" to "experience catharsis."
* His praise of "Shotgun Stories" seems to come down to the fact that White thinks all critics praised "Blood," "Elah," "Redacted," "Rendition," etc., (as others have pointed out, that's far from accurate) and ignored "Shotgun Stories" (also inaccurate). Apparently the misperceived lack of endorsement for "SS," which shows how out of touch White is with the critical world, is what makes it "genuine."
* White criticizes that today's film criticism isn't "conversation," yet he writes with an air of infallibility and that suggests none of us are smart enough to respond to him. Remember, we're "laymen." If we agree with White, we have a clue. If not, we should shut up and keep our opinions to ourselves, lest we ruin our culture.
Does White say things I agree with? Absolutely. Just for starters, put me in the camp with those who think that "A History Of Violence" isn't as deep as many critics suggested. But White doesn't defend his argument, he just makes a proclamation. That I happen to agree with it doesn't make it accurate. In fact, given how out of touch with reality this column proves White to be, if anything it makes me question my own take.
Evan's right when he mentions that often, White prefers what a movie says than how it says it or what it does. Most critics do the opposite, which is his point. No one has to agree with that but it's silly that White's not allowed to explore that territory. He's a critic.
Also Evan, I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but nihilism and existentialism even on like Pop-level, have very little in common. 'No Country' makes its villian(s) look absurd and un-cool, 'Blood' puts the villian in the center, contrasts him with a religious fraud or a con-man (the fake brother), and then shows you how the villain's still better than all these other assholes. That's very cynical and a place 'No Country's is not interested in going.
White's point on low box office numbers vs. praising Hollywood blockbusters isn't that hard to figure out and it sort of proves his point that no one will give the piece the time of day (no matter how much it offends any of you that he shits on some movies you like).
White's point is, the movies praised are often art-type movies that have nothing to do with the average moviegoer but are presented as good, solid, "films" for everyone. When they do this, they alienate people from critics and so-called "cinema" at-large. What would someone not interested in cinematography, pseudo-avant-garde music, super-not-subtle jabs at Bush and co. and plenty of irony ("I'm finished" and then the credits roll, oh so fucking clever) get out of 'Blood'?
White's additional point that is complicated but doesn't conflict with the point above, is when they aren't praising certain kind of "Art" movies that no normal movie-goer would see (even as the critic pretends to be populist) they justify terrible and silly Hollywood garbage.
Finally, on 'Shotgun Stories'. It is the kind of movie that even as critics praise, they would never present on the populist level they think 'Blood' has, even though (from what I gathered from the movie and trailer) it has way more in-common with most movie-goers than 'Blood'. This is part a sense of condescension to the audience and part depressing categorical thinking ('Blood' has stars in it, people will like it/'SS' doesn't, don't tell a normal viewer to see it). And finally, it's part complicity in the awful Hollywood machine that gains nothing out of the success of 'Shotgun Stories'.
For starters, that's presuming a lot about the average moviegoer. Does such a being even exist? Even the big hit movies tend to target different demographics- and of course there are many movies meant to appeal to as many people as possible that miss the target altogether. Surely if the average filmgoer was predictable, he or she would be easy to please and there wouldn't be nearly as many bombs as there are.
And since when were critics pushing THERE WILL BE BLOOD as a film for "everyone"? Any good critic or reviewer will describe a film in sufficient detail so that, whether the review is positive or negative, you will be able to decide whether it's a movie you'd be interested in. Sure, critics generally argue that people should support well-made films, but there's nothing elitist about encouraging the development of an appreciation for fine filmmaking, just as a food critic would hope his readers appreciate fine cooking. If you have a passion for what you review (and why wouldn't you?), you want to share that with others.
Of course, your own reading of THERE WILL BE BLOOD is as subjective as any critic's review, suggesting that all there is to it is some nice photography and psuedo-intellectualism. That's a valid position. But it's not the only one, and other critics aren't idiots for not sharing it.
Evan-
Of course, no movie like that PERFECTLY exists, but that's no reason to stop trying. Something like 'No Country' (which is why he highlights it) is a movie that is fairly entertaining and although intellectual and blah blah, has a message that is framed through (for lack of a better word) an "Average" person and has themes that resonate with most people.
When 'Blood' is praised by many (although not all, the Baltimore Sun, my local paper hated it) and then is given many Academy Award nominations and a win or two, (especially for actor, which is the one the "average" person is most interested in, next to 'Best Picture') well, you can bet the average movie-goer's going to see it or at least rent it. And what they get is a movie that simply WILL NOT resonate with them. There's no arguing that, there just isn't.
For the record, I think 'Blood' is forgettable and I think 'No Country' is good in-theory but super-obvious, but you know, just about anybody that asks me about it, I'll tell them it's worth seeing. 'Blood' not so much...
The problem which White is discussing and really, isn't that complicated is, most critics either praise status-quo pushing garbage (because they aren't "elitist") or insular, art movies about cynicism and nihilism, that most people neither want to see or would care to see. Art movies have no appeal to "regular" people because even when something like 'No Country' is praised, something like 'Blood' is praised as well and fucks the whole game up...
Who is this "average moviegoer"? I wasn't asking whether such a film existed, I was asking whether such a person really existed. What I see is you projecting your assumptions onto the "common man", and I think the key to avoiding elitism is to get rid of the notion that there's such a predictable creature. There are many different kinds of filmgoers and they find different kinds of things appealing.
And I'm not quite getting what you're driving at- should critics NOT praise a film like THERE WILL BE BLOOD because someone might see it and not enjoy it? Do they not run that risk with every film they praise, big or small?
It seems we're straying into Michael Medved territory, where the point is not to evaluate films on an aesthetic level but to see how well they match up with surveys of what "the people" want.
We can sit around and avoid appearing elitist (as opposed to avoiding actually being elitist) all day, but everyone knows what it means by "average" or "common" moviegoer. I put it in quotes to avoid obvious suggestions of me being elitist, but in some general sense, you know what I mean or at least what I don't mean. People like us, debating on message boards or writing about FILM for money or hobby, are not average moviegoers.
You're putting words in my mouth and that's sort of symptomatic of this whole problem: Everyone's more interested in calling White out than seeing what he's saying.
I'm not on Medved territory because I suggest 'Blood's not in any way something the average person can enjoy. Again, it's primarily not enjoyable not because it's artsy or long but because it deals with the smug, liberal politics most people neither have time for or care about. It's that simple.
'No Country''s at least, about themes and characters connected to the "average" person and by that, all I mean is MOST people.
"Again, it's primarily not enjoyable not because it's artsy or long but because it deals with the smug, liberal politics most people neither have time for or care about. It's that simple."
That's EXACTLY what Medved goes on about, though. Attacking a movie for its politics, and not plainly reprehensible ones like, say, BIRTH OF A NATION's racism, but something as awful and "elitist" as being liberal or critiquing capitalism.
And it's not like THERE WILL BE BLOOD is so political and didactic that you couldn't enjoy it unless you voted Nader in '00. "The oil industry is greedy and amoral" is not exactly a fringe viewpoint nowadays, either.
Ultimately, though, this seems to go back to "you shouldn't give a glowing review to a potentially difficult or non-mainstream film", which is a pretty good way of ensuring said films don't get made.
On what level is 'There Will Be Blood' enjoyable outside of those politics? The sloppy narrative? The confused thematics? It's either a smug movie about religion and oil and how they are connected or it's an over-the-top ironic movie with quotables like "I drink your milkshake". It's fine that movies have these themes, but it IS ELITIST. Who does it appeal to besides people that agree? There's no humanity in 'Blood'.
Medved opposes the politics because he disagrees. I disagree because they are obvious. There's a difference...
Well, there is Daniel Day Lewis raging across the screen for three hours. People who are fans of, y'know, acting might enjoy that, and it's a strong central character. Paul Dano manages to hold his own as well. It's also got a nicely tense atmosphere, you're sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop constantly. And it's got historical interest, it's a time period and an environment not dealt with much.
Maybe none of that worked for you, but to say it's only liked for its politics is just being silly. There are plenty of anti-capitalist movies that DON'T end up on most critics' end-of-year lists.
Which goes back to the problem with the rant. White doesn't just have minority opinions on a lot of movies. That's fine. Me too. Someday EXORCIST II will finally receive the deep and abiding respect it deserves. I keep the faith. But the point is, it's one thing to have these opinions. It's another to insist that the reason other critics don't share them is that they're smug elitist bastards who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
I see plenty of humanity in There Will Be Blood. H.W., as a baby, gently pulling at Plainview's mustache. H.W. telling Plainview about Mary being beaten by her father, and Plainview quietly says, "Mary...she's the small one?" Plainview spooning with H.W. after the latter's accident, and later demanding of his assistant whether H.W.'s room is big enough. The complex emotions and motivations between Plainview and his alleged half-brother; Plainview's reaction when later reading the real half-brother's journal. Plainview at his baptism, confessing the abandonment of his son. And finally H.W.'s relationship with his interpreter and with Mary, the two of whom clearly center him later in life and give him the courage to flee Plainview's clutches. The movie is ultimately about this one character's loss of humanity, but it's fair to say he grapples with it throughout the film, and neither he nor the director are devoid of feeling.
I'm not saying Anderson is a perfect filmmaker. But he's a personal and (lord knows) eccentric one whose movies presume to speak for nobody but himself. That seems, to me, less smug and elitist, and far more compelling, than these trite either/or arguments and I'm-speaking-for-the-masses presuppositions.
The masses? Who gives a fig about the masses? Have you bothered to look over this wonderfully perspicacious electorate of ours?
Elitist? Because I think a poor Haneke film is still better viewing than junk by Apatow? That is my choice. the masses can have "Survivor" and "The Great Race", if they choose, but not "Top chef", I enjoy "Top chef". Wow! maybe I'm not a full-on elitist...Are there degrees of elitism? Of the three-McCain, Clinton, and Obama, who is the most elitist? And if one of you nobs actually attempt to answer that one, you have missed the point entirely, and deserve Pat Buchanan.
Everyone on this board might have the craggly admonishing finger of the philistine come wagging in their faces and a voice condemning them as "elitist!", and correctly so.
Over forty posts on this topic and still increasing. Christ. Were you as riled up when our government admitted recently to employing torture?
I'm going to listen now to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright speaking at the National Press club. I wonder what White thinks of him?
Why is that anyone would presume what the masses and average person wants to see? Really, anyone who thinks they know is, in reality, just making sweeping generalizations that are based on their own personal opinions, just as White is doing, as well as some people on this thread.
As I said earlier, anyone who genuinely believes they know what others think and is so desperate to convince others of this are the ones who, most likely, don't understand a damn thing. Blanket statements about certain members of the population do nothing but reduce the complexity of any argument.
As a Latino, I don't appreciate my opinion being represented by race polls that claim to know how all of us think. I'm just as offended as when some critic like White presumes to know anything about my allegedly elitist taste in movies, when he should just admit he's speaking from personal prejudice rather than any genuine insight. That he blatantly lies to back up his argument shows how valid it is.
Just because someone thinks "There Will Be Blood", for example, is phony doesn't make it anything more than merely an opinion. To say that no one has given good reasons as to why the movie was meaningful to them is absurd. To presume that common people (however the hell anyone would define them) wouldn't have a single thing to relate to in the movie reeks of arrogance.
I give up. You're sorta proving White's point, which is primarily the categorical thinking of most critics and bloggers. One more time:
You can sit around and worry about appearing not to be elitist as opposed to not being elitist, but really, that's a waste of time. Like it or not, White puts himself on the line in a way that pretty much no critics do anymore.
That one can't see how MOST PEOPLE (which is really what "average" moviegoer means...) wouldn't get much of anything out of 'There Will Be Blood' (I got quite a lot out of it, mind you) is you know, pretty out of it...
So, in other words, "I'm not going to explain why MOST PEOPLE won't like this movie, and recommending a movie that MOST PEOPLE won't like is elitist, and so is not understanding why MOST PEOPLE wouldn't like this movie."
There's something nicely circular about it. Also, you appear to be appealing to the "repeating all-caps phrases over and over again" school of argument.
Post a Comment