1. An important post at GreenCine on LA Weekly's 30th Anniversary. Site editor David Hudson gathers the "dour" appraisals of Weekly writers (present and past) Scott Foundas and Ella Taylor, then offers some thoughts of his own. At the very least, the whole exchange has gotten me interested in Michael Ventura.
["FOUNDAS: Because I have been accused in some quarters of being “antiblog” or “anti-Internet,” I hasten to add that some of the best film criticism being published at the moment is exclusive to the Web, and that there is sure to be more of it as the legions of displaced print critics initiate their own blogs or find homes at extant Web outfits. Rather, what I am talking about is a cultural phenomenon — go ahead, call it a decline — in which the supremacy of the Internet is more a symptom than a cause. I am talking about a moment in which we seem more inclined to disseminate information than to receive it (and, when we do receive it, to rarely question the validity of the source), in which video games are considered (not by everyone, but by far too many) a valid substitute for books, in which seriousness is routinely sacrificed at the altar of the superficial, and in which perfectly rational, intelligent people accept all of this as inevitable signs of the times, as “just the way things are.” So we are less inclined to look at movies and think about them for days afterward, pondering what is true and what is false. So we no longer demand that our film critics should also be poets. And perhaps this, to answer Ebert’s rhetorical question, is the very reason why we need critics now more than ever, lest future generations come to take as gospel that Forrest Gump and The Shawshank Redemption are among the best films ever made in this country, when in fact they are not even among the best films of 1994; when in fact they are not actually very good."]
2. The National Board of Review announces its awards for 2008. Comment below is a Facebook status update and comment from Charles Taylor, who's asked his fellow film writers to post his thoughts "on these clowns." Love ya, Charlie.
["Charles Taylor congratulates the great Viola Davis on her "Breakthrough" Award from the Alzheimer's set at NBR -- after twelve years of stunning performances. I mean, really. This boneheaded coterie of film buffs that is the National Board of Review -- or as I call them, the Petrified Forest -- are entitled to their crummy, predictable choices. But they should at least be expected to know something. In every movie she's been in, Davis has stolen scenes from her co-actors -- just by being completely believable. Granted, her co-star here is Meryl Strep giving one of the worst performances of the last twenty years. But she'd be amazing next to someone doing good work."]
3. Michael Joshua "Fellini is my dog" Rowin on Amarcord.
["The growing antipathy may be universal—David Lynch spoke of his outrage upon seeing Fellini getting booed at Cannes for the screening of his last movie, The Voice of the Moon. Yet Fellini seems to particularly rankle a tough, rational strain of the American sensibility. Romantic, mystical, tender, and grotesque among a plethora of contradictory qualities, Fellini’s cinema has consistently resisted categorization—is he a showman, an ironist, a bleeding heart?—along with any solid claim to either high art (he’s one of the few canonical directors who can revel in a fart joke) or, from 8 ½ onward, audience-pleasing accessibility. Even Orson Welles paid Fellini a backhanded compliment by calling him a small-town boy ceaselessly agog at the big city—compared to the sophisticates, as he would have it, Fellini is just a creative bumpkin, more naively intuitive than intellectually deep."]
4. Congratulations to our own Peet Gelderblom who has been nominated for a Dutch Television Prize (under "Categorie Amusement") for his work on Waar is De Mol?. (Official site here.)
5. "Landmark strip club in West Hollywood burns": Girls, Girls, Girls ... on fire!
["A fire on Thursday burned through the roof of The Body Shop, a landmark West Hollywood strip club mentioned in a Motley Crue hit. The blaze was reported at about 6:46 a.m. Thursday at the one-story club on Sunset Boulevard, the Los Angeles County Fire Department said. Firefighters don't believe anyone was in the building at the time of the fire and were investigating its cause."]
Quote of the Day: John Cleese
Image of the Day (click to enlarge): Salvador Dalí: Original or Tiger Beat?
Clip of the Day: The star-studded "Prop 8: The Musical."
_____________________________________________________
"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.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Links for the Day (December 5th, 2008)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
#1: So much for "End of the Year" lists from critics; we're now getting "End of Civilization" jeremiads, of which Foundas's is only the latest and most tiresome. People like The Shawshank Redemption and Forrest Gump? Let me cower inside my nuke-proof fridge. One could do worse, and in any case I'd say most of those films' fans (including the man Foundas mentions, Roger Ebert, who gave each four stars) made their judgments on their own accord, not because the IMDb says so.
We don't need our film critics to be poets; what would be refreshing, as Steven Santos once suggested on these pages (and whose comments -- often more thoughtful than the pieces that prompted them -- have been sadly missed), is less extremism and more nuance. There's a difference between a film critic who panders to the crowd and one whose insights are conveyed with insight, curiosity, lack of pretense or pantheon-clinging, a sense of play, a dash of humility, and respect for the medium and its audience. I'd bet the farm there is a wide readership that would receive such a critic, should he or she exist.
Thanks, Craig, for giving me a shout-out to my comments! They must have stuck since I haven't commented here in awhile. Admittedly, I'm flattered that someone misses me here! :)
I can't really say there were any special reasons why I haven't commented recently. I'm a freelance video editor so work comes in waves. So although I visit here every other day, typing up a well-thought-out comment takes time and, after a 10 hour day, it can be tough. Also, from what I remember, the last piece I commented on got very heated so I wanted to pull back a little.
It's late now, so I can't get into the articles in detail although the excerpt above has a few falsehoods in it already. Particularly the notion that we need critics to tell us that "Forrest Gump" wasn't a good movie. Most critics praised "Gump" and then, let's be honest, turned on it by the time it started making money and became too popular. Then, they sort of embraced "Pulp Fiction" as the next hip thing critics should embrace while "Gump" was criticized for its schmaltz.
First of all, "Gump" isn't the monstrosity snobbier critics make it out to be although it doesn't mean I think it's that good a movie. And, to be fair, "Pulp Fiction" is just as overrated as "Gump". I think "Shawshank" is a classic, which makes me a philistine to critics like Foundas. However, I think "Ed Wood" is the greatest film from that year, so that means...that means...oh, I guess that means we should welcome those who have different opinions and don't fall into the stereotypes critics like Foundas impose on those who like something like "Shawshank". Because, if I like "Shawshank", according to Foundas, I must have no taste and must bow to his infinite wisdom.
Craig, you definitely sum up (better than I did) what I've felt has been missing from film criticism these days and that I think people out there serious about film are hungry for. However, I genuinely think that film criticism this year was shameful. A collective losing of minds that I can pinpoint all the way back to the summer starting with "Iron Man" leading to "Speed Racer" then to "Indiana Jones" and finally culminating with "The Dark Knight".
It wasn't merely about whether I disagreed with the opinions (in fact, I've only seen "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" from the movies I listed above). It's more about the two sides of group-think to each of those movies (although one group was bigger than the other, it was still group-think) which was reflected by the unconvincing arguments. The "Speed Racer" and "Dark Knight" debates, in particular, reeked of hysteria, malice, cheerleading and arrogance on both sides.
I did put out the theory in the comments section of a "Dark Knight" review (which may be where you remember my comment) that film critics who are getting laid off are responding to movies with a certain extremism to demonstrate that if they can lead a critical consensus, they will be considered a relevant voice. Personally, I'd rather they'd invest their energy into writing something more insightful than simply building something up or tearing it down.
And the tearing down doesn't end with the movie, but with the critics who liked it and the audience who went to see it. I would have respected those few who disliked "The Dark Knight" if they hadn't implied that I was a subhuman knuckle-dragging moron for thinking it was a terrific movie. Plus, like many critics who raved about the movie, their arguments equally sucked.
Discourse about film this past year was not anything to be proud of. I am afraid that now that film criticism is on the web, it is taking the form of a message board flame war that will only serve those who want to read things that reassure them of their beliefs rather than challenge them. And we'll also have mindless contrarians who think going against popular consensus excuses them of writing little more than a bunch of angered declarations absent of logic and coherence.
cough...Armond White...cough!
It's late. I might have more to add when I actually sit, read and actually respond to the articles themselves as opposed to creating a new topic via my long-winded comments!
Having read the Foundas article now, I would say my response last night was relevant. Craig has it right that Foundas is over-simplifying the issue while not facing the possibility that serious critics like himself are contributing to the problems in film criticism these days as much as the quote whores out there.
I'd say film criticism has turned today into a battle of ideologies. I understand that comes with the territory, but, as in politics, adherence to strict ideology often lacks the nuance to deal with certain inconvenient truths. Today, we often have critics who write reviews that reaffirm their often misguided preconceptions about a movie.
I'm not sure if critics recognize what they've been doing, particularly the last year or so. And, like Craig, I'm waiting for more of them to step up and realize it's not merely about what opinion you have, but how you make the argument.
RE: #2
Eric Roth winning ANY award for screenwriting is an insult to all gifted screenwriters past, present and future. To call the man a hack is to offer too much praise.
#1 Craig and Steven: Good points.
But: Let's not get lost in the "Shawshank Redemption" (which I love) and "Forrest Gump" (which I loath) examples. Foundas could have inserted any movies in there and the point is the same.
Which leads me here: I agree with many of the characterizations of film criticism you both listed. However, I also remember well the response from the masses to Keith's pan of "The Dark Knight" earlier this year. In that case, and a few others, many fans were ripping a review of a film THEY HADN'T EVEN SEEN. I think that's the kind of mentality Foundas is alluding to in mentioning Ebert, who again trotted out the idea (paraphrasing here) that a movie critic should be like the food critic who lets the masses know there's more to eat than just McDonald's. On that larger point, I agree, whether the critic is paid or a recreational blogger.
I'm the type who likes to have my ideas challenged (Ed Howard and I got into it pretty good about "Synecdoche, New York" this year, and happily so). For a non-film example: I voted for Obama, but I watched some Fox News every day. That's me.
That said, I'm not so offended by the critics who take a hard line, one way or the other. What does offend me is the implied 'me against the world' tone that often comes across when a critic goes even slightly outside 'mainstream,' whatever that is.
I want my critic to be honest, that's it. If that means the movie is a piece of technical crap but it moved you, write it. If the movie is brilliantly constructed but a bore, write it.
I definitely think it's important for a critic to be honest. The forcefulness of their opinion I don't object to as long as the review was written well, thoughtful and supported by arguments.
Since you brought up those who attacked Keith, I would first just say straight out that the majority of those people had that serious mental disorder that says you can say anything terrible on the internet as long as you don't have to face the person you're hurling insults at and can hide behind a fake name. I think that disorder is called cowardice.
That said, I almost feel critics this past year, not quite, but are sort of sinking to that level of discourse as opposed to rising above it. As easy it was to knock "The Dark Knight" fanatics, you would have thought those critics who didn't like the movie would have written more thoughtful reviews. Instead, in my opinion, most of those reviews were just as shallow and empty as the raves it received.
Just because someone has an alternative viewpoint doesn't mean we give them a pass for bad writing as well as creating simply an alternate group-think mentality. And as much as we can talk about non-critics who proclaim a film they haven't seen great, we should also talk about critics who seem to be writing based on agenda and, as I mentioned before, write reviews that simply reaffirm their preconceptions about the movie.
I feel the critics who are easy lays are reviewing the marketing material. While other critics, who consider themselves the alternative point of view, feel the need to compensate by going in the extreme opposite direction, but still based on the marketing material. What we wind up with is often a bunch of reviews that have little to do with the movie itself.
I actually said a few months ago (not sure if I wrote it here) that, despite "The Dark Knight" being the subject of discussion and being widely seen, we actually have few pieces of writing that discussed the movie that Christopher Nolan actually made. It was essentially a bunch of reviews where it became clear that the actual movie was going to be reshaped to suit their opinion, much like jamming a square peg into a round hole.
It may seem like I'm being hard on the critics. I can certainly address the kind of people like those attacked Keith. But reasoning doesn't work with them. They're the kinds of people who wanted the Iraq War to happen regardless of the long-term consequences. They have the same mentality that accuses others of being non-patriotic for simply disagreeing with them. If anything, a discussion with people like this only takes their bait. They're not interested in real discussion.
I bring up these issues about critics because, with all of the pieces I've seen like Foundas, I think they're not facing up to some truths about themselves. They're not looking at the situation from outside of their own perspective. I'm someone who likes to read intelligent writing on film, but I feel most of what I've read this year has been high school clique nonsense that's degrading the form. There's still good stuff out there, but it's getting harder to find.
But: Let's not get lost in the "Shawshank Redemption" (which I love) and "Forrest Gump" (which I loath) examples. Foundas could have inserted any movies in there and the point is the same.
That's exactly my problem with his thesis. Foundas could have listed any random examples for a claim of universality. One could just as easily plug in The Dark Knight or Slumdog Millionaire into his statement -- both of which Foundas adored -- and it wouldn't be any more enlightening.
Furthermore, he picked that pair of films in an attempt to bolster a point Ebert was trying to make, when in fact Ebert liked both movies. That's a sloppy argument, not to mention a tedious one I've already read countless times this year. I think the McDonald's analogy is wearing equally thin, particularly when it's along the lines of Kael's "trash is great, but only the trash that I think is great" dogmatic approach. That doesn't open up any dialogue; it shuts it down.
And speaking of the perils of Pauline, the #2 link featuring one of Charles Taylor's patented diatribes (you think I'm angry, Jason?), where an honorable intention (praising Viola Davis) gets obscured by a crowd-scattering rant aimed at an easy target is another example of the kind of argument that I think is turning off a potentially enthusiastic readership. (I believe Matt once called C.T. a "bomb-thrower," but bombs lose their impact when they're being hurled in every piece.) Equally as predictable as the NBR's choices are several critics' own pantheons and enemies lists -- and equally damaging, as Steven Santos intimated, to the field.
Finally, the disgraceful incident involving the torches and pitchforks that greeted Keith's Dark Knight review last summer unfortunately obscured what I thought was a glimmer of a point about language and communication. One of my favorite moments in a recent House podcast was when the group started talking about Oliver Stone's W. Keith made an observation about how the film really was just as crazy as the rest of Stone's movies, but crazy beneath the surface; and Odie chimed in that W. was Stone's version of David Lynch's Straight Story. That's the kind of unfettered give-and-take that I love, and wish there was more on display in the profession.
Steven: I bring up these issues about critics because, with all of the pieces I've seen like Foundas, I think they're not facing up to some truths about themselves.
OK. I'm with you on that. I'm not really disagreeing with you and Craig. I think what I'm trying to do is keep us away from addressing Foundas with more Foundas, if you know what I mean.
Getting to your point about critics mirroring the message board ranters, I can see that. I actually see it more in sports where the talk radio "I know everything" mentality has infiltrated print and online. It's come to be that one of the things I appreciate most about anybody -- critic, columnist, friend, politician -- is the ability to say: "I don't know." Another thing: The ability to write under your own name, or at least a consistent handle. Matt Maul took a lot of heat with his debate analysis a few months back, but he stood and took it. I respect that tremendously. I hope the blog format leads to more of that.
Which kind of leads me to ...
Craig: I'm with you, especially in desiring an opening of the conversation (rather than shutting it down). The element of the fast-food analogy that I agree with is simply this: so long as there are paid (or even unpaid) critics in big cities who get to see films that others of us might not, there's a valuable role for the critic in showing the masses what exists beyond the multiplex. I'm not looking for a critic to tell me what to think about the movie. Ideally the critic makes arguments, and then I agree or disagree with those en route to my own opinion.
That said, I agree that doesn't happen as often as it should. Some reviewers get so lost in their prose that you can tell that they liked or disliked a film but not quite why. You don't know where to start the arguments, because you can't detect theirs. That's my most frequent frustration.
Thanks, Keith, for the link, and thanks to Craig, Steven, et al. for the lively follow-up. This is, I think we all agree, exactly the sort of thing that’s missing from most contemporary discourse about movies, whether it’s on the web, in print, or in the lobby outside of your local movie theater—for those of us who still believe movies are things meant to be seen on large screens in public spaces instead of on iPods and laptops. Somewhere, the Lumière brothers are spinning in their graves and Thomas Edison is cheering in his, but there I go sounding all apocalyptic again. Which isn’t my intention, here or in the LA Weekly 30th Anniversary article that got this whole ball rolling. It’s true that I started there by speaking to the recent shifts in the landscape of print film criticism, but I quickly go on to mention that some of the best film criticism happening today is happening on the internet—The House Next Door is one of those places—and that many print outlets (the LA Weekly, I hope, included) have striven to maintain a similarly high standard in what have been difficult economic times. But this, I guess, is all a matter of interpretation.
The only specific point I feel compelled to speak to here concerns the two 1994 films I singled out in my essay as being unworthy of their titanic reputations. Whatever one thinks of Forrest Gump and The Shawshank Redemption (and it’s true that I don’t think much of them—don’t now, didn’t when I reviewed them for my high school newspaper), my point wasn’t that we should all cower inside our radiation-proof refrigerators because some people like these movies. Rather, I was simply trying to suggest that the danger in the reduction of critical voices—especially those willing to think outside the press kit, as it were—is that, without them, future generations of moviegoers may “take as gospel” (my exact words) the fact that these are good movies (or even some of the best movies ever made) simply because the IMDB or the AFI or that handful of critics whose reviews are widely syndicated across the print and online spectrums say that they are. That’s why I intentionally mentioned two films on which I knew that Roger Ebert and I parted company—to stress (although perhaps this point did not come through) that what matters isn’t that he liked those movies and I didn’t, but that this kind of disagreement is key to the continuation of a lively film culture. Simply put, that a film review should be the beginning—and not the end—of a conversation between the critic and the reader. That’s where Roger’s analogy to a restaurant critic being asked to review McDonald’s is spot-on. What we’re really talking about here, I think, isn’t so much the decline of film criticism per se, but the decline of critical thinking in the culture at large—something one shouldn’t have to look much further than the reductive mudslinging of the last campaign cycle in order to see. Barack Obama is a terrorist by association just as The Shawshank Redemption is a masterpiece by acclimation. Case closed.
In the comments above, Jason Bellamy says it best: “I'm the type who likes to have my ideas challenged.” The problem is that, right away, that puts Jason in the minority and serves as a glowing reminder that all of us here in this very discussion are essentially like-minded parties. Whereas the crisis in film criticism—or critical thinking, if you will—lies is in trying to preach to the un-converted. An example: In the four years during which I provided brief movie reviews on the Friday edition of the nationally-syndicated Mark & Brian radio show, I probably received more feedback from listeners (mostly in the form of e-mail) than I have from readers in my entire career at Variety and the LA Weekly combined. And, more often than not, those comments came from people who were expressing their agreement with my dissenting opinion on some anointed masterpiece-of-the-moment (as when I suggested that maybe Crash wasn’t the best movie of 2004) or telling me that they’d sought out some under-publicized foreign or independent movie (like Michael Haneke’s Cache) on account of hearing me review it on the show.
Now, I would hardly classify the Mark & Brian radio show as an ideal forum for intelligent critical argument, but my point is that those of us who construct our lives around movies have a convenient tendency to forget that the great majority of people do not think about movies as anything more than a form of entertainment, do not traverse the internet seeking out interesting film-related blogs, and may never even encounter a “film review” as such unless it happens to appear in their morning paper or come over the airwaves during their drive into work. (As Ebert himself has pointed out, his own blog, which as blogs go gets a lot of traffic, still only reaches a fraction of the readers who pick up the print edition of the Chicago Sun-Times every day.) To this day—and it has been more than a year now since I stopped reviewing films on the radio—I still run into people (most recently, in the jury pool room at the Los Angeles County Criminal Courthouse) who know me only as the film critic for Mark & Brian and who may never even have heard of the LA Weekly let alone read it—and we, like everyone else these days, have a website too. So there is a barometer for you of the role film criticism (and, by extension, movies themselves, and by extension any kind of culture) plays in most people’s lives. But given that movies are the great popular art form of our time, these people should be part of the conversation too, because some of them are actually quite curious. There’s that old saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. True enough. But sometimes, if you bring water to the horse, you can quench a great unknown thirst.
I prefer my movie critics to be poets.
Do most people read reviews before or after they watch the movie in question? If anything these days, I read reviews after the fact.
Scott: Thanks for writing in, and good clarifications.
"What we're really talking about here, I think, isn't so much the decline of film criticism per se, but the decline of criticla thinking in the culture at large."
Amen. Of course, that includes critics -- which is part of the point I think Craig was making. And that's not to say you disagree.
Again, good thoughts. Yes, we here are members of a minority.
Scott, thank you for taking the time to respond. There's a lot in your comment to chew over, but I think the heart of it is this: "Simply put, that a film review should be the beginning—and not the end—of a conversation between the critic and the reader." No disagreement there. It was your review of There Will Be Blood, in fact, that inspired me to see the film and reflect upon my own thoughts about it going on nearly a year later. Too often, though, I read film criticism that comes across as the be-all and end-all on a particular subject, for reasons mentioned above. I think there are more people out there willing to have their ideas challenged than you think; what I'm seeing in many instances, however, isn't so much a challenge as a snuffing out of dissent before the ball even gets rolling.
Maybe this is less obvious within critical circles, where there are so many strong wills (and the occasional axe to grind). But to the average reader it can have an alienating effect. I'm glad to see you're writing with a readership in mind (and perhaps the experience of a radio call-in show can make one more conscience of an audience that's out there), but I get the sense that many critics are writing more for each other, if anyone at all. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's not a great way to build the kind of dynamic you're talking about.
To your other point, I only wish more critics would take advantage of the possibilities of the Internet (and I'm also glad to see you recognize all the good writing that's out here) and not worry so much about what's being "taken as gospel," because everything online is in a constant state of flux. However one feels about The Shawshank Redemption, it's important to remember that it was a pre-Internet phenomenon, that it didn't do great box-office during its theatrical run and only got discovered later on videocassette, by myself among countless others. Yet as any message board for any revered film will tell us, there's always somebody out there who thinks something sucks. They may not express it any more eloquently than that; but the fact that they're there means there may be others who hold similar opinions who are willing and able to engage in a dialogue. Maybe a good critic can change their minds about a film, or get them experience or understand it in a new way. Or -- who knows -- maybe they just might do the same for the critic.
I just wanted to thank Scott for responding as well. To be honest, the discussion on this topic has demonstrated the ability of those serious about movies to show an understanding of each other's opinions although we still have distinctly different perspectives.
What both Scott and Craig have mentioned about reviews being the start and not the end of a discussion may be what the central point of this argument. The one thing not touched on yet is curiosity. One aspect of the best pieces on film have demonstrated a certain level of curiosity about a movie's strengths and its weaknesses. That often leads to a curiosity about what others think, regardless if their opinion differs from yours.
Not to seem as if I'm attacking critics again, but, just yesterday, I read a piece linked from Movie City News where someone listed the 5 most overrated movies of the year, which amounted to the critic saying these 5 movies were phony and anyone who bought into it is a sucker. And I'm asking myself, what does this piece accomplish other than build up the writer and tear down those who don't share his opinion? And trying not to fan a flame, I know this was a writer let go from a more high profile gig not that long ago.
Where is the curiosity? Where is the attempt for discussion? I read the piece and gain a very ugly insight about the author and little about the movies themselves. Sometimes, I wonder if reviews exist only for critics to vent against their films and champion other films. That is, of course, a part of film criticism, but I think it should aspire to be more than that. As Craig brought up, it seems as if critics are almost insular in their perspectives, writing for each other. Foundas' experience on the radio show would certainly make him more aware of his audience without feeling he needs to write down to them.
I think we can all agree about what we're craving for out of a film review in a idealistic world, but we really need to start acknowledging what has been happening to film criticism the past year or so. This may be a touchy subject for most.
I would definitely like to hear from more critics if they're even noticing some of the issues we've brought up here. I'm actually surprised that some of the comments Craig, Scott and I made didn't inspire the amount of responses that, say, Armond White's typically paranoid and delusional rant about internet film criticism did, considering I think Foundas' piece is a considerably more sane starting point to talk about some of the same subjects.
Of course I meant "conscious," not "conscience." Gah, long day.
Good continued discussion. A few more comments on the latest from Craig and Steven ...
Just to go back to the Morons v Uhlich incident that was discussed before, I want to get out of the way once again that there are fans who don't want to be challenged, who want only to read criticism that agrees with their view. But these people aren't getting paid, nor are the adopting the identity of a critic, as unpaid bloggers do. Which is to say that we expect more of critics and sometimes don't get it.
I haven't read the Movie City News piece, but if it's as Steven makes it sound, it seems as if it belongs more in the bomb-throwing, headline-grabbing genre of criticism: Throw a few popular films under the bus, draw some attention and that's that. The concept for the piece is fine, if it's backed up with evidence.
All of which brings me to this: If critics write with the purpose of making arguments -- which I think is different than being argumentative -- they will convince people that Film A is a classic and Film B is overrated. Not every time, perhaps. But often. As Steven implies, once the article begins its author should be almost invisible (most of the time).
Whether critics are writing for each other, I don't know. I don't think that's true of most of the paid critics. If it were, they'd leave out the editor-demanded plot recaps that often take up 50 percent of the available space; instead they'd just write about the filmmaking. That said, in this Twitter era it seems that many reviews are satisfied with being boiled down to one pull-quote point, which often ends up being one extreme or the other.
All this foggy-headed rambling is just to say: Let There Be Evidence. The burden of proof should be on the critic at all times.
I'm going to presume the piece Steven is alluding to is Nathan Lee's "A Lump of Coal" at WNYC. (If I'm incorrect in my presumption, Steven, do let me know.)
I'm bringing the piece out of the margins because I think it's relevant to the conversation at this juncture and I also think it has inspired some excellent discussion in its own comments section, particularly between Nathan and Victor Morton, who publishes at Rightwing Film Geek.
I hasten to add, in the interest of being upfront, that Nathan is a good friend (and that Victor and I had a lovely extended chat in Toronto this past September -- hope for more), but that's finally neither here nor there in discussions of the work. I'm a firm believer, despite my often thin public skin, that if we dish it out, we gotta be able to take it. So converse away as the inspiration takes you all. This is a good one.
Keith, that is the piece. Wasn't sure I wanted to single it out since it was a piece I took issue with that happened to be fresh in my mind. That said, it does relate to the discussion here. Also, when I first read it, the comments you refer to weren't there. In some ways, the comments allow Nathan Lee a little more nuance in his arguments than the article itself, particularly his back and forth with Morton.
That said, the more I think about the article, the more I wonder if some critics and, based on comments, some moviegoers as well, seem to gear their opinions in relation to a critical consensus as well as an audience consensus that sometimes isn't exactly what they perceive it to be. And, then, there is the question of what point did this article serve outside of the critic's own need to take a shot at some movies? It's not like Lee's attempting to make a serious argument, particularly, let's beat this dead horse again, "The Dark Knight".
I've seen 4 of the 5 movies (except A Christmas Tale) and can honestly say that I feel these movies have been overrated and underrated to some degree. "Rachel" and "Milk" both are strong in performances, but have cliches that pop up in the screenplays that pull you out of the movie again and again. Both movies would have benefitted from less adherence to the structures of the family dysfunction drama and biopic, respectively. However, to see these movies and deny that there was no emotional involvement in the characters and situations would seem to come out of need to feel superior those who do. It's the old "you fell for it, but I didn't because I keep it real" argument again, which I find false.
"The Wrestler" actually wears its cliches on its sleeve and does a better job in the writing to make it work than "Rachel" and "Milk". Considering the movie spends so much time simply standing back and observing how Rourke's character lives on a day-to-day basis (how broken down he is becomes fascinating to watch), to me, makes it more than a "lousy movie" as Lee proclaims. And not to give away the ending, but the movie doesn't exactly end in a way most people would expect.
And, once again, not wanting to beat the dead horse, one wonders with all the issues examined in "The Dark Knight" (albeit sometimes far too much in an expository fashion) that I would really like for some of the film's critics to stop suggesting there's nothing going on in the film. Criticizing the way the movie handles it is more than fair. I certainly think the movie had some issues with the writing and direction of certain scenes. But, to essentially call it a worthless piece of Hollywood junk and outright calling Nolan a hack (which I've seen in dissenting reviews), excuse my language, just fucking lazy.
I didn't want it to make about my opinion about these movies, about which I could go a lot deeper than I did. But I just wanted to demonstrate that none of these movies are not as great as their most ardent supporters suggest or as terrible as their most fervent critics proclaim. There's different degrees of ambition to all of them, of which they meet some and fail at others.
Jason puts it much more succinctly than I did when he writes:
"If critics write with the purpose of making arguments -- which I think is different than being argumentative -- they will convince people that Film A is a classic and Film B is overrated."
Which makes me reiterate that it isn't about whether I agree or disagree, but it's about how the argument is made. Critics can enlighten others by sharing a different perspective, but I shouldn't have to conform to their ideology to appreciate it.
By the way, although I'm merely a commenter on this site, I definitely would like to hear others chime in on this.
Post a Comment