Andrew Sarris best films 2003
volkischlemiel
Weathering Another Year in Film My Winners and Losers for 2003
by Andrew Sarris
Before I bid adieu—or a more tentative au revoir—to the 2003 movie
year, with its insane schedule of 500 or so releases, I'd like to take
a stab at explaining my modus operandi behind my end-of-year
list-making, an activity I've been engaged in for close to half a
century. This year, I'm comparatively late in unveiling my various
lists, mostly because it's taken me well into the new year to drag
myself through three hours and 20 minutes—a long time for my shrinking
life span—of Peter Jackson's widely acclaimed Lord of the Rings: The
Return of the King. But of course I had to see it, before inevitably
leaving it off my 10-best list of films in the English language.
I say "inevitably" because I've long been prejudiced against the
franchise blockbuster à la Mr. Jackson's opus. Back in the 40's, I
took to heart a seemingly casual comment by the British film critic,
C.L. Lejeune. She observed that the greatest gift of the film medium
may turn out to be not so much its scope as its intimacy. And when I
think of my most cherished moviegoing memories, it is a voice, a face,
a pair of eyes that haunt my dreams—not vast hordes of extras
assembled for battle. This is not to say that thrilling charges don't
rock my boat, especially the ill-fated battles in Henry V, Four
Feathers and Alexander Nevsky, a foolish but stirringly heroic
tradition currently preserved in The Last Samurai and Lord of the
Rings.
My esteemed colleagues have compared Rings with the epic periods of
David Lean and the silent-era Fritz Lang of Die Niebelungen. Putting
Lang aside, I much prefer the earlier Lean of Brief Encounter, The
Passionate Friends and Great Expectations to the later Lean of The
Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago.
Though the final segment of Mr. Jackson's massive enterprise is
well-crafted, surprisingly well-paced and not without its own
subtleties, I still feel that its most popular feature is teenage
narcissism, elevated to the level of cosmic megalomania: The fate of a
kingdom, its massed armies and the earth itself—mythologically
"Middle" as it may be—hangs on an accursed magic ring on a hobbit's
finger. So it won't be a surprise that I prefer Mr. Jackson's earlier,
earthbound work in Heavenly Creatures (1994) to his efforts in Middle
Earth.
Having said that, Mr. Jackson's prodigious energy in transforming New
Zealand into a worldwide tourist attraction cannot be dismissed, and
in this spirit I hereby institute the annual Star Wars Prize and
present it to Mr. Jackson for fashioning a franchise blockbuster that
has made it even harder for grown-up films in the pipeline to be made.
Ah-hemmm.
Without further ado, here are my other choices, both positive and
negative, for a year in which there were more talented players than
there were creative projects. But it was also a year in which the
watchability factor was stronger than ever in 2003 (see box).
Notable Female Performances:
Cate Blanchett, Veronica Guerin; Sarah Polley, My Life Without Me;
Hope Davis, American Splendor, The Secret Lives of Dentists; Emily
Grace and Judith Ivey, What Alice Found; Maria Bello, The Cooler;
Lauren Graham, Bad Santa; Laura Linney, Love Actually, Mystic River;
Scarlett Johansson, Lost in Translation, Girl with a Pearl Earring;
Naomi Watts, Leslie Caron, Kate Hudson, Stockard Channing, Glenn
Close, Le Divorce; Oksana Akinshina, Lilya 4-Ever; Nicole Kidman,
Kerry Washington, Mili Avital, Jacinda Barrett, Anna Deavere Smith,
The Human Stain; Romola Garai, Tara Fitzgerald, Sinéad Cusack, Rose
Byrne, I Capture the Castle; Charlize Theron, The Italian Job,
Monster; Christina Ricci, Monster, Anything Else; Marie-Josée Croze,
Barbarian Invasions; Jessica Lange, Helena Bonham-Carter, Alison
Lohman, Big Fish; Agnes Bruckner, Frances Fisher, Blue Car; Julie
Walters, Helen Mirren, Calendar Girls.
Also, Jeanne Moreau, Cet Amour-Là; Eileen Atkins, Kathy Baker, Natalie
Portman, Renée Zellweger, Nicole Kidman, Cold Mountain; Drew
Barrymore, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Julia Roberts, Confessions of a
Dangerous Mind; Miranda Otto, Lord of the Rings; Olivia Williams,
Helena Bonham Carter, The Heart of Me; Emilie Dequenne, Brigitte
Catillon, The Housekeeper; Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Daryl Hannah, Kill
Bill Vol. 1; Hiroyuki Sanada, The Last Samurai; Frances McDormand,
Laurel Canyon, Something's Gotta Give; Neve Campbell, The Company;
Charlotte Rampling, Ludivine Sagnier, Swimming Pool; Audrey Tautou,
Dirty Pretty Things; Jamie Lee Curtis, Lindsay Lohman, Freaky Friday;
Alison Lohan, Matchstick Men; Maggie Gyllenhaal, Julia Stiles, Kirsten
Dunst, Juliet Stevenson, Marcia Gay Harden, Julia Roberts, Mona Lisa
Smile; Diane Keaton, Frances McDormand, Amanda Peet, Something's Gotta
Give; Samantha Morton, Emma and Sarah Bolgier, In America; Renée
Zellweger, Sarah Paulson, Down with Love; Chloë Sevigny, Shattered
Glass; Famke Janssen, Anna Paquin, X-2; Emma Thompson, Love Actually;
Gwyneth Paltrow, Blythe Danner, Sylvia; Suzanne Flon, Nathalie Baye,
The Flower of Evil.
Notable Male Performances:
Bill Murray, Lost in Translation; Billy Bob Thornton, Bad Santa; Paul
Giamatti, American Splendor; Mark Ruffalo, My Life Without Me, In the
Cut; Peter Sarsgaard, Hank Azaria, Hayden Christensen, Shattered
Glass; Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman, Bruce Almighty; Ian McKellen, Viggo
Mortensen, Hugo Weaving, John Noble, Lord of the Rings; Kurt Russell,
Brendan Gleeson, Dark Blue; Campbell Scott, Dennis Leary, The Secret
Lives of Dentists; Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Jack Davenport,
Jonathan Pryce, Pirates of the Caribbean; Chris Cooper, Jeff Bridges,
Tobey Macguire, Seabiscuit; Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sergi López, Benedict
Wong, Dirty Pretty Things; Jean-Pierre Bacri, The Housekeeper; Nicolas
Cage, Sam Rockwell, Matchstick Men; Jason Biggs, Danny DeVito,
Anything Else; Thierry Lhermitte, Sam Waterston, Matthew Modine, Le
Divorce; Anthony Hopkins, Gary Sinise, Harry Lennix, Ed Harris,
Wentworth Miller, The Human Stain.
Also, Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney, Billy Crudup, Danny DeVito, Big
Fish; Djimon Hounsou, Paddy Considine, In America; Albert Brooks,
Michael Suchet, Michael Douglas, The In-Laws; Sam Rockwell, George
Clooney, Rutger Hauer, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind; William Macy,
Alec Baldwin, Paul Sorvino, The Cooler; Jean Rochefort, Johnny
Hallyday, The Man on the Train; Tom Cruise, Ken Watanabe, Timothy
Spall, Billy Connolly, The Last Samurai; Paul Bettany, The Heart of
Me, Master and Commander; Nick Nolte, The Good Thief; Hugh Jackman,
Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, X-2; Kevin Bacon, Sean Penn, Tim
Robbins, Mystic River; Jack Black, The School of Rock; Tommy Lee
Jones, Aaron Eckhart, The Missing; Jack Nicholson, Keanu Reeves,
Something's Gotta Give; Colin Firth, Tom Wilkinson, Girl with a Pearl
Earring; Colin Firth, Bill Nighy, Hugh Grant, Alan Rickman, Love
Actually; Tony Cox, Bernie Mac, John Ritter, Bad Santa; Ewan McGregor,
David Hyde Pierce, Down with Love; William H. Macy, Gary Stevens,
Seabiscuit.
Best English-Language Films:
1.Lost in Translation
2.Bad Santa
3.American Splendor
4.Sweet Sixteen
5.The Human Stain
6.Kill Bill, Vol. 1
7.Sylvia
8.The Secret Lives of Dentists
9.Shattered Glass
10. Mystic River
Runners-Up:
My Life Without Me, What Alice Found, Big Fish, Monster, Blue Car,
Freaky Friday, The Heart of Me, Veronica Guerin, Seabiscuit, School of
Rock, Cold Mountain, Dirty Pretty Things, The Swimming Pool, Laurel
Canyon, Matchstick Men, In America, Bruce Almighty, The Magdalene
Sisters, Dark Blue, The Cooler, Raising Victor Vargas, The Italian
Job, Something's Gotta Give, The Last Samurai.
Best Foreign-Language Films:
1.Barbarian Invasions
2.Lilya 4-Ever
3.Man on the Train
4.The Son
5.Autumn Spring
6.The Flower of Evil
7.Together
8.Nowhere in Africa
9.Cet Amour-La
10. The Housekeeper
Runners-Up:
TheEmbalmer,Seaside, Chihwasean
Movies Other People Liked and I Didn't:
1.21 Grams
2.Master and Commander
3.House of Sand and Fog
4.Capturing the Friedmans
5.Girl With a Pearl Earring
6.The Missing
7.Thirteen
8.A Mighty Wind
9.Demonlover
10. And Now … Ladies and Gentlemen
Movies Other People Despised and I Didn't Think Were So Bad:
1.Le Divorce
2.The Company
3.The Hulk
4.The Good Thief
5.Love, Actually
6.I Capture the Castle
7.Down with Love
8.Hollywood Homicide
9.The In-Laws
10. Anything Else
Best Nonfiction Films:
1.Stone Reader
2.My Architect
3.To Be and to Have
4.Sex in a Cold Climate
5.Winged Migration
6.Secret Lives: Hidden Children and Their Rescuers in World War II
7.Spellbound
8.Stevie
9.Fellini: I'm a Born Liar
10. Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary
You may reach Andrew Sarris via email at: asa...@observer.com.
Tom Sutpen
Tom Sutpen
"The Cinema is an Invention Without a Future" -- Louis Lumiere
"Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
andy
lists? And could his little 'bons mots' about lord of the rings be any more
pretentious?
"volkischlemiel" <volkisc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5acdd75a.04011...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.observer.com/arts.htm
>
> Weathering Another Year in Film My Winners and Losers for 2003
> by Andrew Sarris
>
>
> Before I bid adieu-or a more tentative au revoir-to the 2003 movie
> year, with its insane schedule of 500 or so releases, I'd like to take
> a stab at explaining my modus operandi behind my end-of-year
> list-making, an activity I've been engaged in for close to half a
> century. This year, I'm comparatively late in unveiling my various
> lists, mostly because it's taken me well into the new year to drag
> myself through three hours and 20 minutes-a long time for my shrinking
> life span-of Peter Jackson's widely acclaimed Lord of the Rings: The
> Return of the King. But of course I had to see it, before inevitably
> leaving it off my 10-best list of films in the English language.
>
> I say "inevitably" because I've long been prejudiced against the
> franchise blockbuster à la Mr. Jackson's opus. Back in the 40's, I
> took to heart a seemingly casual comment by the British film critic,
> C.L. Lejeune. She observed that the greatest gift of the film medium
> may turn out to be not so much its scope as its intimacy. And when I
> think of my most cherished moviegoing memories, it is a voice, a face,
> a pair of eyes that haunt my dreams-not vast hordes of extras
> assembled for battle. This is not to say that thrilling charges don't
> rock my boat, especially the ill-fated battles in Henry V, Four
> Feathers and Alexander Nevsky, a foolish but stirringly heroic
> tradition currently preserved in The Last Samurai and Lord of the
> Rings.
>
> My esteemed colleagues have compared Rings with the epic periods of
> David Lean and the silent-era Fritz Lang of Die Niebelungen. Putting
> Lang aside, I much prefer the earlier Lean of Brief Encounter, The
> Passionate Friends and Great Expectations to the later Lean of The
> Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago.
>
> Though the final segment of Mr. Jackson's massive enterprise is
> well-crafted, surprisingly well-paced and not without its own
> subtleties, I still feel that its most popular feature is teenage
> narcissism, elevated to the level of cosmic megalomania: The fate of a
> kingdom, its massed armies and the earth itself-mythologically
> "Middle" as it may be-hangs on an accursed magic ring on a hobbit's
> 10. And Now . Ladies and Gentlemen
madkevin
"Tom Sutpen" <akir...@aol.communism> wrote in message
news:20040116044407...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> Shouldn't there be a mandatory retirement age for film critics?
Still, it's useful to see who Gaza is so desperately trying to be, no?
Kevin "Si!" Cogliano
Ralph J. Grossi
actually worked last year though.
"andy" <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:bu95l...@enews2.newsguy.com...
W. Lydecker
say Naomi Watts was terrific in 21 GRAMS. p.s. I
still champion Johnny Depp as a nominee. Without him, PIRATES... would
have sunk like an overloaded Spanish galleon.
volkischlemiel
Sarris is god, immortal.
volkischlemiel
I greatly admire Sarris. Not my hero though. If I could morph into one
critic, Dave Kehr, except for his Eastwood fixation.
Tom Sutpen
>> "The Cinema is an Invention Without a Future" -- Louis Lumiere
>> "Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
>
>Sarris is god, immortal.
*****
That's the last thing he is. All he is is a very very old critic whose
best days are so far behind him that he's now writing for the Elephant's
Graveyard of New York journalists, the 'Observer'.
Wanna know the first rule of Cinephilia? You'd know if you ever spent a
day in your life:
Never be a shill for a film critic.
leo86
narcissism elevated to the level of cosmic megalomania." He didn't
drink the Kool-Aid on this one like so many of his colleagues.
volkisc...@hotmail.com (volkischlemiel) wrote in message news:<5acdd75a.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> http://www.observer.com/arts.htm
>
> Weathering Another Year in Film My Winners and Losers for 2003
> by Andrew Sarris
>
>
> Before I bid adieu?or a more tentative au revoir?to the 2003 movie
> year, with its insane schedule of 500 or so releases, I'd like to take
> a stab at explaining my modus operandi behind my end-of-year
> list-making, an activity I've been engaged in for close to half a
> century. This year, I'm comparatively late in unveiling my various
> lists, mostly because it's taken me well into the new year to drag
> myself through three hours and 20 minutes?a long time for my shrinking
> life span?of Peter Jackson's widely acclaimed Lord of the Rings: The
> Return of the King. But of course I had to see it, before inevitably
> leaving it off my 10-best list of films in the English language.
>
> I say "inevitably" because I've long been prejudiced against the
> franchise blockbuster à la Mr. Jackson's opus. Back in the 40's, I
> took to heart a seemingly casual comment by the British film critic,
> C.L. Lejeune. She observed that the greatest gift of the film medium
> may turn out to be not so much its scope as its intimacy. And when I
> think of my most cherished moviegoing memories, it is a voice, a face,
> a pair of eyes that haunt my dreams?not vast hordes of extras
> assembled for battle. This is not to say that thrilling charges don't
> rock my boat, especially the ill-fated battles in Henry V, Four
> Feathers and Alexander Nevsky, a foolish but stirringly heroic
> tradition currently preserved in The Last Samurai and Lord of the
> Rings.
>
> My esteemed colleagues have compared Rings with the epic periods of
> David Lean and the silent-era Fritz Lang of Die Niebelungen. Putting
> Lang aside, I much prefer the earlier Lean of Brief Encounter, The
> Passionate Friends and Great Expectations to the later Lean of The
> Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago.
>
> Though the final segment of Mr. Jackson's massive enterprise is
> well-crafted, surprisingly well-paced and not without its own
> subtleties, I still feel that its most popular feature is teenage
> narcissism, elevated to the level of cosmic megalomania: The fate of a
> kingdom, its massed armies and the earth itself?mythologically
> "Middle" as it may be?hangs on an accursed magic ring on a hobbit's
> 10. And Now ? Ladies and Gentlemen
volkischlemiel
> On 16 January, 2004, Tony Gaza lurched into idiocy:
>
> >> "The Cinema is an Invention Without a Future" -- Louis Lumiere
> >> "Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
> >
> >Sarris is god, immortal.
>
> *****
> That's the last thing he is. All he is is a very very old critic whose
> best days are so far behind him that he's now writing for the Elephant's
> Graveyard of New York journalists, the 'Observer'.
>
> Wanna know the first rule of Cinephilia? You'd know if you ever spent a
> day in your life:
>
> Never be a shill for a film critic.
>
I disagree. I think Sarris is better than ever. He's no longer
influential, and his potent days as a critic is long past, I agree.
But, though he wrote some brilliant essays in the past--especially
about Rossellini, Ophuls, and Mizoguchi--he was way too deep in the
'politics' of the debate. He set up camps, formed allegiances and
enemies. For example, sticking to his strict auteurist guns he rated
Man Who Shot Liberty Valance over Jules and Jim. He didn't see
anything of value in Lawrence of Arabia and sadly persuaded an entire
generation of critics that Lean was worthless. He had to play sides,
a habit he picked from the French. So, he couldn't accept both DeSica
and Rossellini but had to choose the latter at the expense of the
former. Same with Kurosawa and Mizoguchi. Also, he was so loyal to
aesthetics of Ford and Hawks that he couldn't see the beauty of The
Wild Bunch.
Sarris is all past that now. I remember in the 80s he wrote some
articles in the Village Voice reassessing his categories of
directorial worth. For example, Sarris admitted that Billy Wilder was
really more than 'lesser than meets the eye'. He also conceded that he
had terribly underestimated Houston.
Sarris now has nothing to prove. He's a wise, level-headed, and
experienced humanist critic, one of the last of the breed. And, I
think Sarris was able to grow because, unlike Simon and Kael, he had a
more affable and forgiving personality. Simon just grew tired of
movies and Kael turned it into us-against-them tribal warfare between
her side and everyone else; very intolerant woman when it came to
colleagues.
When I read Sarris today, it's just Sarris and the reader. No more
having to prove this theory or prop up this or that auteur. Actually,
the younger guys are more into that rather naive game.
Ian McDowell
> I disagree. I think Sarris is better than ever. He's no longer
> influential, and his potent days as a critic is long past, I agree.
> But, though he wrote some brilliant essays in the past--especially
> about Rossellini, Ophuls, and Mizoguchi--he was way too deep in the
> 'politics' of the debate. He set up camps, formed allegiances and
> enemies. For example, sticking to his strict auteurist guns he rated
> Man Who Shot Liberty Valance over Jules and Jim. He didn't see
> anything of value in Lawrence of Arabia and sadly persuaded an entire
> generation of critics that Lean was worthless. He had to play sides,
> a habit he picked from the French. So, he couldn't accept both DeSica
> and Rossellini but had to choose the latter at the expense of the
> former. Same with Kurosawa and Mizoguchi. Also, he was so loyal to
> aesthetics of Ford and Hawks that he couldn't see the beauty of The
> Wild Bunch.
<Snip>
If Tony posted more stuff like this, avoided passing himself off as
women from other ethnic groups, gave up the jive and pidgen and
generally stuck to saying things that he sincerely believes, he
wouldn't have as many people picking on him.
Fwiw, I largely agree with what he has to say about Sarris.
Tom Sutpen
>Sarris is all past that now. I remember in the 80s he wrote some
>articles in the Village Voice reassessing his categories of
>directorial worth. For example, Sarris admitted that Billy Wilder was
>really more than 'lesser than meets the eye'. He also conceded that he
>had terribly underestimated Houston.
>Sarris now has nothing to prove. He's a wise, level-headed, and
>experienced humanist critic, one of the last of the breed. And, I
>think Sarris was able to grow because, unlike Simon and Kael, he had a
>more affable and forgiving personality. Simon just grew tired of
>movies and Kael turned it into us-against-them tribal warfare between
>her side and everyone else; very intolerant woman when it came to
>colleagues.
>
>When I read Sarris today, it's just Sarris and the reader. No more
>having to prove this theory or prop up this or that auteur. Actually,
>the younger guys are more into that rather naive game.
*****
Leaving aside this river of syrup I just waded through, I have a question:
What is it about the craft of film criticism that moves you to this degree
of Hero worship? Do you honestly think that, in the pecking order of importance
in cinema, critics rate any higher than Screening Room Projectionists?
Tom Sutpen
John Harkness
wrote:
Well, at least we generally know when the film is properly framed.
John Harkness
dobe...@deletesocal.rr.com
> Leaving aside this river of syrup I just waded through, I have a question:
>
> What is it about the craft of film criticism that moves you to this degree
>of Hero worship? Do you honestly think that, in the pecking order of importance
>in cinema, critics rate any higher than Screening Room Projectionists?
Tom, you've brought this up before, & I don't understand your
animosity toward criticism any more now than I did then. Do I have it
wrong in that it's an animosity toward critics rather than criticism?
Or is that distinction just academic?
Is there no criticism -- of any art -- that you've enjoyed reading? Is
it only film critics who are worthless? or are all critics worthless,
including Dr. Johnson on Shakespeare, Shaw on Wagner, Arnold on
Wordsworth, Edmund Wilson on Dos Passos, Mary McCarthy on Tennessee
Williams, etc. etc.?
Criticism seems to me potentially one of the most essential &
thoughtful of pursuits.
--
The city of Ogden is some sixteen miles north of Farmington.
-- De Voto, "Nemesis"
Ian McDowell
> Leaving aside this river of syrup I just waded through, I have a question:
>
> What is it about the craft of film criticism that moves you to this degree
> of Hero worship? Do you honestly think that, in the pecking order of importance
> in cinema, critics rate any higher than Screening Room Projectionists?
I'd only believe that you believe this if you didn't spend as much
time posting about films as you do (yes, that's a form of film
criticism). Since you do, I don't.
volkischlemiel
Depends on the critic which is why I didn't say I worship film
critics. Rather, I admire individuals. I've also argued with James
Neibaur that I don't think being especially erudite is a prerequisite
for having sound opinions. I think Richard Roeper has become, within a
year, a pretty reliable voice in the film community. Heck, I'd rather
trust his word than that of Amy Taubin, a very knowledgable and
intelligent lady whose taste and judgment I really think stink.
In fact, I don't read most critics. In fact, I rarely read film
criticism at all anymore, even that of Sarris. I feel rather
comfortable with my opinions on movies, but of course I've learned
something from yrs of reading Kehr, Rosenbaum, Simon, Kael, Simon,
Hoberman, Kauffmann, Brown, Edelstein, Wilmington. Also, since they
are professionals devoted to film, they know stuff I don't know; also
they know more angles. And, as they all disagree--often
passionately--the reader is forced to find his own voice. But,
overall, it's about having a debate. No critic ever expects his
readers to agree with him(except in a Stalinist state), and they
welcome an ongoing debate. Before the internet, I mailed off quite
alot of letters to film critics(as well as to columnists and
editorialists of all stripes). I once asked John Simon why he wasted
so much time and space in the NR with crappy Hollywood movies--True
Lies??--instead of reviewing more challenging fare. He wrote back one
time, saying he has passions more dear to him than movies, and that
the average NR reader wasn't exactly the cinephile type. He also said
he had no wish to be like Rosenbaum, Kehr, and Hoberman who, in his
estimation, 'eat, drink, and excrete movies'.
In a way, everyone on this ng with any opinion is a little critic. We
are not a professionals like AO Scott, Harkness, or Gavin, but if
pipsqueak hobbits can save the world, our opinions count for something
too. The second someone says he likes or dislikes a movie, he's a
proto-critic. If he gives his reasons then he's an amateur critic. If
you've argued with your friends about movies and given your reasons
why, you too are an amateur critic.
Now, if you're asking me what I think about the average Humanities
professor, Ugh! Such creature doesn't appreciate art but favors
ideological axe grinding. Thankfully, most film critics are NOT like
that. Film scholars are another matter... just as literary critics are
generally cool but literary scholars can go suck eggs.
volkischlemiel
At the very minimun, critics are useful in directing us toward the
glories of the past. In the 70s, I grew up listening to disco. Around
1980, there was nothing on the air but Journey, Styx, Olivia Newton
John singing "Physical", and worse. Considering the cultural amnesia
most Americans suffer, Dylan had become a nobody and a nothing. I
didn't even know who he was. How did I find out? Through books written
by impassioned rock critics who wanted to preserve a memory of the
glorious 60s. Thanks to the likes of Dave Marsh, Christgau, Marcus,
etc. I got to know about music nobody ever listened to or talked about
anymore--CCR, The Band, Kinks etc.
Of course, rock is no longer one of my great burning passions, and
I've always detested the critical enthusiasm for much of Punk; even
now, it strikes me they are more enthralled with the attitude than the
music. But, no one said critics are infallible.
School of Rock deals with this irony. The lead character realizes his
passion means nothing to the new batch of kids. Even rebellion has to
be academized to be remembered, appraised, and theorized. It's
inescapable. And, at the end, he becomes something like a rock n roll
version of a ballet instructor.
Art often grows out of madness and chaos, and artists have every right
to give critics the middle finger, but it's critics who keep up the
memory and tradition. Not all the time though... It's a Wonderful
Life was rejected by both critics and the audience upon release but
it's universally hailed as a masterpiece now. In that case, both
critics and the public be damned.
monsieurblob
oh come off it, sutpen. you know how hard it is to write about movies.
thou i essentially agree with you, you contradict yourself all the
time. no you may say, so do i. but i dont you see, i only bluff. well,
not bluff, i adopt positions i dont believe in, i believe in the
impossibility of adopting a position. you yourself tried it once and
ended up with an immensely flawed and manipulated interpretation of
auteur theorising. i could argue the contrary on the basis that
formans czech mooees are crap and his american qualité mooees are crap
and my essay would be equally crap. and the evaluation of rohmer was
so ridiculous, your whole reduction of auteurness to 4 french loonies
seemed monstruous, considering similar stuff happened in spain,
england, czechoslovakia, and loads of other european countries. maybe
you were thrust by a deep patriotic need to remind us of the greatness
of american qualité mooees? you know, those minnelli mooees, dodgy
stuff like gigi or lust for life...
considering politics is usually behind most of criticism, wouldnt
surprise me
monsieurblob
i would like to note i mistyped the following sentence in my response
to monsieur sutpen: great instead of crap, formans czech mooees, it
can be said are much much better than his american mooees
i could argue the contrary on the basis that
formans czech mooees are GREAT and his american qualité mooees are
volkischlemiel
I think you're the first stream of consciousness mooie critic. You
should write a book.
Ian McDowell
> wrote in message news:<d97b2c14.04011...@posting.google
> I think you're the first stream of consciousness mooie critic. You
> should write a book.
No sooner than I praise Gaza for making a sincere, well-argued and
fairly subtle point than he makes a bizarro response to himself from
another one of his sockpuppets. Oh well, at least he admits (in his
"Monsieur Blob" persona) that he adopts positions he doesn't believe
in.
Nick Macpherson
>> I think you're the first stream of consciousness mooie critic. You
>> should write a book.
>
>No sooner than I praise Gaza for making a sincere, well-argued and
>fairly subtle point than he makes a bizarro response to himself from
>another one of his sockpuppets. Oh well, at least he admits (in his
>"Monsieur Blob" persona) that he adopts positions he doesn't believe
>in.
>
Gaza and Monsieur Blob aren't the same person. One's posting from the Chicago
area (or was) and one's posting from England or Spain (can't remember which).
Gaza might be a lot of different people but he ain't Monsieur Blob, or
Houston's finest film critic, Pamela Dean. But, to paraphrase Dylan, the only
thing we know for sure about Tony Gaza is his name isn't Tony Gaza.
volkischlemiel
Check Monsieur Blob's IP address. He lives in Europe.
dobe...@deletesocal.rr.com
>Gaza and Monsieur Blob aren't the same person. One's posting from the Chicago
>area (or was) and one's posting from England or Spain (can't remember which).
But it's possible to spoof ISP locations. I knew one guy in the U.S.
who used to spoof-post from an ISP in Finland.
madkevin
<dobe...@DELETEsocal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1j2s005t4khhh0vth...@4ax.com...
> nmacp...@aol.com (Nick Macpherson) wrote:
>
> >Gaza and Monsieur Blob aren't the same person. One's posting from the
Chicago
> >area (or was) and one's posting from England or Spain (can't remember which).
>
> But it's possible to spoof ISP locations. I knew one guy in the U.S.
> who used to spoof-post from an ISP in Finland.
That's giving Gaza an awful lot of credit, dontcha think?
Kevin "Power User" Cogliano
Tom Sutpen
>> What is it about the craft of film criticism that moves you to this
>degree
>> of Hero worship? Do you honestly think that, in the pecking order of
>importance
>> in cinema, critics rate any higher than Screening Room Projectionists?
>
>I'd only believe that you believe this if you didn't spend as much
>time posting about films as you do (yes, that's a form of film
>criticism). Since you do, I don't.
>
*****
First, I take issue with the notion that people weighing in . . . in as
few lines as they can squeeze out . . . with their opinions on movies they
either like or dislike has anything to do with the curious craft known as Film
Criticism as it's practiced. What goes on here is something we could call
CineChat; a social process that is sometimes aided, but is in no way dependent
upon, the work of critics.
Also, I'm about the worst example of this you can cite. I often can't get
my brian in gear long enough to maintain even the smallest presence on this
newsgroup. Prolific I am not.
Tom Sutpen
>> What is it about the craft of film criticism that moves you to this
>degree
>> of Hero worship? Do you honestly think that, in the pecking order of
>importance
>> in cinema, critics rate any higher than Screening Room Projectionists?
>>
>> Tom Sutpen
>>
>> "The Cinema is an Invention Without a Future" -- Louis Lumiere
>> "Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
>
>
>oh come off it, sutpen. you know how hard it is to write about movies.
>thou i essentially agree with you, you contradict yourself all the
>time. no you may say, so do i. but i dont you see, i only bluff. well,
>not bluff, i adopt positions i dont believe in, i believe in the
>impossibility of adopting a position. you yourself tried it once and
>ended up with an immensely flawed and manipulated interpretation of
>auteur theorising.
*****
Not true. Not true. That godawful, unreadable essay was my attempt at
playing amateur historian, not amateur theorist. The most I'll agree with is
that part of my senseless ambition was to refute 'auteurism' while relating
it's modern-day genesis in 1940s-1950s France in the same instant. Of course,
it wound up as a shapeless and incoherent Amateur Hour of film writing where
each installment was greeted with ever increasing (and quite justifiable)
derision and/or silence.
>i could argue the contrary on the basis that
>formans czech mooees are crap and his american qualité mooees are crap
>and my essay would be equally crap. and the evaluation of rohmer was
>so ridiculous, your whole reduction of auteurness to 4 french loonies
>seemed monstruous, considering similar stuff happened in spain,
>england, czechoslovakia, and loads of other european countries.
*****
But France was auteurism's Proving Ground; the place where it caught on
and spread, eventually and inevitably, to the United States, becoming the
single biggest joke an Art ever played on itself. In no other country does it
have any relevance to this particular intellectual transaction.
I'd agree with you about Milos Forman's pictures being crap, though (for
the most part).
>maybe
>you were thrust by a deep patriotic need to remind us of the greatness
>of american qualité mooees? you know, those minnelli mooees, dodgy
>stuff like gigi or lust for life...
*****
Hey, lay off Vincente Minnelli, you soporific Spaniard.
I dare you to name one Spanish mooee as good as "Some Came Running". Just
one.
Tom Sutpen
>> What is it about the craft of film criticism that moves you to this
>degree
>>of Hero worship? Do you honestly think that, in the pecking order of
>importance
>>in cinema, critics rate any higher than Screening Room Projectionists?
>
>Tom, you've brought this up before, & I don't understand your
>animosity toward criticism any more now than I did then. Do I have it
>wrong in that it's an animosity toward critics rather than criticism?
>Or is that distinction just academic?
*****
Well, some critics make for more worthwhile reading than others, but
that's largely due to the quality of their writing, not the force of their
ideas. People like to pretend that film critics can make great intellectual
inroads with their insights because they want to believe that this is a medium
that can be quantified and analyzed and interpreted 'ad infinitum' the same way
novels and plays and paintings and all the other media from prior centuries
are. In Western society, it's almost axiomatic that the stature of an art form
is determined by how many words in either print or conversation it generates.
My problem with interpreting a movie as though it were a painting is that
this happens to be a medium that is not only resistant to this rationalizing
process, but can be irremediably damaged as a result of it. When people started
pretending that you could understand movies, and critics started writing about
movies as though they could be understood, they were all running away from the
awful truth of the matter: Movies can *not* be rationalized like this. The
deeper you burrow into the interior meaning of a given film, the further you
are from the central experience of it. Movies are made to be watched, not
written about or taught in the schoolroom. We don't have the words in our
vocabularies to communicate them as well as they communicate themselves.
Film criticism, the way it's practiced, perpetuates the notion that movies
can be effectively understood when they can't. That's the problem I have with
the craft.
>
>Is there no criticism -- of any art -- that you've enjoyed reading? Is
>it only film critics who are worthless? or are all critics worthless,
>including Dr. Johnson on Shakespeare, Shaw on Wagner, Arnold on
>Wordsworth, Edmund Wilson on Dos Passos, Mary McCarthy on Tennessee
>Williams, etc. etc.?
*****
I didn't say criticism, even of film, is worthless. It does fulfill a
certain social function; inspiring debate and other communicative tomfoolery
amongst cleverfolk. I don't say it's worthless at all.
>Criticism seems to me potentially one of the most essential &
>thoughtful of pursuits.
*****
It's a racket, through and through.
volkischlemiel
> On 18 January, 2004, Pfc. Doberman wrote:
>
> >> What is it about the craft of film criticism that moves you to this
> degree
> >>of Hero worship? Do you honestly think that, in the pecking order of
> importance
> >>in cinema, critics rate any higher than Screening Room Projectionists?
> >
> >Tom, you've brought this up before, & I don't understand your
> >animosity toward criticism any more now than I did then. Do I have it
> >wrong in that it's an animosity toward critics rather than criticism?
> >Or is that distinction just academic?
>
> *****
> Well, some critics make for more worthwhile reading than others, but
> that's largely due to the quality of their writing, not the force of their
> ideas.
Anthony Lane writes very well but he's unreadable because he has no
ideas.
All a critic can hope to do is offer his idea which can be matched or
debated with those of others.
> People like to pretend that film critics can make great intellectual
> inroads with their insights because they want to believe that this is a medium
> that can be quantified and analyzed and interpreted 'ad infinitum' the same way
> novels and plays and paintings and all the other media from prior centuries
> are.
If it can be analyzed 'ad infinitum', then it can't be quantified,
which is the point. Great art can never be quantified; interpretions
are limitless, even beyond what the artist intended. 500 ys from now,
the significance of Shakespeare will still be pondered. Same with
Wagner and Sibelius. Criticism keeps the torch lit in trying to focus
our attention on the best and most deserving. Only time is the
ultimate judge but without human effort to appreciate and preserve
art, what's the point?
The reason why people are still writing about L'Avventura is because
there is NO final or conclusive analysis of that film. It continues to
amaze. Critics go on 'ad infinitum' because they feel humility in face
of something that can't be quantified.
> In Western society, it's almost axiomatic that the stature of an art form
> is determined by how many words in either print or conversation it generates.
Untrue. Most movie reviews are devoted to mainstream releases. Most
newspapers and magazines pressure their critics to devote most of the
space to stuff like ROTK while foreign or art film reviews are buried
in the back and often limited to a few paragraphs.
An artwork inspires analysis and further critiques and interpretations
because it has lasting value.
If all the critics conspired to write only about Weekend at Bernies
for the next 2 yrs, it won't mean a thing 50 yrs from now. You got it
in reverse. A great work stirs debate, books and essays, not the other
way around.
> My problem with interpreting a movie as though it were a painting is that
> this happens to be a medium that is not only resistant to this rationalizing
> process, but can be irremediably damaged as a result of it.
You sell paintings short. Also, if criticism of painting goes on ad
infinitum, then it too must be resistant to rationalizing process
since critics can't pin down the dynamics of painting the same way
they can formulate the law of gravity.
Also, most contemporary paintings of any worth require great deal of
patience, concentration, and knowledge. Most movies, even by first
rank directors, are still conventional feature film narratives.
Because film is so expensive, it hasn't reached the level of
sophistication that paintings or music has. Most movies can be easily
understood in terms plot structure, genre conventions, and audience
expectations. It's the modern painting which one can look at for hours
and hours, for days and days, years and years and still be unable to
figure out thru rational conceptions.
There has always been a vibrant avantgarde film community but most
films still follow the basic rules of feature film narrative.
Can film be damaged by criticism? Sure. Critics have their ideological
baggages, their personal axes to grind, their aesthetic philosophies,
silly biases, etc. But, usually they balance eachother out because
they're more busy disagreeing than agreeing. As long as we don't live
in a totalitarian system where only one set of criteria is approved by
the state, I don't see much danger.
Also, it's the way democracy works. Personally, I think critics are
wrong to encourage artists like P.T. Anderson and David O Russell, but
others will disagree. That's the nature of the game.
Also, without critics and cineastes, there's nothing left but mass
taste which means cinema will be nothing more than Pretty Woman, LOR,
Star Wars, and the next Tom Cruise vehicle. Looks to me like the
indiscriminate dominance of mass taste and the industry that
encourages it is more dangerous to the art of cinema than any critic
who actually has little influence on the moviegoer except among
cineastes. Most people who love films have their personal preference
of critics whose opinions they respect, or a list of artists they
admire, whose works are anticipated or sought out based on past
performance.
Because if we don't care about artists and their personal visions,
cinema becomes nothing but a mass entertainment industry that cranks
out uniform products.
> When people started
> pretending that you could understand movies, and critics started writing about
> movies as though they could be understood, they were all running away from the
> awful truth of the matter: Movies can *not* be rationalized like this.
I think you're saying what Kael has always said. Movies should be a
mass entertaiment, that it has to be just experienced directly. But,
that's true of all arts. We can rationallze any work of art but it's
always primarily Felt. We absorb the impact prior to understanding. If
anything, analysis follows the initial powerful impression. Whether
one understand Persona or not afterward, it is stunning to the
firsttime viewer. Same with music, great paintings, etc. I don't know
anything about architectural theory but when I see something
magnificent, it's beyond words. And, no amount of words can do full
justice to a great work of art, and no critic worth his salt ever
pretends that he has it down pat, caged and tamed within a rational
framework.
Criticism is like the Bible. We can't grasp the true meaning or power
of divine truth but without a record of some kind or some set of
concepts, we're just dumbfounded children. What you're discussing is
the very nature of reality vs words. Never mind art. Can reality be
understood thru words? Can human relationships, a mountain, an ocean?
Think about it. "Ocean" doesn't do justice to the real ocean. No
amount of pretty words can ever do justice to a glorious sunset. No
amount of poetry can really describe a beautiful woman. Food critics
can write all the books they want but it's not the same as taking a
bite. But, no one ever said criticism is the substitute for art just
as no one ever said words are the substitute for reality.
And, the same can be said for art. How conceited of artists to think
reality is something that can be represented thru art, which requires
the rational thought--animals can't do it. Reality is too complex to
be rationalized or formulated into art. True, but unless an artist is
foolish enough to think his art is reality, what's the harm?
> The
> deeper you burrow into the interior meaning of a given film, the further you
> are from the central experience of it. Movies are made to be watched, not
> written about or taught in the schoolroom. We don't have the words in our
> vocabularies to communicate them as well as they communicate themselves.
I say we can have both. We can appreciate a film viscerally and also
scrutinize it more carefully. Also, some films require careful
scrutiny because they were not meant to be purely emotional
experiences. For example, you have to know something about Marxism,
existentialism, theories of alienation, history of classical art in
relation to modern art, etc. to truly understand Antonioni. Antonioni
painstakingly packed his film with symbolism meant to be contemplated,
which is one of the reason his films move so slowly. He's inviting the
viewer to be a critic. And, he's criticizing modern man and modern
art. The very dynamic of criticism has been built into the movie. Of
course, much of this can be absorbed purely on a visceral level
because Antonioni used sounds and images powerfully. After all, movies
are not philosophical dissertations but sensual experiences: for
example, the hallucinatory dissociation of modern man from his
enviroment is conveyed purely thru sound and image in the photo
montage scene in Blow Up. Okay, the artist did his duty, but for us
lesser beings who can't create such great work, we have to babble on
with words, if only in stunned praise. We are not part of some
monastic order requiring vow of silence. We have to talk and discuss.
A critic has to praise the film and encourage his readers to go see
it.
> Film criticism, the way it's practiced, perpetuates the notion that movies
> can be effectively understood when they can't. That's the problem I have with
> the craft.
You got strange critics in your city. I never got that impression from
critics I've read. Granted, most movies are not worth wasting words on
and the problem is they are TOO easy to understand. However, when a
great film comes along, you sense that the critic feels cramped for
space he wishes he had to really do justice to the movie.
I would also say because movies are so powerful a medium, it needs to
be balanced with words. Movies, like music or political pageantry, can
be overpowering. Therein lies its greatness and its danger. Listen to
Wagner and lose yourself under its spell, and vistas open before your
eyes where blonde Aryan gods are nobly struggling against the
Niebelungen Jews... and you root for the Aryans to kick hebe ass. It
is great music but we needs words and rationality to understand the
more insidious aspects of the work. Watch Birth of Nation and Triumph
of the Will purely on a visceral level, and yes they are magnfiicent.
But, we also have to think about why the film is affecting us the way
it does. Lenin said film is the most important artform of the 20th
century and his reason is the same as yours: it overpowers or bypasses
reason.
This is why we should rely on words and criticism to balance this
overwhelming power of movies. I wouldn't go so far as Godard who was
so eager to expose the movie's artifice that his later ideological
films were about as fun as essays by French intellectuals.
But, if criticism can't really do full justice to the art of
cinema--and best criticism doesn't try--it still helps us reflect on
why it affects us the way it does. So film criticism can, at the very
least, be self-criticism; why are we humans such suckers for visceral
experience? How are we being manipulated? After all, that's exactly
the power the tv ads have over us. But, we should think about the
mechanics of the manipulation and how it affects us... as well as
whether it was done well or not, whether it was original, brilliant,
or whatever.
> >Criticism seems to me potentially one of the most essential &
> >thoughtful of pursuits.
>
> *****
> It's a racket, through and through.
>
I agree but so is moviemaking and all the other arts as well just
about any other pursuit(as many a Jewish mothers have said: why don't
you become a doctor or lawyer?... though Law is also a racket but a
well-paying one). Civilization is a racket. So are politics,
universities, museums--imagine the notion of preserving the complex
past thru displays behind glass windows--, sports(grown men making
millions by batting ball around), most food industries(most snack
chips are what? Just another variation on fried potato), pop
music(selling youth rebellion to all the suckers), cosmetics, fashion,
religion, etc.
I don't see how criticism is a worse racket than any other.
monsieurblob
> On 19 January, 2004, Juan weighed in:
>
> >> What is it about the craft of film criticism that moves you to this
> degree
> >> of Hero worship? Do you honestly think that, in the pecking order of
> importance
> >> in cinema, critics rate any higher than Screening Room Projectionists?
> >>
> >> Tom Sutpen
> >>
> >> "The Cinema is an Invention Without a Future" -- Louis Lumiere
> >> "Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
> >
> >
> >oh come off it, sutpen. you know how hard it is to write about movies.
> >thou i essentially agree with you, you contradict yourself all the
> >time. no you may say, so do i. but i dont you see, i only bluff. well,
> >not bluff, i adopt positions i dont believe in, i believe in the
> >impossibility of adopting a position. you yourself tried it once and
> >ended up with an immensely flawed and manipulated interpretation of
> >auteur theorising.
>
> *****
> Not true. Not true. That godawful, unreadable essay was my attempt at
> playing amateur historian, not amateur theorist. The most I'll agree with is
> that part of my senseless ambition was to refute 'auteurism' while relating
> it's modern-day genesis in 1940s-1950s France in the same instant. Of course,
> it wound up as a shapeless and incoherent Amateur Hour of film writing where
> each installment was greeted with ever increasing (and quite justifiable)
> derision and/or silence.
>
exactly. whatever. and as historian you were excellent. the delicious
dodginess surrounding langlois. truffaut the petty thief. gave me
excellent background info. but then the twists and turns were awful,
condemning truffaut for being 'nice'!
> >i could argue the contrary on the basis that
> >formans czech mooees are crap and his american qualité mooees are crap
> >and my essay would be equally crap. and the evaluation of rohmer was
> >so ridiculous, your whole reduction of auteurness to 4 french loonies
> >seemed monstruous, considering similar stuff happened in spain,
> >england, czechoslovakia, and loads of other european countries.
>
> *****
> But France was auteurism's Proving Ground; the place where it caught on
> and spread, eventually and inevitably, to the United States, becoming the
> single biggest joke an Art ever played on itself. In no other country does it
> have any relevance to this particular intellectual transaction.
ok, but i was thinking bout the enormous enphasis you placed on
truffauts downfall from supposed greatness to niceness, as if it were
this, added to the rohmer pun, that allowed you to claim a failure
happened somewhere
and new wave ism and autuer ism happened in many other countries,
surely thats a valid point. remember auteurism was also used by
academics all over the place
you think we didnt have our juan antonio bardem whinging about the
non-commie nature of spanish cinema? more realism, did he blab. and
'becoming the single biggest joke an Art ever played on
itself'????????? open one of those stam books on theory and youll find
loads of jokes, one joke per chapter, loads of mini joaks here and
there...
try not to let it fall into a sort of nihilism. if auteurism is a
joke, so are many other tings.
>
> I'd agree with you about Milos Forman's pictures being crap, though (for
> the most part).
loves of a blonde mong the stuff i ever did see i ever did enjoy most
>
> >maybe
> >you were thrust by a deep patriotic need to remind us of the greatness
> >of american qualité mooees? you know, those minnelli mooees, dodgy
> >stuff like gigi or lust for life...
>
> *****
> Hey, lay off Vincente Minnelli, you soporific Spaniard.
>
> I dare you to name one Spanish mooee as good as "Some Came Running". Just
> one.
> Tom Sutpen
only if you tell me who be the perv behind the making of gigi
but if you monk like silence fall into again, i say nunca pasa nada
monsieurblob
have time plus place i post from is pay per hour so me not wanna
structurise my thinking on 1 60 euros the hour. so mebbe some other
time i point out the points which are more or less placed in my answer
but done so in rather odd loony fashion. for instance, point bout
auteurism happenin all over europe is still relevant and would come
down to the possivle possibliity that auteurism has to be thought of
in a much wider thing (and so natural) instead of as a mere world were
the english academic grounds are thought of in terms of gravity, ie
what it sucks up, instead of what really happened. ie youre
caricaturising auteurism by doing so! also other points me wanna point
but no time are you me prolly cannot think of cinema without auteurs,
me for instance erice, sokurov, australism weir, rohmer and godard and
late cukor stuff like rich and famous. auteurism, it could be said can
act as a serious structure throu which we can marvel at the ways cukor
uses bisset to talk bout fit men etc or erice's use of light, like
that of a vermeer. also lets not forget if used seriously we can come
up with stuff like klevans disclosure of the everyday. with which i
would eventually somehow eventyally end up concluding that your just
being a nihilist
akir...@aol.communism (Tom Sutpen) wrote in message news:<20040121181002...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
monsieurblob
aha! you think painting *can* be understood?... you're condemning film
writing in favour of a mystical belief that the films themselves
communicate themselves best. so the answer would be in watching the
more mooees the best. you are saying movies can be understood, dont
you realise? that they can be understood by watching them. youre
hinting it! do you not realise the contrabliction? you are taking
turns which me no likes and ill think it over but maybe i may hafta
start disagreeing with you but as i said bfore i no have time
but they dont communicate themselves by themselves! you can show
100000000 mooees of from kubrick to weir to a monkey from the sabana
and he'll continue scratching his arse. the mooees communicate
themselves because we are we and because we use language and once we
start using language we start processing and saying bla bla this bla
bla that, and finally therell be more coherentness in a human brain
and therefore in the writing that that human brain uses than in
1000000000 metres of film print for instance what is film by vf
perkins or l'argent by kent jones
monsieurblob
tank you very much, mr volkskimselkelf. i may follow your advise. i
must inform you that i continue my admirance for your writing as
always, specilly dissertations on grungyness of lotr and teensness and
pc gamesness of it all. thou ioff cousre as usuall no agree with your
politics behind your criticism i still admire the profoudd influence
you have influenced on me and the elevation you have elevated the
category of google posting to a good art. you were a pioneer and you
continue at high category i salute this greatness. salute! happy new
year!
Your Pal Brian
> you can show
> 100000000 mooees of from kubrick to weir to a monkey from the sabana
> and he'll continue scratching his arse.
Now who can argue with that?
Brian
dobe...@deletesocal.rr.com
>Anthony Lane writes very well but he's unreadable because he has no
>ideas.
That's a fascinating notion of writing well you have there.
>If it can be analyzed 'ad infinitum', then it can't be quantified,
>which is the point. Great art can never be quantified; interpretions
>are limitless, even beyond what the artist intended. 500 ys from now,
>the significance of Shakespeare will still be pondered. Same with
>Wagner and Sibelius.
No, they will have pretty much wrapped up Sibelius by then.
Tom Sutpen
gotta learn the value of brevity, Tony):
>> Well, some critics make for more worthwhile reading than others, but
>> that's largely due to the quality of their writing, not the force of their
>> ideas.
>
>Anthony Lane writes very well but he's unreadable because he has no
>ideas.
>All a critic can hope to do is offer his idea which can be matched or
>debated with those of others.
*****
You're making my point better than I ever could by treating Film Criticism
as a Spectator Sport. This endless game of Badminton over ideas is enjoyable to
watch sometimes . . . especially when the players are particularly competitive
with one another like in the old SarrisKaelSimonMacDonaldKauffman days . . .
but I don't think it's particularly meaningful, either.
>
>> People like to pretend that film critics can make great intellectual
>> inroads with their insights because they want to believe that this is a
>medium
>> that can be quantified and analyzed and interpreted 'ad infinitum' the same
>way
>> novels and plays and paintings and all the other media from prior centuries
>> are.
>
>If it can be analyzed 'ad infinitum', then it can't be quantified,
>which is the point. Great art can never be quantified; interpretions
>are limitless, even beyond what the artist intended. 500 ys from now,
>the significance of Shakespeare will still be pondered. Same with
>Wagner and Sibelius. Criticism keeps the torch lit in trying to focus
>our attention on the best and most deserving. Only time is the
>ultimate judge but without human effort to appreciate and preserve
>art, what's the point?
*****
There is none. That's my point.
>The reason why people are still writing about L'Avventura is because
>there is NO final or conclusive analysis of that film. It continues to
>amaze. Critics go on 'ad infinitum' because they feel humility in face
>of something that can't be quantified.
*****
Humility is just about the last thing most film criticism signifies about
its authors. Have you ever been in a roomful of critics? Believe me, you
couldn't cut the vanity with a chainsaw. Worse than Tenors, they are.
>
>> In Western society, it's almost axiomatic that the stature of an art form
>> is determined by how many words in either print or conversation it
>generates.
>
>Untrue. Most movie reviews are devoted to mainstream releases. Most
>newspapers and magazines pressure their critics to devote most of the
>space to stuff like ROTK while foreign or art film reviews are buried
>in the back and often limited to a few paragraphs.
>An artwork inspires analysis and further critiques and interpretations
>because it has lasting value.
>If all the critics conspired to write only about Weekend at Bernies
>for the next 2 yrs, it won't mean a thing 50 yrs from now. You got it
>in reverse. A great work stirs debate, books and essays, not the other
>way around.
*****
There you go again with that infernal construct. There is NO SUCH THING as
an Art Film!! It is an arbitrary designation; a piece of Marketing terminology.
It does not exist!!!
This is a big part of my problem with Film Criticism. Too much of it is
written with the foundational assumption that the conditions of Art and
Entertainment are separate and unequal and should always stay that way lest
civilization wither from their commingling. This pervasive Social impulse to
erect barriers with words and thereby artificially segregate one segment of the
audience from another has been the single most destructive development to the
evolution of film that I can think of. And when critics not only hew to this
line of thinking, but NEVER ONCE QUESTION IT; when they sit down and start
writing with the baseline assumption that some movies are inherently works of
Art and some are not; when they keep pushing some movies to the back of the
cultural bus SIGHT UNSEEN, then they do nothing but convince generations that
Film Art is the same as Other Art. No different, so why look at it differently.
Don't you see the destructive effect this has? FIlmmakers, believing in
this essential division, pretending it's substantive rather than utterly
hollow, will go into a given project thinking: "Well, this is clearly to be a
work of Art; therefore I need to stay clear of any potentially entertaining
elements, don't I" or "This is a piece of Entertainment. Why bother being
artful about it?" Do you not see how the poison spreads from that point on?
And if you think this hasn't happened, then you haven't seen enough
movies.
By the way, quit beating up on the 'Lord of the Rings' Trilogy. Those
movies are 'tres cool'.
*****
We . . . and the Art of the Motion Picture . . . would be a lot better off
if critics had had no influence at all. What's destructive is not the free-flow
of so-called Mass Taste, but so-called Mass Taste conditioned to see one kind
of movie as Art and another kind as mere Entertainment; the very attitude
you're selling so assiduously.
Amateur Critic, Heal Thyself.
*****
But why not have that Vow of Silence? What harm would it do? Sure it'd
give cinephiles less to talk over in forums such as this, but outside of that,
where's the damage?
And you're making my point for me by saying that Antonioni's cold gaze on
Modern Man can be absobed without all the intellectual baggage. I was fortunate
enough to have seen "L'Avventura", for instance, when I was 15 and before I
read widely about the films of its director. I appreciated the movie for what
it was then and, to this day, I don't feel as though what I've subsequently
read about Antonioni has enhanced my appreciation one iota. Only seeing the
movie again can do that.
*****
But how much Film criticism approaches the medium from that angle, Tony?
If the craft were more geared toward investigating the effects of movies, the
mechanics of them, then I'd have more respect for it. What we get is frequently
spurious interpretations of subtext; nothing about why the film may have been
put together the way it was; what forces lay behind it. Not that you'll ever
*know* why a given movie works from thios kind of criticism, but the reader at
least will have a better grasp of what it is they'll never truly understand.
>
>
>> >Criticism seems to me potentially one of the most essential &
>> >thoughtful of pursuits.
>>
>> *****
>> It's a racket, through and through.
>>
>
>I agree but so is moviemaking and all the other arts as well just
>about any other pursuit(as many a Jewish mothers have said: why don't
>you become a doctor or lawyer?... though Law is also a racket but a
>well-paying one). Civilization is a racket. So are politics,
>universities, museums--imagine the notion of preserving the complex
>past thru displays behind glass windows--, sports(grown men making
>millions by batting ball around), most food industries(most snack
>chips are what? Just another variation on fried potato), pop
>music(selling youth rebellion to all the suckers), cosmetics, fashion,
>religion, etc.
>
>I don't see how criticism is a worse racket than any other.
>
*****
It's a worse racket to me for a particularly venal reason: I was a
professional Film Critic for about half an hour. Other than Television (the
racket I work in now), I haven't been involved in any of the others.
Tom Sutpen
>> Film criticism, the way it's practiced, perpetuates the notion that
>movies
>> can be effectively understood when they can't. That's the problem I have
>with
>> the craft.
>
>
>aha! you think painting *can* be understood?... you're condemning film
>writing in favour of a mystical belief that the films themselves
>communicate themselves best. so the answer would be in watching the
>more mooees the best. you are saying movies can be understood, dont
>you realise? that they can be understood by watching them. youre
>hinting it! do you not realise the contrabliction? you are taking
>turns which me no likes and ill think it over but maybe i may hafta
>start disagreeing with you but as i said bfore i no have time
*****
You're misreading me. I'm saying that the essential use of a movie is
watching it, not understanding it. I don't think you can really penetrate all
the layers of a film like "Racket Busters" or "Melody Cruise" or even "Ikiru"
simply by watching them; but you'd have a better shot at doing the un-doable
via direct experience, rather than through the purely personal interpretations
of some nickel-a-word critic somewhere.
>
>but they dont communicate themselves by themselves! you can show
>100000000 mooees of from kubrick to weir to a monkey from the sabana
>and he'll continue scratching his arse. the mooees communicate
>themselves because we are we and because we use language and once we
>start using language we start processing and saying bla bla this bla
>bla that, and finally therell be more coherentness in a human brain
>and therefore in the writing that that human brain uses than in
>1000000000 metres of film print for instance what is film by vf
>perkins or l'argent by kent jones
*****
Right. There's no point in even discussing movies, is there. So why do we
do it?
You know, Juan, you're a lot smarter than I ever gave you credit for being
in the past.
But that could change at any moment.
Tom Sutpen
>> Not true. Not true. That godawful, unreadable essay was my attempt at
>> playing amateur historian, not amateur theorist. The most I'll agree with
>is
>> that part of my senseless ambition was to refute 'auteurism' while relating
>> it's modern-day genesis in 1940s-1950s France in the same instant. Of
>course,
>> it wound up as a shapeless and incoherent Amateur Hour of film writing
>where
>> each installment was greeted with ever increasing (and quite justifiable)
>> derision and/or silence.
>>
>
>exactly. whatever. and as historian you were excellent. the delicious
>dodginess surrounding langlois. truffaut the petty thief. gave me
>excellent background info. but then the twists and turns were awful,
>condemning truffaut for being 'nice'!
*****
I wasn't condemning Truffaut (his movies, to be more precise) for being
nice. I was pointing out that, as the 60s progressed, his movies were beginning
to look awfully quaint in comparison to his first three; especially to those
who thought the 'Nouvelle Vague' was sopposed to represent a kind of
Revolutionary vanguard in cinema. It was part of what was suuposed to be a
larger point that, when the New Wave (or at least the ideal of it) started to
fall apart, Truffaut retreated into a relatively prosaic kind of filmmaking,
one largely informed by the cinematic traditions of the past. His movies became
awfully nice. And comfortable.
I don't condemn him for it. I was just writing about his metamorphosis
from nascent revolutionary to sack of wet oatmeal.
The reason for the twists and turns in the narrative was that in the early
sections, I was pretty much structuring the piece as I went along. My initial
plan for how the thing would be written, what topics would get discussed,
proved immediately unworkable, but I didn't want to let that stop my writing.
It was only when I decided to retrench and approach the thing from a more
disciplined structure that I ran into problems as far as composition went.
>> >i could argue the contrary on the basis that
>> >formans czech mooees are crap and his american qualité mooees are crap
>> >and my essay would be equally crap. and the evaluation of rohmer was
>> >so ridiculous, your whole reduction of auteurness to 4 french loonies
>> >seemed monstruous, considering similar stuff happened in spain,
>> >england, czechoslovakia, and loads of other european countries.
>>
>> *****
>> But France was auteurism's Proving Ground; the place where it caught
>on
>> and spread, eventually and inevitably, to the United States, becoming the
>> single biggest joke an Art ever played on itself. In no other country does
>it
>> have any relevance to this particular intellectual transaction.
>
>ok, but i was thinking bout the enormous enphasis you placed on
>truffauts downfall from supposed greatness to niceness, as if it were
>this, added to the rohmer pun, that allowed you to claim a failure
>happened somewhere
*****
The emphasis only seemed enormous because it's how I began the truffaut
portrait. It's hardly my central thesis when it comes to him, believe me.
What Rohmer pun, by the way?
>
>and new wave ism and autuer ism happened in many other countries,
>surely thats a valid point. remember auteurism was also used by
>academics all over the place
>
>you think we didnt have our juan antonio bardem whinging about the
>non-commie nature of spanish cinema? more realism, did he blab. and
>'becoming the single biggest joke an Art ever played on
>itself'????????? open one of those stam books on theory and youll find
>loads of jokes, one joke per chapter, loads of mini joaks here and
>there...
>
>try not to let it fall into a sort of nihilism. if auteurism is a
>joke, so are many other tings.
*****
No doubt. But it wasn't my intent to focus on other forms of auteurism in
countries other than France. Only that country's auteurists had a direct
influence on critics in this country. Since a major part of my essay was, at
that time, to relate the history of auteurism in the United States I needed to
concentrate on its direct links to the French. Anything else would have been
irrelevant to me.
>> >maybe
>> >you were thrust by a deep patriotic need to remind us of the greatness
>> >of american qualité mooees? you know, those minnelli mooees, dodgy
>> >stuff like gigi or lust for life...
>>
>> *****
>> Hey, lay off Vincente Minnelli, you soporific Spaniard.
>>
>> I dare you to name one Spanish mooee as good as "Some Came Running".
>Just
>> one.
>> Tom Sutpen
>
>
>only if you tell me who be the perv behind the making of gigi
>
>but if you monk like silence fall into again, i say nunca pasa nada
*****
Unless you consider Colette, the original author of "Gigi", a perv, then
I'd say that particular shoe fits none other than the film's screenwriter, Alan
Jay Lerner.
What do you mean, "monk like silence"?
volkischlemiel
> On 22 January, 2003, Tony Gaza went on one of his marathon runs (you've really
> gotta learn the value of brevity, Tony):
>
> >> Well, some critics make for more worthwhile reading than others, but
> >> that's largely due to the quality of their writing, not the force of their
> >> ideas.
> >
> >Anthony Lane writes very well but he's unreadable because he has no
> >ideas.
> >All a critic can hope to do is offer his idea which can be matched or
> >debated with those of others.
>
> *****
> You're making my point better than I ever could by treating Film Criticism
> as a Spectator Sport. This endless game of Badminton over ideas is enjoyable to
> watch sometimes . . . especially when the players are particularly competitive
> with one another like in the old SarrisKaelSimonMacDonaldKauffman days . . .
> but I don't think it's particularly meaningful, either.
The meaning arises from matching our ideas with theirs and others.
Everyone has his take on movies. I think all of them completely missed
the boat on 2001, all of them having of a literary bias. But, every
generation creates a new breed of critics with fresh ideas. Art and
criticism work this way; there's constant flux and dynamism.
At any rate, what matters is their passion for film as an artform, and
their intelligence and honesty in expressing their opinions. As we
develop our own perspectives and tastes, we rely less on critical
opinion because we grow confident that our personal opinions are as
valid as theirs. But, getting to that level requires alot of experince
with art and with art criticism... unless one happens to be an
automatic genius with an instant grasp of the meaning and significance
of art.
In fact, most artists are critics in their own right. They don't make
a career of writing essays on films--some do, indeed some started as
critics(New Wave)--but Orson Welles, Bergman, Fellini, Kubrick, etc
all had very sophisticated understanding of the power of the medium.
Peckinpah said one of the most insightful things about Shane--that it
was the first Western where someone REALLY died. Tarantino said if he
couldn't make films, he'd have been a film critic. This is especially
true among the more sophisticated artists with ambitions to expand
cinematic boundaries with techniques and concepts borrowed from other
artforms. Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev is almost a spiritualist criticism
of Russian mysticism and its artistic traditions.
Or, take rock music. John Lennon said some of the most brilliant
things about rock music in interviews. Pete Townshend has been
credited with having written some very intelligent thoughts on rock
music. Welles watched Stagecoach many times before making Citizen
Kane. He mastered the form by closely scrutinizing the mechanics of
film technique and the nature of audience reaction.
>
> >The reason why people are still writing about L'Avventura is because
> >there is NO final or conclusive analysis of that film. It continues to
> >amaze. Critics go on 'ad infinitum' because they feel humility in face
> >of something that can't be quantified.
>
> *****
> Humility is just about the last thing most film criticism signifies about
> its authors. Have you ever been in a roomful of critics? Believe me, you
> couldn't cut the vanity with a chainsaw. Worse than Tenors, they are.
But, that's to be expected since 95% of what they have to watch are
total garbage. If food critics had to eat canned food every day of the
week, they'd have pretty nasty opinions about food too. But, upon
coming upon a film they dearly admire, there's nothing but gratitude
and respect. I feel the same way. I'm very picky about what I see and
I don't have to see all the garbage critics are obligated to see.
Still, I end up seeing alot of garbage that has robbed precious time
off my life. But, when I come upon something like Fall of Otrar or
Time of the Gypsies... Thank you, dear director, actors,
screenwriters and everyone else involved. Bravo!
It's because on occasion I stumble on something like Sunshine or AI
that I still believe in cinema, in its ability to surprise.
>
> >
> >> In Western society, it's almost axiomatic that the stature of an art form
> >> is determined by how many words in either print or conversation it
> >generates.
> >
> >Untrue. Most movie reviews are devoted to mainstream releases. Most
> >newspapers and magazines pressure their critics to devote most of the
> >space to stuff like ROTK while foreign or art film reviews are buried
> >in the back and often limited to a few paragraphs.
> >An artwork inspires analysis and further critiques and interpretations
> >because it has lasting value.
> >If all the critics conspired to write only about Weekend at Bernies
> >for the next 2 yrs, it won't mean a thing 50 yrs from now. You got it
> >in reverse. A great work stirs debate, books and essays, not the other
> >way around.
>
> *****
> There you go again with that infernal construct. There is NO SUCH THING as
> an Art Film!! It is an arbitrary designation; a piece of Marketing terminology.
> It does not exist!!!
As a marketing concept, it's ridiculous. Why make an artfilm when you
can make much more money with another horny teen comedy? A producer
has to be crazy to invest money into something like Mulholland Drive
when he could finance another slasher movie and make a bundle of
money. Yet, artfilms do get financed because there is a group of
artists and producers who believe in the art of film. They know
there's not much financial reward but do it anyway. Most artfilms lose
money. Few ever become hits. Art movie can be mainstream, like
Lawrence of Arabia or Seven Samurai but they require artists, not
hacks. Art film is a work made by a serious artist who has real
passion for the artform and a personal vision. It can be a surrealist
film by Bunuel or Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List or John
Boorman's Excalibur or Coppola's The Godfather. Don't you agree that
there are real artists and mere hacks? An artist doesn't have to make
intensely personal films like Bergman or Antonioni; Ford was an
artist. He developed his own method and stuck to his vision of the
West.
It's true that guys like Harvey Weinstein and others tried to sell
'artfilm' as a commodity. Welles had a similar experince with ??? in
making The Trial. There are producers who try to exploit real artists
just so they can win Best Picture award on Oscar night or namedropping
purposes to promote their worth as producers. Business interests
unavoidably enters into every equation, but despite all this art,
there is art. Otherwise, Saul Bellow and Danielle Steele are one and
the same, since according to your anti-elitism, there is no dividing
line between serious literature and popular fiction. I would say there
is no CLEAR dividing line--because some works succeed under both
categories--but a vague boundary does exist.
>
> This is a big part of my problem with Film Criticism. Too much of it is
> written with the foundational assumption that the conditions of Art and
> Entertainment are separate and unequal and should always stay that way lest
> civilization wither from their commingling. This pervasive Social impulse to
> erect barriers with words and thereby artificially segregate one segment of the
> audience from another has been the single most destructive development to the
> evolution of film that I can think of. And when critics not only hew to this
> line of thinking, but NEVER ONCE QUESTION IT; when they sit down and start
> writing with the baseline assumption that some movies are inherently works of
> Art and some are not; when they keep pushing some movies to the back of the
> cultural bus SIGHT UNSEEN, then they do nothing but convince generations that
> Film Art is the same as Other Art. No different, so why look at it >differently.
You're reiterting Tom Wolfe's position in The Painted Word. However,
it's UNTRUE. It was true with Simon and MacDonald but they've long
been irrelevant to film criticism. The dichotomy of high brow vs low
brow does NOT exist. Look at the Sight and Sound poll of greatest
films ever. Bergman, once the darling of the highbrow ART criticism,
hasn't cracked the top 10 since 1982. The average critic since the 70s
prefer Preston Sturges and Stanely Donen to Bergman. In fact, most
critics agree word for word with your views about highbrow film
criticism; mention 'John Simon' to any conference of critics and
they'll throw chair at you en masse(for two reasons: Simon represents
the Old Guard and was the critic of 'racist, patriarchal, white male'
National Review). Look at Village voice list of ten best films of the
90s and the majoirty of critics include a film by Tarantino or John
Woo or Wong Kar Wai. Just ask John Harkness. He love Sergio Leone
more than Jan Troell. Just take a look at an average critic's ten
best list at the end of the year. Finding Nemo? Return of the King?
Often, many include a few foreign films just to seem a bit
sophisticated.
Also, there is no unified film community. There is the radical school
which includes the likes of Rosenbaum and Taubin, the mainstream
school comprising guys like Ebert and Denby, and funny black guy
school of Armond White who loves everything by Spielberg but shits on
everything else.
You're right to the extent that even within this populist critical
philosophy, there is an element of elitism; not so much that critics
prefer artfilm over popular films but in their conceit that they TRULY
understand popular film as art whereas most see them as entertainment.
This attitude really began with the French who claimed that there was
MUCH MORE to Ford, Hawks, and Hitchcock than Americans gave them
credit for. And, so we now have American critics writing long
extensive essays on the genre works of Budd Boetticher, Robert
Aldrich, and Sam Fuller. Yes, it's paradoxical that critics now prefer
film as Popular art yet treat it in an esoteric fashion befudding to
the average reader. I'll agree with you to the extent that I think the
essays in Film Quarterly are almost entirely unreadable. But, these
essays often treat movies not as works of art but for ideological
discourse. In fact, most art journals except New Criterion no longer
care for the creativity or artistic worth but are interested mainly in
exposing the ideological subtext of books, films, etc. And, I would
also argue that this kind of criticism actually promotes bad art; I
haven't seen Far From Heaven yet but it seems to be a film that owes
its existence to the entire notion of examining the subtext of movies
of the past. Similarly, Verhoeven's treatment of Starship Troopers was
in this postmodernist subversive mode. And, Tarantino's films would
gain more by deriving their inspiration from real life instead of
countless films Tarantino's seen and discussed with cinemaniac
buddies. Same goes for some of Coen brothers movies. If anything,
artists should live instead of wallowing all day and night in art. Art
needs fresh blood and it requires contact with real life, something
missing in too many artists. Scorsese is a movie nut but his real
experiences in Little Italy sharpened his wits and instincts, and were
probably just as crucial in making him the artist that he is. Same
with Peckinpah; his childhood in the West and his stint as a Marine
defined his character as artist. And, Coppola said his Italian
background helped immeasurably in making Godfather the movie that it
became. So, yes, criticism alone isn't good for movie culture. And,
yes critics who do nothing but watch movies are real morons.
But, there are still many fine critics working with passion and
intelligence, and we often have to rely on them to separate the wheat
from the chaff. Otherwise, I would have to see EVERY movie myself to
know what's good or bad. Unless I know already something about the
artist in question, I have to rely on critics--not one but many since
opinions diverge--for movies by artists I know nothing about. In other
words, I'm gonna be interested in Scorsese's next film regardless of
what critics say. But, if some movie called Uguwaka by Buga Moola from
the nation of Wookakabuka makes a debut in my city, I need critics to
taste it to see whether it's edible or not.
> Don't you see the destructive effect this has? FIlmmakers, believing in
> this essential division, pretending it's substantive rather than utterly
> hollow, will go into a given project thinking: "Well, this is clearly to be a
> work of Art; therefore I need to stay clear of any potentially entertaining
> elements, don't I" or "This is a piece of Entertainment. Why bother being
> artful about it?" Do you not see how the poison spreads from that point on?
> And if you think this hasn't happened, then you haven't seen enough
> movies.
You do have a point. I've said this myself. I think guys like Hou
Hsiao Hsien, Dumont, and Dardennes Brothers(with Rosetta anyway) are
consciously straining to make art movies. But, others really do think
they are great artists so who's to say? Time will tell; meanwhile,
it's up for us to debate; besides, no filmmaker has only champions or
detractors but both. Debate goes on.
Also, without a community of cineastes I don't think films like
Mulholland Drive, Taste of Cherry, and others could even be made.
However, I don't agree that entertainment films are devoid of artistry
because hack directors disbelieve in combining art with entertainment.
Usually, they are hired by studios who call all the shots. Also, what
the hell can one do with Jason vs. Freddy or American Pie? If
anything, these films exist because of the infantilism of our culture
that is drowned in teenybopper music, tv, and blockbuster cinema.
Critics are guilty of some things but you're laying all the blame on
them like Steve the libertarian blames all ills on the government. I
don't see this as a zero sum game. I say let's bash the critics but
also recognize their worth. I say let's kick John Harkness's ass but
let's wipe it too. We can do both, must do both.
>
> By the way, quit beating up on the 'Lord of the Rings' Trilogy. Those
> movies are 'tres cool'.
But, this is the wrong attitude. I have my opinions which I sincerely
believe, and you have yours. Only time will tell whether these films
have lasting value. I think they are Pearl Harbor in Fantasy garb.
Anyway, silencing people won't serve any purpose; instead, more
opinions should be heard. Democracy is messy, chaotic, and nuts. I say
more criticism the better. The current crop of critics overthrew and
guillotined the highbrow critics. And, when the time comes these guys
must be beheaded. The revolution goes on but criticism will always
play a part just like all political movements needs an advanced guard.
>
> >
>
> *****
> We . . . and the Art of the Motion Picture . . . would be a lot better off
> if critics had had no influence at all. What's destructive is not the free-flow
> of so-called Mass Taste, but so-called Mass Taste conditioned to see one kind
> of movie as Art and another kind as mere Entertainment; the very attitude
> you're selling so assiduously.
> Amateur Critic, Heal Thyself.
I just can't match what you're saying with reality. I'm still in
disbelief that critics almost unanimously prostrated themselves before
Peter Jackson's pigswill. Movies like LOR are the norm. They are NOT
threatened. It's movies like Excalibur that almost never get made. Do
you think someone who wanted treat LOR in the manner of Boorman's
Excalibur could have gotten funding? The critics are on YOUR side. You
should be the one defending them.
> *****
> But why not have that Vow of Silence? What harm would it do? Sure it'd
> give cinephiles less to talk over in forums such as this, but outside of that,
> where's the damage?
But what if Uguwaka by Buga Moola from the nation of Wookakabuka comes
to town?
>
> And you're making my point for me by saying that Antonioni's cold gaze on
> Modern Man can be absobed without all the intellectual baggage. I was fortunate
> enough to have seen "L'Avventura", for instance, when I was 15 and before I
> read widely about the films of its director. I appreciated the movie for what
> it was then and, to this day, I don't feel as though what I've subsequently
> read about Antonioni has enhanced my appreciation one iota. Only seeing the
> movie again can do that.
Ah, but you went to see it because it had been hailed as a great film,
because it had built up a reputation in the cinematic community which
kept it alive by revivals, scholarly treatment, etc.
You had the apriori advantage of knowing that you were seeing
something important. When the film first screened at Cannes, everyone
booed. No one had seen anything so 'boring' and 'pointless' and it was
cineastes who defended the movie and explained its significance.
Do you think Citizen Kane would be remembered today is all we have to
go on by is popular taste?
>
> >
> >This is why we should rely on words and criticism to balance this
> >overwhelming power of movies. I wouldn't go so far as Godard who was
> >so eager to expose the movie's artifice that his later ideological
> >films were about as fun as essays by French intellectuals.
> >But, if criticism can't really do full justice to the art of
> >cinema--and best criticism doesn't try--it still helps us reflect on
> >why it affects us the way it does. So film criticism can, at the very
> >least, be self-criticism; why are we humans such suckers for visceral
> >experience? How are we being manipulated? After all, that's exactly
> >the power the tv ads have over us. But, we should think about the
> >mechanics of the manipulation and how it affects us... as well as
> >whether it was done well or not, whether it was original, brilliant,
> >or whatever.
>
> *****
> But how much Film criticism approaches the medium from that angle, Tony?
> If the craft were more geared toward investigating the effects of movies, the
> mechanics of them, then I'd have more respect for it. What we get is frequently
> spurious interpretations of subtext; nothing about why the film may have been
> put together the way it was; what forces lay behind it. Not that you'll ever
> *know* why a given movie works from thios kind of criticism, but the reader at
> least will have a better grasp of what it is they'll never truly understand.
It depends on what you read. If you read Film Quarterly, you're in big
trouble. If you read good guy critics like Michael Wilmington(who
appreciates both art and HOllywood film)then you'll know critic is not
your enemy. Rosenbaum is problmatic. Sometimes very penetrating and
insightful but also very arrogant, snide, and contemptuous of the
mainstream.
>
> *****
> It's a worse racket to me for a particularly venal reason: I was a
> professional Film Critic for about half an hour. Other than Television (the
> racket I work in now), I haven't been involved in any of the others.
>
Did some film critics piss you off? Don't hold it in. Take a katana
and crack their skulls.
volkischlemiel
> volkisc...@hotmail.com (volkischlemiel) wrote:
>
> >Anthony Lane writes very well but he's unreadable because he has no
> >ideas.
>
> That's a fascinating notion of writing well you have there.
It depends on one's point of reference. To an illiterate, a
semi-literate is literate enough.
>
> >If it can be analyzed 'ad infinitum', then it can't be quantified,
> >which is the point. Great art can never be quantified; interpretions
> >are limitless, even beyond what the artist intended. 500 ys from now,
> >the significance of Shakespeare will still be pondered. Same with
> >Wagner and Sibelius.
>
> No, they will have pretty much wrapped up Sibelius by then.
Sibelius is the greatest.
volkischlemiel
> On 22 January, 2004 Juan wrote:
>
> >> Film criticism, the way it's practiced, perpetuates the notion that
> movies
> >> can be effectively understood when they can't. That's the problem I have
> with
> >> the craft.
> >
> >
> >aha! you think painting *can* be understood?... you're condemning film
> >writing in favour of a mystical belief that the films themselves
> >communicate themselves best. so the answer would be in watching the
> >more mooees the best. you are saying movies can be understood, dont
> >you realise? that they can be understood by watching them. youre
> >hinting it! do you not realise the contrabliction? you are taking
> >turns which me no likes and ill think it over but maybe i may hafta
> >start disagreeing with you but as i said bfore i no have time
>
> *****
> You're misreading me. I'm saying that the essential use of a movie is
> watching it, not understanding it. I don't think you can really penetrate all
> the layers of a film like "Racket Busters" or "Melody Cruise" or even "Ikiru"
> simply by watching them; but you'd have a better shot at doing the un-doable
> via direct experience, rather than through the purely personal interpretations
> of some nickel-a-word critic somewhere.
>
I think your differentiation of 'watching' and 'understanding' is
misleading. Watching a movie is something a chimpanzee or a dog can
do. It's merely the function of the eye. What makes it meaningful is
how the brain processes the information.
You decry the division of film into art and entertainment, but your
separation of 'watching' and 'understanding' is just as problematic.
What is the clear boundary between watching and understanding, or
between sensation and perception? The stimuli taken in by the senses
are immediately processed thru the mind, consciously or unconsciously,
and it differs from person to person. For instance, someone who knows
about noir, French New Wave, blaxploitation flicks, etc. will process
the information he takes from Pulp Fiction differently than someone
seeking only laughs and thrills. The former will make connections
between Uma Thurman's wig and Anna Karina, will measure Tarantino's
achievement in the context of noir tradition, etc. This mental process
is the process of 'understanding' and it happpens both subconsciously
and consciously, unintentionally and intentionally. You don't
necessarily have to sit alone and ponder about the movie for hours
afterwards to 'understand' the movie. For example, if you're familiar
with the works of Kubrick, you can't help but to compare the film
you're watching with his other ones. Also, if you feel something is
wrong with the movie--acting, camerawork, editing, sound, etc--you are
'understanding' the film in terms of what went wrong. Or, you might
feel that these flaws are actually innovations expanding the language
of cinema, in which case, you're 'understanding' film in terms of its
potential for growth and experimentation. In fact, most cineastes
don't separate watching and understanding in practice. Though I can't
vouch for Harkness and his colleagues, I venture to guess most of what
they write in their reviews are the thoughts that directly arose in
their minds while watching the film. Watching is inseparably and
instantaneously linked with understanding and vice versa. What you're
suggesting is akin to eating without savoring the taste or digesting
the nutrients. Or, it's like saying we should hear sound but not
'understand' the sound. But, we can't help but to process and
differentiate the stimuli we take in. We distinguish the cat's meow
from a dog's bark to a cop telling us we're being ticketed for
speeding. Words mean nothing unless we know the vocabulary and decode
them into meaning in our minds. Similarly, we have to work with movies
because they are artificial constructs. For instance, we have to
'understand' the tricky construction of Pulp Fiction to know what's
going on. We have to 'understand' the structure of Mulholland Drive to
get an inkling of its surreal logic. Granted, most of us don't
intellectualize this understanding to any great degree, but the
process of 'understanding' is inseparable from seeing.
Why is it that some teenybopper who has no interest in movies beyond
Matrix will get nothing from something like Vertigo or Jules and Jim?
Surely, he can open his eyes and see what you or I are seeing. The
difference is matter of mental processing of the stimuli. We can all
see the same thing but we 'understand' it differently. The reason why
people are blind to great films is because they never developed the
ability to 'understand', to meaningfully process what they take in.
All they expect is a quick jolt, a shock or a laugh.
Images are not words, and their impact is more immediate, but there IS
a language to cinema. There is a grammar in terms of mise-en-scene and
montage. Leone's films were carefully constructed, connected frame by
frame to produce certain desired effect. People who are familiar with
this cinematic language understand and appreciate films more fully,
taking them on two levels: viscerally and thru understanding of the
artistry(or tricks). A painter or art critic will see things in a
painting I don't notice. A music expert understands the structure of
music while I only know music as direct emotional experience. Now,
it's perfectly okay to consume art on a direct and amateur level;
there's even the virginal advantage of being wowed by its magic. Kids
enjoy things we don't enjoy. But, as adults it's no sin no look
deeper, to see the wizard behind the magic of Oz. Also, though we lose
the innocence of the direct experience, we gain the wisdom of complex
understanding. When ET came out, I remember watching it 4 times and
loving every minute of it. It was pure magic. It's no longer magic but
I think I understand it better for what it is. Also, I think we can
still have both. I know Saving Private Ryan is manipulative and I
'understand' Spielberg's methods, but I still appreciate and admire
the impact it has on me and give myself over to it.
'Understanding' a movie is akin to 'making' a movie. A movie doesn't
simply make itself. The writers and director sit together for weeks
and weeks and try to 'understand' what they are doing. Art is a
combination of inspiration and long hours of conscious thought.
Kurosawa sat for days and days with his collaborators. They
'criticized' one another's ideas before finally arriving at a workable
script. And, Kurosawa, like any other artist, constantly tried to
'understand' and 'critize' what he was doing to come up with a better
idea or change a scene, etc. 'Understanding' is built into the very
process of artmaking and art appreciation. A cineaste who
'understands' what Welles is doing and appreciating why it's a stroke
of genius is paying real respect to a great artist, not some popcorn
munching teenybopper who's blind to the language of cinema, to Welles'
intricate mise-en-scene, his visual tricks, and overall strategy. And,
some movies are so deeply layered that it takes several viewings and
much thought to absorb their real meaning.
How often have we heard people say.. "Citizen Kane.. what's the big
deal?". They watch with eyes of humans but with brains of ants. For a
real human being, there is no difference between watching and
understanding. The process is an inseparable fusion of sensation and
perception.
I think the nature of what you're suffering from is similar to Steve's
fanatical libertarianism. He's so convinced that governement is bad
that it has no redeeming facet. He even loathes the fact that Watanabe
the bureaucrat in Ikiru did something good because of course
bureaucrats are NOT supposed to do anything good.
Similarly, you won't have any critic serve ANY useful purpose. They
are bad, pure and simple.
Also, I think you're confusing criticism with its practitioners. Even
if every critic was rotten, it still doesn't meant that the art of
criticism itself is rotten. Why throw the baby out with the
bathwater? And, critics and scholars don't belong to a cabal but are
conscious and critical of the problem. Harold Bloom despairs of the
current state of literary criticism but he doesn't think literary
criticism itself is useless.
Following your logic, we shouldn't allow moviemaking since most movies
are worthless and their influence on people is mostly negative. What
good can movies like Jeeper Creeper, Halloween 5, Jason vs Freddy,
American Pie 2, Dude Where's My Car, Matrix, etc, etc. have on people?
Heck, if this crap didn't exist, maybe people would do something more
constructive. But, even if 95% of movies are crap, we still hold onto
the idea of cinema as art. Even though most books are shit, we still
believe in literature. Even though most pop music is shit, we still
know music is a great artform. Though politicians are mostly clowns,
we still believe in government except for Steve the
psycho-libertarian(he should be a Howard Stern freak act).
Also, the critics are more on YOUR side than mine. You love Do the
Right Thing, Pulp Fiction, and Magnolia. I think Do the Right Thing
got a free ride on white liberal guilt(due to the fact that most
critics are liberals), and Pulp Fiction was a critic friendly movie in
that it prided itself and congratulated the critical community for the
esoteric knowledge of movie trivia; and then there was the slavish
Francophilia, a requisite for all cinephiles. And, Magnolia, like Far
From Heaven and Thelma & Louise and Three Kings, also won critical
accolades for trashing 'patriarchal' values, thereby corroborating
with the ideological biases of the liberal critical community.
I'm still waiting for the critical community to give Chalk and Fall of
Otrar their due.
Tom Sutpen
>I think the nature of what you're suffering from is similar to Steve's
>fanatical libertarianism. He's so convinced that governement is bad
>that it has no redeeming facet. He even loathes the fact that Watanabe
>the bureaucrat in Ikiru did something good because of course
>bureaucrats are NOT supposed to do anything good.
>Similarly, you won't have any critic serve ANY useful purpose. They
>are bad, pure and simple.
>
>Also, I think you're confusing criticism with its practitioners. Even
>if every critic was rotten, it still doesn't meant that the art of
>criticism itself is rotten. Why throw the baby out with the
>bathwater? And, critics and scholars don't belong to a cabal but are
>conscious and critical of the problem. Harold Bloom despairs of the
>current state of literary criticism but he doesn't think literary
>criticism itself is useless.
*****
You haven't been reading me correctly, Tony. It is *because* of its
practitioners that I despair of film criticism. There's nothing wrong with the
craft, per se. It might be inadequate placed alongside direct experience with
the medium itself, but what art can we not say that about?
And lay off my buddy Steve.
>
>Also, the critics are more on YOUR side than mine. You love Do the
>Right Thing, Pulp Fiction, and Magnolia. I think Do the Right Thing
>got a free ride on white liberal guilt(due to the fact that most
>critics are liberals), and Pulp Fiction was a critic friendly movie in
>that it prided itself and congratulated the critical community for the
>esoteric knowledge of movie trivia; and then there was the slavish
>Francophilia, a requisite for all cinephiles. And, Magnolia, like Far
>From Heaven and Thelma & Louise and Three Kings, also won critical
>accolades for trashing 'patriarchal' values, thereby corroborating
>with the ideological biases of the liberal critical community.
*****
Okay. Listen, the last thing I am is a liberal, Tony, so you're
misapprehending the appeal of those movies, at least as far as I'm concerned (I
*like* "Pulp Fiction" a lot, by the way. I don't love it). I don't give
tuppence for White Guilt, Francophilia (where?) or trashing Patriarchal values.
I think those movies are brilliant. "Magnolia" is a goddamn symphony. "Do the
Right Thing" is, to date, the *only* movie where Spike Lee's shown any
discipline as a filmmaker; crafting an unnerving portrait of a racial abyss in
which NO ONE is innocent. And the Tarantino film? Well, it's phenomenally
entertaining in nearly every respect (a lost art nowadays); what more can be
said about it?
Now, why critics went for these movies is their problem. You seem to think
it's something we should pay close attention to. I don't have the energy for
it. Besides, I liked film critics better when they were spending their time
beating up on each other. Gimme the 'Who Wrote "Citizen Kane" War of 1971' over
the current polemics of these anemic, nickel-a-word scribes anyday.
>
>I'm still waiting for the critical community to give Chalk and Fall of
>Otrar their due.
*****
Hell, I'm still waiting for someone other than me to write something nice
about "Red Line 7000"
gom
>
> And lay off my buddy Steve.
Steve is to government what you are to criticism--minimalist.
Some people feel that way about women but I think they're crazy.
>
>
> I think those movies are brilliant. "Magnolia" is a goddamn symphony.
Magnolia is technically very accomplished but it does have a message
that appeals to anti-Patriarchal ideologues, and the message can't be
entirely ignored. Should we only judge Birth of a Nation by its
technical mastery which is estimable? Its politics and viewpoints do
matter.
> "Do the
> Right Thing" is, to date, the *only* movie where Spike Lee's shown any
> discipline as a filmmaker; crafting an unnerving portrait of a racial abyss in
> which NO ONE is innocent.
I heard Clockers, 25th Hour, and Malcolm X are sturdily constructed.
Anyway, Do the Right Thing only pretends to be fairminded which is
actually more dishonest that openly espousing one side. When push
comes to shove at the end, Spike is with his brothers despite the fact
that they instigated the violence. I prefer the more honest insanity
of Sweetsweetback's Badass Song; no b.s. there.
Also, Spike Lee falsely paints the nature of racial tensions in
America. He'd have you believe every ethnic group in NY hates all the
others. In truth, while every group has certain suspicions of other
ethnic groups, it's been Italians vs blacks, Asians vs blacks,
Hispanics vs blacks, Jews vs blacks, etc. in NY in the past several
decades. Lee doesn't confront this reality and somehow dilutes the
racial tension as an all-around problem when most non-blacks get along
together with no problemo.
>And the Tarantino film? Well, it's phenomenally
> entertaining in nearly every respect (a lost art nowadays); what more can be
> said about it?
It's infantile and disgusting. I'll grant you that Magnolia that it's
superbly made by a brilliant talent. But, I can't stomach that level
of mayhem and gore without any meaningful moral context. An extended
joke about someone's brain being splattered on the backwindow of a car
isn't funny. Also, the idea that a professional killer like Jackson
who has coldbloodedly killed who-knows-how-many-people is redeemed and
deserves our respect because he can deliver some hipsterish sermon to
a couple of petty crooks is nauseating. I don't need a moral sermon
from cold-blooded thugs, especially not when it's supposed to be
oddly ennobling.
Great gangsters of the past either paid with their lives or just shut
up. Tarantino gives us gangsta as Martin Luther King by the way of
Hitler, as though charisma saves the day regardless of context.
> Now, why critics went for these movies is their problem. You seem to think
> it's something we should pay close attention to. I don't have the energy for
> it. Besides, I liked film critics better when they were spending their time
> beating up on each other. Gimme the 'Who Wrote "Citizen Kane" War of 1971' over
> the current polemics of these anemic, nickel-a-word scribes anyday.
>
Every critic has his own opinion, and many have liked those films for
exactly the reasons you've stated. You've said critics don't react to
movies they way they really should, like you for instance. My point is
they react more like you than like me; they share aesthetic(if not
moral)values that are closer to yours than to mine. So, I should be
the one who's complaining about criticism, except I don't expect
critics to all think alike or think like me.
I think criticism was never meant to perfect, can never be perfect,
and the messier it is the better. And, we have many different kinds of
critics with diametrically opposed views on everything. The notion
that some monolithic critical community exists out there is false.
> >
> >I'm still waiting for the critical community to give Chalk and Fall of
> >Otrar their due.
>
> *****
> Hell, I'm still waiting for someone other than me to write something nice
> about "Red Line 7000"
>
Never heard about it. But, I'll bet more liked it than Revolution with
Pacino, a neglected and misunderstood film if there ever was one.
monsieurblob
oh yes, you have a point
>
> The reason for the twists and turns in the narrative was that in the early
> sections, I was pretty much structuring the piece as I went along. My initial
> plan for how the thing would be written, what topics would get discussed,
> proved immediately unworkable, but I didn't want to let that stop my writing.
> It was only when I decided to retrench and approach the thing from a more
> disciplined structure that I ran into problems as far as composition went.
>
yup, thats more or less it, but...
> >> >i could argue the contrary on the basis that
> >> >formans czech mooees are crap and his american qualité mooees are crap
> >> >and my essay would be equally crap. and the evaluation of rohmer was
> >> >so ridiculous, your whole reduction of auteurness to 4 french loonies
> >> >seemed monstruous, considering similar stuff happened in spain,
> >> >england, czechoslovakia, and loads of other european countries.
> >>
> >> *****
> >> But France was auteurism's Proving Ground; the place where it caught
> on
> >> and spread, eventually and inevitably, to the United States, becoming the
> >> single biggest joke an Art ever played on itself. In no other country does
> it
> >> have any relevance to this particular intellectual transaction.
> >
> >ok, but i was thinking bout the enormous enphasis you placed on
> >truffauts downfall from supposed greatness to niceness, as if it were
> >this, added to the rohmer pun, that allowed you to claim a failure
> >happened somewhere
>
> *****
> The emphasis only seemed enormous because it's how I began the truffaut
> portrait. It's hardly my central thesis when it comes to him, believe me.
>
> What Rohmer pun, by the way?
joke, not pun. i think it was something bout his actors recieving
drugs
>
> >
> >and new wave ism and autuer ism happened in many other countries,
> >surely thats a valid point. remember auteurism was also used by
> >academics all over the place
> >
> >you think we didnt have our juan antonio bardem whinging about the
> >non-commie nature of spanish cinema? more realism, did he blab. and
> >'becoming the single biggest joke an Art ever played on
> >itself'????????? open one of those stam books on theory and youll find
> >loads of jokes, one joke per chapter, loads of mini joaks here and
> >there...
> >
> >try not to let it fall into a sort of nihilism. if auteurism is a
> >joke, so are many other tings.
>
> *****
> No doubt. But it wasn't my intent to focus on other forms of auteurism in
> countries other than France. Only that country's auteurists had a direct
> influence on critics in this country. Since a major part of my essay was, at
> that time, to relate the history of auteurism in the United States I needed to
> concentrate on its direct links to the French. Anything else would have been
> irrelevant to me.
>
...but, your stuff smells like neo-bordwellian totalizing attack on
interpretation. i'll fully agree with you on the crapness of sarris
and kael, but there are many areas that come up with excellent stuff
on film, usually throu an intelligent use of theory. my examples i
chose i did so coz for me theyr moderate examples of auteurism and
excellent pieces of writing. excellent questions like 'is it possible
to love both bresson and cassavetes', or satjahit kid looking at train
not realist its really melodramatic etc...
> >> >maybe
> >> >you were thrust by a deep patriotic need to remind us of the greatness
> >> >of american qualité mooees? you know, those minnelli mooees, dodgy
> >> >stuff like gigi or lust for life...
> >>
> >> *****
> >> Hey, lay off Vincente Minnelli, you soporific Spaniard.
> >>
> >> I dare you to name one Spanish mooee as good as "Some Came Running".
> Just
> >> one.
> >> Tom Sutpen
>
cording to donaghue some came running was celebrated by godard. its
countless the amount of times i've read that yellow cahiers celebrated
america. but it isnt true, they applied auteur politics to american
mooees, precisely the contrary. ya know, fritz lang, fuller, wellman,
they were looking for the underground of american myth. sure, compared
to althusserian crap, it would seem pro.u.s., but then again what
wouldnt!
as such, when used well, auteur politics, born in the deliberate!
vagueness of the truffaut essay, is still alive and squealing. we
shall have to difer
>
> >
> >only if you tell me who be the perv behind the making of gigi
> >
> >but if you monk like silence fall into again, i say nunca pasa nada
>
> *****
> Unless you consider Colette, the original author of "Gigi", a perv, then
> I'd say that particular shoe fits none other than the film's screenwriter, Alan
> Jay Lerner.
>
> What do you mean, "monk like silence"?
i mean, monk like silence
monsieurblob
> On 22 January, 2004 Juan wrote:
>
> >> Film criticism, the way it's practiced, perpetuates the notion that
> movies
> >> can be effectively understood when they can't. That's the problem I have
> with
> >> the craft.
> >
> >
> >aha! you think painting *can* be understood?... you're condemning film
> >writing in favour of a mystical belief that the films themselves
> >communicate themselves best. so the answer would be in watching the
> >more mooees the best. you are saying movies can be understood, dont
> >you realise? that they can be understood by watching them. youre
> >hinting it! do you not realise the contrabliction? you are taking
> >turns which me no likes and ill think it over but maybe i may hafta
> >start disagreeing with you but as i said bfore i no have time
>
> *****
> You're misreading me. I'm saying that the essential use of a movie is
> watching it, not understanding it. I don't think you can really penetrate all
> the layers of a film like "Racket Busters" or "Melody Cruise" or even "Ikiru"
> simply by watching them; but you'd have a better shot at doing the un-doable
> via direct experience, rather than through the purely personal interpretations
> of some nickel-a-word critic somewhere.
sure, so the problem with your stuff is with your use of example. as
it is with mine! and as it is with the cognitivists when they
caricature psychoanalitics to replace them with cognitivists.
>
> >
> >but they dont communicate themselves by themselves! you can show
> >100000000 mooees of from kubrick to weir to a monkey from the sabana
> >and he'll continue scratching his arse. the mooees communicate
> >themselves because we are we and because we use language and once we
> >start using language we start processing and saying bla bla this bla
> >bla that, and finally therell be more coherentness in a human brain
> >and therefore in the writing that that human brain uses than in
> >1000000000 metres of film print for instance what is film by vf
> >perkins or l'argent by kent jones
>
> *****
> Right. There's no point in even discussing movies, is there. So why do we
> do it?
>
> You know, Juan, you're a lot smarter than I ever gave you credit for being
> in the past.
>
> But that could change at any moment.
ok, for that comment, next day i come in i'll fill past films with 15
top posts of beautiful andre bretonish sokurovian godardian glauber
rochian multicultural saidian orientalist rubbish so that your pc mind
can regress to a previous state, as if in the state of narcicism
baudry's apparatus induces alienated mooee watchers to fall into.
really, sutpen you didnt think i was conversing with you to prove my
intelligence? on a purely gentlemanly level now, i still believe in
the greatness of my work of art in the area of google posting, that
perpetual movement towards the total google post embodied in my
meandering attempts to define its ontology!
and if i dont post today, or if i dont post like that anymore its coz
of lack of time. but a promise is a promise, and next time i arrive
here i shall 15 posts this place to pieces
with any luck one of those self righteous pc and incredibly as it may
seem simultaneously non posters twats will complain to some server
monsieurblob
no. manipulation is one thing. like in saving private ryan (pre-iraq,
afghanistan), battle of midway (post vietnam), best book on the
subject is the shohat n stam book on multiculturalism. but you're not
talking about dishonesty or manipulation, you're talking bout somethin
else
dobe...@deletesocal.rr.com
>cording to donaghue some came running was celebrated by godard. its
>countless the amount of times i've read that yellow cahiers celebrated
>america. but it isnt true, they applied auteur politics to american
>mooees, precisely the contrary. ya know, fritz lang, fuller, wellman,
>they were looking for the underground of american myth. sure, compared
>to althusserian crap, it would seem pro.u.s., but then again what
>wouldnt!
Bringing up Althusser in this (or virtually any) newsgroup is a sure
way to flummox your readers. It's also a shameful case of
namedropping.
John Harkness
>monsie...@hotmail.com (monsieurblob) wrote:
>
>>cording to donaghue some came running was celebrated by godard. its
>>countless the amount of times i've read that yellow cahiers celebrated
>>america. but it isnt true, they applied auteur politics to american
>>mooees, precisely the contrary. ya know, fritz lang, fuller, wellman,
>>they were looking for the underground of american myth. sure, compared
>>to althusserian crap, it would seem pro.u.s., but then again what
>>wouldnt!
>
>Bringing up Althusser in this (or virtually any) newsgroup is a sure
>way to flummox your readers. It's also a shameful case of
>namedropping.
It's also a sign of someone who's ideologically/intellectually stuck
in the 70s. The great sin of the 70s was forcing those of us who were
in grad school at the time to read all that crap. Or merde, if you
prefer.
John Harkness
gom
> monsie...@hotmail.com (monsieurblob) wrote:
>
> >cording to donaghue some came running was celebrated by godard. its
> >countless the amount of times i've read that yellow cahiers celebrated
> >america. but it isnt true, they applied auteur politics to american
> >mooees, precisely the contrary. ya know, fritz lang, fuller, wellman,
> >they were looking for the underground of american myth. sure, compared
> >to althusserian crap, it would seem pro.u.s., but then again what
> >wouldnt!
>
> Bringing up Althusser in this (or virtually any) newsgroup is a sure
> way to flummox your readers. It's also a shameful case of
> namedropping.
oh no, i think the honor goes to anyone mentioned by the great sage
monsieurblob, the greatest wiseman of cinema.
gom
> *****
> I wasn't condemning Truffaut (his movies, to be more precise) for being
> nice. I was pointing out that, as the 60s progressed, his movies were beginning
> to look awfully quaint in comparison to his first three; especially to those
> who thought the 'Nouvelle Vague' was sopposed to represent a kind of
> Revolutionary vanguard in cinema. It was part of what was suuposed to be a
> larger point that, when the New Wave (or at least the ideal of it) started to
> fall apart, Truffaut retreated into a relatively prosaic kind of filmmaking,
> one largely informed by the cinematic traditions of the past. His movies became
> awfully nice. And comfortable.
> I don't condemn him for it. I was just writing about his metamorphosis
> from nascent revolutionary to sack of wet oatmeal.
I think this is very unfair. I think Truffaut somewhat ran out of
steam, lost that hunger of a youthful artist with a chip on his
shoulder, with something to prove. But, he was NEVER a revolutionary
artist but a romanticist. 400 Blows is not revolutionary, just
personal and truthful(perhaps not as autobiography but about pain of
childhood). shoot the piano player is playful in its juggling of
pulp, genre, and naturalism but, again, not revolutionary, without an
avant-garde agenda. truffaut was having fun, not making an artistic
statement. jules and jim is his most exubertantly creative work but
the energy flows from his lyricism, his romanticism, not a committment
to revolutionize cinema. avant-gardists THINK avant-garde, but
truffaut was a man of FEELING and if jules and jim is avant-gardish,
it's a mainly coincidental matter of truffaut's wild dreaminess having
been in tune with the zeitgeist of the time.
it may be argued that the only truly revolutionary avant-directors of
the new wave--the major ones anyway--were godard and rivette. rohmer
has always been a bourgeois catholic conservative; his films were
different and 'new' not because he believed in innovation perse, but
because he was suited to making such films just as ozu made ozu-ish
films and ford made fordish films. so, essentially rohmer and
truffaut were being true to themselves, their visions. avant gardists
consciously challenge their own notions of what is art, purge it, and
try to create something entirely new. that's godard. and rivette with
his films mixing fiction and non-fiction which test the limits of
cinematic time and go on forever(to this day, the only rivette film i
love is secret defense).
to me jules and jim is pure truffaut. he made it because it flowed out
of him, not because he consciously wanted to be different. but, jules
and jim is the kind of movie you can't repeat twice. also, every
movement starts with a bang and its novelty soon fades. beatles burst
out singing 'she loves you' but mellowed out with more arty
concoctions. and truffaut too inevitably mellowed. for one, he lost
his hunger but it happened to kurosawa, fellini, and others as well.
what initially fed all these artists was closeness to real life,
groaning sound of ambition in their belly. once satiated, their films
were perhaps just as masterly but gone was the intensity that fired
the early stage of their careers. i think it's also called growing up
or old.
also, no one destroyed the new wave. it just petered out as all
artistic movements and forms do, like psychedelia, punk, disco. every
movements brings something new but runs out of possibilities within
its professed confines. why isn't anyone composing great operas
anymore? its possibilities have been exhausted.
but, if anyone did sour the new wave, it was godard when he took the
fateful plunge into radicalism in 68. in this period, when godard was
making nonsensical agitprop, truffaut made the touching Wild Child,
beautiful Two English Girls, and dark Story of Adele H. His other
films are nothing to sneeze at either. His Doinel sequels lacked the
intensity of 400 blows but grown up Doinel in a way reflected grown up
Truffaut who turned out well-adjusted and rather content with life.
if truffaut's later films are soft, then truffaut was being true to
himself. maccartney wrote yesterday and fool on the hill; sappy to
some but fine by me. had he tried to do 'whole lotta love', that would
have been ridiculous. his hendrixian 'helter skelter' was outrageously
outstanding though.
monsieurblob
>
> >cording to donaghue some came running was celebrated by godard. its
> >countless the amount of times i've read that yellow cahiers celebrated
> >america. but it isnt true, they applied auteur politics to american
> >mooees, precisely the contrary. ya know, fritz lang, fuller, wellman,
> >they were looking for the underground of american myth. sure, compared
> >to althusserian crap, it would seem pro.u.s., but then again what
> >wouldnt!
>
> Bringing up Althusser in this (or virtually any) newsgroup is a sure
> way to flummox your readers. It's also a shameful case of
> namedropping.
oh well done, doberman, what a great intervention. namedropping, yeah
i like that one. coz just after cahiers stopped being yellow in 64
(?), it went moronically althusserian. or did it not? namedropping or
immediate relevance?
monsieurblob
oh yeah, i stuck in 70s screen theory, yeah thats it, well done mr
harkness, you're the man. didnt you notice the word 'crap' that
followed the word 'althusserian'? no, of course not. but then again we
dont all have your ethnocentric powers of
cannes-oliveira-erice-sokurov bashing and shalyamalan (?) and lotr
loving, and basically pathetic i decide this is this and not that coz
i say so rules, do we?
ville terminale
what's the gist of althusser's ideas?
dobe...@deletesocal.rr.com
>> > Bringing up Althusser in this (or virtually any) newsgroup is a sure
>> > way to flummox your readers. It's also a shameful case of
>> > namedropping.
>>
>> oh well done, doberman, what a great intervention. namedropping, yeah
>> i like that one. coz just after cahiers stopped being yellow in 64
>> (?), it went moronically althusserian. or did it not? namedropping or
>> immediate relevance?
>
>what's the gist of althusser's ideas?
He wrote a lot of gobbledygook about hegemony, clarifying -- if that's
the word for it -- that to really control the populace, you don't need
to call in the Red Guard, because that won't give you the consent of
the populace -- you need to set up a hegemony in the culture or
society that makes the populace believe in the common sense of your
position. All of which, of course, is NOT what the word actually means
in Greek; but of course to use words in a way that contradicts their
actual meaning is the prime mark of a great theorist!
Here's a funny ha-ha that mentions him:
http://users.pipeline.com.au/bangsund/football.htm
ville terminale
so his views were essentially that of gramsci.
in a way, he's right though. american values and culture are being
shaped more by a handful of boorish ghetto trash finding 100 rhymes
for 'fuc*' than by all the lawyers, doctors, scientists, clergy put
together.
heck, look at jesus. he started out spreading his hippie message and
his views took over the whole world. look at the beatles, just another
hamburg act, but soon changed world music and fashion more extensively
and thoroughly than all the julliard graduates of the past 50 yrs put
together.
ville terminale
> nice. I was pointing out that, as the 60s progressed, his movies were beginning
> to look awfully quaint in comparison to his first three; especially to those
> who thought the 'Nouvelle Vague' was sopposed to represent a kind of
> Revolutionary vanguard in cinema. It was part of what was suuposed to be a
> larger point that, when the New Wave (or at least the ideal of it) started to
> fall apart, Truffaut retreated into a relatively prosaic kind of filmmaking,
> one largely informed by the cinematic traditions of the past. His movies became
> awfully nice. And comfortable.
> I don't condemn him for it. I was just writing about his metamorphosis
> from nascent revolutionary to sack of wet oatmeal.
>
Aren't you contradiciting your previous position that an 'artist'--a
category you don't believe in since 'art' is all smoke and
mirrors--does poorly if he tries to create something 'serious and
artistic' as opposed something neither/nor? isn't the idea of
avant-garde essentially elitist, based on a notion of
art-for-art's-sake, of the artist understanding his medium as
thoroughly as any art critic and scholar, thereby picking apart its
hidden structure and formulating new possibilities?
if it's wrong for a filmmaker to try to consciously make 'art
films'--most strikingly exemplified by avant garde cinema--than why
criticize truffaut for abandoning his conscious experimentalism(which
to me seemed less experimental than simply romantic and lyrical)?
didn't truffaut do exactly what you want filmmakers to do, which was
making films that appealed to both arthouse audiences and the masses,
whereupon the dividing wall between art and entertainment, between
avant-garde and mainstream, was irrelevant?
monsieurblob
yeup, mr doberman pretty much got it right, althussers ideas were
basically that nobody knew what they wanted and that only althusser
knew what they wanted, he was our western mao
ville terminale
why did he kill his wife?