Comments on Bright Lights After Dark: Window to the (Critic's) Soul

Campaspe, missed your first post which kind of def...

2009-05-15T16:30:00.000-07:00

Campaspe, missed your first post which kind of defuses my joke in advance...

Campaspe, Don't you mean that you were tickled to...

2009-05-15T16:28:00.000-07:00

Campaspe,

Don't you mean that you were tickled to see the Siren referenced like that?

Erich,

Yes, I do recall reading (& enjoying) that piece. Don't know if I buy that as the reason why it was more heavily criticized, but I don't have to buy it to like it!

And though I seem to have recycled this pathetic little story over several threads for the past year, it bears repeating here: I heard David Denby give a talk about the decline of cinema, which I largely agreed with, but I thought he let critics off the hook, evading their own responsibility for lowering standards. So I brought up the by-and-large positive critical reception of Kong (which he had mentioned disliking) and lo abd behold - he evaded critical responsibility (with snark no less, the hypocrite!).

Of course I care, MovieMan! One man's mess is anot...

2009-05-15T11:42:00.000-07:00

Of course I care, MovieMan! One man's mess is another man's art. I liked BOTH King Kong and War of the Worlds, but I understand why one was praised and one wasn't - since WOTW is a direct criticism of the immature modern father, which is the guy who buys the tickets, and who Spielberg himself introduced us to via Roy in Close Encounters back in '77. I wrote a big piece on it in Acidemic!

Joseph, I was tickled to see myself referenced lik...

2009-05-15T08:01:00.000-07:00

Joseph, I was tickled to see myself referenced like that and couldn't resist the urge to pop up in comments. This is a well-done post, btw.

I followed Jon's link here. I don't have much to a...

2009-05-14T21:25:00.000-07:00

I followed Jon's link here. I don't have much to add to the press kit discussion, except to say a) how dare they and b) how dare I condemn them when I can barely muster reviews on films I LIKE at the moment. In other words, if I had to meet a deadline every week and have something interesting to say, I might go scrambling for whatever I could find too (I hope not, but still). Heck, when I was blogging every day I remember entering panic mode as the clock was ticking, and I had about a dozen readers (and was writing about movies I chose to see rather than ones I was forced into).

Every day I drift further and further from contemporary cinema, and to quote Pavement by way of Glen Kenny, I don't care, I don't care, I really don't care...

But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

What does interest me is the discussion about critics attempting to be "with it" and "hip" - if by "hip" we mean populist rather than esoteric. I noticed this in Richard Corliss' celebration of blockbusters last December - he's right to knock the unimaginativeness of indies, but when he turns to special effects gurus as Hollywood's aesthetic saviors, his critical apparatus is kicking the bucket.

And yes, I agree that There Will Be Blood seemed something of a dramatic mess to me on first viewing too (I know Erich disagrees, or perhaps doesn't care). I've never really gotten on board the P.T. Anderson train.

Have I missed all the Zeroes masterpieces? As earlier indicated, there's so many contemporary films, critically acclaimed and otherwise, I just haven't seen yet so perhaps I'm unaware of the diamonds in the rough. Of what I've seen it seems there's been two great films for the ages, Mulholland Drive and Lost in Translation, and a few dozen interesting ones that may grow in stature with time and repeat viewings (and even if they don't, will remain provocative and unique).

Why is it that critics who whined about the blockbuster mentality throughout the 80s and 90s are suddenly embracing or making their piece with "big" pictures now that they're worse than they were then - more sour, more cartoonish, more pretentious, less grounded in any form of classical storytelling or sheer popcorn-munching pleasure. Why did War of the Worlds, one of the most sheerly enjoyable blockbusters in years, saturated in film history and texture, judicious in its use of computer animation, guided wisely by Spielberg with a clarity that he once effortlessly exuded but seems to have lost recently (though still enjoyable, his work has become more turgid and less disciplined in the past decade)...why did this movie get panned when the incoherent King Kong by the incompetent Peter Jackson was praised? Why, why, why?

Damn, maybe I do care after all.

Even the Siren doesn't do third-person all the tim...

2009-05-14T19:50:00.000-07:00

Even the Siren doesn't do third-person all the time...True that! My allusion was a loving tribute, btw, and not a snide jab, although it may not have seemed as such due to the tone of the piece in general.

Even the Siren doesn't do third-person all the tim...

2009-05-14T19:04:00.000-07:00

Even the Siren doesn't do third-person all the time...

Frankly I think it's about time people learn how t...

2009-05-08T14:07:00.000-07:00

Frankly I think it's about time people learn how to hate more.

You might be gratified by my coverage @ Slant. Granted, I never review studio pictures since I work from screeners, but even among the indie and foreign circuit (typically the stuff of cinebuff goo-shooting) I almost never give out scores about 2.5 (out of 4). Even "The Window," which I loved, was docked half a star for the simple reason that it isn't quite a hardcore classic.

But, then again, scores are all arbitrary, which is why I subscribe to the philosophy that films are shitty until they prove otherwise, rather than the inverse. Why the cynicism? Simple metrics. The majority of film product is bland swill. With low expectations I'm hardly ever disappointed, and when a fine piece of celluloid such as "The Window" rolls around it knocks the curmudgeon out of me with such force that it's easily worth having sat through hours upon hours of mindless drivel to discover it.

And yes, I have been accused quite vindictively by family, friends, fellow critics, etc of being a crank (guilty as charged), and a pan-hater, but I contend that it is only through contempt that my ardor for cinema can persist without flagging. Simply because in order to thoroughly enjoy a dismal box office smash like "The Dark Knight" I'd have to lower my standards (in my case, anyhow), thereby deceiving myself and obliterating the very same aesthetic mechanism within that allows me to relish "El Verdugo," "Sansho the Baliff" and "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie". Some have ridiculously claimed that were I a "true" lover of film I would not be so harsh on the art-form, nor so scornful of the erring, sheepish ways of public opinion. Not so. The more intense one's devotion, the more complex's one's ideals, and the more painstaking one's assessments, and the more meticulous one's hierarchies.

Indeed, there is such a thing as a "bad movie" and examples are so prevalent the damned things seem to be reproducing via mitosis. And I plan to continue parroting this observation, not only in the hopes that the average quality will improve, but also because the numinous experience of expecting to see a "bad movie" and finding yourself very, very mistaken is not one I would trade for anything -- certainly not all the so-called "fun" in the known universe.

postscript: Joseph, I actually like the three dreary prestige films you mention above, but I do see your point. I thought the critical consensus was far too effusive, particularly in the case of the Coens. As usual, the academics (and the Academy) were very late in their recognition.

Erich, we could get into a battle of who likes the...

2009-05-08T13:22:00.000-07:00

Erich, we could get into a battle of who likes the least highly regarded recent pictures, but I suspect you'd win, because you go to more films than me. But my take is different than yours: to me it seems like most critics are each falling all over themselves trying to like most of what they see, always and ever afraid the shadowy tyrannical masses making up the popular horde will rise up against them with the prissy whine that they don't know how to have any fun, hence the critical hoopla surrounding films like "The Bourne Supremacy" (which was thoroughly incoherent), the Batman movies, the first couple of Spidermans, the X-men and Forgetting Sarah Marshal and countless other bits of dreck and pleasure. It's gotten so I can't tell why critical opinion swings one way or another--is The Dark Knight really so much better than The Black Dahlia? It seems as clear and obvious as a spring rainstorm to everyone but me. And why did most critics enjoy Four Christmases but thoroughly despise the far superior holiday farce Surviving Christmas (the one Ben Affleck movie which I ever enjoyed). The critics don't just puff up movies like Doubt, and There Will Be Blood or No Country For Old Men, which I found both dull, and in the Case of Blood, a dramatic mess, they put everything through this mill of, "it's fun and I really believed this character..." To me it seems like the trick is not simply to get people to pick out the treasures before them (there aren't that many), but to develop some kind of critical faculty. Frankly I think it's about time people learn how to hate more.

P.S. Did you know that Maltin's book also gives a low rating to Carrie; The English Patient gets more stars than Eraserhead or The Year of The Dog or Brazil, which gets the same number of stars as The Coneheads! Films seemingly made for accolades such as a wonderful little masterpiece like The Terrorist get a modest three stars and Plenty, The David Hare Meryl Streep vehicle of the eighties got only two and a half, despite it's being one of Streep's sharpest and most glamorous performances. It's all crazy to me.

Joseph, you know I have nothing but the highest re...

2009-05-08T11:33:00.000-07:00

Joseph, you know I have nothing but the highest respect for you as well. By Uncle Tomming I simply mean the mass critical consensus that seems to take place in established film criticism that reserves "classic" status for prestige pictures and the "canon" vs. having the strength of one's own convictions.

Another Emperors New Clotheshorse example is one I encountered all the time in my days in the art world: a man comes home from Christie's having bought an all white painting by--say--Rauschenberg, for $200K. It's just pure white, not even brush detail. Meanwhile his own son may make a brilliant work of art but the man wont even hang it in his living room - it's not, after all, a Rauschenberg. That's what I mean by Uncle Tomming. In order to rescue art from the sterilization of "signature-worship" in which a cocktail napkin scribble by Picasso is automatically superior to anything someone born today could paint, we must learn to recognize talent and vision in works made today, no matter what the budget or who directed it. It's time to take back our power as cultural arbiters and not always be deferring to what "they" say, to realize there amongst our slackers and youtube pundits are diamonds just as precious as our Scorseses and Antonionis.

Hell, even Scorsese is floundering trying to live in his own shadow these days...

Kuersten, I'm not sure what you mean by my "Uncle ...

2009-05-08T10:39:00.000-07:00

Kuersten, I'm not sure what you mean by my "Uncle Tomming" my own era (I love TV shows). I haven't seen "Observe and Report"; I may or may not. It may be great, it may be terrible--it looks, though, to me like other Rogan films I've seen, and so many many modern films actually, such as "Knocked Up" and "Pineapple Express", which had a few funny stretches but were crippled by poor editing which allowed the films to go on and on (I'm old fashioned, I think comedies, horror flicks and comic book movies should be about 95 minutes or so), and it seemed to me amusing that so many critics should have made a connection between it and Taxi Driver that just turned out to be in the press kit. Maybe that really is a very obvious sounding board for the film, but it sure doesn't seem like it from descriptions of the plot or characters. Also I'm not sure why you brought in Maltin's film guide. I'm aware that Maltin and several of these functional but aesthetically useless compilations (I own a couple) don't give the film much respect, but you know as well as I do the film is in fact popularly considered to be quite a classic. I suppose your point is that since Maltin gives the film low marks it's therefore not pretentious to say, as the film's press kit did, "this is the first comedy ever to be influenced by Taxi Driver", but I respectfully disagree.

Damn straight, what it all boils down to is having...

2009-05-08T09:27:00.000-07:00

Damn straight, what it all boils down to is having the strength of your own convictions and to have that you need a lot of self-awareness and knowledge of film and "the canon" as a whole. What's shocking is, for example, how little even film professors know about movies. They have their films that they teach and consider canonical, but they don't dare get behind a film that's not considered canonical already, by someone else.

Godard still said it best, and I paraphrase, when French bourgeoisie see some bodice ripping Shakespeare in Love-style film they say "This is Shakespeare? But this is wonderful! Why didn't anyone tell me?" While meanwhile a PRC western which Godard sees as Shakespearean these same critics would pan and dismiss as low budget tripe.

I take comfort in that, knowing that France too suffers from the artistic hamstringing caused by bourgeoisie intellectual insecurity...

or my favorite, the indignant voice of some liberal middle-aged pundit behind me at a screening, no doubt irked by some letter or student critique: "how dare that little tart accuse me of being sexist!"

Erich, you raise an excellent point -- one can dra...

2009-05-08T08:31:00.000-07:00

Erich, you raise an excellent point -- one can draw many existing comparisons that might be noted in the press kit without having read the press kit. Ironically, just as I finished this blog entry I penned a review (also for Slant) on the upcoming release "Jerichow," which is essentially a German remake of "The Postman Always Rings Twice". The plot parallels were unmistakable. This older film (and novel) could have been mentioned in the Director's Statement for "Jerichow", but I didn't read it. The difference between me and Sarris (and others who bombed on "The Window") is that I didn't chastise the director of "Jerichow" for not having made a film that matched the proto-noir aspirations and erotic fervor of "Postman...". Actually, despite the fact that "Jerichow" is a much lesser work, I thought that examining the sharp differences between it and its source material were the quickest route to analyzing the film's strengths.

That having been said, I see what Joseph is saying, too (and Edelstein annoys me to no end, btw). When you rely on the press kit you could wind up straining to make connections that aren't there (ie Kael and the Freudian haze of "3 Women"), or some such, and you look like an idiot. Erich, since you developed the comparison between "Observe and Report" and "Taxi Driver" independently I'm sure you argue the point much more cogently and thoroughly -- those that cribbed the concept from the press kit, however, have basically been duped into regurgitating PR copy. The basic idea is the same, but with criticism it's all in the expression -- and one has to marvel at the sheer number of critics who seem to be jogging their frontal lobes with Director's Statements. Look up ANY recent movie in Rotten Tomatoes and I guarantee you the lion's share of reviews will essentially be spouting the same pedestrian non-thesis with distinct verbiage.

Finally, one clarification: I am not against criticizing ridiculous things written in Director's Statements per se. However, such complaints should be made apart from reviews of the films themselves, because otherwise you could fall into the trap Sarris did and write about the press kit rather than the movie. Which is, to be frank, quite egregiously shameful.

But Joseph, Observe and Report IS a lot like Taxi ...

2009-05-08T07:41:00.000-07:00

But Joseph, Observe and Report IS a lot like Taxi Driver. Just because it's also a mall comedy and mentioned taxi driver in the press notes doesn't mean it's NOT worthy of the comparison. I compared it and hadn't even read the press notes.

In the above post I worry you're not doing just what Jon's complaining about, that critics are quick to pan new movies that "dare" compare themselves to established classics in their press kits. Forget about press kits, man! And don't Uncle Tom your own epoch...don't wait 20 years to let someone else decide what the classics of this decade are.

Taxi Driver, FYI, gets ** in Maltin's book, which to many people is the freakin' bible, so right there... we're... somewhere...

It's funny your doing this (very well written) thi...

2009-05-07T22:54:00.000-07:00

It's funny your doing this (very well written) think piece, because I noticed the same issue crop up a couple weeks ago, only as concerns a much much less "immportant" film. I don't know if you listen to Npr's Fresh Air or not, but on Friday shows the always egregious film reviewer David Edelstein espouses about this or that film in passionate geek-jew intonations for a few minutes (the remake of "Funny Games", for instance, had according to him a "punk sensibility without punk's passion." Yikes!). Well in his review of "Observe and Report" of all things he described it as being a kind of comic re-working of "Taxi Driver"! He compared Rogan's character to Travis Bickle in all these thoughful ways and I was like, what the hell can he possibly be talking about? Then a week later I heard English film reviewer Mark Kermode (who has written BFI books about "The Exorcist" and "Shawshank Redemption") lambasting the film. In the process he read out this "Taxi Driver" business from the promo-packet and then scoff-ranted at the film maker's pretentiousness for the next five minutes or so. Then I thought, so that's where that dumb-ass Edelstein got it from! The point is, I agree completely with you, it's wrong to review a film this way, giving it bad grades because it's not the sum of it's previous influences. On the other hand it would be hard not to want to make fun of someone who feels they have to justify a "mall-cop comedy" by invoking Scorsese.

P.S., I'm so glad to know that Kael took Three Women to task for stuff she got from a press kit. I hate that review, as well as the one she did of Altman's Images, my two favorite films by that director.

To show how dense most people are on this subject,...

2009-05-06T11:58:00.000-07:00

To show how dense most people are on this subject, there's plenty of instances in such director's statements where they criticize critics who "see things" in their films they never meant to (consciously) present.So true, Erich. I've also heard that in some instances "Director's Statements" are ghost-written, the most famous example being that for Robert Altman's "Three Women". Apparently the promo package had all kinds of references to Jung and Lacan and Freud, and those were dutifully carried over into the reviews of the film (even Pauline Kael's). Later, Altman said something to the effect of "I couldn't even tell you who Jung and Freud WERE."

We now need not only rescue art from the artists, but from the PR department as well. And it's a shame because in this instance, a very good film ("The Window") got unfairly and irrelevantly compared to one of the most well-known foreign language movies of all time.

Good show, mate. I never read the $#$0@*$ press ...

2009-05-06T11:20:00.000-07:00

Good show, mate. I never read the *$*#$0@*$ press release packets either (unless for character names, cast, composer info etc).

I am shocked to hear Mr. Sarris has been so, how we say, fiaca? in his reviewing? That's the sort of thing I expect from someone Wilmer's age! Did he even see the film? Perhaps he saw it on 4X speed while reading the press release until he was in a fine Bergman loyalist furor.

To show how dense most people are on this subject, there's plenty of instances in such director's statements where they criticize critics who "see things" in their films they never meant to (consciously) present.

If you consciously meant to present it, you better be a Bergman, because otherwise you gonna come off as didactic and preachy (ala DOUBT).

May God help us all... in the future.

Comments on Bright Lights After Dark: Window to the (Critic's) Soul

Campaspe, missed your first post which kind of def...

Campaspe, Don't you mean that you were tickled to...

Of course I care, MovieMan! One man's mess is anot...

Joseph, I was tickled to see myself referenced lik...

I followed Jon's link here. I don't have much to a...

Even the Siren doesn't do third-person all the tim...

Even the Siren doesn't do third-person all the tim...

Frankly I think it's about time people learn how t...

Erich, we could get into a battle of who likes the...

Joseph, you know I have nothing but the highest re...

Kuersten, I'm not sure what you mean by my "Uncle ...

Damn straight, what it all boils down to is having...

Erich, you raise an excellent point -- one can dra...

But Joseph, Observe and Report IS a lot like Taxi ...

It's funny your doing this (very well written) thi...

To show how dense most people are on this subject,...

Good show, mate. I never read the *$*#$0@*$ press ...

Good show, mate. I never read the $#$0@*$ press ...