by Allan Fish
(USA 1915 187m) DVD1/2
Monument of shame
p D.W.Griffith, Harry E.Aitken d D.W.Griffith w D.W.Griffith, Frank E.Woods novel “The Klansman” by Thomas Dixon Jnr ph Billy Bitzer ed James E.Smith m Joseph Carl Breil
Henry B.Walthall (Benjamin Cameron), Mae Marsh (Flora Cameron), Miriam Cooper (Margaret Cameron), Lillian Gish (Elsie Stoneman), Robert Harron (Ted Stoneman), Wallace Reid (Jeff), Donald Crisp (U.S.Grant), Elmer Clifton (Phil Stoneman), Joseph Henaberry (Abraham Lincoln), Raoul Walsh (John Wilkes Booth), Josephine Crowell (Mrs Cameron), Violet Wilkey (Flora Cameron as a child), Eugène Pallette (union soldier), Walter Long (Gus), Sam de Grasse (Charles Sumner), George Siegmann (Silas Lynch), Bessie Love (Piedmont girl), Erich Von Stroheim (man falling from roof),
Paragon or pariah? Masterpiece or monstrosity? Superlative or shameful? In truth, probably all six. D.W.Griffith’s epic adaptation of Dixon’s openly racist novel is everything people say it is and more, worthy of the moral outcry at the time when it was labelled “a flagrant incitement to racial antagonism”. In its way, as offensive to modern sensibilities as Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, it remains the most controversial American film of them all, but the one without which American cinema would not have been the same. Released on the 50th anniversary of the end of the Civil War, the best part of a century on it still has the power to both move and offend.
The story focuses on two families, the Northern Stonemans from Pennsylvania and the Southern Camerons from Piedmont, North Carolina, who are friends before the war but find their loyalties tested during and after that most fateful of American conflicts. More disturbing than this penny dreadful plot is the racial undertones surrounding in particular the offensively evil Silas Lynch. In the world of Griffith and Dixon, negroes are potential rapists, predatory and avaricious. Such assumptions and assertions not only offend, they insult, and there would indeed be a good case for not allowing this film into the list for political reasons alone. And yet, with this list intending to cover the history of cinema, not including The Birth of a Nation would be like a novel without an opening, a play without an act one, scene one. This is where American cinema really began, so, much as many scenes may make you wince (especially those with the actors in blackface), it remains essential viewing.
The film was made, according to Griffith’s opening captions, so that “war may be held in abhorrence.” That goes without saying, but it can be hard to believe given the racist undertones, strong enough to strike resentment for decades. Griffith tried to atone with Intolerance, America and Abraham Lincoln, but how can you argue against a prosecution which can claim the opening sequence reading “the bringing of the African to America planted the first seed of disunion”? As if it were the Africans’ fault for coming to America and they hadn’t been torn from their roots and their country by colonialist capitalists. Or against condemning a film showcasing the Klan as the cavalry riding to the rescue? As Barry Norman once said, “it’s racism from the racist’s point of view.”
Looked back upon after ninety years the acting may seem somewhat antiquated. Certainly the shameful villains are out of the most offensive of pantomimes and the heroines are out of a Victoriana view of femininity that goes against everything we find alluring about the fairer sex in the 21st century. Gish in particular is given little to do but simper, a million miles from the parts in Way Down East, Orphans of the Storm, The Scarlet Letter and The Wind that confirmed her as the American silent screen’s greatest actress. Yet in spite of all this, only The Battleship Potemkin and Napoleon were as revolutionary in their command of film technique, the work of Griffith and his great D.P. Billy Bitzer the founding stones of their respective arts. The camera may still be relatively static, but the images remain powerful. It may be black and white in more ways than one, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t the most important American film ever made.
Even beyond its influence, Birth captivates because it captures Griffith’s artistry in full flower. If anything, you may underrate the film at #62, unfortunately. It would be so much easier to be able to ignore it, but the more I see of it, and of Griffith, the more I’m resigned to the fact that it’s his masterpiece.
Ironically, over time, its social value has actually increased, precisely because of that quality Norman identifies. Today it offers us a look at absolutely unreconstructed white supremacism, not hiding behind any veils, or codes, or disguises: in a way, its ugliness renders it more unintentionally honest than a film like Gone With the Wind, which lets modern audiences chuckle along with its rollicking darkies. It’s had a weird dual history too: on the one hand, as Andrew Sarris pointed out, it was “considered racist at a time when racism was hardly a household word.” The NAACP protested it and its content was hardly overlooked in the wider context (how could it be, when the alternate title was “The Clansman”?). Yet for many years its racism went relatively un-remarked upon in film and cultural circles, even among more liberal commentators. The excitement came first. Today, to a certain extent, we need to re-discover that to fully appreciate the film, but not without forgetting (as if we could) the venal reactionary xenophobia of the movie, among the most virulent in film history – certainly the virulent in the history of great films.
Now aside from this quality, which will always inevitably dominate the conversation, the film is a beauty to behold. The first half especially, before the racism becomes so foregrounded and exaggerated as to be impossible to ignore, is thoroughly entertaining, inventive, beautiful, delightful – every moment invested with energy and creativity in its composition, editing, lighting. I’ve heard some say the film has “aged” but I don’t really find it dated at all – it’s one of the silent dramas I can most easily fall into the rhythm of, as if it was released yesterday.
A fascinating picture, no bones about it. Looks like there will be quite a few Griffiths to come though.
By the way, what did you think of The Struggle? It only just came out backed with Abe Lincoln over here – and I got to see it last fall as I neared the end of my Griffith series on my blog. I was blown away – this raw early talkie is far superior to the more famous Lincoln, in my opinion, and one of D.W.’s best films. But I think my taste may run towards that unpolished vibe more than yours so I’m curious as to your take…
The most important American film ever made? Fish, you are damned. May God have mercy on your soul.
Seriously, though, “Birth” certainly belongs on any list thanks to its historical significance, though I must allow myself to openly wonder if it really is deservedly as revolutionary as its reputation attests for all the right reasons. Griffith pioneered much of cinematic vocabulary here, no doubt about that, but are the many conventions established here a matter of the director’s invention, or perhaps rather discovery? Would the methods of filmmaking be radically different today if Griffith hadn’t blown the gates open here, or would all the same techniques established in this film have eventually been developed by other directors, independently of ol’ D.W.’s influence? Are the artistic standards which govern the appreciation of a medium matters akin to scientific laws, which may go years without being observed and studied and still nonetheless bear force upon how the world operates, or are they created whole by man?
Eh. I personally believe that somebody would’ve been established the technical patterns laid down by Griffith here eventually, but that doesn’t obscure his achievement. Even if Thomas Edison wasn’t technically the first person to invent the filament light-bulb, we shouldn’t write him out of history just because he liked to electrocute elephants in his spare time. I will say, however, that it’s impossible to talk about Griffith’s achievements without keeping his racist content in firm focus– I’d say it’s far worse than Riefenstahl’s affront to common decency in her work with the Nazis, even though her case amounted not only an endorsement of their rule, but an outright collaboration with it.
Perhaps the heaviest burden this film’s legacy has is the way that it weighs down upon the rest of its director’s work– the man went on to create truly great films like “Intolerance” that can be appreciated relatively free of moral stain, and it’s thanks to the reputation of this epic KKK commercial that so many intelligent viewers have sworn Griffith off forever. A shame, but not one that doesn’t occupy too much space in my mind. If the only place Griffith’s work is appreciated remains the history books, it’s about as much as he deserves– it’s not an exageration, after all, to say that this film has blood on its hands.
I’ve wondered the same thing myself, Bob, which is part of why I usually don’t give to much credence to “influence” arguments for greatness.
As for “blood on its hands” the film has certainly been accused of re-igniting enthusiasm for the Klan. This opens up a tricky discussion, of course, because of Birth has blood on its hands so do many other films. Heck, Scream has blood on its hands (remember the copycat killing?). I’m not sure to what extent a film can/should be held responsible for those who claim to have been inspired by it, even in as seemingly cut-and-dry a case as Birth (where both Griffith and the arch-racist Dixon claimed to disassociate themselves from the latter-day Klan even as they continued to romanticize the postwar version). Of course to give it no responsibility seems mere wishful thinking, sad to say. But it’s definitely a grey area…
Ultimately, and I know I differ from Tony among others on this, I think a film’s greatness is best judged aside from its social “value”. They should not be altogether ignored in discussions of the work – indeed, anything but as they often add a great deal to the conversation – but even inclusion is thorny; as I noted, the fact that Birth is politically reprehensible and historically inaccurate only makes it MORE socially valuable today, albeit in a very ironic fashion. As far as that difficult term “greatness” goes I tend to believe it refers to the expression of a vision, rather than what that vision consists of, but of course greatness is only one part of the picture in discussing movies (albeit a vital one).
Man– to me, the whole argument of “influence” is simply a matter of putting the cart before the horse. A film’s influence is important, but it’s not the determining factor of its quality. “Citizen Kane”, for example, is a great film and an influential film, but the causal relationship isn’t that its greatness derives from its influence, but just the other way around. It has, does and will continue to influence filmmakers because it is a great film, first and foremost. You can pioneer techniques in a film all you want, but if the film itself isn’t worth watching, then what’s the point, after all?
As for social value, that’s actually a big determining factor in my own appreciation of films, though not necessarily in the negative connotions of overreactive political correctness, or anything. Rather, I like viewing a movie in the context of the specific time and place that it arrives in, and if it becomes a cultural talking-point within and beyond that time, I believe that’s very much worth considering in judging its place in the canon of cinema. In the case of a film like “BoaN”, it’s almost just as required as the movie itself, as the controversy surrounding its release was one that touched upon so many different aspects of the day– the Jim Crow laws of the South, the rise of the NAACP, even the first World War. There’s just too much of interest to ignore.
As for whether the film really has “blood on its hands” as I said– granted, plenty of other films have arguably incited some audiences to reprehensible acts of violence (a better example than “Scream” might be “A Clockwork Orange”, where even Kubrick himself thought it wise to remove the movie from screens in the wake of copycat droogs) and yet are tolerated far more than the works of Griffith. The difference, again, I’d say lies in the specific time it was released and the unprecedented role it played as an object of mass media. It was just close enough to the close of the Civil War for all the old wounds to feel recent and fresh, but just far enough for those wounds to start healing were it not for the way in which this film ripped the stitches wide open. The film helped popularize Southern vigilantiism and paved the way for a new rise of the KKK, and I’m fairly certain that you could argue that things might not have happened in such a way had it not been for the film. Now, does that mean that Griffith should be held solely accountable as a man of the times who should’ve known better? Not necessarily, but it certainly does place his work at the unfortunate crossroads of the wrong place and wrong time.
Great thoughts, Bob, and your first paragraph sums up my views quite nicely. An exception, I suppose, would be films like The Jazz Singer but those are extreme examples of what you spoke about earlier – right place, right time, the film itself being nothing more than a marker.
And while I loved Intolerance on first view, repeat visits led me to believe its value may be more in the potential and the “existence” of the thing than precisely in its execution – as an idea, it’s tremendous (and I don’t just mean the concept, but all the associations that go with it), as a film, it can be somewhat muddled. But I could probably swing back and forth on that – at one point it was my favorite Griffith.
“Intolerance” is no doubt interesting, but I couldn’t help but roll my eyes a little when I first watched it– so, the best example of modern-day intolerance is capitalism vs. the labor movement? Really, Griffith?
Maybe we can make some distinctions as to Birth’s “value” here, looking at moral worth, social utility, historical importance, and aesthetic achievement. In the first category, I think we can all agree it comes up a big fat zero, if negative points are not allowed. Its social utility is surprisingly high, precisely because of the same qualities that make it morally crude: it offers a vital peek into a mindset which has become forbidden but which influenced a great deal of American history – and certainly still plays a role in society, however cloaked. Its historical importance has been well-established and as Bob notes, even if another film would have played roughly the same role – if what we have here is discovery rather than invention, credit is still due (the point could also be made that many of Griffith’s tricks weren’t even really discoveries, though to the extent this is true he remains a great synthesizer, which is something I often value even more). As for aesthetic achievement, I would contend it rates quite highly there – both in the big picture, the way it weaves a great story out of many elements, and in the details – it’s an epic composed as much out of intimacy as spectacle.
It sounds to me like you are saying we can admire the sheen of the polish on the turd. Can you really separate out your disgust from your admiration of its aesthetic qualities, MovieMan?
He may orchestrate the pieces well but if you hate the pieces, what do you have left of value?
Yes, for several reasons. 1) The movie itself separates them out by relegating the most virulent supremacism to the second half. By the time it arrives we’ve already been entranced, and relatively untroubledly so, for a good hour. 2) That analogy doesn’t work for me because I don’t see Griffith’s direction as “the orchestration” and the text & subjects as the “pieces”. I think all the “cinematic” qualities of the work – including the montage, mise en scene, performance, and even non-plastic qualities like the narrative storytelling are as much a fundamental part of the film – i.e. the “pieces” – as the subject matter. I don’t see the director as conductor so much as at least part composter at least when he’s as involved as Griffith with shaping our whole experience. 3) Finally, it is not as if the moral revulsion is purely visceral and the aesthetic appreciation is purely intellectual. Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s the reverse, usually its a mixture of both. In other words, I am not just “respecting” the film, I’m often enjoying it; and I’m not just responding in my gut to the film’s racism – I’m often responding by the dictates of my rational conscience – which, by the way, I tend to think is a more solid and justifiable ground for political consciousness and moral commitment than erratic emotionalism, however vital a role that can play in motivation and sometimes even realization. (But that’s a discussion for another day.)
Although a casual viewer, when I had seen this a long time ago, to me it appeared a product of its time. Despite how we inwardly feel about the subjects he produced, it certainly reflected views of many then.
In that way, it’s both sad and humorous, depending on your values of course.
It was a monster either way, and that it was shot, and is still viewed today, certainly means something.
Cheers!
In my view influence should be irrelevant because it is no indicator of quality. It is only, seen retrospectively, a starting gun for a trend. Toy Story has influence but, in my opinion, not much quality. Likewise Citizen Kane.
Also, condemning films as representative of a director’s politics or as incitement to hatred is dangerous and confused territory. Once you start where do you stop? One ‘racist’ film – a racist director could always fall back on claims that this is a fictional, parallel world – compared to the hundreds of films I’ve seen that could be argued glamorise violence or denigrate women or cheapen sexual relationships is a drop in the water (and surely its ripples have now stopped).
It’s best to trust the audience and credit it with the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong and recognise whether something is polemic, propaganda, metaphor, allegory or just bunkum.
Let me toss my 2 cents into the wind once again – when you use an objective-sounding word like “quality” to describe your very personal dislike for Toy Story and Citizen Kane – movies which fail to move you (though they’ve moved many others) but are, by most standards of execution, conception, sophistication, etc. paragons of “quality” I think you do a disservice to the term. Hate to open up the can of worms again, but I couldn’t respond. Don’t worry about responding – we’ll just end up going over the same ground again, but I had to lodge my protest.
Moving on, then…
I actually agree with your two points here, broadly speaking. One, that influence is not really an indication of quality, at least not aesthetic quality. The work is better judged on its own merits. That said, I think when writing about, appreciating, studying, or otherwise engaging with a work it’s good to know about a work’s influence simply because it can help you appreciate the larger context. Also it can help point you to other attributes which ARE more important to the work’s quality – it can give you some perspective perhaps (though one should tread lightly).
Also generally agree with your second point. Many people some willing to admit Birth into the hall of shame but not other films. I see condemning the film as evil as opening a door – and your statements nicely dovetail with my perhaps more ambiguous, but fundamentally aligned, views above. I know Bobby J vehemently disagrees, and Tony somewhat so, and sometimes I see their point. But all in all, I think one has to be consistent here: either a number of films are evil, and culpable in their influence, or we have to make some effort to divorce a film’s supposed impact and intent (both of which can be ambiguous, and sometimes irrelevant to one another) from its quality – without consigning those attributes to oblivion altogether.
Yes, I agree with what you say towards the end but…
How can I credit “execution, conception, sophistication” when surely these qualities must leave their fingerprints somewhere and I do not see them. I was not moved and I was not impressed.
Camera moves, technological breakthroughs, deep focus queer angles and for what? They do Citizen Kane (badly acted too) a disservice. There has to be an end for these means. These are party tricks. People go wow when they see a footballer (soccer player) juggling a ball but all I care about is ‘can he pass?’ ‘can he shoot?’. The film was uninteresting in story and execution.
But Stephen, doesn’t it give you pause that most people – and not people who casually watched the film (as is often the case with a box office hit) – disagree with you? I know there are several sacred cows I don’t hold in as high regard as others, but I do at least humor the idea that I missed something there.
I think the camera tricks and all the other brouhaha (which people make too much fuss over anyway) do a marvelous job telling the story, which has always been the film’s main appeal to me. Yes, these qualities leave fingerprints but not everyone picks up on them. It’s not as easy to judge as athletics where what you see is what you get, at a glance (you either win or lose). I’ve changed my opinion to many times and not been in “the mood” for something on too many occasions (even something that enthralled me on earlier and later views) to hold my own gut reaction as sacrosanct. That doesn’t mean I don’t utilize it in passing judgements, but it’s not the be-all, end-all.
But yeah, we’ve been over that before so yada yada. As for the specifics, I’ll save an in-depth defense of Citizen Kane which I hold to be a masterpiece and furthermore, one of my absolute personal favorite films, for another day. I will say if this film was uninteresting in story and execution, and don’t know what IS interesting in story and execution! Ultimately it speaks to a certain conception and sensibility I hold. Possibility you do not, which is fine, but I’d submit this has more to do with your own taste than with the film’s inherent quality. As for me, other films, highly acclaimed, do not hold the same appeal for me – but I try to see what they have to offer even if it’s not personally my cup of tea. Sometimes my sensibilities are even able to expand to include this work which formerly did not connect with me. Other times they don’t, but I can at least “get” where the film is coming from a little better. A good example is Rules of the Game. It just didn’t work for me at all on first view but I’ve seen it a few times since and grown on me somewhat. I now think it achieves what it seeks to achieve, and while I would still offer my contrary point of view on the subject it would be with the caveat that I appear to be “missing” something since I’ve never quite connected with the rapturous response many have the material.
In the end, contrariness makes everything very interesting, I just think it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Damn, didn’t end up keeping this brief at all!
It does not give me pause. You talk again of ‘personal’ reaction and ‘gut’ feelings as if I park my faculties at the door. The issue is NOT emotion against thought it is MY JUDGMENT against a nebulous CONSENSUS JUDGMENT.
Who else can I turn to when judging a film than me myself and my reaction to it? Every film out there is loved by someone and hated by someone else. Every film is admired by someone. Should I then throw my hands in the air and say ‘forget what I think and forget what I feel’. Your problem is with my differing views (it’s not ‘contrariness’ because I have never gone against what people say for the sake of it) and nothing else philosophical.
I do ‘pick up’ on and ‘get’ what Citizen Kane is doing but getting something doesn’t mean you will like it or be impressed, intrigued, moved by it.
I don’t care if it succeeds in what it wants to achieve. Freddy Got Fingered did what it wanted and so does Limits of Control but they’re still bad films.
“but I’d submit this has more to do with your own taste than with the film’s inherent quality”
This doesn’t make any sense. You back Citizen Kane to the hilt because of what you think of it and yet I, using the same critical faculties, am disallowed from espousing the opposite because YOU have decided that Citizen Kane is OBJECTIVELY great and walled it off from attack. What makes your opinion (and that is all it can ever be) more valid?
P.S.
Sorry if the above sounds a bit angry but it isn’t – just forceful.
Stephen, sorry to barge in 😉
Anyone can hold an opinion. However you, like me and others who blog on film, have certain pretensions, including holding oneself out as a critic, and this also involves certain obligations, like supporting your assertions and demonstrating that you have at least an historical understanding of cinema and it’s development. Your ‘tirades’ here show little if any comprehension of these realities. Artistic endeavor is essentially about audacity, a paradigm shift that excites and defines a new understanding, a new perspective, an exploration of new possibilities. Sorry but your comments on both BofN and Kane are at best naive and at worst a joke.
Though in the middle of some ActionScript headbutting, I thought I’d stop by here and toss a few cents into the fountain on Stephen’s behalf. Though personally I disagree with him on the quality of “Citizen Kane” (a film I’ve loved for about 18 years, now) I don’t think he’s gone too far in any of his statements. Yes, the majority of popular opinion is against him, but he’s not alone in finding faults with some of “Kane”‘s attributes– I’ll admit myself that I find a lot of shallow trickery and gimmicks amidst all the masterful creative pioneering, though that’s something one should come to expect with a famous huckster like Welles. Ultimately, majority opinion doesn’t really matter that much when it comes to the appreciation of a work of art, which at the end of the day has to succeed or fail on a personal, subjective level. Sure, if a work succeeds with most viewers that shouldn’t be written off, but even when a film fails to connect with only a few lone individuals, it means something significant as well. Opinions can never be wrong– only common or uncommon.
Furthermore, I believe we need more dissenting opinions about movies like “Citizen Kane” out there, if only to better strengthen their longstanding value. Let’s face it, whenever a movie becomes a sacred cow of the cinematic canon, it tends to be taken for granted by filmgoers– what exactly does it mean when a movie can appear at the top of countless “best of” lists, but rarely ever makes aggressive rounds on theatrical circuits? When was the last time we saw a major restoration effort for “Citizen Kane” outside of its DVD release? Hell, when was the last time any Welles film recieved any significant theatrical screenings in the past ten, or even twenty years? For the “Touch of Evil” re-cut? For “Mr. Arkadin”, maybe? Granted, usually such theatrical returns are reserved for lesser known films or movies compromised by years of systematic censorship (the recent “Lola Montes” restoration is a good example), but still, classic films like “The Third Man”, “The Red Shoes”, “In a Lonely Place” and many more besides have enjoyed lovingly restored prints and screenings in recent years.
I honestly cannot recall the last time “Kane” or any of Welles’ films being projected in a New York theater, at least at the same scale, and a part of that is due to the fact that it has suffered a fate perhaps even worse than censorship– it has become a movie that nobody argues about anymore. Without spirited debate, it’s all too easy for even the most passionate devotees to lose their interest in a film, and gravitate instead to works that prompt a more diverse range of opinions. Therefore, let’s go after Stephen for his contrariness, but instead celebrate it. Personally, I’d like to hear more about why he dislikes “Kane” in as specific and minute terms as possible, simply because I’d find it refreshing to read something out of the ordinary on the film. After all, it wouldn’t really mean much to love a film if somebody else didn’t hate it, would it?
Tony, I have never held the pretension of being a critic, if by critic you mean somebody in some way better qualified to comment on or bring judgment on a film. I just post my thoughts.
I do support my assertions. I find it funny and a little enervating that if I say ‘Citizen Kane is great’ then I would not be pressed to support my claim. Everybody would just say ‘Yeah, isn’t it?’. If I swim against the current why do I have to work so much harder to ‘justify’ myself? Even if I do people like you will still dismiss me as a philistine. I posted a piece on Pixar for The House Next Door criticising them and, of course, because I disagreed with everybody I was pretty much insulted – and sworn at once, which somehow passed ‘moderation’. It was not, by any means, a ‘tirade’. Nor are my comments here.
‘Historical understanding and it’s development’. I am thoroughly aware of these issues but, unlike you, I take little heed of them when judging a film on its own merits.
Whatever the bold ‘artistic endeavour’ of Orson Welles (I think F For Fake his best film) Citizen Kane is a grab bag of showy techniques that fail to coalesce with the story they are there to tell. Welles’ performance has no true depth or colour.
Your approach is overly respectful and too scientific. This is art. You judge it with your heart and mind and every person’s own thoughts and feelings are paramount. There are 6 billion Citizen Kane’s out there. My right to my opinion is more sacrosanct than Citizen Kane’s right to a place in the Cinematic Canon.
“Sorry but your comments on both BofN and Kane are at best naive and at worst a joke.”
Your use of the word naive is interesting. It presupposes a concrete truth that I have to be made aware of. I don’t see how my comments could be construed as a joke. MovieMan is able to disagree with me without calling my thoughts a joke. Your comments go against the whole purpose of film criticism – to open horizons and not close them, to welcome points of view and not denigrate them.
Thank you Bob for defending my right to speak – even if I do so vehemently.
I meant ‘Citizen Kanes’ not ‘Citizen Kane’s’
“I find it funny and a little enervating that if I say ‘Citizen Kane is great’ then I would not be pressed to support my claim. Everybody would just say ‘Yeah, isn’t it?’.”
Nailed it. Also goes a long way to show why we need more debates about sacred-cow films, for their own good. Again, I love “Kane”, but there’s a reason people don’t talk about it much anymore– you can only agree about something for so long before things get boring. The only way to get the blood flowing again is to take out the critical scalpels and start disecting it layer by layer, and oftentimes fans are the last ones willing to do that.
You’re right to point out his showy tendencies, both in visuals and performances (he only ever really played the same role over and over again, when you get right down to it). Welles was certainly one of the most self-indulgent and repetitive filmmakers who ever worked, but his work has enjoyed the luck of falling on the right side of critical opinion, for the most part. Of course, that says as much about the the collective tastes of the cinematic cognoscenti as anything regarding the filmmaker himself.
(“F for Fake” is interesting, by the way, a great work of mercenary cinematic cannibalism. But I prefer Welles’ “The Trial”.)
Bob and Stephen, instead of pissing in each other’s pockets, why don’t you tell us why Citizen Kane is not great? Go ahead and explain why the earth revolves around the moon…
“Bob and Stephen, instead of pissing in each other’s pockets, why don’t you tell us why Citizen Kane is not great? Go ahead and explain why the earth revolves around the moon…”
Tony, it doesn’t sound like you would be particularly receptive to what I say nor think about it seriously. If you see Citizen Kane’s greatness proven in the same way the Moon is proven to revolve around the Earth and if you are so sarcastic and mocking about what I say there’s really not much point.
I might write an essay on Citizen Kane in the near future and I may post it on my blog.
Bob, The Trial didn’t impress me because it reminded me of films with similar themes and feel (like Alphaville) that are superior. I did like the drawn introduction though – and Jeanne Moreau.
Tony, get over it already. I believe I’ve made it clear that I disagree with Stephen on the point that “Kane” is a bad film. All I’m trying to do is support the free exchange of his opinions, and in so doing help bolster the film by promoting an actual dialogue about it. I sincerely hope Stephen’s serious about that essay on his blog, as it’d be a breath of fresh air, one that’d revitalize the lungs and put some wind back into the sails of a movie I consider an ironically ignored masterpiece.
Stephen– Good points. The opening of “The Trial” does impress a great deal, as it’s one of the portions where Welles deviates from the original text just enough to inject originality into the proceedings and enough inventiveness to recraft the work sufficiently for cinema while at the same time staying true to Kafka’s roots. Likewise is the scene where Joseph K. and his uncle encounter the massive computer at K’s office, a nice addition that I wish we had more of in the film. I love how close he hews to the book, but its best moments probably are those where he finds new ways of articulating its spirit, instead of its content. Or, yes, any scene with Moreau.
And no doubt– “Alphaville” is the superior film. My personal favorite of Godard’s works.
That’s all fine and dandy, crediting it’s audience with those fine attributes, except that when it was shown originally – according to the great film hostorian Kevin Brownlow, it was race riots and fatalities, the birth of the Klan and right up to at LEAST the ’30s – lynchings that became systematic and as a regular as a summer fair (with kids and adults posing and getting their suvenir pictures taken, there was an exihibition a couple of years ago about this forgotten part of history).
The whole film is geared to evoke the emotional heart strings of its audience, even now, and not for them to compare it to Sidney Poiter. It’s amazing that film directors get a following and called autuers (which Griffith clearly is here) but once his crude, simplistic, evil and reactionary political/worldly view points work against him, we are supposed to divorce that link.
Bob Clark’s entries above are some of his sharpest and most incisive.
I think there is some joy for film historians linking the development of the art, in the vein of fossil collectors, but films cited for their influence first, are usually bores. The racist element here is hardly likely to bore; incite, revulse, shock…yes. The same way as the Nazi ‘Jew Suess’.
Here is a review of that films dvd, substitute “negro” for jew : “Jud Süss was the cultural centerpiece in Joseph Goebbels’ campaign against the Jews. Released in 1940, it was a box office sensation across Germany and Europe; alongside the movie’s theatrical distribution, it became a staple of Nazi propaganda evenings organized by the Hitler Youth, SS and others. At once a rousing melodrama and murderous antisemitic incitement, the movie draws loosely from historical events from the early eighteenth century, when “Jud Süss” Oppenheimer, financial advisor to the Duke of Württemberg, was subjected to a sensational trial and gruesome execution. The film depicts Süss as a figure of cynical cunning and malign will, a sexual predator sowing corruption everywhere; his promotion of Jewish emancipation brings Christian Württemberg to the brink of moral and social ruination. “
A quick comment on the above mention of lynching memorabilia– isn’t that what Dylan’s mentioning when he sings “They’re selling postcards of the hanging”? Specifically, the first verse of “Desolation Row” supposedly deals with the the 1920 lynchings in Duluth, Minnesota, where he was born and raised (obviously many years after). Anyway, the memory of awful transactions like those is alive, if you know where to find it.
Bob, we are not arguing popular opinion here, but critical opinion. I am not claiming Kane is perfect, as have said on another thread at WitD: “Its sheer audacity always amazes. Though the scenario is beginning to feel dated with the episodic nature of the narrative less than satisfying.”
But you cannot take statements that Kane has “not much quality” or “bad acting” seriously.
Btw, I am beginning to find your hair-splitting a bit annoying.
Tony, what I take seriously as a legitimate criticism is Stephen’s comparison of Welles’ “party tricks” and “queer angles” to a soccer player “juggling the ball”. Though I disagree that “Kane” is all about novelty and superficial charm, I’ll admit that he has a point, a point which I’d like to hear him elaborate further. All Stephen’s given us so far are scratches on the surface of the intriguing argument that could be made, so I’m not about to dismiss anything just yet.
MovieMan, you talk about the tremendous execution of an idea. Yes, there are risque / offensive jokes that are funny because of the mechanics of the gag but there will always be a line where the subject matter is so off as to render execution irrelevant. There are times when something can’t be funny.
Funny, yes (though that line has been increasingly blurred and extended over the years) – but applied to drama I’m not so sure.
My question above that you responded to first was more a teasing out of your thoughts than a disagreement. I agree with a lot of what you say – about everything working together, visceral, emotional.
I myself, when watching a film, feel thoughts and think out feelings if that makes sense.
When applied to writing about film, Stephen, even more so – I often find myself describing an experience I sensed but didn’t quite have, though sometimes then I have it upon reflection.
In a way it’s the same because someone can violate the pact between artist and audience by tearing at the fabric of the convention to reveal again the true and ugly subject of the joke or film.
We go into a performance and subconsciously dial down our feelings of the outside world to allow the fictional one or the riffing off it to fill the space and lie beside it. Some jokes and some films may allow that volume to become cacophonous again and risk becoming either very inspirational or very inciting – but in the end fiction is fiction and condemnation cannot be the same as that reserved for ‘real’ offences.
I think I’ve confused myself there.
Birth is rare if not unique (as far as I know) in portraying blacks not as figures for ridicule but as objects of fear. It not only assumes but asserts black inferiority. If there’s a category of evil films, Birth is in it. But to the extent that we can separate movie history from moral history (a subject for further debate, perhaps) Birth can still be recognized for its revolution in scale and for the then-unequaled (?) power of Griffith’s narrative techniques. But having seen a fairly long cut of it, I have to say that there are long stretches that are pretty inert. Griffith was not an innovator in the direction of cinematic acting; Gish strikes me as a self-starter in that regard. Watching Birth is really a matter of waiting for the battle scenes and the transgressive racial stuff, and its success as art for posterity really is limited by its political agenda. Does any modern viewer who is not a confirmed racist even feel tempted to root for the Klan at the end? If not, does that mean that we are too “politically correct” or that Griffith’s power, on this occasion, is overrated?
MovieMan, are you still going to write your essay on subjectivity
/ objectivity?
Not at the moment, Stephen, it’s gone the way of all my other ambitions when they’re left out to curdle after 3 or 4 weeks… (hence the new years resolution: no more resolutions…)
Well, that’s a shame MovieMan. If you break your resolutions just resolve to never write it.
Ha ha, unfortunately, Stephen, that’s one I would probably keep!
Issues of moral turpitude and aesthetics aside, Griffith must be recognised and respected for his influence as a film-maker. The art of cinema is movement in the creation of a compelling narrative. In this Pudovkin and Eisenstein, and those to follow, built on what Griffiths had understood intuitively.
As an aside, there is a certain futility in rankings like this. Perhaps the example of the Cahiers du Cinema should be followed with rankings pointing to a director’s output during a period. Griffiths would surely deserve a much higher ranking than this placing.
Tony, I’m certain Intolerance will place on the list, and I suspect quite highly. True, Allan has already consigned the other likely rivals, Way Down East & Broken Blossoms, to the nearlies but there’s always a chance he’ll pull out a surprise and celebrate a lesser-available Griffith film in the top 60. But yeah, I’ll be quite surprised if Intolerance isn’t at least in the top 30.
I don’t know if I’m more shocked at seeing this one clock in at #62 and not in a higher position or in seeing Citizen Kane referred to as “badly acted” in debates in the comments!
In all seriousness though, I was guessing that this one would be a bit higher. This is a film that I have seen parts of, but all the way through. In a college “history through film” class we watched large sections (probably 100-110 minutes worth, if I remember correctly) but not the entire thing. It’s one that I definitely need to check out again if I’m going to submit any type of list for the silents. I enjoyed the essay as usual, Allan.
I myself couldn’t give a fuck for the subject of this movie at all. But, I give credit where it is do. The tracks that Griffith lays down here are driven upon by many to follow. Its all about technique. I’m sure most film-makers that followed shortly after Griffith “tolerated” this films subject but rallied around its film-making prowess. Wagner was a despicable anti-semite and his political and racial thinking (as well as his music) inspired Hitler. However, do I condemn the music because I dislike the composers thinking outside composition? No. Its the same here. I judge the art, not the artist. I think James Cameron is an egotistical asshole. Full of himself. I hate his theories on film-making. But, I love AVATAR as much as any great film this decade. I look at BIRTH for the good it does, not the bad it suggests. It rightfully belongs on any list for its early mastery of filmic experimentation and starting the ball rolling.
Okay, I think Cameron’s as overrated as the next guy, but am I wrong to think it’s a little unfair to compare his faults to those of Griffith or Wagner? So maybe the guy’s a douche, but at least he ain’t pushing for the master race.
Also: I do tolerate certain “questionable” behaviors as signs of the times they were representative of. The OUR GANG/LITTLE RASCALS shorts of the 30’s and 40’s are dotted with racial slurs and suggestions. Do I condemn the films because I’m not one to spit such slings and arrows myself? No. I understand that the racial and politcal “jokes” that are folded into these shorts are merely products of the time. When Stymie wishes for a Watermelon in “A Lad and A Lamp” we laugh because of the risque buttons this pushes today. However, I don’t get myself in a twist over these infractions, like Bill Cosby did, because I’m intelligent enough to know that jokes like that were accepted as “normal” back then. Matter of fact, I’m often amazed what got by the censors then that don’t today. I’m far from a racist, but I can understand where they came from due to the age of a film. Does this make it right? It never does. But does beg for tolerance due to the popular thinking of its time. That simple. This goes for BIRTH too!
BOB-I think you take this a little too far. I used the Cameron comparison merely as an illustration. I don’t give aa fuck about a film-makers personal life outside the films he makes. Woody Allen, for all I know could be a pedophile. Roman Polanski could be a despicable rapist. Not my concern. I look at the work and the technique alone. Griffith, for the time was a great director and early innovator. I don’t look at BIRTH for its subjects or themes. I look at it as a reminder that there were a few that were already understanding, even back then, the possibilities that could come from editing, cinematography, and directing. Would I sit down with Griffith over tea to discuss his racial and political views if he came back from the dead? No. But, I would wanna chat with him on how he timed shots, set up cameras, and how he chose to edit the film. Get it?
Yeah, but again, I still think lumping Cameron in with a group like that for percieved assholishness is a little… much. It’s nothing new for directors to be egotistical control freaks, self-absorbed maniacs or outright delusional sadists (just ask nearly anyone who worked with Von Stroheim, Lang or Kubrick, to name a few). Now, people like that can surely be iffy as human beings, but they’re still not as bad as racists or rapists (except maybe Lang, who might’ve murdered his first wife).
I’m not arguing your main point– that artists can be masters despite egregious personal faults. I’m just saying that not all faults are equally egregious.
Dennis, without lyrics – music is hardly likely to lead to lynchings. I love some of Wahner’s music too, but it creates mood changes, not a philosophy or immediate incitement.
Praise for historical experimentation is small praise indeed, as Brownlow says, many of the innovations he is credited with were done by others. Getting high on the first close-up of the primitive era, or match cut, or pan is of little worth but tremendously exciting when put together by documentary masters such as Kevin Brownlow.
It’s like giving credit to the users of the first creation of words and sentences, rather than Shakespare, Dickens, Wells, James – whose best works are as vibrant today as the they were written.
Form and content are inseperable in great works.
Otherwise it’s like talking to a model and ignoring her bad breath, body odour, the fact that she has every disease known to humankind, farts in public, talks in a childish babbling snorts, has an inane mind, and lies there like a life-less doll during love-making. She still looks good, but content, content, content, content…
Bobby, mostly we agree on things. But here, I think you are taking PC too far. As the scholars of Islam said: “Only God is perfect”.
I can’t see the PC angle at all…please elaborate.
Well, count me with those who consider CITIZEN KANE among the greatest films in the history of the cinema.
The ‘Mona Lisa’ is the worst painting ever created.
The play ‘King Lear’ is a terrible work of theatre.
Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony is a musical abomination.
And so goes ‘Citizen Kane’ in “Stephen’s” estimation. I think Stephen has violated and exploited the supposition that ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I am content to know that Sight and Sound has named ‘Citizen Kane’ the greatest film of all time for six decades in a row. Boy are you desparate for attention Stephen! Too bad nobody’s listening. They are too busy laughing. The reason why Stephen won’t answer ‘why’ is clear enough. He has no idea what he is talking about. If you want to be super-aggressive, then take the heat my friend.
“Boy are you desparate for attention Stephen! Too bad nobody’s listening. They are too busy laughing.”
I have been forthright but civil in my opinions. I am confident in and happy with what I think and feel and have never been a contrarian or spoken out for attention.
Also, I have never mocked anyone for their opinions, no matter how ‘against the grain’ they may be. I believe most people here are too mature and open-minded to laugh at someone who doesn’t agree with them.
Actually I don’t see the ‘Mona Lisa’ as a great work of art. I honestly believe much of the more intellectual critical consensus is just as beholden to the great god of celebrity as supposedly low culture. Sacred cows are still cows and can still make delicious hamburgers.
This is a response to Bob, Stephen, and Tony’s comments above. The problem I have with your argument, Stephen, is not that you don’t like Citizen Kane (as Bob mentions, despite its status, many have criticized it over the years – even many who liked it). It’s that I find there’s, frustratingly, not much to argue with you because you refuse to share any common ground – your response is entirely subjective so that it’s impossible for you to be “wrong.” For you, liking a film and calling it great are the same thing. I have favorite films I would not call great, and have seen great films that didn’t really click for me. If you denied the existence – or expressed complete disinterest in – “great” and “best” and “quality” I might disagree with you, but it would be hard to argue.
My point is at bottom a semantic one. You use words which smack of objectivity and I don’t think it’s fair to redefine them for your purposes. “Quality”, “greatest” – these are terms which suggest some greater truth outside of your own personal response – and the same is true with your tone, which is not disinterested (“Citizen Kane didn’t do it for me” but openly resentful) – as if the film doesn’t DESERVE the praise it’s received. That’s why I find it hard to bite my tongue when we disagree. It sometimes seems like you’re trying to have it both ways, though I don’t think this is necessarily your conscious intention. Also your arguments about Kane’s critical reception suggest a certain bad faith – the assumption that it’s only the film’s technical innovations and accumulated legacy which engender its celebration. Heck, I indulge in these assumptions sometimes too but I try to generally assume the critics like what they’re praising, even if their claims for greatness are misguided – as a denier of objectivity (or whatever you want to call the assumption that common ground and some sort of shared standard exists) you don’t really have that recourse – so the bad faith remains unfettered.
It’s not that you don’t have a “right” to dislike Kane, or a “right” to think it’s not as good as its reputation (though to think that, you’d have to actually believe in “good” as something beyond the whims of personal taste moment-to-moment). It’s that it’s unfair for you to confuse the two. You will parry forth with an “objective” attack (and what else can you call the claim that Citizen Kane is poorly acted) but then retreat
Again, as you said with your comments, I hope this is not taken in the wrong spirit. Your challenges have certainly helped me think out and sometimes question my own assumptions and responses and, if nothing else, I’m thankful for that. I only hope I can do the same for you in return – sometimes it feels like this ostensibly anti-dogmatic “pure subjectivity” view of years has become itself a sort of dogma, disallowing any attempt to share values and seek common ground, or to view the work outside of purely personal subjectivity (which, frankly, I don’t think you or anyone else can do anyway – experiencing art is always a combination of the concrete and the impressionistic, the “physical” existence of the work itself and the viewer’s internal world, which is what it is filtered through).
Anyway, I think more verbal precision – and I’ll try to be more careful with the use of “objectivity” which is a loaded word, however much I like what it suggests – would be a good start. When you are trying to make a “factual” or “objective” point about a work, use those words – “great”, “good”, “bad”, etc. (though, again, I’m not sure how this is possible within the rules you’ve set for yourself – perhaps they could use a little bending, redefinition, or clarification). When you are relaying something you consider inherent just to you, and not making any claims upon the work itself outside of your relationship to it – why not stick to more subjective language, like “I didn’t like this” or “it didn’t work for me”?
Obviously you can do whatever you want, I’m just putting these suggestions forward to avoid future misunderstandings and confusion. But if you want to plow right ahead with your terminology, not I nor anyone else can stop you – just remember that it’ll probably keep having similar results!
Anyway, you launched another compelling and lively discussion – one of the first in a while on the countdown – so thanks for that!
By the way, the above was written under constrained circumstances after a long day – a long 2 weeks, really – and as a result is a little bit muddled (I didn’t even finish one of my sentences, though that’s hardly a new development!).
Also the tone is a little scoldish which makes me wince. Sorry, Stephen.
Hopefully on another occasion, a little more well-rested and lucid, I can make my point more systematically and effectively, utilizing points built and perspectives framed over the many discussion we’ve had on this subject – at least twice here and once on your blog. I’d like to frame the issue more clearly and to-the-point, but that will have to wait for another day, I’m afriad.
At any rate, this “awakened” me more than anything else today so thanks for enlivening the afternoon!
No need to apologise for your tone, MovieMan. You are always perfectly gentlemanly.
Again, if I or any other person cannot use ‘quality’ or ‘good’ subjectively how on earth can we use them objectively? What is objectivity in these circumstances? If it is an awareness that some quality exists outside / on the edge of my own mind then how can I properly grab hold of it and judge it? If it is an acknowledgement that others feel differently then that is merely a close bedfellow of a ‘subjectivity is king’ philosophy.
“which, frankly, I don’t think you or anyone else can do anyway – experiencing art is always a combination of the concrete and the impressionistic, the “physical” existence of the work itself and the viewer’s internal world, which is what it is filtered through”
Well yes exactly. I cannot remove that filter. That filter is ME and it is crucial. It is concrete and impressionistic.
I am arriving at my truth through my experience. I cannot be sure of anything else. I think part of the problem is that you ascribe certain characteristics to ‘objectivity’ (whatever that really amounts to) that I consider well within the realm of ‘subjectivity’. It is not verbal imprecision on my part.
I notice a certain insecurity in the attitudes of a few people here (not you MovieMan). They want their opinions validated by this ‘objectivity’ God. Bobby above said he was happy with his opinion of Citizen Kane given it had been voted top of the Sight and Sound poll (voted for by humans with differing opinions no doubt – in which case objectivity has as many faces as subjectivity). Is ‘objectivity’ in some way a crutch to help those who need truth to strengthen their feelings?
I’m not trying to stop others from saying it’s ‘good’ if I’ve said it’s ‘bad’. People seem to be offended as if in some way I am impinging on their opinions and altering the very nature of Citizen Kane through my judgment.
Of course I can’t be ‘wrong’. I am right about my opinion. I am not saying that Citizen Kane is bad for everybody – just for me.
‘Factual’ points you say? I can make factual points about physical, scientific realities but not about what I think and feel. I can’t give you a readout of all the processes that took place within me in the course of the film (that would make one hell of a blog – Robot Reviews)
P.S. I don’t see why people here need to be given a ‘right’ to express their opinion. I express it or I do not.
It still seems to me that you are emphasizing one aspect of the equation (the perceptive filter) at the expense of the other (the concrete object) and disregarding, among other things, the impact that different approaches – say, a more analytical one or one which considers what the artist intended – can have on subjective perception which is not really “pure”. Thinking can change the way you feel – something I believe you’ve acknowledged before but which would seem to throw your implicit endorsement of intuition-first out the window.
But just as you may have been punished for your use of “good” or “bad” (which despite your arguments, will continue to have implications beyond personal opinion) I may be getting punished for my use of the word “objectivity.” In the end whether we’re discussing objective vs. subjective or personal-subjective vs. a more shared subjective (call it what you will) doesn’t quite matter, the point remains. The point being that one’s immediate, intuitive grasp of a work is not the be-all, end-all – and that value judgements – ones which presume to speak not just of the viewer, but the viewed – should reflect that. Perhaps the problem is not that you rely on subjectivity, but rather on a narrowly defined subjectivity – at least your dismissals of other criteria for judgement and the tone of certainty seems to do so.
Even this response is too long – for now we should probably just agree to disagree, until I can find the time, patience, etc. to set out a long, thorough investigation of the topic, whether through a stand-alone post or in a comments discussions.
“It still seems to me that you are emphasizing one aspect of the equation (the perceptive filter) at the expense of the other (the concrete object) and disregarding, among other things, the impact that different approaches – say, a more analytical one or one which considers what the artist intended – can have on subjective perception which is not really “pure”.”
I am not. I am just emphasizing my analysis and whatever approaches and considerations I choose to take. My approach does not disregard the concrete.
Just as you may set out your thoughts on film criticism so I may set out mine (in exhaustive detail) on Citizen Kane and then you will see more clearly what approach I take.
Yes, when we get the chance I’d like to delve further into Kane in particular, though to set the frame I’d also have to get a clearer view of your general critical mindset.
All in all, debates on this subject with you are largely academic, because you have informed and diverse taste, and you tend to back up your assertions of preference with at least a cursory explanation. What worries is me is that your ethos leaves the door open for someone to come to these boards, declare The Fantastic Four better than The Godfather and back themselves up by saying it’s just their view, nobody can challenge them.
Setting aside the words “subjective” and “objective” then, let me try to get a sense where we’re coming from. When you watch a movie, afterwards when asking if it was good or bad, do you like at anything other than whether or not you enjoyed yourself during it? Furthermore, do you feel that your taste is any “better” now than it was when you were, say, five or six, or do you feel it’s merely different and that you are no more right now in the movies you prefer than you were then? Do you make any distinction between a “value” inherent in the work – something you can admire whether or not you enjoy the film – and the value you take from it in terms of personal enjoyment (this is somewhat similar to the next question)? Do you feel that considerations of craftsmanship, sophistication, intelligence, i.e. what actually goes into the work are entirely irrelevant to any interesting discussions about the work, and that all that matters is your personal response? Do you feel that considerations of the work’s input cannot alter personal response, and that if they do this is an illegimate imposition, unfairly biasing the viewer away from a “pure” response? Do you ever feel that you have not given a work a “fair shake” – that perhaps you were not in the right mood, or did not fully understand where it was coming from, or for some other reason did not appreciate its value, only to come from to a better understanding later? In these cases, whose fault is it that the film did not “work” – yours or the film’s? In these cases, is your later opinion “better” than your earlier one, or is it just as valid in your view? When a film works for many others but not for you, do you blame the filmmakers for being unable to reach you? If so, do you feel that filmmakers have a duty to reach every single member of the audience and if not, their work can justly be considered a failure? If so, do you think any filmmaker has ever achieved this?
Lots of questions, but I feel I need an answer to them before I can properly understand where you’re coming from; sometimes I think we may share some common ground and be phrasing it in different ways, while at others it seems like we inhabit different universes and thus there is no hope for meaningful dialogue on the subject. There are probably more questions than these that I could ask, but these seem like a good beginning. If you have any questions you’d like to ask of me in return, please feel free to do so.
“When you watch a movie, afterwards when asking if it was good or bad, do you like at anything other than whether or not you enjoyed yourself during it?”
I look at the impression it left on me, whether I am uplifted philosophically, challenged intellectually, moved emotionally, stirred viscerally. It all comes down to impact – whether it was able to hold me and my interest in whatever way.
“Furthermore, do you feel that your taste is any “better” now than it was when you were, say, five or six, or do you feel it’s merely different and that you are no more right now in the movies you prefer than you were then?”
I cannot say that my taste is better. I am not even sure what that would mean. All I can say is that, through the watching of myriad styles, I have grown used to and more receptive to all kinds of film – but this is just the baseline of engaging with a work of art; it doesn’t mean I like or am impressed by more types of film. It means that I am now able to take these works on their own terms rather than comparing them to some standard of what I may have expected or wanted before.
“Do you make any distinction between a “value” inherent in the work – something you can admire whether or not you enjoy the film – and the value you take from it in terms of personal enjoyment (this is somewhat similar to the next question)?”
I find it very hard to think ‘that was well shot’ if it made no impact (any kind of impression – as above) on me. ‘Well’ would lose meaning because it is not enough to enact the technical process successfully or professionally. This is art and the process is a conduit.
“Do you feel that considerations of craftsmanship, sophistication, intelligence, i.e. what actually goes into the work are entirely irrelevant to any interesting discussions about the work, and that all that matters is your personal response?”
My personal response includes those considerations but, like above, I wouldn’t give an A simply for effort. What goes in should come out. If there is intelligence applied in the making it should come out in the watching.
“Do you feel that considerations of the work’s input cannot alter personal response, and that if they do this is an illegimate imposition, unfairly biasing the viewer away from a “pure” response?”
I can’t think of a situation where, researching a work, I changed my mind SIGNIFICANTLY because of what was intended or because of the thought process. It may have been altered slightly. For example, I watched Park Chan Wook’s Thirst and enjoyed it – clever, fun etc. Then I discovered it is based on Emile Zola’s Therese Raquin. Now I can judge it too as an adaptation.
Again, I believe you see ‘personal response’ as something purely emotional. I do not separate emotional from intellectual when I am watching. I have said: I think feelings and feel thoughts out.
“Do you ever feel that you have not given a work a “fair shake” – that perhaps you were not in the right mood, or did not fully understand where it was coming from, or for some other reason did not appreciate its value, only to come from to a better understanding later?”
Not really. However, I watched Mulholland Drive and despised it for its ludicrous tricksiness. I bought the DVD a week later because the mood of the film had taken on monstrous proportions in my mind in the mean time (without me thinking about it). My response morphed but that doesn’t presuppose that there is an objective truth to its quality. It is only an indication that my personal response needed time to evolve.
As for mood, a good film has always changed my mood, created the silence in me necessary for me to ‘hear’ what it is trying to say.
“In these cases, is your later opinion “better” than your earlier one, or is it just as valid in your view?”
I wouldn’t say it is better or worse.
“When a film works for many others but not for you, do you blame the filmmakers for being unable to reach you?
If so, do you feel that filmmakers have a duty to reach every single member of the audience and if not, their work can justly be considered a failure? If so, do you think any filmmaker has ever achieved this?”
Blame is the wrong word. It is their fault – they are the ones putting out the vision and they are the ones who have spent years finding the best ways to communicate it.
They do not have a duty to reach everyone. Godard says he is not making films for everybody. They have no duties and no obligations. Has any filmmaker ever achieved the perfect film that everyone gets something from? No. They never will. If they did it would mean that we are not different and they are not artists.
I am not sure I have explained myself well. The problem is that a lot of my thought processes are subconscious or unconscious. It is never easy to explain exactly why something makes an impression on you or doesn’t. That is part of the reason why my answers may contradict a little
I let a film come to me to tell me things and show me things. Some make me listen and some have interesting things to say. Some make me look and have nothing to show. Others simply make me turn away. Explaining the why in minute detail is dangerous because you can’t be sure if the why really matches to the response. So the personal response (of any kind) has to remain paramount.
Stephen – thanks for answering my questions, and for doing so thoughtfully. As I was afraid, we have some fundamental differences which will render dialogue difficult. For one thing, you seem much more unquestioning of your “enjoyment” (whether emotional and intellectual) and what you see as the movie’s quality. I know for a fact that I “prefer” a film that’s a political thriller to a film that’s a western, other qualities being roughly equal. I don’t think a political thriller is inherently superior to a western – I know this is purely a matter of personal taste (and by the way, I like and even love many westerns too). But it’s there, nonetheless, and I’d be dishonest if I said it wasn’t. I have preferences based entirely on personal prejudices, my own outlook on life, and things like sentimental value. This, among other reasons, is why I feel a distinction between “favorite” and “great” are necessary, even though the lines can blur. I will say that the films I treasure the most have qualities of both.
Furthermore, I am very invested in the behind-the-camera process, perhaps in a way you are not. I have made a few minor short films in the past and hope to make features in the future. To a certain extent I have always looked at movies from the “input” angle and to me the idea that it a filmmaker deserves criticism (and say what you will about subjectivity, your condemnations are often ringing) purely because he/she did not reach a given audience member, sits very uncomfortably with me. As does as “work” on the part of the viewer to ascertain what a work might be trying to do and whether or not there’s another avenue to approach it by and get more out of it. You use the fact that the filmmaker has spent years on the project as proof that the burden of proof lies with them. To me, it’s a sign of good faith – and in return the audience, at least the critical audience, should well be expected to invest a little time in return.
I also find that admiration of a filmmaker’s technique CAN help me to enjoy the work more – partly this comes from my interest in filmmaking, but I don’t think that need be the only condition for this to be the case.
As for your Mulholland Dr. example, as well as your explanation of how your taste transformed from childhood, to me the fact suggest a growth towards “better” and, for lack of a more appropriate word, objectivity. The more you know, the better informed you are, and the better your taste has the chance to be. I am not saying knowledge will produce good taste – oftentimes it won’t at all. But it’s difficult for me to see how, on balance, it hurts. And this, to me, suggests that there IS something inherently better about one taste as opposed to another and that then there must be some sort of semi-objective standard we can apply.
All in all, where are differences seem to lie is that I regard myself as a more imperfect instrument of perception than you do, that I have experienced transformations in taste due to “external” factors which did not play a part in my initial response, and that I think the audience has to do some work, not just the filmmaker. These positions are pretty fundamental to our views in both our cases, and I’m not sure there’s any lower common ground we can retreat to. As such, we may find ourselves unable to reconcile opinions – not just in terms of agreeing to disagree but as in not even using the same set of rules. So be it – I’ll continue to debate & discuss with you but at least know we both (hopefully) have a better idea where we’re coming from – and why some disagreements are not only unresolvable but irreconcilable.
By the way, did you have any questions about my own approach? I’d love to answer any if you did – if for nothing else than to further clarify my own thought process for myself.
Now perhaps we can begin to tackle Citizen Kane. A few quick responses:
“I do ‘pick up’ on and ‘get’ what Citizen Kane is doing but getting something doesn’t mean you will like it or be impressed, intrigued, moved by it.”
I mean “pick up” and “get” on a gut level. As in you enjoy and then, if you don’t like it, it’s because you question the validity of enjoyment for some reason (you feel it was earned unfairly, or that perhaps it was self-induced, or that it had too much to do with personal qualities not inherent in the work). From the fact that you didn’t enjoy Kane it seems like you didn’t “get” its appeal (hence some of the bad-faith assumptions). Likewise, I’m not sure I “get” Rules of the Game, a film which initially left me dead-cold despite the rapturous responses it engendered in many viewers. Since then I’ve warmed up to a bit, though it’s still one of my favorites. It’s not that one can’t lodge criticism from this perspective – oftentimes, some of the most illuminating criticism is grounded in a frustrated response. But such criticism always runs a strong risk of “missing the point” and usually will not be as persuasive or convincing as criticism which instead of saying “that didn’t work” says “yes, but…”
“I don’t care if it succeeds in what it wants to achieve. Freddy Got Fingered did what it wanted and so does Limits of Control but they’re still bad films. ”
But do you honestly feel that Citizen Kane’s aims are as limited as the films you decry? Is setting out to tell the life story of an ambitious and ultimately tragic figure, from several different perspectives, already enough to doom the film (or is it not the story you have a problem with; if not what aims DO you think it sets out for)? By suggesting that you agree Citizen Kane succeeds in what it wants to achieve but that’s not enough, you seem to damn its very premise. Which seems a bit of a head-scratcher to me.
Aside from the fact that Kane has a wonderful starting point, from which hundreds of good films could be (and have been) made, I’m not sure ANY premise is enough to damn a film – I think a great director can do something with just about any idea, as long as it allows for some flexibility.
Could you explain a) what you think Kane’s aims were; b) if you think it achieved them; and c) why those aims were not high enough or were misguided, if indeed this is the case?
“Whatever the bold ‘artistic endeavour’ of Orson Welles (I think F For Fake his best film) Citizen Kane is a grab bag of showy techniques that fail to coalesce with the story they are there to tell. Welles’ performance has no true depth or colour.”
Given that the story is told from multiple perspectives, isn’t it possible that a lack of cohesion or caolescence is the point? And that perhaps this cacophony of styles and approaches dovetail quite nicely with the film’s narrative strategy and artistic meaning? As for Welles’ performance, it’s full of color (not sure what you’re talking about there – few have ever accused him of not being flamboyant enough) and as for depth, I find it many sequences: the trashing of the room and contemplation of the snow globe, the encounter with Gettys and later Jedediah – but if the depths remain largely concealed, again keep in mind that this is a man we are seeing through the eyes of many other people and that the mystery of “Rosebud” is the mystery of inner life – which we can never really perceive, especially in a form like cinema where the reality presented to us is largely external.
I would be interested to hear some examples of where you feel Welles’ performance is lacking and some more details of how you feel the technique sticks out like a sore thumb from the content.
I’d love to address more of your points above, but I have to go as I’ve already devoted a little too much time to this site for the moment and other matters call…
“I know for a fact that I “prefer” a film that’s a political thriller to a film that’s a western, other qualities being roughly equal. I don’t think a political thriller is inherently superior to a western – I know this is purely a matter of personal taste (and by the way, I like and even love many westerns too).”
This is something I have pondered on myself. Could it be that Westerns and Political Thrillers just don’t click with me or is it that, given there are one or two examples of the genre that I do like a lot, these types of films are generally worse made? I don’t know. The fact that I CAN like a Western would suggest the latter but, logically, that is quite a hard pill to swallow.
“I have preferences based entirely on personal prejudices, my own outlook on life, and things like sentimental value.”
There’s a little bit of the chicken and egg in this from my point of view. Does a film strike a chord because of your life experience (i.e. is the chord striking inevitable?) or is its quality what reaches down inside you making the connection to ‘sentimental value’ seem apt? I mean I have seen films that bear no relation to what has happened to me but which seem to bring those experiences welling out.
“Furthermore, I am very invested in the behind-the-camera process, perhaps in a way you are not.”
I must admit that, for someone who devours most any film I can, I have very little interest in the behind-the-camera process. I’m more into the philosophical, textual side of Cinema (I would read Tarkovsky or Godard’s essays) than the logistical/ technical aspect. Also, I’m not one to have film posters / memorabilia on the wall or take any sort of interest in the lives of directors or actors.
“To me, it’s a sign of good faith – and in return the audience, at least the critical audience, should well be expected to invest a little time in return.”
I understand and I agree to some extent. I do invest time and effort but could never invest the same time and effort as the makers. It is their livelihood to make one film for two years while it is my hobby to watch hundreds every year.
“By the way, did you have any questions about my own approach? I’d love to answer any if you did – if for nothing else than to further clarify my own thought process for myself.”
I’ll have to come back to you at a later date, if I can MovieMan. I’ll have a little ponder. I’m always asking myself questions about films and my reactions to them and I’ll be sure to pose similar ones to you at some point in the near future.
Thank you.
I have no doubt why I generally prefer political thrillers to Westerns: it’s because I like that atmosphere of suspense and sinister offscreen mechanations, and as a history buff enjoy the 20th century crosscurrents. It really has nothing to do with the films itself, except inasmuch as they tap into these entirely personal preferences. Likewise with anyone who prefers musicals, action films, romances…almost all of us have favorite genres, but few consider these films to actually be “better” than films of different genres. Ideally, at the top of the heap the open-minded person will choose diversely, as I do and as I trust others do as well. At a slightly lower level, personal taste weighs heavily.
But all in all, I know for a fact that there are all kinds of extrafilmic concerns that play into how much I enjoy/whether or not I want to see your average movie. “Great” films tend to transcend these boundaries, which is one mark of their greatness – but even at the top personal taste plays a role.
By the way, when I say that I have preferences based entirely on extrafilmic concerns, I don’t mean that these are my ONLY preferences, just that, among the many things that can make a movie appeal to me there are cetainly a great deal which really don’t have much bearing on just about any definition of “quality.” And in judging a film critically, as opposed to just sitting back and enjoying it (and there’s a place for both), I try to weed out those factors to a certain extent.
Finally, I don’t think concern with the lives of actors and directors should be confused with investigating their working methods and intentions. Biography can be fascinating – if a bit invasive – and it often plays a role in the subjects that are chosen and even the formal approaches taken to a work. But it’s ultimately a bit superfluous. Working methods, aesthetic strategies are not superfluous, on a fundamental level they ARE the work. As such, I don’t think it hurts to look “behind the camera” to a certain extent and, while it may not be for everyone, it’s something I wish more critics did (and by this I don’t necessarily mean making a film oneself, or even sitting in on the making of a film – which could be more confusing than illuminating, anyway – I just mean studying and taking into consideration the input that goes into filmmaking).
Thanks again for engaging my ideas, even if we disagree. Very much looking forward to the Kane essay & discussion. Out of curiosity, when was the last time/how many times have you seen it? Not that you’ll necessarily change your mind, but it is a film that grows on people (I liked it right away, but even so I feel like it’s “grown on me” with repeat viewings though there were definitely times I got tired of it too).
I really don’t have a favourite genre. I am not sure that political thrillers or Westerns are my un-favourites because of my personality or life experience. I just haven’t been exposed to that many good examples.
The last time I saw Citizen Kane was probably about three years ago. Whether you think it great or not, it has a lot in it to discuss and ruminate on.
I grew tired of Dark City once having watched it three times in a row (the film and then Proyas’ commentary and Roger Ebert’s). I find it easy to decide whether this latest reaction is my truest reaction or simply overload. It’s an instinctive thing – has the reaction a fundamental basis or not?
I’m going to need to re-watch Citizen Kane to be able to answer your questions properly and in-depth, MovieMan.
It will be one of my priorities to write a piece on it once I’m done with ‘Animation Month’. It would be marvellously ironic if, having seen it again, I come to regard it as a stone cold masterpiece!