Zohar Shtrauss and Ran Danker in austere and moving
Israeli drama “Eyes Wide Open” at Cinema Village
by Sam Juliano
Super Bowl Sunday is the highlight of most American households this past weekend, but I’d venture to say that few Wonders in the Dark regulars are affiliated with either of the “off the beacon track” participants in the culminating game of the NFL’s season. Of course, sports fans in general may be more interested in Friday’s Winter Olympics games launching in western Canada. (note: The New Orleans Saints won the game 31-17, and many Americans are happy. I was rooting for them myself in this game, as I do want some happiness for the people of New Orleans. It was quite a game I must say!)
The silent poll countdown at Wonders has now reached the halfway point, with Sunday’s posting of the #50 selection, Verdun, and it’s projected that the marathon venture will conclude at the end of March, with a week further to complete the reader polling. I was informed today by Mr. Fish that he will be going with 100 for the 2000’s countdown as well. Over at Good Fellas, our Ohio friend Dave Hicks has reached #73 in his “Film Noir” countdown with the popular Key Largo on display. Over at Darkness Into Light our dear Dee Dee is commencing with preparations for the Academy Award interviews, an endeavor that went over quite well last year. Our British friend Stephen Russell-Gebbitt really initiated a firestorm with his negative appraisal of Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane, at Checking the Sausages, but it can’t be denied it’s a splendidly written piece. It raised my ire to the point where I responded a bit too strongly, but I think Stephen understands we’re good friends. I’m Italian-American after all!
I had an extraordinarily busy weekend culturally, managing a marathon HD simulcast of the Met’s production of Verdi’s Simon Boccanegra, with Placido Domingo in the titular baritone role, beginning at 1:00 P.M. on Saturday afternoon at the Edgewater multiplex; an off-Broadway production at the Theatre 80 St. Marks of “When Joey Married Bobby” which featured an introduction by the playright William Wyatt and a performance by the “legendary” Lady Bunny, the ‘sister’ of Chelsea icon Hedda Lettuce. The Verdi opera, a carry over production (which I’ve seen before) was impressively staged and performed, and again the assets of the simulcast were evident in the fascinating back stage interviews moderated by Rene Fleming, and an interesting look at the frenzied work of the set carpenters. A rare interview with conductor James Levine was a special bonus. Meanwhile, down at the former residence of The Pearl Opera Company on Saturday evening at 8:00 P.M., opening night of this often uproarious – but often tedious as well – look at a dysfunctional family preparing for a same sex marriage involving the brood’s son. Wyatt’s writing incorporates some recent political references, much of which are funny, but the audience, largely comprised of friends of the cast and crew on opening night, overeacted with their continuous laughter.
I saw three movies in the theatres, in what turned out to be a terrific and surprising movie weekend in the Big Apple:
Terribly Happy **** 1/2 Denmark (Angelika Film Center) Sunday
Eyes Wide Open **** 1/2 Israel (Cinema Village) Friday Night
Anjami **** Israeli/Palistinian (Film Forum) Thursday night
The Danish film, TERRIBLY HAPPY was an exceedingly entertaining thriller about a rather twisted town with some deranged characters, that qualifies as a modern noir, with a sure sprikling of the sensibilities of the Coens and David Lynch. Directed by Henrik Ruben Genz, this captivating drama boasts striking claustrophobic lensing by Jorgen Johansson.
The Israeli drama, EYES WIDE OPEN is an autere and deeply moving tale of a married -with four children- Israeli butcher, who falls for a younger job hunter, causing severe repercussions in this strict Hasedic community. This is a sensitive, acute-observed and tightly paced story, that says as much with its silences as it does with it’s spare dialogue, and it employs depressed Jerusalem locales to powerful effect. The film goes far beyond the target audiences of Jews and gays, and delivers a film of universal resonance, negotiating as it does how oppression dominates in a segregated society. Both th ebutcher, Zohar Shtrauss and the transient, opular Isreali television actor Ran Danker give exceptionally piercing performances.
Nominated for Best Foreign Language Film in this year’s Oscars, the co-Palistinian-Israeli production, ANJAMI is a complex drama with a number of dissecting sub-plots, and it’s the kind of film that you really need to see more than once to fully understand and connect with, but even on first viewing it’s riveting and powerful, and it’s fiction is really a mirror of what is happening on the streets today in the war-torn zones, and it recalls the lawlessness of City of God among others.
As always the blogosophere is bustling:
***Dave Hicks is moving along magnificently with his popular ‘Top 100 Noir Countdown’ that has attracted some superlative comments from the likes of Tony d’Ambra, John Greco, Samuel Wilson and some other prominent bloggers at his Good Fellas home:
***Tony d’Ambra has been lately featuring some of noir’s greatest writings (by it’s best writings) by tieing them in to screen caps from their film adaptations. His latest at Films Noir.net is by noir icon Cornell Woolrich:
***Then there’s noir champion John Greco, who is continuously keeping Twenty-Four Frames moving forward for new material, the latest an excellent review of Anatole Litvak’s Confessions of a Nazi Spy:
***Dee Dee, always extending the red carpet to her friends, and in this case to ‘yours truly’ has officially announced the upcoming dialogue we will be sharing on the Oscar nominations. Here’s her official proclamation:
***Dorothy Porker has officially announced the end of Inside the Gold, but has joyfully signalled the launching of her new place, “Film Cheer”:
***Enjoying a very brief sabatical, the ordinarily super-prolific Troy Olson, is presently posting his capsule reviews posted at last week’s MMD, at his own place: Elusive as Robert Denby: The Life and Times of Troy:
***David Schleicher has an entertaining and informative post up at The Schleicher Spin on the 82nd Annual Academy Awards:
***”Just Another Film Buff” has another in his ‘super scene series’ up at “The Seventh Art” on Roman Polanski’s Death and the Maiden:
***Sweetheart filmmaker, and eternally gracious and humble blogger, Jeffrey Goodman is a blogger’s dream, and his latest project is examining his bets film of every year since the mid 20’s, an endeavor previously managed exceptionally by Dave Hicks. It’s great getting to read and share choices with the exceptionally gifted and tasteful Mr. Goodman. His latest pick is Renoir’s masterwork, La Chienne, for 1930:
***Dan Getahun rightly criticizes the nomination of The Blind Side in the Best Picture race at his place, Getafilm:
***Kevin J. Olson tackles Paul Thomas Anderson’s critically-revered Magnolia at his Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies blog with a stupendous piece:
***Jon Lanthier is heading up at Aspiring Sellout with a superb review of Promised Lands, initially published in Slant.
***At Radiator Heaven, our Canadian friend and cineaste, J.D. has penned a fantastic DVD review of the Criterion release of Paris, Texas:
***Ed Howard has again been picking up the pace at Only the Cinema with an extraordinary string of reviews, most recently the Nicholas Ray gem, They Live By Night:
***Shubhajit has his typically insightful capsules up at Cinemascope, and his latest is a consideration of Clint Eastwood’s Mystic River:
***Not even incessant ‘hackers’ can ever dim the cinematic splendor at Ferdy on Films, where Marilyn Ferdinand has the headline essay up, an exquisite examination of a film I love dearly, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly:
***The esteemed ‘Film Dr.’ of University Profofessorship fame, has a superlative feature post up, where he speaks glowingly of Jane Campion’s Bright Star and of other films, including An Education:
***Ever-active on the Dublin theatre scene, Longman Oz, presently has a comedy review of a currently-running production at his place:
***Our dear British friend Judy at Movie Classics is taking abrief sabatical, but anyone not yet reading her excellent review of the early-30’s Wellmann film, The Purchase Bride, should do so:
***Samuel Wilson has what appears to be yet another scholarly essay on the film Jerichow up at Mondo 70:
***For the best in Indian culture and cinema, my dear friend Kaleem resides at Satyamshot:
***Qalandar offers a highly intellectual political piece at his place:
***Over at Living in Cinema, Craig Kennedy has been busy with all kinds of awards posts, including his latest on the ‘Annies’ and ‘Scripters’:
***At his well-trafficked cinematic abode, Greg Ferrara has the opening clip of Bergman’s Persona headling at Cinema Styles:
***St. Louis’s finest, Andrew Wyatt, has what appears to be an exemplary essay up on Crazy Heart at Gateway Cinephiles:
***Always a treasure trove of archived material, T.S. of Screen Savour, is still in the midst of his Keaton retrospective:
***At the home of the charming ‘Coffee Messiah’, the proprietor Michael has amost engaging lead post up there now:
***Rick Olson at Coosa Creek Cinema is still leading with his ‘Film Preservation Blogothon’ post at his place:
***Our good friend Pat at Doodad Kind of Town is still heading her J.D. Salinger remembrance:
***At The Aspect Ratio, Ari has another Top 25 list of 2009 up, this time from Scott Bleine:
***Tony Dayoub at Cinema Viewfinder has a very fine review up on the first part of Red Riding:
***As stated earlier, Stephen Russell-Gebbit has his controversial but irresistible Citizen Kane review up at his place:
***R.D. Finch at The Movie Projector has his own take on Walsh’s High Sierra at his place:
***At The Cooler, Jason Bellamy has announced an upcoming Steve McQueen blogothon:
***Creativepotager, residing in tranquility on a Pacific Island off the coast of southern Canada, speaks of ‘Solitude’ at her lovely, tranquil place:
***Anubhabvist has his Top 25 of 2009 at his place, and it’s a fantastic lot:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Wonders in the Dark 
Thanks for the plug, Sam.
This week has been a torture of sorts for me, with the fatal blow coming when by computer conked off. I had extremely limited connection to the net, didn’t watch any movies and didn’t read anything in the blogs. Now that it’s all fixed, well almost, I’ll be catching up with stuff I’ve missed, starting with WitD.
Cheers,
JAFB: I am so sorry you’ve had to endure the PC problems that have sidelined you as of late. It happens to all of us, in fact Allan just had to invest in a brand new computer. Don’t worry about any catch up, just get yourself up and running when you can.
Thanks Sam for the shout-out and for the kind words, despite your aversion to the general thrust of my review.
Don’t worry about getting worked up – it keeps things interesting at least!
Stephen: You are most welcome. The CITIZEN KANE debate will rage on I am sure, and hopefully I’ll tackle the film head-on in the very near future.
Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan, and WitD readers,
Sam Juliano said, “I saw three movies in the theatres, in what turned out to be a terrific and surprising movie weekend in the Big Apple:
Terribly Happy **** 1/2 Denmark (Angelika Film Center) Sunday
Eyes Wide Open **** 1/2 Israel (Cinema Village) Friday Night
Anjami **** Israeli/Palistinian (Film Forum) Thursday night”
Hmm…Sounds like three foreign films that is …(no “pun” intended, but foreign to me)…the second film title sounds similiar to Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut.
Sam Juliano, I’am so ‘happy” to read that you enjoyed watching all three features too…Thanks,
Sam Juliano said,”Dee Dee, always extending the red carpet to her friends,…” And my “enemies” too Sam Juliano…Just kidding!
Oh! yes, Sam I would roll out the “red carpet” treatment for my “friends and foes” alike.
First, Sam Juliano thanks for the mention…as usual, but most importantly, Thanks, for being my guest as we prepare to countdown 31 days to Oscars@
Here goes the…
Films That I Watched (for the first time) or Rewatched…This Week: I didn’t watch any films over the weekend.
Second, Films That I purchased or Plan to Purchase later This Week:
All of these films were screened at Noir City 8…and they are:
Deported, Slattery Hurricane, Inside Job, The Third Voice, The Gangster, Angel Face (For a friend…) and Redlight.
Alfred Hitchcock’s Waltzes from Vienna (This will be my first time watching this film and a few more films maybe added to the list…)
Literature: Books That I Added To The Bookshelf…
Books on my (book) shelf and they are: …
One Too Many Blows to the Head by authors Eric Beetner and J.B.Kohl…Is the only book on my shelf that I’am currently, reading.
Thirdly, Books That I Added To The “Blog”shelf…(In other words, books that I hope to purchase in the future)
and they are:
Film Noir, Femmes Fatales and Crime Movie Vintage Posters From Day One. Book 1: Hollywood Studios Posters of the Silver Screen, Classic Period and The Gangsters Days. (Volume 1)
by Maximillien De Lafayette and Melinda Pomerol (Released Date:Paperback – Sept. 21, 2009)
Film Noir, Femmes Fatales and Crime Movie Vintage Posters From Day One. Book 2: Hollywood Studios Posters of the Silver Screen, Classic Period and The Gangsters Days. (Volume 2)
by Maximillien De Lafayette and Melinda Pomerleau (Released Date: Paperback – Sept. 22, 2009)
Mystery, Suspense, Film Noir and Detective Movies on DVD: A Guide to the Best in Cinema Thrills by John Howard Reid (Released Date: Paperback – Sept. 27, 2009)
Hardboiled Hollywood: The True Crime Stories that Inspired the Great Noir Films (Hardcover)
~ Max Décharné (Author)
Two Books That Will be released in April and May respectively,
The Film Noir Encyclopedia by Alain Silver, Elizabeth Ward, James Ursini, and Robert Porfirio (Hardcover – May 13, 2010)
Historical Dictionary of Film Noir by Andrew Spicer (Hardcover -April 15, 2010)
Amazon.com asking price…$114.94…Wow, what is this a “pre” April Fool Joke? 😕 …I think that author Andrew Spicer, have to bring the price of this book down a little…before I even consider purchasing this title…methinks!…At that asking price I wonder if he (Spicer) autographed the book too! 🙂
Historical Dictionary of Film Noir by Andrew Spicer Description:
The Historical Dictionary of Film Noir is a comprehensive guide that ranges from 1940 to present day neo-noir. It consists of a chronology, an introductory essay, a bibliography, a filmography, and over 400 cross-referenced dictionary entries on every aspect of film noir and neo-noir, including key films, personnel (actors, cinematographers, composers, directors, producers, set designers, and writers), themes, issues, influences, visual style, cycles of films (e.g. amnesiac noirs), the representation of the city and gender, other forms (comics/graphic novels, television, and videogames), and noir’s presence in world cinema. It is an essential reference work for all those interested in this important cultural phenomenon.
I’am quite sure that you can locate books (also check your libraries) on Film noir with a much lower price tag…with the same
or identical information.
——————————————————————–
Product Details
Hardcover: 544 pages
Publisher: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. (April 15, 2010)
=============================================
Finally, Film noir news The Bad Girls of Film Noir will be released on Tuesday, February 07, 2010…here goes a link(s) to Gary Tooze’s place and his critique of both boxset, but I’am not sure if he critiqued the films or another reviewer on his staff reviewed both boxset.
According to Gary Tooze…(Clint) Eastwood, Ultimate boxset will be released next week…I think the asking price for Eastwood boxset is $1.00 less than Spicer’s book…Yikes!
Eastwood Boxset
Bad Girls of Film Noir Volume I
Bad Girls of Film Noir Volume II
Arts… Theatre, No comment…
Music…No Comment Food … Hmmm…a very light touch…as usual.
Sports… No Comment…but of course!
Politics…No Comment
Sam Juliano, I guess that about wrap up my week in review for this week.
DeeDee 😉
Thanks so much Dee Dee for this fantastic round-up, not only of the films you’ve purchased and plan to see, but of the matters at hand that will soon be negotiated. Yes, during January and February of every year, foreign cinema is where it’s at movie-wise. Hollywood is busy churning out it’s most dire prospects, while the arthouses are offering carry-overs from the previous year, like that splendid co-Israeli-Palistinian production, while introducing new films for the serious movie lovers, mainly in the big cities. In NYC, the Cinema Village, the Angelika, the Film Forum, the IFC and the Landmark are busy with this impressive fare.
Good luck for all those planned acquisitions, and thanks for the links on the Bad Girls of Film Noir sets, (Gary Tooze’s DVD Beaver, an essential reference site for all DVD fans) which have apparently excited a number of people. I wasn’t aware of the imminent release of the Eastwood set until you just mentioned it. The Decharne and de Lafayette volumes look great, and I continue to be amazed with your aggressive survey of what’s out there in print to enrich the film experience.
The Spicer and Silver books are heaven for film noir fans, and I’m sure more than a few at this site will be acquiring them too.
I really do need to spend some time at some point in the near future with the Kohl and Bettner book, wqhich I was most grateful to receive, thanks to your typical generosity.
Thanks as always for the exhaustive submission!
Sounds as if you had a packed weekend! Many thanks for the plug and the kind words, Sam – my sabbatical is actually over now, though, as I’ve got a new review up, of Wellman’s 1926 silent ‘The Boob’. Hoping to update more frequently in the next few weeks, although I might have to keep my pieces a bit shorter than they have been in the past. Also hoping to catch up with the postings here and on the other film blogs you have highlighted. Thanks again.
Ah Judy, I will surely be most enthusiastic to check out your review of THE BOOB! I just checked this film out recently, and look forward to your take, which I did suspect would be better than what you originally supposed. Thanks as always for your effervescent response here!
Well Sam, your post did send me to Stephen’s post on Citizen Kane. On reading it, I found your ire more than justified. Stephen was deliberately provocative. But I can’t agree that Stephen’s essay is “splendidly written”. As I have commented at his blog: This is a review of Bizarro Citizen Kane. All the ideas in it are stolen from the film and then in warp-speed jumps of logic pilloried as failures!
Yep Tony, while I respect Stephen’s “fisrt ammendment rights” so to speak, let’s just say that I have read tons of scholarly work over decades by the greatest intellectuals worldwide on this masterpiece of cinema, and I wion’t let a single blogger in an ocean of exceedingly positive accounts dim my extreme veneration for this great work of art. Let’s just say I can simultaneously say to Stephen: “Congrats on expressing your taste and for not holding back in fear of taking some severe heat” but at the same time, “I just don’t think you really get it.” Saying that CITIZEN KANE is not one of your favorite films is one thing, but it’s entirely another matter to go after it with this kind of venom on the same blog where just weeks ago you wrote far more favorable commentary for the likes of Shyamalen’s THE LADY IN THE WATER. This is all an expression of “taste” more than any kind of convincing analytical disdain, which I suppose is fair enough. As Dave Hicks rightly stated at “Checking the Sausages” there is a certain level of respect that should be afforded to the film, if not for any other reason than the spectacular essays that have informed for so many years all around the world.
When I expressed my dislike for CHINATOWN and LOST IN TRANSLATION, I always added that “it’s probably me. Enough superb analysis has been written, and I’m humble enough to read the writing on the wall. Everything doesn’t revolve around my own sensibilities.”
Still, something must be said for fearlessness here, though I would never employ it to this degree and to this unanimously reverential subject.
“…and I wion’t let a single blogger in an ocean of exceedingly positive accounts dim my extreme veneration for this great work of art”
This is the problem, Sam – the insecurity of some people in their views. Why do people take it so personally if I do not see the same values in Kane?
““I just don’t think you really get it.” ”
In that case you could say that to anyone who does not see worth in a work.
“…with this kind of venom”
Go back, Sam and tell me where there is ‘venom’. It is only because you hold the film so dear that my criticisms have been so magnified in your eyes.
“…you wrote far more favorable commentary for the likes of Shyamalen’s THE LADY IN THE WATER. This is all an expression of “taste” more than any kind of convincing analytical disdain”
You are using the language of prejudice and aggregated consensus. If you were to see Citizen Kane now, having read no criticism of it and knowing nothing of its legacy would you see it in the same light? Judging by the way you phrase things, I doubt it.
You appeal to the ‘ocean’ of criticism as proof positive that you are right and Kane is great. That ocean is still drops of water, just lots of them, echoing each other.
“…there is a certain level of respect that should be afforded to the film”
I wholeheartedly respect people’s views of it.
“”Enough superb analysis has been written, and I’m humble enough to read the writing on the wall. Everything doesn’t revolve around my own sensibilities.””
Why do you bother, then? It’s fall in line or feel inadequate – this is not the purpose of art or criticism.
“…unanimously reverential subject.”
It’s not a God. It’s a film
Fair enough Stephen. Rather than addressing all the points you contest – which would only lead to a back and forth dialogue, which revolves around perceptions – I have decided to write my own review of the film, which will be posted at this site over the next two days. While I have read volumes of criticism on the film and have been enriched by film professors and cineastes for many years, I do feel I need to voice specifically why I believe this to be one of the greatest of all films.
“When I expressed my dislike for CHINATOWN and LOST IN TRANSLATION, I always added that ‘it’s probably me. Enough superb analysis has been written, and I’m humble enough to read the writing on the wall. Everything doesn’t revolve around my own sensibilities.'”
I never adopt that attitude of aesthetic appeasement. The sooner you start “admitting” that you’re wrong on the films you don’t like, the faster people will try and say that you’re wrong about the films that you do like. One can respect a film’s following while disagreeing with it at the same time.
For example– critics and audiences around the world call “Gone With the Wind” one of the greatest films ever made. Far be it from me to call them liars, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to defer to their opinion.
Bob, I stand by my reasoning on this. I will never pose to place my personal feelings/opinions so strongly as to practically mitigate what so many people I respect have voiced. I have opposed the majority many times, but have never by sly intimation attempted to mitigate by personal decree the brilliantly constructed arguments of other intellectuals.
I look forward to your review, Sam.
Thanks, Sam, for your summary of your cultural weekend (you are lucky to live in NY) and the mention of my recent notes. I plan on posting more on <Bright Star soon. I had a pleasant time catching up on Oscar-nominated movies and showing Psycho to my film analysis class.
Film Dr.: I do look forward greatly to your BRIGHT STAR review, and nobody does Hitch better than you my friend!
“Stephen was deliberately provocative.”
In what way was I ‘deliberately provocative’? Could you please elaborate.
Just a random sample of your assertions Stephen:
“The introductions to these dreams of the past are stilted and stunted much like the linking parts in a Simpsons clip show…
Kane smacks of the work of a student of film not yet a film-maker…
The film essays foreboding grandeur but the text is simply drawn and its illustrations seem ridiculous in their imposition of hifalutin, steroidal ‘meaning’…
The acting lacks nuance and depth…
It is not a great film and I couldn’t, in all sincerity, call it a good film. It is a peacock display for the cameras by the cameras.”
But who is this provoking? I am addressing the film not the people who like it.
If I find bits of it ridiculous what should I say instead?
Sam, thanks so much for your incredibly kind words! I’m really enjoying the new venture, and particularly how it is forcing me to fill in some gaps on things I’ve always really wanted to see.
This week wasn’t terribly eventful for me. Most of what I saw wasn’t as memorable as I hoped. But I did watch Spielberg’s A.I. for the first time and was quite moved and impressed with it. It was really the blogosphere’s support of the film that led me to seek it out.
Otherwise, as someone from Louisiana, living back in Louisiana, it’s been an exciting week, capped off by a terrific game last night. For my future movie-watching, I might have to turn the television up unusually high these next couple of weeks. It will be some kind of party in my neck of the woods.
Your venture is proceeding exquisitely Jeffrey, and I do look forward to your newest entries! Congrats on the hometown win of the Saints, and I think all of America was in your corner! I absolutely ADORE A.I., which I considerof the greatest films of its decade, and one of Spielberg’s masterworks. I actually wrote a lengthy essay on it here at Wonders months back. We will be speaking soon, my friend! Thanks as always!
Sam, I just wanted to stop in quickly and tell you that I read your fantastic piece on A.I. It’s pieces like yours and the blogosphere’s high estimation (and almost re-evaluation) of a film like this one that, to me, is one of the most valuable contributions we can all make. Here’s a film that most critics left to die on the vie, but suddenly, through cinephile’s efforts, has been substantially reconsidered. Great work, as always, Sam!
You’re too kind, as always, Sam. Keep your figures crossed that I’ve foiled the hacker; we’re not out of the woods yet.
I listed to the opera simulcast, which I quite enjoyed. It sounds like the simulcast was a revelation. I also saw “Terribly Happy” some time ago, can’t even remember when or where. It is a twisted little thriller indeed.
Aside from Schnabel’s film, I saw and wrote up the disturbing South Korean film “The Chaser.” I watched “Human Desire” from my DVR recordings, but wasn’t bowled over by it, though I did enjoy Glenn Ford as a good guy tempted by Gloria Grahame to violence. Also sort of watched “Beaches,” which I thought was terrible.
Marilyn, I must say that hacker business was most bizarre, and it’s proof that no site can be safe from such infiltration. But I’m sure you will be “clensed” at Ferdy-on-Films soon enough.
Thrilled to hear you heard SIMON BOCCANEGRA, which boasted som egreat singing from some of the true veteran icons! You are about right as far as I’m concerned on HUMAN DESIRE, and as far as BEECHES, well you said it perfectly! Ha! I still need to get over there for your sure-to-be-superb assessment of THE CHASER.
Glad to hear we ar ein agreement on the Danish gem too!
Thanks as always for your fabulous submission!
I quite look forward to your Monday round-out and now try to put our best foot forward. I like being pushed to be better by you.
I have something I want to send you, but I don’t have your address anymore. Could you email it to me?
I didn’t win the pool I participated in, but I was extremely happy the Saints won. A lot of sports writers are red-faced this morning.
Looks like foreign cinema has some goodies in the city theatres.
Joe: I have yet to meet a single person who wasn’t thrilled at the results. I think the only people who rooted for the Colts were those from Indianapolis.
One aspect of the Super Bowl I didn’t mention was the half-time medley-concert by the Who, one of the greatest of all rock groups, and an eternal joy of my younger years. The full rendition of “Won’t Get Fooled Again” was glorious.
I agree with Tony that Stephen was provocative although, in a good-faith gesture, I’ll have to take his word that it was not “deliberate” (still, it was at least “consciously forceful”)! I strongly disagree that it was not splendidly written. I may not agree with all of his conclusions but I thought his analysis of the film – aside from value judgements, which come later in the essay – was superb (even Tony seems to tacitly acknowledge this, as he notes that Stephen’s observations are drawn from the film itself – not merely out-of-thin-air impressions – though he uses the word “stolen”). And that his conclusions, while highly questionable, at least rest on a bed of evidence from the film itself, and point out some traits of the film which are worth exploring before defending (and have been pointed out in the past by defenders of the film as well as its critics). I look forward to reading Tony’s response, and Stephen’s response to the response over there.
Joel, see my response above to Stephen re ‘provocative’.
I have no problem with heretical opinions. I hold and have expressed enough of them here to establish a degree of infamy.
I have nothing against Stephen personally. He has, as he correctly asserts, a right to express a dissenting opinion. Equally though, he cannot use the “my opinion” argument to avoid arguing his position. Even you Joel, have found this frustrating.
My point is that there is not one original idea in Stephen’s essay. He brings nothing to the debate that does not originate from the film, which btw is a collaboration of a team of major artists: Welles, Toland, Mankiewicz, Wise, and Herrmann.
Just one example is sufficient to illustrate my point.
At the start of his essay, Stephen writes: “Can we get at the truth of the man? Can any person ever be fathomed and encapsulated by one symbol? This question is never allowed to flower, nor ever properly posed within the film”.
Now to anyone who has seen Citizen Kane, these are the essential questions explored – explored not answered – as the very premise of the screenplay is that there are no answers. Thus Stephen steals the very intellectual foundation of the film and then proceeds to chalk up Welles’ deeply audacious journey that actually demonstrates this inability to come up with answers, as very failures.
Simply put, Stephen just doesn’t get it. He may be sincere, but the essay falls very short intellectually, and fails dismally as film criticism.
You have fundamentally misunderstood my position (possibly wilfully).
I understand that this is the ‘intellectual foundation’ of the film is that we cannot get to the real Kane. I get that. Boy did I get that – it’s hard to avoid given how many times we are told about it in the film.
However, just because a film sets out to tell us nothing doesn’t mean that if it succeeds in telling us nothing, in not pulling us close to the MYSTERY at least (if not the MAN) that I should praise the fact that it didn’t engage, enthrall or entice me intellectually or emotionally.
Stephen, at the risk of prolonging a fruitless ping-pong debate.
Anyone is free to read your essay and the ensuing comments. If I have willfully misrepresented your thesis – a notion which I reject out of hand – let other readers be the judge.
You are doing some misrepresenting of your own. Where do I ever say or intimate that the “film sets out to tell us nothing”. Quite the contrary. If I may quote someone who more eloquently states what I said above: “[Citizen Kane is] structured as a labyrinthine, metaphysical mystery, whose secret was the final essential unknowableness of human personality. ” (Geoff Andrew in The Film Handbook 1989, p309).
If the film “didn’t engage, enthrall or entice [you] intellectually or emotionally”, the problem is with you not the movie.
I think Mr. d’Ambra nailed it. When millions of film lovers, critics and film historians claim they were engaged intellectually and emotionally, and then one blogger comes along and argues that he isn’t engaged (and then has the audacity to blame it on the film, as if he were some kind of genius) the problem is not with millions the problem is with the one person.
But isn’t that what this entire business was about in the first place the way I read it? Shameless grandstanding. “I am smarter than you.” Stephen Russell’s major flaw is he hasn’t got an ounce of humilty. He went after this film as if Orson Welles personally insulted him!
But I suspect this entire charade was a front to show off. It didn’t work for him unfortunately.
“When millions of film lovers, critics and film historians claim they were engaged intellectually and emotionally, and then one blogger comes along and argues that he isn’t engaged”
I didn’t ‘argue’ that I wasn’t engaged. It was a reality that I was reporting. I don’t need to convince people that I wasn’t engaged.
“But isn’t that what this entire business was about in the first place the way I read it? Shameless grandstanding. “I am smarter than you.” Stephen Russell’s major flaw is he hasn’t got an ounce of humilty. He went after this film as if Orson Welles personally insulted him!
But I suspect this entire charade was a front to show off. It didn’t work for him unfortunately.”
Bobby, don’t presume to know anything about me or my motivations. How am I demonstrating my arrogance by stating forcefully that I don’t like a film? How am I not being humble? Saying ‘because we all think differently’ is a terribly weak argument. Why are film critics and bloggers so scared of an opinion when that is their currency?
“He went after this film as if Orson Welles personally insulted him!”
You are seeing incontinent venom where there is none.
I wish all this were a stunt because then I could understand the illogical and disrespectful comments that have been thrown my way.
I will continue to be true to myself and respond to people’s thoughts.
Tony,
“…structured as a labyrinthine, metaphysical mystery, whose secret was the final essential unknowableness of human personality”
The film is not labyrinthine because it does not take us down dead ends, does not fold back upon itself, does not confound or confuse. The structure is simple and, in my opinion, an insubstantial device. The mystery and revelation thereof is a full stop on a sentence reiterated time and again. As for the mystery of the man and Man, there is no real digging, no idea that one is frustrated that a mystery is not unlocked.
As I have said there is no sense of differing authorships, of contradictions or blind alleys. This essential unknowableness remains a surface idea (a superficial treatment of the surface that engenders no curiosity or mystery). Do you not see in the film the same view of the man from supposedly different perspectives? There is no sophistication here.
“If the film “didn’t engage, enthrall or entice [you] intellectually or emotionally”, the problem is with you not the movie.”
Well now I know.
Could you give me your thoughts, please, on what makes this film great for you?
All I’ve encountered so far is ‘it’s great because it’s great’ and ‘it’s great because everybody says it’s great’. Which is all well and good but just as bad as what you accuse me of.
Tony,
“If the film “didn’t engage, enthrall or entice [you] intellectually or emotionally”, the problem is with you not the movie.”
So if it engaged, enthralled and enticed you, that could also be YOU and not the MOVIE, no?
So if it engaged, enthralled and enticed you, that could also be YOU and not the MOVIE, no?
Of course, Stephen. Millions got it wrong, but you got it right. Congratulations.
“I will continue to be true to myself and respond to people’s thoughts.”
You are so full of yourself. You must think the world revolves around you and your opinion. The unmitigated arrogance of your review, which was noted by a number of respondants at your site as well as here has entitled you to the disrespect you have received. In fact you deserve more, as you have been showing others disrespect right along. You’re an egotistical blogger who wants to come off as a hero.
Bobby, I think you made your point. We don’t need repetition or name-calling at the site. I think Stephen has endured enough, and truthfully the entire business is now leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I welcome Stephen’s output here always, and hopefully we can put this business behind us now. I am still hoping to pen my own review on KANE, but I want to watch it again this weekend for the umteenth time, and I will stay clear of any further confrontation.
Bobby, I do not think the world revolves around me or my opinion. If I say ‘this is bad’ it means ‘I think this is bad’. It doesn’t mean that I disdain people who think it is great and I have no idea where you got that from. I have only respect for Sam and the people on this site otherwise I wouldn’t be here.
There are plenty of people on my site and here who have read what I have to say and responded with civility and respect even if they disagreed (Bob Clark, JAFB, Dave, MovieMan…).
They read my opinions for what they were – not an attack, not an insult, not a display of arrogance. I disliked a film that others liked. I was not seeking to be contrarian or to incite. I wrote it because I was discussing the film with MovieMan on the ‘Birth of a Nation’ review and I wanted to set down my thoughts.
I am sorry if that’s what you got from it and from me.
“Of course, Stephen. Millions got it wrong, but you got it right. Congratulations.”
I was only asking a question regarding the logic of individual perspectives.
Stephen, I admire your resilience, and steel-plated armour. And I’ll never forget that. I ask all at the site to move on and leave all contentiousness out of the discussion. I think one thing Stephen said the other day makes sense. It may be in my estimation one of the greatest of films, but it’s still “only a movie, not a God.” Let’s move on please. Stephen is our very good friend, and values cineaste.
And it was a great game. Won’t Get Fooled Again (did anyone else detect an undercurrent of Obama discontent in the delivery and applause) redeemed a shaky set which started out embarrassingly.
Tuck your shirt in, Mr. Townshend! (Btw, between those two and the Chevy Chase commercial, it must have been a sands-of-time wake-up-call night for Boomers…)
Ha Joel! Interesting point there about the undercurrent of Obama!!! I know the Who were far from impressive, and Townshend shows his age and girth, but it all brought back memories, at least to a time not so long ago – maybe 10 or 12 years ago, when Lucille and I saw them in concert at Madison Square Garden. Anyway I concur that was a very shaky start.
I saw them three – four years ago in a concert at Pimlico (it was an all-day festival with dozens of famous groups – Red Hot Chili Peppers, Raconteurs, Killers, Gnarls Barkley, Flaming Lips, and a few others who escape me at the moment all played). They were still very impressive, definitely sharper than they were last night.
And it was a great game. Won’t Get Fooled Again (did anyone else detect an undercurrent of Obama discontent in the delivery and applause) redeemed a shaky set which started out embarrassingly.
Tuck your shirt in, Mr. Townshend! (Btw, between those two and the Chevy Chase commercial, it must have been a sands-of-time wake-up-call night for Boomers…) Stevie Wonder looked good, though.
Thanks a lot Sam for the mention.
Well, my moblie phone (Nokia N73 Music) got stolen last Thursday, and that was just what I needed right now 😦 It happened to be my first splurge since I joined my job in 2007, and hence was quite a prized possession for me. But that apart, I had to take a leave from work on Friday to file a diary at police station as well as to get hold of a duplicate sim as I didn’t want my cell no. to change. So, I guess it wasn’t the most memorable week for me.
Anyway, on the movie front, watched 2 movies last weekend:
1. Piano Teacher – wouldn’t call it a great movie. But a very daring exercise for Heneke indeed.
2. Yi Yi – a wonderful piece of work. Worked at so many levels for me that it’s difficult to describe it in a sentence.
Ah Shubhajit, that is dire news there! Is the situation with thievery by you that severe, that you need to keep an eye on all your possessions at all times? Geez, you worked hard for that, and I am deeply saddened and disgusted with the news you give me there. I hold out hope it may still appear, but I guess that’s even more than a long shot.
I’m with you on both movie assessments here. Heneke’s film is a good one, but not among his very best works, even with that impressive lead performance. The Yang film is revered by many, and it’s certainly not a stretch to called it a work of art.
Again, my hopes are with you on that injustice you’ve had to deal with.
Well, yes & no. A bit of thievery is there & one does have to be a bit careful, but I guess no more or less than any other city. Thanks a lot for your concern. But as you said, getting hold of the mobile is as long a shot as catching sight of Royal Bengal Tiger was during my trip to the Sundanbans.
By the way, I have started reading In Cold Blood a couple of days back, and am loving it despite the deliberately slow pacing of the book. The tremendous amount of details about the various persons, irrespective of his/her importance in the course of action, is truly amazing. So as of now, I’m quite loving it.
Well, personally, I thoughtr the game was a bore and THE WHO followed right behind them. The game dragged on forever anf the boys half-time show wsas the same couple of songs EVERY time they appear on TV. The spark of the night was the “Birthday Party Clown” commercial for WALMART that had everyone in the diner I was eating in laughing out loud. Looking forward to THe WOLF MAN this coming friday, the original was a personal fave of mine since I was a kid. I also read Stephen’s take on CITIZEN KANE a few hours ago, as did a few others here. Stephen is entitled to his opinions and views. On that note, I’m going to take a laxative now as I’ve been constipated for a few hours.
Dennis, you hated that game THAT much? After the Colts built the 10-0 lead, from that point on I found the game thrilling. When the Saints took the lead and added to it on the long interception return, the excitement reached peak level. The Who’s half-time appearance brough back nostalgia and memories, especially since this was one of the favorite groups of Lucille and I.
Yes, the KANE battle wages on! LOL.
TERRIBLY HAPPY sounds worth viewing.
As for the game, er, 1/2 time “who” I thought the same thing about townsends shirt, and crazy hat/scarf combo……and made me think again of their “live at leeds” lp, one of the best live albums ever. Of course, without John Entwistle, and Keith Moon, those days can never be replayed………
Took a quick look at the CK review and having read a Hearst Biography when I started working at the paper in ’79, although he wasn’t in the thick of it, as he was when they started in the east, in a way, and how he treated the news, seemed to be pretty spot on and a wonderful film to see from time to time.
Cheers and Thanks for the mention! ; )
Michael, TERRIBLY HAPPY would definitely be to your liking, methinks! Ah, yes, “Live at Leeds” was a classic. I think my own favorite is “Who’s Next” but like all our contemporaries I had my infatuations with “Quadrophenia” and “Tommy.” But it’s definitely true what you say there about it never being duplicated again without Moon and Entwhistle. You know, it seems like almost yesterday. I remember buying that LP for the first time.
Excellent observations there about KANE. I hope to be penning my own views by the week’s end on it.
Thanks as always for the wonderful response.
Well, I had a fairly busy week . My wife and I saw a HD live presentation of “A Prairie Home Companion” on Thursday night at our local AMC with Garrison Keillor and company. An entertaining two hours with plenty of music and humor. Elvis Costello was a special guest and performed about five songs.
In film over the weekend, I managed to see four films Friday night I watched “Alibi” an early sound film directed by Roland West which has turned out to be a film that is both impressive and yet very badly dated at the same time. Saturday night watched” Serpico” which I will post something about on 24 frames later this week. Pacino’s performance is still engrossing. On Sunday we saw an early morning performance of” Crazy Heart” and Bridges is as amazing as everyone says he is. The film itself is good though nothing we have not seen before, I will be putting up a review on this over at Watching Shadows the Walls. Sunday night, we went out to eat and saw “Young Victoria” with a fine performance by Emily Blunt.
John, due to the onset of senility, I did not add your new blog (“Watching Shadows the Walls”) to the Wonders blogroll until about 30 minutes ago. But it is done, and I will certainly be focusing on that place from here on in.
When anyone here speaks of stamina and the ability to employ time so brilliantly I think YOU have no peers, as this recent roundup and your amazing and prolific writing can attest to. Blunt was indeed fine in THE YOUNG VICTORIA and I did like CRAZY HEART quite a bit too. It does seem like Bridges will be bringing home the Oscar. I have mixed feelings about SERPICO as a whole, but what you say there about Pacino is dead-on! I’ll be looking forward to reading your review. I saw Altman’s THE PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION, which was my first exposure to Keillor. As far as that “dated” film you speak of there – ALIBI – I’m sorry to say I can’t recall it.
Spectacular round-up John!
Thanks for the shoutout, Sam… the noir countdown is moving along very well. Outside of watching films for that, I’ve still been in De Palma mode, and realizing that regardless of what others think of his work, I actually quite enjoy it. It might be a bit derivative in a Tarantino-like way, and it might be pulp/trash, but it’s great fun for me. The films that I got to this week:
– The Black Dahlia (De Palma) – I’m now of the opinion that this is his best film. I know it has been crucified by everyone (particularly critics), but at this point I don’t care. I love the movie. Usually, I don’t step this far out on limbs with my opinions, but it’s honestly how I feel.
– Carlito’s Way (De Palma) – If The Black Dahlia is not my favorite De Palma film, then this certainly is. Far superior to his more famous Scarface.
– Manhunter (Mann) – Maybe I’m just too used to Silence of the Lambs and Anthony Hopkins as Lecter, but this one kind of missed for me. It was good, but for me it didn’t come near the reputation that it has.
– Blow Out (De Palma) – Also a very good film…. not as good as similar stories like Blow-Up or The Conversation, but still outstanding.
– Bad Company (Benton) – A western that also was pretty much a miss for me. Jeff Bridges was good and was really the only reason that I’m glad I finally got to this.
I’m also excited to have a pre-ordered Blu-Ray of the Coens’ A Serious Man that will be delivered tomorrow. I’m really looking forward to finally seeing this one.
Dave: I will definitely need to take another look at THE BLACK DAHLIA, especially with your glowing re-appraisal. I greatly respect CARLITO’S WAY and BLOW-OUT, with the latter near the very top of the De Palma catalogue. I also like DRESSED TO KILL, THE UNTOUCHABLES and especially his first, CARRIE, though there are some others I’m not too keen on. But your round-up here is irrefutable. BAD COMPANY is a very interesting Benton film!!!
Dave: I ordered that exact same blu-ray of A SERIOUS MAN and am also expecting it any day!!! LOL!!! Nice. Anyway, it’s a great film, and can’t wait to hear your assessment!
I’ll be talking to you shortly at Goodfellas! Thanks!
Sam thank you so much for your mention of Creative Potager. What a wonderful surprise to be noticed and noted:) I had an outstanding day doing a photo shoot of the fog that brings solitude to a whole new level. Today’s post shows one of the three images I have up on my redbubble store front. If you get a chance to drop in, I know they will be right up your alley.
You create great community in your posting style Sam and I commend your talent for inclusion.
Hello my very good friend! I was very happy to make mention of your Pacific paradise, which certainly gives all of us an alternatate look at the baeuty that’s REAL and around us in places like your island home. It’s frankly a refreshing change of pace to visit and I definitely will be looking in that post you mention this evening!
Thanks for the exceedingly kind words, which are so much appreciated!
Well you know it’ll be a good week when you appear on the WitD Monday Morning Diary, so thank you Sam. I haven’t posted in awhile on Wonders nor my own mainly because of many outside factors (the snow storm here in Virginia as well as the ending of the NFL season), but I did get to see a few great films from the previous decade, last being Wong Kar-wai’s great In the Mood for Love, to hopefully have a top 50 ready in the near future and when Allan’s countdown starts. But I plan to have a few reviews up by this week, as well as watch a few big films i missed last year including Bright Star and Avatar. Well thanks for the mention and can’t wait to catch all three films you reviewed this week in the near future (they all look great).
Anu:
As always you are a scholar and a gentleman! I am sure that the tripo I managed this week will be much appreciated by you. I’d even place a wager on it. IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE is a film that grows on you with repeat viewing. My friend Tony d’Ambra, in fact, just sent me some fabulous clips from the film this morning. I do look forward to your Top 50 of the decade as well as your upcoming reviews. I am particularly of course interested in your takes on AVATAR and BRIGHT STAR.
Thanks you Sir!
I’m a little late here, but I watched a lot of Bunuel this weekend including Discreet Charm (****1/2), Obscure Object (****), and Simon of the Desert (****1/2). All have moments of brilliance, and no one does endings like Bunuel.
Also, I saw Crazy Heart which I liked and reviewed over at MovieZeal. I also have a review of An Education up at The Chattanooga Pulse (http://bit.ly/cKc4XX) since it just opened here this weekend.
Musically, I’m listening to a lot of John Adams, particularly his rapturous Harmonielehre. Such splendid writing. Also, my good friend Daniel is setting some American poems to music and I find his take on this Walt Whitman poem to be absolutely gorgeous: http://bit.ly/aYfo4n.
Hope you are well, Sam.
Hey Phillip!! Thanks for the kind words, all seems to be moving forward better now. Sounds like you were ravished by one of the supreme masters there! SIMON and DISCREET are among his greatest films (SIMON is one of his most satiric works) and OBSCURE OBJECT is interesting too. You are right to note it’s the slightly lesser of the three. I am assuming you’ce already seen VIRIDINA, EXTERMINATING ANGEL, EL and LOS OLVIDADOS, no? I think you did see L’AGE D’OR as well.
Thanks for the links. I definitely will be checking out your reviews of CRAZY HEART and AN EDUCATION.
I also love Adams, and congrats on discovering his unique qualities. NIXON IN CHINA -despite the bizarre title is a great opera, and the aria “Ain’t It Prophetic” a hypnotic minimalist coda, is one of the greatest of all American opera segments.
Thanks so much for stopping by. Hope to speak to you soon!
I am heartened by your glowing reviews of Ajami and Terribly Happy, Sam. It will be a miracle if either come here before April but they are already high atop my list!
And although I did take The Blind Side down a notch, I’ll add that my problems with it remain whether it received an Oscar nomination or not. That fact simply made me question why so few voters saw the problems that I did.
And I am trembling with excitement for the Opening Ceremonies on Friday. Maybe that’s an overstatement, but yeah, I love the Olympics and will be watching nearly every night if I can.
Daniel: I know you are an Olympics guy, and you will be investing much time and enthusiasm over the next three weeks. I’ll try to tune in a few times myself. The figur-skating, some skiing and the ice hockey always interested me.
I am sure those films will be arriving by you soon enough, and yes I would definitely think AJAMI and TERRIBLY HAPPY will impress you. This week turned out to be a major surprise, in the best sense.
And yes, it definitely was the Best Picture nom for THE BLIND SIDE that raised more than a few people’s ire!
Thanks as always!
Damn. That slaughtering of a sacred calf by Stephen is great fun! 😉 Thanks for pointing me in the way of his blog.
Seems like there are some good films opening in the States this week. Hopefully, they will all cross the water in due course.
Anyway, opening here this week were Invictus (better than my modest expectations for it), Precious (thought that it was a hollow work), and an Irish film called Eamon, which was a slight but amusing dark comedy from a promising young director.
Longman, there’s no doubt it has produced a tense and oft-contentious dialogue, and yeah Stephen deserves credit for his bravery, but as I am a lifelong fanatic of this film, I have no qualms with admitting that for me it IS a sacred cow. It is as brilliant a work as the cinema has produced.
EAMON sounds intriguing, though the other two are not favorites of mine. Of course your position on PRECIOUS is dead-on!
Thanks as always for your much-appreciated input here.
Hey Sam. It’s been a busy week at home and work (it’s usually one or the other, but rarely both), so no time for blogging and too little time for movie watching.
I still managed to watch two movies as I continue finishing up 2009’s output.
OF TIME AND THE CITY — This really captured my interest, even when some of the historical elements felt foreign to me, as Davies does such a good job of creating a mood via the visual and lyrical poetry that you can’t help but be swept up in the images and sounds. ****
STILL WALKING — I have a write-up on it that I just posted at my place.
I’m actually kind of shocked at the limited amount of words around the movie blogs I peruse on the latest Hirokazu Kore-eda film. A fantastic family drama that uses a slow build, great characterization, subtle acting, and some meticulous framing to showcase the universal truths that come with how a family works. ****1/2
Hey Troy! I figured you were busy and it’s most understandable. It’s difficult to maintain the pace you had navigated for several months. We have lives too! LOL! I am thrilled to read your summary judgement on Davies’s OF TIME AND THE CITY, and you’re finding it a poetic work. It is true what you say too about the oddly toned down response to the Kore-eda film. I will definitely be checking out your new review today. Thanks as always, and try and take it easy.
I’d just like to apologise if some of my responses have been a little on the aggressive side.
It is hard, when you are besieged by comments on the boundary of civility and questioning of the sincerity of your motives or the thoroughness of your approach, not to come out fighting.
Stephen, I completely understand. I have some apologizing as well, as I know I was more aggressive than I have been at this site in a very long time. I’m sure we’ll have quite a bit of fruitful discourse in the upcoming months, and I value your participation and insights immensely.
Thanks, Sam.
Sorry but I can’t join in this round of mea culpas. There is an important issue here that should not be left hanging.
This is not about personalities, it is about film criticism. Film criticism is not about one’s opinion per se. It is about the quality of a film, about a critique of the film-maker’s perceived objective and his or her achievement of it, and this involves intellectual honesty and rigor. There is a responsibility to evaluate and analyze by reference to the work and how – for argument’s sake – the director employs the medium of film to explore an idea, a story, a polemic. Assertions of opinion are not criticism. You need to demonstrate an understanding not only of the art of cinema, but the social and historical contexts as well. It is not about the film you the critic would have made, the monumental effrontery of such an assertion
aside, but about the film that has been made. This involves discussion of how and why the director has succeeded or failed in his objective – and a degree of humility.
Tony, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that every single point you make here is dead-on!!! I could not with maximum effort even come close to expressing what I have felt right along. I will remain Stephen’s friend and movie associate, but I will never agree with the discourse of the past days that has attempted to negate some of the greatest and impassioned criticism written for this art form. I already broached the humility issue and hopefully all parties will have have a mutual understanding in the event that this kind of disagreement should arise.
Of all the superlative, irrefutable points you make Tony, this one is the one that really hits home:
“Assertions of opinion are not criticism. You need to demonstrate an understanding not only of the art of cinema, but the social and historical contexts as well.”
And therein lies whether any kind of criticism can hold any real significance or meaning.
I agree with this, Tony. The reason I appreciated the essay was that I felt it went further in this very direction – dealing with the film itself – than I expected it to, given Stephen’s past statements. At any rate, I find the “personal reaction is all that matters” approach to be severely limited. I think it’s central to the experience, and hope that it will always be a part of criticism – certainly there’s been a tendency in academic spheres to go too far in the other direction, and lose the sense of fun cinema is capable of evoking. But if that’s the risk the university runs, perhaps the blogosphere runs another risk: sacrificing the multiple ways of enjoying or appreciating a film to the dogma of one’s own “instincts.” Stephen gets away with it to a certain extent – or did until now – because he covers his ass, consciously or not: he backs up his assertions (even while implying that he doesn’t need to) and he has diverse and distinguished taste. But given his ethos, there’s nothing to prevent someone else from saying “I hate foreign films, they’re all boring” and getting indignant when others challenge his “right” to an opinion. As I see it, there either is a right/wrong, or there isn’t. There’s ambiguity but not to the point that two extremes can be right at once. A work can be grey – it can’t be black and white simultaneously (and of course, we are speaking metaphorically here…)
I think Stephen is being stubborn on the matter, sincere but stubborn. Unfortunately the violent attack on him has probably only increased this stubbornness – but I hope down the road he reconsiders the absolutism of his subjective claims – that a film is either good or bad based solely on whether or not he liked it, and that if unengaged by a film, it’s always the film’s fault. Anyway, I’ll keep engaging him on the subject, as he’s been very diplomatic and often illuminating in responding to my inquiries. Actually I’m in the middle of one such comment on Checking on My Sausages right now, though I should really go to bed…
Yes Joel, there is a tricky balance.
I first watched Kane barely into my teens on a 21in 1958-vintage TV, and I “knew” then even in my total naivety that it was something great, “some kind of movie”.
Call me stubborn if you like, but I can’t comprehend how anyone who professes a serious interest in film cannot see the greatness of Citizen Kane. It is like saying Michelangelo’s David is “derivative”. For intelligent discourse there needs to be at least a shared paradigm about the essential elements of cinema as an art. Stephen has placed himself outside that paradigm.
“Film criticism is not about one’s opinion per se. It is about the quality of a film, about a critique of the film-maker’s perceived objective and his or her achievement of it, and this involves intellectual honesty and rigor.”
Tony, the definitions of ‘opinion’ are as follows:
“…a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty” ; “a personal view, attitude, or appraisal”
Neither of these definitions proclude ‘intellectual honesty and rigor’. An opinion is one person’s use of that honesty and rigour.
“…there is a responsibility to evaluate and analyze by reference to the work and how – for argument’s sake – the director employs the medium of film to explore an idea, a story, a polemic.”
And this I did, Tony. It is perhaps because your intellectually rigorous perspective reaches different conclusions that you believe that I have not.
“It is not about the film you the critic would have made, the monumental effrontery of such an assertion
aside, but about the film that has been made.”
I don’t take that approach. It is hard, yes, to not imagine what one would do oneself but as far as I can I let films come to me on their own terms. If my mind wanders to alterations I would make that can not be a good sign.
“This involves discussion of how and why the director has succeeded or failed in his objective – and a degree of humility.”
I did do this. If you read my piece again, you will see that I address these issues. As for humility, I always show humility. You seem to bring up humility in this particular case because the subject at hand (the revered Citizen Kane) is to you an object that can only be venerated – and therefore negative criticism can only be arrogant and blasphemous.
Look Stephen, I think we can agree to disagree, and move on, lest Bob Clark gets bored 😉
That’s fine by me, Tony. I’ve had quite enough of being hounded for a simple point of view.
Oh dear Stephen. Surely, you don’t believe I “hounded” you? You don’t know hounded like I know hounded…
Not you especially, Tony. It just got a bit personal round here and round there.
“You don’t know hounded like I know hounded”
Oh, that sounds interesting.
One last note; I’ve said before that in judging a film I’ll by and large fly by my gut and I think that’s still true. But that doesn’t mean I ignore the “instrumentation” altogether – it can still be useful, serve as a corrective, and on occasion even change my gut. Especially in cases where a majority has another view, I’m going to at least humor the idea that I’m missing something. Instinct is a great tool, but it’s not sacrosanct and it’s more flexible than some will allow.