by Sam Juliano
Over the past days there’s been a barnstorm of controversy over fellow blogger Stephen Russell-Gebbit’s dismissive review of Orson Welles’ legendary Citizen Kane, and the issue of how important serious film criticism is has never been as topical, nor as vital. I’ve been taken to the carpet more than once over my respect and veneration of professional film criticism – at least one blogger, who’s one of the best writers among the internet fraternity – mentions regularly that any argument that implies that concensus is a decisive factor is bankrupt. Yet, the very nature of film criticism, and it’s essence is to enlighten and to enrich one’s experience with any proposed work of art. Any attempt to diminish or compromise serious film criticism at the expence of a vaguely defined ‘first ammendment right’ seems to me an act of narcissistic blindness, and a repudiation of ‘ladder ascendency’ that has informed year’s of critical aptitude, built on uncanny writing talent and the ability to see the worth in in any cultural entity.
Hence when a brash 25 year-old blogger-critic (and I am not speaking here of Stephen Russell-Gebbit. I don’t even know how old he is, I am just posing a point that has obsessed me long before Stephen’s review was published, and there are a few other instances where what I am saying here can be applied) attempts to dismiss serious intellectual film criticism written by the likes of James Agee, Andrew Sarris, Dwight MacDonald, Stanley Kauffmann, Andre Bazin, Pauline Kael, Dilys Powell, Leslie Halliwell, John Simon et al, I would like to hear more than just a comparitively facile disagreement based on taste. I have disagreed more times than I can remember with any of the aforementioned fraternity, yet I’ve been endlessly enriched by their consistently enlightening examinations which were founded on many years of scholarly study and extensive experience in writing and in their field. It is all too easy for a novice, who lacks the proper skills to compete on this intellectual level to throw around arbitrary dismissals, as if their own personal “blog” was some self-annoited pillar of intellectual authority. When I want to engage myself in a baseball game, I’ll watch the Yankees play the Red Sox. I won’t walk up the street and take in a Little League baseball game (unless my kids are involved! Ha!) When I want to be ravished by a serious work of art, I may opt to view the J.M.M. Turner exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art, rather than avail myself of seventh-grade art on display at my local library. When I want to hear Mozart’s ‘Clarinet Concerto’, I’ll head over to Avery Fisher Hall and listen to the New York Philharmonic, rather than availing myself of a local classical buff’s amateur efforts, as admirable and commendable as this effort may be. The latest revival of Roger’s and Hammerstein’s South Pacific is enjoying a glorious run at Lincoln Center, and I maintain far more serious appreciation and respect for it in an artsitic sense than for a local production that barely scratches the surface in all departments.
I find it hypocritical that some bloggers attempt to place themselves on even ground with serious critics solely on the argument that ‘they are entitled to their own opinion.’ When such an opinion is expressed with authoritative obstinance, a marked lack of humour, zero degree of humility and complete disregard for the mass of concensus, which has spent decades in foundling principles of critical theories and extensive thesis-writing – all on a single critical rant posted at a blog – well then I think it’s high time we reconsider our own ‘importance’ in the larger scheme of things.
I am not posing blind adoration or even rudimentary agreement, only the knowledge that there are perhaps some people who may have worked a lot harder and more persuasively at posing their own arguments. In the same way that professional critics make reference to literary scholars, authors and philosophers, I will make reference to these critics who have informed their work with pertinent historical, social and artistic concerns that are more-often that not set aside in favor of largely arbitrary judgement based on something as negligible as personal taste.
I am proud of what I have written at this site, and feel much of what I say is as meaningful as what the professionals have said. But I also know there are others in this world who have gone even further in a number of ways to make far stronger cases. I’ll always express my opinion, but alas, I also know my place.
The difference between bloggers like us and professional film critics: They make money for writing about film. We don’t.
In the words of Stan Lee: ’nuff said.
More money indeed. Also far greater experience, exposure to the form and generally more advanced writing talent, not to mention in the best cases, volumes of scholarly film criticism and well-earned reputations.
Experience and exposure are both two things that money can buy. Start paying me for my reviews, and I’ll easily be able to afford going to see and write about more films. Repeat engagements from a steady income also allows a critic to hone their writing style over time, and gives them more free time and opportunities to apply their talents to scholastic efforts, thus guaranteeing themselves some form of reputation. At the end of the day, it’s all a matter of how much you are able to fund your criticism, and that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with talent.
Again, I insist there isn’t any real difference between any of us and paid reviewers, were genuine opportunities to be offered to us. We’re simply volunteer critics– should they be held higher just because they’re paid?
Mr. Clark obviously loves himself a great deal. At least you are being humble Sam. When push comes to shove I’ll take Pauline Kael or Andre Bazin over Bob Clark. There are hundreds of thousands of film bloggers, but only a small contingent of serious film criticism, which was built on what in many instances was a lifetime commitment and years of study in the field.
That seems like quite a presumption. I can’t say with certainty it isn’t true, but you certainly can’t say with anything near certainty that it is true.
I also think Mr. Clark is missing the whole point. There is a reason why they are “paid” and why you are a “volunteer.” When you step back from the mirror and stop admiring yourself maybe you will realize this. You are an amateur blogger for God’s sakes.
This seems strange to be saying this as it almost has me sitting on the fence which is usually Sam’s well-worn groove, but there’s truth both ways. I agree with Sam that the critical majority have to be respected, but nor should they be taken as gospel. Each of those critics has, at some time or another, made a name for themselves by vilifying something previously held sacred. Kael, indeed, liked nothing more to knock artists down like pins in a bowling alley.
On the other hand, whilst I am one who has always believed that the opinion that matters most is your own, it is not the ONLY opinion that matters. I have nothing against Stephen as a person, and I’m sure he knows this, but I did find his piece on Kane somewhat incredulous. Especially when praising an M.Night Shyamalan piece on the same site. Now I won’t say anything about anyone praising a correctly perceived cinematic stinker, that’s their right, but when they back it up by tearing down a film that no-one could call a bad film – even a blind person could relish the script, one of the best ever written.
But if a blogger wants to be taken seriously, he cannot just publish an all-out attack. He needs to deconstruct logically and analytically, like a surgeon looking for a lump, not the frenzied butchery of Jack the Ripper in Miller’s Court in November 1888. A blogger, like a critic, must earn the respect of his readers for what he/she writes, and at the same time I believe it’s only after such a period of time that people will allow one to make ‘out there’ judgements. But going after Kane is pretty silly really. If Stephen wants to take something apart, perhaps he should aim at something which is an accepted classic but not the cinematic equivalent of Caravaggio, Mozart or Hugo in their respective artistic fields. Take a stab at say Gone with the Wind, or From Here to Eternity, films which perhaps are more open to criticism for all their excellence.
On the whole, though, I prefer constructuve criticism, and I believe a better writer is one who praises forgotten films and makes you look them up, rather than attacks accepted classics when the only thing they can hope to result from it is controversy, which is merely ambrosia to the ego. That’s why the accepted classics I haven’t included in my book are briefly mentioned in a small paragraph in the Final Apologies, the main text is about what IS great.
Allan, when you’re done with the countdown (or maybe before the final segment, as it’s probably not the best note to end on) would you publish that “Final Apologies” chapter? I greatly enjoyed your introduction, and would like to see this as well.
“…even a blind person could relish the script, one of the best ever written.”
OK, but how do you back this up and turn it into a proof that can automatically invalidate a contrary opinion?
“…which is merely ambrosia to the ego”
By the same token I could say that leaving dumb and personally insulting comments on my blog is ambrosia to the ego, Allan.
“But if a blogger wants to be taken seriously, he cannot just publish an all-out attack. He needs to deconstruct logically and analytically, like a surgeon looking for a lump”
I did do this. Of course you could be confusing the idea of logic with the idea of something you agree with. You saw it as a frenzied attack because it took place on a loved one. If a member of my family is under the knife, every little cut is wrenching and the pain blown out of proportion.
Also, I don’t need to be taken seriously by others. If I take myself seriously and represent my thoughts truthfully, the rest will or will not follow. I don’t play to the crowds.
I’m actually not talking about myself here, Petie. Writing about film isn’t my primary focus, just something I indulge in when I have some free time. At any rate, however, the first reason anybody gets paid to write about film is because there’s a position open in the first place– not exactly a reality in our job market. When times are better, then there’s more opportunities for talents to rise of their own merit, but at this particular time and place some of the best voices on any number of fields are being forced to pursue their passion without the benefit of monetary reward and the extra stability it allows. I’m sure that Alan Fish, for example, would find a fine place in any magazine or media outlet were any of them hiring critics.
Professions breed professionalism. Not the other way around.
I think we are talking about critics of (as Sam says) “scholarly esteem”, not the ordinary shmuch that writes for your local newspaper Bobbie. You attach too much importance to the opinion of the layman.
I’ll take the words of the layman to the scholarly equivalent of pre-Vatican II ceremonies any day. Ain’t nothin’ worse than a Latin mass, especially when it’s printed in the pages of glossy magazines.
Also, so many of the “scholarly esteemed” have frankly been around for so long, any kind of criticism becomes somewhat stale and predictable. All one can do after a while is wait for the sacred cows of the critical establishment to start dying off so that we can see the rise of newer, and dare I say, younger voices. Granted, that’s usually not what happens– if one Kael passes, she finds herself easily replaced by acolyte Denby– and as such we find ourselves stuck with the same critical voices nagging us decade after decade. One wishes there were term limits for such writing, else how will we ever have any kind of meaningful generational representation in cultural observation?
So that’s your frank, if cynical appraisal. You’ll excuse me if I don’t regard film bloggers as the heir-apparents to writers who have worked to earn positions based on talent. Next you’ll be telling me that Stephen Gebbit’s views are as impressive as David Bordwells.
I think Stephen’s skills as a writer, impressive or otherwise, are less important to you than are his opinions. Again, there are plenty of talented people who would no doubt prove themselves equal to the task of rising through the ranks by hard work and dedication to their craft– it’s just that those ranks are all pretty much closed, by now. The longer you have these lionized figureheads of the critical establishment, the longer they keep out the newer, younger voices. The reason you see so many people writing online nowadays is because they have no other outlet open to them, not necessarily because they lack the skills to make it in accepted circles, but simply because those accepted circles are locked shut.
Correction: “I think Stephen’s skills as a writer… are MORE important” to you than his “views”. Opinions cannot really be impressive or unimpressive– only their articulation can be. For my part, I find Stephen’s position on “Kane” to be one that is boldly argued, sternly observed, and with a little more research to back him up, one that could be quite persuasive.
That’s not to say that I agree with him, of course. But unlike others, I don’t hold that against him.
Bob, the foundations of our working (and creating) society are invariably built with the same framework. You ascend the ladder based on hard work, dedication and talent, and if you stay there it’s a combination of luck, timing and the staying power of your insights and creativity.
And this carries over into other fields, including within the film community. By your mode of thinking, Jacques Rivette, Martin Scorsese, Abbas Kiarostami, and Terrence Davies should all step aside and allow your budding new directors to move in and take their places. No matter that these people brought cinema to the level of artistic greatness, in your way of reasoning the hold at the top doesn’t “sustain” itself.
If we can’t at least respect those who have by fair play reach the summit of our profession, well then there is no valid reference point. Anarchism doesn’t work when we are trying to establish a system where excellence in a field should be celebrated.
Guys like Rivette and Scorsese aren’t robbing any young up-and-coming directors of their opportunities– ironically, it’s probably easier to get into filmmaking nowadays than it is to get into film criticism. There’s a limited number of venues for critics, after all, especially with newspaper and magazine sales dwindling and publications ceasing left and right. It’s rare that you see new voices rising anywhere nowadays besides the internet.
Again, I’m not discounting hard work, dedication or talent. I’m simply saying that all three of those are meaningless without the first and most important stepping stone to success– opportunity, a commodity that’s getting rarer and rarer nowadays.
Bob, you’re on fire here. I agree with much of what you say, while disagreeing with some points. However:
“it’s probably easier to get into filmmaking nowadays than it is to get into film criticism.”
No, no it is not. Sadly.
I think Mr. Fish did make quite a lot of sense, though I see Sam’s argument in great part as a call for humility. I saw that “Citizen Kane” essay, but decided on remaining silent. It had to be the most arrogant writing I have ever seen in my life.
Peter, do you understand what arrogant means?
I saw the film I studied the film and I said that I disliked it and why. I didn’t say that my opinion was the end of all discussion, I didn’t say that all people who revere the film are idiots.
If expressing an opinion honestly is automatically arrogant, then fine.
Yes Stephen I do understand what it means. Reading your review reminded me of what a real turn-off this quality can be. You did not express an opinion as much as you obnoxiously dismissed well-founded views. You “implied” in your aggressiveness that people were idiots.
“You did not express an opinion as much as you obnoxiously dismissed well-founded views. You “implied” in your aggressiveness that people were idiots.”
Those views are well-founded but they are not founded in MY mind. This was MY review of the film. I was not aggressive. I was reporting that there were bits of the film that turned me off as superficial, underplayed or overplayed.
Again it is only deemed arrogance because it goes against the grain. MovieMan can call King Kong dreck and anyone can call Lady in the Water a pile of rubbish and yet no-one holds a light up to these declarations and calls them arrogant. I put a lot of thought into my piece – this is a film I have watched 5 times and have given plenty of opportunities to explore it. I still believe it to be lacking.
Well, I can allow for something like that bashing of ‘Citizen Kane’ and afterwards dismiss it as garbage. Isn’t that my right too?
Yes indeed Frank. it’s your inherent right.
Absolutely!
For me, the biggest difference between esteemed critics and amateur bloggers is not necessarily an ability to defend one’s opinion, but rather a much more advanced vocabulary and teh ability to write well – even on topics unrelated to film. I’m speaking for myself as someone in the latter group, of course.
Indeed Daniel, and i have always felt that differentiation is what always made serious scholarly criticism the most rewarding kind of writing. As I said earlier, blind adoration is ludicrous, but serious study usually always reaps intellectual rewards.
Sam your post and this discussion reminds me of a statement in our monthly paper by the local hardware store owner about “putting a house up.” The first piece of advice is be aware of the square foot estimate…”DO NOT put a budget together based on this figure that is picked out of the air with apparent authority by buddy next door who happens to have a friend who frames houses and he should know.”
Blogs are written by both the “experts on Mozart” and “the buddy next door” with a wide swath of middle-ground in between. Where I think we can get hoodwinked is when we know nothing about a subject. If we know even a little about film (like me) then a dismissive review of Citizen Kane would immediately send up red flags questioning the credibility of the reviewer.
(And Sam, I can see your red flags waving in the breeze all the way over here on the west coast of Canada – they are lined up all across the eastern horizon:)
Does this mean any fool can have an opinion? Yes – and we all do, everyday, on things we know little to nothing about. Does this mean any fool can have a credible opinion? No – we humans have fairly refined b s detectors.
Great discussion! Terrill
Terrill, this is a fabulously logical and perceptive response, which really reaches the crux of the argument. Yes, anyone is entitled to their opionion, but when that opinion is reached by far less serious study that others, one can appreciate it, but then lay it aside. The astute examples you gave do illustrate this. The position is humble and cognizant of the talent and hard work that goes into lodging a view.
Thanks so much for this Terrill!
The main difference I see (at least in my own personal case) is that I don’t claim to be attempting scholarly criticism. I simply write reviews that document how I feel about a film and like to interact with others that visit the blog to see how they felt about a particular film — did it connect the same with them? What struck them about the film?, etc. As I think Daniel points out perfectly, I don’t have the vocabulary of film to be able to match those that have spent their entire lives devoted to film, and so I naturally don’t even try. I just write to express my feelings on certain films and see what others think. Pretty simple, really, and I don’t view myself as being on the same playing field as those that do it for a living. Mine are certainly amateur observations and analysis. But you know I have found after becoming involved in the blogging world? In my cases, I find such reviews and analysis more interesting to read and consider than professional film criticism. They are just two very distinct areas to me, both of which have their place.
As Sam pointed out, there is a reason that these people have gotten to where they are. It is not just because as Bob said (tongue in cheek maybe, or was it serious?) “there happened to be a job opening.” I’m known at work for commenting that “people are stupid,” and for the most part I stand by that cynical comment, but not fields like this where genuine talent and skill are necessary to advance. Does it make their opinions anymore valid than the stuff that I, Stephen, Sam, Allan, etc. writer? No… and in that sense I can agree with some of what Bob has written. But there is some kind of reason that revered film reviewers have maintained their standing for so long and thus you have to at least consider they somewhat know what they’re doing.
And, I’ll just add that I think Allan’s response here is spot on and I would agree with most all of it.
If I have any typos here, forgive me, this was typed in a rush, and I always manage to leave a few in my posts!
The voice of reason has rarely been expressed as consistently as from the pen of Dave Hicks, one of my favorite internet friends and writers, and again it’s hard to refute anything he has said here in his comprehensive look at this long-running firestorm. Yes, Allan was pretty much dead on (falling between my own position and the opposite) but there isn’t really a concrete or definitive answer to all of this. I know you have proceeded at your blog with humility, passion and effervescence, and these are the qualities I have the deepest admiration for during my exhaustive hours of blogging. Kudos to you Dave!
“I’ve been taken to the carpet more than once over my respect and veneration of professional film criticism – at least one blogger… mentions regularly that any argument that implies that concensus is a decisive factor is bankrupt.”
Sam,
With all due respect, as the blogger being spoken about in the sentence above, let me clarify my stance on this since you’ve used it in part as the basis for your argument. I have never criticized you for your “respect and veneration of professional film criticism.” I can’t do it because I have equal respect for professionals both past and present like Larry Aydlette, Roger Ebert, Jim Emerson, Manny Farber, Richard Jameson, Kent Jones, Glenn Kenny, Lou Lumenick, Elvis Mitchell, Jonathan Rosenbaum, and even Pauline Kael who I’ve hardly ever agreed with. These folks not only espouse opinions. They have developed their craft in communicating their opinions and backing them up with extensive support in every review. And I usually trust their word above others, including bloggers.
That being said, I didn’t just imply that consensus as “a decisive factor is bankrupt.” I declared it. Why? Because when you were debating me and you didn’t agree with what I would say, rather than employ concrete arguments to support your point, you would make a general statement about how the critical consensus was on your side. When we disagreed on AVATAR, and I said that it was technically brilliant but extremely derivative and shouldn’t appear on any end-of-the-year “best” lists, you responded, “Why not, pray tell? The New York Critics Online Association just named it best film of 2009, and their number contains some excellent critics who almost never choose the commercial blockbusters. Manohla Dargis, the NEW YORK TIMES’S extremely discerning critic, who favors independent and foreign language cinema by leaps and bounds, just issued probably the biggest rave she’s issued this year. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg in the grand scheme.” That is not a strong enough counterpoint, I’m sorry to say. There is nothing in that statement that supports your assertions about AVATAR. Had you instead cited a specific statement by Dargis to back you up you’d be on more solid ground than simply uttering another version of “Well, they like it.”
More to the point, none of the film critics I admire, or probably you admire for that matter, would throw such a statement out there in writing a critical analysis of a film, or even a simple movie review.
As to whether bloggers should be considered less credible than professionals, let me refer you to Sturgeon’s Law (pronounced by the great science fiction author, Theodore Sturgeon), “Ninety percent of everything is crud.” That includes ninety percent of professional film writers AND ninety percent of film bloggers. One should not presume because someone is a professional that he is more right than others who are not. The contrarian Armond White is not only full of crud, on a good day he can barely construct a sentence using correct grammar. I even got into it once with Jonathan Rosenbaum, who I admire greatly, over at my site because he thought INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS was a movie that acted as a form of holocaust denial. Was he correct? He sure made his points logically. I feel like I did as well, and so did Dennis Cozzalio of SLIFR, and Bill R. of THE KIND OF FACE YOU HATE. Who won? I’m not sure anyone did. But ALL of us were professional about it, and all of us had equal credibility, borne out by the fact that we were all cited over at Jim Emerson’s Scanners during his discussion of the movie. The eminent Rosenbaum, by the way, did not condescend to us in the least because we were bloggers. So why should you?
The fact is that the landscape is changing. Professional critics are being eliminated by all kinds of publications because of budget cutbacks, putting them on equal footing with the bloggers out there. Bloggers (myself included) are being invited to press screenings and being paid for their work. The line of distinction is becoming a bit blurry, and that’s a good thing. The democratization of film criticism has reinvigorated it. And sooner or later, the cream will rise to the top.
As for Stephen’s takedown of CITIZEN KANE. I didn’t even waste my time reading it. Nothing he could have said would have been able to overcome my perception that he was just trying to get attention by being contrary. Nothing he could have said would have superseded any of the obvious innovations that Welles was introducing to film lanuage and theory. But it his prerogative to write about it, and mine to ignore it if I wish. For a proper piece that doesn’t exactly take down KANE, but does knock it off its pedestal, read Manny Farber’s 1952 essay, “The Gimp.” It is not only stylish and original. It may make you rethink your opinion on the film.
Oh boy, Tony I could have saved you the trouble. The blogger I am referring to is………..Ed Howard, not you.
Nonetheless, I will read what you have to say here, as i always am enriched by your commentary.
I should have known it wasn’t me when you wrote “… one blogger, who’s one of the best writers among the internet fraternity…” which you’ll notice I ellided over in my quotation of it above.
Well, that’s two of us that have disagreed with you on the same point. LOL!!!
LOL Tony!!! Your writing ranks with the best of ’em, so it could have equally applied to you. But your status in the professional critical establishment may well be the most impressive in the blogosphere. The diagreement goes beyond you and Ed, several others have (rightly) questioned my position. Ed has always made a point of calling me out whether I am speaking at Wonders or at Stephen’s blog or anywhere else.
Yet Tony, I see more agreement than disagreement in your response to me, and your sentiments concerning Stephen’s reviews are fully shared.
But you said one thing here that I can join you in full celebration:
“The fact is that the landscape is changing. Professional critics are being eliminated by all kinds of publications because of budget cutbacks, putting them on equal footing with the bloggers out there. Bloggers (myself included) are being invited to press screenings and being paid for their work. The line of distinction is becoming a bit blurry, and that’s a good thing. The democratization of film criticism has reinvigorated it. And sooner or later, the cream will rise to the top.”
And as far as Armond White, I couldn’t agree with you more!!!
Yeah, I figured that was me being cited up there. Like Tony, I have no problem with any of the critics you’re referencing, and I have no problem with “professional” critics in general. My problem is with the method of argumentation you sometimes employ: when a blogger says they don’t like a film, your response is often to say, “but Jonathan Rosenbaum liked it” or “but the NY film critics voted it a prize” or etc. As Tony says, that’s not a sufficient counterargument; it’s barely even a counterargument at all. If you like a film and you’re responding to someone who doesn’t, or vice versa, the argument should be about the film itself, not about which critics, professional or otherwise, liked it or not.
That’s why I say that arguing from critical concensus is bankrupt. It’s not that I have no respect for these critics, because I do; I like and read many of the same critics as you, I suspect. And a good critic’s writing can change my mind or make me rethink a film or notice things I never noticed. Part of the reason I write film criticism in the first place is because I respect the tradition and the great writing and insight produced by these critics. What I object to is the idea that a numerical accumulation of critics — 9 out of 10 critics agree, Citizen Kane is the best! — means anything more than the sum of individual opinions. It doesn’t. It’s why I don’t take Rotten Tomatoes seriously, and why I always object when your argument seems to be along the lines of “the film must be worthwhile because so many critics like it.”
Anyway, as for the debate over “professional” versus “amateur,” the main difference in my mind is the pay scale, not the quality of thought or writing. Some of the best film criticism I’ve read has been by amateur writers on the web (including right here), and some of the worst has been from so-called professionals. There is increasingly little to separate an intelligent, observant amateur from a professional, especially now that actual paid jobs in this field are rarer than ever. I don’t really make any distinction between the “pro” critics I read and the amateurs, because I find much insight and intelligence among bloggers as well as respected pros like Rosenbaum, Farber, et al.
I am delighted to read this:
“It’s not that I have no respect for these critics, because I do; I like and read many of the same critics as you, I suspect. And a good critic’s writing can change my mind or make me rethink a film or notice things I never noticed. Part of the reason I write film criticism in the first place is because I respect the tradition and the great writing and insight produced by these critics. What I object to is the idea that a numerical accumulation of critics — 9 out of 10 critics……”
As I stated in the past Ed, I often have used critical opinion as leverage when it conforms with my own views. I don’t use it when it conflicts with my own, but I unfailingly respect it. But yes, the essence of what you say here is irrefutable.
As far as KANE, my overwhelming veneration for it was bulit on a number of factors, inluding serious film criticism, lectures in film classes, independent research, awareness of his incomparable influence and artistry, and my own recognition of it as a singularly spectacular work of cinema.
But your response here is nothing short of superlative.
God help us if professional film critics ever give up the game.
The thing is, fewer and fewer of them seem to be doing the job well. There are plenty of people who get paid to review movies who are horrible at it and there are plenty more who are imminently qualified, but toil away as a hobby. I think we can all tell the good from the bad though, regardless of who they write for and how much they’re paid.
Even with the solid critics though, I worry that the instant binary response given by review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes has a cheapening effect.
For me, a critic’s opinion of a film is secondary to how they communicate it. My hope is always that a good critic will get me to think about a film in a deeper way, for better or for worse, whether I agree with their overall attitude or not. A simple thumb up or thumb down doesn’t cut it.
I think consensus is a difficult thing to measure and it can also be dangerous. After a certain point, many people fall in line because it’s easier to do so than do the heavy lifting of having an alternative view. I think consensus should be respected for what it is, but it should also be challenged at every turn. Are we accepting something as a fact because a lot of people smarter than us have said it is so? Or are we really feeling and believing it for ourselves.
That’s partly why Sam, when I’m arguing with someone about whether a film is any good or not, the laundry list of critical accolades doesn’t go very far with me. It proves that a movie is well-received (or not), but it really doesn’t answer the question “is the film any good” which ultimately is an individual one to each person.
Film criticism (professional or hobbyist) is a tool in the deeper appreciation of film, but it’s not the only one.
“Even with the solid critics though, I worry that the instant binary response given by review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes has a cheapening effect.”
Absolutely Craig. Absolutely. And it’s also true that many are poor at what they do, and that criticism is second in importance to actually seeing a film and forming your own views and sentiments.
I got into some trouble on this thread by perhaps holding some to superhuman standards, but it’s basically an attempt to equate success with a general concensus, something that can’t always be validated. But I will always quote and reference the best instances of critical interpretation when I feel it enhances and/or corroborates my own position.
Thanks for this lucid and thought-provoking response!
I don’t have a problem with consensus and I’m often happier to be a part of it, but I do think it needs to be challenged. It’s too easy just to go along with it.
On the other hand, there are also people who will go against it just for the sake of being different, and that’s just as wrong.
The responses of Messrs Clark, Howard, and Dayoub, if nothing else demonstrate the very points made by Sam.
Youth is great if you have original ideas. Otherwise wide learning and experience trump you every time. And always some humility helps.
Bob Clark’s writing is undisciplined and arrogant. Tony Dayoub has only a little less hubris. They remind me of the just of out infancy governmental advisers from In the Loop, who are essentially clueless about realpolitik.
If Bob is so great, why is he hacking away for zilch? Why is his own blog virtually invisible? Give me a break and take a shower Bob.
Tony Dayoub (Tony D won’t work!) cites Theodore Sturgeon as some intellectual authority. In 1951 Sturgeon actually said “Ninety percent of SF [science fiction] is crud, but then, ninety percent of everything is crud.” Well, Pareto framed his principle, aka the law of the vital few, in 1906 and proved it mathematically, and the law is 80/20, not 90/10. But the coup-de-grace is his admission that he did not even condescend to read Stephen’s essay before debunking it!
As for Ed Howard, he would do well as a climate change skeptic.
And then there’s Tony D’Ambra, out to prove, singlehandedly if necessary, that the web really is full of nothing but name-calling trolls.
I prefer “ratbag”: Australian National Dictionary (1988) A trouble-maker, a rogue; an eccentric; a person to whom some opprobrium attaches.
Oh, I was rude. Rather rude than full of myself.
What do you expect when you give off with fatuous palaver like (note the royal ‘us’ and ‘we’): “Again, I insist there isn’t any real difference between any of us and paid reviewers, were genuine opportunities to be offered to us. We’re simply volunteer critics– should they be held higher just because they’re paid?”
I used the plural there simply because there’s a lot of talented writers who frequent this site, and in my opinion any of them would deserve the chance to work as a paid film critic. It wasn’t some ego thing, but rather meant as a compliment to the community of commentators here.
Just so I know, which blog am I being insulted for, exactly? I doubt it’s for my game-design blog (this is a different crowd), and I doubt you’re talking about my contributions to Ari’s site (which certainly isn’t invisible). Perhaps my occasional articles here? I can’t imagine you’d like “The Lovely Bones” or hate “Heaven’s Gate” enough to condescend to that type of stick-and-stonesmanship.
The Aspect Ratio:
Alexa: 1,887,737
Google PR: 3
WitD:
Alexa: 720,120
Google PR: 4
Okay, can somebody translate this for me? Sorry, I don’t speak internet pissing contest-ese.
Also, TAR isn’t my site, so what was this trying to prove, again?
For a blog/site to make the jump from a Google Page Rank of 3 to 4 is a massive hurdle, and very few do.
If a site is not listed in the top 1 million sites as ranked by Alexa/Amazon, it is invisible, i.e. has no worthwhile presence on the Web.
It is not a contest, it is a way of determining the reach and influence of a blog/site.
Well, looks like both of ’em beat me by a longshot!
One, I think it’s a very big, rude overstatement to say that lower stats equates to “no worthwhile presence” on the web. I’d been reading the reviews and writings on The Aspect Ratio for a long time before I began submitting articles to them, and I know I’m not the only one who counted it as one of their favorite film criticism websites. The fact that Ari has considered my writing good enough to publish there is something that I consider a great honor and compliment, and no matter how many fewer visible visitors we have at any given time, I’m always happy to say that my reviews can be found under his banner.
At any rate, Ari’s got a great thing going there, and I think it’s petty and unfair of you to insult it like that just because its statistics don’t impress you. We’re just trying to share our thoughts with the community of filmgoers out there, not try and win some popularity contest.
This is curious, as my Google Page Rank seems to be higher than both Wonders & Aspect Ratio (a 6) yet my Alexa ranking is quite low, not even crossing the 3 million threshhold. I’m not sure what this means.
All I know is that the #2 Alexa ranked website is… “Lindsay Lohan’s Controversial Cover Photo.”
Joel, the figures for the Dancing Image are indeed anomalous, and this is the nature of SEO (Search Engine Optimization) – you can’t rely on a single measure.
This is my take. You will have a lot of links from theexaminer.com, which (another anomoly!) has an Alexa ranking of #714 but a Google PR of only 3. This is explained by outward links from the Examiner having a greater weighting than inward links. Put it this way, the Examiner is doing you a big favor by keeping your pieces up.
Looking at back-links (ie inward links):
WitD – 23,011
FilmsNoir.Net – 8,881 (GPR 4 & Alexa #745,738)
The Dancing Image – 6,017
The Aspect Ratio – 1,128
“no worthwhile presence” based on google statistics?
That’s the best insult I’ve heard in a long time. Really, thanks though, Tony, it’s appreciated. It gave me a good laugh.
I’ve always had a small readership, even when the site was in full swing (which it’s not anymore, as I’m pursuing some other interests at the moment), and I’ve always loved that small readership, I’ve gotten a lot of feedback from that audience, I’ve met some great friends from that community and I’ve met some amazing collaborators, both for film analysis and filmmaking, because of The Aspect Ratio. Maybe it has no worthwhile presence to you, Tony, but it sure has meant something for a lot of other people.
Really, Sam, this is one of the the lowest of lows you’ve allowed in your comment section, and I’m a little surprised no one is calling him out on it except for Bob.
I don’t read Wonders in the Dark because of stats. I didn’t just recently vote it one of the Top 5 Film Websites for a blog critics poll because my google meter told me to. I enjoy the writing, the opinions and the discussion. That’s why I come here. I have no idea how many people hit the site a day, nor do I care. I’m just glad there’s a community here that wants to enjoy intelligent film discussion. It’s also why I read Living In Cinema, check in on Chuck Bowen’s blog and Alexander Coleman’s work and Glenn Kenny’s. I don’t rate their “worth” based on whether or not they’ve succeeded with the masses. I rate them based on what they contribute and how it affects me.
Ari: I just stopped home for lunch, and while I intend on coming back to thi sthread in full swing later today, I wanted to address your commentary here.
In the 20 months or so that Wonders in the Dark has been in existence I have maintained a complete hands-off policy on all comments at the site. Tony d’Ambra, who is one of the best friends I’ve met online, is a man who doesn’t mince words, nor compromise his opinions. While this strategy does no doubt create some hard feelings in some instances, I’d say he’s done far more good than harm, and a number of bloggers look up to him for his expertise and his mostly beneficial contrarian positions. His writing and research on FilmNoir is among the best in the entire blogosphere, and I can’t thank him enough for all the loyalty he has shown to me, nor for his tireless work at this blog. I am sorry his comment here came off as extremely insulting, but I am not so sure he was considering YOU, per se in his equation. Rather he was addressing specific writing within the parameters of the argument he was presenting.
In any case, far more contentious dialogue has existed at this site since the virtual beginning, and much of it -astonishingly enough – has been between my dear friend and site colleague Allan Fish.
Don’t take this as a personal insult. I have always respected you, your talent and your resilience. I do buy into your position that a small community of bloggers can make for a sustained and fruitful blogging relationship. I have become a good friend of your ace writer Bob Clark in recent months, and am eternally cognizant that he has produced some great work for The Aspect Ratio, where he still often posts.
I appreciate you’re tagging our blog with that honor, and will always look at your writings and comments with the utmost of respect, as I always have done. I am deeply sorry if you have been slighted here.
I am sorry to have placed Sam in this position. I appreciate Sam’s loyalty, and thank him for it.
Ari is asking Sam to censor comments. Clearly, this is not on.
Ari, there is always a context. Your collaborator made some rather grandiose claims. My response was intended to bring him back to earth. I did not insult your blog, you, or anyone else. I merely pointed out that on the only available measures, the reach and influence of The Aspect Ratio does not support Mr Clark’s inflated claims for his writing.
Can I use these as testimonials?
I would like to thank Tony D’Ambra for volunteering to be my own personal fact-checker. Though, if one parses my words carefully, one will find that it really wasn’t necessary. I never cited Sturgeon as “some intellectual authority.” And I never expected Sturgeon’s Law to be taken quite so literally. I felt it would help make a point, and given the conversation after, it looks like it did.
As to ignoring Stephen’s essay… I think people who know of my site; the fact that I give every kind of movie a chance (whether it’s a direct-to-video Marvel cartoon or the latest Criterion offering or a documentary by Pasolini); the open invitation I’ve extended to all bloggers be they professional or amateur to contribute to my site during the De Palma blog-a-thon I hosted last September; or my defense for Stephen to write his essay whether I think he’s full of it or not, should prove that I’m not condescending. No, I simply refuse to buy into the game Stephen’s playing, which is an old one: I have a new site, I need to scare up some followers, so let me put up a takedown about a “classic” film to get a spike in my readership. Attacking CITIZEN KANE on your 16th blog post? I don’t take that kind of bait. It doesn’t mean I won’t ever read it. I’m simply not gonna do it on his timetable, or aid in raising his readership.
As for Tony’s comment about hubris, I’ll definitely own up to it. You can’t engage film or any other art form on a truly critical level without some degree of arrogance.
Actually, I think we should clear something up, here. Stephen’s position on “Kane” didn’t originate on his site, but instead on this one. Let’s have Sherman set the Way Back machine to the last week in January, and you’ll see that Stephen’s inflamatory take on Welles’ innovative film originated in a thread dedicated to another inflamatory, innovative film: https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/the-birth-of-a-nation-no-62/#comment-21428
Just putting this out here to quell the accusations of grandstanding. Stephen shared his thoughts on this site before he elaborated on them over on his own, more or less at the encouragement of a few of us here (or at least me). It’s not like he said he’s bigger than Jesus.
Thanks, Bob. I stand corrected.
No prob, Tony.
“I have a new site, I need to scare up some followers, so let me put up a takedown about a “classic” film to get a spike in my readership. Attacking CITIZEN KANE on your 16th blog post?”
Perhaps you judge me by your standards. I don’t care one jot if no-one reads my writing. If they do and comment with intelligence and civility I will be happy to respond and discuss. I write comments on other people’s blogs to try and add something not to publicise myself.
It was my 30th blog post. My 16th was actually on LADY IN THE WATER(!).
Thanks, Bob.
“It’s not like he said he’s bigger than Jesus.”
No, but maybe CITIZEN KANE is.
Ahh, lion’s mouth! My head knows thee well!
Firstly, there is definitely a misuse of terminology here that is almost unique to cinema. As others have already pointed out above, reviewing a film and criticising it are too very different exercises. The former is mostly an emotive reaction (with reactions quantifiable along a subjective “like / did not like” axis), whilst the latter is more of an intellectual engagement with the work (this time using a form of objective “good / bad” axis).
For example, objectively, I know that “Antichrist” is a hugely fascinating film that is worthy of detailed analysis. Subjectively, I laughed out of ridicule the first time that I watched it and that showed in the review that I wrote after watching it just once. If I spent a week assessing the film in detail, it would be a reasonable expectation of mine that I would produce an entire different opinion of it.
Secondly, it is necessary to understand why the article in question has been written. Is it to give a “go / don’t go” recommendation (hopefully spoiler-free) or is to appraise the film in detail (assumes the reader has a good prior knowledge of the work)?
Thirdly, it is absolutely fallacious to put stock in someone just because they write for a newspaper – even a good quality one. As an expert in certain things (unrelated to cinema), I never cease to be amazed at just how much certain so-called specialist correspondents misunderstand their subject. (Of course, there are others who are very knowledgeable. However, my point was not meant as a denial of this fact!)
Fourthly, on the matter of the wisdom of crowds, I have generally found it an invaluable exercise that the more I am told that something is good, the harder that I should then put such assertions to the test. We live in an age of viral marketing, hype cycles, and sheep-like “me-too” bandwagon jumpers. The ability to think critically and independently has never been more important – even if one may arrive at more or less the same conclusions in the end.
Finally, the biggest disappointment for me about the Internet is how smart and enlightened people will still huddle together with those who agree with them the most (I do not know anyone here well enough yet, so it is not a remark targeted at anyone here). For me, the only way to be truly confident about your own opinions or beliefs is to test them against those who can confidently argue in favour of an opposing opinion or belief. It is what the Internet was made for. Plus, to hold yourself to any lesser standard is intellectual cowardice! 😀
Hear, hear. Personally, I see newspaper “reviewers”, as you’d call them, more of a commercial institution than anything else. They’re not just telling you whether or not they liked a movie, personally, but also telling you whether or not it’s worth spending money on. As such, they may very well have motives that are clouded by whatever individual or corporate allegiances they’re obliged to follow suit with (if one of Rupert Murdoch’s papers raves about a 20th Century Fox film, do you take it seriously?). The same goes for magazine “critics” like Denby and Lane, more often than not spending their time trying to outdo themselves with increasingly desperate witticisms in the guise of reviewing recent releases.
A friend of mine once had this to say on the difference between reviewers and critics– the formers adore every film they see, and the latters hate them. That’s about as good a definition as anything.
Wow, 48 comments in a few hours! And counting…
Looks like things got hot here. Allan, whose blustering on Stephen’s blog I thought rather over-the-top, redeems himself with an astute comment and a smart opening statement. I agree that “it’s true both ways” and will explain further after I’ve returned to read the rest of this ongoing dialogue, or raging argument if that’s what it’s become (and I’m pretty sure I know where both Tonys who seem to have butted heads, fall in this debate).
The rest of Allan’s comment is wise as well, though I still dispute his interpretation of Stephen’s post. It was not created to garner attention and create controversy so much as to justify and flesh out claims he had already made on this site, which I and others had challenged him on. As someone who was partially the impetus for this much-maligned post, I feel obligated to set the record straight on that one.
Anyway, though perhaps the way it’s written still rubs too much salt in Stephen’s wounds, I have to commend Sam for putting this up, whatever motivated it. It’s one of the central issues of blogging and indeed, writing in general, as the ball moves further and further into the amateur’s court. I look forward to jumping in…just give me a few minutes to take care of some other stuff.
I see that, actually, it was more than just a few hours. Look like I came a little late to the party. Still, a lively discussion and I hope it’s just taking a break, and isn’t over (though the fact that it’s quiet force me to go to bed at a decent hour rather than get pulled in further, not a bad thing as I’ve an early rise in the morning…)
Just about everybody quotes critics when there is general agreement. You could look at this disagreement from both sides with equal persuasiveness.
OK, let’s begin here:
By and large, Bob has a point. Film critics do not necessarily get paid because they’re better. They probably are better because they get paid. Money may not directly spur quality, but it does buy time, space, breathing room – all crucial qualities. If one earns one’s entire income from writing about film, one can focus the majority of one’s energy on developing that craft.
Even more important than this is the discipline imposed by writing professionally – on a deadline, within space limitations, under the eye of an editor. This is the flip-side of the “money buys time & space” argument, but in fact both are true and together they form the pressure cooker that forms the professional critic. (To be fair, there’s a spectrum here: “critic” critics lean further towards the extended time/space side of it, “reviewer” critics toward the journalistic discipline and economy of expression. Many of the best fall somewhere in between.)
I have written much that I am proud of. On a good day, I’m too proud; on a bad day, perhaps not enough. Sometimes I see a “professional” take and, recognizing its flaws, feel that I could match it. Other times, I feel embarrassed, thinking that their facility of expression greatly exceeds mine. There’s truth to both but at the end of the day, the gold standard is not how I compare to other critics, but how I compare to my own potential.
I have little doubt that my writing would be stronger with both the discipline and the opportunities that professionalism provide. In this sense, Bob is correct.
He’s also correct about professions breeding professionalism. The idea that are opportunities for a blogger to make way in the critical profession is laughable. Andrew Sarris just got fired. The critics are dropping like flies – when, last fall, I interviewed Gerald Peary (a film critic whose documentary “For the Love of Movies” has inadvertently become an alegy to the profession) he stated that his film opens with a disclaimer noting that “27 critics have lost their jobs in recent months” but that since the film had been completed, that number had tripled or quadrupled. In this sort of environment the notion that quality will rise simply doesn’t hold water. Critics are getting fired, not hired, across the board. The future, if there is one, is online where many once-pros have either been forced or chosen to relocate themselves.
As such, Tony d’Ambra’s notion of a vast chasm between the pros and the amateurs is greatly exaggerated.
All of this does not really address Sam’s initial point but I thought it was worth mentioning first.
Also to back up Bob – whose output on this thread I’ve found extremely impressive – Stephen did not put up the CK post to garner attention, but to expand upon a conversation which began on this blog. Even if he had put the post up for attention, I wouldn’t mind as long as the post itself was worthy (and I think it is). We all have to promote ourselves somehow – what’s important is less than terms of that promotion than the content being promoted.
There’s much more to be said, but I’ll save it for later.
Outstanding post here Sam. As you know many of these concerns are dear to me as well. There is I think a very basic difference between ‘opinion’ and ‘informed opinion’. In the latter group there will always be those whose views one might disagree with, perhaps most of the time but those views will nonetheless ‘inform’ or ‘educate’. Ultimately I am not very bothered by whether someone loves or hates Citizen Kane. But I am interested in the ‘reasons’. And of course there are degrees of ‘informed opinion’. You put it well. One has every right to one’s opinion but it should go with a certain humility. There are no right answers in these matters but there are those better framed than others or those that enlarge our understanding as opposed to preventing valid debate and so forth. But again a fine, honest piece.
That is an excellent discerning point there Kaleem, and it has been part of my objection to the review. Thanks for stopping by with your typical thought-provoking ideas.
When I talk of film criticism I am not talking about paid reviewers vs bloggers. I am referring to writing on film, professional or otherwise that meets certain criteria, which I proffered here the other day, viz: 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.
Sam ‘s post is in similar vein.
But thanks to the comments of certain individuals, the debate has been hijacked into a self-serving pros vs bloggers contest. I take no sides here, and at best this silly wrangling is a distraction. What I object to is posturing and conceit.
Quality writing and good criticism can be found in many places. I have no particular loyalty to the paid commentariat – again this is what I said at WitD a couple of weeks: [Up in the Air] epitomizes what is wrong with Hollywood movies, and the current state of mainstream film criticism. Local reviewers gave it 4 or 4.5 out of 5, and I was flabbergasted to see it has reached 90pct on Rotten Tomatoes…
Quality writing has flair, original ideas, and balance. It is leavened by humility, wisdom, learning that goes beyond the narrow sphere of the subject at hand, and most importantly humor.
Fair enough, though I do think Sam’s original post contained an element of pro vs. amateur dichotemy, and hence the conversation was not so much “hijacked” as nudged in a certain direction from the get-go.
Quality writing has many of the aspects you mention, but I’m not sure it’s always leavened by humility. Pauline Kael, maybe the most extraordinarily talented film-writer (not to say the best critic, though I’d say she was an excellent one) was not humble at all.
Sam is talking about young upstarts who think they invented film criticism, and are part of a self-congratulating coterie. Anyway, blogs are throwaway conversations that are forgotten well before their inevitable disappearance into a black hole in cyberspace. A headstone on a grave is more permanent but about as telling.
As for Kael, I suppose the exception makes the rule.
As posts I don’t think this is true – some of my posts (albeit ones that are relatively simple, the prose-heavy ones being the rare exceptions) are still drawing attention 1- 1 1/2 years later when people stumble across them and highlight them on a random site. I also try to fight this by centralizing my work, as just did with the directory post. Not that all of the work is equal (and some of it perhaps should be forgotten!) but still, I like to establish some sort of permanence.
As conversations, well don’t real-world conversations have the same effect?! At least online ones have a written record that sticks around, even if no one’s reading it. Like real conversations, online conversations can help form our opinions and have a lingering effect on us, whether or not we go back to re-examine them. In this sense, blogging is trying to achieve something different than criticism. To me, the strongest point of a site like Wonders is the dialogue that ensues – it’s helped me flesh out a lot of my ideas and stimulated many of my thoughts about the movies, and other topics as well. That’s not really an opportunity print criticism provides in the same sense.
In general, blogging is a more multi-headed beast than criticism. That’s why I’m in the process of setting up different sites, blogs, venues for my work – some of it is meant to be more ephemeral and to keep people coming on a steady basis. Other projects will be more in-depth, requiring more work and appearing more sporadically so that they’ll stay atop my blog for a while. I’m also considering starting up a site which would develop my function as a reviewer, perhaps with a smattering of advertising revenue, and with an approach more applicable to a general readership (for more or less the first time, I might actually and actively promote my online content to my real-world friends!). And finally, and it’s been on the backburner for a while, I want to do work that would actually take at least a week per piece to research and develop and flesh out, with trips to the library, multiple revisions, and the like. That won’t be happening in the next month or even two months (heck, I’ve been humoring this idea for a year) but it is – along with the notion of submitting more disciplined and articulate pieces to online publications – one of the engines driving my focus on blogging for the time being (despite the fact that writing ABOUT films is not and never has been my primary goal in life).
Rambling about myself, perhaps – but hey that’s what blogging is supposed to be right? Seriously, though, I think this helps clarify the multiple functions blogging can serve as it continues to develop. So that’s where I stand on the matter.
Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan and WitD readers…
Sam Juliano said,” intellectual film criticism written by the likes of James Agee, Andrew Sarris, Dwight MacDonald, Stanley Kauffmann, Andre Bazin, Pauline Kael, Dilys Powell, Leslie Halliwell, John Simon et al,…
One thing I know about film critic, writer and author James Agee, and that is this… he really scrutinized some films that “fall” or “fit” into the category of… Film noir. ( The Film Noir Foundation, sometimes features his writings (or rather his critiques of films from the 40s and early 50s 🙄 ) in the The Sentinel and believe me he (Agee) minced no words in his reviews of the films that were later to become known as…Film noir.
[Post Script:I didn’t mean to imply that critic, writer and author (James) Agee, only critiqued films that “fall” in the category of Film noir critically.
I just happen to have only read his critique of films that fit into that style of movie making.
Therefore, I’am quite sure his heavy pen/typewriter?!? ripped apart every film (No matter what the genre, style, etc, etc, etc…) that he didn’t happen to like when he reviewed the films. ]
DeeDee 😉
Good point DeeDee. Agee wrote a very dismissive and half-baked review of Wilder’s The Lost Weekend (1945) in The Nation , and this mitigates against uncritical veneration of figures past. The review is here http://www.thenation.com/doc/19451222/agee.
I was reminded of well-adjusted bourgeois shrinks who profess to tell us about depression. Perhaps only alcoholics are qualified to review a film about an alcoholic. Indeed, I often wonder if only film-makers are the only ones really qualified to critique films. Further, maybe only hoods, alcoholics, losers, and depressives have any call to talk about film noir.
If that’s the case my ‘The Lost Weekend’ review will be up shortly. Had quite a bender Saturday night…
“Indeed, I often wonder if only film-makers are the only ones really qualified to critique films.”
Well I don’t really think this is true, sometimes I wish more critics had a basis in filmmaking. I find that when I was more actively engaged in the process (and I’ve yet to make or script a feature, or to do anything at all for that matter in the past 2-3 years) my thinking about movies was much sharper, and I focused more on form than content – which has not been the case since I started blogging. Also, I think it gives you a more concrete sense of what’s going on – Richard Schickel has a great quote in a Kubrick documentary, saying that the critics were always looking for what wasn’t in a Kubrick film while the filmmakers paid attention just to what was in the frame. Hence, they appreciated his work more readily and in the long term the critics have come around in most cases.
Okay…all I’m going to say — and perhaps it’s a moot and idiotic point —
But I do sincerely hope the reason we all spend so much time watching and blogging/writing about films (in a “professional” capacity or not) is because we LOVE FILM…or at the very least THE IDEA of it.
So can we please stop “talking about talking about films” and simply “talk about films”?
Geeze.
P.S. Fascinating thread none the less! It’s always fun to see the egos at play.
Great post… the ‘meta’ stuff that surrounds all art I find jokey. One thinks of awards shows for example…
The only thing I believe more then never propping up idols, is never making over-generalized statements (not that Sam does, I mean other bloggers that Sam is talking about here). So I agree with the gist of Sam’s comment here (and it’s delivered very well to boot), but I do like the role of amateur on the blogosphere… true, I want nothing too amateur, but there are many, many writers around the world-wide-web that could be, and would be if cultures saw the value in these things a little more.
Allan’s book (which I want to give a hint, I’ve seen MUCH of), is one such example… I’d gladly place it alongside any film criticism book I own (and I will). And I’d do so on MANY levels: scope, volume, prose, wit.
It seems to me a more exact stance would be: I don’t like amateur’s when they act like amateur’s (this means laziness, not seen enough films, sloppy writing, and snide attacks on well respected writers). Sure I don’t like Kael, but I always say she is to be respected, and I always add I just favor Sontag more. It’s a preference… not me trying to make a cheap splash on a 10 cent insult.
Hey Jamie! Always great having you here making as you do excellent observations and assertions! Your position is the most logical in this debate. (which I am hoping now is winding down) Thanks for the kind words.
Wow, this is quite a conversation. Sam, Allan, and Joel have all provided well thought out and level-headed views along the way. Now here comes my perhaps slightly naive take on things…
My way of looking at this is simple enough because as a relative film neophyte I have the humility to know that my viewpoint is NOT the be-all, end-all. Perhaps that changes when you cross the threshold to “film expert,” I don’t know (and I certainly don’t sense that lack of humility from Sam, and only occasionally from Allan and only towards certain “rivals”).
With that in mind, I also know whose viewpoints I respect on things related to movies — those who have seen plenty more than I have, who have written plenty more, who have studied plenty more.
So, if one of those people I respect says a movie is great and has good reasons to back it up and I found it to be a dire piece of crap, then you know what, perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps I need to go back, rewatch, delve into it more and see if the points they brought up are valid. And if after all of that I still don’t like the film, well then I should have more than enough reasons to back up my claim and feel confident in my views.
Everyone deserves the opportunity to voice their opinion, it’s up the the reader to discern if its worth a damn or not.
I agree with this quite a bit. Nice job.
I use the blog-o-sphere quite a bit for genre. A new horror comes out that I missed? I’ll ask the Olson boys (or is it men?) if they have and if I should bother. A Noir? I’d seek out Dee-Dee or Tony. An off ball pick? Where’s Joseph ‘Jon’? A recent film? I seek Sam’s take. Avant-garde OR music? I want to know Ed Howard’s take. Anything else that slips through the cracks? I seek Allan.
Basically it took my ‘personal friends whose taste I trust’ from about 1 maybe 2 people, to around 15. For this I am very grateful, and thankful. And I hope to be this for others.
I like “The Olson Boys,” personally. Makes me feel like we are wild-west outlaws!!
I reckon’ then that we’ll all call you ‘boys’ till you get a few more notches on your belts.
And, of course, I’m talking ‘notches’ from the six-shooter and the whore-house. lol, I’m out, see you guys tomorrow!
Well Troy, this was tremendous. I don’t know what else to say.
Very interesting debate.
I think it’s important to be able to criticise any movie, even a profound work of breath-taking, jaw-dropping art, such as ‘Kane’. The only problem I had was that Stephane’s were all emotive and so antipathetically personal, that there was nothing to respond to. Pauline Keal’s full length attempt to put down Welles’ wasn’t worth any more than a pot of piss.
Love the Sturgeon quote.
As for Bob Clark, I found his review of ‘Lovely Bones’, one of the most professional, well argued and articulated pieces so far this year. Far superoir to most of the newspaper reviews. Even though, I find his adoration of Lucas amusing. At times Allan’s reviews remind me of Derek Malcolms, but with more passion, making me want to watch the movie. Movieman’s reviews are well-thought out, expressed and and VERY professional.
All I can ever ask of a writer is that they give sound, personalised, articulated reasons to their responses.
But there will always be someone who doesn’t like a movie or show, just shrugs their shoulders and says, that’s the way I feel.
Thanks, Bobby, I very much appreciate the compliments. I’ve always enjoyed your contributions to this site as well – one thing I forgot to mention (though perhaps I hinted at it in my response to Tony above) is that some of my favorite writing in the blogosphere has actually occurred in conversations, particularly on this site. Heck, even where I myself am concerned, I’ve often found myself more articulate and on-the-point when engaging in comments rather than trying to squeeze my ideas into the format (however loose) of a full “well-rounded” piece. One of the great developments of the past year for me has been the discovery of this site as a forum – I “got my start” online conversing on the IMDb and while I enjoyed the jump to blogging I felt I’d lost some of the snap and quality of my commentary. This helped correct that.
OK, real-world beckons, I’m gonna be late to work if I don’t slip out now. Peace!
And lest I forget Bobby, again a scholarly voice with th eproper perspective and acute insights. Kudos, Bobby.
Sam, I just stumbled across this post.
I am not sure why you have decided to expand and expound on matters chewed over and regurgitated before. I will let this thinly veiled attempt to relight my pyre pass.
My name is spelt ‘Stephen RUSSELL-GEBBETT’
Your argument against me and my review is riven with illogic. Your issue is not with my approach but with my conclusions which are in direct contravention of the most sacred rule here: ‘Thou shalt venerate the great critics…especially when they agree with you.’
I never attempted to denigrate film criticism but I feel that it is too late to make people see that because they are so blinded by the blasphemy I have committed. I too have been enriched by film criticism.
“It is all too easy for a novice, who lacks the proper skills to compete on this intellectual level to throw around arbitrary dismissals, as if their own personal “blog” was some self-annoited pillar of intellectual authority.”
We all have the intellectual authority to express our own thoughts. I don’t need to be anointed.
When I write a review praising a praised film – on ‘The New World’ for example – I am never taken to task or held to account for my lack of authority nor accused of inciting people to slathering displays of joy. You too are expressing an opinion and, so far, a second-hand one, one which does not speak too well for your intellectual authority. I suppose it qualifies as a ‘rant’ because it is UNEQUIVOCAL and NEGATIVE. Of course you would rant about LADY IN THE WATER and MovieMan has ranted about Peter Jackson’s KING KONG.
If I lack the intellect or skills with prose that does not mean the views I am trying to express are instantly worthless.
“…in favor of largely arbitrary judgement based on something as negligible as personal taste.”
Personal taste informed by study and careful engagement with the texts of the film. Do you think that individual judgments can suddenly create a concrete truth like an agglomeration of neurons in the brain may suddenly trigger an over-arching consciousness?
Again, Sam, this post is simply saying I am arrogant because I strongly disagree (though I never posted it to be contrarian) and I am wrong because beknighted critics say I am. You misunderstand my purpose, you misrepresent my approach, you stifle my right to a view and you do so as no more than a mere conduit, a mouthpiece of other critics. You attack my review from behind their battlements, lobbing and running and waiting for people to come to your aid.
I don’t blame you. This is something that you feel very strongly about and forms a large part of your critical philosophy.
I am not attempting to garner publicity – the blog is written for ME. If no-one read it I would continue to write. It is an extension of writing I have been doing for years on paper and it is no more than a hobby – a hobby that may begin to lose its appeal. Does witchhunt have one H or two?
I read here about the purpose of film criticism. Surely the greatest purpose is to welcome views and expand horizons and I’ll be back to have mine expanded by the normally open-minded and fascinating writing that is posted here.
P.S.
My name is spelt ‘Stephen RUSSELL-GEBBETT’, three Es and everything doubled.
No Stephen, my argument against you and your review as you state it is not riven with “illogic.” Many others here seem to think otherwise. But you are constantly saying how right you are with self-congratulatory comments. Nothing like having the writer of a piece always saying how right he is. Again, as always that trademark lack of humility that you are quickly being known for. I stated my piece (I see Joel thought it a good idea I posted this) and have not hidden afterwards as you suggest. I went to sleep last night at around 12:00 midnight, and I am now up and ready to leave for my full-time teaching job. Until late last night I was monitoring responses here and as you may have noticed I added a few.
When blogger after blogger takes issue with your lack of humility, I really don’t think it’s so convincing when YOU respond by saying that you ARE humble. Again, I am not at all turning my back on this post, but I will be unable to get back to it until later in the day. (which I will do)
Sam, what is my lack of humility? My review of the film was a review of the film, stating my points and since then I have been only defending my right to have posted those points.
“…saying how right you are with self-congratulatory comments”
How right I am about what? All I’ve been saying is ‘give me a fair go’. The only thing I know I am right about is the accurate reporting of my own opinion – which is all I ever did with my review.
What am I congratulating myself on? All I asked was that people engage with the substance of my review and the substance of the film. Instead I have been ostracised and ridiculed. I have received 77 comments on the review and a tiny minority of them has tried to get at the detail of the film and discuss it with me (MovieMan says that he will do so, which I very much look forward to though we do not see eye to eye on a lot of things).
There are people here and there who have not seen my approach as lacking humility and have taken what I have written as it was meant.
“Again, as always that trademark lack of humility that you are quickly being known for.”
If it is lack of humility to stand one’s ground when you are being browbeaten, then I agree with you.
I started commenting on these sites for their earnesty, civility, honesty and open-mindedness. Yesterday you said that people’s comments towards me had left ‘a bad taste’ in your mouth. If so, why would you start the argument up again? And if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth think what taste it leaves in mine.
Stephen, I’ve tried to defend your intentions and the piece on this thread, and will continue to do so. However, as to the “lack of humility” I don’t think you purposefully set out to “not be humble” but, in essentially dismissing the importance of other views to forming your own, and in the forcefulness of your language the piece is not very humble. Frankly, I don’t mind this – as I pointed out to Tony, Pauline Kael was resolutely anti-humble and she’s my favorite writer. To say the piece was not humble, I do not mean to imply it was full of hubris – I think there’s a middle ground in between and you inhabited. But I think you are seeing the real-world consequences of your at best agnostic view towards critical “objectivity”.
In light of the response your piece has engendered, and your frustration with it, I am increasingly seeing our philosophical debates as less and less abstract and hence less a waste of time than I originally thought (phew!). By using forceful language but then denying the intent behind them (a sincere denial but I have to know you to know that) you are leaving yourself without a leg to stand on because you can’t really defend your work except by recourse to personal “opinion” which is not enough for most people, who don’t define criticism the way you do.
For myself, as I’ve said from the beginning, I DO think the piece and your observations can be taken as objective criticism and not merely the entirely personal musings of an individual. But by refusing to defend it yourself on those grounds (and by refusing to write it with the requisite tact, self-questioning, and concern for the views of others such an overtly “objective” mindset would probably entail) you’ve left yourself open to attack.
As to the nature of the attacks, I’ve expressed my disappointment with them. But I think you’d be better able to fight them off or at least counter them with something more substantial, if you considered criticism a more concrete, objective enterprise. Just my 2 cents – but I’ll continue to stick up for your right to express your opinion and your skill in doing so.
MovieMan,
“…in essentially dismissing the importance of other views to forming your own”
Do you have any idea how many reviews, essays, dissertations I have read on Citizen Kane? Hundreds. If I don’t namecheck them or constantly qualify every sentence with: ‘in my opinion’ or ‘others think otherwise’ (which are both redundant) doesn’t mean that I haven’t researched thoroughly what others think.
“…you can’t really defend your work except by recourse to personal “opinion” which is not enough for most people, who don’t define criticism the way you do.”
And yet the irony is that no-one here will actually address the fundamentals of the film in question. Surely the best debunking of criticism is one’s own criticism.
I didn’t mean to imply that you hadn’t read the scholarship on or criticism of Kane. Just that you didn’t really acknowledge it in your piece, which does imply that you don’t think it necessary to give a film’s legacy or reputation much weight when dismissing it. You’ve said as much here and elsewhere.
Your review, while laudatory in many ways, certainly was not so much a grappling with the film’s reputation – except in a superficial sense which praises its technique – as a grappling with the film itself. That’s fine, just don’t be surprised when people resent the fact you’ve given legacy short-shrift. As I said in a comment before you put the Kane piece, part of a truly effective dismissal would entail enjoying something, seeing what others praise in and then saying, “Yes, but…” You paid respect to some of the devices and surface elements of Kane, but not really to the spirit which by your own admission you didn’t pick up on.
In this same sense, my dismissal of Kong is hindered because I truly didn’t like the film. Hence its supporters could have some ground to stand on in saying I didn’t “get” it, though of course to a certain extent I’ll dispute this. The reason you are encountering much more resistance to your critique of Kane (aside from the fact that I’ve not actually written a review of Kong) is that you’ve far more of a mountain to climb in that regard. To you this may not matter, but to many other people it does – they feel that homage must be paid even in a write-off and that, if toppling an idol, one must present an understanding of why the idolators flocked to it in the first place. I sympathize with that view to a certain extent, even if I don’t take it to the same extreme as others.
The point is that you can write however what you want to, just don’t be surprised when your approach engenders hostility (you don’t have to take it lying down, just be prepared is all). Here I’m trying to lay out why, for better or worse, that is the case.
I’m not trying to topple an idol.
I did not mention the film’s legacy or reputation because I never do. A film is liked and has had an influence, yes, but I must form my own, separate opinion. Anyway, people are aware of that legacy and I did not feel the need to mention it.
The unbridled hostility is ludicrous because my dislike of the film does not change IT nor everyone else’s opinion. It amounts to bullying. I am one person.
A summation of my stance before I go:
I wrote a review that was negative about a film that is loved. That seemed enough to condemn me.
I wrote it on all aspects of the film (use of light, use of symbolism, structure, use of space, characterisation, acting…) and backed up my statements with what I believed to be the problems that stopped me engaging with it. I have read countless pieces on Citizen Kane by all the critics mentioned and found them fascinating. But I am unable to simply adopt their observations and views like putting on a cloak. I launched into the film because I thought it was poor. I didn’t even mention other people’s views so I couldn’t have disdained them. It’s just my view. I never denigrated film criticism because I read it and value it non-stop. It was never written to be contrarian nor to insult people.
I have never once been taken to task for the meat of my essay.
People equate dislike of something revered with automatic ‘wrongness’ which to me is damaging to film criticism.
I never lacked humility – I said this is the truth of the film to ME. It seems that people believe humility to be me admitting that Kane is great after much concerted bullying or admitting that I am suffering a delusion of the mind and that actually I did love it. I have written wildly positive pieces that have no back-up and people have simply agreed with them. I have always commented on people’s reviews with my own thoughts without recourse to insults or instant dismissals. Recently I wrote to each of the people whose animated reviews I linked to asking permission because I thought they might not want to be on my site.
Many people here believe a well-researched and thorough look at Citizen Kane can never result in a negative review and hence assume it is a personal, superficial take-down. And automatically ‘wrong’. I think this approach is illogical.
I wrote it with honesty and truthfulness but maybe if people react with such closed-mindedness and aggression bloggers and people in general will begin to think twice before professing love or hate for something. I see it all the time everyday – embarrassment people feel at deeply held loves or deeply felt dislike. Sacred cows or not, if you cannot say what you believe there really is no point.
I started my blog to have a good, clean place to put my reviews and add images. I don’t care about publicity or shock value because I write almost exclusively for myself.
I don’t know if I’ll come back here because while there are a few who can engage with differing views without patronising and insulting behaviour they are drowned out by the many. It’s not really the place I thought it was.
Stephen, I don’t think most people expect you to wear critical consensus like a cloak, but they do expect you to humor it. You didn’t. Rightly or wrongly, they interpreted that as a snub. I’m not claiming the response to your review has been fair – by and large, it’s been grossly unfair. I’m just trying to point out what it was that caused the reaction, fair or not. I hope you’ll take that in stride – you have nothing to apologize for, indeed I wish you’d defend the piece MORE vociferously (although I don’t blame you for growing weary and wanting to retreat for the moment, though I sincerely hope you return) instead of muddying the waters with claims that it’s “just” your opinion. That’s only blood in the water for the sharks: it’s your opinion, but it’s an INFORMED one, and so far it’s been proven superior to that of people who have merely asserted the film’s legacy and moved on. So you’ve nothing to be ashamed of in terms of review; that said, your mystification at the response is unnecessary. You should strive to understand what provoked people, whether or not the result of said provocation is deserved (I don’t think it is). In other words, my description of your writing is offered in the spirit of constructive advice (I wouldn’t even call it constructive criticism, as it’s not meant to be critical so much as observational). My further 2 cents.
Please don’t be chased away from Wonders. You’re not the first to have a bruising encounter with the commentariat here, though I’ll admit the gang mentality was a little more severe in your case (though not especially). Others have licked their wounds and returned stronger than ever; I hope you will too.
Stephen, I read your opinion of KANE. You are entirely justified to react to the film the way you do, but it does seem that your reaction happened in a vacuum with regard to theatrical and cinematic styles of the time. I think it is important to note that Welles comes out of theatre, and his construction has more than a little to do with Brecht’s epic theatrical style. Trying to read older films through newer eyes is like translating ancient Egyptian using a Klingon dictionary. I frequently get apoplectice when people rant about John Barrymore’s hammy style – it reflects an utter ignorance about acting tradition, silent cinema, and relatable experiences for audiences of the 1920s. One thing I prefer in my reading is opinion informed not just by visual and verbal literacy, but also by historical contextualization.
I also have a question about why you choose to write a blog. You could just as easily write a diary if all you’re doing is writing for yourself. In fact, it would be preferable so that such firestorms would not erupt over your personal thoughts as you seek to discover how you relate to cinema.
Marilyn, my feeling is that Stephen’s in a conflicted position here. He’s actually a very strong critic but he’s somewhat compromised by his attachment to this idea of extreme subjectivity. To venture forth into the arena and defend yourself and your ideas, you have to believe they are worth something to some, to some larger structure, than just yourself. That they have an objective validity, so to speak.
I could also use a little more context in his consideration too, but that’s a minor quibble – he does engage with the film and I know that its age is not especially a hindrance, as he seems to like plenty of classics. As for the subjectivity, him and I have been over this ad nauseum on his site, so I hope it doesn’t ignite another rehash here! But I thought it worth mentioning as an addendum to your comment.
“You are entirely justified to react to the film the way you do, but it does seem that your reaction happened in a vacuum with regard to theatrical and cinematic styles of the time.”
Marilyn, I am quite well versed in the context in which the film was created. The problem of course is: should you report through ‘newer eyes’ a more personal and truthful account of your experience or try to awkwardly adjust it, with guesswork and academic objectivity after the fact as if you were a contemporary of Welles’.
As MovieMan says I like and admire films of the time and find no issue with enjoying and being stimulated by films that are so wildly different from what we have now. I get into the spirit and style of a film pretty quickly.
“I also have a question about why you choose to write a blog. ”
I started to write a blog, Marilyn, to have a clean place for an archive of thoughts and reviews (I had always written on paper but cannot add illustrations or keep them safe from harm) – especially a long piece on Revenge of the Sith. It was never meant to be a platform for my critical voice.
I write and if people comment I respond in kind. It’s good to share thoughts and perspectives (especially with intelligent and highly talented writers like yourself) but I think I would continue to update my blog even if I was the last man on earth.
I hope that answers your question, Marilyn.
‘even if I WERE the last man on Earth’
Sorry Sam, I didn’t mean to correct the spelling of my name twice.
No problem, Stephen.
re: to worship or not to worship Citizen Kane
forgive the digression, but the Emperor is naked.
Sam, by lobbing things and running, I meant that you were standing behind other critics and not coming out with your own detailed refutations. I didn’t mean that you were cowardly in some way and I am well aware that people have places to be and beds to go to.
I’m sorry.
I read Stephen’s review and I found it enormously condescending to its audience. He keeps saying that ‘he writes for himself.’ If so, why have a blog at all? Try a diary. Blogs by their very intent are aimed at being read by others, not as some self-serving record of thoughts.
The tone he uses in the review is wise-ass and one of ridicule. And wanting to make him feel good aside, I don’t think it’s well-written either.
“Try a diary. Blogs by their very intent are aimed at being read by others, not as some self-serving record of thoughts.”
Because a blog is a much smarter and visually appealing archive. I started the blog to have somewhere to put my essay of Revenge of the Sith.
“The tone he uses in the review is wise-ass and one of ridicule. And wanting to make him feel good aside, I don’t think it’s well-written either.”
I don’t think it’s that well written. There are many writers who frequent these parts (JAFB and Marilyn especially) who I think are far more capable of succinctly and lucidly putting across their thoughts.
If I believe aspects of the film to be bad, I say so. That does not equate to ridicule.
I also read the review and I think the author doesn’t “understand” the film. The writing is very poor, the insights pedestrian, and the attitude defensive. Anyone can disagree with anything, but they first have to come to the subject with the right intellectual credentials.
“Kane smacks of the work of a student of film not yet a film-maker. The compositions do not derive from the characters’ internal world (like a snow globe smashing, spilling the internal out) but are imposed externally, untethered to what they mean to speak of. On first viewing I missed an entire scene’s worth of dialogue, distracted by overblown expressionist design. Time and again the acute chiaroscuro, the giant sets, the muddying echoes fall into parody. The film essays foreboding grandeur but the text is simply drawn and its illustrations seem ridiculous in their imposition of hifalutin, steroidal ‘meaning’.”
Oh really? This review smacks of a writer, not yet a critic. So what does this tell me? It tells me that the writer’s taste is not for this kind of film. I wonder if the writer even understands the convoluted, preposterous final sentence he wrote here. This is a series of irresponsible musings, not anything approaching a serious review.
You have chosen one of the weaker examples in Stephen’s arsenal, Frederick (I too thought that argument somewhat specious, but maybe that’s because I have a severe lack of focus myself and hence would be remiss if I invested much worth in my own distractability!).
But elsewhere he ties his feelings into concrete examples from and observations about the film, similar to those which even some of the film’s defenders have pointed out. (The shallowness of some of the devices, the gimmickry of the aesthetic, the flamboyance of Welles’ performance – all of which I myself like, but which are open for criticism.) Since you have rather brutally savaged the review, why not go into further detail about why you didn’t like it or where you think it fell short? (I appreciate the fact that you’ve given at least one example, which so many others have not done.)
After all, Stephen may have knocked Citizen Kane but at least he did so in great detail and with an attempt to relate why he felt the way he did. His own piece deserves the same treatment, I think.
This might only be the beginning. Stephen might be planning soon to tell the world that Murnau’s “Sunrise” and Chaplin’s “City Lights” are bad films. There’s always one who has to place himself above everything else. That’s too bad. But you people are just as guilty for taking this jokester seriously. He’s not important, he’s just a blogger desparate for attention.
John R., for Pete’s sake how many times to Bob, I, and others have to demonstrate that Stephen was concluding a conversation begun on this blog and that we encouraged him to write the piece? It’s a well-written review and it’s worth being debated on its merits instead of dismissed out-of-hand as commentator after commentator are doing.
I think there is seriously something wrong when someone is far more expressive and animated in conveying what they hate more than what they love. The review being discussed here is the most close-minded I’ve ever read. But I will strive to keep the discussion open, and later this afternoon will attempt to enter as civil a response as I can to Stephen’s previous lengthy response earlier this morning.
Likewise, I urge all to proceed on this thread with maximum civility.
Allan, have you read Stephen’s other pieces? He’s quite expressive and animated in discussing films he loved – the very first piece on his blog is on Fire Walk With Me and it’s a brief but evocative distillation of the film’s effect. Elsewhere, he’s written in longer form but with no less enthusiasm of films he loved. In fact, before he wrote Kane, I was actually hard on him because I didn’t think he fleshed out his negative views enough!
I have read a couple, Movieman, and I agree with you to a point. His piece on Kane, however, verges on arrogance, and while having a certaina rrogance in your character might help if you want to get on in this line of writing, it’s best not to put it down in print. His Kane piece was the equivalent to climbing into a bullring dressed in bright red and shouting “here boy!” as if it needed further encouragement.
Whoops, sorry I thought that was you, Allan above – looks like it was Sam. I agree with you about the provocation – though really, I do believe its extent was unanticipated and unintended – but I wish you hadn’t all taken the bait and acted like bulls! At some point I hope you and the others will take a step back and carefully counter some of Stephen’s points, at least if you’re going to keep accusing him of arrogance.
Anyway, I’d love to continue this, I’ve found the whole exchange invigorating despite some of the sour aspects, but right now I have to step away from the computer and won’t have access again till later tonight. Looking forward to returning.
As a “blogger”, I’d like to think that, from time to time, I write something that really makes an impact or even raises an eye-brow. I learn every day, I look forward to more study, and I hope that my future reviews and essays really make some kind of a wave or, in most likely probability, just mean something to a single person. However, though I am no great critic, I can see the double-edge of this sword. If I were to stress one thing though, its that any statement, whether grand or minute, should always be backed by fact or a deep understanding of the art form. I disagree with many professional critics. But, part of the joy of criticism, for me anyway, is just that kind of disagreement taken from a review that is learned and original in presentation, that sparks a challenging discourse. I, personally, believe in sacred cows (that’s me). So, when something like the brilliance of KANE is put to the test, the reviewer better have the facts straight. If he does, then more power to him and be ready for heat.
Personally, I adhere to Harlan Ellison’s hard-line stance when it comes to film criticism (and I think he would argue, criticism in general) that people are entitled to their own informed opinion. Anyone can have an opinion but if isn’t backed up by some kind of well-thought out opinion, at least a modicum of experience and/or knowledge of film history and or grammar of film and presented in a coherent way than what is the point? At least, that’s what I usually look for.
That being said, what constantly amazes me about so many of the film blogs (including this one) out there is how humbling it is to read a given post on a film I know nothing about or a film I haven’t seen in ages, etc. and realize how much more I have to learn about film history, criticism, etc. I look at film criticism/writing as a constantly evolving thing/process. I am always hungry to read a new point-of-view or take on either a tried and true classic or a brand new release and see what the writer brings to the table. And I think that’s what film criticism does best. I feel, at least in my own writing, that there is always room for improvement, always more to learn, and always more films to see. I think that if I ever stop feeling that, then it’s time to stop writing.
Outstanding contribution here J.D. Thanks for stopping by as always.
Well, I have the same problem with Stephen’s review of Kane as I do with some of Bob’s pieces. Its the authoritative tone. I never mind an opinion, but preface the piece as “my opnion.” Really, the only thing that has ever maddened me about my good buddy Bob is the way he comes off as THE voice that should be heard. I feel the same here. Rather than say “look at it from my perspective” and hope to have us tilt our heads for a brief second with KANE, Stephen comes off as if to say that his negative response to the film is the ONLY logical response. Its the same as Bob repeatedly hammering that without the rape being confronted that THE LOVELY BONES has absolutely no merit. But, THIS IS MY OPINION….
(1) Prefacing an opinion-piece by stating it’s your opinion is both redundant and defensive. It’s less a way of qualifying your statements as subjective and personal and more a way of chickening out of them, lest anyone disagree. The primary concern for anyone writing an opinionated piece should be to back up their opinions with observations, interpretations and if necessary/possible, well-researched precedental statements. The only place a disclaimer like that is welcome is in the opening screens of a DVD, so corporate studio stooges can cover their asses from any embarassing comments the filmmakers make in the supplemental features.
(2) Why is it people only ever get mad about “authoritative/opinionated” pieces when they disagree with them? Whenever anyone delivers the usual critical felatio unto “Citizen Kane”, nobody ever demands that they qualify it by saying it’s “just their opinion”. Is it only because it’s popular? Are fringe voices the only ones that need to ask permission to voice their own views like that? If you’re so confident of your own views, wouldn’t it be unnecessary to have to announce that I’m only speaking for myself?
I totally agree with Bob. It’s pointless for a critic to constantly remind his or her readers that any given statement is only one person’s opinion. It goes without saying that any critical essay is of course only the opinion (hopefully supported with evidence) of one critic. I disagreed with some of Stephen’s piece, and I’ve certainly disagreed with Bob in the past, but neither of them should have to apologize for forcefully stating their opinions, just because they’re minority opinions. If a critic backs up an assertion with ideas and evidence, that should be all that matters — and if you disagree, either state how you interpret their evidence differently or present evidence of your own. I think the namecalling and insults that Stephen has faced from some here and at his own site are despicable.
You know, I just realized– Stephen did preface his piece by saying it was “his opinion”. He’s done so on all his pieces. So do I, on all my essays. So does everyone who writes about film, whether it be in print, in online articles, or even just in the comments. You know how we do so?
WE US OUR NAMES. The credit “Written by ________” should be more than enough to specify whose opinion you’re reading.
Bob, it’s an opinion about a fact. An opinion about a favorite color (“I prefer blue to red”) and an opinion about which color is most visually appealing (“red is too garish to compete with the subtle appeal of blue”) are not the same sort of opinions. One is whimsical, one makes an assertion which can be challenged. Stephen’s pieces fall into the latter category.
Yes, Man, but the response that Stephen has been getting hardly represents a fair, honest challenge. He’s told us why he doesn’t like the color blue, while everyone else does nothing but scream that it’s their favorite and he should be ashamed of himself. And I still feel that insisting any contrary assertion ought to be qualified by such a disclaimer is really pretty awful. If anyone were to actually do so, I’d consider it extremely unprofessional– if you don’t have the courage to let your conviction stand for itself, why should I bother to listen?
Bob, don’t get me wrong – I agree with your last assertion but the problem is that Stephen is retroactively trying not to let his convictions stand on their own by disclaiming them as “his opinion.” I’d rather he stuck by them as making some sort of objective claim about the work, but he doesn’t want to do this and I think it’s made his case weaker dealing with the rather nasty attacks he’s received. But I’ve been over this already, so I won’t repeat. (Btw, Such disclaimers wouldn’t really help here anyway as “I believe Welles is over-the-top” is still closer to “Welles is over-the-top” than “Welles’ performance didn’t work for me.” In other words, it’s still making a concrete statement which judges the work, not just reflects one’s reaction to it. In yet other words, it’s a criticism – which is what I’d like to see Stephen’s work defended is, and may have to do so myself eventually!)
Look, that’s just a bigger part of your whole objectivity/subjectivity debate, and while it’s a worthy topic of discussion (even one that might bear considerable influence over this whole scuffle) I think it’s best not to drag Stephen into it, necessarily. Stephen is expressing his personal opinion, and that subjective position very well may best be represented as evidence towards some objective realities regarding the overall qualities of Welles’ film, but let’s not quibble over it when he’s trying to express, genuinely it would seem, the same type of humility that so many of his detractors seem unwilling or unable to practice themselves.
Don’t get the wrong idea– I don’t necessarily disagree with your position. I just don’t want to risk adding any friendly fire here.
A tip to make yourself look really busy while at work. Subscribe to this thread with your Blackberry/IPhone, set the phone on the table during a meeting. You will look like a VIP with the amount of buzzing your phone does. I should know, I just tried it!
So let’s keep calling each other names, it might get me a raise.
(This whole thread has gotten to the point where it feels like it is running around in circles, no? Everyone seems fairly entrenched in their views, which is fine, but I think we are past the point of convincing anyone of anything and at the pissing contest portion. Maybe we should all go out for a drink together and move on with things.)
Troy, you have injected the humor we have sorely needed here!!!
LOL on that hysterical anecdote!!!!
Yes it is indeed time to move on and have a drink.
Just so you know, I’m not belittling or dismissing the fact that there has been some extremely good debate and conversation in the course of this. Debate is good and even a little arguing can be healthy, lest we all adhere to group-think (which tends to happen in many blogging communities). I was merely trying to bring some levity to something that was devolving into mean-spiritednessm, which just seems unnecessary.
I’d like to address this whole subject of arrogance. I believe that MovieMan indicates a core problem people are having with Stephen’s critique. His writing about the film is very interior, subjective, a flowing reaction to what he’s seeing and how it hits him at this moment, that moment, the next moment. KANE is theatrical in many ways, although it is ground-breaking in its cinematic aspects as well. From a narrative point of view – which seems to me to be what Stephen engaged with the most – the film is flawed. It plays like “Death of a Salesman,” and is iconic in the same way that play is (Willy is everyone’s father, I learned from comments on my review of it). That’s why the objective reality of what “Rosebud” means is just a McGuffin, an introduction to the mystery of personality that ends up being a not very real personality at all (that it was modeled on W.R. Hearst, one of the greatest fabricators and mythmakers of them all is very telling). From a cinematic point of view, I think Stephen needs to work much harder to tear KANE off its pedestal, because its visual language is much richer. That he thinks it lacked subtlety or was redundant or bludgeoning in parts cannot take away from the whole, which creates a gothic world in grotesque detail.
Everyone, just as we need to approach new cinematic frontiers with open, inquisitive minds, I think we need to understand a new and forceful view in the film blogosphere who doesn’t do what is expected. His approach is as close to sitting in the mind of a person in a dark theatre as any I’ve seen. Bravo.
Brilliant, brilliant comment here Marilyn. I can continue to disagree with the way Stephen has gone here, but still be greatly impressed with your penetrating insights.
OK Stephen, now that many of my most respected blogosphere luminaries have chimed in with excellent responses here, I think it’s time I attempt to address some of the issues further.
Joel Bocko (a.k.a. Movie Man) has been the heart, soul and conscience of this thread from it’s launching. Joel is a big critics’ guy and he’s as well read on the subject as anyone I’ve ever encountered. He’s also been your biggest supporter (Bob Clark of course has also been) and he’s tried numerous times to reason with you by simultaneously celebrating the bravery of your essay, while appraising you that you methods have been far less than polished and/or respectful of your “audience” whether you write for them or not. Joel Bocko seems to have grasped the essence of film criticism and how it can inform a reputation or a legacy, based on exhaustive study. When Joel politely advises you that your views are welcome and somewhat inspired in ways, but then appraises you of the inevitable firestorm, you immediately disagree and refute every point he makes.
With you it’s “I am 100% right” and nobody else is allowed take issue with a single contention you’ve made. Do you think Stephen that maybe, just maybe, you might be out of line with just a single proposal? Does the word “compromise” enter your vocabulary at all? When Ed Howard, who seems to be especially incensed at the some of the dialogue on this thread, goes to your site several days ago and commends you on your review, but then issues some disclaimers, you immediately go on the defensive claiming he is missing the point. You won’t accept a single divergence of opinion, without your incessant need to retaliate. Howard was largely ‘complimenting’ you, but you immediately contested his polite issues. When the same Ed Howard posed a superlative argument with me yesterday, suggesting I valued professional criticism to a fault, I backed off and commended him for his impeccable insights. Same with Bob Clark and Tony Dayoub. You refuse to yield an inch, which I’m afraid is the problem here in the first place. Surely one of these blogosphere intellectuals has made a single, worthwhile point in this sometimes contentious discussion, no? Surely you can’t be correct all the way through right? Haven’t you learned the proper etiquette of blogging yet, which entails respect for the other person, and open-mindedness with their positions? I have found -believe it or not- that making friends with people, and enjoying PC comeraderie is far more important and desirable than whatever film knowledge they may impart?
I find it rather strange that you make claim to reading the volume of criticism on CITIZEN KANE that you make claim to? How old are you if I might ask? I’m approaching my mid 50’s now, and as obsessed as I’ve been with this particular film throughout my life, I’ve been unable to get to all the criticism. It’s strange too that you make this claim and never once use a reference or counterpoint in your review, choosing instead to dismiss on the strength of “personal opinion.”
The main issue with your review is that apart from one admission – “the statue scene” is spectacular – you find not a single other element in the film worthy of commendation. Surely there are just a few strengths in a film that so many continuously regard as the greatest of all-time? Sure one little stroke of genius in a film directed by a man many consider the world’s greatest cinematic figure? Surely something was right in this film, no? But with you there is NO middle ground, not with CITIZEN KANE, not with other bloggers, nor with critical study. Your piece may have been far more enlightening if you would have acknowledged the effusive praise and juxtoposed it with you own disent. Surely, Stephen some other people have interesting things to say no? Decades of intensive analysis and years of scrutiny must have surely yielded an iota of worthwhile discourse no?
When you say this:
“Kane, frustratingly, remains two-dimensionally childish. He feels betrayed by everyone around him and roars his disapproval in maniacal tantrums: “They’ll think what I tell them to think!”. He is a ravenous monster (“are you still eating?” “I’m still hungry!”). His selfishness walks hand in hand with his pride, his hubristic zeal. Everything is about him.”
-you make rhetorical admission that you missed the whole point of Kane’s character, the film and American capitalism. Understanding the essence of what this film is, requires a cognizance of it’s central themes.
You are entitled to dislike this film or any other, but some of your assertions are insulting, I must tell you. And if you come back here and claim otherwise, as you inevitably will, I will stand by my own perceptions as you have behind yours.
Numerous people on this thread – Marilyn Ferdinand, Kaleem Hasan, J.D., etc have stood back from the fray and have rationally made suggestions and expressed well-formulated views. Perhaps at some point in time you will look at the whole picture and make just a small concession. You are consistent in your refussal to acknowledge any view that is remotely contrary to what you want to hear.
You are guilty of what you are accusing others of.
Your consistent lack of humor in your entire review is troubling for me. Without even a bit of levity or self-parody, your writing lacks any resonance. It’s written as if Welles personally insulted you. Personality and a personal approach trump rigidity and dour rhetorical demeanor and an unlivened judgemental tact. Marilyn is on to something for sure when she commends the stream-of-consciousness style. It’s just too bad you didn’t wed style with substance.
As far as respect, until this fiasco, I have always complimented you and acknowledged some of the wonderful things you’ve done at your place. That animation post-bringing in the entire blogosphere, was wonderful, and many were flattered and enriched by it. I have nothing against you personally, only the way you handled this review.
Weeks ago you came to Wonders, knowing full well that I considered BRIGHT STAR the best film of 2009, and you flat out responded that you disliked the film, refusing to acknowledge one single positive element in it. You dismissed it as a typical period drama, when in fact this textured piece was a completely different animal. I chose not to respond to you, out of respect for your position as one-sided as it was.
I only ask for a two-sided discourse, something which up until now you have been unwilling to engage in.
Sam, I noticed some of the same things as you, and they rankled a bit (the Ed thing in particular struck me as strange). No doubt Stephen is stubborn. BUT in this case I think we should give him a bit of a break, as he feels cornered and is extra-defensive. He probably feels that any admission of error and the already fragile ground beneath him gives way. I don’t blame him; I’ve felt that way before too. Sometimes it seems like you can’t give an inch. (I’m not saying he’s consciously withholding mea culpas or “you have a point”s by the way, just that right now the pressure of the situation doesn’t give him a chance to reconsider.)
Your comment here is a cogent if severe representation of the way many experienced Stephen’s review. It can be helpful to him if he wants to understand the mentality of his audience which – agree or disagree – is what it is. And then go from there and perhaps use a bit more diplomacy or, if chooses not to which his prerogative at least have a thicker skin in anticipating the next barrage. Or of course, pack it up and make that diary personal again. But I sincerely hope he does not do this, as I’ve enjoyed his writing and stimulating point of view.
Thanks for the compliments, btw. When the dust clears hopefully we’ll see all the fruitful dialogue that’s emerged from this whole thing (and I think there’s been a lot of it) aside from all the contention.
Kudos, Joel.
I would like nothing better than to put this matter to rest and to have Stephen resume his blogging. Stephen has shown himself to be a lovely person in a number of ways, and he’s not shy to compliment his peers, and with th utmost sincerity. The whole business has me unglued and Lucille is affected by it too – Stephen if you’re out there and see this, please consider accepting my apologies. I allowed this to morph too far. It really ain’t that important. Our friendship is worth much more. And I know you have talent and have so much to offer all of us. I allowed my love of KANE to consume me. please accept my deepest apologies. I will never again broach this matter, and instead will now move on.
Of course I accept your apologies Sam. Thank you. I have admired your writing and the writing of many people here for a long time.
I just got a little disillusioned.
You needn’t necessarily feel bad for the strength of your emotions and responses, it’s just that when something begins to get personal and I begin to feel that people misrepresent my approach and distort my comments it’s time to take a breather. After all I don’t write or comment because I must. I do it because I enjoy it.
Thank you for the olive branch and I’ll repay the favour and hand it back now, hoping this is the beginning of a peaceful age…
Indeed Stephen. The olive branch has been received and accepted. I’ll admit things went further than they rightfully should have, and I was uncharacteristically aggressive. I’m certain nothing like this will ever happen again, especially when it comes to you or anyone else expressing a personal viewpoint, but yes you fingered the issues that precipitated it. Thank you.
My pleasure, Sam.
“…you flat out responded that you disliked the film, refusing to acknowledge one single positive element in it. You dismissed it as a typical period drama, when in fact this textured piece was a completely different animal. I chose not to respond to you, out of respect for your position as one-sided as it was.
I only ask for a two-sided discourse, something which up until now you have been unwilling to engage in.”
It was not a response to denigrate yours, Sam. I threw my pennies into the fountain. It was not a riposte. I don’t see an objective worth and greatness in films (that all can look upon and accept) and therefore you shouldn’t take my reviews and responses as saying that you are ‘wrong’ or ‘misguided’. I am just giving my point of view.
I did mention that I thought Miss Cornish acted very well and the scene with the curtain blowing into her bedroom was magical.
Fair enough Stephen, what you say here makes much sense, and yes I do remember you praising Ms. Cornish and mentioning that wonderful scene. Of course as you know, I take no prisoners when it comes to that film! LOL!
Yes. God help me if I’d criticised Avatar as well!
I just wanted to clear the air and clarify myself before moving on.
LOL Stephen!!!!!!!
Well, as I recall you did have much good to say about AVATAR as well. You had issues but generally seemed to like it.
They were really not much more than quibbles.
It is a very fine film.
I see where Bob is going with this. But, to preface MY OPINION before bashing one of the single most revered and beloved films in the history of cinematic art seems to be the logical way to go. Stephen must have known that a review like this would spur off a rash controversy. So, “I know of the esteem this film has steeped over the decades is immense, and I understand the passion the intelligentsia hold for it. Howver, IT IS MY OPINION……….” Something like that, somewhere, ANYWHERE in the beginning of a review of this type, would save the writer from un-wanted ballyhoo. That’s what I’m saying, BOB.
That’s just political doublespeak. I think it’s far more honest and sincere to bypass the illusion of bipartisanship and just say your piece. Warning labels like that just get in the way.
Also, I think everyone would STILL be getting upset over the essay even if it DID contain some kind of rhetorical mea culpa. Please, let us not be beckoned unto kissing the ring of Pauline Kael before we dare let slip unpopular words from out our quivering lips.
Dennis – Respectfully, no it wouldn’t.
And I can relate just a bit to Stephen’s exasperation about the worship of KANE only because my brother, who doesn’t know John Huston from John Carpenter, thinks KANE is the greatest film ever. Why? Because everyone says so. It is unquestionably a great film, but it has sort of also become a “great film” by reputation. It is always instructive to delve into exactly what makes it great.
Sam, I am coming to this way too late, and I suspect someone might have already brought this up, but I know you through Dave’s and Ed’s blogs, and I feel like what is wrong with your post is that you’re presupposing and implying that great critics of the past (Godard, Farber, Kael, Sarris, etc.) can be equated with critics working today, and certainly there are a few I respect and admire. But if you take a publication like The New Yorker, we’ve gone from Pauline Kael, who clearly cared about cinema in an almost religious way, to Anthony Lane, who doesn’t give a damn about film, and merely uses it as a means to write idiotic, clever quips. And I think that’s pretty indicative of where film criticism has gone. Everyone loves to bash Armond White, and he can be pig-headed and snobbish, but at least he understands film history and aesthetics, and can bring up Borzage or Ophuls intelligently in a conversation. The point is when you talk about critical consensus, you’re talking about a few critics who knew what they’re talking about and a lot that don’t, and I think it’s only fair to call that into question.
Hey Doniphon!
Yes, I’ve seen you at Dave’s and Jeffrey’s too my friend, and I’ll be heading over to your place soon. In fact I am adding you to our blogroll tonight! Well, you make excellent points, but understand that I am biased because I grew up with these people. I’m 55 now, and these were the critics of my college years. But yes, there are only a small number of critics worth investigation these days, and I think we’re in agreement as to who they are.
I’m hoping and praying that we can all move forward from this thread and move on to way better things.
Thanks so much for your insights, Donophon!
Donophon, that’s right. I see you at Ed’s place too.
Donophon: I’ll admit I’m no fan of Armond White, but perhaps your claims there make sense.
“If we claim an interest in film as film our judgments must respect the framework within which judgement can sensibly operate, by presenting criteria which are capable of being most fully realized by medium and form… through a sophisticated awareness of the film-maker’ s devices and a conscious imaginative collaboration in the creation of his world in order to appreciate its disciplines and penetrate the significance of its structure.”
– VF Perkin, Film as Film (1972) p.188
This is what film criticism is about. This is why Stephen’s essay fails, and why all the good-intentioned meanderings of Joel, Marilyn, and others skirt around this essential failure.
As criticism, no doubt there are flaws in Stephen’s piece. But he is quite lucid about the effects Welles achieves and many of the devices and strategies he utilizes. Where the piece perhaps falls short (as you originally noted) is in explicitly connecting Stephen’s emotional response to the directorial decisions, but I did not find the logical leap too great. I think the essay could be expanded and developed, certainly, but it’s much closer to criticism than Stephen’s detractors allow. At any rate, I’m not convinced all blogging or film-writing need adhere to critical standards but as Stephen’s essay more or less molds itself around a critical approach and essentially sells itself as criticism – whatever his original intent – I’ll concede that it’s a moot point in this particular case. It is however, not a moot point in your oft-repeated negative comparisons of bloggers to critics: not all blogging is criticism, nor is it necessarily intended to be. And yes, sometimes lines get blurred. This should be approached on a case-by-case basis not in a summary dismissal of anything that doesn’t hew to Perkin’s line.
“To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: 1) How artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and 2) How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem’s perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem’s greatness becomes a relatively simple matter.
If the poem’s score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness.
A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter grows, so will, so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry.”
–Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Understanding Poetry
Bring on Robin Williams! But seriously, the problem with that intro is rather more one of pragmatism than principle (rigor is not necessarily in appropriate in appreciating art, but it’s an automatic turnoff to the uninitiated, particularly teenagers). That said, I’m inclined to disagree with “how important is its objective” as an equally essential criterion to “how artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered”. Add to that the notion of “graphing” the appeal of a poem & the idea of actually being able to “rate” its artfulness and importance in any meaningful numerical form, and the whole proposition is ripe for satire.
Nonetheless, these various conversations have made me hunger for more of a grounding in aesthetics. I like to have something concrete to bounce the impressionism off of (and vice versa). Pritchard’s dry, rigid, humorless mode of analysis aside, the Williams method runs its own risks.
To quote Roger Ebert:
“The film makes much noise about poetry, and there are brief quotations from Tennyson, Herrick, Whitman, and even Vachel Lindsay, as well as a brave excursion into prose that takes us as far as Thoreau’s Walden. None of these writers are studied, however, in a spirit that would lend respect to their language; they’re simply plundered for slogans to exhort the students toward more personal freedom. At the end of a great teacher’s course in poetry, the students would love poetry; at the end of this teacher’s semester all they really love is the teacher.”
I know, I know. I just couldn’t resist.
Btw, this made me curious – I looked into and apparently “Pritchard” is a pseudonym for Laurence Perrine, and the text is taken “verbatim” (or so they say) from his book. There’s even a Facebook group for the guy – ironic, of course (though apparently with some affection):
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&viewas=0&gid=14506893659#!/group.php?v=wall&gid=14506893659
Ha, sounds suspiciously close to Perkins…
Phew, Where’s that soda? What a piece, what a war-zone of a comments section! Bravo, Sam & co.
A few random thoughts which are the only ones I am able to think of now:
1. I’m not really sure if bloggers and pros fall in mutually exclusive categories. Sometimes, I feel certain “bloggers” write much better criticism than certain “professionals”. A blog is, after all, just a platform for writing. Jim Emerson, Girish Shambu and so many other writers whom I like write on blogs. And that shouldn’t make people underestimate the skill of the writer. But, of course, the unique problem with blogs is that quality writing gets lost amidst millions of fanboy sites. But we have to live with that.
2. I may be in the minority here, but I did not find Stephen’s article offensive at all (I didn’t read the comments section entirely). Yes, the chasm between what we believe and what he writes there is so big that one may be easily tempted to diss his review. But, as far as I could see, he merely builds on existing criticism on the film (I mean, he observations concur with what the critics hail the film for) and writes why he didn’t find these facets impressive. I thought he had made his subjective stance clear. I don’t feel the need for him to prefix every statement with “In my opinion” or “I feel” etc.
Compare it with the deliberately prankster review (whose author, I think, in fact appreciates the film very much) of the film. Clearly, Stephen’s readings of the film’s techniques (which I agree almost completely) are sound. I may not be accepting what he makes of them (Yes, I don’t).
3. The most insightful statement, for me, in the whole comments section is from Marilyn, where she speaks about the need for reviews to have a historical validity. Lovely!
4. As for the difference between critic and amateur, here’s a Guardian article that gives a checklist of sorts of what a true critic must know. May be irrelevant here. But an awesome article nonetheless.
5. And Roger Ebert’s masterful article on the anti-intellectualism that seems to be most rampant only with regards to cinema.
Cheers!
Thanks JAFB.
Well, as you may have surmised I am trying to move on now from this piece and let other matters proceed. I think all parties have stated their positions and I don’t want to beat a dead horse. My reference to criticism was along the lines of SERIOUS scholarly criticism that was written about CITIZEN KANE over the years by the best of our critics. I was less concerned, although the matter was more than broached with pedestrian professional criticism, which admittedly has steadily been more rampant as times goes gone. Marilyn’s statement was indeed fantastic, (both her submissions) as were comments by Joel Bocko, Bob Clark and a number of others here which were in the same sphere of excellence, methinks. Your own comment here is tremendous.
I know that Movie Zeal piece well JAFB, and as you may have noticed I joined in the fun in the comment section. Unlike Stephen’s piece, this one was deliberately satiric -again as you noted.
The Guardian piece is excellent!
Thank You, Sir!
I found the premise of the Guardian article rather snooty. The more films one has seen, ceteras paribus, yes the more a writer on film brings to the table, but there are insights that can come from any open and intelligent assessment. We all have different life experiences, beliefs, knowledge, prejudices, perspectives, and writing abilities, and such an exclusive regimen would only impoverish film criticism.
It is important not to confuse the essential qualities of good criticism with the imposition of an arbitrary checklist of qualifications.
Before checking out the Guardian article, I was inclined to disagree with Tony’s point above as we’ve butted heads on this a few times before. But actually reading the piece, I think he has a point.
The idea that you need a film degree to become acquainted with all the essentials Ronald Bergen mentions is laughable. The Cahiers crowd, though a few had dabbled in a film course here or there, did not have this “formal” training nor did Andrew Sarris or Pauline Kael. A great many humorless, witless drones have. So have some excellent critics of course.
The point is that there are certain things you should know (though the “180 degree” rule is an overrated cliche) but you don’t have to go to school or shell out money for a degree to do so. And what of Bergen’s laundry list? You certainly don’t have to see “every film” of the directors Bergen mentions. It’s not even possible to see every Bergman film – believe me, I tried! – as some are unavailable. Besides, Rosenbaum never saw Fanny & Alexander until a few years ago – guess he would not meet Bergen’s criteria.
I learned what a “jidai-geki” and “gendai-geki” were last year when I read History of the Japanese Film (for pleasure and my own knowledge, not some course assignment) and I’ve promptly forgotten the definitions. Ditto “suture” (which I’ve learned and forgotten, in cyclical fashion, in my readings over the years).
Never even heard of Mrinal Sen. A pompous checklist by Bergen makes me inclined to maintain my ignorance. (Of course, my better instincts prevail and I’ve already looked him up.)
Bergen’s formula is a recipe for cooking up humorless, earnest little university rats who treat cinema history as a cluttered collection of textbook “ideas” which they can recite in ass-kissing fashion before a teacher who’s never set foot in the real world, and then before each other in a fashion that continues to choke celebration of cinema off from the wider world and escalate the process of marginalization and the limiting of film to a “niche”. It is a complete bastardization of the process by which critics from Ferguson to Sarris acquainted themselves with the rich history of film and a corruption of the gleeful spirit with which film theory first became to penetrate the academic walls en masse in the 60s and 70s. A film education without fun, with solemnity replacing the exubarant sense of exploration, is like making bread without yeast.
The idea of Francois Truffaut sitting down in a classroom jotting down notes on the “auteur theory” in his Moleskine makes me want to giggle or barf, I’m not sure which.
[Note of ambivalence: I took some film history/studies classes in college, though my focus was on filmmaking as a hands-on, practical experience (which is also unnecessary by the way). Thankfully I was well-acquainted with both film history and theory far earlier, from my own prerogative and don’t think I was too corrupted by the process! I am not against studying film in school per se, just the spirit it is often approached in, which Bergen’s article seems to exemplify; and the idea that a degree is the essential component in one’s film education when in fact it’s unnecessary and, if pursued, should be done so more as a practical necessity and a small aspect of one’s overall learning than as the be-all, end-all. For my own part, I was far more enthusiastic about movies before and after school than during – and am thankful the theory/studies aspect was sporadic so I could encounter most of that off-campus. If I were to pursue a higher education at any point I hope it would not be for a while, so as to further innoculate myself against the deathly academic virus! I mention this, with hesitation, lest I feel like an inner hypocrite but I stand by all the points above. Apologies to anyone who did engage in cinema studies. It’s not automatically fatal, just dangerous.]
Is anyone else watching this Olympic ceremony and finding it ridiculous?
I was watching while at my parent’s house and it was pretty laughable.
The giant phallic obelisks really made me chuckle.
The sound was off though, but I’m guessing the likely inane commentary by Costas and Lauer made it even worse — “the worlds of human and spirit co-mingle in a tribute to the ancestors of these tribes” or “the snuggies given to each member of the crowd are a tribute to the Olympic spirit.” Apparently, I heard the words tribute and spirit a lot in the lead-up.
And after the China opening ceremonies were kind of cool…
Oh, and Selena Gomez butchered O Canada, which is pretty much the coolest national anthem there is. She made it sound sooooo boring…
And Bryan Adams — what kind of magic potion does he use to look younger now than he did in 1986?
lol. Bryan Adams is such a freakin’ stiff. In no universe is he cool–scratch that– a universe that features his track ‘Only the Strong Survive’ from the title sequence of ‘Problem Child 2’ is he sorta cool. It’s such a great cheese-dick late 80s early 90s ‘rocker’ I’m sure Troy you will find value in it.
Now that my bad movie knowledge street cred is secure I’m going to step out…
Probably whatever made Emile Hirsch’s simple-minded little brother able to fly.
Poor Spritle. His kung-fu was so-so.
By the way, I added a postscript to my comment…because I didn’t want readers, to think that I was implying that film critic, author, writer James Agee, just critiqued films that are considered film noir.
DeeDee 😉
Encore merci. J ai vraiment apprecié de lire cette article