by Allan Fish
(USA 2004 80m) DVD1/2
Strangers in the night part deux
p Anne Walker McBay d Richard Linklater w Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke ph Lee Daniel ed Sandra Adair m Julie Delpy, Nina Simone, Glover Gill art Baptiste Glaymann
Ethan Hawke (Jesse), Julie Delpy (Céline), Vernon Dobtcheff (publisher agent),
When I first saw Before Sunrise, Richard Linklater’s dreamy romance centring round a chance encounter in Vienna, I was the same age as the protagonists. Jesse was the American guy bumming around Europe on a discount rail card and Céline was a Sorbonne student returning from Hungary to Paris after visiting family. It would have been easy to fall for the finger-of-fate-twisting schematics of Linklater’s film, its inherent simplicity and its charming leads. A film based on the notion of seizing the night, as it were, and letting tomorrow worry for itself. It didn’t make me fall for it, however.
We last saw the couple standing on a platform in Vienna saying goodbye and promising to meet up in six months. We knew they wouldn’t, or rather I assumed they wouldn’t, and in many ways there lay the problem that was, if not rectified, then at least explained by the opening sequence of the sequel. Jesse has published a story based on that night, a fictionalised personal account, and he’s asked at a gathering whether the characters met up six months down the line. Jesse merely replies that it depends on whether you’re a romantic or a cynic, and that was my problem in 1995, I was already somewhat cynical and the romanticism seemed somewhat precious. Nine years on I found myself able to relate a whole lot more because cynicism gnaws at you like piranhas on a corpse. Being cynical in your early twenties is hip, but in one’s thirties fills you with regret so your cynicism catches up with you and makes you wish for something to be hopeful about. You find yourself longing for lost opportunities and, as such, Céline and Jesse’s fears and vanquished dreams seemed all the more real.
In Before Sunset then, unlike many film sequels, what the characters have been through in the interim isn’t what drives the plot forward. The film is too immediate for that as, unlike its predecessor, the events take place in real-time, in an hour or so before he has to catch a plane to his next official signing. Not only the fates are against them, indeed not just movie time, but real time. In the first film Jesse remarked at how their time together seemed pinched, dream time outside of reality. Now there is no dream-time, only a realisation that tempus fugit and they can only do the best with the 70 minutes they and we have. And we should all be able to relate to the loss, as whatever our own experiences, life patterns, histories, ambitions and dreams, we’ve all had those life-changing events where you know you’re at a crossroads and a choice must be made and you feel you can only go with the instinctive roll of the dice. For here’s a film that knows that, though life is a journey, it’s often about standing still and taking it in, where the world does, as Jesse observed in Vienna, stand still.
It’s clear that the characters meant a lot to Linklater, and also to Delpy and Hawke, who contributed to the script with the director. Much has happened to the actors in the interim – Delpy has aged as one might expect, though it’s shocking to see how cadaverous Hawke has become over the years between. They’re so perfect as Jesse and Céline, so natural as to make one think they really were the characters. Just watch the little details of the performance, not least in that open wound of a scene in the back of Jesse’s chauffeured car, where anger gives way to reconciliation. If I recall a single moment in the entire saga, it’s Hawke telling her of the disappointment of his life and, in going from being resentful of him, Delpy nervously puts out her hand to him as if to comfort him, a hand on the shoulder, then withdraws it almost immediately. It encapsulates the pain, the longing and the regret of the entire story. And though the ending may seem rather anti-climactic to some, it’s absolutely perfect, leaving it open-ended as Céline purrs “baby, you’re gonna miss that plane.” Heres to missing planes!
I liked the way you engaged with the film here – I think the 00s countdown has thus far contained some of your strongest writing. Keep up the good work. I find that, upon reflection, I’m fonder of Before Sunrise/Sunset that anything else in Linklater’s oeuvre, by a long shot, though I bear Dazed and Confused no ill will, and enjoyed Waking Life.
I’ve seen both “Before Sunrise” and “Before Sunset” for the first time within the last few months. People whose opinion I respect are mad about these movies, so I just had to take a look. I found the first to be a sweet, simple movie about likable, intelligent young people–a pleasure to watch but like its characters unformed and not terribly deep. Surprisingly watchable, in fact, considering that it is so uncinematic, with its emphasis on characters and dialogue and the restrictions of time and place inherent in its plot. When I saw the sequel, I expected more of the same but was really amazed at how good it was, much more mature and reflective. And the differences between Jesse’s and Celine’s recollections of the first encounter made an interesting comment on the nature of memory with the passage of time. It was clear how much the characters and the director had grown in the meantime, and how much Delpy had grown as an actress. She was just fantastic and for me walked away with the movie. With the same restrictions as the first film, Linklater did a great job. The movie was never boring and those long walks kept it moving. I realized how simple and unflashy the direction was but how carefully and seamlessly everything about it slotted together without drawing attention to itself and away from the characters. And I sure agree about that scene in the limo being so pivotal. It made me realize how much the characters (and the actors, who really seem to merge with their roles–it’s difficult to tell where one ended and the other began) revealed about themselves in the movie. Again, there was an ambiguous ending: what to make of Nina Simone singing “Just in Time (I Found You Just in Time)” over the end credits?
Excellent response, typical for it’s talented lifelong film buff.
My Mother had a saying: IF YOU CANNOT SAY ANYTHING NICE, THEN SAY NOTHING AT ALL…
Oh Dennis, you remind me of a kid I went to school with called Craig Bayman who proudly declared to the teacher that “I’m on a sponsored silence, I haven’t said a word all day.”
Before Sunrise was romantic yes, as young lovers are, and thankfully there is no cynicism, but there is love and a cold reality. The camera towards the end returns to empty places where Jesse and Céline spent time together, and you the viewer bring the sadness to these scenes, of a special night that seemed like it would last forever and is now ended and gone forever, with the lovers leaving no trace of their passage. Such is mortal life. Memory and regret have no refuge, they are lost in the brightness of the new day. This is truth and great cinema: beyond romance or the cynical.
Before Sunset is again about memory and time lost. The regret of growing older and deflated dreams. Fate is kind to Jesse and Céline. They are given a chance to recapture that night in a reprise of the new day after the night they last met. They are older but wiser, and now they can discover that mellow flavor of a love cellared and mellowed into a new sweetness and softness. As they approach Céline’s apartment they encounter Céline’s cat, and Céline tells Jesse she envies her cat – each day everything is new again.
While I dislike this film intensely, Tony’s brilliant comment here continues his long line of superlative grasp of all genres in the cinema. It’s hard to take this kind of perceptiveness on.
A well written review, and since I have seen neither, can’t comment on the films themselves.
Life is amazing.
Knowing some that have gone back to recreate their past and meet those they sadly left behind, most times, have been sorry they didn’t simply let the memory linger, rather than rekindle, something that might have worked at the time, but was now lost.
Only to say, these both sound like interesting takes on both scenarios.
Great stuff here Michael. I’d very much be interested in your take on this one.
This is a very well-written review, and it did make me rethink the film somewhat. It certainly is a sparse and lovely character piece, and you don’t see many of those being made anymore. Having said that, however, I don’t understand why you chose to have this film so high on this list, except, perhaps for your personal attachment to it. I feel that if you loved Before Sunrise, then you will probably love (or at least like) Before Sunset. However, if you didn’t enjoy the first film, you won’t care about these two characters and how their lives have evolved. In this way, it’s almost a niche picture. (For the record, I did enjoy both).
It’s always a treat to have you in the comments section Jeopardy Girl. I hope all is well with you my friend.
Though the film is more ambivalent, Fitzgerald might be relevant here:
“It is sadder to find the past again and find it inadequate to the present than it is to have it elude you and remain forever a harmonious conception of memory. “
Love this film and even more so, BEFORE SUNRISE. Like yourself, I saw the first film and was around the same age as the protagonists which certainly helped me identify with them. It was also their conversations. I’ve had long, rambling conversations with people much like they had in that film and continue to have in BEFORE SUNSET. What works so well with the sequel is that it incorporates how the passage of time apart has changed their characters. In a fascinating turn of events, Jesse has gotten more romantic and nostalgic about love while Celine has gotten more cynical. But as they spend more time together, time they spent apart seems to mean less and less and this culminates at the end of the film in Celine’s apartment. You see in their eyes how much they mean to each other, how much they really do love each other and then Linklater leaves it on another tantalizing cliffhanger much like he did with BEFORE SUNRISE.
As always J.D., a high-octane response. I envy your love for this film!
OK ALLAN-I’ll tell you what I think. This movie sucked. Its pretentious drivel that grows more and more boring with each viewing (if you can stomach more than one). The direction is almost non-existant, there is NO visual design, and the performances, particularly from Hawke, feel phoned in and tired. Part of this, I feel, is that the screenplay meanders and gives the characters nothing to do but try to position themselves in front of the camera like models in a fashion shoot and the dialoque is just long winded. This film is even worse than the original it spawned from. But, what really makes me hate it intensely, more now than before, is that considering you featured two superior films with a love story at the center (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN), it irks one to think you find THIS film more interesting or moving. Frankly, I find waterboarding preferrable to having to sit through this junk again. IMO.
The IMO is the important caveat, you think Brokeback is superior, I KNOW it isn’t. If it irks you, really, then that makes me smile.
In no way is BROCKBACK or LET THE RIGHT ONE better then this. On this Allan is 100% correct.
BROKEBACK is far better Allan, (as is LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, though these are completely different films of course) than this excrutiating drivel, and I fully side with Dennis here. Yeah the critical concensus is overwhelmingly positive, and some highly respected cinephiles have stood behind it on this thread (Tony, J.D., Jeopardy Girl, R.D. Finch, Movie Man, and Coffee Messiah, who anticipates something special here) but this was frankly one of the most drop dead boring films I’ve seen in my life. Of course I may be attacked here in a “general’ sense–“Sam doesn’t care for these films, so he doesn’t like this KIND of film in general.” Untrue! I just don’t like these particular films, which showcase mumblecore in its worst possible light. Hawks’ character spouts half baked philosophies in an unending verbal assault that’s highly pretentious and obnoxiously self-absorbed. One questions along the way if he has any grasp or real knowledge of anything he is saying. I found the film condescending to it’s audience, and wan’t as imprssed with the French culture and locations it suffocates you with, as I was with their usage in other films.
The two films are among the most overrated in the entire history of the cinema.
Jean Eustache, why did you leave us?
Still, as Joel notes, it’s an exceptional review here by Allan, and the comments on this thread are really first-rate.
“Jean Eustache, why did you leave us?”
great question/point here Sam! I’ve only seen his ‘Mother and the Whore’ once (via torrent) and I’ve debated buying it on VHS just to have a watchable copy for my television. I’ve heard there is a Japanese DVD out there but that it doesn’t have english subtitles, so it does me no good.
Can anyone point me in the direction of a copy with english subtitles?
oh and any love around here for Philippe Garrel’s REGULAR LOVERS? Kinda reminds me of all these films we’ve discussed here.
I really like Garrel’s film, and wonder if it has a future in this countdown…
Thanks for that Jamie!
I have THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE on DVDR. So you know what that means, don’t you? Ha!
Count me in on REGULAR LOVERS. Now there is an exquisite mumblecorre entry, that’s endlessly fascinating!
I need to watch Eustache’s Mes Petites Amoureuses again, shall do so over this weekend.
Incidentally, another recent positive take on the film was offered in a typically splendid capsule by Shubhajit at Cinemascope:
http://cliched-monologues.blogspot.com/2010/04/before-sunset-2004.html
As always I can disagree but still marvel at the quality here.
I don’t hate this film as much as Sam and Dennis, but I can’t see it in any best of the decade lineups. I did see a chemistry between Hawke and Delpy.
Fair enough Frank.
For the record, although I enjoyed the film, I would not have placed it on this list behind Amelie, Gangs of New York, or In the Bedroom (or Brokeback Mountain, for that matter).
*behind = ahead.
I hear ya Jeopardy Girl, and obviously I quite agree.
ALLAN-YES, YOU KNOW, for yourself… However, I KNOW for ME that the flick couldn’t hold a drop of water. I agree with most of your predictions that time will bare you out… But, in this case, I FEEL that time will reveal these TWO films as nothing of major importance..
BTW-ALLAN-I was happy with my first comment. I kept it short and sweet. Remember, it was you that proded me into more detailed opinion and judgement. I was gonna just slip by on this one….
This was a decent movie, but from this decade my favorite Linklater was “Waking Life”. I prefer his work on the more experimental side, and that was chock full of it. This is good if you like his more traditional, narrativist roots better. At the very least, he’s a got a nice wide range of talents to be able to pull off both avant-garde and mainstream within the same timespan so eloquently.
Though I like this one a little more, WAKING LIFE is fantastic, and as you say, speaks to Linklater’s range. I also adore SLACKER and like TAPE quite a bit.
strange that he has all these films on his resume along with BAD NEWS BEAR remake. Very strange.
HA-HA! SAM, that’s rich! MUMBLECORE!!!!! I couldn’t have said it better. And, you’re right, Hawke does come off as self-centered and pretentious. Its a wonder why anyone would think about getting into a romance, much less a conversation, with this tight-ass asshole at all. And, on a more shallow note: BOTH Delpy and Hawke look like they need to refrain from wearing last night’s clothes from the hamper and take a bath. The grunge appearance here is repulsive. On top of that, neither is a very good actor and, if they are really playing variations of their real identity then I say they should try getting jobs in porn (him in gay, her in lesbian-i even doubt that venue would have them as they’re such drips with no romantic OR sexual chemistry…) where their lack of spark and talent means nothing in the end result (although any respectable porn company probably wouldn’t have them either. Delpy looks like a bag lady that I once saw hugging trees in Battery Park one 4th of July. UGGH! This film really sucks!
“although any respectable porn company”
Now Dennis, please define the term IRONY, and I say this as no prude or moralist by any means. It’s a shame that you feel a film’s merits are somewhat dependent on the interval between showers that characters have taken.
Dennis, Hawke is a better actor in others films. Remember his HAMLET for example? Delpy is limited though, I’ll admit.
Nice thread thus far.
This film always makes me wonder as an experiment: I know many who dislike this film (and I can add a few more to the list now!), and many that do, and almost every time without fail, age/generational lines could be drawn. Those who dislike it are older film viewers. Those that like it are the age of the central characters or less. It’s almost accurate every time (and here it again seems true), so clearly something is being expressed that you either ‘get’ or ‘don’t get’.
For me, I certainly ‘get it’. I adore films like this–ones that exist in more or less real time and contain a realistic conversation or statement about love–one could almost create a genre out of types of films like this and I’d love everyone. BRIEF CROSSING, Lean’s BRIEF ENCOUNTER (this does show a passage of time sure), MY DINNER WITH ANDRE, most of Rohmer, and much of Godard as well, etc. I’m always tickled that people who don’t like films like these (or this one in general), and find it shallow or pretentious, or anything else, miss the truly emotional real thing happening here: two people are seeking a connection the only way humans can attempt this, by talking. Nothing is fake or phony here: millions of people do this anywhere on earth everyday, when an artist can recreate this and bring it to a better understanding this should be applauded, not condemned. Oddly enough the same people (most of the time) who find films like this fake are the same ones who claim a deep found emotional connection with an animated film, with nothing but robots and other nonliving things in outer space (can one get more unrealistic?).
Does this qualify as a large enough shot across the bow?
Allan’s review, of course again sparkles, I must only quibble on one point: “Being cynical in your early twenties is hip, but in one’s thirties fills you with regret so your cynicism catches up with you and makes you wish for something to be hopeful about.” Being cynical, like a gray flannel suit and wingtips, is something that will NEVER go out of style (though you can call me back when I’m post 30).
!
“Those who dislike it are older film viewers. Those that like it are the age of the central characters or less.”
You are probably right there Jamie, but the older viewers who don’t care for it often tend to love other films about young people, so it’s rather a moot point. For example, I absolutely loved BREAKING UPWARDS (from a few months ago) which was a mumblecore entry about young people, and I appreciated films like ADVENTURELAND and 500 DAYS OF SUMMER. It’s the “kind” of film that spurs me one way or the other, rather than the age or audience of the film. Similarly I adore Gus Van Sant’s ELEPHANT, and generally am a huge fan of films with philosophical context. I was just turned off to the phoniness and narcissism of this screenplay, and truthfully didn’t believe any of it. But as I say the huge majority feels otherwise, and I greatly respect your own opinion, and always have.
LOL on your one quibble with Allan’s review!!!! You got it!!
BTW, speaking of Godard, I will be dragging Lucille off tonight for a double-feature in Manhattan (we just got back from THE PRINCE OF PERSIA, which was barely passable I’d say) which will inclde the towering BREATHLESS at the Film Forum! I am most excited to see this new restoration!
the BREATHLESS restoration is coming here on June 18. I’ve already made plans to be there. ‘New yawk herald tribuun!’
JAMIE-Respectfully, I think that’s a crock. The age thing, for me anyway, has nothing to do with me “geeting” it or not. I was once their age and I remember exactly what I’d was like to be in a predicament very similar… And, yet I still DON’T like this film. In age, I think your argument would be justified in the reverse, where someone as YOUNG as you doesn’t get a film like AMERICAN BEAUTY because you have yet to go through enough life experiences to bring you that point (ie. Middle age crazy, a want to go back to youth because of what you know now). The facts remain, for me anyway, that I know a good movie (or a bad) when I see one. I hate BEFORE SUNSET, not because I have no way to identify with the characters or situation, but because I think it faulty in writing, direction, performance and composition. This is how I see it. To each his own. Still doesn’t make me wrong and you and ALLAN totally correct. Mere opinions. Ciao!
This is true. All opinions…
I do like AMERICAN BEAUTY though (more or less)! And I count a film like DILLINGER IS DEAD (also about mid-life crisis) as top 10 or 20 for me all-time. My comment on age was also about aesthetic, this just seems to be made in a way that young people are drawn too. It’s also just a curious comment I made form an observation I’ve seen born out time and time again. It’s just interesting to me that’s all.
Sam, I think this age statement has some aspect of truth, Before Sunset is not a film you could love, you’re too much of a traditionalist. Fifty years ago, if you’d been around and of the same age, you’d have decried the new wave as a lot of fuss over nothing, full of empty gimmicks, mourning the loss of old-fashioned French cinema of Clément, Clouzot, Autant-Lara and Carné. You’d have hated La Dolce Vita and 8½ and been calling for Fellini to go back to his neorealist roots.
Take your attitudes to new directors seen as the upcoming masters – Anderson, Nolan, Greengrass, S Coppola, Linklater, Fincher, Baumbach, etc — these are directors you by and large dismiss (Anderson’s There Will be Blood you admired but didn’t like). When we first got in contact, I remember distinctly how you enjoyed Fargo but found the Coens trivial. No Country for Old Men and A Serious Men now make them part of the establishment and you like them. Yet real Coen adherents will point to Lebowski and Miller’s Crossing, films definitely not for you. Then take British cinema – which you see, like most of America, as Loach and Leigh (Davies and Douglas were their superiors). Yet they’re yesterday’s men, and it’s to Meadows (you liked This is England but compared it erroneously to Loach when it owed more to Alan Clarke and wasn’t his best film anyway, that was A Room for Romeo Brass), Arnold, Winterbottom, Ramsay, Pawlikowski, Boyle (okay, you liked Slumdog, but that was Boyle’s populist film embraced by the masses so you could admit to liking it). Then take some of your favourite films of the past decade – Far from Heaven, Avatar, Chicago, Atonement, Letters from Iwo Jima, Bright Star – several meritorious films, but distinctly old-fashioned. Even with old films, when discussing them you reel off the accepted canons of American film criticism.
Take another example, you talk Renoir, you talk La Règle du Jeu, La Grande Illusion, Une Partie de Campagne, even Boudu or La Chienne. But you don’t generally mention Toni, Le Crime de Monsieur Lange, The Southerner, French Can Can or his forgotten masterpiece La Nuit de Carrefour. With even Kubrick, to take an American example, you’d go for accepted films like 2001, Paths of Glory or Dr Strangelove, but I feel that Barry Lyndon, The Shining and even Eyes Wide Shut will grow and grow with time till they are seen as his pinnacle.
I’m not saying you’re not capable of being forward thinking, you are capable of bold choices like Gattaca and The Fountain, but they’re the exceptions to the rule, not the norm.
Linklater’s films are born out of the slacker generation, a generation I grew up out of, but which you look on with contempt. It’s the generation of classic TV comedy Spaced, another work you dismissed entirely.
We must all understand our limitations and our favourite style. Hell, you breathe opera, and it doesn’t come more old-fashioned or traditionalist than that. It’s why I guarantee you will LOATHE with a fiery vengeance several of the films in my upcoming top 10, because they are anything but conventional. They couldn’t exist in your cinematic landscape, through no fault of your own, it’s just the way you are. Indeed some you don’t even know do exist. You’re Colonel Blimp, you’re Don Quixote, loveable but out of step.
“Take your attitudes to new directors seen as the upcoming masters – Anderson, Nolan, Greengrass, S Coppola, Linklater, Fincher, Baumbach, etc — these are directors you by and large dismiss (Anderson’s There Will be Blood you admired but didn’t like).”
If those are really the new or upcoming masters then we’re all screwed.
Ageeed, especially on Little Miss Nepotism and Lord Shakycam. The Andersons, both Wes and Paul Thomas, have shown potential. Nolan’s a bit overrated, but we could do worse on the sci-fi/action front. Linklater and Fincher are unqualified American masters. Baumbach… he’s not bad, but he’s nothing special, either. An indie mediocrity.
As for British fare– Ramsay’s okay (she’d have made a truly killer “Lovely Bones” instead of Jackson’s god-awful version), Winterbottom’s so-so (“Code 46” is rather blah for modern-day sci-fi, with an Oedipal cloning-twist that feels gleaned from “Neon Genesis Evangelion”). I love some of Boyle’s work– “Sunshine” is possibly the most underrated sci-fi film of the decade, even if it is a mixed bag of competing cliches.
I just got done decrying false choices, so I will not say I’d “take” Lost in Translation over anything by Linklater or Fincher. But I do think it’s a fuller, richer film than anything they’ve produced so far. To be fair, I don’t think that’s really what Linklater is ever going for – Before Sunset is doing the same kind of thing as LiT but less boldly “cinematic” (yet, no less subtly so) and with a less pronounced atmosphere, which obviously many prefer. Fincher’s work is formally impressive, but leaves me a bit cold – and the praise some sing of him doesn’t leave me with the impression that they’re much warmed by him either. Zodiac I liked a lot though – that may be a keeper of the same order as “Little Miss Nepotism”‘s moody masterpiece.
Wes Anderson often frustrates me as well but that he possesses the most singular vision to emerge onscreen in a generation seems hard to deny. Resultingly, The Royal Tenenbaums was easily the most culturally influential films of the decade.
And yeah, I don’t get the Nolan praise. The “next Hitchcock” and all that. He’s an imaginative screenwriter, but no great shakes as an auteur (though I haven’t seen Following).
OMG I see a war of words coming. I watched Bright Star yesterday. Anyone that loves that film has to explain to me how they stayed awake. It’s like watching one of those bloodless literary PBS programs. I’m not a big fan of Before Sunset either though. Ethan Hawke can be annoying and he never looks like he showers in any film. It’s his trademark look. I can’t knock him too much since I love Gattaca immensely. Sam’s rebuttal will be epic I’m sure. The French New Wave crack was rather cruel lol. I don’t know where you people come from. The film buffs I know are all sensitive weaklings. You guys are a new evolutionary breed.
Maurizio, I will deal with you tomorrow! Shall we meet at the site where Alexander Hamilton took on Aaron Burr?
Just kidding, buddy. I will respond to you today, but I fully respect your position, as you are a person with excellent taste.
Enough with the shower fetish already! Commandment #11 for Cineastes: thou shalt shower between movies.
“Shall we meet at the site where Alexander Hamilton took on Aaron Burr?”
🙂
Doniphon and Bob: This is Allan’s modus operandi. Because I don’t like two films by Mr. Linklater, I have to be assualted on my general taste in films, which includes a baseless presumptuousness for films I wouldn’t have liked or appreciated. As Tony broaches later on down in this thread it’s always about Allan, and his never ending crusade to trump everyone else’s knowledge and appreciation of the cinema. As a 55 year old lifelong movie fan, I can say I am most comfortable with my likes and dislikes, and have no misgivings for my value judgements. Whenever I do not like a particular film that Allan likes he then goes off on some bizarre generalization (as I predicted he would do in my original comment on this thread) that explains in deragatory terms the bankrupsy of my personal taste. We’ve seen many other knowledgable visitors to the site get pummuled by this “I have seen more movies than you so my opinion is more valid than yours” line of attack, and frankly it’s nothing more than flexing the ego.
Because I don’t like TWO films, this now makes me incapable of liking ANY film about young people, even though there are dozens of films about this age grouping (mumblecore and otherwise) that I praise each and every year.
Excuse me too Allan for professing love for those Renoir masterpieces! As usual you then bring in the less known ones for one reason and one reason only, and I need not even repeat myself here. I have seen every single one of those Renoirs you talk about as if you were the only person in the world who ever heard of them, with the exception of CARREFOUR. So yeah, I stand by the four or five that I feel are the director’s greatest. But what has all of that to do with any of this discussion? It’s nothing more than the usual grandstanding to make everyone else seem like cinematic illiterates. You include a numbers of outright LIES and exaggerations in your salvo here. You claim I “admire” THERE WILL BE BLOOD but don’t “like” it? Really? Is that why I placed it as my #6 film of it’s release year, and gave it a five-star rating? The fact that I didn’t subsequently include it in my top 50 of the decade, now indicates (to you) that I don’t really like it?!? I like it a lot in fact, but prefer some others when I compile lists.
Then you mention here that I didn’t like that British comedy series SPACED and try and tie that in (again) with some kind of generalization. No matter that I like about 90% of your recommendations through the years; you want blind agreement on each and every choice.
The Coens thing is laughable. After FARGO and A SERIOUS MAN, my favorite by them is BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? and then BLOOD SIMPLE. Mainstream, right?
I have left the box far more times than just THE FOUNTAIN and GATTACA, and my year end lists illustrate this. Many of my favorites are films that did poorly with the critical establishment. The fact that I didn’t line up behind this two critically praised films is further indication that I don’t always follow the company line. This year in particular I seem to be in disagreement far more than in previous years.
The deragatory contention that I embrace “conventional” fare is outright blasphemy, as I could name hundreds of films I loved in the area of avante garde, mumblecore, and low-budget inde comedies and documentaries that would tear your argument to smithereens.
This argument is becoming stale, as it’s common practice to “generalize” every time I like or dislike a film. I was told earlier this year at another site that “Sam is virtually impossible to gage” and that I don’t follow any set pattern. I took that statement as a compliment, and (like just about everyone who visits here) I always call it the way I see it. Yeah, I tend to have some preferences, but I’ve liked and disliked films in every genre. Because I didn’t like these two films, I am being told that I “despise” the “slacker generation” and Linklater. Truth be said I’ve embraced many “slacker” films over the years, and actually like some other Linklaters well enough.
While I am saddened that my “frank” response to this film was attacked because I used the words “narcissism” and “shallowness” (and pretentiousnesss too) in assessing my own personal reaction, I must respond that this is the way I see it. Should I lie and say that I found these films profound, when I didn’t? In each response (unlike Allan) I always made a point of saying that my opinion was a minority one and that I greatly respected each and every person that came here.
I guess I wasted my time placing follow up comments under each and every comment above, where I graciously and enthusiastically welcomed the “high quality remarks” from people who admired this film. Yeah, these films are narcissistic and pretentious IN MY OPINION!!!!!! I have given both films numerous chances both in movie theatres and on DVD and I have repeatedly found them to be just that. Am I right? Is everyone else wrong? Hardly. It’s just the way they registered with me. As I stated I like Ethan Hawke, and I like Linklater for some of his other work, but these two films for me were fraudulent.
As far as the attack here on animation (particularly against masterpieces like WALL-E) I won’t even go there, lest another major bruhaha starts up. Movie Man’s superb response on that front here pretty much sums up my views. I am not going to attack others for their taste, but the critical and audience success of a number of animation masterworks over the years speak for themselves.
So, I preferred WALL-E over these two Linklaters eh? I also preferred Bergman’s PERSONA, Antonioni’s L’ECLISSE, Bunuel’s THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL, Kaufman’s SYNCHEDOCHE, NEW YORK, Denis’ 35 SHOTS OF RUM and Anderson’s MAGNOLIA, (to name but a few) over these two Linklater films.
Simple taste, right? Of course.
Postscript: I would venture to add that it was the ‘smugness’ of these two films that bothered me. I found the intellectualizing padded and somewhat dishonest, but again I fully understand why so many would find this genuine. My opinion is almost always rendered with the understanding that I am only forwarding my personal reaction. I am neither trying to say that others missed the boat, nor that they should re-think their own views. My verdict was reached with a scrutinizing examination, but in the end, like the evaluation of any work of art it’s subjective. Tony and others found some poetic beauty here, and in a sense I’m envious.
As far as Allan, well, his countdowns at this site speak for themselves, and I’ve praised him every chance I get. Still, to disparage others in the comment section with irresponsible generalizations, while simultaneously looking down one’s noise is counterproductive. Contentiousness is what oftens makes this site soar, but I have always found that mutual respect is what fuels the most meaningful discussions.
Sam, if you read my original post in DETAIL, I was not having a go at you, just pointing out your tastes and how you favour this over that. As usual, you respond with bluff denial and go on the attack – perhaps to that list of Blimp and Quixote I should add Mussolini, backed up by your fascist deletions of comments made by myself. There is nothing I said to be angry about, they were all correct statements. We ALL have things we don’t like and natural preferences, why won’t you accept that yours are traditional and literary based.
But Tony has made a comment which I think had made it all the more necessary that I just leave commenting aside. If my essays cannot stand up for themselves, then they are simply poor and should be left at that. My bluntness just does not go down well on this site, so it’s better for the site that I keep comments down to an absolute minimum and do not engage in any debate.
“We ALL have things we don’t like and natural preferences, why won’t you accept that yours are traditional and literary based.”
I won’t accept it because it’s completely untrue, as I’ve argued with a number of specific examples in the above comment. Yeah I like a lot of traditional and literary stuff (as you do, Mr. BBC) and my taste is proudly showcased in many works within that parameter, but my grasp of cinema over decades of viewing goes in many directions. You say you didn’t go on the attack, but you made some extremely unflattering allegations that I felt compromised my love of cinema, not to mention that you again made ME the subject, when you really should have tried to embellish why you liked the film. The way to attack an argument is not to try and demean the person making a polite and respectful counter argument. What I don’t think you understand is that comments are supposed to enrich the understanding of the films, and a discussion of themes, characters, settings and prevailing artistry, not to jump in like a watchdog trying to tear down the time and passion invested by the commenters.
Again you defend your aggressions with the proposal that you are just being “blunt.” Rather than doing that, you should have strived to engage in active discussions about the films themselves. That way all of us can gain, instead by holding our tails between our legs and acknowledging out own suggested “limitations.” You always act as if nobody brings anything relevant to the table.
And yes, I agree. If the only comments you are capable of making are to torpedo the respectful commenters, I agree you should pull back and let the essays stand. This way we can keep our community moving forward in a positive way.
I’m also partial too Dominik and Hillcoat as potential future greats.
Fantastic film, and I think the original is even better. I can certainly see where the dislike stems from, but I think that the film, indeed, has a certain niche audience (young and hip intellectuals?), though even within that audience there might be exceptions.
What I find significant about Sunrise/Sunset is that they interact with their surroundings. I haven’t seen My Dinner with Andre, but the best of Rohmer’s work definitely is as much about wherever the protagonists are as who they are, even though his cinematography is lightweight. The characters, to me, are idealised in the original, but it doesn’t harm the film in the slightest as the progression of their relationship over just one day is completely natural. Of course, coming back to Rohmer, his characters are closer to reality, as a whole lot of them have unappealing traits, but while I greatly admire Rohmer’s work (and adore The Green Ray in particular), these two films actually worked better for me. Certainly looking for a re-watch, and congrats on a great review.
Bravo Jamie: “Oddly enough the same people (most of the time) who find films like this fake are the same ones who claim a deep found emotional connection with an animated film, with nothing but robots and other nonliving things in outer space (can one get more unrealistic?).”
What a lot of hot air! And all this crap about shallowness and narcissism. This thread stinks of it. Why can’t you sundry wankers just debate with sincerity and modesty. All these self-serving references to this and that film, to this and that director.
Btw, this critique cuts both ways. Why can’t Allan actually engage with his readers – instead of put-downs and pompous sermons which are really about himself? If someone actually makes the effort to read his stuff and comment, he owes them more.
“Oddly enough the same people (most of the time) who find films like this fake are the same ones who claim a deep found emotional connection with an animated film, with nothing but robots and other nonliving things in outer space (can one get more unrealistic?).”
I hate, hate, hate, HATE this confounded notion that we have to choose between fantasy and realism, between subtlety and the larger-than-life, between an animated film about robots and a quiet conversation in the Parisian twilight. The very thing I love about cinema is its richness, its diversity, its ability to engage us on so many different levels. One doesn’t have to pick “sides” between Wall-E and Before Sunset, thank God. And I’m so tired of these dumb wars between the “mainstream” and the “subversive” – each has something to add to the art, and tearing one down doesn’t strengthen the other, it only weakens both and the medium as a whole.
Man relax. Jamie is talking about the preciousness of the commentariat here. No-one is picking sides, just pointing to the elephant in the room… and the growing pile of es (try b for e).
Unfortunately Tony, I took the bait!!!! LOL!!! It’s 3:30 A.M. in the morning here in New Jersey and I’m on the PC!!! I am losing it!!!
But you, Jamie, Movie Man and i are seasoned veterans, and we all can take the heat occasionally. You know what I think of you, my friend.
Ok, but I would suggest that preciousness – among other qualities – is not limited to those being called out for it; and that both you and Jamie, among others, have been playing the “good films”/”bad films” card quite a lot (not in terms of individual films, but whole sets of films which are consigned to an objective-sounding rubbish bin for what I think are pretty personal reasons). The comment, which was fine as far as it goes (but in context is part of a larger pattern) was less straw man than it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back – so maybe that should read cs rather than es or bs?
Anyway, Wonders yam what it yam, to borrow another cartoon parlance. This clash of personalities and methods of argumentation have been around for a while and ain’t going away – but yes, I guess that applies to criticisms of said personalities and arguments too, so complaining about the complaints may be just as fruitless. Anyway, I said my piece.
As for Allan, I don’t think he should engage too far with his readers, as I’ve said to him before – it often turns out badly, and it’s better when he can sit back. Exchanges with Sam are the exception though; I think they can both handle the give-and-take and the clashing personalities is an element that has always given the site its flavor, though it can sometimes get out of hand (I feel I’ve seen it worse than on this thread).
Anyway, though I didn’t respond to them (as the prior brevity and innocuousness of my comments would seem to except them from your broadside) the nastiness of your attacks (“crap about shallowness and narcissism,” “hot air” – a d’Ambra favorite -, the usual potshots at film analysis – “self-serving references to this and that film, this and that director” and of course the nicely-put “sundry wankers”) probably colored my response to the Jamie quote and your highlighting of it. Do you have to be so vicious? Even Jamie and Dennis, despite their contentiousness, managed to keep things fairly civil here.
/Pompous sermon 😉
Have a nice Memorial Day wkd, btw, all. I am going to try to restrain myself from re-visiting these boards and enjoy the nice weather, as I finally have a few days off!
You ain’t seen nothing yet. Talking about hot air:
“I liked the way you engaged with the film here – I think the 00s countdown has thus far contained some of your strongest writing. Keep up the good work. I find that, upon reflection, I’m fonder of Before Sunrise/Sunset that anything else in Linklater’s oeuvre, by a long shot, though I bear Dazed and Confused no ill will, and enjoyed Waking Life.”
I’m trying it on for size, but my balloon won’t get off the ground. We’ll have to do better than that!
Exactly!
GEEZ-If I knew a forced opinion of this film, by me-spurred by Allan, would start a furor thread like this, I’d never have said a word and left my original comment to stand. All in all, while this does make for some fascinating reading, I really feel a film like this isn’t worthy of getting so fired up. MAURIZIO-youre absolutely right; SAM’s rebuttal should be gargantuan, I have no doubt. TONY-I agree. I admire ALLAN, love his writing, and consider him a pal. However, the put-downs and the “I’m right/Youre wrong” rebuttals can get a person heated. But, then again, we all have personal styles and I’ve accepted the quick barbs as, well, Allan. I try not to stay mad… TOO LONG…..
No, that’s my point, we are all products of our age and of our personal preference, but Sam likes to be seen as a ultra-liberal “likes everything” sort of guy, but you cannot escape your roots or how one’s own life changes one’s viewpoint – exactly how I much preferred Sunset to Sunrise. He loves opera and musicals, which there is of course nothing wrong with at all, but it says a lot about his preferences, which are to the theatrical and literary. But he sees any sort of analysis of his leanings as an attack to his very spinal column and comes out on the attack like a Ray Harryhausen Cyclops in search of fresh blood. As I said, we love him for his bluster, but he’ll have it the bluster doesn’t exist. If I can admit that I’m a misanthropic bastard with cynicism in his very bloodstream, can we not all admit our – faults is the wrong word – foibles?
Sorry but I can’t agree here, as again you are making irresponsible generalizations. My love of opera and music has nothing to do with my dislike of two single films. I also love Chaplin, Keaton, de Sica, Ozu, Renoir, Eisenstein, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Powell and Pressburger, Fellini, Dreyer, Visconti, Bresson, Bunuel, Ford, Welles, Sirk, Deren, Jennings, Loach, Leigh, Davies, Wajda, Vlacil, Menzel, Kurosawa, S. Ray, Ichikawa, Mizoguchi, Lang, Murnau, Pabst, Jutra, Beresford, Weir, Schipisi, Curtiz, Dassin, Tourneur, Huston, Siodmak, Gance, Lewton, Bava, Kubrick, Kluge, Laurel and Hardy, Sturges, N. Ray, Haynes, Chereau, Reed, Lean, Kazan, Hawks, Wellman, and many others. To pigeonhole my likes to one specific area is frankly insulting.
I never attempt to do that with you, as I have too much respect for you. You always equate “being blunt” with some kind of self-proclaimed accuracy.
But why does every response from you have to turn into an attempt to seem like an encyclopaedia? I know you love other things, yes, but when PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, absolute favourites, often the literary or theatrical comes forward with you. That’s not an insult, far from it.
I’ll let the rest ride.
FINALLY-For me, its a simple matter of taste. I definately get BEFORE SUNSET. I understand it, I knew exactly where it was headed as I watched the first time. I don’t think MY age has anything to do with how much or not so much I appreciate it. CUT TO CHASE-I think BEFORE SUNSET is a flawed, overly preachy and obnoxious movie. I DONT LIKE IT! This is, of course, MY opinion and I force it on no one. I’m allowed to think for myself. BTW-I happen to think Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, The Coen Bros., Nolan and Araonofsky are TERRIFIC directors. I like many of their films and, in a few cases, hate a few too. Just because I’m oder doesn’t mean I cabt recognize or review, correctly, what is on screen. I agree with JAMIE; this has been a most surprizing thread.
Just read this as I sit in the sunshine! Sometimes too much cinema is a bad thing folks!
I have not seen this film, but cared little for the first one when I saw it many moons ago. I would not describe that as my view now and I am tempted to watch the pair now to see what the fuss is all about!
My biggest beef with the first film at the time was how idealised and fanciful a film it was compared to the sweaty, improverished backpacking that I did where cheap beer and overcrowded smelly youth hostels were how you met anyone!
Be interesting to see how I react to that one now. For sure, the film reviewed above sounds the more interesting either way!
You and your goddamn laptop ;). I’m off to the races – a cousin of mine is riding today. And then the beach tomorrow. Some books, but no movies or computers in the interim. Well, maybe a peek in the late evening, ha ha.
Happy Memorial Day folks.
Hope you are having a great day Longman! Yeah too many movies can warp your mind!!!! LOL!!! I’d be most interested in knowing what you thought of these two Linklaters! I know you are a discerning movie watcher!
Yes, Tony, you have gotten at exactly what I meant. I feared some would take my comment as a ‘line-in-the-sand’ type thing (as MM did with his ‘this or that’ proclamation, that I do see he rescinded a bit), I was merely attempting to point out the strangeness I always find when people find a film dealing in reality about as much as one can to be unrealistic, and other extremely non-realistic stuff to be the cat’s meow. It’s just odd to me, nothing more. Since I know the film tastes of most regulars around here I thought it was a fair statement, and not ‘strawmanish’ in the least. It wasn’t meant in the negative in the least though, just something I’ve seen in the past ans always found interesting enough to think about in my head.
I suppose I also meant something that Pete Townshend goes on about in his fantastic song ‘Jools and Jim’ (from his fantastic ‘Empty Glass’ solo record). It’s a song about the critics take on when Keith Moon passed–as critics they gave him remembrance steeped in cynicism and mockery (also using it to make jabs at Townshend’s lifestyle himself), to which all Pete could respond with was this fantastic song with a line that says it all; “you listen to love with your intellect…”
You have to look at it in terms of expectations the films set up for themselves. One knows going into Wall-E that it’s about robots in outer space – it’s not as if suddenly Eve floats down into the world of Bicycle Thieves and solves some plot conflict. If Before Sunset is criticized is unrealistic, I assume it would be on the grounds that, after setting itself up as a nuanced, thoughtful presentation of the way people talk and think, it betrays this. Films, through their style and themes and narrative choices, set up certain expectations – and then either betray or uphold them. If they betray, it better be for a good reason or else it’s just going to look like a sloppy failure.
Incidentally, I personally like Before Sunset and don’t remember finding anything in particular “unrealistic.” Speaking of the Who, they to me are a band that really did a great job combining pure, unmitigated visceral impact with sly self-consciousness (not just in the obvious way, Tommy et al, and the clever lyrics, but also in the presentation of themselves as a Pop artifact and the cultivation of each distinct personality in the band). But yes, at its core, rock n roll and to a certain extent all art can only decorate the “love” with “intellect” – at its core is a feeling.
Reading this post twice MM I’m not sure your take on the Townshend quote, granting you might not be aware of the song, but Townshend is make a highly derogatory comment in regards to people like this and when people think like this. Maybe you understood this and I just don’t understand what you are saying (damn blog-barrier), but saying “But yes, at its core, rock n roll and to a certain extent all art can only decorate the “love” with “intellect” – at its core is a feeling.” is that exact opposite of what Townshend is getting at.
Jamie, I don’t know the song so I’d have to hear it in context. But from how you described the circumstances, it sounded like he was knocking the critics for not getting into the spirit of the music and standing back with arms folded sneering at Moon. That’s why I said “at its core, rock is a feeling”. (I think you may have only been focused on the first part of my statement – which was meant as a bit of an ironic – consciously ironic, mind you – counterpoint to Townshend’s quote, since few rock stars decorated their “love” with as much “intellect” as he did.)
…since few rock stars decorated their “love” with as much “intellect” as he did.)…
and vice-versa of course (hence the “at its core”).
Well, here’s something I’m sure we agree on, anyway:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1cgti_the-whospirit-of-keith-moon-1268_music
Flippin’ awesome.
We need Marcus Robinson to chime in with his opinion!! I don’t think the age argument holds water. I’m in my early thirties and I found this film flawed in similar ways as Sam. I will say that the contentiousness of this blog is what makes it unique. Insults should be curbed but the flavor of the comments and arguments should remain. Also Sam, my father is a rugged outdoorsman who loves to hunt. At an early age he taught me how to handle a rifle. I became a good shot and was able to hit 20 of 25 clay skeets by 13!! As I got older I began to abhor the idea of killing defenseless animals and severed any ties with guns and hunting. It broke his heart to some extent but I have not touched a gun in at least 15 years. I will worn you though that some skills, like riding a bike, never truly disappear lol.
Maurizio: You are one blogger I would love to meet one day! You are class. I am with you on your revised hunting philosophy and thank you so much for that personal anecdote. I caught a lot of flack at this site for my love for Stanley Kramer’s BLESS THE BEASTS AND CHILDREN, which I’ve also used in class a number of times over the years (Glendon Swarthout’s novel, that is) I’ve yet to lay my hands on a gun, though mt now 79 year old father is a retired Chief of Police in my home town, and was on the force for 30 years. One of my brothers is now a 50 year-old Police Lieutenant on the same hometown department, so I always have the “gold card” with me in case I get pulled over! LOL!!!
Have a great Memorial Day weekend!!!!
Business as usual, eh guys? I think Sam does have a special regard for literary films and musicals, but heck, I know his degrees are in lierature, so it’s understandable. But his love in film is all over the place, even in the horror genre. I second the motion for mutual respect as we do want to make everyone who comes here feel comfortable.
Sam, does like Horror yes, but liking some horror does not make one a horror fan (and I think is the central crux of Allan’s posts).
Liking something like Fernando di Leo’s ‘To Be 20’ is liking horror. I appreciate Sam’s tastes as they are different from mine (for example he’s gotten me into more opera films then I ever thought I’d watch), and I think that’s all Allan was going on about. Obviously though there is much backstory in regards to this discussion between those two that adds the additional flavor that none of us can speak on.
Jamie, you’ll probably be surprised to know that up until my mid 20’s, horror was my favorite genre, and I religiously watched Dan Curtis’ DARK SHADOWS after school every day at 4:00 P.M. I was a huge Hammer and Amicus fan in those days (I still am) and I was raised on Channel 11’s Chiller Theatre, which re-ran all the campy stuff of the 50’s. I adore the Roger Corman Poe films, the Val Lewton classics, the Universal horror, the Bava canon, Argento, and the kind of classic horror that Troy Olson discussed in this week’s wrap. (CARNIVAL OF SOULS, THE HAUNTING, THE INNOCENTS, etc.) I was an early fan of Romero’s THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, and my favorite television show of all-time is probably Boris Karloff’s THRILLER, a classic horror show.
However I’ll admit I slowly fell off the wagon, as other loves and obsessions took root, and I will look for your guidance on some of the more obscure recent stuff.
http://www.image-entertainment.com/film.asp?ProjectID=33A7FC90-A3B8-4C19-8464-9C8F010512E4&BusinessUnitID=86E09B33-2863-432E-AFFA-D34EA992FEDF&ProductID=C8C7D7CD-4D64-4A64-8FEF-9C900005C6D4
And yes Jamie there is a “back story” here. But Allan and I have a deep friendship that 1,000 of these testy interchanges couldn’t uproot. He’s like family, and like family I am not bashful to take him on, as he isn’t bashful to take me on.
yep, and I think the fact that so many of these ‘tifts’ happen here with no serious repercussions shows the appreciation and affection most show towards one another around here (and how everyone can take these with a grain a salt is also rarer then one would think around the blogosphere).
On horror, I know you are a fan of horror and know what I mean. At a certain point point, you seen so much that you could be called a fan of pretty much everything (the fact that you have seen and admire TOBY DAMMIT was all I needed to know a few months ago)… And on horror it would be interesting to me to switch places with someone like you for a day and see how it would change my opinions on these things as well. I don’t think you are the gore or shlock fan I am, but these genre’s are mostly post 1970 or so. I couldn’t imagine liking this stuff if I saw most of it after say, my first Godard. You are the opposite (as are many film fans) as the first important cinema event in my life was seeing SCANNERS at about 7 or 8 on cable. I mean what is your opinion overall of most gore-art trash type stuff. Stuff like, ‘MANIAC!’, ‘DRILLER KILLER’, ‘GUINEA PIG (series)’, ‘NEKROMANTIK’. I’m just curious, as I cannot see this stuff anymore with clear lenses as I’m just so rooted in it.
This in a nutshell is why I believe you continue to drift from horror, much of the subgenre stuff is mostly shit, and you are rooted in so much else. Even I used to see horror films to ‘regular’ films at about a 1:1 ratio, now I like art fare more (this HAS to do with maturing my tastes) and my intake has decreased with each passing year (thankfully you have asked me to do this horror countdown, it’s taken me back in time which is a really fun exercise)… I wonder where I’ll be taste wise in 20 years or so (wherever I am I hope I can still watch something like the Spanish 1982’s PIECES and laugh/like it) lol.
Oh and RE: THRILLER. I remember when this was discussed a few months back (and recently you sent out the email), I watched a few episodes on youtube and liked them. Do you have any specific favorite episodes? My youth equivalent was the FRIDAY THE 13TH TV SHOW, and TALES FROM THE CRYPT on HBO.
What a beautful comment here Jamie, one that expresses full understanding of the way things go around here. Your insights are really amazing.
As far as naming my favorite THRILLER episodes, I’ll admit that’s much like asking a young kid if he wants an ice cream cone!! LOL!!!
Pigeons From Hell (from story by Robert E. Howard)
The Incredible Doctor Markeson
The Weird Tailor
The Cheaters
Well of Doom
The Devil’s Ticket
Waxworks
The Hungry Glass
The Grim Reaper
The Premature Burial
La Strega
Terror in Teakwood
Masquerade
A Good Imagination
The Return of Andrew Bently
A Wig For Miss Devore
Parasite Mansion
Yours Truly Jack the Ripper
I just came across this quote from Henri Matisse:
“…I have always sought to be understood and, while I was taken to task by critics or colleagues, I thought they were right, assuming I had not been clear enough to be understood. This assumption allowed me to work my whole life without hatred and even without bitterness toward criticism, regardless of its source. I counted solely on the clarity of expression of my work to gain my ends. Hatred, rancor, and the spirit of vengeance are useless baggage to the artist. His road is difficult enough for him to cleanse his soul of everything which could make it more so.”
Tony this is fantastic.
I wish it was available online but there is a Milan Kundera introduction to a Francis Bacon Portraits book (now going for a hefty sum on amazon) that speaks to the artist impulse. I’ve photocopied it and given to friends countless times and I have been quoted as saying it’s one of my single favorite pieces of written passages I’ve ever read.
Perhaps a local library has the book (I wouldn’t doubt it, that is were I first encountered it) and you can read it. I can not recommend it high enough.
This is the book to help ya out:
Thanks Jamie. I will try and find it.
Oh, and not sure if you saw this a few days back:
“Your letter arrived just a few days ago. I want to thank you for the great confidence you have placed in me. That is all I can do. I cannot discuss your verses; for any attempt at criticism would be foreign to me. Nothing touches a work of art so little as words of criticism: they always result in more or less fortunate misunderstandings. Things aren’t all so tangible and sayable as people would usually have us believe; most experiences are unsayable, they happen in a space that no word has ever entered, and more unsay able than all other things are works of art, those mysterious existences, whose life endures beside our own small, transitory life.”
-Rainer Maria Rilke ‘Letter One’ in “Letters to a Young Poet”
I posted this in the ‘Lives of Others’ thread.
Yes Jamie, I did see the quote, but to be honest only now on re-reading it do I see it’s full meaning and power. Thanks for re-posting.
This brings me to the role of criticism, particularly in cinema. Cinema as a largely visual medium is a non-verbal experience and putting down in words one’s experience will always be inadequate; and who is to say a critic’s experience is richer than a non-critic’s? Indeed, a critic comes to a work with a lot of baggage: pre-conceptions, filters, dogma, and worst of all, a certain hubris. As the Zen master said: better to have the glass half-full than overflowing.
Segue to Rilke. I am familiar with Rilke, having come across his writing during my ‘spiritual search’ phase in Matthew Fox’s ‘The Coming of the Cosmic Christ’, which also introduced me to the wonderful poetics of Hildegard of Bingen, Teresa of Avila, and Meister Eckhart.
I do not see how this and the other quote align; one posits a constructive function for criticism, the other sees it as irrelevant. Both visions have a certain validity but they are hardly complementary.
Tony, I’m kind of perplexed as to why you posted the Matisse quote as it butts up against the spirit of both the earlier comments you made and these more recent ones inspired by Rilke.
Truffaut and Godard did not see anything particularly contradictory about criticism and filmmaking, although Godard did say that the best way to criticize a film is to make another.
It strikes me that while your cold water is seen as a corrective to the excess of criticism you see on these boards (though I’m not sure I’d classify the commentary by and large as criticism, nor are you when regarding criticism favorably), you’re in fact taking aim at a dying breed. Print criticism is, it’s no secret, almost completely dying off. Online “movie talk” is taking off but is ambivalent about criticism due to the form’s strictures, its attempts at objectivity, its perpetual “dancing about architecture” futility. At the same time, the imperatives of the box office proceed unchecked and I wonder if picking wars with criticism is really the most important thing for movie-lovers to be doing right now.
As someone who has tried his hand at both criticism and filmmaking, I see the two disciplines as quite distinct from one another; though they can be mutually enriching, they largely have separate means and aims, despite having the same object. I think both have their place.
By the way, the critic’s experience may not be richer than a non-critic’s but the critic is usually more articulate (unless he or she is not a good critic). An artist’s experience may also not be richer than a non-artist’s, but it’s usually better expressed. The critic’s role is to articulate, the artist’s to express. Comparisons of their fundamental experience to the layman’s are red herrings in this sense.
As that great Queens philosopher, Frank Costanza, said: serenity now!
Joel, to quote the great Frank again, you wanna piece a me?!
Both quotes are complimentary and neither are they mutually exclusive: one is from an artist on how he deals with criticism, and they other is the view of another artist on the value of criticism.
What have Truffaut and Godard got to do with the price of fish?
I poured cold water on the conceit of many wannabe critics, not on criticism per se in my earlier comments, and today I simply expressed a view on the adequacy of film criticism generally.
Again what have your pretensions re film-making and criticism got to do with the price of fish, unless you are referring to the smell of the stale article?
You missed my point completely, being more articulate does not make you more perceptive or better able to experience art. Yet another bourgeois pretension.
I am sure you won’t let me have the last word, but I can tell you now I have lost interest.
Blah blah blah. I may have challenged some of your assertions, but did not do so rudely. Can’t say the same in return – but then you didn’t challenge any of my points, you merely retreated, as always into condescending disengagement.
You know what you can do with that “last word.”
Fantastic films; I just watched them this week and reviewed them myself on my blog. I couldn’t agree with you more how amazingly Delpy and Hawke did in their roles. Truly little cinematic gems.
I just told by my friend that she hates Before Sunset just because she has to decide the ending by herself. Before Sunrise is truly a spontaneous romance that brings you wonderful feelings, especially if you really care about little details in the movie . But Before Sunset for me is the best ambiguous-ending-movie I’ve ever watched.
I usually feel so upset when the movie questioned me back about the ending. But it’s not. Since some endings are better to be ambiguous, just like the way it has to be. Cause when it has absolute endings, it leads to another questions.
The simplicity and the smart dialogue are the key points why people admire the script (also me..)
oh, and for Allan, thanks for your writings about Before Sunrise. Love your writings, impressive indeed.
Thanks, Libby. Not sure if it’s your first comment here, but if so, welcome.