Long Facsinating Essay on the Failure of Modern Film Criticism

[Eric P]

special hate reserved for cheebs

long article, shamelessly stolen from a Qt3 link

http://www.nypress.com/article-18219-what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-movies.html

To discuss movies as if they were irrelevant to individual experience—just bread-and-circus rabble-rousers—breeds indifference. And that’s only one of the two worst tendencies of contemporary criticism. The other is elitism.

This schism had an ironic origin—the popularization of film criticism as a consumer’s method. A generation of readers and filmgoers were once sparked by the discourse created by Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris during the period that essayist Philip Lopate described as ìthe heroic era of moviegoing.î The desire to be a critic fulfilled the urge to respond to what was exciting in the culture. Movie commentary was a media rarity in those days and relatively principled (even the Times’ Arts & Leisure section used to present a forum for contrary opinions). And then the television series At the Movies happened. Its success, moving from public to commercial broadcast (who can tell the difference anymore?), resulted in an institution. Permit an insider’s story: It is said that At the Movies host Roger Ebert boasted to Kael about his new TV show, repeatedly asking whether she’d seen it. Kael reportedly answered “If I want a layman’s opinion on movies, I don’t have to watch TV.”

Kael’s cutting remark cuts to the root of criticism’s problem today. Ebert’s way of talking about movies as disconnected from social and moral issues, simply as entertainment, seemed to normalize film discourse—you didn’t have to strive toward it, any Average Joe American could do it. But criticism actually dumbed down. Ebert also made his method a road to celebrity—which destroyed any possibility for a heroic era of film criticism.
At the Movies helped criticism become a way to be famous in the age of TV and exploding media, a dilemma that writer George W. S. Trow distilled in his apercu “The Aesthetic of the Hit”: “To the person growing up in the power of demography, it was clear that history had to do not with the powerful actions of certain men but with the processes of choice and preference.” It was Ebert’s career choice and preference to reduce film discussion to the fumbling of thumbs, pointing out gaffes or withholding “spoilers”—as if a viewer needed only to like or dislike a movie, according to an arbitrary set of specious rules, trends and habits. Not thought. Not feeling. Not experience. Not education. Just reviewing movies the way boys argued about a baseball game.
Don’t misconstrue this as an attack on the still-convalescent Ebert. I wish him nothing but health. But I am trying to clarify where film criticism went bad. Despite Ebert’s recent celebration in both Time magazine and The New York Times as “a great critic,” neither encomium could credit him with a single critical idea, notable literary style or cultural contribution. Each paean resorted to personal, logrolling appreciations. A.O. Scott hit bottom when he corroborated Ebert’s advice, “When writing you should avoid cliché, but on television you should embrace it.” That kind of thinking made Scott’s TV appearances a zero.

[Tauntaun]

Long Facsinating Essay on the Failure of Modern Film Criticism

You lost me there buddy.   :'(

[Mandark]

I have a rule of thumb where I tune out anyone after they use "bread and circuses" to describe modern culture.

Originally it was for political pieces (where it means "if only you'd stop watching American Idol and paid attention you'd agree with my platform!") but maybe it should apply here too.  It's terribly self-satisfied.

[Eric P]

tl:dr version

shit sux cuz internet

[Smooth Groove]

This article is more poorly written than a typical Ebert review.

[Smooth Groove]

There are tons of Ebert reviews online yet he couldn't pull any examples from them to make his point?  So basically Ebert sucks because some other elitist thinks so? 

Great argument. 

[Tauntaun]

tl:dr version

shit sux cuz internet

K, thanks. 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

You say long and I just pop boners man.  Can't think straight. 

[close]

[Bloodwake]

Yeah, this sounds about right.

[Mandark]

Genghis: No, I got it.  I'm not saying he's deploying the phrase in that way, just that it gets used that way in political essays.

He was saying that criticism should relate movies to real human experience and Important Things rather than evaluate them as Mere Entertainment, and thus make criticism more meaningful.  I've heard this argument before and I kind of sympathize with it, but aiming for social relevance won't weed out dumb results from bloggers.

[Eric P]

i think that there is a great deal in what he says because what he states relates pretty specifically to my own views, so of course i'm going to be wildly biased in his favor.

he states basically that there is a lot of shoddy criticism which has a populist/spectacle bent which does not allow detailed readings / conversations on film to enter into the general dialog of most film comment.  he goes on to state that the internet is basically an festering shithole of uninformed people trying to appear knowledgeable about film but they do not have the tools in order to do so in a competent manner.

About 10 years ago or so, I used to  read a lot of film criticism and movie reviews/news sites including stuff like AICN, Dark Horizons and Ebert and the like.  I would follow this stuff pretty religiously and allowed it to shape a lot of my thought on film, but when I started to notice a real disconnect between what they enjoyed and what I enjoyed I took a step back and another and another until I have largely nothing to do with those specific places nor the archetype of internet movie expert (willco notwithstanding).

My own knowledge of film writing is fairly small.  I'm very familiar with Ebert and Agee and people form stuff like Film Comment and Sight and Sound, but only have a passing knowledge of Kael and others of her ilk, so I am not as well educated on film criticism (or much critical theory at all).

[recursivelyenumerable]

world socialist web site movie reviews

[Eric P]

have you read Jim Agee's stuff?  The guy who influenced Kael?

Check out the excellent Agee on Film

http://www.amazon.com/Agee-Film-Criticism-Comment-Library/dp/0375755292/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241637067&sr=8-1

[Smooth Groove]

My problem with the article is that the english and argumentative methods just aren't very good.  How can he tell other people how to write when he himself isn't a very good writer?

[Don Flamenco]

blah diddy fucking blah

maybe I'll read it later 

[recursivelyenumerable]

dude reminds me of a couple of Usenet trolls I used to follow

[Don Flamenco]

the reason I'm usually immediately repulsed by anything labeled "____ criticism" is passages like these:

Kael’s cutting remark cuts to the root of criticism’s problem today. Ebert’s way of talking about movies as disconnected from social and moral issues, simply as entertainment, seemed to normalize film discourse—you didn’t have to strive toward it, any Average Joe American could do it. But criticism actually dumbed down. Ebert also made his method a road to celebrity—which destroyed any possibility for a heroic era of film criticism.

not to sound anti-intellectual, but isn't this a little anti-non-academic and narrow minded?  honestly asking what people think, that's not a rhetorical question.   The reason why Ebert's method is popular is because it isn't heavy handed.  if he started drawing on deep film theory, he'd be out of a job in a flash.

[Eric P]

i think the main issue is that rather than that providing a counterpoint, that's seemingly all which film criticism became.

going back and re-reading this and thinking a bit more, there are still intelligent, educated film critics who are make insightful reviews, but they're writing for academic journals long after the film releases rather than the stuff which is screened tuesday, written about the next day and published Friday.

[Eric P]

Wait a second this is that fucker who champions Brian de Palma isn't it?  I know that fucking tone, i know that fucking tone.

yup, i was right.

of all the people to champion...

[Howard Alan Treesong]

“It can be said with certainty,” Armond White wrote in the weekly New York Press, that anyone panning “Mission to Mars” “does not understand movies, let alone like them.”

link or it didn't happen

[Smooth Groove]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/movies/17scot.html

much better writer than Armond White

[Howard Alan Treesong]

I feel like the essay has some really good points about the "dumbing down" of film criticism and especially the armchair enthusiast mindset of so many Internet self-deluded legends. I hate the focus on production stories, box office numbers, and God forfend Rotten Tomatoes aggregates as much as anyone. I think he is unfair to Ebert and others, though; I mean, by the standards of what passes for film writing today, Ebert is actually a force for critical good. He may not be going Kael-level deep but he does engage with the movies on their own merits and discuss how well they accomplish what they set out to do, rather than just summarizing the plot, rating the CG, and calling it a day.

I dated a girl for a few months and whenever we went to see a movie I would try to talk with her about it and she couldn't say anything except she liked it or she didn't like it. I think there's a lot of people out there who say they "like movies" but are just totally film illiterate when it comes to dissecting what makes them work and why.

I also think the author's continual name dropping of other movies which you better like or else you're an uneducated philistine significantly undermines his central point. He wanders away from "nobody is doing good film writing these days" to "nobody likes all the movies I like, which are the best movies" rather quickly.

[Eric P]

i found scarface to be horrific excess (though totally intentional, i know) but haven't seen mission to mars.  that the film would even HAVE staunch defenders has now made me curious enough to add it to my netflix queue.

[Eel O'Brian]

Pauline Kael is a pleasure to read, even if you dislike her.  She championed a whole lot of films that were under the radar in the 70s, and she wrote passionately and intelligently about them.  You should check her out.

this is true, and i think she was a total cunt

[Eric P]

robert redford agrees!

[Eel O'Brian]

and clint eastwood, and etc. etc.

[Eel O'Brian]

i'm trying to think of a brian depalma film i liked

hmm

the untouchables, even though it has fanfic levels of historical inaccuracy

hmm

maybe body double, i'd have to watch it again

[Cheebs]

ARMOND WHITE!??! He called Confessions of a Shopoholic perfect and said Death Race with Jason Statham was better than The Wrestler!

He also tends to heap praise on every single Adam Sandler movie. And called Transporter 3 the best movie of 2008. He is insane.

[Eric P]

i'm trying to think of a brian depalma film i liked

hmm

the untouchables, even though it has fanfic levels of historical inaccuracy

hmm

maybe body double, i'd have to watch it again

i like de palma, but it's similar to my enjoyment of coppola, i don't worship him

Sisters, Carrie, The Fury, Mission Impossible (really), Black Dalhia.

I liked the opening for Femme Fatale (hubba hubba)

[Howard Alan Treesong]

"Bow down to Hollywood season is upon us. If the line, “We’re going to make you indestructible, but first we’re going to destroy you,” seems awesome, you’re probably male and more than likely a child— at least emotionally.That consumer-oriented line is from X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which, like the new Star Trek movie, is designed for adolescent awe. Problem is: It’s not just niche marketing, it’s become the way of American film culture.These action/comic book/TV/fantasy/CGI flicks are not about plot.Their only purpose: teaching audiences to watch movies crudely, as teenagers, as a boy. At that, Wolverine and Star Trek succeed damnably."

The man has a point.

I was complaining to a friend yesterday... Hollywood used to demand a permanent adolescence from its moviegoers in the 90s, but at least we got original IP. Nowadays, we're supposed to be permanent 9-year-olds, we have TWO movies this summer based on Hasbro action figures. That plus a PG-13 Terminator sequel, and anything that's not a romantic comedy is a "reimagining" of a perfectly fine 80s movie.

I don't think it's just me getting older. Action/mainstream "popcorn" movies from the 80s were so much better than those from the 90s, too.

[Eric P]

"Bow down to Hollywood season is upon us. If the line, “We’re going to make you indestructible, but first we’re going to destroy you,” seems awesome, you’re probably male and more than likely a child— at least emotionally.That consumer-oriented line is from X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which, like the new Star Trek movie, is designed for adolescent awe. Problem is: It’s not just niche marketing, it’s become the way of American film culture.These action/comic book/TV/fantasy/CGI flicks are not about plot.Their only purpose: teaching audiences to watch movies crudely, as teenagers, as a boy. At that, Wolverine and Star Trek succeed damnably."

The man has a point.

I was complaining to a friend yesterday... Hollywood used to demand a permanent adolescence from its moviegoers in the 90s, but at least we got original IP. Nowadays, we're supposed to be permanent 9-year-olds, we have TWO movies this summer based on Hasbro action figures. That plus a PG-13 Terminator sequel, and anything that's not a romantic comedy is a "reimagining" of a perfectly fine 80s movie.

I don't think it's just me getting older. Action/mainstream "popcorn" movies from the 80s were so much better than those from the 90s, too.

Speed Racer was awesome.

[Cheebs]

Oh and this is the guy who said Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the greatest steven spielberg film ever. He also is just a plain bad journalist. He often gets character names wrong and mixes up directors of the films he is reviewing.

[Eric P]

the man's mother is on her way to pick him up, he only had time to google the author's name

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Speed Racer was awesome.

okay, you got me there.

however, it was also a huge box office failure because it was an ACTUAL reimagining, not a focus-tested, Entertainment Weekly-approved imagination-free "reimagining." GI Joe is an 8-year-old's idea of adult entertainment. I wouldn't mind this glut of nostalgia mining if everyone was as willing to tell the "fans" to fuck off as the Wachowski Siblings.

[recursivelyenumerable]

"Bow down to Hollywood season is upon us. If the line, “We’re going to make you indestructible, but first we’re going to destroy you,” seems awesome, you’re probably male and more than likely a child— at least emotionally.

i wouldn't say awesome, but it seems pretty cute and if i were writing an x-men movie and the line occurred to me, i would probably put it in

[Eel O'Brian]

i'm trying to think of a brian depalma film i liked

hmm

the untouchables, even though it has fanfic levels of historical inaccuracy

hmm

maybe body double, i'd have to watch it again

i like de palma, but it's similar to my enjoyment of coppola, i don't worship him

Sisters, Carrie, The Fury, Mission Impossible (really), Black Dalhia.

I liked the opening for Femme Fatale (hubba hubba)

hahaha, i forgot he directed some of those

yeah, i guess i like a few, but i don't go out of my way to see a depalma movie

[Cheebs]

Did you read the essay?

I skimmed over it. But how does that dispute the fact the guy is insane? Why should I read an essay from a guy who spent the majority of his review of the wrestler talking about how much more eloquent death race with jason statham was and thought the main characters name was "ram jam"? And claims "White Chicks" to be one of the best comedy films of all time?

It'd be like wanting to read an essay on film from a manabyte, but a manabyte with severe brain damage.

[Eel O'Brian]

that warren ellis gi joe mini thing he's doing for cartoon network is okay

i never watched any of the original cartoons, though

[Eric P]

yeah, i guess i like a few, but i don't go out of my way to see a depalma movie

this boils down my relationship with Coppola exactly.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Did you read the essay?

I skimmed over it. But how does that dispute the fact the guy is insane? Why should I read an essay from a guy who spent the majority of his review of the wrestler talking about how much more eloquent death race with jason statham was and thought the main characters name was "ram jam"? And claims "White Chicks" to be one of the best comedy films of all time?

Cool, bring up some more irrelevant details from unrelated articles that allow you to not engage the central point of the essay we're talking about (which is about you).

[Cheebs]

Strawman etc.

Strawman? Look at all of his reviews

He hates pretty much EVERY film that has any sort of acclaim and tends to gives good reviews to universally panned studio manufactured stuff like shopholic, chuck and larry, white chicks...etc. It's very rare if he actually likes something that isnt studio trash.

I know it's about me! I skimmed the article. I am not that dense. My point is this man is not qualified to make the point because he is just as bad as the people he is attacking, but in his own way.

He is the reason we get films like white chicks and the like.

[Eric P]

He is the reason we get films like white chicks and the like.

i would ask you to defend this statement but there is no way which you can

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Besides, if you're going to play Mr. Open-Minded and claim to have evolved beyond elitism and love everything from summer escapist fare to fall Oscar bait, well, surely there is room in that manufactured Internet persona for White Chicks

[Eric P]

Wait, he makes a good point, but he is not qualified to make that point because he is what he is talking about?  Ideas aren't people and vice versa.  

"you may kill cheebs, but you cannot kill what he represents"
-Cheebs Guevara

[Cheebs]

Wait, he makes a good point, but he is not qualified to make that point

Yes. It's like if Joe the Plumber in one of his rants about not wanting gays around his kids and nonsense actually slips in something halfway understandable. It doesn't mean I'd decide to take what he said seriously.

Plus he has no opinions. He likes being a troll just to get attention. He gives rave reviews to the endless stream of chick-flicks and black-oriented comedies just because he wants to be different. I don't just understand how a film critic who's whole goal is to troll and rarely does any research on who the actors and directors are for a given film. Almost any other newspaper would have fired him.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Who cares what critics have to say, just watch what you want and enjoy it if it's good.

[Cheebs]

A lot of people enjoy engaging in the exchange of ideas.

I'm fine with that, but he isn't someone who is trying to exchange ideas. I am fine with that with critics I'd disagree with on nearly everything. But he doesn't taking reviewing seriously. He writes reviews just to get attention from being outrageous.

[FlameOfCallandor]

A lot of people enjoy engaging in the exchange of ideas.

You're not qualified to say that.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

jk

[close]

[Mandark]

Whatever anyone thinks of the article, I think we can all agree that Cheebs is dumb.

[Cheebs]

I've never claimed to be otherwise.

[drew]

A lot of people enjoy engaging in the exchange of ideas.

faggots. all of them.

[Smooth Groove]

Speed Racer was crap.  Just because it was an actual reimagining doesn't mean that it was actually good. 

Also, Cheebs is dumb but I'm with him on this.  Armond White clearly has shit taste which preclude him from having a legit discussion on the proper reviewing of films.   

[Eric P]

Speed Racer was crap.  Just because it was an actual reimagining doesn't mean that it was actually good. 

no.  that it was good means that it was actually good.

[Smooth Groove]

Other than the visuals (although Fox> Ricci by a fairly big distance) , Speed Racer wasn't any better than Transformers. 

[Eric P]

i think that we're basically in the territory of subjective taste

[Phoenix Dark]

Cheebs is right, but this is still a shoot-the-messenger affair. He may be a shitty critic - in fact he's clearly worse than I am - but that doesn't disqualify him from having a broad opinion on what film criticism is.

[Oblivion]

Speed Racer was crap.  Just because it was an actual reimagining doesn't mean that it was actually good. 

Also, Cheebs is dumb but I'm with him on this.  Armond White clearly has shit taste which preclude him from having a legit discussion on the proper reviewing of films.   

Agreed on all counts, especially Speed Racer (which I should probably actually watch someday just to confirm, but anyway...).

I mean let's be fair here guys. People (including here in EB) discredit other people's opinions based on their tastes all the time. If this was written by Sean Maelstrom, none of you would have bothered to read past the title.

[Eric P]

i have no idea who that is

[TVC15]

I think that's a gay porn star?

[Fresh Prince]

Cheebs is right, but this is still a shoot-the-messenger affair. He may be a shitty critic - in fact he's clearly worse than I am - but that doesn't disqualify him from having a broad opinion on what film criticism is.

No you really are that bad.

[Phoenix Dark]

Cheebs is right, but this is still a shoot-the-messenger affair. He may be a shitty critic - in fact he's clearly worse than I am - but that doesn't disqualify him from having a broad opinion on what film criticism is.

No you really are that bad.

Usually I just write down what I like about a movie, what I don't like. I'm not getting payed for my shitty reviews, which is why this guy has a leg up on me