Thumbs down. No stars.
May 8, 2008 9:44 PM Subscribe
What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Movies by Armond White. Premiere.com critic and cineaste blogger, Glenn Kenny responds. Movie reviewers across America lose their jobs. Hachette Filipacchi follows suit at Premiere.com. Kenny blogs about The End of an Era - having written reviews for the site and the previously cancelled Premiere magazine for nearly fifteen years.
I have no idea what this guy's point is.
posted by Falconetti at 10:25 PM on May 8, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by Falconetti at 10:25 PM on May 8, 2008 [3 favorites]
Metafilter: I have no idea what this guy's point is
posted by mazola at 10:27 PM on May 8, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by mazola at 10:27 PM on May 8, 2008 [5 favorites]
Null Pointer, do you really think so little of film as an art form that you would constrain writing about film in such a way?
He mentions The Darjeeling Limited in his article, and I remember an uncomfortable feeling I had watching the movie, the way the family relationship and the personalities made me uneasy. Most reviewers treated this as a hit against the film, but I had the feeling it was one of those good uncomfortable feelings which means I was facing perhaps a part of myself I didn't like while watching the family on the screen. I have a feeling it has much more re-watch value than Wes Anderson's more charming earlier films.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:28 PM on May 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
He mentions The Darjeeling Limited in his article, and I remember an uncomfortable feeling I had watching the movie, the way the family relationship and the personalities made me uneasy. Most reviewers treated this as a hit against the film, but I had the feeling it was one of those good uncomfortable feelings which means I was facing perhaps a part of myself I didn't like while watching the family on the screen. I have a feeling it has much more re-watch value than Wes Anderson's more charming earlier films.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:28 PM on May 8, 2008 [2 favorites]
Everything else is just opinion, which should be left to the entire audience, and not just an elite few.
Some people are really good at having opinions, though.
I agree with White that real criticism is more fun to read than the consumer-guide stuff that most "film critics" are hired to perform, but apart from that, his article is terrible. What's his problem with reporting on the film production process? Is Hollywood's political economy supposed to be irrelevant? One of his listed "fallacies" is the position that "documentaries ought to be partisan rather than reportorial or observational" -- and that is a fallacy, but not in the way he means it (that documentaries should be reportorial rather than partisan); it's a fallacy because obviously the overwhelming majority of documentaries have always been both. Are we supposed to return to the "objectivity" of Harlan County USA, Titicut Follies, and Winter Soldier?
More urgently, his taste is atrocious. How can I trust a dude who rates World Trade Center above United 93, Munich above Zodiac, and Bobby above Elephant? This guy is arguing that Hollywood's political movies have insufficient liberal bathos!
posted by stammer at 10:31 PM on May 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
Some people are really good at having opinions, though.
I agree with White that real criticism is more fun to read than the consumer-guide stuff that most "film critics" are hired to perform, but apart from that, his article is terrible. What's his problem with reporting on the film production process? Is Hollywood's political economy supposed to be irrelevant? One of his listed "fallacies" is the position that "documentaries ought to be partisan rather than reportorial or observational" -- and that is a fallacy, but not in the way he means it (that documentaries should be reportorial rather than partisan); it's a fallacy because obviously the overwhelming majority of documentaries have always been both. Are we supposed to return to the "objectivity" of Harlan County USA, Titicut Follies, and Winter Soldier?
More urgently, his taste is atrocious. How can I trust a dude who rates World Trade Center above United 93, Munich above Zodiac, and Bobby above Elephant? This guy is arguing that Hollywood's political movies have insufficient liberal bathos!
posted by stammer at 10:31 PM on May 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
This is why I don't read the New York Press. The in-house idea seems to be that elitism is shit and that pandering is shit and that all art ever made is one or the other EXCEPT for several extremely bizarre examples that seem to be pulled out of their ass. Is most film criticism shit? Yes. Was it better in the 'golden day of movie-going?' I doubt we'll know, as we don't live in it (as it's been described), nor have we ever single film review written during it on the internet and ready for our perusal.
posted by Football Bat at 10:44 PM on May 8, 2008
posted by Football Bat at 10:44 PM on May 8, 2008
How strange.
I saw this as someone who really, dearly wanted to like the The Darjeeling Limited - It really wasn't all that good, and there wasn't that much to talk about there exept maybe a discussion of why it was kind of disapointing.
I liked bits of it I guess.
posted by Artw at 10:53 PM on May 8, 2008
I saw this as someone who really, dearly wanted to like the The Darjeeling Limited - It really wasn't all that good, and there wasn't that much to talk about there exept maybe a discussion of why it was kind of disapointing.
I liked bits of it I guess.
posted by Artw at 10:53 PM on May 8, 2008
I think what's interesting, though, is not White's point - which I actually disagree with - but the fact that while most film criticism is shit, it seems to be getting worse with the proliferation of online bloggers/reviewers and the squeezing out of film critics from major publications. I don't think it's elitist to expect film criticism to be well written and delivered from someone who knows film history beyond the last five years. This doesn't mean it was better in the so-called "golden days" but that the films of that era aren't being regarded by the new wave of film critics, who are the mutant children of Aint-It-Cool-News, whose entire film history begins (and sometimes ends) with Star Wars.
That's why I linked to critic Glenn Kenny's response to White's article and to articles about other critics being let go, because they all seem to be a symptom of the same thing - saturation of the marketplace. (And a possible oncoming recession could be partly to blame.)
Meanwhile, Kenny has set up his own blog - Some Came Running - and hopefully that will follow in the style of his Premiere.com blog. Cross fingers that someone, somewhere sees this injustice and he continues to write erudite, knowledgeable film reviews
posted by crossoverman at 11:00 PM on May 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
That's why I linked to critic Glenn Kenny's response to White's article and to articles about other critics being let go, because they all seem to be a symptom of the same thing - saturation of the marketplace. (And a possible oncoming recession could be partly to blame.)
Meanwhile, Kenny has set up his own blog - Some Came Running - and hopefully that will follow in the style of his Premiere.com blog. Cross fingers that someone, somewhere sees this injustice and he continues to write erudite, knowledgeable film reviews
posted by crossoverman at 11:00 PM on May 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
I pride myself on being able to digest and spit out large amounts of double speak and other academic babble; I have no idea what this man is arguing. Or maybe I do understand him but his point is so dull I'm trying to find some deeper redeeming meaning.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:19 PM on May 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:19 PM on May 8, 2008 [1 favorite]
This article seems to boil down to:
1) Reduced entrance costs into my field mean my labor is not as valuable as it used to be; people do not realize the true value of my work.
2) People don't like the things I like, therefore they must have bad taste and poor educations.
posted by Pyry at 11:32 PM on May 8, 2008 [6 favorites]
1) Reduced entrance costs into my field mean my labor is not as valuable as it used to be; people do not realize the true value of my work.
2) People don't like the things I like, therefore they must have bad taste and poor educations.
posted by Pyry at 11:32 PM on May 8, 2008 [6 favorites]
I don't know what the fuck this shitstick is talking about. I guess with my "mendacious, pseudo-serious, sometimes immoral" leanings toward film academy, I sometimes get too "meta" on humble film critics, who are altruistically out to share their stupidity like so much chickenfeed.
KAEL <> SONTAG
EBERT
Whoever
whoever else
.
.
.
* <- this shitstick
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:04 AM on May 9, 2008
KAEL <> SONTAG
EBERT
Whoever
whoever else
.
.
.
* <- this shitstick
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:04 AM on May 9, 2008
I was mostly with him until he said that War of the Worlds was one of, "The most powerful, politically and morally engaged recent films..."
Seriously, War of the Worlds (and it was the newer one, I thought maybe he meant the really old one) is not engaging or political at all. The book is (depending on your viewpoint) but the movie? Come on.
Then again, I guess I'm just one of those uneducated morons, and I'm the reason movie reviews suck these days.
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 12:23 AM on May 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
Seriously, War of the Worlds (and it was the newer one, I thought maybe he meant the really old one) is not engaging or political at all. The book is (depending on your viewpoint) but the movie? Come on.
Then again, I guess I'm just one of those uneducated morons, and I'm the reason movie reviews suck these days.
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 12:23 AM on May 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
It is funny that people don't seem to believe that sturgeon's law applies to hollywood films.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:28 AM on May 9, 2008
posted by Space Coyote at 12:28 AM on May 9, 2008
White's point is less web v. print, and more book review v. lit crit. it's great to have someone review a book and tell me whether to bother with it. But sometimes, it's nice to read someone's crackpot, or brilliant, analysis of a book's plot. Whether or not celebrity coverage and film reviews are pushing crit out of mainstream publications (article length, deadlines, and pay rates probably have more to do with it), I'm the jerk who would kind of miss the latter.
Now, there are a zillion reasons to ignore New York Press. But Armond White isn't one of them.* Despite the pretension (apercu? really??), and the controversy for the sake of controversy, White is good at what he does: He makes people think about a given film in a new light—even if I usually hate stuff he praises, or enjoy things that he pans.
Finally, White's a nice guy. If he smiles at you at a premiere, honest to god, it's probably because he's happy to see you.
*Feel free to ignore it anyway. I do!
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:59 AM on May 9, 2008 [4 favorites]
Now, there are a zillion reasons to ignore New York Press. But Armond White isn't one of them.* Despite the pretension (apercu? really??), and the controversy for the sake of controversy, White is good at what he does: He makes people think about a given film in a new light—even if I usually hate stuff he praises, or enjoy things that he pans.
Finally, White's a nice guy. If he smiles at you at a premiere, honest to god, it's probably because he's happy to see you.
*Feel free to ignore it anyway. I do!
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:59 AM on May 9, 2008 [4 favorites]
I love Armond White's film criticism. I love it because it is exceptional. And said with great passion and intent. And is often, I am positive, wrong.
And I love Armond White's criticism because he says shit that I think is batshitinsane. And then, on closer inspection, turns out genuinely is batshitinsane (for example his blind reverence for Spielberg) or, sometimes not :
The desire to be a critic fulfilled the urge to respond to what was exciting in the culture
I think, the point of his whole article/essay is in this. That what is being deemed "exciting" has shifted from a more intellectual/academic interpretation to a mere - "shit blowed up good" interpretation; and the internet is to blame. Which is an interesting point. Horribly expressed. And, which I think is largely wrong. For every 'ain't-it-cool-news' there's a "Like Anna Karina's sweater". alright, maybe that's not the very best example, but I like the blog and it has lead me to other good pieces of film criticism.
Most importantly he made the point and no-one else was going to make it. What's more, at least as often as I think he's wrong, I think he's right. He is always interesting.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:31 AM on May 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
And I love Armond White's criticism because he says shit that I think is batshitinsane. And then, on closer inspection, turns out genuinely is batshitinsane (for example his blind reverence for Spielberg) or, sometimes not :
The desire to be a critic fulfilled the urge to respond to what was exciting in the culture
I think, the point of his whole article/essay is in this. That what is being deemed "exciting" has shifted from a more intellectual/academic interpretation to a mere - "shit blowed up good" interpretation; and the internet is to blame. Which is an interesting point. Horribly expressed. And, which I think is largely wrong. For every 'ain't-it-cool-news' there's a "Like Anna Karina's sweater". alright, maybe that's not the very best example, but I like the blog and it has lead me to other good pieces of film criticism.
Most importantly he made the point and no-one else was going to make it. What's more, at least as often as I think he's wrong, I think he's right. He is always interesting.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:31 AM on May 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
I don't think it's elitist to expect film criticism to be well written and delivered from someone who knows film history beyond the last five years.
Actually, I think we're moving into an era where possessing any knowledge of a subject beyond the absolute rudimentary knowledge is going to be considered elitist.
The prevailing attitude among my high school students (and this is different from even five years ago) is "why should I have to know anything about a subject to have an opinion on it."
Perhaps we are moving into the post-quality era.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:12 AM on May 9, 2008 [13 favorites]
Actually, I think we're moving into an era where possessing any knowledge of a subject beyond the absolute rudimentary knowledge is going to be considered elitist.
The prevailing attitude among my high school students (and this is different from even five years ago) is "why should I have to know anything about a subject to have an opinion on it."
Perhaps we are moving into the post-quality era.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:12 AM on May 9, 2008 [13 favorites]
I haven't read Armond White in years, but my favorite article of his has to be the one where compared an N'Sync video to the works of Godard. And he was serious.
posted by fungible at 2:28 AM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by fungible at 2:28 AM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Armand White or no Armand White, this kind of screed seems to be happening more often in the NY PRESS. I stopped reading it when they devoted an entire 5-page cover article to how much the author hated the book sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs and its author, Chuck Klosterman. Or, to be more specific, I stopped reading when I got to the three whole paragraphs containing highly specific, florid, metaphoric prose that compared Klosterman's face to buttocks and his mouth to an anus. And I am NOT kidding.
Rants about why you dislike something can be fun to read. Rants calling someone a butthead can be fun to read. But neither warrant being published as a cover article for a newspaper.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:36 AM on May 9, 2008
Rants about why you dislike something can be fun to read. Rants calling someone a butthead can be fun to read. But neither warrant being published as a cover article for a newspaper.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:36 AM on May 9, 2008
Film reviewing is a decadent, cushy niche job - yet I'm a huge fan of the genre.
I've yet to spot a Ken Tynan or the like among the Imdb amateur user movie reviews but - as a punter - I love the access to a broader range of enthusiasts.
(And I could never quite understand how Glenn Kenny held that plum position at Premiere. I always thought he was the king of the cluttered, opaque, and self-important lecture. Dead wrong a lot of the time too.)
posted by Jody Tresidder at 5:41 AM on May 9, 2008
I've yet to spot a Ken Tynan or the like among the Imdb amateur user movie reviews but - as a punter - I love the access to a broader range of enthusiasts.
(And I could never quite understand how Glenn Kenny held that plum position at Premiere. I always thought he was the king of the cluttered, opaque, and self-important lecture. Dead wrong a lot of the time too.)
posted by Jody Tresidder at 5:41 AM on May 9, 2008
Think that main link's down.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:04 AM on May 9, 2008
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:04 AM on May 9, 2008
This is one of those MeFi posts where the comments are far more interesting than the post, which is a good thing, I guess.
As for movie reviews, I don't trust them one bit.
posted by Vindaloo at 6:16 AM on May 9, 2008
As for movie reviews, I don't trust them one bit.
posted by Vindaloo at 6:16 AM on May 9, 2008
I never understood what value film critics bring to society anyway. They could all be taken up in the Rapture and I'd never notice.
posted by Doohickie at 6:20 AM on May 9, 2008
posted by Doohickie at 6:20 AM on May 9, 2008
I guess film criticism is also about what we bring to it, which is why I am always banging on about current critics who have little knowledge and no appreciation for where the art form has been before. Essentially, nobody ever needs to read a film review. You can pick and choose what you see based on a preference for genre, director, writer, actor, trailer.
The best film critic for me can put a film in context - how does it fit into the genre; how does it fit into the director's oeuvre; has this kind of story been done before - better or worse. Now this doesn't necessarily tell me about the film itself; a review, any review from Kenny or Ebert or Joe Morgenstern or Richard Corliss or Aint-It-Cool-News, is ultimately one person's opinion.
But I respect the opinion of a critic who can craft a sentence and tell me about their experience. Great film criticism is enlightening, even if you don't necessarily agree with the author's view of the film - because it might tell you something about them or how they relate it to other works.
When I admire a film critic, like Kenny or Ebert (or in Australia, David Stratton), it's because I understand where they are coming from. Having read many, many of their reviews, I know how to gauge their opinion. A lot of film criticism today has no style and no sense of context - the review might as well be written in a vacuum; if I can't learn about the author a little, how can I possibly know how to take the review?
Clearly we don't all need film critics (see: most weekends' box office), but some of them love the job they can do. A film critic I trust can introduce me to films I would never have watched or appreciate a film I didn't like (or didn't get) or reveal to me an angle from which I have never approached a film before.
Or they can have me nodding along with them, thinking "hey, see I'm not crazy - someone else loved this film too!"
Actually, I think we're moving into an era where possessing any knowledge of a subject beyond the absolute rudimentary knowledge is going to be considered elitist.
Yes, just ask Hillary who seems to be appending the term "elitist" to everything she doesn't like. But that's another thread altogether.
posted by crossoverman at 6:54 AM on May 9, 2008
The best film critic for me can put a film in context - how does it fit into the genre; how does it fit into the director's oeuvre; has this kind of story been done before - better or worse. Now this doesn't necessarily tell me about the film itself; a review, any review from Kenny or Ebert or Joe Morgenstern or Richard Corliss or Aint-It-Cool-News, is ultimately one person's opinion.
But I respect the opinion of a critic who can craft a sentence and tell me about their experience. Great film criticism is enlightening, even if you don't necessarily agree with the author's view of the film - because it might tell you something about them or how they relate it to other works.
When I admire a film critic, like Kenny or Ebert (or in Australia, David Stratton), it's because I understand where they are coming from. Having read many, many of their reviews, I know how to gauge their opinion. A lot of film criticism today has no style and no sense of context - the review might as well be written in a vacuum; if I can't learn about the author a little, how can I possibly know how to take the review?
Clearly we don't all need film critics (see: most weekends' box office), but some of them love the job they can do. A film critic I trust can introduce me to films I would never have watched or appreciate a film I didn't like (or didn't get) or reveal to me an angle from which I have never approached a film before.
Or they can have me nodding along with them, thinking "hey, see I'm not crazy - someone else loved this film too!"
Actually, I think we're moving into an era where possessing any knowledge of a subject beyond the absolute rudimentary knowledge is going to be considered elitist.
Yes, just ask Hillary who seems to be appending the term "elitist" to everything she doesn't like. But that's another thread altogether.
posted by crossoverman at 6:54 AM on May 9, 2008
I never understood what value film critics bring to society anyway. They could all be taken up in the Rapture and I'd never notice.
Well, Doohickie, there are really two types, and each has a different value:
A film reviewer's value is to help me avoid wasting my time and money on crap, and assist me in finding things I'll enjoy. He or she is part of my defense against misleading trailers and other attempts to get me to spend my cash and my two hours on Uwe Boll's latest. Friends and family, or even random blogs can sometimes do this as well or better, but the reviewer usually gets to see an advance screening and you can get to know a track record of how well your tastes agree with hers. This is what you get in a random newspaper "movie review" section. Four or 5 paragraphs of description. Useful, but a dime a dozen, and now things like IMDB have reduced their usefulness quite a bit.
A critic is a different animal, whose value is to point out things I didn't catch or didn't know, or make connections I didn't. "Notice that when we first see this character, he's walking out of a bright light," or "Regarding the film's climax, when the group turns against the leader; you might want to know that the screen writer had just joined the Communist party and said at the time that he considered the characters' actions in that light." He or she is there for commentary to help me get more out of a film than I might have otherwise. Four or 5 pages of analysis, or more. Short little reviews online don't do the same job. Anyone know anybody doing this halfway competently in blogs? I'd love to start reading them.
The problem with both animals is that they have a sad tendency to either start phoning it in, or else to get an overinflated sense of themselves and get pretentious or arrogant or both.
Both Nathan Lee (arrogant) and Armond White (pretentious) think they're critics. Neither does much for me. Glenn Kenny maybe a bit more.
posted by tyllwin at 7:18 AM on May 9, 2008 [7 favorites]
Well, Doohickie, there are really two types, and each has a different value:
A film reviewer's value is to help me avoid wasting my time and money on crap, and assist me in finding things I'll enjoy. He or she is part of my defense against misleading trailers and other attempts to get me to spend my cash and my two hours on Uwe Boll's latest. Friends and family, or even random blogs can sometimes do this as well or better, but the reviewer usually gets to see an advance screening and you can get to know a track record of how well your tastes agree with hers. This is what you get in a random newspaper "movie review" section. Four or 5 paragraphs of description. Useful, but a dime a dozen, and now things like IMDB have reduced their usefulness quite a bit.
A critic is a different animal, whose value is to point out things I didn't catch or didn't know, or make connections I didn't. "Notice that when we first see this character, he's walking out of a bright light," or "Regarding the film's climax, when the group turns against the leader; you might want to know that the screen writer had just joined the Communist party and said at the time that he considered the characters' actions in that light." He or she is there for commentary to help me get more out of a film than I might have otherwise. Four or 5 pages of analysis, or more. Short little reviews online don't do the same job. Anyone know anybody doing this halfway competently in blogs? I'd love to start reading them.
The problem with both animals is that they have a sad tendency to either start phoning it in, or else to get an overinflated sense of themselves and get pretentious or arrogant or both.
Both Nathan Lee (arrogant) and Armond White (pretentious) think they're critics. Neither does much for me. Glenn Kenny maybe a bit more.
posted by tyllwin at 7:18 AM on May 9, 2008 [7 favorites]
I suspect that one reason people are so skeptical of the value of criticism is that one rarely encounters good criticism. This is not to say that good criticism was more common in the past; good works float to the top in time.
Film criticism isn't my specialty, but if you need to be convinced of the value of criticism and are looking for something accessible, Orwell writing on Wodehouse is a good start. It shows the marks of something that's only possible with considerable experience and research.
posted by honest knave at 7:27 AM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Film criticism isn't my specialty, but if you need to be convinced of the value of criticism and are looking for something accessible, Orwell writing on Wodehouse is a good start. It shows the marks of something that's only possible with considerable experience and research.
posted by honest knave at 7:27 AM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think film critics should be at least readable ... so two thumbs down for this guy.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 7:42 AM on May 9, 2008
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 7:42 AM on May 9, 2008
By the way, I'm surprised nobody knows about Armond Dangerous, a blog dedicated to "parsing the confounding film criticism of Armond White." Most American filmgoers don't know who White is, but there's already a blog on the Internet entirely devoted satirically critiquing nobody else but him. Perhaps that's why White has a beef with Internet film criticism. If anything, I've found that the Internet (outside the realm of sites like aint-it-cool.com) has actually improved the quality of film criticism, if only because the collective memory of the teeming millions on the Internet makes it harder for film critics to fake knowledge of films that they don't have.
posted by jonp72 at 7:53 AM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by jonp72 at 7:53 AM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Anyone know anybody doing this halfway competently in blogs? I'd love to start reading them.
Here is one.
posted by pushing paper and bottoming chairs at 8:58 AM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
Here is one.
posted by pushing paper and bottoming chairs at 8:58 AM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
I feel very strongly that Armand White is the worst film critic in America. Really. The worst. He can't tell you if you'd like to see a given movie or not. His tastes are too random to use him as a judge for that. So he is worthless to 99% of people who just want to know if they should spend eleven dollars or not.
This could be forgiven if he was a "critic" of any worth. But no. His ideas on art are silly in the extreme, mostly a hodgepodge of emotional reactions based on his politics, and yet he expresses them with such highfalutin language and utter disdain for his readers that you can almost be tricked into thinking he's making rational observations. He isn't. He is a barrel of preconcieved notions and politics willing to insult his reader if they don't agree with him. Ugh.
Maybe he is a nice human being, even if he is vile on paper. But if I saw him at a movie opening I would run. I would be too afraid that he'd want to talk about the film with me.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:03 AM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
This could be forgiven if he was a "critic" of any worth. But no. His ideas on art are silly in the extreme, mostly a hodgepodge of emotional reactions based on his politics, and yet he expresses them with such highfalutin language and utter disdain for his readers that you can almost be tricked into thinking he's making rational observations. He isn't. He is a barrel of preconcieved notions and politics willing to insult his reader if they don't agree with him. Ugh.
Maybe he is a nice human being, even if he is vile on paper. But if I saw him at a movie opening I would run. I would be too afraid that he'd want to talk about the film with me.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:03 AM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
Film critics serve the same function as critics of any other art form, they put the artworks in context, draw parallels, point out recurring themes in an author's works, etc.
People who loudly dismiss the very existence of film critics either have a very low opinion of film's relevance as an art form, or embrace false dichotomies of the "art / entertainment" kind, or both.
posted by signal at 9:22 AM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
People who loudly dismiss the very existence of film critics either have a very low opinion of film's relevance as an art form, or embrace false dichotomies of the "art / entertainment" kind, or both.
posted by signal at 9:22 AM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
As somebody who gets paid to write about the movies, I've been following these recent developments pretty closely. The firings at the Voice, Matt Zoller Seitz's move from criticism to filmmaking, and now Glenn getting the axe are all very troubling -- but there is still a vibrant online world of film criticism beyond Aint It Cool. The must-read clearing house is David Hudson's incredibly comprehensive GreenCine Daily. For more, check my list of recommended movie blogs.
posted by muckster at 9:33 AM on May 9, 2008
posted by muckster at 9:33 AM on May 9, 2008
How can I take this article seriously when the author fails to name-check Anthony Lane?
Seriously, I was hoping the article would be about money. I'd be more interested in films if I could see a flowchart of whose pockets were being lined by the box office take and how advertisers, theatre chains and film execs influenced the original creative vision.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:14 AM on May 9, 2008
Seriously, I was hoping the article would be about money. I'd be more interested in films if I could see a flowchart of whose pockets were being lined by the box office take and how advertisers, theatre chains and film execs influenced the original creative vision.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:14 AM on May 9, 2008
I was totally with him when he said that places like rotten tomatoes and aintitcollnews.com were endangering the valuable office of professinoal film journalist.
because that makes sense.
and then he said that War of the Worlds was an important culturally relevant film but There Will Be Blood was shallow, psuedo-serious and socially irresponsible.
don't get me wrong, he's welcome to his opinion, but he never explains anything coherently. the only qualities of TWBB that he specifically defines are that it starts tragically and ends nastily (the significance of this in his hatred of the film is left out of the article, however) and that it's "melodramatic" which is undeniably true and one of the film's more widely praised aspects. Where this article is concerned, he is an absolute failure at expressing his opinion of the film, and that's his job.
But the kicker is when he says that big problem with film criticism is elitism and then spends something on the order of 15 thousand paragraphs decrying Roger Ebert as "a layman," to - in some completely insane way - support his point.
The man is clearly out of his mind.
posted by shmegegge at 10:21 AM on May 9, 2008
because that makes sense.
and then he said that War of the Worlds was an important culturally relevant film but There Will Be Blood was shallow, psuedo-serious and socially irresponsible.
don't get me wrong, he's welcome to his opinion, but he never explains anything coherently. the only qualities of TWBB that he specifically defines are that it starts tragically and ends nastily (the significance of this in his hatred of the film is left out of the article, however) and that it's "melodramatic" which is undeniably true and one of the film's more widely praised aspects. Where this article is concerned, he is an absolute failure at expressing his opinion of the film, and that's his job.
But the kicker is when he says that big problem with film criticism is elitism and then spends something on the order of 15 thousand paragraphs decrying Roger Ebert as "a layman," to - in some completely insane way - support his point.
The man is clearly out of his mind.
posted by shmegegge at 10:21 AM on May 9, 2008
also, he claims that the critics ignored shortbus, and that's the exact opposite of true. the critics adored shortbus. so did virtually everyone who saw it, if you could find a theater willing to screen it.
lastly, there's this gem:
The social fragmentation that fed the 1980s indie movement, decentralizing film production away from Los Angeles, had its correlative in film journalism. Critics everywhere flailed about for a center, for authority, for knowledge; they championed all sorts of unworked-out, poorly made films (The Blair Witch Project, Gummo, Dogville, Southland Tales) proposing an indie-is-better/indie-is-new aesthetic.
let's be clear, if you're trying to describe a corollary to the 1980s indie movement among critics, do so by pointing out what critics were saying during the 1980s indie movement, not a completely different decade. further, don't (later in the article) lump Dead Man in with Inland Empire as if they were part of the same movement, since they're separated by 11 years of actual time and 30 of career time by their respective directors.
for god's sake this was one stupid article.
posted by shmegegge at 10:27 AM on May 9, 2008
lastly, there's this gem:
The social fragmentation that fed the 1980s indie movement, decentralizing film production away from Los Angeles, had its correlative in film journalism. Critics everywhere flailed about for a center, for authority, for knowledge; they championed all sorts of unworked-out, poorly made films (The Blair Witch Project, Gummo, Dogville, Southland Tales) proposing an indie-is-better/indie-is-new aesthetic.
let's be clear, if you're trying to describe a corollary to the 1980s indie movement among critics, do so by pointing out what critics were saying during the 1980s indie movement, not a completely different decade. further, don't (later in the article) lump Dead Man in with Inland Empire as if they were part of the same movement, since they're separated by 11 years of actual time and 30 of career time by their respective directors.
for god's sake this was one stupid article.
posted by shmegegge at 10:27 AM on May 9, 2008
Good Christ, is Armond White still around? I won't say he's the worst reviewer I've ever read, because there's a lot of competition, but man is he bad. I used to write letters to the NY Press a dozen or so years ago mocking him mercilessly, and there were always others doing the same. (One nice thing about the Press, they printed all the letters they got—I have no idea if that's still the case.) Anyway, if you made it to the end of that typical messy rant, you're a better rant-consumer than I.
posted by languagehat at 11:10 AM on May 9, 2008
posted by languagehat at 11:10 AM on May 9, 2008
I've never read this guy before, and his is a bit off base, but one problem a lot of people are having is that they are confusing opinion with criticism.
The critic's job is to cast the movie in the historical context of its medium so as to identify its importance in that medium. In other words, to explain why No Country For Old Men is a watershed moment in filmmaking, whereas There Will Be Blood is not. But both are fine films, reated at least subjectively, but the former is more important.
Secondly, the critics job is to expose, or at least reveal, the thematic importance of the work. Is the film making a moral, political, or artistic statement, etc.
But the obsession with pre-production news and celebrity interviews diminishes this second function. The work of art is supposed to stand alone, divorced from what the director or writer's intended. But if we have an interview with the director where he explains what his film was trying to say, the explanation in that interview becomes substituted for the statements the film itself actually makes. The film can no longer exist as art enclosed within it's own boundaries; the critic is forced to look to extrinsic evidence to verify that his conclusions about the film align with the creator's intent.
That said, I don't care about the opinions of most moviegoers. For example, I've read a lot of reviews of Iron Man, recently, and most of the internet reviews are concerned with whether the film is true to the comic book. I don't care about the comic book, because I've never read it, and if I had read it, I wouldn't see the need to revisit the same story in another medium.
But what I did not read in any of those reviews was the point that the "mad scientist" villian of the 50's and 60's has been replaced with corporate executive as villian, with the scientist now playing the role of accidental hero (see also, Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four; but see Superman). Iron Man has presented this dichotomy more obviously and unambiguously than any of the recent superhero movies. To me there is a statement here about our collective ambivalence about science in the service of profit, and that now we expect the morality of the scientist to trump the amorality of the profit motive. We've come a long way since Frankenstein, Nazi experiments, and Einstein's ruminations about the moral role of scientists working for the military.
So not being able to find this is a review, and having some confidence that my thoughts are not wholly off base, I have to wonder what the value of all those reviews is?
posted by Pastabagel at 11:41 AM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
The critic's job is to cast the movie in the historical context of its medium so as to identify its importance in that medium. In other words, to explain why No Country For Old Men is a watershed moment in filmmaking, whereas There Will Be Blood is not. But both are fine films, reated at least subjectively, but the former is more important.
Secondly, the critics job is to expose, or at least reveal, the thematic importance of the work. Is the film making a moral, political, or artistic statement, etc.
But the obsession with pre-production news and celebrity interviews diminishes this second function. The work of art is supposed to stand alone, divorced from what the director or writer's intended. But if we have an interview with the director where he explains what his film was trying to say, the explanation in that interview becomes substituted for the statements the film itself actually makes. The film can no longer exist as art enclosed within it's own boundaries; the critic is forced to look to extrinsic evidence to verify that his conclusions about the film align with the creator's intent.
That said, I don't care about the opinions of most moviegoers. For example, I've read a lot of reviews of Iron Man, recently, and most of the internet reviews are concerned with whether the film is true to the comic book. I don't care about the comic book, because I've never read it, and if I had read it, I wouldn't see the need to revisit the same story in another medium.
But what I did not read in any of those reviews was the point that the "mad scientist" villian of the 50's and 60's has been replaced with corporate executive as villian, with the scientist now playing the role of accidental hero (see also, Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four; but see Superman). Iron Man has presented this dichotomy more obviously and unambiguously than any of the recent superhero movies. To me there is a statement here about our collective ambivalence about science in the service of profit, and that now we expect the morality of the scientist to trump the amorality of the profit motive. We've come a long way since Frankenstein, Nazi experiments, and Einstein's ruminations about the moral role of scientists working for the military.
So not being able to find this is a review, and having some confidence that my thoughts are not wholly off base, I have to wonder what the value of all those reviews is?
posted by Pastabagel at 11:41 AM on May 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
to explain why No Country For Old Men is a watershed moment in filmmaking,
don't get me wrong, I love the movie, but why IS it a watershed moment in fimmaking? that's an awfully big claim.
posted by shmegegge at 11:53 AM on May 9, 2008
don't get me wrong, I love the movie, but why IS it a watershed moment in fimmaking? that's an awfully big claim.
posted by shmegegge at 11:53 AM on May 9, 2008
I was wondering the same thing -- especially given the second part: "whereas There Will Be Blood is not."
posted by muckster at 11:58 AM on May 9, 2008
posted by muckster at 11:58 AM on May 9, 2008
But if we have an interview with the director where he explains what his film was trying to say, the explanation in that interview becomes substituted for the statements the film itself actually makes. The film can no longer exist as art enclosed within it's own boundaries; the critic is forced to look to extrinsic evidence to verify that his conclusions about the film align with the creator's intent.
This is a very New Criticism way to view film criticism. Outside information has been affecting how we view artwork for as long as we've had the media, from the days when famous artists got famous by carting canvas down to the salons of rich folk to tell all of them about how important their artwork is to the days when academics would pore over the letters of James Joyce to find those hidden little gems they could not discover on their own. There is value in letting the work stand on its own, just ask Virginia Woolf, but it's a mistake to wholly eliminate outside information when analyzing the work.
The principle problem with obsessing over pre-production is that it's given to the world IN ADVANCE of the work, and the marketing hype and buzz over the work is too often swirling around speculation and empty promises in order to sell tickets. we've stopped going to movies to see movies and instead go to them in order to say we were there for the big spectacle, because pre-production rags insist that a BIG SPECTACLE is precisely what it will be. Put another way: these mags, as opposed to the trade mags, suffer from what games magazines have suffered from for almost as long. They are advertisements, devoid (largely) of actual critical opinion. The fact that people are more interested in seeing Indiana Jones in order to find out if Shia Lebeouf's character is indy's son is absurd. But hey, that's marketing for you. It poisons everything.
posted by shmegegge at 12:11 PM on May 9, 2008
This is a very New Criticism way to view film criticism. Outside information has been affecting how we view artwork for as long as we've had the media, from the days when famous artists got famous by carting canvas down to the salons of rich folk to tell all of them about how important their artwork is to the days when academics would pore over the letters of James Joyce to find those hidden little gems they could not discover on their own. There is value in letting the work stand on its own, just ask Virginia Woolf, but it's a mistake to wholly eliminate outside information when analyzing the work.
The principle problem with obsessing over pre-production is that it's given to the world IN ADVANCE of the work, and the marketing hype and buzz over the work is too often swirling around speculation and empty promises in order to sell tickets. we've stopped going to movies to see movies and instead go to them in order to say we were there for the big spectacle, because pre-production rags insist that a BIG SPECTACLE is precisely what it will be. Put another way: these mags, as opposed to the trade mags, suffer from what games magazines have suffered from for almost as long. They are advertisements, devoid (largely) of actual critical opinion. The fact that people are more interested in seeing Indiana Jones in order to find out if Shia Lebeouf's character is indy's son is absurd. But hey, that's marketing for you. It poisons everything.
posted by shmegegge at 12:11 PM on May 9, 2008
Armond White sure has some strange ideas about film culture these days. Just looking at his list of sins commited by film culture, at least half of them are refutable and all of them dubious. Gummo was well-liked? Everyone is ignoring Stephen Chow? Critics liked Redacted and Rendition? I was going to start listing the rest, but that began to tire me (though I must say that his Van Sant jab would be dangerously close to a slur if it weren't so obtuse.)
posted by Weebot at 12:15 PM on May 9, 2008
posted by Weebot at 12:15 PM on May 9, 2008
Perversely, and I say this because I agree with every point against Mr. White, for myself Armond White serves to remind of all that criticism can be, by showing it at its, uh, most contrarian. And I think that's a worthwhile position.
I've thought about this inordinately (which maybe is to say, at all) and I actually stand by it. He makes outrageous claims, he does not back them up or backs them up poorly, but in the end they are provocative and lead me to think about movies in ways I would not have otherwise. And no matter how often I think he's wrong, I rarely read anything by Anthony Lane (pleasurable though it might be) and think then about the movie I have seen or will see.
I mean, "War of The Worlds" - Dude!!!!11!!1 WIN !!! AmIright?
posted by From Bklyn at 1:18 PM on May 9, 2008
I've thought about this inordinately (which maybe is to say, at all) and I actually stand by it. He makes outrageous claims, he does not back them up or backs them up poorly, but in the end they are provocative and lead me to think about movies in ways I would not have otherwise. And no matter how often I think he's wrong, I rarely read anything by Anthony Lane (pleasurable though it might be) and think then about the movie I have seen or will see.
I mean, "War of The Worlds" - Dude!!!!11!!1 WIN !!! AmIright?
posted by From Bklyn at 1:18 PM on May 9, 2008
The point about the lack of political engagement in modern criticism is interesting enough that I wished he had unpacked it rather than rant in various contradictory directions.
why IS it a watershed moment in fimmaking?
I'm also curious about that.
posted by D at 1:26 PM on May 9, 2008
why IS it a watershed moment in fimmaking?
I'm also curious about that.
posted by D at 1:26 PM on May 9, 2008
This gives me the Dutch chills.
posted by dosterm at 3:01 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by dosterm at 3:01 PM on May 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Some people are really good at having opinions, though.
Being good at "having" opinions really doesn't make any relevant sense. Everyone "has" an opinion. Expressing your opinion all the time doesn't mean your good at forming an opinion either.
Being good at articulating, in a persuasive way, your opinions is a valuable skill. And some people are very good at that. But that has evolved in this internet age into "debating" more than expressing an opinion well.
Frankly the whole thing bores me. It devolves into taste wars which is a past-time for morons.
We have come to an age where most people don't create anything, have had little creative outlet, and don't produce much of any artistic content in their lives. They just glom on to the coat tails of people who do - people who do take the risk. These wannabes can only find artistic satisfaction by assessing other peoples tastes and compulsively require bias confirmation to shade their own insecurities. And unfortunately these are the wheels that squeak the loudest. Just go to Pitchfork.
Oh. And yeah. This guy didn't really ever have a point.
posted by tkchrist at 4:09 PM on May 9, 2008
Being good at "having" opinions really doesn't make any relevant sense. Everyone "has" an opinion. Expressing your opinion all the time doesn't mean your good at forming an opinion either.
Being good at articulating, in a persuasive way, your opinions is a valuable skill. And some people are very good at that. But that has evolved in this internet age into "debating" more than expressing an opinion well.
Frankly the whole thing bores me. It devolves into taste wars which is a past-time for morons.
We have come to an age where most people don't create anything, have had little creative outlet, and don't produce much of any artistic content in their lives. They just glom on to the coat tails of people who do - people who do take the risk. These wannabes can only find artistic satisfaction by assessing other peoples tastes and compulsively require bias confirmation to shade their own insecurities. And unfortunately these are the wheels that squeak the loudest. Just go to Pitchfork.
Oh. And yeah. This guy didn't really ever have a point.
posted by tkchrist at 4:09 PM on May 9, 2008
"The critic's job is to cast the movie in the historical context of its medium so as to identify its importance in that medium. In other words, to explain why No Country For Old Men is a watershed moment in filmmaking, whereas There Will Be Blood is not. But both are fine films, reated at least subjectively, but the former is more important.
I was kind of curious about your reasons for this assertion as well, though I agree with you.
"But what I did not read in any of those reviews was the point that the "mad scientist" villian of the 50's and 60's has been replaced with corporate executive as villian, with the scientist now playing the role of accidental hero (see also, Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four; but see Superman). Iron Man has presented this dichotomy more obviously and unambiguously than any of the recent superhero movies. To me there is a statement here about our collective ambivalence about science in the service of profit, and that now we expect the morality of the scientist to trump the amorality of the profit motive. We've come a long way since Frankenstein, Nazi experiments, and Einstein's ruminations about the moral role of scientists working for the military."
It's unclear to me whether or not you saw Iron Man, but there are a couple of things that I think you're missing. The first is that the move to corporate villains happened in the '80s, at least in the comic books (broadly), with the movie based on a pretty canonical arc. And the tension of business a/immorality stretches back even further than "Christmas Carole." Second, we really haven't come past Einstein's ruminations; Iron Man only makes it past those ruminations at the end of the second act, when Downy embraces his role as a hero ("accidental" is also an odd way to tie Iron Man in with those other heroes—"ironic" would be more apt).
I don't think that there was a lot of novelty in that statement, and I think that rote feeling was one of Iron Man's flaws, that the moral statements in it were perfunctory and without conviction or insight. You probably shouldn't blithely work in anti-social industries, but the American government is generally trustworthy. And you shouldn't be a cad, but your secretary is totally into it when you imply that you will fire her if she doesn't have sex with you.
Iron Man was the movie equivalent of a well-done lobby painting—surprising but decorative.
posted by klangklangston at 12:00 AM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
I was kind of curious about your reasons for this assertion as well, though I agree with you.
"But what I did not read in any of those reviews was the point that the "mad scientist" villian of the 50's and 60's has been replaced with corporate executive as villian, with the scientist now playing the role of accidental hero (see also, Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four; but see Superman). Iron Man has presented this dichotomy more obviously and unambiguously than any of the recent superhero movies. To me there is a statement here about our collective ambivalence about science in the service of profit, and that now we expect the morality of the scientist to trump the amorality of the profit motive. We've come a long way since Frankenstein, Nazi experiments, and Einstein's ruminations about the moral role of scientists working for the military."
It's unclear to me whether or not you saw Iron Man, but there are a couple of things that I think you're missing. The first is that the move to corporate villains happened in the '80s, at least in the comic books (broadly), with the movie based on a pretty canonical arc. And the tension of business a/immorality stretches back even further than "Christmas Carole." Second, we really haven't come past Einstein's ruminations; Iron Man only makes it past those ruminations at the end of the second act, when Downy embraces his role as a hero ("accidental" is also an odd way to tie Iron Man in with those other heroes—"ironic" would be more apt).
I don't think that there was a lot of novelty in that statement, and I think that rote feeling was one of Iron Man's flaws, that the moral statements in it were perfunctory and without conviction or insight. You probably shouldn't blithely work in anti-social industries, but the American government is generally trustworthy. And you shouldn't be a cad, but your secretary is totally into it when you imply that you will fire her if she doesn't have sex with you.
Iron Man was the movie equivalent of a well-done lobby painting—surprising but decorative.
posted by klangklangston at 12:00 AM on May 10, 2008 [1 favorite]
ps—Movie dudes, this has been happening to music for years, often at the same places.
posted by klangklangston at 12:01 AM on May 10, 2008
posted by klangklangston at 12:01 AM on May 10, 2008
I'm still waiting to hear why No Country for Old Men is a watershed moment in filmmaking. I thought it was pretty great, but a lot of what was great about it was already present in the source material, which was adapted surprisingly faithfully given the limitations of running time, etc. I thought There Will Be Blood — especially that amazing first act — was significantly better as cinema qua cinema.
When I talk to folks, generally younger than me, who claim to ignore critics, I always ask them how they actually make their choices about what movies they see. Almost always, they respond that the trailers tell them almost everything they need to know about which movies will appeal to them, with the rest coming from word of mouth in their circles of friends (friends who were induced to see the film, no doubt by watching the trailers). This makes me sad, not just because it indicates that a whole new generation of moviegoers is perfectly happy with and trusting of the marketing departments of major movie studios, but also that the kind of smaller film that had no P&A budget to speak of but could benefit from enthusiastic reviews will have an ever-tougher time making headway. Yes, I think this effect is balanced somewhat by the explosion of (sometimes intelligent, less-often skillfully written) film writing on the Internet. But I do wonder where film culture goes from here.
posted by Joey Bagels at 8:05 AM on May 10, 2008
When I talk to folks, generally younger than me, who claim to ignore critics, I always ask them how they actually make their choices about what movies they see. Almost always, they respond that the trailers tell them almost everything they need to know about which movies will appeal to them, with the rest coming from word of mouth in their circles of friends (friends who were induced to see the film, no doubt by watching the trailers). This makes me sad, not just because it indicates that a whole new generation of moviegoers is perfectly happy with and trusting of the marketing departments of major movie studios, but also that the kind of smaller film that had no P&A budget to speak of but could benefit from enthusiastic reviews will have an ever-tougher time making headway. Yes, I think this effect is balanced somewhat by the explosion of (sometimes intelligent, less-often skillfully written) film writing on the Internet. But I do wonder where film culture goes from here.
posted by Joey Bagels at 8:05 AM on May 10, 2008
I still don't see the value in a critic (or reviewer). I frankly very seldom agree with ANYTHING they say; I watch a movie once in a great while, usually on the recommendation of friends. I don't follow published critics enough to have a feel for whether their worldview is close enough to mine for me to give a rat's ass what they think about a given movie.
posted by Doohickie at 9:05 PM on May 13, 2008
posted by Doohickie at 9:05 PM on May 13, 2008
« Older Gab Zamgrh? | Snipers in Iraq Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Null Pointer and the Exceptions at 9:59 PM on May 8, 2008 [1 favorite]