The Worst Criterion Critic

News on Criterion and Janus Films.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#1 Post by GringoTex » Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:57 am

From Criterion's website:
Simon Hits the Shelves

A new collection of film reviews by esteemed critic and Criterion contributor John Simon is in bookstores now. John Simon on Film: Criticism 1982–2001 includes a wealth of erudite and often controversial critical writing from New York magazine, The Hudson Review, National Review, and other notable publications, as well as a new introduction by filmmaker Bruce Beresford. Also recently available from Simon—whose writing accompanies Criterion's releases of Ingmar Bergman's Smiles of a Summer Night and Andrzej Wajda's Kanal—are John Simon on Theater: Criticism 1974–2003 and John Simon on Music: Criticism 1979–2005.
Simon made a career out of hating Godard, Bresson, and classical Hollywood cinema. What a trifecta. Hate him!

User avatar
pzman84
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:05 pm

#2 Post by pzman84 » Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:19 am

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/92861.html

Well, he was fired from his job. And he is 79. Doesn't have much longer to be an ass.

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

#3 Post by tavernier » Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:34 pm

Langlois68 wrote:From Criterion's website:
Simon Hits the Shelves

A new collection of film reviews by esteemed critic and Criterion contributor John Simon is in bookstores now. John Simon on Film: Criticism 1982–2001 includes a wealth of erudite and often controversial critical writing from New York magazine, The Hudson Review, National Review, and other notable publications, as well as a new introduction by filmmaker Bruce Beresford. Also recently available from Simon—whose writing accompanies Criterion's releases of Ingmar Bergman's Smiles of a Summer Night and Andrzej Wajda's Kanal—are John Simon on Theater: Criticism 1974–2003 and John Simon on Music: Criticism 1979–2005.
Simon made a career out of hating Godard, Bresson, and classical Hollywood cinema. What a trifecta. Hate him!
He also wrote some of the best criticism of Antonioni, Bergman and early Fellini.....he's a great writer whose interests in literature, theater, painting, poetry, opera and music (classical, of course) show he's not just a one trick pony, like most other movie reviewers.

User avatar
Jean-Luc Garbo
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
Contact:

#4 Post by Jean-Luc Garbo » Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:47 pm

What's the source of the animosity towards Simon? Is it jealousy? I have friends who hate him as much as they hate Kael or Sontag. He can be overbearing, but I always find him amusing. His confessed obsession with the looks of performers does put me off though.

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

#5 Post by tavernier » Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:59 pm

AMB wrote:What's the source of the animosity towards Simon? Is it jealousy? I have friends who hate him as much as they hate Kael or Sontag. He can be overbearing, but I always find him amusing. His confessed obsession with the looks of performers does put me off though.
I think it's because Simon "hates" more than he "likes." His
negative review of "Fanny and Alexander" is devastatingly hard-hitting - all the more so when you realize that of all filmmakers, Simon loved Bergman best, so whenever Bergman put out a sub-par film, Simon felt let down by a close friend....and proceeded to rip him to shreds!

If nothing else, he's an honest critic. (By the way, he turned 80 in May and still writes about theater for Bloomberg.)

User avatar
bunuelian
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:49 am
Location: San Diego

#6 Post by bunuelian » Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:39 pm

No doubt Simon thinks you should lose your job and die because he doesn't like your opinions. At least you're even.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#7 Post by GringoTex » Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:41 pm

tavernier wrote:
He also wrote some of the best criticism of Antonioni, Bergman and early Fellini.....he's a great writer whose interests in literature, theater, painting, poetry, opera and music (classical, of course) show he's not just a one trick pony, like most other movie reviewers.


That's my biggest problem with him: he was unable to approach film criticism from a cinematic perspective. Which is why he was incapable of writing intelligently about the image. He reviewed films the same way he reviewed plays. Actually, he and Kael were very similar in this regard, but Kael was ten times the writer and much more humorous.

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

#8 Post by tavernier » Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:41 pm

Langlois68 wrote:
tavernier wrote:
He also wrote some of the best criticism of Antonioni, Bergman and early Fellini.....he's a great writer whose interests in literature, theater, painting, poetry, opera and music (classical, of course) show he's not just a one trick pony, like most other movie reviewers.


That's my biggest problem with him: he was unable to approach film criticism from a cinematic perspective. Which is why he was incapable of writing intelligently about the image. He reviewed films the same way he reviewed plays. Actually, he and Kael were very similar in this regard, but Kael was ten times the writer and much more humorous.
In other words, if you are interested in other art forms, you can't be interested in films.....only film buffs need apply, I guess.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#9 Post by GringoTex » Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:09 pm

tavernier wrote:
In other words, if you are interested in other art forms, you can't be interested in films.....only film buffs need apply, I guess.
No- those are your words, as is obvious to anybody who reads my post. Simon was a terrible critic who didn't like a film unless it made him feel like he was in the theater or at the opera. Simply put, he didn't understand cinema.

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

#10 Post by tavernier » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:44 pm

Langlois68 wrote: Simon was a terrible critic who didn't like a film unless it made him feel like he was in the theater or at the opera. Simply put, he didn't understand cinema.
Any examples of this in his reviews?

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#11 Post by GringoTex » Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:58 pm

tavernier wrote:
Langlois68 wrote: Simon was a terrible critic who didn't like a film unless it made him feel like he was in the theater or at the opera. Simply put, he didn't understand cinema.
Any examples of this in his reviews?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156443600/

There's been mention of the "tough love" Simon showed Bergman. I want to mention that Simon never practiced this tough love until he published this book.

Jaime_Weinman
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:28 pm

#12 Post by Jaime_Weinman » Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:21 am

I would have to say that, having read a lot of Simon before I knew about his reputation, I got the impression that he just didn't like movies very much. This is the guy who, asked to name a great American film, said, well, maybe Dr. Strangelove (which isn't an American film), and then added that he couldn't really think of a great American film because "This country has produced a great deal of cinematic entertainment but very little cinematic art." This is the guy who said that he couldn't understand why Dwight MacDonald praised Trouble in Paradise so much. This is the guy who, while acknowledging that The Rules of the Game was a great film, expressed disdain for Renoir's other work. This is the guy who, apparently shocked and dismayed when his idol Bergman mentioned that Hitchcock had influenced him, said: "But don't you find his work terribly superficial?" Basically for large portions of his career, his attitude was that the quality of a movie is dependent on how much it reminds him of Sawdust and Tinsel.

Maybe some of this was a necessary antidote to auteurist fever. But I think that even when he likes a movie he has trouble accurately describing it; like a number of "slumming" critics (critics who review movies but prefer to review something else), his description of a movie often doesn't go very far beyond plot summary. (He also had some trouble with technical terms -- he would misunderstand what a jump cut was, for example -- but that's a minor point.)

On the plus side, I did kind of like his reply to the question of what film he would take with him to a desert island: "The film with the greatest masturbatory potential." Crude, but honest.

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

#13 Post by tavernier » Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:54 am

I just re-read Simon's essays in the Criterion SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT and KANAL and he acquits himself quite well on these films, whether you think the essays "cinematic" or not.

Those with negative responses to Simon seem always to complain that he dares to excoriate movies others consider masterpieces. What a dull world this would be if we agreed on everything.

And why isn't STRANGELOVE an American film? Kubrick was an American director; is THE TOUCH not a Swedish film because Bergman shot it in English?

Also, you omitted Bergman's response to Simon's question about Hitchcock's superficiality (he actually mentioned his "great intellectual emptiness"): "Completely, but I think he's a very good technician....he is completely infantile." In other words, he agrees with Simon; should we chastise Bergman as well?

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#14 Post by Andre Jurieu » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:10 am

tavernier wrote: ... should we chastise Bergman as well?
I don't see why not. I don't know about "chastising" him, but I'm sure people could disagree with him on Hitchcock's intellect, or lack-there-of.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#15 Post by GringoTex » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:03 am

tavernier wrote: Also, you omitted Bergman's response to Simon's question about Hitchcock's superficiality (he actually mentioned his "great intellectual emptiness"): "Completely, but I think he's a very good technician....he is completely infantile." In other words, he agrees with Simon; should we chastise Bergman as well?
I will. Bergman believed a universal human condition was inherent. Hitchcock believed a universal human condition could only be the product of illusion. Bergman took the personal and made it universal. Hithcock took the universal and made it personal. Obviously, Hitchcock was on a much higher intellectual plain than Bergman.

User avatar
Rufus T. Firefly
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:24 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

#16 Post by Rufus T. Firefly » Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:25 am

tavernier wrote:And why isn't STRANGELOVE an American film? Kubrick was an American director; is THE TOUCH not a Swedish film because Bergman shot it in English?
Strangelove was shot in Britain by a British production company with a British star and was directed by an American who chose to live in Britain. Therefore it must be an American film.

The Touch is not a Swedish film, because while it was shot in Sweden with a mainly Swedish cast and a Swedish crew, it has an American star and was co-produced by an American company. Therefore it must be an American film.

Next: Why Citizen Kane is Ireland's greatest film ever.

User avatar
tavernier
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm

#17 Post by tavernier » Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:14 am

Langlois68 wrote:Obviously, Hitchcock was on a much higher intellectual plain than Bergman.
I prefer a higher intellectual plane myself....

Mental Mike
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:06 am

#18 Post by Mental Mike » Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:21 pm

Dude, are you actually Bertrand Tavernier? I loved Coup de Torchon!

Jaime_Weinman
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:28 pm

#19 Post by Jaime_Weinman » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:44 pm

tavernier wrote: Also, you omitted Bergman's response to Simon's question about Hitchcock's superficiality (he actually mentioned his "great intellectual emptiness"): "Completely, but I think he's a very good technician....he is completely infantile." In other words, he agrees with Simon; should we chastise Bergman as well?
I wouldn't even chastise Simon for his opinion of Hitchcock. What I found telling about that point in the interview was how he tries to steer the conversation back to a place where it's comfortable for him (Hitchcock bad! Bergman good!) and doesn't seem interested in finding out what elements of technique Bergman picked up from the "lowbrow" Hitchcock. Lord knows there's more to movies than technique, but a critic ought to have some interest in how a movie means, not just what it means.

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#20 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:22 pm

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:
tavernier wrote:And why isn't STRANGELOVE an American film? Kubrick was an American director; is THE TOUCH not a Swedish film because Bergman shot it in English?
Strangelove was shot in Britain by a British production company with a British star and was directed by an American who chose to live in Britain. Therefore it must be an American film.
I'm not sure what kind of crack you've been smoking, but Dr. Strangelove is an American film. It was funded by Columbia, written by Americans, directed by an American, and besides Sellers features Americans in most of the other major parts (George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, Slim Pickens), and is about Americans going looney. So what if Sellers is the star and it was shot in Britain with a British crew? Loads of American films (including the Star Wars trilogy, most of Kubrick's films) are shot in Britain with many British actors. It's customary for Hollywood films to use the local crew to save costs and to not anger the country they're shooting in. Is Anthony Minghella's lousy film Cold Mountain Romanian because it was shot in Romania with a Romanian crew and production company helping out?

Napoleon
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

#21 Post by Napoleon » Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:20 am

IMDB has this down as a UK film, but then they have Alien down for the UK as well (same reasons that Strangelove 'might' be).

I would love to claim them as British, but I really don't see them as being British.

Either way, there is a sufficient grey area to excuse Simon.

Napoleon
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

#22 Post by Napoleon » Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:43 am

Oh hell no. But there must be a reason why they've categorized two pretty important (and ostensibly American) films as being British. Even if the reason is that that is where the pointer on the wheel of fortune/origin landed.

User avatar
jedgeco
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:28 am

#23 Post by jedgeco » Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:14 pm

N. W. wrote:But there must be a reason why they've categorized two pretty important (and ostensibly American) films as being British. Even if the reason is that that is where the pointer on the wheel of fortune/origin landed.
Nobody can ever agree what constitutes a film's country of origin. Even the old Criterion laserdisc site listed Strangelove as a UK film (along with Brazil, Lolita, and several other ostensibly American films).

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#24 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:29 pm

jedgeco wrote:Nobody can ever agree what constitutes a film's country of origin. Even the old Criterion laserdisc site listed Strangelove as a UK film (along with Brazil, Lolita, and several other ostensibly American films).
Funny that that Criterion list has Andrei Rublev as an American film. If they made that error with Rublev, it's possible they did with Strangelove and Lolita. They also have Paths of Glory as being UK.

User avatar
chizbooga
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:49 pm

#25 Post by chizbooga » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:00 pm

i was at the library and picked up a book of reviews by john simon lamely looked for movies i liked i chose 'mccabe & mrs. miller'. it was most infuriating. he basically mocks it for not being more like other movies.

Post Reply