Simon made a career out of hating Godard, Bresson, and classical Hollywood cinema. What a trifecta. Hate him!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.
The Worst Criterion Critic
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
From Criterion's website:
- pzman84
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:05 pm
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.
Well, he was fired from his job. And he is 79. Doesn't have much longer to be an ass.
- tavernier
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm
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.Langlois68 wrote:From Criterion's website:
Simon made a career out of hating Godard, Bresson, and classical Hollywood cinema. What a trifecta. Hate him!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.
- Jean-Luc Garbo
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
- Contact:
- tavernier
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm
I think it's because Simon "hates" more than he "likes." HisAMB 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.
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.)
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
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.
- tavernier
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm
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.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.
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
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.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.
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156443600/tavernier wrote:Any examples of this in his reviews?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.
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.
-
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:28 pm
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.
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.
- tavernier
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:18 pm
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?
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?
- Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
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.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?
- Rufus T. Firefly
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:24 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
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.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?
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.
-
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:06 am
-
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:28 pm
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.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?
-
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm
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?Rufus T. Firefly wrote: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.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?
-
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am
- jedgeco
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:28 am
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).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.
-
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm
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.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).