Film Criticism

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Suchwas McTeague
Joined: Sat May 08, 2021 9:35 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1201 Post by Suchwas McTeague » Wed May 12, 2021 8:51 pm

I've only read the briefest bits of James Naremore, but I found this recent two-part interview with him at the World Socialist Website - one half about Charles Burnett, the other Max Ophuls - pretty great:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... 1-m10.html

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... 2-m11.html

And, as a bonus, the interviewer and interviewee don't resort to calling each other "Comrade" throughout, as so many of the commenters at the site hilariously tend to do.

It does make me want to seek out his other stuff, especially his book on Kubrick.

And it's a good reminder how massively influenced Kubrick must have been by Ophuls. At one point he planned an adaptation of Zweig (something Ophuls had done) and of course spent years planning his adaptation of Schnitzler (also adapted by Ophuls).

Revelator
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:33 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1202 Post by Revelator » Wed May 12, 2021 9:40 pm

Naremore's book More Than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts is also superb and highly recommended. Its only flaw is the dismissive reference toward The Maltese Falcon, presumably stemming from the auteurists' hatred for John Huston.

User avatar
Maltic
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:36 am

Re: Film Criticism

#1203 Post by Maltic » Thu May 13, 2021 9:46 am

Suchwas McTeague wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 8:51 pm
I've only read the briefest bits of James Naremore, but I found this recent two-part interview with him at the World Socialist Website - one half about Charles Burnett, the other Max Ophuls - pretty great:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... 1-m10.html

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... 2-m11.html

And, as a bonus, the interviewer and interviewee don't resort to calling each other "Comrade" throughout, as so many of the commenters at the site hilariously tend to do.

It does make me want to seek out his other stuff, especially his book on Kubrick.

And it's a good reminder how massively influenced Kubrick must have been by Ophuls. At one point he planned an adaptation of Zweig (something Ophuls had done) and of course spent years planning his adaptation of Schnitzler (also adapted by Ophuls).
:lol:

Thanks for the links.

Like many of the critics from his generation, he started out as an aspiring literary scholar, and I noticed he often gets into the relation between lit and film, like James Joyce and Journey to Italy, Raymond Chandler and the noirs..

Of course, he's written some of the best director monographs (Minnelli, Welles) and one of the few great books on acting I know of. His New Critical background reveals itself there, too, as he does relatively close readings of particular performances (Cagney in Angels With Dirty Faces, Dietrich in Morocco etc) as part of his overall argument.

I've dipped into the Burnett book, specifically the chapter on To Sleep with Anger. Unfortunately, I was somewhat disappointed.. seemed like just a very thorough synopsis of the film.

Haven't read the Kubrick book.

Oh, and his commentary on Chimes at Midnight is great, as you'd expect (another literary adaptation).

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Film Criticism

#1204 Post by hearthesilence » Mon May 24, 2021 5:15 pm

As part of its revival/re-animation, The Village Voice is slowly uploading its historical contents online, beginning with more high-profile features. This has included a lot of its film and music criticism, and I'm digging the fact that each page is accompanied by a full scan of the original newspaper publication, complete with vintage ads.

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: Film Criticism

#1205 Post by furbicide » Wed May 26, 2021 1:25 am

That's amazing. Wish more sites would do this!

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Film Criticism

#1206 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:37 am

Not exactly 'film criticism' per se as I do not really remember the last time that the show in question ever properly critiqued a film, but the BBC's recent decision to cancel Radio 4's Film Programme has been met with a protest letter against their decision. I had been wondering why the latest programmes had seemed rather lacklustre and focused more on the 'greatest hits' from the archives than any new reporting, but had put it more down to the pandemic.

Incidentally that article off-handedly mentions that the week day evening arts radio programme Front Row is due to go as well. Which is a shame, but its days were probably numbered when its sister show Saturday Review abruptly ceased a few months back.

User avatar
bottled spider
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Film Criticism

#1207 Post by bottled spider » Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:26 pm

Until recently, the majority of the Dave Kehr reviews posted to Letterboxd have been capsule sized. Sometime in the last week or so there's been a dump of longer reviews posted under the Not Dave Kehr account. He's better in his longer reviews.

User avatar
Maltic
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:36 am

Re: Film Criticism

#1208 Post by Maltic » Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:20 pm

bottled spider wrote:
Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:26 pm
Until recently, the majority of the Dave Kehr reviews posted to Letterboxd have been capsule sized. Sometime in the last week or so there's been a dump of longer reviews posted under the Not Dave Kehr account. He's better in his longer reviews.
The capsules are from the Reader (condensed from longer original reviews he did for that paper - some of which have been published in the two volumens which came out 5-10 years ago). As far as I can tell, the new dumps are his full reviews from the time at the Chicago Tribune ca 1985-1992. You can tell the approach is slightly different (alt-weekly vs daily broadsheet). I wonder if the Tribune will have them taken down. Still missing on LB are the NY Daily News reviews (hitherto not online) and the DVD reviews he did for NYT after 1999.

User avatar
BenoitRouilly
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1209 Post by BenoitRouilly » Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:50 pm

Now critics are often up against readers who resist the very notion of criticism. A few popular lines of attack pop up regularly. There’s faux-objectivity: You said this movie wasn’t funny but I laughed, ergo it is you are factually wrong and unprofessional. Taking offence: How dare you imply that everyone who likes this movie is a tasteless dolt? Assumption of bad faith: You’re only saying this for clicks and notoriety.

Character assassination: You’re a vindictive killjoy who’s no fun at parties. Moral disapproval: Why would you waste your precious time being mean about something when you could be praising something else? Some people mix and match these accusations into strange hybrids like the schoolmarm-turned-troll: Why can’t you be more positive, you dumb piece of shit?

What these responses all have in common is not so much disagreement with the critique but fury that it was written at all. Thumper the rabbit’s famous maxim, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all,” might have been good advice for Bambi but it’s fatal for the appreciation of art. “Criticism is not nice,” writes AO Scott of the New York Times in Better Living Through Criticism. “To criticise is to find fault, to accentuate the negative, to spoil the fun and refuse to spare delicate feelings.”
The Dying Art of The Hatchet Job : Film Critics have never been so weak or timid. (6 sept 2021; Dorian Lynskey) UnHerd

Constable
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:51 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1210 Post by Constable » Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:42 pm

On occasion, I've heard the "too clever" criticism leveled against the sort of films or elements of films that I like, although, oddly, if you ask me to name an example right now, I can't think of one. But I think sometimes the subjects of criticism were Coens' films.

I've never fully understood the criticism. When I say that, that's not a critique of the critique, I mean that in the more literal sense that I don't fully understand what exactly is being criticized and I would like to.

I think I have some sense of what sort of thing people feel this way about, but I don't understand why they feel it to be something negative, as I say, I've often heard the criticism directed at things I like.

So, can you give me examples of films or aspects of films that you've found to be too clever and, if you can (because I know this might partly be like asking to explain why you like chocolate), can you tell me what you dislike about it?

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1211 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:05 pm

Ty Burr sadly retired from The Boston Globe last summer, and his replacement, Mark Feeney, is a staggering downgrade. I thought it may have been an outlier when he spoiled, and made obvious connections with gusto that a child in the audience could discern while half paying attention on a tablet, regarding Bergman Island's final act, but no. Reading his review for Spencer and The Souvenir Part II, all he does is explain what happens and why it doesn't work for him... or wait, he doesn't really explain why. Just that it doesn't work for him, juxtaposed with what does. How do people like this get jobs like these?

User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Film Criticism

#1212 Post by Never Cursed » Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:57 pm

I did some googling after reading your post, which led me to Feeney's page on the Pulitzer's site (he won for criticism in 2008!). I only bothered to read the film articles reproduced there (the one about Kubrick and the one about Barbara Stanwyck), but, uh, they're certainly sound historical evidence that impenetrable and strikingly superficial engagement with film of a piece with Buzzfeed writers or Letterboxd celebs has been cultivated long before the rise of new media.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#1213 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:59 pm

TWBB -- The loss of Ty Burr's reviews is a huge loss. Not really any worthwhile criticism here in Boston anymore.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1214 Post by domino harvey » Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:06 pm

Reading the list of past winners shows that almost no one of note ever wins, other than the ones you already know won

User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Film Criticism

#1215 Post by Never Cursed » Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:13 pm

Fair enough, any high-profile criticism award whose most recent notable winner is Jerry Saltz has some questions of taste to answer

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1216 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:31 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:59 pm
TWBB -- The loss of Ty Burr's reviews is a huge loss. Not really any worthwhile criticism here in Boston anymore.
For the first time, I'm tempted to join Twitter solely because it's been fun to drop in there to read Burr's brief thoughts on recent movies. I may even subscribe to his Substack newsletter, which is an interesting entrepreneurial trajectory I'd like to support

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Film Criticism

#1217 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Nov 06, 2021 8:29 am

I never knew (and am baffled why) the criticism prize was listed under journalism. Surely distinguished critics like William Empson, Frank Kermode, or Kenneth Burke deserved a Pulizer far more than even the biggest names on the current list. Even their occasional criticism, the stuff they did on the side, easily outdid even the better journalistic critics, let alone what they were doing in their major critical works. Seems like a weird oversight to not include the best critics working.

Constable
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:51 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1218 Post by Constable » Sat Dec 25, 2021 4:12 pm

Earlier in this thread, I asked about the "too clever" criticism and now I stumbled onto it while reading a piece about the Coens:
For 20 years, they've created some of Hollywood's finest work, yet the pair have long been criticised for indulging in adolescent cleverness.
Their distinctive style has brought plaudits, two Oscars for Fargo (their most successful film) and a final-cut independence that is the envy of Hollywood. And yet the idea that the Coens are too clever for their own (and their audience's) good has grown to become a popular wisdom of film criticism.
But the piece doesn't expand on the criticism, it just goes onto say:
Merkin found the brothers guilty of 'cynical disengagement'. She felt they demonstrated an adolescent indifference to the plight of their characters and took refuge from the real world in the safe pleasures of filmic reference. This was not exactly untrue, but it was a little unfair.
So, what is it about the Coens that people find too clever for their own good?

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Film Criticism

#1219 Post by DarkImbecile » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:00 am


User avatar
Randall Maysin Again
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:28 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1220 Post by Randall Maysin Again » Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:10 am

I'm not the kind of Pauline Kael fan who can't even bear reading Renata Adler's attack, (unlike Craig Seligman), maybe I was when i was ten. I'm also an Adler fan, I definitely agree a new kind of attack needed to be made, but at the same time it makes me kind of uneasy. Most of Adler's main criticisms are fair and true, if quite overstated, although I thought some of the extra attacks she made near the end, in a series of short paragraphs, were lazily argued, or not really argued at all, irresponsibly and vaguely insinuating, or unfair. I don't think Adler is being dishonest at the end in any normal way, I think she was just so disgusted that she got a little carried away. I get that Pauline Kael had become very self-indulgent, lots of warped thinking, and unpleasant to read in When the Lights Go Down, and that she can be kind of an idiot sometimes. I just don't really see how this makes her the terrible blight on film culture and criticism and someone who must be destroyed, LOL, that Adler clearly thinks she was and never relented. Adler can be a little bit crazy sometimes. I think this piece must have had quite an impact on PK, because just as soon as she came back to writing from Hollywood after it was published, i don't know the exact timeline i guess, but there was quite a difference, to me anyway, in the tone and other things of her writing afterwards, and I strongly sense reading some of her 80s stuff that she has the piece in mind when she writes certain things. Kael whether you think she's at all significant or not, is hard to pin down. Her negative influence is a big question mark for me, I know some about what I think is a positive influence, but I don't really know the negative, beyond being negative in herself sometimes like in the gross When the Lights Go Down. I'm assuming the dreadfulness of Film Twitter isn't really her fault? Although I could be wrong about that. I listened to part of an Adler interview on a podcast, and she talked a fair bit about this piece, and I still don't really know. Is Kael somehow linked in people's minds to some sort of, I don't know, aesthetic version of "woke" campus politics/fascism in their worst form? Is she just a postmodern idiot or something? At the very least, I don't see her liking a dreadful smirky film like Bong Joon-ho's The Host--which this Kael fan hated LOL! What do you think?

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Film Criticism

#1221 Post by Black Hat » Mon Jan 03, 2022 5:49 pm

I think you're overcomplicating things, Kael's opinions simply piss people off, with her obnoxious: "I only need to watch movies once" quip, digging her own grave to an era of consumers where everything is imminently rewatchable. It doesn't help that cinephiles are mostly lonely nerds who have contempt for much of the art form (and its audience) they supposedly love. To be fair Kael, in return, had contempt for these types so it went both ways. Throw in professional resentment, film critics can't even write about, meaning express their frustrations with movies the way Kael did, because they need work and there you have it.

I'll add that most of the people writing on film today are dumb, lack knowledge and if that wasn't enough, are shitty writers. Conversely and interestingly, book criticism has not suffered the same fate. There are so many great pieces of book criticism coming seemingly every week.

Whatever one thinks of Kael, what gets lost is what an incredibly smart and funny writer she was. Just a different class.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#1222 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:16 pm

I wonder why the "dreadful smirky Host" was interjected into a discussion of Kael and Adler? (Nor do I understand why that film is dismissed as dreadful and smirky -- but that's a separate matter).

User avatar
Randall Maysin Again
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:28 pm

Film Criticism

#1223 Post by Randall Maysin Again » Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:01 pm

LOL i guess I was just trying, sort of, to give an example of a kind of film (and therefore film criticism promoting it) that might conceivably be linked to Kael, that I think sucks and is part of a trend that sucks. Although I haven't seen many other films that I thought were of a piece with it (although I have read about some), because I don't watch very many films of modern world cinema, and I didn't watch the whole thing. I'm just used to Renata Adler saying things that thoroughly make sense, she doesn't seem the type who would be pissed off by Kael's opinions, and she's said, numerous times, that she was a fan of Kael before she read When the LIghts Go Down--which also seems like a perfectly plausible Adler opinion. But then wouldn't she see the same virtues she says she saw pre-WTLGD in the writing that came after? I certainly do.

Anthony Lane loved The Host!!! With him, I think he is very reliable at keeping a pretty consistent standard in taking out the garbage--certainly everything he does pan that I've read from him, his verdict and criticisms are compelling and make sense to me. But with his enthusiasms, I'd say maybe half the time I don't agree with him and also have no real sense of what he likes about them, which is surprising from someone who is usually intellectually confident, highly opinionated and has such a strong, almost literary, prose style. He just makes an inane point or two and calls it a day. He said the final shot of The Host was "worthy of Fellini". Fellini? What? And Anthony Lane is someone who I would call thoroughly familiar with Fellini, who "gets" Fellini very well. I just saw some dreary, uncinematic hackwork, (isn't grey the predominate color in the film?) and characters who were ciphers who didn't exude the kind of humanity, or any humanity that I can remember, that I associate with Fellini's good films. I was really surprised by the filmmaking in Parasite, it was way more persuasive and elegant and much more cinematic, and had a look that was way better than just chewed-up and computerized. And I remember a sort of inanely smug knowingness to the whole thing (The Host) that didn't really seem based in anything, which I think is what I meant by "smirky". I know you're a big Asian cinema maven, Michael Kerpan, I hope I don't hurt your feelings, although maybe I'm just remembering the parts of the film I saw wrong.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#1224 Post by Michael Kerpan » Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:39 pm

You can even say mean things about Ozu -- and you won't hurt my feelings (though I may correct any misunderstandings I think you might have made). I felt no "smugnesss" in Host and lots of it in Parasite -- the only Bong film I actually dislike. It annoyed me immensely on first watching -- and I disliked it even more on re-watching. In fact, it soured me on Bong as a director -- I will check out future films, but with no reservoir of pre-existing affection. Am I right in my appraisal of the two films -- or are you? Probably neither and both (or something of the sort). It could just be that you missed something as to what was going on in Host -- or it just grated against whatever your state of mind when you saw it. Maybe, under other circumstances, you'd like it more. Or maybe it just does things in a way that doesn't resonate with you at all. We're all different - and we all respond idiosyncratically (unless we just follow the latest in fashionable opinions). Alas, I know my response to Parasite will never change, as I never really give films a third chance.

As much ass I liked Host overall, I'd never think of it evoking Fellini (especially at the end). After all, one of my idiosyncrasies is that I have virtually no affinity for Fellini whatsoever (even though I can accept that others have sound reasons for loving his work). But even if I did like Fellini's films, nothing about the end of Host reminded me of his work. I still like Bong's Barking Dogs best -- and I've grown further from him as his career progressed, feeling like he has grown more and more "Americanized". Probably I'm not being fair to him but it disappoints me not to like the way his career has developed -- because I liked liking his films. Fortunately, I'm not a professional critic -- so I can indulge unreasonable whims as to what I like and dislike).

In any event, I felt Host, for any faults it may have had (and I am willing, for purposes of argument at least, to accept it may have had some), was fundamentally sincere at its core. But perhaps his blending of moods and tone (sometimes very abruptly) rubbed you the wrong way (warning -- Barking Dogs is probably more extreme in this respect). If Bong's other films please you when you see them, you may want to give Host another shot some day (no hurry). Otherwise, there are plenty of other films (even just from Korea) to explore. FWIW, my top Korean directors these days are LEE Chang-dong, HONG Sang-soo, and HUR Jin-ho. ;-)

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#1225 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:29 pm

Fascinating 1982 special episode of Siskel and Ebert about representations of homosexuality in the movies of the preceding fifteen years. Very interesting notes on the relative popularity of each film at the box office too. I’d heard of or seen every film mentioned but two, and I assure you that when they started talking about a German film with a frank portrayal of gay characters, it was Shocked Pikachu over here when it was revealed they weren’t talking about Fassbinder!

Please be warned, and this is a spoiler in itself but necessary to avoid a bigger one, that the special has a brief spoiler for Deathtrap

Post Reply