Film Criticism

[Andrew_VB]

oh god, these two are awful. i watched hamlet 2 and it's amazing just to watch the 2 cohosts speak so highly of this movie even while the guest critics all hate it. it's amazing how required they are to love the movie. or the two just really suck.

[swo17]

I liked the part where Ben Lyons said he bets a bunch of people go into this thinking they're getting a sequel to the classic Shakespearean play. Read with all the conviction of someone who had just looked up what Hamlet was on Wikipedia.

[sonofkinski]

I'm pretty happy about the fact that their official website address ends with "atm".

That seems about right.

[tavernier]

*RIMSHOT*

[sonofkinski]

[thirtyframesasecond]

I just saw the clips of Babylon AD and Hamlet 2. Appalling, lowest common denominator reviewing. There's no discussion about either film, just gut feeling, which doesn't remotely help the viewer.

In the UK though, we have one film review show, and even that's shown half of the year at an unwatchable time (usually 11pm or later). It's hosted by the BBC's highest paid TV personality, who's not a film expert at all, and this shows. It always feels like the programme is read from someone else's work.

It's a shame that there isn't anything more regular and smarter on UK TV, just a segment on a general arts show, where the main film of the week is reviewed, usually by one film journalist and more non-film journalists. This lack of focus and scrutiny is probably how a lot of lousy films can do well.

[MichaelB]

It's hosted by the BBC's highest paid TV personality, who's not a film expert at all

The word "at all" implies that he knows next to nothing, which is very far from the case - as I can confirm from first-hand conversations with him.

True, he seems more instinctively comfortable in the trash/exploitation end of the marketplace, which is the kind of thing his programme generally doesn't pay much attention to, but he's certainly no ignoramus when it comes to film.

[HerrSchreck]

I just posted over in the Politics thread a link to an interview on wnyc radio, in which Sarris makes associations between Sarah Palin and Lola Montes.

Moving along in that interview, Sarris is asked about his notorious quote at the time of the films NY premeire wherein he proclaimed that Lola Montes was the Greatest Film Ever Made, and what are his feelings today.

He claims that he wanted people to go see the film, owing to his love for it, and that he therefore "exaggerated a little bit" to try and get people into the theater by giving the film the "ultimate blurb" (i e Greatest Film Ever Made). He said that subsequent to the quote being circulated the cinemas were packed with moviegoers seeking to view the Greatest Film Ever Made, and so that he was successful in his endeavor.

He believes, he says here, that it is part of the job of the film critic to "sound the trumpets" a bit when he sees a film that he believes is a specimen of excellence. He says that he's been guilty of this exaggeration on many occassions.

I wonder how folks feel about that-- the idea that a film critic is responsible for ballyhoo-ing for the studios via essentially lying to the public vis a vis their feelings for the film. I saw the film (not in the early 60's of course) with his quote in mind and was hugely disappointed due to high expectations (I am NOT a big fan of this film), and thought Sarris must have been smoking banana peels.

Of course we already know that film reviewers employed by conglomerate-owned newspapers/tv studios/magazines/etc across america are simply shills for the corporations that produced the film as well as own the media organ that will publish their review.

Personally I think the idea that a more independent (and any tuned-in individual knows this is relative) critic like Sarris would lie about his feelings and wildly puff his review to increase ticket traffic is disappointing. It turns their reviews into "advertising". But that's taking his statement at face value and accepting that he's really telling the truth that he DIDN'T believe a the time that Lola was the greatest film ever made. Of course it's perfectly possible that he absolutely meant it and is now simply covering his tracks for some monstrous yeyo he was smoking back then.

[tavernier]

A few years after his pronouncement, Sarris began hedging his bets and called LM merely "one of the greatest films ever made." By now, it may have dropped even further.

[Haggai]

He said that subsequent to the quote being circulated the cinemas were packed with moviegoers seeking to view the Greatest Film Ever Made, and so that he was successful in his endeavor.

Are we sure his recollection is accurate here? Even accounting for the fact that some print critics used to have more influence than they do now, I'm a little...skeptical.

I think it's usually laudable for a critic with some influence, even just a little bit of it, to get behind a film he/she is passionate about if it looks like it might have trouble finding an audience. But saying that this or that new movie is "the greatest film ever made" sounds like disingenuous overhype to me.

[colinr0380]

I'm not inducted into Ophüls yet, but can understand Sarris 'exaggerating' his comments on a film to ensure that people at least saw it rather than dismissing it. To be honest I would consider any comment in the 'greatest film of all time' style to be hyperbolic to some extent. I kind of expect that from film reviewers though - they are involved in selling a film, or their view of a film to their audience. While I'd much rather have every review talk in depth about what the writer thought was specifically great or poor about the film, I suppose it is inevitable sometimes that people fall into saying "it's the greatest/worst film I've ever seen!", particularly if they are swimming against the tide of negative opinion or are afraid the film will get lost in the crush of all the others.

The difficulty with all reviewing and criticism is that films have a personal impact on people - one person's "greatest film of all time" is another's "excrement that should be shoveled down the nearest sewer, and even then the stench would remain", and when we start judging other people's comments as wrong because we don't like the film they love aren't we not similarly imposing our value judgements onto them too? (though of course it would modify our opinions on whether we would continue to read a particular person's reviews if they continually recommended or dismissed films that didn't accord with our tastes!)

The other aspect brought up is that people's views change over time - does Sarris calling Lola Montes the greatest film and then cooling towards it over time mean he was a liar then, cynically misleading the public? Or more someone trying to encourage audiences to come to something he thought was impressive? I think there's a difference between taking a bribe or something similar from a film distributor to talk up a film that you don't really like and talking up a film you genuinely liked a little too much to try and get people to at least see it and not dismiss it out of hand.

I would not agree with excessive hyperbole all the time, but occasionally it can show passion (if you say every film you've seen was the greatest soon nothing would be!) I'd much rather see critics feeling much more open towards being able to say that their views had changed over time and not feeling like they should continue to uphold their original view to the bitter end. Of course whatever you say about a film you do with the knowledge that it can come back and haunt you later on, but I'd love to see examples of critics whose views had changed over the years reassessing a film they'd dismissed as poor or alternatively saying that they don't particularly like a film they gave a rave review to as much. It wouldn't mean that they were right or wrong in their original or new views, more it would provide an interesting example of shifting tastes and, dare I say it, greater understanding and breadth of experience.

[HerrSchreck]

I don't have any problem whatsoever with a reviewer modifying their views over time-- in fact the process mirrors my own of ratcheting love for a film vs an originally lukewarm or even flat cold experience.

My primary concern is his statement in the radio interview that it is the critic's responsibility to engage in excessive hypoberle to get the masses in to a film they'd otherwise be uninterested in.

I can only wonder how this seperates a "critic" from a "reviewer" (the latter of course presenting, particularly in this age, no possibility of independent thought beyond a certain degree vs the products released by the corporation that employs them). The reviewer, it seems, "has no choice" but to conduct a marketing enterprise on behalf of the international conglomerate that employs them-- and in doing so must modify his views based on the economic needs of the studio whether he likes it or not. The critic, enjoying a bit more intellectual weight and freedom of opinion, feels it is his duty to do the same.

Despite the difference obviously residing in the fact that the critic does this thru choice and not obligation, and vis a vis aesthetic substance and not production-budget/studio-risk, I find it a little sad that a man thas has earned the right to speak freely & openly feels the need to do ballyhoo and inflate expectations.. because there's little difference between walking out of a film built up by some weekly magazine as the next best thing since The Pill, and saying "what the hell were they talking about,".. and walking out of Lola because Sarris proclaimed it the greatest of all time, and saying "what the hell was he talking about?" I'm sure there were many folks who saw Lola because of that quote, and walked out cursing Sarris for wasting their money.

[MichaelB]

My primary concern is his statement in the radio interview that it is the critic's responsibility to engage in excessive hypoberle to get the masses in to a film they'd otherwise be uninterested in.

I think it depends on how excessive the hyperbole is, and how large the masses are. Clearly, writing that something is the greatest film ever made is heavy-duty hype, but soft-pedalling a film's defects because you think there's a chance you might help it get wider attention is a slightly different matter.

I can only wonder how this seperates a "critic" from a "reviewer" (the latter of course presenting, particularly in this age, no possibility of independent thought beyond a certain degree vs the products released by the corporation that employs them). The reviewer, it seems, "has no choice" but to conduct a marketing enterprise on behalf of the international conglomerate that employs them-- and in doing so must modify his views based on the economic needs of the studio whether he likes it or not. The critic, enjoying a bit more intellectual weight and freedom of opinion, feels it is his duty to do the same.

I think the distinction's subtler than that. Certainly, I regard myself as primarily a "reviewer" rather than a "critic" - my average S&S review is about 600-800 words, into which I have to cram a fair amount of contextual detail, leaving relatively little space for in-depth analysis. Yet I am in no way bound to the dictates of any international conglomerate - provided it fits the house style and requested length, I can write what I like. And I think that's true of a very substantial proportion of other "reviewers".

Despite the difference obviously residing in the fact that the critic does this thru choice and not obligation, and vis a vis aesthetic substance and not production-budget/studio-risk, I find it a little sad that a man thas has earned the right to speak freely & openly feels the need to do ballyhoo and inflate expectations.. because there's little difference between walking out of a film built up by some weekly magazine as the next best thing since The Pill, and saying "what the hell were they talking about,".. and walking out of Lola because Sarris proclaimed it the greatest of all time, and saying "what the hell was he talking about?" I'm sure there were many folks who saw Lola because of that quote, and walked out cursing Sarris for wasting their money.

Well, that's going to happen anyway, regardless of hype - even if Sarris was entirely honest about his feelings, someone would be bound to disagree.

I'm in two minds about this, because I can sympathise with both the Schreck/Sarris position - the Schreck position because there's clearly at least a hint of dishonesty or sharp practice, and the Sarris position because...

...well, my own background is that I spent most of the 1990s working in shoestring distribution and exhibition. Naturally, much of that time was spent cultivating good relationships with journalists, in the hope of getting good reviews (far more essential to us than to a Hollywood major, because of our tiny marketing budgets). I know for a fact that in some cases we got more sympathetic reviews than the films might have deserved, simply because the writers in question admired what we did and fancied giving us a boost. (In fact, you can see the same process at work with a DVD label like Second Run, which gets a huge amount of goodwill even though some of its releases are technically dreadful - because it's generally recognised that they do their best on ridiculously limited resources).

Do I do this myself? Very possibly, especially if I know that the film or DVD is a first effort from an adventurous new operation. In fact, when Dogwoof launched their Polish Connection sublabel last year, myself and a colleague were offered their first two titles to review, and I deliberately picked the one I liked better, because I didn't want to write a negative review of the first product of an initiative I absolutely supported. And if the film had been terrible, I'd certainly have mentioned this, but in a more pitying than censuring tone, saying something like "this is a great idea, but I really wish they'd picked a better title to launch with". (In other words, the review will be factually accurate, but the tone might be slightly different from a straightforward slagging).

Coincidentally, the last issue of Sight & Sound was about the subject of film criticism, and Tony Rayns' review of Joseph H Lewis' The Big Combo was singled out for attention. And Geoff Andrew said of it:

The review Tony wrote literally produced a queue round the block for the first screening. If memory serves, Bernardo Bertolucci and Jonathan Demme were in that queue, the first of many in a remarkable week-long run which kick-started a rediscovery of Lewis that culminated in a 24-film retrospective at the 1980 Edinburgh Film Festival.

Sadly I no longer have a copy of Rayns' paean to Poverty-Row excellence, but its opening - "Almost certainly the greatest movie ever made... everything you always loved about film noir in one movie," and final sentence - "As heady as amyl nitrate and as compulsive as stamping on insects," remain etched on my memory. Tony reputedly wrote the review after a glass or two, and I doubthe expected people to take it very seriously; but some did (I heard them, on the foyer payphone, telling friends they'd just seen the greatest movie ever made!), and his writing helped to bring a forgotten but rather wonderful B-movie back to glorious life.

And I'm sure that plenty of people were also disappointed that it wasn't the greatest film ever made either, but I find it almost impossible to censure Rayns for this. Especially given what happened as a direct result.

[HerrSchreck]

Oh, sure.. you're talking about something (in the world of dvd reviews) that is the norm. I'm (obviously) talking about mass-media reviewers, employees of television stations, daily newspapers-- etc, vs a venerable critic like Andrew Sarris, not stuff like dvdbeaver giggling and creaming in its dry goods over production values from freindly label releases that he'd scream bloody murder to high heaven about if it were, say, Kino. One hand washes the other and business relationships must be maintained, and when hypocricy is observed, you simply try to point it out, as many around here do.

I'm talking about someone in a completely different orbit of prestige and reknown, who states that as a practice-- not as a result of one too many shots of turpentine prior to writing a blurb-- he pads his reviews to move tickets.

Obviously beneath the level of the mass media there is a plethora of internet/blog/journal driven reviewers who don't fall into the topic at hand here.

[Mr Sausage]

I'm talking about someone in a completely different orbit of prestige and reknown, who states that as a practice-- not as a result of one too many shots of turpentine prior to writing a blurb-- he pads his reviews to move tickets.

It would be dishonest, yes, if he were doing that about a film he was indifferent or worse about. But to induce people to see a movie he obviously admires very highly through a bit of hyperbole (a standard trope of exaggeration that, in an of itself, is no more a falsehood than a metaphor) strikes me as perfectly fine. Once you love a movie, is there really such an important difference between really loving it and, say, really, really loving it? If someone's being honest about their love, it's rather cynical to worry them over differences of degree. Especially so if they're hyperbolizing out of concern for the film itself, and not out of any monetary concern, nor any concern with prestige/reputation, nor simply out of caprice. If it's warmly felt, it's warmly felt, and as I said, everything after that is just a matter of degree, not of honesty. For example, would you accept, as a occasional critical practise, if a critic loathed a movie and panned it with slightly more hyperbole or savagery than it perhaps deserved, simply to warn people off from it? At that point, since he obviously loathes it, does the exact degree of his expressed loathing really matter any more?

What we're talking about here is not dishonesty, but one's rhetorical position, which by necessity is going to be something other than one's actual position simply because writing is always a construct, an act of creation (in this case self-creation; Borges' has written the best piece I know on the subject of literary self-creation in his short essay Borges and I).

Part of your argument is the dissapointment many might feel from going into such a highly praised movie and not finding that it's the best. Well, sure, but that would be equally true if Sarris was not being hyperbolical about Lola being "the greatest movie ever made." At the least, he induced them to see a 'great' film and to form a cogent reaction to it. On the other hand (since I believe Lola could easily be someone's top movie), what if one--or many more than that--went to see the movie, which they otherwise would not have seen, and Lola became their favourite movie ever? What if this lighted their dim fascination with foreign films, and they became a wide and intelligent viewer of foreign/obscure movies? At worst, Sarris set people up for a dissapointment, which he is liable to do even in his most scupulously accurate moments; at best, he revolutionised someone's sense of film.

[HerrSchreck]

I'm afraid I agree with little of your contribution here, which nontheless sounds completely rational and even-minded. I don't buy into the concept of mild inocuousness of degrees of affection within your argument (not to put words in your mouth, but this is regarding "really liking a film" and "really really liking a film") because there are differences between "really liking a film" and "thinking a film is the greatest film ever made" that are enormous, or will at least, in the mind of the reader, be presumed to be. There are films that I really really like, and there are films that I think are the among the greatest ever made-- I really love knock around exploitation films and horror films, but I think that the films of Jean Epstein, or Murnau, or Dreyer, or Stiller, are among the greatest ever made. The difference is incalculable-- the former are a time passer, a pleasurable pasttime.. the latter are religious experiences.

When a film is absolutely fantastic there's no need to lie about it, or engage in hypoberle-- the truth is enough. There are films of such high levels of beauty no ballyhoo is neccessary... this whole exaggeration thing is perplexing to me-- I can't even understand why or how such a thing would enter into the mind of an intelligent critic as even neccessary... there's a hint of condescention in there that I find mildly grating ("If I don't talk basic baby talk they wont get it.."). Because truly great films of the degree we're discussing are rare enough on the calendar that the gushing and cooing should be enough without whipping out the Guinness Book for gimmicks...

Perhaps we're talking from opposite ends here because I think Lola is a failed film, and find Sarris' pronouncement an ex post facto embarassment that has come back to bite him in the ass. I'd heard pronouncements about the film prior to my viewing it that matched my experience (just nothing engaging happening there beyond the lush visual surface and it's mechanics) but I watched it to see What Sarris Thought What The Greatest Film In The World Happened To Be. I came out the other end with a lower opinion of Sarris... with a still lower opinion today after hearing his proclamation that he never really meant it and it was all for naught.

I really don't think it's neccessary. Greatness elucidated properly is advertising enough without manufacturing false accolades or shilling-- which is all I'm really talking about anyway. The degrees between love, great love, and really really great love are not the point. It's this sense of responsibility that his job is not to review the film, not to praise effusively a film that he adores, but to also engage in studio hypoberle and help sell tickets. That's the only thing I take issue with.

Or am (only slightly) disappointed with.

[Mr Sausage]

I really love knock around exploitation films and horror films, but I think that the films of Jean Epstein, or Murnau, or Dreyer, or Stiller, are among the greatest ever made. The difference is incalculable-- the former are a time passer, a pleasurable pasttime.. the latter are religious experiences.

In all fairness, Lola Montes would be a film of the latter category (however much one personally thinks it fails) in terms of what one loves about it. What I got from the Sarris thing was that he was taking "among the greatest ever made" and merely bumping it a notch to "greatest ever made." As a rhetorical position, this sits fine with me, although evidently you find it condescending, which for all I know might be the case (having never read the article it's hard to gauge such things).

or engage in hypoberle-- the truth is enough. There are films of such high levels of beauty no ballyhoo is neccessary... this whole exaggeration thing is perplexing to me

Well the "ballyhoo" was a ploy to get people to actually see the movie and its "high levels of beauty," not a critical method. If it works, and someone comes aways enriched for it, should we really be that concerned?

But hyperbole is not a negative trope to be avoided, or something inherantly antithetical to truth. It's somehow gotten that reputation. But I understand that what you take issue with is the calculated aspect of the hyperbole, as opposed to merely getting carried away. Such calculation does not bother me because I understand all great writing to use rhetorical tools in a calculating manner.

Perhaps we're talking from opposite ends here because I think Lola is a failed film, and find Sarris' pronouncement an ex post facto embarassment that has come back to bite him in the ass.

Well, that may indeed be true; but if he'd sincerely meant what he'd said about it being the greatest movie ever, the result would be the same. Every critic runs this risk, as even the best of us can nod. I recall that Samuel Johnson, a luminous critic and one of the most astonishingly wise of all human beings, once proclaimed that Tristram Shandy "did not last." If even he can slip up...

Greatness elucidated properly is advertising enough without manufacturing false accolades or shilling-- which is all I'm really talking about anyway. The degrees between love, great love, and really really great love are not the point. It's this sense of responsibility that his job is not to review the film, not to praise effusively a film that he adores, but to also engage in studio hypoberle and help sell tickets.

Yes, I've gathered that, but again I must point out that his motive was essentially pure: to get people to see a great film that he, evidently, loved. I don't see that as shilling because the concern was not with money or prestige but with the value of getting people to see something they might not otherwise see, from which he can take no personal gain (I know this piont is going to seem like an unpleasant knot given that you dislike the movie, but let's just pretend for the sake of the argument that he's talking about some wonderful artistic success).

For me I guess it comes down to motive, and I cannot fault Sarris' motive (insofar as I understand it).

[HerrSchreck]

I can relate to most that you say.. and certainly we're not talking any crime of the century here.

But let me try another tack to illustrate what annoys me about this, and the way I take it-- let's say a food critic was reviewing sushi places around New York. And he walked into a new place which he thought was very good sushi. Yet he personally loved the combination of the atmosphere and decor, not to mention knew the owner (the way Sarris already famously loved Ophuls), and wanted to see the enterprise succeed.. and so wanted to drive some traffic into the store and therefore bumped his review up a few notches and prclaimed "Best Sushi In NYC!" even though he didnt mean it.

If I took a hike to some remote corner of the city because I wanted to taste what was supposed to be monstrously fresh, delicate fish and wound up with merely Very Good Sushi (which, let's face it, spangles all corners of this city in many venerable restaurants, no need to hike out on pilgrimages for that rarified kind of sushi that one only gets a few times a year), and I found out the reviewer was purposely exaggerating the quality of food to get me in there, I'd be pissed and have trouble trusting the critic ever again.

My buying that awful Lola was the equivalent of that pilgrimage, and no way would have I checkerjumped the film ahead of other priorities had Sarris simply said it was a very good film... like other very good films or even great films. My list of films to see is long, and there are other films I would have rather seen instead of Lola, and I felt conned out of seeing something I probably would have liked better.

Again, not the crime of the century (and not a card that the critic can play all that many times.. at least not vis a vis "THE Best Ever".. although I know he also proclaimed another of Ophuls films the best film ever made-- I believe it was Earrings), but it's just not something the critic should 1) do, or-- if he's going to go ahead and do it, 2) admit to.

[domino harvey]

A reviewer says a certain movie is the best movie ever made. You see it and disagree. The reviewer later says he exaggerated his claim to get attention. His tactic worked, you saw a movie you ordinarily would not have seen. A reviewer advises his readers on what films to seek out and which to avoid. Seems to me the reviewer did his job perfectly.

I mean, Sarris calling Juno this best film of 2007 is at least several rungs above this on the "Oh C'mon"-o-meter

[HerrSchreck]

"Oh, C'mon."

[colinr0380]

It's true that it is a dangerous thing to do - you need the peerless reputation to be trusted when you say something is the best, and yet by doing so you put your reputation on the line and give a statement which will always be remembered in a "hey, weren't you the guy who loved/hated..." way and thrown back at you in both positive and negative terms.

The problem is that 'best' doesn't mean anything except in a marketing point of view and can't be argued about. The least interesting part of most of my comments on films (among many!) is when I call something I liked 'great' or 'magnificent' - it only really means anything to me, at that particular moment in time. It helps me to convey that I really, really liked a film rather than just liked it, and maybe gets people to read my comment further and then go and check the film out for themselves. Usually the rest of my comment tries to get into what I liked in particular about the film, which of course runs the risk of people saying "well, it doesn't sound that great to me! I don't think I'll bother with it", but at least more in depth comments gives readers a better sense of where I'm coming from and whether they might have a similar reaction.

There might also be the sense that it could be one of the greatest films in the world but if you are not particularly interested in particular genres of Japanese animation, silent films, film noirs, costume dramas or dark serial killer flicks you might still not like the film, no matter if it is the 'best' of its kind. I'm talking in general audience terms here of course - I think if you are at all interested in film you owe it to yourself to see and be open to as much as you can from the entire breadth of cinema.

Though my main point in the last paragraph was "one of" - I think when you get to a certain level of knowledge about a subject, ideas of good and bad become kind of meaningless. There are too many great films out there for me already to do something like compile an authoratative list of my personal taste (while I do like participating in the Lists Project, I'm just as glad that it is constantly evolving over time) and each film works in different ways, adding something different and unique to cinema. Even a terrible film can have stand out moments or performances. That is what I like most about films - that they are not just one thing but different approaches to a wide range of subjects. How do you decide what is the 'best' out of a musical, a western and a horror film? Or whether a linear narrative is inherently 'better' than a deconstructed one? We compare within the genre, so all the musicals together and so on, but most importantly we move to a more personal perspective and describe the effect the film had on us, whether it increased our knowledge or showed us something we'd never seen before, or was enjoyable. In that sense the reviewer and critic are the same, only the critic then has to go on and apply their knowledge of the cinema to the film to see where it fits, what it adds to the culture, whether it shows a development in the talents involved and so on - something more than just saying yay or nay. Not having read the article either, could it be that Sarris actually went into more critical depth on Lola in his writing on the film and that the "this film is the greatest, Andrew Sarris" was the pithy, and slightly misleading, quote taken from that which took on a life of its own?

I suppose if the 'rediculous' thread has taught us anything, it is that there is no shortage of people out there saying "this person told me 2001/Nosferatu/Straw Dogs/Tokyo Story/Solaris/Vertigo was a great film and I thought it was awful/didn't understand what was going on/hated the characters/fell asleep. I don't know what they were thinking when the recommended this film - they were obviously high on drugs/stupid/trying to be faux-intellectual!". It is probably for the best not to overhype films too much to avoid this kind of reaction but then again there is always the possibility of that happening to any film depending on the audience.

[Antoine Doinel]

Hey critics! You're too old and snobby! lulz!

[MichaelB]

Hey critics! You're too old and snobby! lulz!

She's quite right, and since I'm well past thirty I'll hand my notice in tomorrow - and start limiting my film intake to what's on at the local multiplex.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone come across a professional critic who routinely doesn't get sarcasm? I always thought it was pretty close to the profession's universal language.

[Michael Kerpan]

That column was snark, wasn't it? Or is that just wishful thinking on the part of one is already far too old to understand these things anymore (i.e., me).

[MichaelB]

That column was snark, wasn't it?

No, not at all - whatever gave you that idea?