Film Criticism

[RIP Film]

There seems to be some confusion over what makes a movie anti-war. A movie is anti-war if it advances the proposition that war is bad and ought not to occur. Truffaut argues that a movie cannot pragmatically advance this because it cannot avoid making war look exciting, thereby undermining that proposition.

Is that what he meant though or an assumption? It seems to me if you’re going to make Truffaut’s argument, it’s not about the films being thrilling but the desensitization to violence— and war is arguably the most violent thing you can depict, both graphically and in its acts of depravity. You’re basically making the wager that whatever anti-war sentiment or message you have is greater than contributing to an entertainment culture that normalizes it— if it is something that truly shouldn’t be, and not an unfortunate aspect of human nature. Film is kind of isolated in this regard from other arts in its dedication to realism and engaging the senses.

But all of this seems quant nowadays, since war has been normalized and politicians in the U.S. regularly toss out bombing other countries. All of this is to say I’m sympathetic to Truffaut’s statement, but it was a different time.

[Mr Sausage]

No, I don’t think Truffaut was arguing desensitization, and that argument has its own problems anyway.

The rest of your post runs into pro-censorship problems. If any expression on an issue, pro or con, contributes to a wider cultural promotion that measurably harms the populace, the logical conclusion would be to censor those expressions. This is censorship logic at work, the idea that art is inherently corrupting and that even naming something is enough to enact harm. But these claims fall well short of proof. Doom is not making school shooters and Apocalypse Now new soldiers.

If these same arguments of yours were deployed in another context, you’d see the problems immediately. But because it’s war, a big subject with a lot of emotional baggage, people have trouble being disinterested. You’re confusing a proxy battle for the real issue.

[The Pachyderminator]

If any expression on an issue, pro or con, contributes to a wider cultural promotion that measurably harms the populace, the logical conclusion would be to censor those expressions.

This does NOT follow. Censorship causes its own, potentially even greater harms.

[Mr Sausage]

If any expression on an issue, pro or con, contributes to a wider cultural promotion that measurably harms the populace, the logical conclusion would be to censor those expressions.

This does NOT follow. Censorship causes its own, potentially even greater harms.

Who are you arguing with, here? I’m not advocating censorship, I’m describing the logic of it.

[The Pachyderminator]

You claimed that, if we think certain kinds of expression are harmful to society, it logically follows that we should censor them. I deny that censorship follows from the assessment of harm. My support for free speech isn't founded on faith that no speech is ever harmful, but on a belief that suppressing speech is a greater evil in the long run. And that belief, incidentally, is much stronger than my tentative suspicions about the sociological effects of certain kinds of action movies.

[swo17]

Mr Sausage was speaking from the point of view of someone condoning censorship, not from his own.

Having lived through COVID, I can appreciate the impulse. Here most everyone was experiencing something like this for the first time in their lives. Some ignorant thoughts start rearing their heads and you hope they won't gain critical mass, but then they do, and you kind of wish you could do something about it, but even small steps in that direction by people in power are perceived as nefarious. Things just get popular or normalized and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not that censorship is ill-advised--it's that it's futile

[Mr Sausage]

You claimed that, if we think certain kinds of expression are harmful to society, it logically follows that we should censor them. I deny that censorship follows from the assessment of harm. My support for free speech isn't founded on faith that no speech is ever harmful, but on a belief that suppressing speech is a greater evil in the long run. And that belief, incidentally, is much stronger than my tentative suspicions about the sociological effects of certain kinds of action movies.

Ok, fair. I guess the natural place to go next is ask what you think of hate speech laws, but I don’t really want to argue about censorship very much.

Thanks for the discussion. I disagreed with you, but found your posts intelligent and thoughtful.

[Mr Sausage]

Mr Sausage was speaking from the point of view of someone condoning censorship, not from his own

In fairness, I was saying if you accept the premises of censorship, you’d have to accept the conclusion, and Pachy’s right, that’s not actually true. Still, it’s weird to me to see people accept the premises of censorship but reject the conclusion because not effective. Personally I reject the premises and conclusion. I don’t like any part of the argument.

[hanshotfirst1138]

Genuine question: is there any money to be made in this anymore? It’s what I’d love to do more than anything, and pretty much all that I’m good at; does anyone know or any sites which take open submissions?

[hearthesilence]

Genuine question: is there any money to be made in this anymore? It’s what I’d love to do more than anything, and pretty much all that I’m good at; does anyone know or any sites which take open submissions?

It's probably tougher, but the model is roughly the same albeit with less opportunities and probably less money. It also ties into the type of criticism you want to write - academic, for a broad audience, etc. If you can get on a magazine or newspaper payroll, that gives some stability. A big metropolitan or nationwide publication, even better. (Sadly alternative weeklies are on shakier ground.) Otherwise, academia isn't a bad place to go and may be more stable - plenty of arts critics now teach journalism classes that deal with criticism.

There's also substack, but the ones who make decent money usually are already established, and even then it may vary a lot.

[WmS]

academia isn't a bad place to go and may be more stable

It's adjuncts all the way down.

[furbicide]

Genuine question: is there any money to be made in this anymore? It’s what I’d love to do more than anything, and pretty much all that I’m good at; does anyone know or any sites which take open submissions?

Senses of Cinema isn't a bad place to try – that's where I was first published. They don't pay contributors, which some people will pretty understandably draw the line at, but it is a respected publication with a high standard of writing and is certainly a good thing to have on your resume when pitching elsewhere.

[Michael Kerpan]

>> that's where I was first published

Me too. Not that I've written all that much since then.

[hanshotfirst1138]

Genuine question: is there any money to be made in this anymore? It’s what I’d love to do more than anything, and pretty much all that I’m good at; does anyone know or any sites which take open submissions?

It's probably tougher, but the model is roughly the same albeit with less opportunities and probably less money. It also ties into the type of criticism you want to write - academic, for a broad audience, etc. If you can get on a magazine or newspaper payroll, that gives some stability. A big metropolitan or nationwide publication, even better. (Sadly alternative weeklies are on shakier ground.) Otherwise, academia isn't a bad place to go and may be more stable - plenty of arts critics now teach journalism classes that deal with criticism.

There's also substack, but the ones who make decent money usually are already established, and even then it may vary a lot.

At this point, a little extra money to supplement my miserable dead-end job might be welcome.

EDIT: I don’t see the place for submissions on SOC…

[colinr0380]

Whilst we are in the listing mood here's Barry Norman's Films of the Year from 1991.

[furbicide]

I don’t see the place for submissions on SOC…

Here's the link: https://www.sensesofcinema.com/about/proposals/

You can also submit to their annual world poll, which is accepting submissions now (I received the email call-out below a couple of days ago):

In preparation for our annual World Poll, Senses of Cinema invites authors and audiences to reflect on their cinematic highlights of 2022.

In your opinion, what constitutes best practice in terms of filmmaking and film going in 2022? As ever, watching movies is a dynamic and non-heterogeneous experience across the globe. Our last rotation around the sun saw some audiences reunite in front of the silver screen, while others continue to oscillate in and out of lockdowns relative to their geo-political context. In this call, we invite you to reflect on your film viewing in 2022, and collate your cinematic highlights.

We ask you to categorise your lists according to

1. Films released for the first time in 2022 (festivals, cinemas, streaming services)
2. Older films encountered for the first time in 2022 (seen in festivals, cinematheques, re-releases, home entertainment, streaming channels, etc)
3. Any online or hybrid festivals you 'attended' and that you felt presented a really good program and experience (and why?)

There is a 1000 word limit per entry. Contributors are to curate their lists, from 5 to 10 films. Be selective! We want to know what stood out to you. Submissions can consist of lists of films, which may be briefly annotated or not according to your preference, and can be organised however you see fit (alphabetically, ranked, grouped etc).

See previous World Poll submissions for a blueprint of what formatting should look like. Film titles should be in italics, followed by director’s name and year of release in parentheses. Example: Wake in Fright (Ted Kotcheff, 1971). For non-English language films, list the original title first followed by the English title in parentheses. Example: Il deserto rosso (Red Desert, Michelangelo Antonioni, 1964). Thereafter use the English title. The only exception to this is if the film is commonly known in English by its foreign title, such as La Jetée. Contributions that do not follow our style guide will either be rejected or returned to be corrected

Please remember to include your author by-line. No more than one line, please.

The deadline for contributions is Thursday January 5, 2023. However, Senses would greatly appreciate submissions as soon as possible. Late submissions will not be published.

Please email your submissions to worldpoll@sensesofcinema.com

Entries will be published at Senses of Cinema's discretion. All submissions will receive an acknowledgement of receipt by Thursday January 5, 2022. The world poll will be published on Senses of Cinema in January 2023. If you wish to review previous World Polls, they can be accessed at http://www.sensesofcinema.com/category/world-poll/

Thank you, and we look forward to your contributions.

Editors

Senses of Cinema

[hearthesilence]

Apparently Cinema Scope Magazine is potentially ending unless it can financially turn things around this year.

[Matt]

The ebook edition of the Library of America’s THE AGE OF MOVIES: SELECTED WRITINGS OF PAULINE KAEL is $1.99 across all platforms for the entire month of March. Click the links under “Buy the eBook” here.

[aox]

Apologies. I don't think we have a dedicated film podcast thread, so I figured this was as close as I was going to get. I haven't asked this question in a few years, but what are some good film podcasts you enjoy? I need some new follows. Thanks

[Maltic]

There's Sometimes a Buggy (old Hollywood)
Blank Check (newer Hollywood)
The Important Cinema Club / Michael and Us (a bit of everything)
Screen Drafts is fun, depending on the topic/guests

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Two that I frequently listened to the past year were Girls Guts Giallo and Live At The Death Factory. The latter did a terrific episode on Penda's Fen.

[EWMMTFAN]

Midnight Movie Talk is a YouTube show I'd recommend all movie fans to watch. Erick Weber is the most fearless critic in the industry.

[Black Hat]

In my opinion movie podcasts are wildly inconsistent with most of them consistently bad made worse by embarrassing production, buy a decent mic nerds! I'll second Important Cinema Club as one of the more consistent ones. Junk Filter has its moments, and Rohmercast is lots of fun but has its focus obviously. There's one called Deep Cut which did an episode on 2046 I really enjoyed. There's another called The Haunted Screen which has a 6 episode season on Weimar Cinema that's terrific, I'd recommend it.

[Maltic]

Midnight Movie Talk is a YouTube show I'd recommend all movie fans to watch. Erick Weber is the most fearless critic in the industry.

You does Erick think of Rohmer?

[EWMMTFAN]

Midnight Movie Talk is a YouTube show I'd recommend all movie fans to watch. Erick Weber is the most fearless critic in the industry.

You does Erick think of Rohmer?

Not sure about his opinion of Rohmer. The man lives and breaths with movies. His taste runs from Tar to Real Genius, if you want to get the scoop of his agenda. Most importantly, he chamipons the theatrical experience over streaming, lamenting Netflix for not running their movies with a theatrical component.