Film Criticism

[domino harvey]

Perish the thought!

Anyone who wants to see a good list of faith-based movies that isn't compiled by someone whose credentials are they just topped off the Dreyer box, see here

[tavernier]

Review of David Thomson's new book.

[Antoine Doinel]

Former colleague Patrick Goldstein writes about Manohla Dargis' fearsome reputation among Hollywood execs. It's an interesting piece, though Goldstein's insinuation that critics should be nicer when reviewing Hollywood prestige pics that deal with "difficult material" is ridiculous.

[Perkins Cobb]

In other words, Goldstein is airing his befuddlement that, unlike him, not everyone is a whore for studio publicists & Harvey Weinstein.

[Noiretirc]

Review of David Thomson's new book.

I Have Seen Have You Seen...? and I thoroughly enjoy this Great Big Thing.

It's certainly a whirlwind. So many preposterous claims had me all Tommy DeVito post "shinebox"........

"David Lean directs empty films." No prisoners.

Last Tango is trashed for all of the wrong fucking (!) reasons. Mr Thomson, did you notice Brando's monumental scene with his dead wife?

This Merzboxian Thing has a thousand sentences in dire need of a clean-up. Um..."So Kubrik was positioned now as a master, but too masterly for known material." Quite.

The first half of the Pulp Fiction entry is incomprehensible. For the love of God hire an editor, David.

The last 30 years get a very short end of the stick. Unforgiven.

But in spite of all these infuriating things, I cannot put This Thing down. His skepticism is good natured, and his wildly provocative opinions engage as well as enrage. Every time I flip towards one essay, I end up hopelessly parked at another.

And I laugh. A lot. Genuinely. Anybody who dares to open with Abbott And Costello Meets Frankenstein deserves my homemade wine. Performance has, among other things, "useful hints on how several people can inhabit one bath."

The Fabulous and the Fanciful appear before the firing squad in equal measure, and I want to hug Mr Thomson for that.

There's a Douchbaggery Of David Thomson thread way down there vvv, and that's too bad. He loves the artform as much as any of us, and this book is a testament to that. Love him or hate him, you should spend time with this book.

[Antoine Doinel]

AJ Schnack defends Manohla.

[Michael Kerpan]

AJ Schnack defends Manohla.

Classy guy. ;~}

[Jeff]

The L.A. Times has picked up on the whole Ben-Lyons-is-the-world's-foremost-douchebag-and-the-biggest-joke-in-film-criticism-since-Bosley-Crowther's-review-of-Bonnie-and-Clyde zeitgeist.

[FerdinandGriffon]

David Denby is about to come out with a new book called Snark. From the back cover:

What is snark? You recognize it when you see it -- a tone of teasing, snide, undermining abuse, nasty and knowing, that is spreading like pinkeye through the media and threatening to take over how Americans converse with each other and what they can count on as true. Snark attempts to steal someone's mojo, erase her cool, annihilate her effectiveness. In this sharp and witty polemic, New Yorker critic and bestselling author David Denby takes on the snarkers, naming the nine principles of snark -- the standard techniques its practitioners use to poison their arrows. Snarkers like to think they are deploying wit, but mostly they are exposing the seethe and snarl of an unhappy country, releasing bad feeling but little laughter.

I can't help but feel like the whole book is just misdirected aggression towards Anthony Lane, Denby's fellow film reviewer at The New Yorker. Lane is famous for his uproarious and ruthlessly sarcastic pans, reviews that make Denby's seem like little more than either tepid fence-sitting or insipid populism. Unfortunately for Denby, the critics haven't needed any of Lane's help in tearing Snark to shreds for its inaccuracy and closemindedness.

[GringoTex]

a tone of teasing, snide, undermining abuse, nasty and knowing,

Sounds like Kael.

But I thought Denby was a Paulette?

[Highway 61]

But I thought Denby was a Paulette?

He may claim to be, but he's too ambivalent about the films he reviews to come anywhere close. He's useless, frankly, especially considering that The New Yorker has a far superior critic in Richard Brody, who's stuck writing DVD capsule reviews. I'd really like to see Brody replace Denby for art films, while Lane tears into whatever mainstream garbage is playing that week.

[Matt]

Amen. In a stable of great critics (Acocella on dance, Schjeldahl on art, Ross on music, Franklin on TV, Goldberger on architecture, Menand and Wood on books, and Lahr on theater), I don't know how they ended up with the film critics they did. I guess Tina Brown's to blame.

[Matt]

Weren't Denby and Lane firmly in place - both Paulettes - years before Tina Brown.

Tina Brown brought Lane over from The Independent in 1993. Denby has been there since 1998 (he wrote for New York magazine from 1978-1998), so maybe David Remnick's to blame for him.

I'm probably a New Yorker apologist (I've been subscribing as long as I can remember), but I think the magazine's as good now as it's been in years. Certainly better now than 15 years ago. I regret that I didn't apply for the in-house librarian job that opened up a few years ago. Anyway. Topics for another thread.

[Highway 61]

I don't know how they ended up with the film critics they did.

I think it's clear that The New Yorker just doesn't have a very high regard for movies. There's the obvious fact that their current critics aren't that hot and that aside from the cartoon caption contests, movie reviews are the very last item in the magazine. But I'd also say that thumbing their nose at cinema satisfied The New Yorker's demographic in its William Shawn heyday, and that is precisely why Kael--who was brilliant at exposing Hollywood prestige as nothing more than empty refinement, but who also scoffed at the view of cinema as high art--was the perfect fit for the magazine. And despite the gentrification of the magazine under Brown and Remnick, this prejudice has clearly held ground.

[kinjitsu]

Without doubt, my favorite New Yorker reviewer.

[Highway 61]

I confess I know next to nothing about Gilliatt. Guess I'll have to dig out my Complete New Yorker DVDs and read her stuff!

[accatone]

fyi, brodys godard "bio" is joke!

Edit:
For your info, Brodys Godard "biography" is a joke!
("Joke" just opposed to "Definitiv" - i.e. not a joke in general but in the context of a "definitiv" biography/book.)

[Matt]

fyi, brodys godard "bio" is joke!

Don't trouble yourself to hit the shift key or anything there. Well, except for that exclamation mark. Couldn't make your point without that, could you?

[swo17]

quotation marks also requires use of the shift key lol

[Antoine Doinel]

Weren't Denby and Lane firmly in place - both Paulettes - years before Tina Brown.

They're both unreadable.

Amen.

[accatone]

fyi, brodys godard "bio" is joke!

Don't trouble yourself to hit the shift key or anything there. Well, except for that exclamation mark. Couldn't make your point without that, could you?

Hä??? Do not understand your "shift" key thing? I am not native (american) english speakin'. But regarding swoos reaction must have been "funny"…! I give a shit here - Brodys book is very bad and if anybody wants to discuss that topic we can switch over to the Godard board! I was just commenting on Brodys work which fits in this topic - i see no reason to piss around and swo - you can now quit sneakin' up asses…its ok now - seriously!

[swo17]

[SHIFT], [/]

[domino harvey]

Anything you can do, I can do better. I Can Do Anything Better Than You!

[FerdinandGriffon]

I've already ranted at length about Brody's biography in the Godard thread, so I won't do that again here. I will say though that I have strong doubts about whether replacing Denby with Brody would be an improvement. They're both equally useless as far as I'm concerned. As for Lane, I don't really understand the hostility towards him. I don't always agree with his taste, but the man has a knack for finding points of genuine interest in otherwise fairly pedestrian films, and his pans, though usually directed at fairly easy targets, are nonetheless very, very funny.

[colinr0380]

To try and restore our faith in film critics I'd like to link to this interview with Inuhiko Yomota from the Midnight Eye site.