Film Critics

Started by ono, July 17, 2003, 02:17:28 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions

mutinyco

...
#30
July 18, 2003, 11:41:42 AM
burp.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#31
July 18, 2003, 11:44:44 AM
indeed
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

NEON MERCURY

#32
July 18, 2003, 12:38:43 PM
Man...  most of those mentioned i like, but the one that i find that I ALWAYS agree w/ would be Peter Travers of Rolling Stone magazine.  He is amazing

SoNowThen

#33
July 18, 2003, 12:47:42 PM
Yeah, I agree, Travers is pretty cool. He gives some great commentary on the Reservoir Dogs dvd.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Derek

#34
July 18, 2003, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: mutinycoMovies are about telling stories with pictures.

I would say that movies use every kind of art to tell their stories: photography, music, design, acting...
It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.

ksmc

#35
July 18, 2003, 03:08:54 PM
If ever I feel like putting myself in a bad mood, all I have to do is read a David Denby review in the New Yorker. This snotty fuck takes such pleasure in ripping apart films--I have never read one entirely positive review from him. I believe that a film critic should be, above all else, an appreciator--this is why I find Ebert so refreshing.
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules."

SoNowThen

#36
July 18, 2003, 03:28:52 PM
Quote from: ksmcIf ever I feel like putting myself in a bad mood, all I have to do is read a David Denby review in the New Yorker. This snotty fuck takes such pleasure in ripping apart films--I have never read one entirely positive review from him. I believe that a film critic should be, above all else, an appreciator--this is why I find Ebert so refreshing.

Cheers. So true.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#37
July 19, 2003, 11:56:23 AM
I'm an 85% believer in the auteur theory, myself.

I require sublimity from my film writing. Newspaper and television reviewers are just that; hopelessly middlebrow personalities like Ebert, Roeper, Maltin, and Shalit aren't real critics, they're merely reviewers, and not very interesting ones. Where are their credentials? Where is their voice? Even if they had a deep, distinctive voice (which I doubt), their medium inherently doesn't allow for such things. To further my point, I refuse to call myself a "critic," either; my newspaper and blog writing are "reviewing," however hard I try to make them something more than superficial recountings of plot and character.

Pauline Kael, however "grumpy" she may seem to some, was an absolutely brilliant writer. She was very literate, very immersed in film, very witty, and very opinionated, and she never bothered to disguise any of these facts. I guess that intimidates some readers. I've always found her to be immensely accessible and, despite disagreeing with many more of her opinions than I share, a real inspiration. The New Yorker's current crop could never compare; they're actually rather limp, for the most part. I am not a huge Anthony Lane fan, to put it mildly. The best film reviews in print these days are to be found in The Village Voice and Film Comment; they're not ashamed to take film seriously, something that's under attack so commonly now as "elitism." Any system of taste is a form of "elitism," everyone. Don't be upset when someone's system of taste is well-developed enough to form a basis for criticism.

I knew I could count on SoNowThen to drop Sarris, another really valuable film critic, into the conversation.

Nobody's mentioned James Agee, who also did some really good work and prefigured the others mentioned.

Godard, whose film criticism consisted not only of his writing but also of his actual films, probably has to be considered the consummate film critic; he lived it.

Susan Sontag's film writing is always beautifully perceptive and enriching. I consider her an important film writer. Also, in the seventies and eighties, Thomas Waugh and Laura Mulvey.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

mutinyco

...
#38
July 19, 2003, 12:09:16 PM
Um, yes, movies are stories told with pictures. 24 per second, to be exact. You don't need actors. Or music. Or set design. All you need is a story and camera with film. (editing tools can help) But fundamentally the base of the medium is telling a story with pictures. It's the first thing any decent film teacher will tell you.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#39
July 19, 2003, 02:36:34 PM
Godardian, as always, a very good post. Cheers.


Muty - why you gotta argue so much? Nowadays, film DOES encompass all art forms. That's what makes it so great and powerful and wonderful and fall-in-love-with-it cool. You could choose to tell story with just pictures, but why leave so many other tools on the ground? We've progressed beyond the silent film, let's keep moving forward.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Alethia

#40
July 19, 2003, 03:02:07 PM
amen

mutinyco

...
#41
July 19, 2003, 03:02:58 PM
Because I'm talking about what fundamentally makes a movie. It is a story told with pictures. Yes, you can add all of these other mediums into it -- and this is why it's the greatest art form -- but if you can't tell a story with pictures these other things aren't going to help. Telling a story with pictures IS a movie. It is the foundation. You can't have anything without it.

Once again, the auteur theory is bogus. I don't know of a single major filmmaker who would sanely declare anything else. US directors mourn the loss of "personal films" -- that doesn't mean auteur per se. It's a collaborative effort. The director doesn't think everything up. Specialists come to him with their ideas and he tells them what works or doesn't. He's a conductor. Yes, movies that are overseen to a certain extent by one creative force are usually better. But they can also be a lot worse. I prefer total control over my work. But I'm an exception. There are MAYBE half a dozen directors in Hollywood who have COMPLETE control over every film they make.

When Spielberg says he doesn't believe in the auteur theory he isn't stating it as a point of philosophy. He's stating an observation he's made by working for 30 years. He says he sees no evidence of it in feature filmmaking. He said that as a kid making 16mm movies he was an auteur. If you want to just make $100,000 movies with a couple of people you'll be more of an auteur. But if you want to make movies with real budgets you're going to have to learn how to compromise -- there are too many collaborators and too many investors and too many studio execs.

I would fit easily into your definition of an auteur. I still don't see any convincing evidence of it on a reasonable scale.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Ravi

#42
July 19, 2003, 05:09:33 PM
Is the auteur theory largely touted by film historians, critics, and the like?  Do only the most egotistical of directors call themselves "auteurs"?

Would any of you say that a select few can truly be considered auteurs?

mutinyco

...
#43
July 19, 2003, 06:11:09 PM
Yes.

Yes.

Yes.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Gold Trumpet

#44
July 20, 2003, 09:47:34 AM
"I believe somewhat in the autuer theory, but I don't think one guy can make an entire film."

-Kevin Smith
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions