tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post8510448527155043193..comments2024-01-30T04:32:47.585-05:00Comments on The Cooler: Sight & Soundless: How Cinephiles Are Failing CinemaJason Bellamyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-74307072268386402702012-09-27T21:24:09.754-04:002012-09-27T21:24:09.754-04:00Joel: I'm sure this conversation will remain o...Joel: I'm sure this conversation will remain ongoing, in other comments sections at least, even if it slows down or stops in this one. It should continue; and not just because it's fun.<br /><br />One last note for now on the "favorite" vs "great" thing.<br /><br />I imagine that more significant than anything in understanding what those words mean to someone is knowing their ratio of one to the other.<br /><br />For example, let's say there are 10,000 movies I think that are great, but there are only 100 movies I consider my favorites. I suppose it's possible for someone else to look at with those numbers reversed. That's why it's difficult to say the "great" means "favorite" or "favorite" means "great." Often the two will be connected, but they don't have to be.<br /><br />Your latest example helped a little bit in understanding the point you're making. Because, sure, I suppose someone could predominantly love Westerns and thus think that any movie with a guy on a horse is "great," simply because it meets this very specific taste, even if the same person sees all these flaws in the film. But in that case, what's really happening, I think, is this: the individual thinks the GENRE is great. Now, that might not be the argument the person would make, but that would be the reality, and this is where it links back to my point: any attempt by that film fan to honestly assess the power of the film would reveal -- intentionally or not -- what drew him/her to the film. And when we realize that the traits of a Western is all the movie has going, well, that's probably not going to be very compelling as an argument of greatness.<br /><br />So, yeah, maybe we are more on the same page than I was thinking for a bit there. Good to toss around the ideas.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-14578580257620730222012-09-26T00:20:06.057-04:002012-09-26T00:20:06.057-04:00Jason:
1. I follow you, but I know for me persona...Jason:<br /><br />1. I follow you, but I know for me personally I might be compelled to watch a movie purely for thematic or nostalgic purposes. If a film is about radical seventies terrorists/guerrillas I'll watch it and probably enjoy it on some level even if it's deeply flawed. Because I'm interested in the subject and even the least interesting movie about it will still interest me - to the point where I'd probably watch it again and maybe even buy it. As for nostalgia, a movie can activate that for me by the simple virtue of having been seen by me when I'm 4. That's all it takes. So I guess I AM that rare person who can respond to a movie so simpleminded a way! That's one reason I maintain a divide between favorite or enjoyment, and great or admiration.<br /><br />2. Keep in mind that I view this as essentially an academic, theoretical debate. I think it has importance because principles guide us in important judgements and give us a framework to reference when disagreements arise. But it's sort of like military preparedness or nuclear deterrence; you want it in your back pocket for emergencies but most of the time you're not going to use it.<br /><br />In everyday scenarios, I don't dwell much on the criterion for greatness; in fact the irony in having this discussion now is that I'm in the midst of preparing a 'favorites' series for my blog which will focus mostly on my totally subjective entry points into various films, many of which I do consider great as well. So I completely get where you're coming from in pragmatic terms, its just that additionally I see a bigger picture which I know I might want to grapple with on occasion<br /><br />As an aside, I won't begrudge you if you publish a comment but don't respond for a while - I appreciate your quick responses but know the obligation to respond right away can be wearying. I'm all for continuing the conversation - and branching it off - as long as you're interested, but am fine with it taking a snail's pace at this point.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-64307590969453432512012-09-25T23:53:33.768-04:002012-09-25T23:53:33.768-04:00RAR, maybe it would be better to say 'minor ke...RAR, maybe it would be better to say 'minor key' which sounds less judgemental. Basically I think the trend is towards more subdued styles, more focused subjects, and more 'local' themes. I like Von Trier's ambition, which seems rare these days. Off the very top of my head, Flight of the Red Balloon (Asian director, but archetypally European in a lot of ways), Summer Hours (which I loved) and Lives of Others (which disappointed me) strike me as minor-key films, though the latter two have some grand themes they are all stylistically rather conservative and narrow in focus.<br /><br />For further elaboration, I'll repost the link to my blog I included above. The focus of the Denby essay I'm responding to is more on mainstream American cinema but in the comments I had an extended conversation with another blogger which touched more on the major/minor, big/small dichotomy in European art cinema.<br /><br />http://thedancingimage.blogspot.com/2012/09/whos-killing-cinema-and-who-cares.htmlJoel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-19464411180545418252012-09-25T22:35:09.159-04:002012-09-25T22:35:09.159-04:00Joel:
In reverse order ...
"And not to bela...Joel:<br /><br />In reverse order ...<br /><br />"And not to belabor the Makioka-Tommy thing but first you acknowledged the Tommy/Donny argument was 'flawed' because 'it doesn't tell us anything about the movie' but then above you suggest that all of our reactions to films are the result of equally valid (or invalid) which would seem to mean there's nothing wrong with Tommy/Donny, so which is it?"<br /><br />Well, this is the problem with a discussion that carries on over 100 comments: arguments made in the moment don't have enough detail, or the right detail, to be helpful for the evolving conversation later on. In the previous case when I was disregarding the argument I meant only that the simple argument 'I like Tommy because he reminds me of X' is really a comment on X, not the movie. If the 'reminding of' is all there is to it, then, we agree, that's worthless, and sorry if I was suggesting disagreement where we had none. But here's the thing: I really don't know anyone who reveres movies in such a simple-minded way. More likely, even if a reference is personal, it's broader than that. For example, the relationship in FIELD OF DREAMS might remind a son of a relationship with his father. That's specific, personal. It's also broad, thematic. It's not, "I like this movie because my dad wanted to play baseball, too" but more likely, "My dad wanted to play catcher, too, and this movie evokes that experience/feeling that I happen to have seen in life first hand." Following me?<br /><br />I'd write on, because I know I haven't put all the pieces together, but at this point I've touched on these pieces so much that I feel you're either seeing the direction I'm going or I'm going to have to pick some of these ideas and rewrite them again from scratch, and I don't have the time to do that at the moment.<br /><br />Which brings me to this part ...<br /><br />"Jason, to be honest I think you just want to use the word 'great' when you mean 'favorite.'"<br /><br />OK. Fair enough. Personally, I do see a very close connection to those words, yes. Because I love movies -- they are some of my favorite things. And, not surprisingly, I love great movies more than lousy movies. So great movies are some of my favorite things. Beyond all of that, I do believe that if something is among your "favorites" that it is probably "great" -- in several significant ways or entirely -- and the obligation of the cinephile is to recognize that connection and try to trace it to its source.<br /><br />As part of that exercise -- this leads us back to the first part -- I think there's room to realize that you connect with something for fairly frivolous reasons. To keep with a similar example: "X makes me laugh because he reminds me of this guy I knew in high school; looks just like him." Yes, I agree, in an extreme example like that -- and I think those are extreme -- that tells us very little about the movie. And most cinephiles can go through that kind of reality check very easily. <br /><br />I'm hesitant to connect "favorite" and "great" mostly because, for whatever reason, most cinephiles treat those words like oil and vinegar, as if they can't blend together. So I'm comfortable saying that movies that I think are "great" are my "favorites." I think that's accurate. I'm not comfortable applying that translation to others, however, knowing that those words might mean wildly different things.<br /><br />Truthfully, the words don't matter to me that much. It's the honesty of the response that matters: explaining what a movie did and how that affected YOU and why. <br /><br />Sorry for the ramble. It probably inspired more confusion. Best I could do tonight.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-36495255930043866042012-09-25T05:26:39.228-04:002012-09-25T05:26:39.228-04:00Joel:
What 'minor' cinema are you referri...Joel:<br /><br />What 'minor' cinema are you referring to when you say Von Trier bucks the trend? RARnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-4514770857231081682012-09-24T23:20:22.427-04:002012-09-24T23:20:22.427-04:00Jason, to be honest I think you just want to use t...Jason, to be honest I think you just want to use the word 'great' when you mean 'favorite.' Everything you've described and implied leads to this conclusion - the only exception being when you take a direct step back and say they're not synonymous. Bit when it walks, swims, and quacks like a duck...? Why cling to the term great if 'favorite' fits the bill? What is it about its associations appeal to you? That's what has me confused.<br /><br />And not to belabor the Makioka-Tommy thing but first you acknowledged the Tommy/Donny argument was 'flawed' because 'it doesn't tell us anything about the movie' but then above you suggest that all of our reactions to films are the result of equally valid (or invalid) which would seem to mean there's nothing wrong with Tommy/Donny, so which is it?<br /><br />Looking forward to your take on the two David's. The Denby in particular has been kicking around in my head since I read it on Saturday. Not to tip the scales, but I suspect we'll disagree there too haha.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-35475365076939044232012-09-24T21:09:18.104-04:002012-09-24T21:09:18.104-04:00Joel: "But a few comments ago, weren't yo...Joel: "But a few comments ago, weren't you using the Makioka Sisters example as a valid argument (and this implicitly distancing it from Donny/Tommy which you'd already dismissed)? In truth I'm not quite sure why you brought it into the conversation."<br /><br />My point was simply that certain biases/predispositions are considered frivolous (say, identifying with HOOSIERS because you love basketball) while others are hardly considered at all (say, a Japanese person identifying with MAKIOKA SISTERS). Biases are biases. We all have them. Sometimes they are obvious. Other times not. To suggest that some of our reactions to movies are the result of our biases and others aren't suggests we know what our biases are and can control them except in extreme situations; I think that's silly. And the significance to our conversation is this: I don't know why you'd want to, but you can't step out of your body and analyze art without bias -- unless you reduce it to math, plotting points on a graph.<br /><br />As for the definition of greatness: honestly, I could no more define the term than I could define "funny." I've defined it to the best that I can. I don't believe that my "great" and your "great" need to look anything alike. I expect only that cinephiles can define why they think something is great. But the word is a feeling, a state of being, not a strict unit of measurement, no matter how often it's suggested to be so.<br /><br />Gotta run. Hope that clarified a few things. Thanks for those links! I'll check those out later this week.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-82935379623519337472012-09-23T00:44:22.705-04:002012-09-23T00:44:22.705-04:00This is an aside to the larger conversation, but s...This is an aside to the larger conversation, but since you specifically mention The Man with the Movie Camera in your piece, I thought you might want to read David Thomson's essay in The New Republic:<br /><br />http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/107218/not-dead-just-dying<br /><br />Near the end, he discusses Movie Camera's inclusion and rather than seeing it as a sop to snobby old cinephiles out-of-touch with the masses (a group he somewhat self-loathingly scorns earlier in the piece) he sees it as representing the younger pool of viewers, pointing to a more contemporary way of viewing cinema, as fragmentary, non-narrative, driven by editing rather than a more tightly controlled, photography-motivated mise en scene.<br /><br />The same day, on the same site, another essay went up, by David Denby, which I found extraordinary:<br /><br />http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/107212/has-hollywood-murdered-the-movies<br /><br />I responded to it here:<br /><br />http://thedancingimage.blogspot.com/2012/09/whos-killing-cinema-and-who-cares.htmlJoel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-7028097908339994732012-09-22T13:36:36.423-04:002012-09-22T13:36:36.423-04:00Jason,
Though there are some important distinctio...Jason,<br /><br />Though there are some important distinctions between the Donny/Tommy scenario and your other examples, ultimately they are all insufficient as arguments for 'greatness' so we agree there. But a few comments ago, weren't you using the Makioka Sisters example as a valid argument (and this implicitly distancing it from Donny/Tommy which you'd already dismissed)? In truth I'm not quite sure why you brought it into the conversation.<br /><br />As for the rest I still need to hear your definition of greatness before I can understand what you're talking about. 'That's fucking great!' may be an internal reaction but the word has an external source and is freighted with meaning and history. If it's going to be used, the user must is obligated to define it and defend its application, otherwise they're just coasting on its associations while conveniently distinguishing it from the implications they don't endorse.<br /><br />Also, 100 comments - woohoo!Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-10847573677290430912012-09-22T13:20:12.380-04:002012-09-22T13:20:12.380-04:00RAR: good point; he probably didn't come to mi...RAR: good point; he probably didn't come to mind because I haven't seen any of his recent films, or indeed anything he's done other than Satantango. Really my statements on 21st century Eurocinema should be qualified by the fact that there's much I haven't seen yet (for example only Cache by Haneke, who is considered one of the era's major auteurs). But from what I have seen its Von Trier who impresses the most and also most bucks the trend toward a 'minor' cinema. Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-58164104398455217062012-09-22T08:56:17.508-04:002012-09-22T08:56:17.508-04:00Joel: Well, all these things have a tendency to ov...Joel: Well, all these things have a tendency to overlap. If you think something is "great," I would think there's a very good chance it's also a "favorite" and something you "like" and "appreciate," etc.<br /><br />That said, I'm sure there are a number of reasons why someone would consider something a "favorite" and still not think it's "great."<br /><br />But my overall point of the previous comment remains: To suggest that the Tommy Boy/Donny bias is any different than a bias toward films of a given culture or genre or period or political slant or theme, etc, is silly. The Tommy Boy/Donny bias is simply easier to spot, because it's more distinctive.<br /><br />What is greatness? I've said how I define it: It's a movie that as you're watching it makes you think, "This is fucking great!" Again, not necessarily the first time, but eventually and consistently over time. Again, not necessarily in an emotional way, but perhaps in a cerebral way, etc. The point is, the assessment of greatness comes from YOU. If it doesn't come from you, then all you're doing is providing the pencil to go down someone else's checklist of prescribed qualities for greatness -- and bringing your own biases to the table in doing that, too.<br /><br />I'm all for trying to see things through someone else's eyes, to understand why they think something is or isn't great, or is or isn't something else. What I'm against is preserving someone else's assessment of greatness as if it was our own reaction. To me, that's dishonest. And while some would argue that it cheapens the idea of "greatness" for anyone at any point to put something like TOMMY BOY on the list, I'd refute that with this: The definition of "greatness" is a lie if we don't see it and feel it ourselves. And that cheapens everything.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-14648594876739369042012-09-18T04:38:31.120-04:002012-09-18T04:38:31.120-04:00Joel:
What about Bela Tarr, or do you not conside...Joel:<br /><br />What about Bela Tarr, or do you not consider him Western?RARnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-15565244059320584772012-09-17T23:09:06.552-04:002012-09-17T23:09:06.552-04:00Looks like I am not taking that break...yet. ;)Looks like I am not taking that break...yet. ;)Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-14618349852507713422012-09-17T23:07:16.957-04:002012-09-17T23:07:16.957-04:001. But what IS greatness? Or at least, if it's...1. But what IS greatness? Or at least, if it's similar to 'favorite', what distinguishes it? At this point we're verging on tautology.<br /><br />2. To rephrase the other question: At what point, an in what manner, should a viewer or writer question his/her own judgement of the film? Purely based on a shift in gut reaction? What should facilitate a reviewing or reappraisal?<br /><br />3. This is why we need to define terms, though, because you are continuing to use 'like' interchangeably with 'thinks is great'. You want to maintain a distinction between these two modes of appreciation but I'm not altogether clear what defines that distinction for you. As for myself, I have absolutely no desire to say that a Japanese viewer is wrong to 'like' the film for the above reasons and absolutely no problem saying they are wrong to consider that sufficient grounds to call the film 'great.' Is it any different than our imaginary viewer arguing that Tommy boy was great because it reminded him of hanging out with Donny?Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-57535247068019108492012-09-17T22:43:02.626-04:002012-09-17T22:43:02.626-04:00Oh, one more thing ...
Several times in this conv...Oh, one more thing ...<br /><br />Several times in this conversation the subjective, the personal, has been dismissed as somehow unreliable. That's not unusual. This is something a lot of cinephiles wrestle with. It usually goes something like this: 'Oh, sure, I think HOOSIERS is great, but I grew up in Indiana and love basketball.'<br /><br />Here's the thing, though: If you broaden that out, this doesn't sound so terrible. For example, if a Japanese person was especially fond of THE MAKIOKA SISTERS, because it reminded them of their family, no one would say, "Oh, then your vote is unreliable. You're too close to it." And only a fool would say, "Well, you can say it reminds me of your family, but I grew up in America and it doesn't remind me of my family at all, so it clearly sucks."<br /><br />So, to keep with this example, my point is that the Japanese cinephile can only respond according to his/her own experience. And the American can only respond according to his/her own experience. And it could be that THE MAKIOKA sisters does NOT have cross-cultural appeal. Or it could be that it does for many, but not for all. Etc. Etc. Etc.<br /><br />Our personal histories, our biases, our vulnerable areas ... they are what they are. My position is that it's our job as cinephiles to be good ambassadors to film by describing our own reactions and what we see. If we do that honestly, those personal connections will surface naturally. But to try to offset our biases is impossible, not least of which because it assumes we always recognize those biases, that they're always as obvious as 'Hoosier fan who likes basketball.' Often, those biases are invisible.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-23349567172546941152012-09-17T22:32:59.133-04:002012-09-17T22:32:59.133-04:00Joel: The second one is fairly easy, although it w...Joel: The second one is fairly easy, although it won't clarify our conversation any. Truly, I think greatness is defined by a movie that makes me think, "This is fucking great!" What causes me to think that could be, and often is, ANY NUMBER OF THINGS. But I know it when I see it. I trust that. It doesn't mean that I discount the opinions of others who find greatness elsewhere. And I do my best to see the film from their perspective (if they've stated it, and the sad truth is that many don't provide a map). But if I don't feel it, if I don't believe it in my gut, then I don't call it greatness. Because I can only be true to my own experience.<br /><br />As for the first question ... Can you rephrase that, when you get a chance. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-28807022216927537892012-09-17T13:52:19.395-04:002012-09-17T13:52:19.395-04:00Actually, re-reading Jason's comment I feel li...Actually, re-reading Jason's comment I feel like I actually have a pretty simple response: I think we are in basic agreement on the fundamentals yet the way we are pursing our comments makes it sound like we're disagreeing! Not sure why this is.<br /><br />2 questions may clear this up:<br /><br />How do you think the viewer/writer should approach or apply self-questioning (I feel like this may be the crux of whatever disagreement exists)?<br /><br />How DO you define greatness?<br /><br />At any rate, this is definitely a 'great' thread!Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-15706996537110145062012-09-17T13:45:39.091-04:002012-09-17T13:45:39.091-04:00RAR, in the case of Jia and Weeraesthakul at least...RAR, in the case of Jia and Weeraesthakul at least I feel these directors - who,importantly are working in cinemas that are in some senses 'younger' than western ones (China's obviously dates way back, but was heavily situated by the extended Maoist period) - are the equals of the classic directors, but in a very apples-and-oranges way. It's the latter-day Western directors I tend to feel suffer in comparison to the past even when - as in the case of,say, the Coens or Wes Anderson - their individual vision and technical craft is the equal of the old masters. Something about the prerogatives of Western cinema at present seems to deter the creation of masterpieces. The only European filmmaker I'd currently rank with the old masters is Lars Von Trier, who manages to forge an expressive originality from the self-consciously post-everything milieu of contemporary Western art cinema. Perhaps I'll elaborate when I return to respond to Jason in a few days.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-19311131674737318502012-09-16T19:50:12.274-04:002012-09-16T19:50:12.274-04:00Hey Jason, thanks for responding again...I have a ...Hey Jason, thanks for responding again...I have a pretty busy few days coming up but I'll respond in turn within the week. I'll email you when I do since you're not getting the notifications anymore. I see this as one of those ongoing, slow-paced conversations that unfolds like an old-school critic's correspondence. Sometimes I wish there were more of those in the blogosphere (and sometimes I don't haha).Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-68469095738109582272012-09-16T18:06:38.567-04:002012-09-16T18:06:38.567-04:00Joel:
Back to what I was saying about Hou Hsiao H...Joel:<br /><br />Back to what I was saying about Hou Hsiao Hsen and Weerasethakul, I honestly don't feel most recent 'serious' filmmakers to be on the level of Bresson, Ozu, Godard, Antonioni, Rohmer, et al. They can certainly be impressive at times, but as stodgy as this may seem, I honestly believe the likes of HHH, Weerasethakul, Sissako, Ceylan, Hong Sang-soo, and others fall short of the so-called 'old masters' of 'serious' cinema. Kiarostami, along with perhaps Bela Tarr, Panahi, and Philippe Garrel are exceptions. I'd also add Claire Denis when she's at her best, although at her worst she can be excruciatingly tedious. I find her quite erratic. And I'm conflicted regarding Haneke. RARnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-13270924603493028542012-09-16T16:14:34.340-04:002012-09-16T16:14:34.340-04:00Joel: Sorry for the delayed response.
Let me hit ...Joel: Sorry for the delayed response.<br /><br />Let me hit your most recent comments all at once.<br /><br />First ...<br /><br />"I think if you're using 'great' simply as 'favorite of the favorites' ..."<br /><br />I'm not intending to do that at all. The comment you're responding to there is part of a very loose hypothetical from a previous line of thought. So, just to be clear, that's not how I'm defining "great," no.<br /><br />Second ...<br /><br />"Example: we realize that many of our most rewarding experiences in a movie involve tracking shots. We see a well-executed tracking shot and are unmoved. We can then note that this is curious and ask ourselves why: was there a flaw in the execution of the technique? We're we in a distracted frame of mind when we watched it? Did something about the scene that came before (maybe a subject matter we find boring, or an aesthetic approach we don't like so much) set us off on the wrong foot to appreciate a deserving follow-up sequence? Or maybe the technique is fine, but the gesture doesn't work in an overall context. An appreciation of craft can help guide us between dismissals of a film that are deserved and those that are undeserved."<br /><br />OK, here goes: <br /><br />There's a difference between (a) understanding cinematic vocabulary and our own biases (for or against things) and (b) committing to universal, group-think or historically prescribed standards for greatness.<br /><br />There's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Understanding cinematic language is a significant part of decoding what a filmmaker is trying to do. So to keep with the above example, tracking shots tend to have a certain effect or message and static camerawork has another, and so on, from the use of light and darkness, to the use of score and silence, etc, etc, etc.<br /><br />I embrace the idea of returning to films and trying to see them according to their intended angle of approach.<br /><br />But, again, cinema isn't math. It isn't a machine. A tracking shot (again, just to keep with the example) might have a near universal intent, but that doesn't mean it has a universal effect -- not person to person or, especially, film to film. Our responsibility as good cinephiles is to not simply check the boxes that detail a film's construction but ask ourselves if that construction achieved its intended goal. That is, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is it indeed a duck, or is it a guy doing an imitation of an Aflac commercial.<br /><br />You've mentioned food critics a few times, and I imagine that appreciation of food and appreciation of cinema are actually quite similar. You can be a fan of the taste only, manufactured in a lab and injected into your fast-food, or you can be a fan of construction, marveling at how several organic elements are combined to achieve a specific effect, or somewhere in between. But if you're evaluating food and using others' opinions of what good food is to tell you that what you're eating tastes great, well, you've lost your way, and you don't know what greatness tastes like anymore.<br /><br />(And, to be clear, that's the generic "you," not you specifically.)Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-61309304920354662032012-09-16T15:55:57.494-04:002012-09-16T15:55:57.494-04:00Helen:
"A movie doesn't have to be compl...Helen:<br /><br />"A movie doesn't have to be complicated to be great, but a great movie that isn't complicated doesn't have that natural "in" to writing about it."<br /><br />Well said. Quite true.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-39267152333556406662012-09-14T22:31:46.662-04:002012-09-14T22:31:46.662-04:00"Maybe we're more comfortable playing tou..."Maybe we're more comfortable playing tour guide for films that have the potential to leave others lots in the hedgerows. That would make sense."<br /><br />Expanding on this notion, I think we're just generally more comfortable writing about complicated films than films that are straightforward. (I don't like to say simple, only because it's a loaded term and too often taken as derogatory instead of descriptive.) <br /><br />Signposted is too reductive, but complications in plot, character or what-have-you are a natural starting point when we want to convert appreciation into description and analysis. What did he mean, what was she thinking, what really happened there, what do you think happened after the lights came up... now those are questions we can really sink our critical teeth into. And talk about, equally with cinephiles and casual moviegoers, using concepts and words that everybody is familiar with and uses the same way (he said that, her expression said this, did you notice in the shadows in that one scene...).<br /><br />A movie doesn't have to be complicated to be great, but a great movie that isn't complicated doesn't have that natural "in" to writing about it. How do I explain why a comedy made me laugh to somebody who doesn't get the joke? Or the visceral excitement of a great chase scene to somebody who doesn't "get" action movies, period? When a drama makes me cry, how do I put that depth of feeling into words? How do I talk about shot composition if the term itself produces a blank stare? <br /><br />These observations aren't original, and they aren't intended to suggest that it's not possible to write well about uncomplicated movies or that it isn't worthwhile to make the attempt. Because I imagine my typical reader as one of my friends who enjoys movies but very much tends to the passive consumer mode, it is something that informs my own writing. Helenhttp://www.commentarytrack.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-66506221139670132102012-09-14T00:56:32.150-04:002012-09-14T00:56:32.150-04:00Why reduce art to a quality inspection?
I would n...Why reduce art to a quality inspection?<br /><br />I would never want to completely turn film appreciation into some kind of cold, purely technical analysis. For one thing this is not pragmatic to the long-term goal of evangelizing, for another it tends to dampen the motivating enthusiasm of the critics themselves, and furthermore it ignores the wild, unpredictable variables that can't entirely be captured by too systematic an approach.<br /><br />Yet I do think mainstream criticism, and film appreciation as a whole, could use a healthy infusion of more sharp-edged formal analysis. Movie buffs seem too be more skittish about this than say art or food buffs (where the 'I just like it because it tastes good' approach is frowned upon in an increasingly foodie culture). Probably for a few reasons: film's status as a popular medium makes 'artistic' analysis seem beside the point, also, the filmmaking process is far more complicated than the painting or cooking process, and thus harder to comprehend and analyze.<br /><br />Deciding that there are certain features of films which are typically 'good' or even 'great' gives us more of an anchoring, and makes the passing of judgment less arbitrary and more cohesive. It also creates an interesting dialectic with those more impressionistic, visceral responses which certainly need not (and will not) go away.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-52153463857819887602012-09-14T00:51:48.564-04:002012-09-14T00:51:48.564-04:00Crap, I deleted another comment!
What I'd lik...Crap, I deleted another comment!<br /><br />What I'd like to do quickly is respond to a few of your specific questions, whether or not we continue the larger debate. Partly to refresh myself from the sogginess of the more abstract general questions!<br /><br />Who sets the standards?<br /><br />I think two overlapping yet distinct groups should: those who want to approach film on a reflective manner, using sensitivity and thoughtfulness to analyze a movie-watching experience, and those who know through study or practice what actually goes into making a movie. The two approaches balance each other nicely - the first by focusing in results and not getting too caught up in respecting the effort that went into it; the second by reminding us that the film arose out of concrete circumstances, and thus encouraging us to see it as something carved out of an often hostile reality, and not merely conjured out of thin air as a magical object. This helps us see the film as a journey with its makers, which in my experience heightens the enjoyment and broadens the experience.<br /><br />Why these standards and not others?<br /><br />The first question kind of answers the first. These standards because experience (of both watching many movies and, hopefully, learning how they are hewn) has taught us their value. And because these qualities have a proven ability to evoke an emotional response more often than not. Certain objective gestures are tied to certain subjective responses. Thus if something doesn't 'work' for us but we see the usual outward signals are there we can suspect that may be we missed something. The external signs are cues. Example: we realize that many of our most rewarding experiences in a movie involve tracking shots. We see a well-executed tracking shot and are unmoved. We can then note that this is curious and ask ourselves why: was there a flaw in the execution of the technique? We're we in a distracted frame of mind when we watched it? Did something about the scene that came before (maybe a subject matter we find boring, or an aesthetic approach we don't like so much) set us off on the wrong foot to appreciate a deserving follow-up sequence? Or maybe the technique is fine, but the gesture doesn't work in an overall context. An appreciation of craft can help guide us between dismissals of a film that are deserved and those that are undeserved.<br /><br />If universal criteria exists, isn't the conversation over?<br /><br />No, because of the old horse/water analogy, whether one thinks it's easier to lead the horse to water or to make it drink; either way a challenge is involved.<br /><br />Keep in mind the criteria is potentially universal, that is to say most people can access these experiences, but it may require some work on their part.<br /><br />A critic's job is to light the path and offer directions.<br /><br />Hopefully this also answers why all-time canons are necessary, at least in principle, though their practical orientation probably could use some tweaking. (But for a while now we've been more focused on motivating principle & standards rather than pragmatic approach, which is a separate discussion and reliant in large part on settling the question of principle first.)Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.com