Film Criticism

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Stuart Galbraith IV
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:16 am

Re: Film Criticism

#701 Post by Stuart Galbraith IV » Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:20 am

New at World Cinema Paradise: DVD Savant Glenn Erickson interviews Greg Kintz about Twilight Time’s new 3-D Blu-ray of Man in the Dark, Doug Krentzlin discusses Robert Benton’s The Late Show, and new-to-WCP Steve Bingen recalls the late, lamented Micro Cinema in far-flung Moscow, Idaho!

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#702 Post by zedz » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:33 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:2. Artists in general have done very well working on their own.
I think this might be a key to understanding just why 'auteurism' in the context of cinema tends to be understood so very simplistically. Because a lot of film critics are borrowing the techniques and ideas from criticism of art forms (e.g. literature, painting) in which a sole creator is overwhelmingly the norm, they simply assume (rather than prove) that 1) every film has a sole creative voice and, 2) it belongs to the director. Thus the designated auteur gets recklessly and routinely credited with plot points the writer conceived, casting imposed by the producer, montages that might have been edited without his involvement from footage shot by the second unit, and lighting schemes devised by the DoP. In some cases the director might have been intimately involved with each and every one of those details, and consciously or unconsciously wove them into an overarching artistic vision; in others they may well have distanced themselves from them. And filmmaking is such a complex and fluid process that different directors can define their roles in completely different ways. Editing, for example, is a fundamentally creative artistic process: some directors are closely involved in that process and others aren't involved at all.

Personally, I think it's much more useful to think about the distinctive artistic voice of a given film as an entity unto itself, rather than the pure expression of a single human being. After that, and once a body of work has accumulated, it's possible to trace the similarities between a director's many films and make inferences about the nature of their contribution, but that's also an opportunity to examine the differences between their films and think about what other creative voices in the mix contributed to those differences.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Film Criticism

#703 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:29 pm

There's a couple of interesting things about auteurism in the context of general art criticism:

1. auteurism is intentional (ie. it uses the intentions of the filmmaker to generate readings), whereas a lot of, say, literary criticism since the 1940's--pre-dating the auteur theory--has excluded the intentions of the author from the interpretation of texts. But this is another reason why auteurusm isn't great for examining single films on their own: non-intentional criticism, since it isn't dependent on the presence of the author, can isolate a text and examine it solely in terms of its individual features, or if it needs context can contextualize it solely in terms of social and political movements (and other texts attached to those movements). Auteurism can't do that to a film; it depends on you knowing who the author is supposed to be and seeing a unified intention among his/her films. You can't use auteurism to isolate a movie for interpretation.

2. auteurism, at least as it tends to be practised, favours unity and coherence, so there is always the tendency to construct a larger narrative out of the career of a filmmaker, whether the unity implied by the narrative is real or fanciful. Discontinuity and incoherence are therefore ignored, and what tends to happen is those films in a career that don't fit within the larger narrative are usually excluded from the discussion. Auteurist theory can easily impose an ultimately arbitrary framework on a career. Auteurism also cannot exist in a career which is neither unified nor coherent. So those two elements become the sign of intention, but there is no reason why intention cannot be behind incoherence and discontinuity, nor why intention must form a narrative.

I neither endorse or condemn any of the methods laid out here. Whatever auteurism's benefits are, these are two of its major limits, and they're worth keeping in mind.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Film Criticism

#704 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:30 pm

A fascinating discussion and I have a few questions. On zedz's point about directors and auteurism, I completely agree about assessing the particular artistic voice of individual films, but do you feel that this could be expanded out to all facets of production, or does a final directorial 'sign off' still carry a greater weight? For instance we are familiar with actors who can be perceived to be more or less involved with the material they are in (from jobs for hire to roles that they felt very close to) with, perhaps similar to directors, individual actors being either more rigorous in refusing to just do anything, or alternatively more flexible in adapting to roles, or taking any old thing on. But you could also make the same case with Directors of Photography (that Visions of Light documentary is a paen to their art), or screenwriters, or make up technicians, or even CGI artists now, etc.

While I have severe qualms of subscribing to an auteur theory as the be all and end all of film criticism (which can sometimes seem to be suggested to be the case, both from those on either side of the yay or nay debate!) I do think that one of the most valuable aspects of it is the suggestion that individual artists can take unpromising, or seemingly out of character, material and put their own mark on it. And that is a lesson that can be expanded beyond directors to the Sacha Viernys, or Dalton Trumbos (or heck the Tom Savinis and William Castles!), even if there could be the argument made that they are a bit more at the mercy of being allowed the space to do their thing than a director would be. Though then we get into that whole area about how the financiers really have even more power, along with the issue that sometimes ignorance about different aspects of film can allow for such talents to emerge (say the director not knowing about make up, or lighting, or method acting, etc and leaving it up to those individuals to do their work within the parameters of a framework that they have set up - the director acting more as a managerial figure marshalling disparate elements into a cohesive whole).

One of the most interesting sections of that recent documentary about digital and analogue film Side By Side was when it got into the way that the 'mythic status' of the Director of Photography was in some ways being undermined by digital cameras. Once anyone could see the footage that was shot straight away without having to wait for dailies; or could do longer and longer takes without having to reload the camera; or could shoot with less elaborate lighting set ups; or could manipulate every aspect of the look of the image after the fact, suddenly everyone else involved in the production from actors and directors to the studio executives could have an opinion without it being too expensive or time consuming to just leave it entirely in the cinematographer's hands and hope their experience produced results. The interviews in that documentary talked about that having both negative and nerve-wracking consequences for DPs used to being left alone to refine their technique, but also suggested positive and empowering upsides in the extra opportunities for input and experimentation with imagery as well.

I think unless you get any of these artists, directors or whoever, actually involved in creating their own material and wrangling it through a production process almost entirely untouched then there is always going to be that tension between the unattainable 'purity' of a singular vision and the need to create something through bringing a number of individual spirits to a collective endeavour. The best films even thrive on the messiness of capturing some spontaneous moment or unplanned image, or raw performance etc (even though I'm not averse to highly structured or stylised and 'airless' films either! That is the joy of cinema, that there is no particular right or wrong way to go about it!) And even with someone like Kubrick or Woody Allen, or Godard etc, who all in their own ways probably came closer than anyone to creating a body of singular works, there are still all sorts of compromises and nuances that would have been even beyond his control, even if it is just the influence of the world changing around them that they have to acknowledge.

This all leaves me feeling that the auteur theory is very useful as a starting point for gathering a number of works together in a general and manageable way to begin to assess and discuss them, but it should really only be considered the starting point for an implied more in-depth and meaningful discussion of the work that should follow. It is more a tool (or a theory!) for discussion rather than a philosophy that has to be unquestioningly adhered to or rejected as false.
___

On Mr Sausage's point about auteurism being a theory that favours unity and coherence and constructing a larger narrative out of a career, I would be interested to hear thoughts on the topic of how that influence can be a two way street, so you get directors, actors, DPs etc starting out doing a wide variety of different subjects before something they create or are involved in (if they're lucky!) becomes successful, acclaimed and awarded and suddenly they are known for being someone who prefers to tackle particular subjects, or works best in certain roles, or is the best person to light that period piece or sci-fi film, and so on.

How much influence does the individual have over that trajectory of their career and how much becomes dictated to them by studios, agents, financiers, people wanting to employ them on a particular job, etc? Do some people like getting into a niche and exploring it more and more deeply and creating twists on established formulas (did Randolph Scott or John Wayne like to mainly be known for their westerns?), or alternatively do they try and actively play against type or choose something completely opposite from their previous project in order to keep from getting stuck in a creative rut? (something which in its own way only helps to solidify the use of an auteur theory as a way of ordering and understanding disparate works, e.g. allowing critics to talk about the way that Ocean's Eleven, Traffic and King of the Hill are all Steven Soderbergh films as a kind of shorthand for further discussion of commonalities between the works)

Although as domino says, the above is making the assumption that everyone involved in the process is conscious of meaning and interpretation that may be placed on the work later on (Which is understandable, as I try as much as possible in my own non-filmic job to never consciously think of 'career tragectory' or the meaning of my work as that way lies madness! I leave that up to managers and their appraisals!), when it is more likely that they will not be!

User avatar
LQ
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:51 am
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#705 Post by LQ » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:19 am


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#706 Post by domino harvey » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:36 am

As if there was any lingering doubt that paid full time critic jobs are gone with the times. Still, wow, what a complete shocker-- he's literally been with the magazine for the entirety of its existence. Loyalty really is a foreign concept to editors huh

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#707 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:51 am

How nice that EeeeeW will instead rely on bloggers (who presumably will work for free)...

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#708 Post by cdnchris » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:24 am

Michael Kerpan wrote:How nice that EeeeeW will instead rely on bloggers (who presumably will work for free)...
What are you talking about? They'll be paid in "prestige"!

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#709 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:53 am

cdnchris wrote:They'll be paid in "prestige"!
Is that like some kind of Bitcoin thingy?

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Film Criticism

#710 Post by colinr0380 » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:37 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:
cdnchris wrote:They'll be paid in "prestige"!
Is that like some kind of Bitcoin thingy?
Is that anything like Prestige mode in the Call of Duty games, where on reaching the top level gamers are allowed the choice of trading in their rank for some bonus items before having their ranking reset in order to play through all over again?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#711 Post by domino harvey » Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:41 pm


User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#712 Post by cdnchris » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:48 pm

Good God.

So we're still subscribed to Entertainment Weekly, despite the fact I really question why we should bother with the subscription every time it comes for renewal. But sometimes there's some worthwhile stuff in it. Over the last year I've found myself really skipping all of the articles as they're now mostly fluff, with the only occasional worthwhile piece. But I at least usually read the reviews for everything (books, TV, movies, games, and even the friggin' stage plays.)

I finally sat down last night, skimmed through the articles of this last issue, and then made my way to the reviews. They stuck Gleiberman's review (one of his last obviously) for Captain America in an article about the film. It was a good review, short but well-written, and actually got me to want to see the film (might sneak out this weekend.) It wasn't a true praise but he peaked my interest. But then I get to Chris Nashawaty's review of Under the Skin. Oh boy.

Anybody read this? To be honest I actually have very little urge to see the film despite loving Glazer's previous films. I'll probably rent it but I'm just not excited about it. So I'm actually not overly concerned about whether it receives negative or positive press. But his "review" of the film focuses mostly on big stars looking for indie cred by doing these "obscure" movies. 80% of the thing is just that. NOTHING about the film, just Franco and Springbreakers and Kidman peeing on someone in The Paperboy. After that he then mentions the synopsis of the film and that Scarlet Johansson is in it. And then he gives it a C+. No real reason. There's really no mention as to why he didn't like it. There's more about Franco than there is about the actual film. So, this is what's replacing Gleiberman, huh?

I didn't always agree with Gleiberman or Schwarzbaum, and there were times I'd read their stuff and do a face palm. But I always liked reading them. Nashwaty's stuff is never that interesting and I'm realizing now I've been skipping over it. Now that Gleiberman and Schwarzbaum are both gone and they've replaced them with the movie reviewer from a local junior high I'm done. I've found the magazine bordering on useless the last few years but now they're completely useless.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#713 Post by cdnchris » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:08 pm

...and I was late to the game. I guess that "review" caused an uproar when it was posted online and Entertainment Weekly/Nashawaty are trying to pass it off as an essay: http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/e ... -johansson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even if that was the case it was a lousy one.

I guess they changed the online version, but in-print it was definitely a review (at least I'm sure it was being presented as one,) and the final paragraph really tried to be one, and even had the final grade.

Stuart Galbraith IV
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:16 am

Re: Film Criticism

#714 Post by Stuart Galbraith IV » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:52 pm

New at World Cinema Paradise: Stephen Bowie on Frank Gorshin's masterful performance in the obscure Austrian feature THE UPPER CRUST; Part II of Dwayne Epstein's interview with director Edward Dmytryk; Scott T. Rivers on Sergei Eisenstein's MEXICAN ODYSSEY; and Doug Krentzlin looks at RETURN TO OZ - Enjoy!

http://www.worldcinemaparadise.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#715 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:35 am

Todd Van Der Werff leaving AV Club to head "Vox"(?) as the AV Club continues its slide into hollow-shelldom


User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Film Criticism

#717 Post by Jeff » Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:02 am

What a wonderful and honest piece that is. It took me a while to warm up to him as a TV personality, but he did indeed get much better. He's a hell of a writer too -- one who is the most engaging when I disagree with him most vehemently.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Film Criticism

#718 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:08 am

Interesting though I really think, having watched a couple of those shows, that IV is far too lenient on the two Bens! Although he does hit the nail on the head with the comments about being hosts rather than critics and the shift in presentational style of the show that came in with them, as much as the Bens themselves.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Film Criticism

#719 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:47 am

In the internet era, I'm surprised that no one's managed to put together a really good YouTube show (Lemire actually has one, "What the Flick?," that doesn't quite hit the mark for whatever reason) in a similar format to Siskel & Ebert. I could see a discussion show with IV and Lemire online being really terrific (or another Chicago critic like Scott Tobias, perhaps). I know that my wife and I would watch At the Movies via clips on the website since the local broadcast was so scattershot - I don't quite know why that can't be accomplished online - people make a good amount of coin on YouTube, or via podcast advertising (though I'm sure it does need to be a labor of love at the same time).

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#720 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:44 pm

For me, at least, podcasts seem to be the logical next step- the internet, by its nature, doesn't reward general public/explain everything for everyone style content the way that broadcast TV does, as IV noted, and podcasting seems well designed to allow the show to dive into whatever rabbit hole it wants for as long as it wants in an episode. Plus, movie critics aren't noted for being the most photogenic bunch in the world...

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Film Criticism

#721 Post by swo17 » Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:50 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:For me, at least, podcasts seem to be the logical next step
You need to be able to see film clips though, or it's just not the same.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Film Criticism

#722 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:28 pm

swo17 wrote:
matrixschmatrix wrote:For me, at least, podcasts seem to be the logical next step
You need to be able to see film clips though, or it's just not the same.
This is really reason one why I can't stand film podcasts-- they'll play long audio clips and I'm just like flailing my hands "Get on with it!"

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Film Criticism

#723 Post by Michael Kerpan » Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:40 pm

domino harvey wrote:This is really reason one why I can't stand film podcasts-- they'll play long audio clips and I'm just like flailing my hands "Get on with it!"
So they play the _audio_ of scenes they want to discuss -- when they are not focussing on the music/dialog/sound effects?

User avatar
Feego
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Film Criticism

#724 Post by Feego » Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:16 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:Plus, movie critics aren't noted for being the most photogenic bunch in the world...
While they may not exactly be "pretty," a number of critics who guest hosted on TCM a few years back while Robert Osborne was on hiatus proved to be naturals in front of the camera and had an easy-going, friendly manner, surprisingly more so than the actors who guest hosted.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Film Criticism

#725 Post by Jeff » Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:54 pm

It's probably not a profitable undertaking, but I'd love to see an At the Movies style show brought back as a Netflix Original Series. They could put new episodes out on Wednesday or Thursday so people could make decisions about what to see that weekend. An A.O. Scott/Michael Phillips reunion would probably be my top choice.

I also wouldn't mind seeing the staff of The Dissolve put a show together converting some of their regular features to a video format and maybe including some interviews with reviews by all the various contributors.

Post Reply