Film Criticism

[TMDaines]

Tag Gallagher's book is a great start on RR. Derek Schilling and Jacob Leigh are two recent sources on Rohmer. Schilling's book is a good introduction.

Tag's book sounds perfect for this. It's far more autobiographical than analytical. He also makes the updated version freely available in a PDF on his website.

[Stuart Galbraith IV]

Thanks, Perkins!

We've been lining up some really terrific talent for the site (http://worldcinemaparadise.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), whose aim is to explore underreported areas of film, as well as dig a little deeper or better than most other sites seems to be doing these days. I'm really delighted to have DVD Savant Glenn Erickson, Criterion audio commentator Michael Jeck, former American Cinematheque programmer Dennis Bartok, and Lee Marvin biographer Dwayne Epstein among the first wave of contributors.

We're starting slowly, but we've got lots more great stuff in the pipeline, with more great talent joining us every day.

I invite all of you to give World Cinema Paradise a look, and I think you'll be pleased with us so far!

[domino harvey]

The comments in this article on Breaking Bad quickly devolve into the AV Club's readers trying, very hard and in earnest, to convince the writers and editors of the site that the redesign still sucks and still renders the site unreadable, and they still won't listen. That people aren't "getting used to it" indicates the push-back isn't due to kneejerk reaction to something new but rather that the new redesign is just awful

[Perkins Cobb]

And the comments in this article on Enlightened quickly devolve into a bunch of whiners yelling that Breaking Bad is objectively the best show ever, so...

[Stuart Galbraith IV]

We have some terrific new articles over at World Cinema Paradise that I invite you to check out, including Peter L. Winkler's piece on Dennis Hopper, a previously unpublished interview with director Budd Boetticher by Dwayne Epstein, and Doug Krentzlin's look at a fascinating, unjustly forgotten British comedy-thriller.

And, in case you missed it, we also look back at the Best Home Video Releases of 2013, DVD Savant reviews MORE THAN HONEY, and Dusty Somers reviews the new Blu-ray of MUSEUM HOURS.

Check it out!

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

[Stuart Galbraith IV]

We have some terrific new reviews today over at World Cinema Paradise! DVD Savant Glenn Erickson looks at the 1920 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dusty Somers reviews the new Blu-ray of Many Wars Ago, while Anthony Balducci weighs in on Alan Partidge: Alpha Papa.

And don't forget to bookmark http://www.worldcinemaparadise.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Emak-Bakia]

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this topic touched upon on this forum previously, but it’s a hard thing to come up with using the search engine. I’m interested in reading discussions or essays on why there is such a tremendous lack of females not just on the production side of film, but also when it comes to criticism and cinephilia. I’m usually very resistant to making gender based generalizations, but I’m wondering if there is psychologically something about the average male that draws the sex to cinema. Of course, I’m not trying to discount the role of external factors such as societal and institutional discrimination, which could dissuade women from pursuing interests in film. I’d greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction of some theories on the subject or share their personal thoughts.

[warren oates]

For me it's more about the psychological, biological and sociological factors that drive more men to become generally unhealthily obsessed with anything. Jessica Yu's documentary Protagonist is pretty good on this. I remember she was asked why there wasn't a woman in the mix and she answered pretty bluntly: because she couldn't find one. Because even the women she considered were generally not crazy enough to fit her theme. If they were high achieving or had unusual careers it was out of a more grounded persistence than their unbalanced male counterparts who made the cut.

[jindianajonz]

Well, I'm certainly no expert but there's that famous essay from Laura Mulvey about the Male Gaze. Hollywood was created at a time when men were in control, and it's only natural that men would make movies for men (or what men thought women wanted to see). I'd wager that we are still seeing the effects of that; the upper levels of Hollywood are a very insulated society; like any tight knit association I'm sure there's not much impetus to change the way things have been.

But then again, this phenomena doesn't seem to be limited to Hollywood- when you hear about famous directors of world cinema, you hear about Kurosawa or Bergman or Kiarostami or Ray. I guess the same rules apply though- very few countries (if any) were egalitarian enough to trust a "mere woman" with the big budget required to create a film, and independent cinema seems hard enough to break into for a well connected man; I'd imagine a woman would find it even more difficult.

Film does seem unique among the arts in that it's the only one I can think of that girls aren't encouraged to pursue at a young age- i knew tons of girls in high school that were interested in painting or music or writing, but when you hear about girls wanting jobs in Hollywood, it's always in front of the camera rather than behind it.

[Satori]

This question is obviously extremely complicated, but here are a few of my overly simplified thoughts. I think the ridiculous and infuriating lack of female directors in US cinema (and global cinema as well, of course) is largely attributable to the institutional factors jindianajonz points to. As far as mainstream film criticism goes (i.e. movie reviewers), it makes sense to me that there is something of a feedback loop between the film industry's under representation of women in creative positions and the lack of female critics. To make an obvious but I think mostly true generalization, mainstream (and most independent) US cinema remains an androcentric fantasy space (in which I include the fantasies produced about what women should want in what have traditionally been denigrated by critics as "women's films"). The mostly male critics then respond positively to these fantasies, resulting in these kinds of films winning awards, getting coverage in mainstream publications, ect, which then feeds back into production, creating more of these kinds of films.

Yet, it is important to note that while this might be the case with mainstream critics, it is not nearly the case with academics (at least as far as I can tell- I am speaking only from experience and have no data or anything, of course). I have noticed no such gender disparity at conferences or in film classes. At my school, the gender of the (full-time, I have no idea about the adjuncts) film professors is evenly split. Academic critics, of course, are really only read by other academics and have no impact whatsoever on the kinds of films that are produced, taking them outside the feedback loop discussed above.

As for cinephilia in general, I have no idea. Film forums do tend to be overwhelmingly male, but I am extremely wary about attributing that solely to "psychological differences" (which would still be socially constructed of course). A lot of film forums (not criterionforum so much, but this has a much different audience and is far better moderated than pretty much any other forum on the internet) can be outright hostile to female (or male) posters who call people or films out on their sexism.

[jindianajonz]

It's actually kind of funny when you think about it- is being a director and making people move and act and relate in certain ways really that much different than playing with dolls? Then again, popular cinema is about conflict and explosions, so maybe your stereotypical boy is better primed for this type of environment than a stereotypical girl.

What about in Anime? At least here in America, Anime seems like something that has a much bigger following with girls than guys (at least when it comes to things beyond what is aired on Cartoon Network). Are there more women working in the Japanese industry than in the US film industry?

[Emak-Bakia]

For me it's more about the psychological, biological and sociological factors that drive more men to become generally unhealthily obsessed with anything.

You make a good point, warren. With that perspective, my questions opens up a rabbit hole of seemingly endless psychological research. When I was thinking about this topic yesterday, I was thinking very specifically about cinema, with the idea that there could be some abstract thing inherent in the medium that appeals to the average male. Now I think it would be easier to scientifically support the broad idea of obsession as one cause of the gender divide. I’m going to watch that Jessica Yu film for a bit of further research.

I did just a quick Google search on the film and read an article containing the following relevant quote from Yu:

"It's not that women can't become obsessed and drive toward a goal as hard as a man. That's not the case at all," she said. "The idea that someone becomes enveloped in a cause or a quest - if you're obsessed with something, by definition, almost, you lose track of yourself. What I was looking for was when someone realizes that there's this one moment, sort of lightning from the sky" when they realize they have gone too far.

"What happens to women more, or at least to the ones we found, is that when things start to fall apart, they acknowledge the warning signs. ... The men would be more likely to go a hundred miles per hour and crash, and they'd be like, 'Oh, God. I didn't see that wall!' It's funny. Sometimes at Q&As the subject comes up, and you can see the men nodding, like, 'Yeah.' "

Jindiana, I definitely agree with everything you wrote concerning the institutional factors, and, indeed, it’s easy to find study after study that quantifiably proves that there are far fewer women working in Hollywood than men. What really interests me, though, is how, from my limited perspective, it seems like this gender gap extends to other areas of film. Thanks, Satori, for bringing up the “feedback loop.” I think that’s a good potential explanation for the lack of mainstream critics. When it comes to cinephilia, don’t misunderstand, as I am by no means saying that psychological differences are the sole factor for the gender divide. Just to be clear, I definitely acknowledge that there are discriminatory societal factors involved.

It’s curious that you say that this gap doesn’t extend to academia. Now I’m not really sure, since the only data I have are fuzzy recollections of my own college classes. I want to say that the gender gap wasn’t nearly as severe in my school’s film studies program, but I think classes were still consistently made up of more men than women. Of course, these narrow, anecdotal samples prove nothing.

This article seems like a good starting point for considering the gender gap in regards to the number of published scholarly articles written by each sex.

I think I might have gotten myself in a little over my head by asking such a broad question. It’s obvious that I need to do a tremendous amount of further research to get a firm grasp on this topic.

Someone just link me to a reverent essay from a French New Waver who claims that the darkness in between the frames of a film attracts men like a moth to light or something and we’ll call it a day.

[Zot!]

Of course, I’m not trying to discount the role of external factors such as societal and institutional discrimination, which could dissuade women from pursuing interests in film.

I think that's what it is mostly. Other societies are more encouraging. Denmark has a lot of female critics, directors, and film workers.

[Satori]

It’s curious that you say that this gap doesn’t extend to academia. Now I’m not really sure, since the only data I have are fuzzy recollections of my own college classes. I want to say that the gender gap wasn’t nearly as severe in my school’s film studies program, but I think classes were still consistently made up of more men than women. Of course, these narrow, anecdotal samples prove nothing.

This article seems like a good starting point for considering the gender gap in regards to the number of published scholarly articles written by each sex.

Oh, absolutely- there is no doubt still a gender gap in academic publishing (and thanks for linking that article- it's always nice to have some data in conversations like this that necessarily have to take place at a high level of abstraction). Glancing through it, though, it does seem to me like the humanities are at least much closer to gender parity (at least in publications) than STEM fields. I was just suggesting that the relative high amount of women film scholars shows that cinephilia isn't as gendered as it might appear when we just look at mainstream critics and the amount of women behind the camera. Again, this is only my experience, but in my PhD program, about half of the film students are women (film studies is housed in the English department at my university; I have no idea if this makes a difference). When I teach film analysis, the gender of my students (a large majority of which are non-majors who are just into film casually) tend to be pretty evenly split as well.

I guess my point is just that, in my experience, plenty of women are really into film. I should also say that I am always really suspicious of biological explanations for gender difference in general (or psychological ones premised on an essentialist difference rather than historically specific difference). This is not to say that there are not going to be obvious differences in gender interests any given historical moment, but I just personally think it's more productive to look at social and institutional causes. I should say that I didn't mean to suggest that I thought you aren't taking these into account- you very clearly gesture at them in your first post.

And I think Zot! is right that it is worth considering national differences here, too. While all film industries are still dominated by men, the US industry (even the indie or festival-circuit films) seems to be even more unequal than most countries, or at least those with a developed film industry.

[jindianajonz]

Of course, I’m not trying to discount the role of external factors such as societal and institutional discrimination, which could dissuade women from pursuing interests in film.

I think that's what it is mostly. Other societies are more encouraging. Denmark has a lot of female critics, directors, and film workers.

Now, does Denmark REALLY have more, or is it just the few that they do have were chosen for that poster because they look better naked and in mid-orgasm than men do to the overly male cinephile audience ?

[Zot!]

Of course, I’m not trying to discount the role of external factors such as societal and institutional discrimination, which could dissuade women from pursuing interests in film.

I think that's what it is mostly. Other societies are more encouraging. Denmark has a lot of female critics, directors, and film workers.

Now, does Denmark REALLY have more, or is it just the few that they do have were chosen for that poster because they look better naked and in mid-orgasm than men do to the overly male cinephile audience ?

Mine is an unscientific survey, you are free to draw your own conclusions, and I included the picture for laughs, but those are the actual critics from the media outlets. In general gender equity is a much smaller issue in Denmark specifically, a recent example being that the show Borgen, which is about a female primeminister, they specifically avoided using her gender as a dramatic device or point of contention. I can also think of a good number of female Danish directors, which is significant because the country's entire population is less than Chicago's.

[Emak-Bakia]

Good points all around, everyone. Satori, I hope I didn’t come off as too much of a hardliner against using anecdotal evidence, because I think there is definitely value in someone in your position sharing observations about this sort of thing. I think it was misguided of me to single out film as a gendered academic study, when there is so clearly a gender gap across all academia, which I wasn’t initially considering. Right from the start, the JSTOR database is 22% female, 78% male, so I think this alone is a good indicator that the deck is going to be stacked against females for almost any academic area of study.

I should also say that I am always really suspicious of biological explanations for gender difference in general (or psychological ones premised on an essentialist difference rather than historically specific difference). This is not to say that there are not going to be obvious differences in gender interests any given historical moment, but I just personally think it's more productive to look at social and institutional causes.

You took the words right out of my mouth here. You have no idea how often I talk to people using the exact same reasoning, which makes it very odd that I took the position I did at the outset of this discussion. The more I think this over, though, and read up on the subject, the more confident I am becoming that pervasive societal discrimination is mostly to blame. Of course, I still haven't made any progress in explaining the gender gap in general cinephilia. Is there even a gap? If so, are the same societal factors to blame? I'm not sure yet.

[colinr0380]

What about in Anime? At least here in America, Anime seems like something that has a much bigger following with girls than guys (at least when it comes to things beyond what is aired on Cartoon Network). Are there more women working in the Japanese industry than in the US film industry?

Not sure about in the filmmaking side of the anime industry but it might be worthwhile noting that one of the most famous Western anime film critics is Helen McCarthy, author of (the essential) Anime Movie Guide.

[Stuart Galbraith IV]

World Cinema Paradise’s Stephen Bowie offers an appreciation of French New Wave director Jacques Rivette while Stuart Galbraith IV reviews a Spanish DVD of Admiral Yamamoto (1968), an otherwise hard-to-see all-star war epic headlined by the great Toshiro Mifune.

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

[Numero Trois]

The rise of independent filmmaking has given rise to its own downside: the writer-director, in that order. Many of the worst independent films are marked by the sense that the filmmakers, who wrote their own scripts, became directors largely to protect their scripts and to transmit their content to the screen as purely as possible.

And this is a problem in what way? Key word is worst, I guess. Though surely one could also sense what he's referencing in the better independent films as well.

[Kirkinson]

I think Brody's point is pretty obvious: that there are many people who may be good writers with good scripts who nevertheless have very limited capabilities as a director (e.g., not much sense of visual aesthetics or how to plan shots, little to no experience working with actors, only the most rudimentary understanding of effective editing or music spotting) but who can raise funding or gather resources on the basis of their writing and get a film made that ends up not doing justice to their own original idea.

Of course, the resources needed to mount a feature film production are becoming so easily accessible that it's now open to lots of bad writers with bad scripts, who have little experience directing or writing, but are nevertheless convinced they have a great idea and are going to do their damnedest to get it made. If you go to craigslist in any city with more than a million people you can probably find ten posts a day from such people looking for free labor in the gigs section, all of them making promises about all the recognition the film will receive because they're submitting it to Sundance. Granted, Brody is probably not referring to these films, because they rarely make it past the programmers of anything other than very tiny regional festivals.

Going through film school I had as much experience with the inverse of what Brody mentions: that is, people who do have some skill directing actors and creating images but who could barely write a shopping list, let alone a screenplay.

[Shrew]

I think Brody's also dancing around one of the problems with auteur theory. Namely that it ignores the collaborative nature of film in favor of the singular artistic vision of one individual. Now granted, there are many great films in which there really is one dominant personality, but even then, many of them are tempered into something greater by their collaborators. Take Powell and Pressburger for example, who while both immense talents on their own certainly benefited by the differences each brought to the production.

The danger of the writer-director is that even if they possess a strong knowledge of the fundamentals of filmmaking, they still lack the benefit of someone with a different viewpoint checking and expanding their work. Alone, you're more likely to have someone in love with their own work, unwilling to cut what's needed or allow the film to breathe beyond their vision. That's not everyone, but I think there are an awful lot of films that applies to.

[Mr Sausage]

Alone, you're more likely to have someone in love with their own work, unwilling to cut what's needed or allow the film to breathe beyond their vision. That's not everyone, but I think there are an awful lot of films that applies to.

1. Good films are rare in any situation
2. Artists in general have done very well working on their own.

[domino harvey]

I explain away the seeming contradiction of the filmmaking model and auteurism to my students pretty simply: An auteur may not the sole artistic fount at work in a film but the act of approval and/or selection of material, ideas, suggestions, and so on from others is just as much an indicator of auteurism as anything else. A great artist can improvise, improve, or co-opt anything to add to their overall vision, which of course they may not even be consciously aware of.

[Shrew]

Ha, sorry if I came off as a total anti-auteurist. Obviously there are great artists and many artists who work well alone, and of course directors who are able to utilize their collaborators well have just a great a claim to the title of auteur as a control freak does. I just thought that Brody had a decent point about a problem with the "writer-director" model. Mainly that becoming a director "to protect your own script" can be a problem just as much as it can be a positive. There's a big difference between many such fledgling filmmakers today and the great "writer-directors" like Wilder, Rossen, Mankiewicz, Sturges, who worked one end of the equation before trying to put it all together.

Anyway, I suppose what I was really criticizing in the writer-director model was a form of egoism (which is certainly abundant in any art), not necessarily auteurism. But I do think that misinterpreting the latter can easily breed the former.