Directors' masterpieces in relation to their overall oeuvre

[MichaelB]

I take it you mean a description of the film in the formal sense and not narrative/plot.

Actually, it's both - house style demands a 250-word synopsis plus at least an acknowledgement of the basic narrative content in the main body of the review. How much depends on the actual film.

This is the problem with a lot of film criticism/reviewing, at least for me. I don't give a hoot about the plot most of the time and can't remember choosing to watch a film because of its story.

For me, it depends entirely on the film. Children of Glory, which I've just reviewed, appealed to me because I quite fancied a film about a real-life Hungary-USSR waterpolo grudge match in the wake of the 1956 revolution - which is far and away its most appealing element.

And since S&S introduced the synopsis segment which accompanies every review, I'm not sure all the reviewers have taken note (I'm not reoffering to you Michael, I'm not familiar with your film reviews, although I am with your dvd reviews). I often stop reading reviews because they're just telling me what is/should be in the synopsis.

We're explicitly told to assume that the reader will not necessarily read the synopsis (which is intended more as a reference tool) and should therefore compensate accordingly. I've even had a review sent back for revision because it was insufficiently descriptive!

I think there's a real need for subjective reaction and violent subjective reaction too, laudatory or negative. For me, it's far more interesting to read.

But this depends very much on the publication and its purpose. It was impressed upon me from the start that Sight & Sound is a journal of record and it's widely anthologised in university libraries - so anything excessively subjective might well detract from its fundamental purpose.

I just read your review of Midnight Talks and I wouldn't say you're guilty.

I do try to offer some degree of subjective opinion, though anything too effusive will get subbed out. (I found that out the hard way, needless to say!)

[kupo]

I fail to see how what the "Critics" societies wish to call themselves really, in the end, matters all that much.

Is there some absolute dividing line between critic/reviewer? No. Such distinct dividing lines are rare indeed (should we eliminate the terms "prose" and "poetry" from the vocabulary? Should we consider them completely indistinguishable simply because no *clear-cut* distinction can be made?). Just because some people have adopted the term doesn't mean people can't try to reclaim it, or point out that there's a big enough difference between what Roger Ebert writes from week to week, and, I dunno...any random academic film article...James Udden's "The Persistence of the Local in Wong Kar-wai" to wish to distinguish the two types of writing.

Ebert and the like (print journalists) rarely attempt to explicate or interpret, or the explication and interpretation of the film is very obviously eclipsed in favor of summary and general evaluation of quality. Whereas with "critics" (as I call them) the reverse is true: quality evaluation and summary take a back seat to explication and interpretation of the film's aesthetics, symbology, etc. I will certainly not posit that criticism is devoid of value judgment (it is impossible in ANY discussion of art's modus operandi to completely divorce oneself of "opinion." Even so-called "film historians'" research methods are influenced by their own predispositions, opinions, etc. and this will affect 1) the info they discover and 2) how they interpret that info, thereby causing them to write a "history" that is not factual but interpretive), but it is not the focus, as it is in most print journalist "reviews."

I, personally, find both types of writing/writers valuable in their own way, but I do think their goals are disparate enough to warrant some level of distinction. It's true that ultimately this dyadic pair will break down (again, much like the "prose/poetry" pair, because it's really a spectrum), but it's one that I think can actually be useful and aid in understanding and recognizing the goal of different types of writing

[mattkc]

I'm going to go back to the stuff originally pertaining to this thread. I didn't want to make another post here, and I'm sure I'll regret it, but I will anyway.

I don't think it's possible to point to one film... and say, "yes, that's the masterpiece of masterpieces," with any sort of credibility.

Of course not! Are you people nuts? Who would actually think that? As far as I can tell, only one, maybe two people expressed a belief that there was some objective way to declare a film a "masterpiece." No one else. Of course there's no such thing as an actual masterpiece, of course it's a made up concept. That should go without saying. Saying one film is and another isn't is nothing but one person's judgment. The word is used all the time though, including on this forum, including by people here who are acting all high and mighty saying there's no such thing as a masterpiece! We all have different standards by which to "rate" a film. Anyone want to deny that, with all the year lists and rankings of director's films just on this website? Whether it's useful or not is up to that individual to decide.

I didn't think the subject of this thread was enlightening or useful by any means, but compared to the trivial discussions about DVD covers/packaging, bad reviews, people's avatars, etc., I don't see how it warranted the level of criticism it got.

[Mike 9.5 Miles From Leigh]

I think it's an interesting idea about one masterpiece and there'll always be exceptions. I just thought I'd mention Peeping Tom as being a film that fulfills the criteria of being different to a director's other work and being arguably the best work they've done.

[King Prendergast]

I think it's an interesting idea about one masterpiece and there'll always be exceptions. I just thought I'd mention Peeping Tom as being a film that fulfills the criteria of being different to a director's other work and being arguably the best work they've done.

Interesting example. I agree. This is all i was really hoping for when starting this thread, I didn't mean to start a big philosophical discussion about the nature of art.

[Kinsayder]

It was impressed upon me from the start that Sight & Sound is a journal of record and it's widely anthologised in university libraries - so anything excessively subjective might well detract from its fundamental purpose.

At Cahiers, the critics all want to be filmmakers. At S&S, they all want to be... anthologised in university libraries.

[MichaelB]

At Cahiers, the critics all want to be filmmakers. At S&S, they all want to be... anthologised in university libraries.

Well, whether or not the writers actually want that is neither here nor there - but the fact remains that Sight & Sound is a journal of record in a way that Cahiers isn't.

Just to highlight the latter's deficiencies in that department, I recall a hilarious Cahiers review of The History Boys that didn't mention Alan Bennett's rather massively essential contribution anywhere - not in the review (which I suspect Nicholas Hytner would have blushed to read, as it credited him with every key narrative element), or even the accompanying credits.

Which isn't too surprising coming from the cradle of the auteur theory - in Cahiers' worldview, the writer is but a humble artisan who'd probably be happier remaining anonymous.

[Tommaso]

I think it's an interesting idea about one masterpiece and there'll always be exceptions. I just thought I'd mention Peeping Tom as being a film that fulfills the criteria of being different to a director's other work and being arguably the best work they've done.

Whether "Peeping Tom" is arguably Powell's best film or not is open to discussion (I'd strongly disagree, for example). But the example is interesting because it's so misleading. Superficially, "Peeping Tom" looks and feels different to anything else he's done. But if you look closer at some of his other films, you will find the same obsessive self-reflectiveness about the fascination of making visuals, of controlling people via images as you find in that film. Think of Colpeper's lecture in "Canterbury Tale", or that camera obscura in "A Matter of Life and Death", or the whole idea of dying for art in "The Red Shoes". Lermontov in this film is not so very far away from the Carl Boehm character in "Peeping Tom". So I'd say, the film is a continuation of typical Powell themes, not a break or even a huge difference to his previous works.

[MichaelB]

But if you look closer at some of his other films, you will find the same obsessive self-reflectiveness about the fascination of making visuals, of controlling people via images as you find in that film. Think of Colpeper's lecture in "Canterbury Tale", or that camera obscura in "A Matter of Life and Death", or the whole idea of dying for art in "The Red Shoes". Lermontov in this film is not so very far away from the Carl Boehm character in "Peeping Tom". So I'd say, the film is a continuation of typical Powell themes, not a break or even a huge difference to his previous works.

I completely agree with you, but of course one crucial difference (which neatly ties into the point made in my previous post) is that Leo Marks wrote the script, not Emeric Pressburger.

And it seems pretty clear from the Channel 4 documentary on the Criterion disc (not to mention my own experience of meeting Marks, who had more than a whiff of Mark Lewis's father about him) that the film has at least as much to do with Marks's own obsessions and preoccupations.

[Tommaso]

And it seems pretty clear from the Channel 4 documentary on the Criterion disc (not to mention my own experience of meeting Marks, who had more than a whiff of Mark Lewis's father about him) that the film has at least as much to do with Marks's own obsessions and preoccupations.

I would never deny this, of course. But I think that Powell was hugely sympathetic to Marks and the script because it so effortlessly fitted into his own obsessions. I'm reminded of that BBC documentary (I think it's on the CC "49th parallel" disc) where Powell tells the story how Marks presented him with the script and Powell just said: "Well, a film about killing people with a camera? Bingo!"

[Mike 9.5 Miles From Leigh]

But if you look closer at some of his other films, you will find the same obsessive self-reflectiveness about the fascination of making visuals, of controlling people via images as you find in that film.

I wouldn't disagree with that but there's a strong sexual undercurrent to the lead character that goes beyond socially acceptable norms and I would say that that is very different to what's done before. I don't really have a high volume of film knowledge to fall back upon but whilst some of Powell's other films have that sexual subtext I can't recall any (of what I have seen) having such a dive into the darker reaches of male sexual desire.

[starmanof51]

I would never deny this, of course. But I think that Powell was hugely sympathetic to Marks and the script because it so effortlessly fitted into his own obsessions. I'm reminded of that BBC documentary (I think it's on the CC "49th parallel" disc) where Powell tells the story how Marks presented him with the script and Powell just said: "Well, a film about killing people with a camera? Bingo!"

Yeah, Powell talks to it in volume 2 of his autobiography as well - Marks sold him in a heartbeat and Powell felt it was right up his street, if his recollections are reliable.

[noelbotevera]

Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)