This DGA list here is why I have mostly stopped reviewing movies. It's like no matter how many great old classics that me and my fellow bloggers blog about the information just falls into a black hole and we end up with a list of bland, predictable, standard 'classics'.
The news isn't only that one female director makes the list; the news is that when film directors are polled about what they consider the best films directed [worldwide] over the past 80 years they put films like BIRDMAN and AVATAR on the list.
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Thursday, May 05, 2016
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Enigmatic movies
There is a recent LA Times article by Stephen Farber titled: 'The Master' is too muddled to be a masterpiece.
I have no problem with Farber not liking the movie. I myself didn't much care for it. And I also don't have a problem with the headline in general. But I do have a problem with one particular part of the article, which to my mind, is completely wrong headed and naïve. He writes - in all seriousness:
He has to know that most all children's movies, action films, comedies, romantic movies and feel good dramas are depressingly formulaic. This, no doubt, has been the case since movies were silent. We can forgive many of these movies [especially the older ones] because part of the evolution of the art form was one of mass entertainment. This has been the case for 100 years and continues today. But one thing a smattering of movies in each decade and particularly movies in the 1960's and early 70's did was to accept the fact that the audience was made up of adults who wanted to be challenged just a little bit. Rather than lay out the plot in an obvious [boring] manner some of these movies allowed the audience to partake in or contemplate the movie's precarious or, at times, intellectual narrative; Movies such as The 400 Blows, Persona, Red Desert, Weekend, 2001 A Space Odyssey come to mind. They allowed moviegoers to exit the theatre and have a conversation about the movie rather than just have them nodding in agreement and then forgetting what they saw.
I don't know how Farber can call himself a critic if he is not open-minded enough to understand that the art form simply cannot move forward if these kinds of 'enigmatic' movies are not made. What's more, he seems to be holding a 40 year grudge against movies that 'shattered traditional narrative conventions.' That debate should be long over at this point.
To call The Master enigmatic or a film that defies understanding is to be incorrect [it's not that hard to understand]. But then to up the ante on the critique and embrace an idea that tells the world you don't enjoy following a non-formulaic narrative and that [just maybe] you are turned off by movies that make you think is odd. I don't believe that is a message any critic in any field wants to leave his readers. But until further clarification by Mr Farber I have to conclude that is what he wants us to believe.
I have no problem with Farber not liking the movie. I myself didn't much care for it. And I also don't have a problem with the headline in general. But I do have a problem with one particular part of the article, which to my mind, is completely wrong headed and naïve. He writes - in all seriousness:
"The Master" epitomizes the rise of a new school of enigmatic movies, which parallels similar post-modern developments in literature and music. Recent movies embracing inscrutability hark back to landmark European films of the 1960s that shattered traditional narrative conventions. Films like Ingmar Bergman's "Persona," Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blowup" and Luis Buñuel's "Belle de Jour" incorporated surreal dream sequences and built toward mysterious, sometimes impenetrable endings that delighted art house audiences of the era.
This cryptic style of filmmaking has resurfaced in recent movies by Terrence Malick — "The Tree of Life" as well as his newest effort, "To the Wonder" — and even Christopher Nolan, who made the mind-bending thriller "Inception" that tantalized many audiences (and left others befuddled). And this same oblique approach to storytelling has characterized a new generation of European filmmakers such as Lars von Trier and Michael Haneke. "The Master" aims to join this company, but its release only proves to me that the cult of incoherence is beginning to pall. Too many movies, novels and even TV series dispense with all sense of logic; they revel in unintelligibility and dare audiences to enter their tangled web.How does one begin to tackle this absurd view? With a straight face he is criticizing a slew of movies for essentially being non-formulaic and hard to follow. He actually has the audacity to say that movies that 'dare audiences to enter their tangled web' are a bad thing! How can we take Farber seriously as a critic if he favors a Hollywood mainstream mentality over movies that challenge him, expand his horizons or make him think?
He has to know that most all children's movies, action films, comedies, romantic movies and feel good dramas are depressingly formulaic. This, no doubt, has been the case since movies were silent. We can forgive many of these movies [especially the older ones] because part of the evolution of the art form was one of mass entertainment. This has been the case for 100 years and continues today. But one thing a smattering of movies in each decade and particularly movies in the 1960's and early 70's did was to accept the fact that the audience was made up of adults who wanted to be challenged just a little bit. Rather than lay out the plot in an obvious [boring] manner some of these movies allowed the audience to partake in or contemplate the movie's precarious or, at times, intellectual narrative; Movies such as The 400 Blows, Persona, Red Desert, Weekend, 2001 A Space Odyssey come to mind. They allowed moviegoers to exit the theatre and have a conversation about the movie rather than just have them nodding in agreement and then forgetting what they saw.
I don't know how Farber can call himself a critic if he is not open-minded enough to understand that the art form simply cannot move forward if these kinds of 'enigmatic' movies are not made. What's more, he seems to be holding a 40 year grudge against movies that 'shattered traditional narrative conventions.' That debate should be long over at this point.
To call The Master enigmatic or a film that defies understanding is to be incorrect [it's not that hard to understand]. But then to up the ante on the critique and embrace an idea that tells the world you don't enjoy following a non-formulaic narrative and that [just maybe] you are turned off by movies that make you think is odd. I don't believe that is a message any critic in any field wants to leave his readers. But until further clarification by Mr Farber I have to conclude that is what he wants us to believe.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Critics
Criticism of critics is in the air again. It's the usual old arguments rehashed for a new year; What good are critics? etc. Below is my main issue with the argument that critics are just failed screenwriters / filmmakers / artists. Along with some other thoughts.
1) Critics are artists. They are writers. Writers are artists.
2) The argument that critics are failed screenwriters [etc] ends up making the false assumption that screenwriters are not themselves critical of movies, which is absurd.
3) Everyone is a critic. So even if we somehow got rid of critics many more would pop up. So eliminating them is essentially eliminating people.
4) The more critics that get eliminated [or marginalized] the bigger, stronger or more authoritative the movie marketing machine gets. Do we really want that?
5) Critics love movies. They are drawn to criticism because they find that they have a particular gift for imparting their love of movies to others.
6) The idea that critics are only reviewing to let people know whether they should plop down $12.00 for a movie and therefore if they are critical it is because they want to ruin the experience of the common man is really absurd.
7) There is a difference between critics and reviewers. If you've been around long enough you know the difference.
8) People hate critics when they don't agree with them. People love critics when they agree with them.
9) If someone criticizes the way a bridge is built would it be fair for someone else to say the criticism is invalid unless you are a bridge engineer or an architect?
10) Anyone with a brain will realize that ultimately it all comes down to opinion. Why should opinions really bother us? [I guess some opinions bother me too so voilà].
1) Critics are artists. They are writers. Writers are artists.
2) The argument that critics are failed screenwriters [etc] ends up making the false assumption that screenwriters are not themselves critical of movies, which is absurd.
3) Everyone is a critic. So even if we somehow got rid of critics many more would pop up. So eliminating them is essentially eliminating people.
4) The more critics that get eliminated [or marginalized] the bigger, stronger or more authoritative the movie marketing machine gets. Do we really want that?
5) Critics love movies. They are drawn to criticism because they find that they have a particular gift for imparting their love of movies to others.
6) The idea that critics are only reviewing to let people know whether they should plop down $12.00 for a movie and therefore if they are critical it is because they want to ruin the experience of the common man is really absurd.
7) There is a difference between critics and reviewers. If you've been around long enough you know the difference.
8) People hate critics when they don't agree with them. People love critics when they agree with them.
9) If someone criticizes the way a bridge is built would it be fair for someone else to say the criticism is invalid unless you are a bridge engineer or an architect?
10) Anyone with a brain will realize that ultimately it all comes down to opinion. Why should opinions really bother us? [I guess some opinions bother me too so voilà].
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Denby vs Rudin
I'm on the side of common sense with regards to the David Denby, Scott Rudin ,The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo farce. Which is to say I mainly side with Denby.
If a producer / distributor screens a movie for critics with the hope of winning a critic's award then they are, essentially, asking for a review from all the critics who will then write on their ballot their list of the year's best films. So you should not then be upset when a critic writes an actual review of the film.
Sure, Denby should keep his word however the 'embargo' for expressing an opinion ended the very minute the film was screened for the critics.
Rudin has to know this. But he wants to control the media because he knows that some day he may release a lousy movie that could get killed at the box office if it receives early negative reviews. I am guessing, too, he is upset that the film did not win the New York Critics Circle Award for best film and his only recourse is to call Denby 'immoral' for writing what is, in fact, a positive review.
Puleeze....
If a producer / distributor screens a movie for critics with the hope of winning a critic's award then they are, essentially, asking for a review from all the critics who will then write on their ballot their list of the year's best films. So you should not then be upset when a critic writes an actual review of the film.
Sure, Denby should keep his word however the 'embargo' for expressing an opinion ended the very minute the film was screened for the critics.
Rudin has to know this. But he wants to control the media because he knows that some day he may release a lousy movie that could get killed at the box office if it receives early negative reviews. I am guessing, too, he is upset that the film did not win the New York Critics Circle Award for best film and his only recourse is to call Denby 'immoral' for writing what is, in fact, a positive review.
Puleeze....
Friday, April 22, 2011
Notes on 7 films
Win Win
A lawyer / wrestling coach commits a criminally liable act but finds a way to redeem himself by helping a struggling teen and his recovering drug-addicted mother, which he would never have had the chance to do had he not done the crime. Every scene intricately ties into every subsequent scene until it builds to a satisfying whole. Its win, win for all involved including the audience.
Meek’s Cutoff
A family of homesteaders in Oregon are lost thanks to an incompetent mountain man named Meek whose cutoff has led them to a dry dusty plain. Slow, methodical, often very hushed this is a film that lingers like a summer afternoon. Shot in 1.33:1 aspect ratio with a good number of shots that just observe the action rather than propel it forward. The film is not as engaging as it could be and perhaps a tad bit revisionist [or liberal] in its view of history but also more accurate than most westerns. Director Kelly Reichardt has built a respectable track record.
Bill Cunningham’s New York
An enjoyable documentary about an unpretentious man in a pretentious industry. Bill Cunningham is a 80-something down-to-earth fashion photographer who completely belies everything about the fashion world by photographing people on the New York City streets wearing the fashions of the day. He bicycles all around New York; he lives in an apartment with nothing but filing cabinets and a bed. He’s the real article and people love him for it - on his own terms. The documentary doesn’t dig deep into its subject but why should it?
The Princess of Montpensier
Four men vie for one woman in 16th century France while religious wars ensue, court intrigue and royal power plays manipulate everyone, sword fighting disrupts the order and beautiful castles dot the distant landscape. What’s not to love? This is Bertrand Tavernier at his best getting quality out of every performance, every line of dialogue and every foot of film. Save for the high production value this is a film Hollywood could not make. And I don't mean 'costume drama' because everyone does those - but instead that certain je ne sais quoi that only the French do so well. See it and you'll know what I mean.
Source Code
A movie that somehow has critics [and some scientists] embracing as darn near probably. Huh? How? Well, who cares? The movie is ‘Groundhogs Day’ [or maybe a Hindu tale] done as a sci-fi fantasy. It is enjoyable but when it attempts to display an emotional human core it stalls the narrative just long enough to make us think about what we are seeing - and that’s not what you want in this kind of film.
The Adjustment Bureau
A Matter of Life and Death by way of Wings of Desire, It’s A Wonderful Life, Here Comes Mr. Jordan, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Jump along with shades of Total Recall, Minority Report, Twilight Zone and the X-Files. It is about as original as a snack of milk and cookies but it is pleasant enough if you don’t stop to think about it much.
In A Better World
This Danish / Swedish drama is like watching a long row of domino's with spikes fall in slow motion along someone’s back; Predictable and painful. It is very well acted, directed, shot and edited but the story plods along imprisoning all the characters in a relentless world of fate. The parts of the film that take place in Africa are by far the best and could make a separate and better film than the other heavy-handed section about two boys wrecking their lives. There is no denying the talent behind and in front of the lens but director Susanne Bier has done better.
A lawyer / wrestling coach commits a criminally liable act but finds a way to redeem himself by helping a struggling teen and his recovering drug-addicted mother, which he would never have had the chance to do had he not done the crime. Every scene intricately ties into every subsequent scene until it builds to a satisfying whole. Its win, win for all involved including the audience.
Meek’s Cutoff
A family of homesteaders in Oregon are lost thanks to an incompetent mountain man named Meek whose cutoff has led them to a dry dusty plain. Slow, methodical, often very hushed this is a film that lingers like a summer afternoon. Shot in 1.33:1 aspect ratio with a good number of shots that just observe the action rather than propel it forward. The film is not as engaging as it could be and perhaps a tad bit revisionist [or liberal] in its view of history but also more accurate than most westerns. Director Kelly Reichardt has built a respectable track record.
Bill Cunningham’s New York
An enjoyable documentary about an unpretentious man in a pretentious industry. Bill Cunningham is a 80-something down-to-earth fashion photographer who completely belies everything about the fashion world by photographing people on the New York City streets wearing the fashions of the day. He bicycles all around New York; he lives in an apartment with nothing but filing cabinets and a bed. He’s the real article and people love him for it - on his own terms. The documentary doesn’t dig deep into its subject but why should it?
The Princess of Montpensier
Four men vie for one woman in 16th century France while religious wars ensue, court intrigue and royal power plays manipulate everyone, sword fighting disrupts the order and beautiful castles dot the distant landscape. What’s not to love? This is Bertrand Tavernier at his best getting quality out of every performance, every line of dialogue and every foot of film. Save for the high production value this is a film Hollywood could not make. And I don't mean 'costume drama' because everyone does those - but instead that certain je ne sais quoi that only the French do so well. See it and you'll know what I mean.
A movie that somehow has critics [and some scientists] embracing as darn near probably. Huh? How? Well, who cares? The movie is ‘Groundhogs Day’ [or maybe a Hindu tale] done as a sci-fi fantasy. It is enjoyable but when it attempts to display an emotional human core it stalls the narrative just long enough to make us think about what we are seeing - and that’s not what you want in this kind of film.
The Adjustment Bureau
A Matter of Life and Death by way of Wings of Desire, It’s A Wonderful Life, Here Comes Mr. Jordan, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Jump along with shades of Total Recall, Minority Report, Twilight Zone and the X-Files. It is about as original as a snack of milk and cookies but it is pleasant enough if you don’t stop to think about it much.
In A Better World
This Danish / Swedish drama is like watching a long row of domino's with spikes fall in slow motion along someone’s back; Predictable and painful. It is very well acted, directed, shot and edited but the story plods along imprisoning all the characters in a relentless world of fate. The parts of the film that take place in Africa are by far the best and could make a separate and better film than the other heavy-handed section about two boys wrecking their lives. There is no denying the talent behind and in front of the lens but director Susanne Bier has done better.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Criterion to Hulu
The news that The Criterion Collection will be available to stream exclusively through Hulu Plus set the movie community into a a bit of a frenzy yesterday. Some love the idea and some hate it. I'm on the fence about it and here's why.
Is such an embarrassment of riches available to us all at once a good thing?
Criterion is a brand name that many of us know and love. With this move - which starts with 150 movie titles and moves to upwards of 800 titles in a short span of time - Criterion will basically be chucking out their successful business model. As someone who collects their DVD's [and now Blu-ray's] I can tell you that one of the appeals of the company is there slow but eventual release of great titles. Every few months they bring out a few titles, which they announce three months [or so] in advance. This helps build excitement for the release and [I would think] boosts sales a bit. By releasing titles in such a manner they can build awareness and anticipation around the title. But by putting up to 800 titles out there so quickly - a good number of which are not yet on DVD or Blu-ray - for us to stream they are essentially burying the unreleased titles.
And so the effect might be that they bury the title and then kill it. Meaning that the excitement for future new releases will be much less exciting because the film will already be available to stream. So, essentially, the consumer would see that some previously unavailable Kenji Mizoguchi or Michael Powell title is coming soon to Blu-ray but then they would see that it is already available on Hulu Plus. So they would hook into Hulu Plus, watch the title and then no longer be interested in buying it.
Maybe they think they are giving the customer the best available option to see the films in their library? They certainly cannot be accused of withholding the titles now. But I am looking out for the future of Criterion as well as the life of these films. By presenting the options like this it would seem that the films will not get the proper [traditional model] release into the marketplace and this would affect both sales and awareness about a title. They must have signed a heck of a deal.
Exclusivity can have its faults
Another problem I find curious is that they are going to only now stream exclusively [by the end of 2011] through Hulu Plus. If a company wants maximum exposure it seems odd [and foolish] to narrow the options of your audience to only one streaming service - especially one that is not as widespread as NetFlix. Part of the deal Criterion found appealing was that Hulu will give them there own section making it easy for consumers to peruse titles. Apparently, NetFlix would not give them this deal.
Long time coming
I'm no Luddite. I love the idea that someday every title I want to see will be at my fingertips. And I know that this option is one Criterion feels is moving toward the future of home film viewing. But I can't help but feel they could do a better job of upholding their business model by continuing to whet our appetite and getting us excited for the films in the way that they have for so many years.
I don't have Hulu Plus but I will likely get it because the idea of having access to 800 amazing titles for a mere $7.99 a month is hard to resist. Of course, it also means the future of video stores and DVD and Blu-ray sales is pretty much history. But that is a different argument for a different time.
Is such an embarrassment of riches available to us all at once a good thing?
Criterion is a brand name that many of us know and love. With this move - which starts with 150 movie titles and moves to upwards of 800 titles in a short span of time - Criterion will basically be chucking out their successful business model. As someone who collects their DVD's [and now Blu-ray's] I can tell you that one of the appeals of the company is there slow but eventual release of great titles. Every few months they bring out a few titles, which they announce three months [or so] in advance. This helps build excitement for the release and [I would think] boosts sales a bit. By releasing titles in such a manner they can build awareness and anticipation around the title. But by putting up to 800 titles out there so quickly - a good number of which are not yet on DVD or Blu-ray - for us to stream they are essentially burying the unreleased titles.
And so the effect might be that they bury the title and then kill it. Meaning that the excitement for future new releases will be much less exciting because the film will already be available to stream. So, essentially, the consumer would see that some previously unavailable Kenji Mizoguchi or Michael Powell title is coming soon to Blu-ray but then they would see that it is already available on Hulu Plus. So they would hook into Hulu Plus, watch the title and then no longer be interested in buying it.
Maybe they think they are giving the customer the best available option to see the films in their library? They certainly cannot be accused of withholding the titles now. But I am looking out for the future of Criterion as well as the life of these films. By presenting the options like this it would seem that the films will not get the proper [traditional model] release into the marketplace and this would affect both sales and awareness about a title. They must have signed a heck of a deal.
Exclusivity can have its faults
Another problem I find curious is that they are going to only now stream exclusively [by the end of 2011] through Hulu Plus. If a company wants maximum exposure it seems odd [and foolish] to narrow the options of your audience to only one streaming service - especially one that is not as widespread as NetFlix. Part of the deal Criterion found appealing was that Hulu will give them there own section making it easy for consumers to peruse titles. Apparently, NetFlix would not give them this deal.
Long time coming
I'm no Luddite. I love the idea that someday every title I want to see will be at my fingertips. And I know that this option is one Criterion feels is moving toward the future of home film viewing. But I can't help but feel they could do a better job of upholding their business model by continuing to whet our appetite and getting us excited for the films in the way that they have for so many years.
I don't have Hulu Plus but I will likely get it because the idea of having access to 800 amazing titles for a mere $7.99 a month is hard to resist. Of course, it also means the future of video stores and DVD and Blu-ray sales is pretty much history. But that is a different argument for a different time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)