Bookish pros (and cons)

As I wrap this portion up with nothing more to add, I scan the comments of a respected blog where the host explains, “film appreciation that pays scant attention to form is, for me, flawed, incomplete, not as deep and substantive as it could be.” And I look over the above, and then at my work — all of it — and wonder if he and others simply wave it all aside and toss it on that vast heap of spent, insignificant, temporary internet prose. My writing may not be all that it could be, but I don’t agree that anyone should invest too much time or thought composing for this electronic medium. It doesn’t pay the bills, and it has no future… except to expedite the death of print.
Which concerns me because, like a character ripped from Sam Fuller’s Park Row, I have ‘ink in my blood.’ I was born too late, however, and the field didn’t carry me as sufficiently as it could have had I retired twenty or thirty years earlier. That’s when I began in the trade, at a time when you could make an excellent wage with good benefits in a company to stay with decade after decade, all of it capped by a tidy little pension. Desktop publishing, the internet and affordable computers erased that dream forever, and the old companies were sold off to backstabbers and power junkies who thrive in the manufacture of junk mail.

In some comments on Self-Styled Siren, I’ve dropped recommendations for The Jane Austen Book Club (2007), a neglected movie about reading books — real hardcopy, bound books, the kind they sell in bookstores. (Or are we all shopping on Amazon these days?) The ensemble cast includes Maria Bello, Emily Blunt, Kathy Baker, Amy Brenneman and Maggie Grace as Austen devotees who read and discuss her novels as they act out Austen scenarios in real life. The meager box office take was under $4 million, which means we’ll never see an Emily Brontë Book Club or even a Danielle Steel Book Club.

As it examined a culture consumed by the written word, two other movies in 2007 were made with similar literary spirit, albeit with fluctuating results. Opening with a line from T.S. Eliot — “Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers” — Marc Klein’s Suburban Girl uses a middling romantic comedy to soften what could have been a pungent observation of book editing and cronyism within publishing. Also with Maggie Grace, the lead is played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, who works on her syntax as well as sundry daddy issues via older boyfriend Alec Baldwin. The Jane Austen Book Club may have crashed and burned at theatres, but Suburban Girl went direct to video.

For the written word itself, Andrew Wagner’s Starting Out in the Evening has Frank Langella as a retired professor and one-time novelist faced with his expiring mortality and a changed literary world. (The publisher’s once grand and noble search for the Great American Novel drowned in a sea of corporate buyouts.) Pecking away on a Royal manual (do they still make ribbons?), work on his last novel is interrupted by his 40-year-old daughter’s (Lili Taylor) race against her biological clock, and a sycophant university student (Lauren Ambrose) eager to deconstruct the author’s work and life. The latter’s clinical response to his reserved sensitivity shows the best and worst aspects of critical analysis. She illustrates an endeavor which can sour the emotions and limit the breadth of an artist, and, like Langella’s anachronistic character, I began questioning why we would need such things to guide or carry us at all.
Labels: Book reviews, Capsule reviews, Une affaire de Flickhead


43 Comments:
What is sad is that the best, most thought provoking criticism I'm reading is on the web. And that's not damnning with faint praise. And that's the problem. You should be working for a publication, the industry shouldn't have imploded like it did. It might be why I love movies so much, you can create worlds where all is just and good and mediocrity isn't worshipped like an off brand Golden Calf you got at Target. And I roll my eyes at the "I Hate The Sound Of Music Because If I Don't People Won't Talk To Me At Parties" brigade too. I'm biased, it was one of my favorite movies as a kid, and may have introduced my cinephelia in the first place. I understand the criticisms of it, but the location shots are goregeous, the songs are lovely, and Julie Andrews carries the whole thing with aplomb. And compared to some of the arid, creaky, musical disasters of the period it's actually has a pulse. I'll add The Jane Austen Book Club to my que. I've found out about some wonderful films and had my insights sharpened thanks to your writing. I wish that gratitude could transfer into something you could actually pay the bills with, but at the least don't feel your efforts have no merit. Far from it.
I've been curious to see The Jane Austen Book Club thanks to your earlier recommendation, mainly because I love Jane Austen and now you've got me eager to see Starting Out in the Evening.
The last film I can remember really enjoying about writing was The Wonder Boys, which was made 8 or 9 years ago.
On a side note, I think you're a fine writer even if we don't agree half the time. If someone really loves to write it's not about fame or a paycheck (of course I would never turn down a paycheck, but in all honesty I haven't got much interest in fame... that rose lost its bloom years ago). You write because you love it. You write because for some damn reason you just can't help yourself. 90% of the time I hate what I write and I try to keep my best stuff for one of the many book that I'll probably never finish, but my last concern is critics. Any writer worth a damn writes first and foremost for themselves. Critics be damned. And although my opinion probably doesn't carry much weight in these parts, I find film appreciation that mainly focuses on form a task to read.
Thanks, Jessica and Kimberly.
I brought up the issue of money more to criticize the blog comment I linked to -- the desire by that person to read more developed and honed material to hold his interest and fire his imagination. He's expecting someone to do it for free. He's expecting writers, amateur and pro, to dance for him.
If we're writing for free, if people read us for free, that should make us critic-proof.
The central element -- villain? -- taking down printing, publishing and writers collecting paychecks is the freedom within the internet. When I began my website twelve years ago, webspace cost money and there were fewer writers posting their work online.
Once Blogger kicked in, anyone could have a blog for free (and illustrate it with free photos via Flickr), which is when we began seeing the decline of specialty magazines, along with the decline of places that sold them. It wasn't long until even fewer specialty mags were being distributed. And the newspaper and magazine staff layoffs are being reported every month.
I don't want fame or fortune, but in the beginning I had the passion to explore and write a lot more than I do today... and felt, then as now, that the work and time was worthy of compensation. I'm not a greedy capitalist, but I do live in a world where a few bucks comes in handy -- especially if I've taken several weeks to write something that inspires people or helps a publisher sell magazines.
Now, of course, the field is completely saturated and paid critics are rapidly fading fast.
As I recall, Wonder Boys was quite good -- thanks for reminding me; I'll put it on the queue. (There again, revival theatres and even video stores have been supplanted by online rentals! We may never have to leave the house again!)
And Jessica, just between you and me, I've seen "that movie" three or four times. Eleanor Parker never looked better.
I understand your frustrations, Ray.
When I started trying to get published 20 years ago I was able to make 100-200 bucks a month writing and occasionally working as a photographer for local music mags. I was able to sustain myself with writing and holding down a part time job. When the music mags stopped paying in the early '90s I began writing for comic book related publications, but there was not much money to be made in writing comic book reviews (and occasional book or movie reviews) even if it was exciting to occasionally see a "pull quote" of mine published on the back of a comic book.
By the time 2001 rolled around no one wanted to pay for comic book reviews anymore.
When I started trying to write for mags from 2001 onward I was constantly told, "We can't pay you." Magazines thought free copies of an issue you were published in was enough payment – or better yet, a free subscription - and that was that. Obviously there were plenty of people willing and able to write for free, but in my experience there has never been much money to be found in writing for publications - especially specialty publications that were usually a labor of love for their publishers.
Maybe if you're working for major city newspapers, widely read and seen magazines, etc. there was money to be had, but in my experience those opportunities have always been few and hard to come by. If you want to make money as a writer you've got to write books. Of course, book publishing is also a dying art and I suspect that most books will soon be published online and read online. If magazines want to sustain themselves they have to face that reality as well. I have no idea why most magazines are not following the example of sites like Salon.com and offering subscriptions online. There’s a way to make money online and smart publishers are figuring it out.
I'm sure a lot of aspiring writers have similar experiences to my own and when blogging offered them the opportunity to write and publish for free, they took it. You either had to evolve and change with the times or be lost in the changing tide.
My main beef with blogging at the moment is the copycats and plain plagiarizing I see going on. Sure there's a lot of bloggers writing about film, but not many of them have original ideas or that much film history under their belts. This can be painfully obvious when you read them or come across poorly constructed criticism like the article recently posted at the TCM blog that you linked to above. On a side note, I'm also pretty sure the TCM bloggers get paid.
If I had the extra money, I would start a subscription based film magazine online and hire some of my favorite bloggers. I think I could make it a success, but at the moment I can’t even afford my netflix subscription.
Good stuff - seems like there's a lot more potential material going down the trained-printer-at-the-end-of-a-500-year-epoch road. From BOCES to the age of blogging in 30 years. You were taught a skill that should have carried you through your lifetime. That skill was basically useless by the time you reached 40. How's that for Instant Karma? You're a living icon — you should write more about it.
I refer to you often when I rant to people about how we're at a transition in history bigger than the Industrial and Technological Revolution combined. The world is going to change more than we can even imagine. Whole industries and careers are vanishing rapidly with nothing replacing them. Copyright is virtually dead — anything that can be created can be instantly bootlegged and passed along for free. Patents will eventually follow. Where is this going? I dunno, but we're as clueless as the Europeans who insisted the earth is flat.
But the Age of Columbus is coming to an end too. We won't be around to see what follows but I'm guessing the entire concepts of society, work and money will change from top to bottom. Keep an eye out for Monoliths!
So, like, yeah, I think you should write about your experience as a printer — the details of what you learned/loved/did. From school training, apprenticeship, through the job, the presses, the smell of the ink, the things you printed, the sidelines of your own fanzines — everything up to now with its pristine, immaculate, odorless pc and internet. Just as Hemingway could write a whole book about the details of fishing or Xaviera Hollander could write about every aspect of being a ho — the printer's devil is in the details. A Printer's Work and Demise at the End of Western Civilization As We Know It.
That is all… please let out a J. Arthur Rank {{{{{BONG}}}}}.
P.S. Personally, I can't stand "The Sound of Music". Whether that makes me Hip, Unhip, Pre-Hip, Post-Hip or Artificial Hip — I don't care. For me it's really about Rodgers & Hammerstein, not Robert Wise. The opening is beautiful but once the nuns start singing "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria" my inner Alien pops out of my chest and runs screaming across the room. But then, I feel pretty much the same way about all R&H musicals. Lorenz Hart may have been a drug-crazed, alcoholic, gay, s&m sexaholic midget — but he was a brilliant lyricist who helped Richard Rodgers write truly great songs. Oskie was a visionary - but the same way George Lucas is a visionary. The results make me squirmy.
— Nelhydrea Paupér
Nelhydrea,
"Copyright is virtually dead" — yes, indeedie. NYT film critic Nathan Lee has a blog where he offers YouTube clips of movies with his critical commentary on the audio. About 6 weeks ago, YouTube pulled all his videos on the grounds that he violated their regulations and copyright laws.
The online film community was up in arms in no time. Matt Zoller-Seitz and others went on a tirade against YouTube, claiming Nathan's clips were instructional, educational, aiming to advance culture, yadda yadda yadda.
I piped in on a few sites, pointing out that YouTube was within their rights to pull Lee's vids. Lee didn't own that webspace, YouTube did. My contention was, if Lee simply bought his own fucking webspace and uploaded his vids there, no one could take them off.
Naturally, I was branded an idiot and a bureaucrat. (Though thankfully no one accused me of being a Republican.)
Apparently no one contacted the FBI: Lee had to make copies of DVDs to do those voiceovers, right? Don't you get like five years in jail and $250k fine per copyright violation? Shit, that motherfucker would be in the pokey for life.
YouTube relented and brought back all of Lee's videos.
Because copyright is virtually dead.
Kimberly,
Many thanks for sharing your experiences. At one point I envisioned my website as an online magazine — around the time Dennis Cozzalio and Tom Sutpen were gracious enough to contribute articles. I wanted to bring more writers onboard and make Flickhead a monthly webzine with a variety of voices.
Unfortunately, a few dozen people had the same idea and, as you can see, it never materialized here.
If you rent that Frank Langella film, there's a telling moment between his author character and a book publisher who explains why quality isn't in demand any longer.
All of which makes me and perhaps yourself part of the constituency who live lives of quiet desperation.
Try to think of it as both of you surrounded by the cracks of a civilization about to fall or change being little islands of intelligence and love of the craft in a vast worthless sea (and there is nowhere for this metaphor to go but worse so I'll stop now). Islets that are welcome relief from the white noise of the mainstream, and flickers of life and thought that hasn't been extinguished from public thought so long as there are several to read and share.
Geez, I'm sorry I missed all this. Anyway, Flickhead, you Republican (I'm kidding) I have often gotten into trouble with cinephiles for my approach to film study/analysis. When I went out for drinks with Nathaniel R. of the Film Experience last fall we really let loose our thoughts on the subject and it was liberating but when I bring it up online I get into trouble.
However, since your site seems more willing to take strong opinions more than some other sites I'll let loose. I mean no disrespect to Girish but this statement “film appreciation that pays scant attention to form is, for me, flawed, incomplete, not as deep and substantive as it could be” is backwards to me. It's the opposite of how I look at it. Paying attention to form is, to me, like studying the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright and concentrating on the building materials then analyzing how the cantilevered terraces provide the proper right angles that sufficiently draw the surface lines... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. There's no meat on that bone.
Okay, that's pretty mild. Now here's where I really run into trouble. I can usually tell how much "life" someone has experienced by their approach to art. No real trials or tribulations, no bankruptcy settlements, no rehab, no living on the street, no raising kids, no alcoholism, no drug abuse, no jail, and so on. Not all those things you understand but one or two or any combination thereof or some other hardship suffered. I like to call it my "damaged people's" theory of art. The undamaged, like my excrutiatingly boring ex-wife, focus on form. Ask them what the work meant to them and they're lost.
Now here's where I run into more trouble. I'm an actor, a filmmaker, a photographer. My wife is a painter, and a gallery displayed one who has sold much of her work. Almost all of our friends are artists. Just about every last one. All of us would be horrified to think someone was concentrating on form when evaluating our work. First and foremost, what did you get out of it? In other words, to finally whittle all of this down, if the artist has done their job and the viewer is mature, they will not even notice form as it fuses with the function of the piece. That is to say, the form must be brilliant enough to make itself invisible. That's why, when one starts concentrating on it, extracting it, I just think, "Man, you're pretty emotionally immature."
Anyway, I'm sure people will find that judgmental and condescending but I can't help my feeling it. I'm sure my blog isn't considered "serious" enough by many but I find overly analytical tropes on formalist approaches and such to be as dry as the Sahara desert at high noon. Sure we all understand and apprecitate what great editing, mise en scene, sound, etc can do for a film. But they're all tools employed by the artist to achieve an effect. If when it's over all you focus on are the tools then you're not getting the art at all.
Oh and as long as no one asks how I know this, yes, TCM pays the Morlocks by the post. It's not a lot but it's good. All the Morlocks have other writing or teaching gigs.
Jessica, for some odd reason I began thinking of Waterworld when I read your last comment. Perhaps that film's Dennis Hopper character is a metaphor for the ugliness that haunts me.
Damn, this is getting deep.
Jonathan, thanks for weighing in. I have problems with academics, and I probably fall in with those "damaged people" you mention.
No, scratch that. I AM one of them. Perhaps their King. Or Court Jester.
I was at a cocktail party with author Royal Brown -- yes, that's right: time to name drop; these are just the comments, after all -- and he was rapping about some formalist shit having to do with Godard and Truffaut. And, quite unconsciously, I began correcting him as he held court in front of ten or fifteen tipsy, upper middle-class L.L. Bean liberal types, you know: well heeled and all that. And he'd glance over at me, like: hey kid, don't steal my thunder. And he'd go on about some other shit about Melville (Herman? Jean-Pierre? Does it matter?) and I'd interrupt, very quietly and respectfully, and correct the bastard because he got some more information all wrong. And the whole night went on like that, over and over.
Until we got to the piano. Our host had a Steinway Baby Grand in his living room, and Royal sits his ass down and plays some incredibly intricate thing -- damned if I can remember, but I think it was Mahler -- and we're all thinking, hey, this motherfucker's a genius, because, dude, ain't no way I can bang that puppy out...
So I sit down after him and do a nice, slow rendition of "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat" where I really just kind of got lost in the music and ended up playing this solo that sent my head Somewhere Else. It was so charged that I could've banged my host's wife right there on the carpet because that poor girl was swooning.
God, do I love what booze can do to the right women.
The next day the host of that party, an author named Jeff Bennett, called to tell me what a wonderful, funny and insightful night it was, because everybody thought Royal and I were absolutely perfect together. Like a ventriloquist with his dummy. Who's who? Don't ask, don't tell.
How this ties into anything is beyond me.
Yeah, Flickhead, I wouldn't have brought it up here unless I was sure that you and Kimberly (I'm sorry Jessica but I'm not familiar as of yet with your tastes so I am not excluding you out of a judgment call, just ignorance) both approached film from a mature reflective point of view. I of course don't know very much personally about either of you but feel you have both had your share of knocks - real knocks, not "yeah my girlfriend dumped me and I had to go live with my parents for a year" - which has shaped your outlook on the world.
I watch movies to make sense of my world, to understand some random thing that I've felt but could never put my finger on, to feel a release of some kind, like opening a pressure valve. The formalism study is nice as an entry level to understanding film but eventually you have to "get" film as well as art in general, and technique isn't going to get you there.
I love your story, especially you playing "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat." And your line "God I love what booze can do to the right women." That's a keeper.
No it's actually a relief to know I shouldn't feel bothered I can't write in antiseptic terms about form and film. I'm working on a piece about Chunking Express, and I hope to review most of Wong Kar Wai's films. I love his films, I won't to live in them. I definitely understand looking for and needing a release. Or being knocked for a loop when a film perfectly answers a question you didn't know had been gnawing at you for months or more.
I have to say, I agree with Girish. It's not "emotionally immature" to pay attention to form in art. Form is the means by which the artist expresses him- or herself, and what is criticism if not an attempt to come to terms with what a work of art is expressing and how it's expressing it? Otherwise, criticism just becomes, "well, it made me feel sad/happy/whatever." If one doesn't feel the urge to explore a film's formal elements, to analyze the why and the how of a film, then why be a critic at all?
This doesn't mean that form should be considered in isolation, and knowing Girish's writing, I highly doubt that he's advocating for a clinical form-uber-alles approach to criticism. I can think of some critics (I won't name names) who focus on form to the detriment of all else, and I find their work frustrating and lifeless. Girish is certainly not one of them. By the same token, there are critics who seem to entirely ignore the formal properties of a film, and I usually don't find much of value there either (and no, I'm not talking about Flickhead or any other site in my blogroll, obviously). The best criticism, in my opinion, balances form against the thematic and emotional content of the work, considering the film as a whole.
Jonathan wrote, "If when it's over all you focus on are the tools then you're not getting the art at all." I'd agree, but counter that if you ignore the tools, you're also not getting the art. Good film criticism encompasses the totality of a film's aesthetic, formal, emotional, performative and literary content. An understanding of a film's form, of how it achieves its effects, enriches those effects, deepens them.
Ed, thanks for jumping in.
I originally brought up G's quote, “film appreciation that pays scant attention to form is, for me, flawed, incomplete, not as deep and substantive as it could be,” because I felt it reflected an emptiness in my own writing.
At this point in my life, I've little desire to analyze film frame by frame. And I easily tire of those who do. I think this is purely the outcome of age. I did film analysis years ago; now, I'd just rather be entertained.
Yes, I've grown shallow. Read the post these comments are attached to: I prefer the Sarah Michelle Gellar movie to the Michael Powell. In some quarters, I'd be shot. But thank you for finding value in my writing.
I also used G's quote to address the blog conundrum: 1) lots of work writing an article; 2) no monetary reward for that article, nor a published hardcopy version to have and hold; 3) criticism of said article when posted; 4) obsolescence of that article within days. The internet isn't big on longevity. In too many cases, you're only as good as your last post.
This defeats me in many areas. Whereas in print, there seemed to be more time involved, and a willingness among readers to absorb and comprehend what they've read... and spend time composing loc's to send to the magazine's lettercol. Debates could last for months, perhaps years.
I could spend 3 months writing something for my upcoming Chabrol blogathon (and I am), only to find it read, condemned and/or praised, argued and forgotten all in less than ten days.
A true Ten Days Wonder.
My bottom line question: is it really worth my effort?
My recent habit of "covering" a film in one or two paragraphs displays my level of enthusiasm as well as a consideration for the reader. I never dole out plot synopses -- why spoil the movie? -- and I rarely force-feed opinion. What I'm doing is little more than oblique copywriting. It's all I'm capable of right now. If I had to go over Powell's Age of Consent frame by frame -- convincing myself of aesthetic form that may not truly be there -- I'd go mad.
Ray, sorry for not responding more to the substance of your post. I get that you were mostly using the quote as a way of talking about print vs. blogs and the diminishing returns of criticism/journalism these days, all points I have lots of sympathy with*. I was mostly responding to some of the exchanges in the comments, and especially Jonathan's seeming dismissal of formalist criticism as "emotionally immature."
*I graduated with a journalism degree right at the point where it was becoming increasingly infeasible to make journalism a career. So I understand, certainly. I like writing about film, and I like the immediacy of blogging. Do I wish I was getting paid for what I do, though? Of course. And I'm sad that we seem to be approaching a point where getting paid for journalism -- let alone criticism -- is becoming rarer and rarer.
...or, given the present economy, getting paid for anything!
I like Age of Consent more than you did, but seeing on the new DVD, after seeing on cable on night about ten years ago, I have to say that it doesn't hold up as well as many other Powell films.
For the most part, my writing career has been one of love and appreciation as long as there was no money involved. I did contribute to a website that paid a little bit, but gave it up because the guy who ran it wasn't sure if he wanted a clone of Cinematical or Aint It Cool, and I wasn't interested in rewriting press releases.
I was mostly responding to some of the exchanges in the comments, and especially Jonathan's seeming dismissal of formalist criticism as "emotionally immature."
Howard, you bastard, I'll get you for that!
But seriously, anyone on my blogroll is someone I think is doing a good job and Girish is on my blogroll. I don't think he and you and I actually disagree. I was going more with what you said in your first comment with this: "I can think of some critics (I won't name names) who focus on form to the detriment of all else, and I find their work frustrating and lifeless."
What I meant with the hard knocks school of art appreciation is that simply the more life you live, the more you can understand art. And as with the artist's lifestyles and goals I offer no apologies: I stand by my claim that the last thing I, my wife or any of our artist friends want is an analysis of form to be up front. Analysis of form can be instructive and I've never done a review where I didn't mention technical elements but what the film means, what it says - that's more important in the creation and understanding of art. Think about our recent TOERIFC discussion. We discussed what it meant. Very little if any of the discussion centered around the editing or sound or the director's mise-en-scene with her subjects. No, the discussion was about what the film meant. To me, that means Jennifer Baichwall did her job. Had she stopped by and found us all arguing over her framing techniques she probably would have jumped in and said, "What tin he hell are you guys talking about? Didn't you watch the movie? It's about whether these Appalachian residents are being exploited. Why aren't you discussing that?"
Obviously form goes toward giving meaning to the viewer but when discussing it, it's the meaning I want to talk about. If you want to talk about editing instead please do. But that seems too Film 101 Academic to me.
The movie I'm referring to above is The True Meaning of Pictures which I neglected to name. And the line "What tin he hell" should obviously be, "What in the hell" - I have no idea how I managed that one.
Aaaarrgghh!!! I need to proof read better. This line: "If you want to talk about editing instead please do. But that seems too Film 101 Academic to me."
Should read: "If you want to talk about editing instead, at the expense of meaning please do. But that seems too Film 101 Academic to me.
Jonathan, I suspected we didn't actually disagree on this, and that it was just a matter of emphasis in our respective comments.
On the other hand, I think different films require different approaches, and that some films would seem to encourage more formal analysis than others. In the Baichwal film, the form is largely invisible, consisting mostly of a pose of objectivity, with the filmmaker getting out of the way of the subject. The discussion of the film thus mirrored its form: many people commented on Baichwal's straightforward style and then moved on to the themes and ideas she was bringing up.
That is a very different kind of film than something by, say, Hitchcock or Preminger, where I would say no truly worthwhile critical discourse could ignore or downplay form to the extent the Baichwal discussion did. And to go to an even further extreme, how exactly does one talk about Bela Tarr or Stan Brakhage or Kurt Kren without addressing form in some depth? There are films where to discuss only the themes and ideas would be to ignore a great deal of the film's aesthetic power.
Formal analysis can backfire as well. I recall a discussion on a blog mentioned above, this time concerning Nabokov's Lolita.
Cinephiles being what they are, praise was heaped on Kubrick's film (which, to my eyes, missed the point of the book entirely despite the author having written the screenplay).
But the bloggers instantly dismissed everything about the novel except its form. "It's all in the language," they said. While I applaud the construction of the novel, there is far more to Lolita than its form. By discussing it exclusively in terms of form, the bloggers failed to mention Nabokov's barbed critique on Western decadence, which, naturally flows into its eroticism and Humbert's jumbled logic. Unless the academics in question felt this was simply too obvious to bring up.
There is far more to Lolita than I can muster up here and now, but my point is that there should be a middle ground.
Hitchcock is an excellent example, because he's nearly all form to elicit an emotional reaction -- and you can only discuss his work by bringing up these two values.
I love Nabokov's Lolita and Kubrick's more or less equally, though they're clearly very different beasts with different emphases. I would guess that the bloggers you mention saying "it's all in the language" were not dismissing thematic considerations, so much as acknowledging the prime importance of Nabokov's style in communicating the novel's points. Everyone knows what Lolita is "about" in thematic terms, but it's not a polemical tract about "Western decadence" or misplaced eroticism, it's a fun, lively work of art driven by its playful language.
But really we're just dancing around different ways of saying the same things here, and I think we all agree: the best criticism unites form and content as expressions of one another, rather than trying to separate one from the other. To talk about Hitchcock's form in isolation from his emotions/themes is as bankrupt as talking about his emotional content or themes without addressing the ways in which he expresses those things.
You artikilated it far better than I!
But really we're just dancing around different ways of saying the same things here, and I think we all agree:
That Jonathan is super cool? That's what I thought we were saying but I didn't want to embarrass myself. But I am way cool.
Ed, you contrary bastard, as I think about this more it's kind of funny because my review of The Tin Drum for TOERIFC will deal a lot with form as a better way to understand the story.
Is that what we've been talking about? Well, shit. I never would've agreed with that.
Actually, you've reminded me I need to watch The Tin Drum, it's been sitting on my hard drive for a few weeks now. Looking forward to it, and to the ensuing discussion. Hopefully, without the distraction of the Hawks blog-a-thon, I'll be able to participate much more this time around.
Of course, I plan to talk exclusively about the camera movements.
It does have an amazing visual sense (I think so anyhow) but I suspect it's not very popular with many, which is why I picked it.
I understand Girish's point . . . it is a widely-held view in the cinephile community; and not unreasonably so . . . but frankly I think it's asking for too little.
I mean, FilmCrit is, last I checked, a species of literature, however woefully it's been practiced through the years; yet I've never once come across a fellow blogger/critic/cinephile-sans-portfolio who adopts the quality of prose as a meaningful criterion of value. In a sense it's all a matter of one's priorities. Formal analysis is an undeniably useful . . . instrument (of what? Let's leave that part of it aside for now). But when it's delivered to the reader in a standardized argot that is, on the whole, less compelling (and far less readable) than the instructions on a can of mosquito repellant, then I would say that something . . . larger . . . is being neglected.
One side note: I only stopped contributing to Flickhead because you informed me that other writers were jumping ship (implicitly to avoid any proximity to this reporter's ever-fertile perspective). I would have kept on keeping on if that had not been my understanding.
Tom, if you look over the contents at the Flickhead site, it looks as if I jumped ship along with everyone else.
I'm giving way too much thought to the G quote, its implications, and what I was trying to get at originally. I'm undoubtedly misreading things at this point, but I think what I'm shying away from is film theory, not film criticism.
I looked over some of my favorite critics -- Kael, J. Hoberman, David Thomson, Jonas Mekas -- and they don't devote too much time to theorizing on form. (I'd say the same for Sarris, but I'm usually nodding off by his second paragraph.) They do write well, which is what attracted me in the first place.
Gerald Mast, Lee Bobker and other textbook authors seem more involved with form... hence, the textbook format.
I'm sure I'm wrong about this, because the more I look over all these comments, the dumber I feel.
Dumb? Are you crazy? You wrote this:
I'd say the same for Sarris, but I'm usually nodding off by his second paragraph.
That's brilliant. And this:
Gerald Mast, Lee Bobker and other textbook authors seem more involved with form... hence, the textbook format.
I love How to Read a Film but you're right, Mast just doesn't kick out the jams like a Kael or Agee.
Tom is also brilliant. Just wanted to go on the record with that.
Tom, if you look over the contents at the Flickhead site, it looks as if I jumped ship along with everyone else.
Well, if the Good Ship Flickhead is in need of hands for another voyage, I'd be game to sign on (this despite the fact that I haven't actually finished an article in close to two years)
I'm giving way too much thought to the G quote, its implications, and what I was trying to get at originally. I'm undoubtedly misreading things at this point, but I think what I'm shying away from is film theory, not film criticism.
I looked over some of my favorite critics -- Kael, J. Hoberman, David Thomson, Jonas Mekas -- and they don't devote too much time to theorizing on form. (I'd say the same for Sarris, but I'm usually nodding off by his second paragraph.) They do write well, which is what attracted me in the first place.
Gerald Mast, Lee Bobker and other textbook authors seem more involved with form... hence, the textbook format.
My biggest reservation as a reader about formal/textual analysis (at least as a device) is not just that it's linguistically very limited . . . once you get the patois down, it's something anybody can use to sound halfway authoritative without really trying . . . but it's so wildly subjective that it frequently constitutes a form of stylistically interchangable, non-narrative fiction. There are some (and though he needs no defense from me, I number Girish Shambu in this concord) who take that approach conscientiously. But the vast majority of critics who construct their articles around matters of form do so, I think, for the most cynical of reasons: generally to conceal an absolute poverty of literary gift (it has other purposes, of course, but that, I believe, is its primary function).
I'm not going to name names here (except to say that I'm not talking about anyone involved in this discussion, nor most of those who may happen upon it), but my biggest beef with the cinephile/FilmCrit community is that it gives shelter and sustenance to the talentless . . . people who literally have never written an interesting sentence in their lives . . . more easily than it ought to. And if anyone should wonder why most people who read do not read so-called serious film criticism, will not read it, they need look no further for an explanation than that.
I'm sure I'm wrong about this, because the more I look over all these comments, the dumber I feel.
Ray, at least you're talking about it. Jesus. How many cinephiles do you know who are eager to examine even the smallest part of this boutique obsession we all fell into? It's certainly makes for more interesting discussion than swapping 'ooh's and 'ahh's over what's on at the Berliniale.
Yikes.
Jonathan, I . . .scarcely know what to say.
Not sure how many would agree with you (including moi), but thanks all the same!
Well, if the Good Ship Flickhead is in need of hands for another voyage, I'd be game to sign on (this despite the fact that I haven't actually finished an article in close to two years)
Your length and lack of productivity appears to be identical to mine. I kicked off the Chabrol blogathon and joined the new online film club (where you've selected Kiss Me, Stupid -- an excellent choice) because they seemed they'd be fun to do, but, more importantly, to get my mind functioning along with my typing skills. In short, I needed a purpose.
The act of sitting down to write a substantial critique -- once second-nature -- had become drudgery. I needed to break away from that.
Hi R. --
Wow, there is a lot to respond to here. I want to start by addressing Girish's comment. In the context of his whole thread, it's clear that Girish is qualifying that sentiment at his own opinion, and you can see people like Gareth and Michael Guillen (Maya) politely disagreeing. I think Girish would be the last person to want the Net to supplant books or magazines. He uses his site a great deal to discuss print criticism, often things that nobody else is bringing up and that aren't available on the Web. And I know from corresponding with him that he isn't getting his print materials as freebies either--he is an avid print consumer. Part of the vanishing, paying audience, in other words. There are indeed people out there who think all opinions are created equal, and therefore should be available free at the touch of a button, but Girish is most definitely not one of them.
To address his actual point about criticism, well, that is an evolution I have observed since I started reading his blog in 2005. He's moved more and more toward formalist ideas, which I think just demonstrates active intellect. He remains an indispensable voice. For myself, I dislike criticism that spends too much time on plot summary and says nothing about the look or atmosphere of the film, but I am also not inclined to read intensely academic, jargon-filled film criticism. Maya puts it well: "In my humble opinion, the best film critics are those who can hedge formalist observations within a broader appeal to a general public. Otherwise it's just academics scratching each others' backs with highfalutin' words."
And that brings me to the discussion here of writing style as it pertains to film criticism. I didn't start blogging because I wanted to be a critic. I started because I was a housewife in Toronto who was terrified her writing skills were ebbing by the day. I realize now it was the perfect choice of subject for me, but if film criticism were banned I could find another subject. So prose style matters a great deal, to me at least.
A while ago Filmbrain and I were discussing James Agee--how fresh and brilliant his critiques still seem after all this time. He was simply a superb writer of prose, which is why his reviews have outlasted others and will continue to do so. And what draws me to your site, Flickhead, is ultimately your writing. You could be a most intelligent, acute observer of film and the blunt truth is that it wouldn't matter to me if your writing stank. I can't read film critics who write bad prose. I value the care you put into your style, the fact that I can go back to your review of The Bridesmaid (to name just one) and still get insight and pleasure from it.
Finally, The Sound of Music mostly irks but Eleanor Parker is marvelous and Christopher Plummer is so sexy in the movie that I have seen it more times than I care to reveal.
And if I am honest, I am never never ever going to see Wolf Creek or Last House on the Left or a number of films in that genre, so you can now picture me with tongue out and arms folded if you like!
I think it's all been said, so I'll just come in with my personal story. I'm a writer. Much to my surprise, I've become a film critic--something that actually still feels quite alien to me below the skin. I'm not the best film critic out there. I don't pay a lot of attention to formalist stuff. I don't have the education or interest to do it well. Indeed, when faced with a highly visual film like Of Time and the City, I was completely at a loss to write about it.
I'm a writer. The words, the ideas, the story, the feelings are what compute for me. I came to film late after a long life in the theater, where The Word is monarch. I believe The Word (or the implied Word) should be monarch of film as well because it's too easy to make a good-looking, empty film, especially today.
Now if you're all about the visuals, then we're talking about a painting that moves and makes noise. I'm good with that, too, but then I'm going to evaluate the film as I would a painting - and frankly, I prefer a painting because it doesn't fill in all the blanks for me, the way something like In the Mood for Love tries to do, and allows me to explore my inner space through it.
If I'm honest, I would be a much better theatre critic because I know it from the fly space to the make-up to the soliloquy. I'd be a better art critic, because I've made art, studied it deeply; it fires my imagination. Why movies? I wish I knew.
Siren & Marilyn -- thank you both. I admire both of you as writers -- I visit your blogs several times a week -- and share many of your views on writing. Composing paragraphs is something of an art or craft for me, as I often labor over every word. I'm hardly prolific -- but sometimes I wish I could be. There are so many thoughts and sentences circling around in my head sometimes that it's impossible to get them all out on the keypad.
Thanks, Flickhead. I think you have a thoughtful and engaging style, and that always works for me!
BTW, loved The Jane Austen Book Club. For another interesting film about writing, try An Angel at My Table.
FINALLY... someone has seen The Jane Austen Book Club! I'm very happy you loved it.
Thank you for reminding me of An Angel at My Table -- I haven't seen it in ages. I do remember liking it, so it's on the queue!
Ray, I watched "The Jane Austin Book Club" a few months ago on Starz and really liked it, so that's one more vote.
I'm also much enjoying this discussion about writing and film criticism.
Thanks, John! This one entry has generated more comments than any other on this blog!
Since I'm late to this shindig, I'll throw in my two cents as nothing more than a long-time viewer of films who likes to read about them when such is written well, by people who also like film more at an emotional level than a technical one; altho I'll put up with a certain amount of nuts & bolts badinage if it is elucidating rather than showing off. This is in direct contradiction to my other interests which involve almost exclusively technical facts, figures, and real nuts & bolts, so perhaps I need the film blogs and sites more to counteract that tendency. Yeah, I seen a film or two made, a gag or two go wrong, read the canons, watched the recommendeds. My son graduated from film school and I had my share of the loose Arri laying around the living room, to say nothing of lending a hand here and there. I so want to be engaged, not lectured to.
I've had trouble connecting to actually blogging personally, altho I did start commenting on occasion to make up for my fits and starts, and as I've never really had any formal writing or editing background, I usually feel a little intimidated by some of the work I read on all your sites. You folks really do have talent, and don't take any shit about that aspect from anybody, in or out of the critical "acceptability".
That said, I enjoy immensely the fact that such great stuff is accessible at all - I'm a bit older than most of you, and my experience with film and film criticism over the years was catch as kin, with a vast wasteland between the dryly academic - prolly going to be the last bastion of paid writing, BTW, IMHO - and the useful and likable work - like here and all you others - that I was expecting a helluva lot more of after reading Agee in high school.
Needless to say, sadly, his kind of work was the exception to the general chaff out there, and lemme tell ya, as an auto-didact, I had a broad range of fields to cover by choice in addition to film, and I found little in the way of well-written work in every interest I had. The blog-world is a veritable cornucopia of good and great writing on film that I intend to graze 'til it's as short as my teeth are long. I wish there was a penny-a-word clicker to make it a viable business proposition for all of you, because I've found more enjoyment in a new kind of reading in the last ten years or so on the web than I ever did offline.
I hardly ever commented on websites, due to a kind of inanition, I guess, and when I found a website or blog I liked, I was a lurker rather than a participant, to my own detriment a I see now - the purpose of this kind of writing is to interact rather than shove out dry didactic words. I still only comment at a few sites, filmic and otherwise, and part of that is the sheer time involved partaking - I can't figure out how most of you are in so many places at once, but it gives all these interests their own connectivity, and I have to thank you all for that - altho, when I thought that Flickhead was really gone a while back, it was like losing a little part of my reality. Don't do that again. Keep up the good work, even for just the ten days wonder.
I'm afraid I'm a "Sound of Music" abstainer - it was fresh out of the box when I was a kid, and as slavish as radio stations, music teachers, and middle-class neighbors were back then, I was soooo sick of it by the time it was a month old and we'd seen it four or five times. The passage of time has only reinforced that - I have been contractually unable to avoid it, some kind of family thing, and I have found, painfully, it had its moments, (mostly Parker-ian in origin) but along with "West Side Snorry", another adventure in forced-feeding, there are certain strains that make me throw up a little in my mouth.
"altho, when I thought that Flickhead was really gone a while back, it was like losing a little part of my reality. Don't do that again. Keep up the good work, even for just the ten days wonder."
Don't worry. I'm addicted. A sad, addicted old man, that's me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home