TheManWithNoShame
Posts: 6350
Joined: 1/8/2006
|
http://www.cosmoetica.com/DSI16.htm
Some more ammo for you there Pigeon Army.
quote:
DS: I sometimes wonder the real damage done to film by some of the really bad articles Cahiers published, much in the way I wonder of the damage done to poetry by T.S. Eliot's criticism, or to prose by the most zealous of any of the noxious schools and –isms out there. Simply put, the writing in Cahiers was bad….really bad- empurpled prose, to be generous, and the insights pseudo-profundity, hiding the utter vapidity of most of their notions. Worse, as I mentioned, their ilk kicked off the pseudo-science of film theory. Why do you think it has been so difficult to bridge the fetishistic Cahiers film theory sort of criticism with the plainspoken criticism of populist critics like a Kenneth Turan or a Roger Ebert? I'm not saying Turan nor Ebert are great critics- I think both are hit and miss; but clearly they do not need to put on airs, and even when wrong, they do not embarrass themselves with the depth of bad thought and craft that film theorists do.
JB: Keeping in mind that I belong to the same school of criticism that Ebert and Turan belong to, I can offer a few thoughts. To me, quality of writing is as important in a review as quality of insight. One can be the most thoughtful analyst but an inability to frame that analysis in a manner that is clear and comfortable makes for a failed criticism. Ebert's strength is his ability to do this. You may disagree with him or think he has missed something, but you never finish one of his reviews scratching your head because you don't understand what the hell he was trying to say. Going back to an earlier point, I think some pretentious critics write in obscure ways not because they're trying to stroke their egos but because they don't really understand what their point is. I can go back and read some of those old "Cahiers" articles and come away baffled. Truth be told, when I started writing reviews, I tried to read "Cahiers," having heard it held some of the greatest film-related material ever committed to paper. I gave up pretty quickly.
DS: The Cahiers folk, naturally, raved over the French New Wave- especially Jean-Luc Godard, yet in the few films of his that I've seen he's a palpably mediocre (at best) director. I mean, I grew up watching Jimmy Cagney and John Garfield films with my dad, and Breathless is pure imitation, with much bad technique, a bad screenplay, and poorly technically made. It is not homage, but failed satire, if anything. Yet, there are few critics in any field willing to point out even manifest things, such as the lack of Emperor's clothes. There's simply no comparing Godard with Bergman, technically, dramatically, nor in any measurable form; at least not in the Frenchman's 1960s work, which I've seen. Do you agree with this assessment of the Cahiers crowd, and about –isms, in general; that they tend to be conformist and do a disservice to criticism and the art form?
JB: There are some Bergman films I don't like, but he's an honest filmmaker and some of his movies are in my personal Top 200. I'm not a fan of Godard, and his self-importance makes him even less appealing to me. It comes across on screen and in his interviews. He sneers at those he deems to be "lesser" filmmakers and has an almost godlike view of his work. I don't want to dismiss the French New Wave entirely, but its importance in film is more negative than positive. It has given rise to a school of filmmaking that produces unwatchable crap. By the way, Godard has gotten WORSE since his early films. His latest productions are unbearable. Yet people watch his movies and praise them because he's Godard and he's an icon. The Emperor's new clothes, exactly.
DS: Let me end this digression on Rivette, the New Wave, and film theory, with one final quote I made from that argument: 'Purple prose is bad, be it in crit or creative writing. It is self-indulgent and puerile, and it places the artist, or writer, above the written word and reader. Esp. as a critic, the reader MUST be informed. Too many MFA type writers these days write for themselves or their few colleagues, thus the proliferation of segregated schools of art or crit.' Manifestly, I think that describes the Cahiers du Cinema crowd to a T. These were critics who tried to place their own egos and belief systems above the manna they were assigned to elucidate. Any comments? And, pro or con, what effect do you think the European cinema of the '40s through '60s had on the Golden Age of American cinema in the 1970s?
JB: American cinema in the '70s took the best of the New Wave and incorporated it into films that still emphasized story and character. One of the best things to come out of Europe during the '40s, '50s, and '60s was a sense of daring. That's evident in '70s American films. Of course, part of that is because of the fall of the Hays code, which was holding back American films from expanding in interesting directions. It's worth considering where American would have gone if that form of censorship had not fallen over the world's most influential and prolific film industry.
Is it just me or is it suspicious when the questions in an interview are double the length of the answers?
< Message edited by TheManWithNoShame -- 30/7/2009 3:35:32 PM >
_____________________________
"I mean, literally, could there be a more damning indictment of the utter worthlessness of these lives? They are vicarious vermin, so socially maladapted that they can only spend their time at a computer to feel joy." ~ Dan Schneider on Lists and Top 10s
"... a photo of a child with Downs Syndrome... " ~ KieronTheCommunity on a picture of Pigeon Army
|
Printable Version
Top 10 Worst Dan Schneider Reviews - 
Imagine if he got Rosenbaum on there. That would be an interview/argument I'd like to read. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread