David Bordwell's Call to Arms

Fellow film bloggers and critics take note — contemporary film criticism is failing. At least that's academic and author David Bordwell's opinion in an essay found in the latest issue of Cinema Scope. Entitled Against Insight, it's a piece that will undoubtedly raise eyebrows and perhaps even bruise a few egos. And though it's not quite a polemic for a new criticism, Bordwell doesn't mince words, and there's more than a slight hint of J'accuse throughout the piece. As Bordwell sees it, the problem is widespread, and both the academic and the everyday film critic are responsible for the decline in quality film writing: "In academic venues, it mostly grinds Movie X through Theory Y, in the hope that somehow the exercise will yield political emancipation. Meanwhile, film magazines and free city weeklies promote that self-assured nonconformity which prizes jaunty wordplay and throwaway judgments." While I must confess to not keeping up with the latest academic trends in film criticism, I couldn't agree more with the second sentence, and it's both disheartening and irksome to find that an increasing number of film bloggers have aligned themselves with this approach. (Out of a desire, perhaps, to find work at said newspapers/magazines?) Complaining that most critics have abandoned probing for posturing, Bordwell believes that facts and ideas should lead the way over opinions and insights, which, according to him, stem from the doctrine du jour, though they are rarely given the analysis and investigation they require. Bordwell would like to see film writing "achieve the rigor and lucidity" of a scientific text, or at least be on par with an Auden or Barzun essay on literature. For an essay entitled Against Insight, Bordwell is surprisingly brief in his discussion of insight, which he reduces to little more than a hunch. Yet is it not possible to have genuine insight into a film on some level — be it cultural, social, political — i.e., something tangible, that needn't be speculated on? (I'll have to think about that one.) While I agree with Bordwell that critics who cling to the trite axiom of film as reflection of the zeitgeist is tiresome at best, I disagree with him on the value of opinion. It is precisely for a critic's professional persona (formed by their opinion) that we continue to read them. Of course, opinion must go hand in hand with other factors, including a genuine love of the art, which sadly doesn't always seem to be the case with some critics. However, it's impossible to read a piece by Jonathan Rosenbaum, Jim Hoberman, Manohla Dargis, or Glenn Kenny (to name a few) and not pick up on their unyielding passion for cinema. Sure, I find myself disagreeing with them (often, in some cases), but their opinions are informed by (among other things) the very "sensitivity to history and technique" that Bordwell claims is lacking in film writing. These are the critics who convinced me to see films I'd normally avoid (Dargis with Bee Season, Rosenbaum with Looney Tunes Back in Action) and have caused me, in several cases, to seriously reflect on my own opinion. Is it possible for a critic to convey ideas and information (which Bordwell prefers), without opinion? This once again raises the whole subjective vs. objective argument, as discussed last week. Bordwell ends the piece by stating that nobody is producing the type of film criticism he'd like to see — something that cleverly balances opinions/ideas with factual evidence, historical knowledge of cinema with auteurship, and which simultaneously educates and entertains. Is there truly nobody who satisfies all the criteria? (Feel free to leave suggestions below.) Regardless, it's refreshing to see someone from the inside (for a change) openly addressing a very real and worrisome trend. I've personally had my fill of gifted but vacuous writers who feel legitimized simply because they collect a paycheck. Some of the most interesting, challenging, and simply pleasurable writing on film is stemming from the blogosphere, and perhaps one unexpected outcome of essays such as Bordwell's will be greater recognition of those who are offering more than clever quips, puns, and hollow praise.

Comments

[burritoboy]

Bordwell needs to contemplate that his own teaching and many books haven't convinced many people. Instead of trivializing many people's very real criticisms of his work, he instead should engage in more self-reflection.

[HarryTuttle]

You're right, it's disappointing that Bordwell doesn't really develop and promotes his view of a better criticism... but the good thing is to blame the current state in public. Thanks to you for picking it up in your column. A good follow up to your last week entry.

It's the same problem again: the role and weight subjectivty should have in film criticism. This isn't a black and white controversy... nothing good comes out of such discussions when one shall choose between either all subjectivty or all objectivty.
Bordwell doesn't reject opinions, but gives them a very specific role in the writing. It is possible to insert opinions carefully without "posturing", "taste", "personal memories", "throwaway judgments"...
There is the opinion of the general audience who can and should express freely about their gut-taste because it's their feedback. And there is the opinion shared by critics as beacons for a larger public.
One film should not be judged through the prism of a one-time emotionally biased experience and universal conclusions drawn from this singular perspective for a diverse readership in taste and emotivity.
Movie reviewing is basicaly : "Don't watch movies I disliked, there is no way you can like them" or "I don't want anybody to enjoy movies that annoyed me" or "If you read me you must love everything I like to watch" or "As my taste is absolute truth, movies I deem to be bad should go bankrupt"... that's critics fantasizing to be taste-makers!

And as you say, the "professional critics" are very bad models for bloggers-wannabe-critics!

Why so much passion in the polarization around a film release (like if everyone had to be "with us or against us") while taking side doesn't matter? And so little interest for the matter of cinema as a dramatic art, the result of the hard work of creative people.

[Filmbrain]

Nice points Harry.

Something else which I'm running into more frequently are critics who, when attacking a film, will direct their criticism towards the audience, or even other critics, rather than the film itself. (I'm reminded of Armond White's review of The Squid and The Whale.) Even worse are those who attempt to place themselves "above" a film by simply writing it off as one thing or another (ex - "fanboy material"), rather than engaging it head on. Really gets on my wick!

[DEF]

But some things are just simply fanboy junk (like Catwoman). Unless someone respected finds something of value there, why waste the time? As with music, there is way too much out there to trifle over why something so obviously bad is bad, hence the lack of "head on" judgements re: trash.

I think Bordwell is right on with the lack of actual empirical evidence in the far greater majority of film writing that's been churned out over the last 35 years. While newspaper critics have merely become endless streams of adjectives (Hoberman is really to fault for this, but his writing is excellent), the ivory tower has become a battle ground for those with the biggest vocabulary. In the end, little of substance is gained.

[Tuwa]

I like this article and I think the author has some valid points. That said, I wonder about the inclusion of film blogging. Help me out here, because I'm more puzzled than anything else: is it meant to include people like you and Girish and Campaspe, who write continually, and almost exclusively, about film; or is it meant to be broader than that, including people who simply write about films sometimes in their blogs?

I ask because I fall in the latter category, and I don't know who my audience is. Mostly when I write about a film it's just because I find it interesting or provocative, and I use the site as sort of a convenient searchable somewhat impersonal journal. Sometimes I rot13 movie spoilers and sometimes I don't. My thinking on it isn't clear and my writings about film are, when it comes down to it, mostly for myself.

I imagine that this kind of writing--incidental writing about film in weblogs--must not be the prime concern of the article, or of your comments, but I wonder if maybe the medium is muddying the expectations a bit. That is, since so many people use limericks to convey a humorous situation, maybe it flies against ingrained habit to ask a classroom of poets to write a serious limerick explaining relativity.

It's quite possible I'm just biased by my early experiences with LiveJournal, which seemed to be used mostly by schoolkids writing about how bored they were. Maybe most film bloggers are more professional, or have a specific audience and purpose in mind. I'm asking because I'm essentially a curious outsider, a film lover who's seen not nearly enough and has essentially no formal training or even critical acumen.

Who do you see as your audience, anyway? And what aims are you after in writing about film?

I'd be curious what other (equally habitual) film bloggers think--flickhead, Campaspe, Girish, Peter....

[Slayton I. Mustgo]

Can I suggest "Canned goods as caviar" by Gerald Clifford Weales (out of print)? Looks at 5-6 1930s comedies (Bringing Up Baby, My Man Godfrey, Duck Soup, Steamboat Round the Bend...), with a combination of close reading, anecdote, historical/social context, and just plain loving appreciation.

Of course, I love 1930s comedies more than anything else, so...

[Zach]

To me Bordwell is basically joining at the hip two quite different worlds, one of academia and one of professional reviewing. I guess that 'film criticism,' in that it's something presumably more serious, something not consumer-driven, something written (generally) for a well-educated, film-interested reader, is a conjunction between certain interests of reviewing & scholarship. But film criticism isn't what 'reviews sections' are ultimately made for, nor is it what academia awards PhDs for.

Reviewing is a job that must sap incredible amounts of strength from someone. I don't envy any critics who are worth their salt, it must be very draining and discouraging. If you can make a living out of it at a place that doesn't compromise your words too much, great. But it's a worthless endeavor these days (since you can get any old hack to call any piece of hackwork a "timeless masterpiece" or "the funniest film in years") *unless* you try to assert your opinions in and interesting way and deal with real issues. It's what Rosenbaum, Hoberman, et al. do. Nine times out of ten, I'd say the reviewer's function is merely to act as an oblique shill--sell the idea of spending money on movies, but make it seem like it's a matter of taste & entertainment rather than the sheer corporate advertising that it is.

Academia is weird: it has plenty of trends and shortcomings and fashions of its own. I suspect the worst aspects of what Bordwell and his type deride as 'Grand Theory' are subsiding in academia, however--pleasure is no longer a Bad Thing, and that's progress, no? Bordwell is interesting because he's simultaneously a very powerful figure in American film studies as well as a very widely maligned one. And anyway, shouldn't he try producing the film writing he'd like to see? And I wonder how he feels about Gilberto Perez ... anyway, I'm rambling.

[Michael]

I might post about Bordwell's article (not sure yet), but for now I'll say that I hope too many film critics and bloggers aren't off-put by it because it's a rather shoddy piece of writing. And I think that you, Filmbrain, go a long way in your post in doing the kinds of things Bordwell should have done in that "essay." In essence, his piece is a series of extremely general premises, followed by extremely general conclusions. In reading his statements about academic theory, I kept asking myself, "which academics? Which film studies books? Which theories? What about the differences between them?" When he argues that film criticism in general is failing, I can only think, compared to what? Compared to essays by Auden? But the comparison only works if he provides real-world examples of the kind of film criticism that doesn't meet his standards. And when he argues about the poor nature of journalistic film critics, when he says that they do not offer information or nuanced opinions, he provides no examples, no evidence, and doesn't mention which critics, in which publications, or the specific ways in which criticism has or nas not changed.

I like the way you refer to specific critics and their work when discussing their passion for film and their ongoing engagement with film history and technique. That's what he should have done. As far as the subject of the discussion itself, I wholeheartedly agree that criticism is in need of repair, even of revolution, and I think the wonderful promise of the blogosphere is that it can either provide that revolution or, in the very least, inspire others to start one. So many of the film blogs I read display an implicit dissatisfaction with the state of mainstream film criticism, or at least are designed to engage with films in a different, more satisfying way; I find that in your blog, in Girish's, in Matt Seitz's, in Zach's, in Acquarello's, at Cinemarati, and other places.

I think what really hinders Bordwell's piece, though, is the fact that he's looking in the wrong place. If he's talking about newspapers, they're not designed to carry sustained, essayistic criticism. If he's talking about academics, he's far too general to make us think he's actually read any. What he's not talking about is what's in between: books by Seymour Chatman, essays by Phillip Lopate, the kind of criticism you find in non-academic arts journals, or in places like The New York Review of Books. And as you point out, he's not looking at blogs.

[Peter Nellhaus]

Since I get little feedback, I have to assume that most of my readers are people like myself who virtually live to see another movie.

At the time I left NYU in 1977 the buzzword was "semiology". From my point of view, film theory was getting extremely abstract. Articles seemed totally unrelated to the realities of film-making and even film viewing.

As far as conveying information and ideas without opinion, I don't think that's possible, at least in terms of any criticism worth reading.

[Dodd]

http://www.filmbrain.com/filmbrain/2005/04/gregg_arakis_af.html

[Filmbrain]

Tuwa --

I somehow doubt Bordwell had bloggers in mind, for I can't imagine him taking the time to read many (or any) blogs.

To answer your other question -- I don't have a specific audience in mind. As for purpose, I guess I try to concentrate on films that haven't been written about all that much, though I honestly don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. Obviously, I like to promote Korean films whenever I can, though I've been a bit lax lately.

Clayton -- thanks for the tip about the Gerald Clifford Weales book -- sounds interesting. I've just ordered it (as well as the Dwight MacDonald book that Bordwell mentions) from a second-hand dealer on Amazon.

Michael -- I guess I can understand why Bordwell wouldn't name names, though it certainly would have helped the argument a bit.

[HarryTuttle]

Filmbrain, I used to be like that, and blame everyone who makes, watches and recommends bad films... now I figured it's the way it is, the majority will always have bad taste. So it's useless to confront two worlds that are not seeking the same things in cinema. Besides bad blockbusters are what keep studios running, for the benefit of small gems sometimes.

What hurts film criticism is that most people think of it as one monolithic block, from ratings, capsule reviews, to academic essays. People make obvious what their preference is by opposing the uselessness of the other types... whereas their purpose/readership/use are totally distinct. (which is what Zach said too)

Relativism should prevail over hyperboles. It's ok to write a good paper on bad movies, as long as the point is not to define it as the best movie ever made. Conversely it's interesting to hear how badly someone FELT about a great masterpiece as long as one-time emotions do not call for absolute words like "worst film ever made".

Serious film criticism, by supporting judgements with evidences, keeps a certain level of relativism, so any reader can figure what is the range of achievement reached by the film within the larger scope of what has been made before.

Michael: "When he argues that film criticism in general is failing, I can only think, compared to what?"

Bordwell cites specifically Rivette, Sontag and Bazin.

Bordwell's credo is "ideas, opinions, and good writing" so opinions aren't excluded!

About "naming names", that's one advantage the blogosphere has on print journalism, there is no editorial pressure, or copyright incompatibility, or just competition that stops blogs to quote and namedrop, criticize openly and be subversively non P.C. with the establishment, Bloggers don't risk to lose their job or PR network. Blogs should restore the freedom journalism has lost, and unfortunately all bloggers dream about is to mimic what print journalists do (which is not even good journalism).

There are few good people out there, but what Bordwell addresses is the sprawling trend, popular figures who represent film criticism in the mind of the general public...

Hopefully his "hollow" article in cinema scope will open a debate, and critics will engage the issues he raised, get into details and list names...

[girish]

Oh, and here, in the same Cinema Scope issue, is a lengthy interview with Bordwell himself.

An interesting excerpt from it:

"Of the film essayists, I read anything by Tony Rayns and Donald Richie. Of the daily and weekly critics, I enjoy Ebert, Hoberman, David Chute, Manohla Dargis, and a few others. Probably the writer I read most regularly is Todd McCarthy. In fact, although I’ve dropped my subscriptions to virtually all academic and quasi-academic journals, I read weekly Variety cover to cover. I find Variety’s critics sensitive and subtle writers."

To answer Tuwa's question:

I'm sure every filmblogger's aims are different, but speaking for myself, I blog for three (selfish) reasons:

(1) Writing about a film is part of a process of thinking about the film: its place in various contexts (auteurist, aesthetic-historic, socioeconomic, etc), not to mention making sense of and articulating my personal response to it. Going through this process enriches my experience of the film.

(2) I value this process orientation of blogs. It makes experiencing and reflecting upon art a part of my daily life. It brings art and life closer together...

(3) I like the idea of being part of a cinpehile community on the web, maybe because I live in a relatively smaller city and don't know too many people here who share my cinephilic obsessions. To have multiple voices speak about art is much more interesting to me than a one-way critical discourse which makes for passive, not active, readers. Quite simply, I learn more about art by reading/discussing it with fellow bloggers, rather than simply reflecting upon it on my own, in isolation.

[Michael]

I think it's less a matter of naming names, and much more a matter of providing evidence. He wants to develop an argument, but he doesn't substantiate any of his impressions about film criticism or show where and how the charges he's levelling actually appear; it's therefore very difficult to take his conclusions very seriously (in a way, in his essay, he does exactly what he charges bad film critics of doing).

Harry, when I asked that question about what he's comparing film criticism to, I meant to say this: I realize he's comparing regular film criticism to Rivette, Sontag, Bazin, and others, but the comparison doesn't hold weight because 1) he doesn't provide any evidence about "bad" film criticism, therefore giving us nothing (beyond an exceedingly general impression) to compare Rivette, Sontag, Bazin, etc. against; 2) given that there are different forms of film criticism, he has to establish the various kinds more thoroughly and compare them appropriately.

So I agree with the sentiment; I don't agree with the sloppy execution. But it has led to a good discussion, and will undoubtedly cause many more, which is good.

And, Girish, I really like your reasons for blogging -- they're quite similar to mine :-)

[Alex]

I think there needs to be a change in form, specially with 'professional' film criticism (newspapers, magazines, etc.). It's all so formal. And I can't even bother to take a critic who calls something "boring" seriously. Unless the use of that word is justified by a precise logic relating to a specific aesthetic. Matter of fact, every single opinion must be justified by an elaboration of a logic supporting it. Otherwise there's no interest writing about it cuz I might as well ask my neighbor what he thought of this and that! Reading a critique must be educational and entertaining! Couldn't agree more.

[Flickhead]

Right now I'm in the middle of, a) polishing up my FerraraThon piece; b) watching about eight films with Angie Dickinson; and, c) critiquing a 1965 cheapster called Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster. Suffice it to say that the above discussion is way over my head.

[John Pitts]

I would say that essays such as Bordwell's and various past others primarily stem from a long-standing frustration amongst cinephiles, illuminated by Bordwell's words here:

Nearer to home, the other arts have given us essayists who write with full sensitivity to history and technique. Charles Rosen on music, Jacques Barzun and W. H. Auden on literature, Robert Hughes on painting—all provide not only vigorous opinions but little-known information and provocative ideas. We learn from them.

I don't think Bordwell necessarily abhors opinions per se, but the frustration behind his words is what I find of more importance. Simply put, movies as we know them have only been around for roughly a century. Fingers have been pointed towards the filmmakers, the audience, the industry, the government, and now the critics, but the fact remains that everybody with a passion of film has at one point or another felt the frustration in how the filmic arts lack the formal history that so many other creative mediums enjoy.

In my opinion, there is no way to change this. Things such as music and literature have been around exponentially longer than motion photography. Today, their artistic histories are more assumed than anything else, in regards to critiquing new works. Furthermore, the rigourous critique of artistic works has been as much as a bane than boon to the creative arts in general. How many times have great artists been ignored simply because their work did not stand up to the historically established forms of that day?

Bordwell should be celebrating how there are really are no established rules to filmmaking. It is becuase of this fact that critics are unable to critque in a formally scientific way, leaving us all to our opinions and nothing more. Expecting such a thing to happen to the filmic arts would be the equivalent to placing a permanent cast on a young animal that still has many years of maturation to achieve.

[Urbaniak]

Still, no one, as far as I know, is producing what I’d like to see.

Harumph. Bordwell is clearly unfamiliar with Neil Rosen's Big Apple Rating System.

[that little round-headed boy]

Can I admit that I've never even heard of Bordwell before this discussion began? I'm sure he makes some legitimate points, but I agree with the above poster who says his writing is so weak in and of itself that it casts doubt on his ability to make value judgements about other critics. I think we all sense that American film criticism just isn't important anymore in a larger, mainstream vein. But then, neither is mainstream American film. Which is why these blogs have come to be so important, I think. I really appreciate Girish's thoughtful comments on why he blogs. In the short time I've been reading all of you regularly, I have had the opposite reaction of Bordwell: I've gotten excited about films again, and film culture. I've been encouraged by all of you to widen my tastes, and I used to think they were pretty wide to begin with. It's good to see so many people writing with insight or just plain enthusiasm (I'm probably more the latter than former) on everything from obscure foreign films to the oeuvre of Angie Dickinson. Let's face it, the next Pauline Kael will be blogging, not working for The New Yorker. Why should that be viewed as disappointment instead of progress?

[Filmbrain]

True, Urbaniak, how could Bordwell not be satisfied with the factual and purely objective "half a wormy apple"?