« Critics v Bloggers Redux (Or: I've heard that song before...) | Main | Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 16, Week 3 »
On the other hand...
| You know....when you receive constructive criticism from friends on multiple continents, it's probably a not a bad idea to take a step back and conduct an assessment of what you've written. Friday's post on the critic/blogger wars of the early 21st century was fueled by handful of factors, some relevant, others less so, and was written in haste at the end of long week full of setbacks, disappointments, and frustrations. Reading Tom O'Neil's Sunrise review was the proverbial straw that broke....you know. Over the past few months my interest in film criticism has surpassed that of watching films. Perhaps it's due to how mediocre I find many films these days, or simply a result of seeing too many. Regardless, I've been trawling second-hand book sites for out-of-print volumes on film criticism that I've wanted to read for years but never did, including works from Dwight MacDonald, Raymond Durgnat, Charles Barr, and Otis Ferguson. The mini-epiphanies I've been experiencing from their writing has intensified my sensitivity to shoddy criticism (my own included), which is why I've become frustrated with the counter-productive ad nauseum arguments raised at these symposiums on film criticism. For while those with talent and skill are busy pointing fingers and fighting turf wars, people like Tom O'Neil and Luke Y. Thompson continue to flourish. It's disheartening to say the least. Yet as a friend from England pointed out, for all my repeated calls for responsibility and professionalism, I was somewhat guilty of being neither in Friday's post. I wasn't present at the Moving Image Institute, and for me to formulate conclusions based on second-hand information that is itself laced with subjective interpretation wasn't befitting of a blogger trying to disprove blogger stereotypes. Don't get me wrong – I'm in no way knocking anything Karina wrote, but for me to use her interaction with A.O. Scott as a jumping off point isn't the strongest foundation to build an argument upon. An acknowledgment that hierarchies exist doesn't necessarily equate to an embracing of the status quo. I still hope the day arrives where we all can truly get along, and band together against a common enemy, but for the time being I need to chill out. I think a walk in the park followed by a heavy session of some comfort films (The Blues Brothers, Bande à Part, Goodfellas) will make me right as rain. |
April 20, 2008 in Film | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345163ca69e200e551ee25c48833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On the other hand...:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I've enjoyed your site for a while, and these recent posts in particular. And while I understand the reason for your clarifying post today, I thought Friday's post was quite thought-provoking and well-intentioned. It made me realize that when I want serious film-criticism, I actively seek out certain writers, all of whom are online. And it also made me realize that I NEVER seek out Tony Scott - I may happen to read him simply because he's in the NY Times film section. While he has enjoyed a built-in audience from day one, sites like this one have attracted an audience of like-minded film lovers through (what a shock) good writing. When viewed this way, the hierarchy (whether Scott actually subscribes to it or not) is rather laughable and ironic. My apologies if this comment runs counter to today's peace offering - just an observation that your post on Friday helped me to crystalize, and I thank you for that.
Posted by: Romaine Monotony | Apr 20, 2008 1:57:26 PM
I am not sure what your correspondent wrote, but nothing about your post or your linked comment seemed at all untoward to me. It was quite clear you weren't present yourself, and if there is some way you or Karina misrepresented what Scott said I don't see it. All blogging is a conversation, to some extent. There was a conference that built on themes you'd brought up before, and you continued the conversation. If Scott isn't talking back to Karina or you (yet) that is his loss.
Or so it seems to me, from my unpaid blogging position in the subbasement of the Grand Cinematic Critical Edifice. :)
Posted by: Campaspe | Apr 20, 2008 3:21:12 PM
I beg to differ, Filmbrain.
We agree that it's a disingenuous attitude to build an opinionated rant with only a partial knowledge of the situation. Of course. It's preferable to avoid such speculative judgments. But...
the thing is that everybody does! How could journalists do otherwise when "truth" is never accessible in integrality. Look at Tom O'Neil! He saw the film like us (or so we are led to believe), but does he have as much right to assert his taste as others who saw more than he did in the film? I'm not convinced that everyone who attended the seminar paid enough attention, or understood all the references alluded to, to be entitled to give a report that will please all the guests in the panels. Criticism will always make someone unhappy. And this argument the attendees push in order to keep the discussion on the debates within the closed circle of attendees might sound understandable and ethical, while in fact it's just an attempt to suppress cross-examination.
There is such a thing as reasonable assumptions. If they don't like us to comment on things we never heard first-hand, fine, we'll just argue with hypothetical issues in general, without citing anyone in particular.
The key here is that what they talk about is not their property, it is a situation everyone is part of and facts that everyone is aware of. It's not like what is discussed in those private meetings deals with top-secret revelations. Moreover, we don't care who says what, as the guests are not the subject of the matter. They comment the situation just like us.
What you talk about in this post is putting into question the role of journalism and the freedom of opinion as appropriated by the blogopshere. In short, we have the right to be wrong! (just like the journalism establishment can)
Obviously I'm not advocating slander, misinformation and deception. But the idea to reserve the right to comment to people who allegedly detain "the whole truth" is denying the alternative liberty that flourishes on the internet.
The greater issue (as long as there is no unforgivable errors in the assumptions that allow us to further the discussion) here is to open a forum of free discourse, to let spontaneous reactions spark and nurture each other. We can give up this haven of critical thinking. Print critics are as opinionated and assumptive as the best of us, this is not a reason to silence constructive, thought-provoking, provocative, subversive criticism.
We can't wait to be perfect ourselves, to get the right to denounce the imperfections we see in others. This is the pyramidal scheme again. Criticism can only come from top to bottom, never the other way. So once one reaches the top, voices from below shall be dismissed, and only voices from above should be feared. Sorry but this is bullshit. Not only the establishment pyramid shouldn't self-proclaim who is right and who is wrong, but it gives power to undeserving people. Since they all stick together, and refrain from criticising each other, who is daring to say the emperor is naked then?
If journalism had high standards, I would rely on their self-criticism. Unfortunately, we can see many evidences the check and balance is not respected by all.
There is nothing in your last article that could be a counter-argument to discredit the responsibility you profess. And even Glenn Kenny, a print critic, was more aggressive and less polite than you.
Posted by: HarryTuttle | Apr 20, 2008 5:16:13 PM
That's "former print critic" to you, good sir Harry; while I'm still visible in certain print vehicles, my primary venue is a website w/blog that's no longer supported by a print publication.
Not that Tom O'Neil, with whom I've had cordial personal relations (not that that's gonna last) really invited politesse with his weirdly pathological ravings. But I did not call him an a-hole. Nor would I.
But more to the point—Brain, as much as I'm one of those people who say you can't comment on a film unless you've actually sat through it, I think you're being too hard on yourself. Insofar as Karina's quotes were accurate, I think you were not unjustified in pondering Scott's "my house/your house" reflections—and I yield to no one in my admiration of Scott as a critic and a person. Hashing out the extent to which these particular hierarchies are viable is going to, I think , determine the useful future not just of film criticism but of all arts criticism. I've long railed against Jeff Jarvis, the Dr. Pangloss of the blogosphere, and his pronouncement that the blogosphere has made "everyone" a critic; by the same token, I think that the idea that a big media outpost in and of itself defines a moat between the anointed sages and the great unwashed is equally myopic. Hence, your wish that the truly thoughtful abandon their hierarchical attachments and join to fight a common enemy is in fact a consummation devoutly to be wished...so I don't think that wish is ever something you should second guess. Keep the faith!
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | Apr 20, 2008 7:55:36 PM
Excellent points, Harry (as always). You're absolutely correct about our right to reasonable assumptions, and believe me I'm all for (as you put it) "constructive, thought-provoking, provocative, subversive criticism."
However, if we are discussing or criticizing the divide between old/new media and critics/bloggers, I think we have to be careful to separate individuals from institutions.
You're right about the mentality of the pyramid structure, and there definitely are those who hold firm to the belief that criticism can only come from the top (I can think of a certain magazine editor, for example.) I'm all for challenging these people on their opinion, but I shouldn't ride the coattails of someone else's confrontation.
It is somewhat telling that, at least according to the reports from the attendees, Karina's questioning of A.O. Scott was apparently the lone confrontational moment. (Personally, I have some harsher questions for several other of the invited speakers.)
As for Glenn (who is a friend as well), one of the reasons I admire him so much is for his willingness to expose the emperor in all his naked glory (time and time again). But unlike those on thrive on manufactured snark to maintain readership, Glenn has plenty of substantive material at his disposal to adequately defend his position. (And when he doesn't His Lovely Wife(tm?) is there to tell him so.)
Posted by: Filmbrain | Apr 20, 2008 8:52:27 PM
Glenn,
I should have used "less polite" in air quotes, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment to contrast the restraint of a blogger (which is a counter-example to the situation we criticize). I certainly don't reproach anything you said in your post, I loved your courage to tell it how it is. Every "established critic" (if not printed) should show as much independence of opinion!
Reviewing a seminar (opinions) is NOT reviewing a film (artistic creation)! It's wrong to review a film without having seen it. But commenting politics, social issues, economical problems, ethics of journalism are universal topics that belong to everyone. This private panel doesn't invent something unique that only exists in THIS seminar.
And frankly, we don't need to point finger at anyone in particular. Even if the panellists haven't been misquoted, I don't hold grudge against them. The crisis is larger than this chosen few. And it's not one assertion that ruins someone's established reputation. Just like this clueless Tom O'Neil... it's not his fault if his editor greenlit his narrow-minded, narcissistic rant. Now he believes his subjective taste has been approved by the establishment... Hopefully he'll see the light someday.
I disagree with that one thing AO Scott said (if that's what he actually said), but I'm in no way calling for his resignation. Hopefully we can engage with this issue in a civilized manner and develop its implications. He is free to prove us he's not as "conservative" as we might perceive.
Filmbrain,
Girish latest post makes a powerful point about specialists v. generalists :
"Film-thought need not be left solely to specialists. Cultural works like films ‘belong’ to the community at large and blogs allow that community, via a cost-unconstrained mechanism, to generate and disseminate discussion about cinema."
If "experts" keep culture from the amateurs just because they didn't see as many films, read as many books, or were not born earlier than them... then the next generations will not be able to apprehend their culture once all the old experts will be dead. Let's keep the dialogue opened between generations and level of expertise (as long as everyone knows to stay in his/her place). We know that sometimes the experts are also debunked by some Young Turks who dare to defy the long-lived establishment. It won't be the kind of Tom O'Neil, but it's still interesting to listen to what generalists have to say to offer new vantage points ;)
Posted by: HarryTuttle | Apr 21, 2008 8:05:10 AM
I'm fairly certain my quotes were accurate. No one who was actually in the room, including Mr. Scott, has suggested otherwise. But I'd be the first to say that everything I wrote from the Institute––like everything I write on that blog––was in no way objective and was totally infused with not just opinion, but emotion (an embarrassing amount of the latter, I think, but what's published is done). I didn't think there was anything inappropriate about Filmbrain's earlier post, but I can understand that some would see a grey area when it comes to riffing on such a subjective report.
Posted by: karina | Apr 21, 2008 12:47:00 PM
I want those books...
Not badly,...... i only read some quote by otis ferguson...
i mean, it didn´t give me an epiphany....but still...
anyways, it will be impossible for me to read that and you don´t know how envious i feel right now....
of course, the disheartening mood of this post makes me feel well again...
Posted by: gmail | Apr 21, 2008 2:24:51 PM
I'm late to the party as usual, but I just wanted to second Harry's point about not needing to feel inhibited about riffing off second hand information if only for the sake of bringing an issue sharply into focus, as you have with both this conference and the last one.
I also think it would have been great to have had you as a panelist, as a blogger-turned-distributor you have a very unique view of both the culture and the industry of specialty cinema. As it was I felt there was a bit of disjointedness between the critic panels and the distribution panels - perhaps if there had been some intermingling of the participants there might have been more of a dialogue generated, and a more macro level understanding of what handbasket we're all headed towards.
Posted by: alsolikelife | Apr 22, 2008 5:24:06 PM
FB, I'm going through a similar spell with criticism right now, where I often find reading the work of certain film writers more inspiring than many of the movies they're discussing.
In a time when the definition of what constitutes a critic is forever morphing, I'm perhaps most energized by writers who aren't traditional critics per se -- from bloggers (like yourself) to "editors" (like Richard Brody, whose weekly front-of-the book New Yorker capsules are infinitely more adventurous, thrilling, and film literate than the work of that publications traditional two "critics") to programmers (like James Quandt in Ontario, who imparts more knowledge about film history and real world experience in his program notes than even most alt-weekly full-timers can manage in thousands of words).
These best bloggers (e.g. Dan Sallitt), editors (Mark Peranson), programmers (Jed Rapfogel at Anthology), and academics (Michael Sicinski, Girish Shambu) -- who operate largely outside the realm of traditional daily print criticism -- aren't merely piggybacking off the work of filmmakers, but are instead opening another world and starting a new dialogue. The best directors use life simply as a jumping off point; the best critics use their primary texts (the movies themselves) or secondary ones (the writing of others) as a catalyst to a much grander, and far more important, discussion.
Posted by: wells | Apr 23, 2008 1:25:36 PM
i've often been left with the impression, over recent years, that people that watch films / write about them would benefit from being involved in another creative interest as a way of seeing how different fields vary in how they treat the ownership of information, handling of progression of the understanding, and the relationships between pro and amateurs... for me, well, i've been interested in music for an awful lot longer that i've been able to be more dedicated about my interest in films : in music, i think people (despite how things always vary) have more of a habit of collectively wrangling out the pros and cons of work as it appears from a much more individual perspective, and they'll decide between themselves how things sink or swim, and despite how we'll end up hanging around similar things, digging into what people actually connect to or discussing what's been purchased and experienced shows people being much more willing and able to stand their ground. perhaps this also has something to do with how much more freely you can navigate music purchases, how we can gain a more varied set of lessons without having to head to another countries output, and how we're more engaged by something that not so inclined to be easy to take as a one-off experience as a film more often seems to be?
okay, so they're not obviously different worlds at first, but through my experiences, my reading of stuff written online, film seem to have developed a distaste for trying to apply individual interpretation (and gaining the skills the do so, through experience or learning interpreting and selectively taking from others experience) and more of a taste for trying to apply what's gradually grown the be "accepted" as successful, artistic, worthwhile in very general terms. this seems to happen whilst something similar is being don to what's dismissed, derided or generally not considered acceptable. people perhaps never quite have the courage or conviction to be determined there has to be a more individual application of how to interpret positive or negative reactions to a piece from what someone else has written. at least, i've a harder time feeling i can avoid being bombarded with people stating that the dominant opinion is the one to be accepted, that there's films beyond reproach and never openly to be disliked, or that there are films never to be taken as anything other than entertainment whichi might ultimately be taken as art by another audience, despite how films manage to gradually gain different reputations in a slow-mo fashion over time. until, that is, oddly, someone somewhere manages to find themselves so determined to stand-up for something that all concerns about a backlash fade into the distance and they find the atypical courage to just stand up and say "it works - and this is why", at which point a whole load of other people suddenly find themselves in agreement.
i do find it much harder (with film) to see an understanding of how creativity works, the odd places it can be found in, more than i find it easy to see people willing and able to say that things taken as indicators often are nothing more than suggestions taken as solid evidence for a certain kind of required tone, approach or style given as being either creative, artistic, or deep that denotes something as being worthwhile. it's odd, given that a more niche taste should be stating you're determined to find work more suited to you as an individual, because unless there's an individual progression in the confidence to select things out that suit you - and all the skills that will help this be decided upon, and the skills to argue your corner - then how can we be certain we actually need to be looking so hard for stuff? i think writers, pro or otherwise, need to at least be able to acknowledge or attempt to combat what often appears to be rather sheep-like behaviour, and instead of feeding us fish, helps others to learn how catch fish for ourselves...
...or perhaps i need to stop hanging around online so much, where ideas are unfortunately often quite simply expressed...?
Posted by: logboy | Apr 24, 2008 3:41:57 AM
