Critics vs. Bloggers, Chapter 387: The Cineaste Critical Symposium

Some months back, I was asked to participate in a symposium for Cineaste entitled, Film Criticism in the Age of the Internet. I was both honored and thrilled to have been asked, for I'm certainly no stranger to the subject. As those who know me well can attest, pour a few drinks in me and I'll blather on and on about it all night. The issue (Fall 2008) has finally gone to print and should be hitting newsstands any day now. (Perhaps subscription copies have been sent, for I've already received an extremely angry email about my Diablo Cody comment.)

Reading through all twenty-three pieces, it seems that the gap between the old guard and the new media is closing, but still has a way to go until completion. Even among the online-only critics there is that tendency to play the "I'm-getting-paid-for-it" hierarchy game. Oh well. The introduction to the piece mentions Armond White's tantrum from a few months back, and goes on to say that one goal of the symposium is to "chip away at some of the hyperbolic rhetoric exemplified by White's jeremiad." There's more than ample evidence contained within to disprove Armond's blanket charge of anti-intellectual pinheadedness.

Most of the old-school critics claim that they rely on the Internet more for research than for actually reading about film, yet there's still room for a bit of name calling (narcissists, bottom feeders) and to bring up the old chestnut about our not having editors. Still, all manage to find some good things to say about the blogosphere, and the only truly contentious comment comes from Amy Taubin, who claims that the Internet has marginalized traditional film culture. (There's a fascinating subject for debate!)

Time magazine's Richard Schickel's piece is probably the closest to being controversial in that he claims that, with the exception of James Agee, pre-1960 film criticism was "largely the work of dullards and time-servers." (Take that, Otis Ferguson!) Surprisingly, there are a few points where he and I are in complete agreement; namely that critical opinion no longer has the capacity to affect box-office receipts as it once did (a point I also raise in my piece), and, more importantly, that The Visitor is indicative of American independent's cinema's demise into "faux serious sentimentality." (Granted, that has little to do with the subject at hand, but I'm still getting beat up for my singling out the film in my screed on the dumbing-down of non-Hollywood films.) Schickel ends his piece with a provocative statement -- great criticism requires great art, and we're hardly in a golden age of cinema right now. I'll have to chew on that one for a while, but I do believe he might be on to something.

Of the critics whose rise predates the Net, Kent Jones, Jonathan Rosenbaum and Glenn Kenny are three who best understand (and have accepted) the changing dynamics as a result of this new democratization, and all three have much to say about the participatory nature of the medium.   

My humble contribution reiterates a point I've made elsewhere -- that all camps need to stop the finger pointing and band together to ensure that the art of genuine film criticism remains alive, particularly now that the syndicated capsule review and/or clever marketing piece has become the primary go-to resource for most people. Collectives such as The House Next Door are, in my opinion, the first step towards building a community with a commitment to the cause, as it were.

Yet for all the differing opinions on the subject, there is one thing nearly every participant agrees with -- without the tireless efforts of David Hudson at GreenCine, we'd all be running around the Net like a bunch of headless chickens.

Complete list of participants: Zach Campbell, Robert Cashill, Mike D'Angelo, Steve Erickson, Andrew Grant, J. Hoberman, Kent Jones, Glenn Kenny, Robert Koehler, Kevin B. Lee, Karina Longworth, Adrian Martin, Adam Nayman, Theodoros Panayides, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Dan Sallitt, Richard Schickel, Campaspe, Girish Shambu, Michael Sicinski, Amy Taubin, Andrew Tracy, Stephanie Zacharek.

Update: Girish alerted me that the entire symposium is now available online.

Comments

[Steve]

Can you really defend a guy who cites THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY and MA VIE EN ROSE as examples of the sorry state of foreign-language cinema? I'm not even sure Schickel knows that the former was made by an American. Has he seen any fllms by Pedro Costa, Arnaud Desplechin, Claire Denis, Johnnie To, Hong Sang-soo, Bong Joon-ho or Jia Zhang Ke? His citation of THE VISITOR suggests a continuing pattern: judging a niche by its most popular offspring. Again, maybe he'd think differently about the state of Amerindie cinema if he saw FROWNLAND, DAY NIGHT DAY NIGHT and MOMMA'S MAN.

[Filmbrain]

I'm not defending Schickel overall, but I am impressed that the critic for a mainstream publication like TIME would be critical of THE VISITOR, especially when just about everybody else was gushing over it. For that matter, I agree with him about DIVING BELL (which I was no fan of).

As for the foreign filmmakers and indie titles you mentioned, I'd hardly expect the TIME critic to pay any attention to them, sad as that is.

[cinecatastrophe]

Regarding your Diablo Cody comment: that was a joke wasn't it? (Or at least with tongue firmly planted in cheek?)

[MovieMan0283]

The "I'm getting paid for it" hierarchy is also code for the "I made the right connections, met the right people, had the right amount of luck and the right background for it" hierarchy. I expect (and hope) the same disruptions and defensiveness to extend into filmMAKING in the years to come, as low-budget cinema moves beyond the world of You Tube and even the strictures of indie traditionalism (only a certain kind of style or story) into a wider-embracing, wider-reaching, and probably far more interesting field than is currently being covered by American movies, mainstream or otherwise. This will threaten the people who used natural advantages, good suck-up skills, and/or dumb luck to carve out an exclusive niche for themselves. The revolution is coming, folks...put me down on record as seeing it on the horizon, though I don't know what form it will take.

[Filmbrain]

cinecatastrophe -- I'm not sure I follow. Are you referring to the comparison I made in the piece? If so, no, it's not a joke. Cody's screenplay Oscar is unquestionably the single most offensive award ever given by the Academy. It's a knife in the heart to every talented (or even half-talented) screenwriter.

MovieMan - Viva la revolution! Unfortunately, this time it most probably will be televised, and podcasted, and twittered, etc.

[joe]

so Schickel wrote that all criticism before 1960 other than Agee was crap? I'm inclined to think that he knows about Farber, and certainly Bazin, which then makes me think he's an idiot.

also, this whole backlash about the internet is ridiculous. it seems to me that the internet is the best place to go for criticism, and that's what i hear a lot of from other people as well. for my money David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson's site is the best place to read anything about film on the internet, plus here, rosenbaum's site, dvd beaver and others.

and why is white blasting ebert for not coming up with a theory or idea all his own. what has he come up with? from what i know he's simply added more white noise to the auteur based criticism obsessed only with finding meaning in films.

[cinecatastrophe]

Leaving aside one's feelings about Ms. Cody's talents as a screenwriter (about which I am in full agreement with you), stating that "[l]acking a proper sense of history, they are to criticism what Diablo Cody is to screenwriting" seemed to be an example of the behavior you described in the previous sentence: "[e]ven more troubling is the critic who feels the need to play the contrarian and/or trade in snark; lobbing semiclever witticisms replete with PoMo posturing in lieu of any critical method." (The self referentiallity would make the snarky comment PoMo.)

Or so it struck me at the time.

[Richard Porton]

Dear Filmbrain,

Just a note to inform you and your readers (or should I say "Internetters?") that the Cineaste Critical Symposium is now available at our web site: www.cineaste.com

All the Best,

Richard Porton

[Filmbrain]

Well, yeah...in that regard I guess I am guilty of folding my argument in on itself. But then again, it just seemed like an apt comparison. To me, JUNO isn't a screenplay -- it's a PoMo project that, not too many years ago, wouldn't have stood a chance at finding funding. You've got a handful of characters that all speak in a single voice -- that of Ms. Cody. In fact, you could chop of that screenplay, reassemble it at random, and you'd still pretty much wind up with the same film. Its care, concern, or acknowledgment of films that came before it is of no interest to its creator, and I often feel that way when reading some of those critics.

[Tom Russell]

My wife and I finally saw JUNO just this past week, and until reading these comments, we honestly thought we were the only two people on the entire planet who hated it. Glad to know we're not losing our minds.

The Best Original Screenplay Oscar and its nomination for Best Picture (!) had me retching-- until I remembered that "Oliver!" won Best Picture in 1968 when "2001" wasn't even nominated. Or that "Ordinary People" beat out "Raging Bull" and "Elephant Man", "Driving Miss Daisy" topped "My Left Foot", "American Beauty" triumphed in 1999 when the best films of that year-- "Magnolia", "Fight Club", "Being John Malkovich", "Three Kings", "Eyes Wide Shut", "The Straight Story"-- didn't even warrant consideration. (Hell, even that year's "Elmo in Grouchland" showed more nuance and depth than "American Beauty".)

Of course, no one can say with any kind of authority what film was the best of a given year-- tastes differ, and that's what makes art interesting. But, in this man's humble opinion, the Oscars are more often than not celebrations (if not validations) of mediocrity.

Ultimately, though, time will be the fiercest and most unrelenting of critics; when was the last time anyone saw "Oliver!"? Just as "2001" will live on long after "Oliver!" becomes a footnote, "Juno" and its screenwriter will fade in memory and significance, while films written by writers and directed by directors possessing a modicum of actual creative talent will remain.

=*-*=

The thing that really bugs me about Juno, though, more than the fact that it's merely a mediocre and poorly written film that won an Oscar? The thing that really bugs me is the way it was shoved down my throat by the media as "the little movie that could":

"You have to support this! It's an independent film, directed by the son of the guy who did Ghostbusters starring cast members from X-Men, Daredevil, and Spider-Man. It's totally indie, man! The kind of thing they could never do in a studio!"

Ugh.

[mike]

so what are a critics credentials supposed to be?

-a cinephile? really only means that you've seen a ton of films, not necessarily that you know anything about them. chances are you will, like say dave kehr perhaps, but in the end it doesn't guarantee that you can speak intelligently about them other than your personal opinions.
-a journalism or English major who's seen a few films? i think this is where a lot of critics fall into and we can see how well those basic credentials are working.
-A degree in film? i don't think this is some immediate qualification either. it gives you some knowledge of technical and background info, but again, does that make everyone of them film critics?

i think you really just need to read a person, and if they know there stuff it'll be apparent. if they don't, dido. the best thing would be to have some mixture of all three of these, but again, i don't think there are some basic credentials that give you critic status and "worthy" to speak on the weeks releases.

[Filmbrain]

Mike --

If you're being paid to write about films, I do expect that you come equipped with the necessary vocabulary to write about them. That doesn't mean you have to be a hardcore cinephile with encyclopedic knowledge (a la Glenn Kenny), but you should be able to watch, say, a Tarantino film and understand where he's coming from (or who he's stolen from.)

But then again, part of what makes critics like Kenny, Rosenbaum, Hoberman and Jones so brilliant is precisely the history they bring to each review. It's not that they try to impress by name-dropping reference points, but their writing is informed by the years they spent sitting in darkened rooms.

Take the case of Michael Atkinson. Love him or hate him, the man does know his film history. He was fired from the Voice, and replaced with a group of young critics, some who bring little more than an impressive writing style and a healthy dose of "confidence". (My god, I'm beginning to sound like Armond!) But to their defense, how much actual criticism can you squeeze into 250 words?

Ditto for Glenn at Premiere.

I'm not being an ageist here -- there are plenty of young writers (eg. Zach Campbell, Matthew Clayfield) who are churning out some of the most thought-provoking criticism in any medium. What they have is an incredible passion for cinema, a credential I've always felt was critical (and I don't mean fanboy-type obsession.)

A journalism and/or cinema studies degree does not a critic make. I'll take a poorly written piece that moves me, or makes me think, over a writer doing his or her best to impress me with their style and/or intellectual rigor any day.

[Israel Vonseeger]

When a 16-year old pregnant girl is the smartest character in the film you know you have a problem. It did feel like a badly written one-woman show. And Diablo Cody reminds me of that annoying person you meet at a party that everyone else seems to adore; which is the same problem I had with this film. Honestly, I felt like I was defending a child molester with some of these "Juno" people. The artificial, pedantic, unfunny, misandrist who would claim to have been unpopular in high school because she had 50 friends and not a 100. Hello, has anyone heard of the “geek” Tamara Jenkins, she's was nominated for the Oscar too but I know enough about these award shows to know that she isn’t going to win a popularity contest.

Here’s what Ms. Cody’s new film is about: “A newly possessed cheerleader turns into a killer who specializes in offing her male classmates.” Wow, can’t wait for “Ted Bundy: the musical,” except that film is never going to be made because misogyny isn't quite as sexy.

Also, I hate it when people say "Juno" or any number of "independent" films was the movie that nobody wanted to make... really? Then where did 7.5 million come from and why is 7.5 million still considered independent when filmmakers are maxing out their credit cards making far more interesting films than the "cute movie about the pregnant teen who talks crazy like the kids do nowadays."

Oh and by the way a professor of mine admitted (And no one has to believe this btw) that one of her close friends who she would not name had heavily doctored the “Juno” script along with a group of other screenwriters. Not to say that it did any good, it still sounded like shit but it does say a lot about Ms. Cody and the way the film was marketed.

[MovieMan0283]

Filmbrain, I confess a pang of regret at the demise of exclusively, or even mostly, big-screen moviegoing (though a rather hypocritical pang, since I about one movie in theaters a month). But that era has been dying for a long time anyway, and would fade away with or without an accompanying increase in quality. I fully expect the gatekeepers to bemoan the demise or "real cinema," however...the same hypocrites who've participated in a system that diluted it for years.

Anyway, I have to confess I still don't know what a "twitter" is.

[Peter Nellhaus]

I've only started to read the Cineaste article so I can comment on it overall, but in regards to Amy Taubin, what is meant by film culture? Not that it is the same thing but between the advent of the internet and DVDs, at its best one gets a much broader view of what kind of films are made, and who's making them.

[mike]

i completely agree with what your saying about style and content. to read criticism for "prose", whatever that means, seems besides the point. isn't that what fiction is for anyway?

someone like Anthony lane has been praised for style and writing talent, but I'd rather read plenty of other people before him. and the stuff i read most of the time seems like pretty straightforward stuff as far as writing go's.

i wasn't really trying to say that a critic needed to be a film major, English major and Cinephile to write about it though. it's hard to really categorize what a critic needs to be.

you'd hope they'd be passionate, or else why would they want to do it for a living? but maybe some just fall into it, and don't really care.

but passion alone can't be it. plenty of people love movies, but that doesn't mean they aught to be writing about them. it's hard to talk about this stuff without sounding snobby or ridiculous, so I'll just stop now.

[mike]

i agree with you when it comes to content over style completely. prose and style seems besides the point when it comes to criticism.

i finally read Armond White's article and have to say i found it annoying. this idea that movies are only good if they can make us feel human again, and have deep ideas about life, politics, religion, and other stuff is so tired. i know his article is about criticism, but his ideas about what films are supposed to be are essential to the type of writing he wants.

he seems to want almost exclusively ultra serious films and ultra serious conversation about them. Doesn't seem slightly elitist to say that none of us should be able to voice our opinions? cause apparently we're uninformed and don't know how to think.

in my opinion he's devaluing movies. "meaning" and so forth are one aspect of a movie. how bout style and form, acting and editing, and etc. no, there apparently unimportant. what a bunch of bologna to come out and say he values movies more than others when he obviously only likes one part of them.

[mike]

sorry about double posting, but i didn't think the first one got posted.

[Campaspe]

I seldom disagree with you on this topic, A., but while you state that everyone managed to say some good things about the blogosphere, I don't see that Taubin did. I don't mind that, as her years of critical thought, writing and experience give weight even to comments most people would disagree with. It did annoy me, however, when she added that she expected to be martyred for speaking her mind, thus rendering anyone who went on the Internet to disagree part of a vast crowd of sniping bloggers. If she read more blogs perhaps she'd know that the bloggers included in the symposium, as well as the other blogs discussed, don't generally disagree for the schoolboyish "pleasure" of it; they do it because disagreement is part of film culture, too.

[Filmbrain]

Campaspe -- It's true that of all the participants she was the most dismissive of bloggers. At the same time it's interesting that two of the bloggers she mentioned by name (Ed Gonzalez, Michael Joshua Rowin) both write for sites that are known for their, well, cranky and/or contrarian stances. (I'm not passing judgment -- both are great writers, but it's no secret that they're part of a tough crowd.)

Perhaps this is why she feels we're all cut from the same cloth?

As Peter points out above, I do wonder exactly what she speaks of when she mentions the "film culture" that the Internet has supposedly marginalized.