« NYFF Review: I'm Gonna Explode | Main | Moonlighting (and struggling) »
Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 17, Week 8
As many of you noticed, this wasn't the first time I used Claude Sautet's César et Rosalie for a screen capture quiz. Though I make best efforts not to, I had little choice but to use the film again given the limited theme of the round. Mea maxima culpa.
Far too few of Sautet's films are available in the States, particularly titles from the 70s (his finest decade), which includes his greatest film Les Choses de le Vie. Though much lighter, César et Rosalie is no trifle. The three leads (Yves Montand, Romy Schneider, and Sami Frey) have remarkable onscreen chemistry, and Sautet finds the perfect balance between comedy and drama. See it if you haven't.
A quick aside: Though I try to refrain from criticizing other critics, I feel I have to say a few words about Rex Reed's recent "review" (if you can even call it that) of Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York, which appears in The New York Observer under the title Could Synecdoche, New York Be the Worst Movie Ever? Yes! Rex tears into the film for nearly 1000 words, yet not a single sentence can be considered actual film criticism; in fact it's little more than endless name calling. This is the type of writing that even a blogger wouldn't be able to get away with -- it's on par with an IMDB comment. For the life of me I can't understand how the Observer editors could allow this to be published. (Rex admits to leaving the film early -- he really should recuse himself from reviewing it.) How is it that this sad, racist (remember his Oldboy review?) whiner manages to maintain a career as a film critic when talented writers are getting axed left and right? This piece is a new low in film writing.
It doesn't bother me that he didn't like the film -- there have been other negative reviews that, though I disagree with them, at least apply some sort of critical method -- but Rex simply engages in ad hominem attacks on Kaufman. Perhaps the film's theme of encroaching mortality was a bit too much for old Mr. Reed?
This week: the penultimate shot of a film partly set on the beaches of Brittany. It didn't make a huge splash here in the States or at home, though its lead actress did get a César nomination for her perforance. Name it. Submit your answers to this address. Good luck!
October 22, 2008 in Film | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345163ca69e2010535a223df970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 17, Week 8:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Well it looks like Reed dove into his thesaurus for some colorful writing. Judging from the comments, you're not alone in wondering why Reed is trying to pass off this rant as film criticism.
Posted by: Peter Nellhaus | Oct 22, 2008 10:57:50 AM
I thought the review was kind of funny, though admittedly it didn't tell me WHY the movie was terrible, and hence was as self-indulgent as Reed alleged Kaufman to be. Wasn't there a movie in the late 60's where Rex Reed jerked off onscreen?
Anyway, to change the subjec, I've got a political/election series going at my blog if anyone wants to jump in and start a discussion. Reed-like rants welcome if that's what it takes to enliven the currently moribund comments sections.
Posted by: MovieMan0283 | Oct 22, 2008 2:58:52 PM
I believe the proper rejoinder to Mr. Reed is, "Sit down, man, you're a bloody tragedy."
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | Oct 22, 2008 3:08:10 PM
If you think Reed's rant is ridiculous, feast your eyes on Armond White's clipped takedown, where he finds Kaufman's film wanting in light of the cinematic genius of Max Payne. Seriously, is Armond White for real? And if he is, can't one of you NYC people punch him in the nose? Just once. He needs it.
Posted by: C.O. | Oct 22, 2008 3:38:20 PM
Dargis' rave is just as self-indulgent and completely non-nutritious as film criticism. (She reads like Reed in a good mood.) While were fantasy-firing Reed, can we fantasy-fire that half-wit too?
Posted by: john john | Oct 23, 2008 7:39:23 PM
I had hoped Dargis would have something compelling to say, but she doesn't. It's great that she loves the movie, but I didn't get a sense of why. Her review and Reed's pretty much function as mood rings, and that's it. Also, Dargis and the chick who replaced her at the LA Times both go on and on, almost identically, about Borges. Did they get the same cheatsheet?
Posted by: Jody | Oct 24, 2008 2:38:39 PM
I'm sorry, why do we give a shit about Rex Reed? Was there ever a time that his criticism was relevent?
Posted by: Phil G | Oct 24, 2008 4:38:37 PM
I think Phil has a strong point re: Rex Reed and John John & Jody re: Dargis. Part of my feelings regard Dargis, however, stem from a review in which she basically decried the ready availability of digital equipment, thus allowing impoverished filmmakers (such as myself) to, um, be filmmakers. Apparently we should all know people in the business or have lots of money instead; the possibility of anyone picking up a camera and making a movie is a no-no. So, my opinions about her and her review style are frankly compromised and biased.
Since C.O. mentioned Mr. White, I'd like to share a theory that I have: Armond White is practicing a strange form of Dadaist comedy the likes of which haven't been seen since Zippy the Pinhead. For him to say the things he says-- the truly weird things, such as, as C.O. alluded to, "[Kaufman's] unimaginative imagery never comes close to the magnificence that visionary director John Moore creates in the turbulent tableaux of Max Payne"-- he either has to be joking or he has to be completely insane.
And I don't think it's the latter; I've read some of his liner notes for DVD releases and he seems, therein, to be perfectly capable of sane, measured, and perfectly serviceable if not entirely insightful film criticism. Ergo: he is sane, which means the only possible answer is that he's having a Kaufman-esque joke on all of us.
The Kaufman in this case, of course, being Andy.
... Or maybe he just really, really hates his job, but it would be more financially advantageous to him to be dismissed rather than quit. And so, much like Damon Wayans in BAMBOOZLED, he's just pushing it as far as he can.
Though I have to wonder, just as Filmbrain does, how jokes like White and Reed continue to be employed while smart and insightful critics, such as Glenn Kenny and John Monaghan, are out of work?
Posted by: Tom Russell | Oct 24, 2008 9:59:02 PM
Dana Stevens of Slate offers a thoughtful, measured essay that affirms her respect for Kaufman's body of work, inventories the successful elements of his latest film, and in the end admits disappointment with it. If I were able, I might come up with something like it. Some Canadian scribe penned something similar, but now I can't find it when I scour Rotten Tomatoes.
Meanwhile, in the overstated vituperation sweepstakes, Owen Gleiberman is holding his own against Rex Reed, having apparently called Kaufman insane: "The compulsion to stand outside of one's life and observe it to this degree isn't the mechanism of art -- it's the structure of psychosis."
Posted by: john john | Oct 26, 2008 9:54:28 PM
"Armond White is practicing a strange form of Dadaist comedy the likes of which haven't been seen since Zippy the Pinhead"
I'm keeping this one.
Agreed about that stupid digital equipment comment. Do you know what review she wrote that in? I'd like to read it and see if it's boneheaded as it sounds.
Posted by: MovieMan0283 | Oct 29, 2008 7:39:48 PM
