Critics' Darlings: The Films of 2003

Criticism is so subjective. Most of it is the intellectual maturbation of the egotistical film enthusiast who feel their opinion is so important as to have an impact on the reader.

I come to this web site to gain knowledge about film from you people, never to criticize either your comments or most films. I used to read The New Yorker magazine because I liked Kale's opinion, not because she helped guide me to see or not see a certain film. I am constantly amazed at the wealth of film knowledge presented in this forum.

If I ever hit the lottery, I will send you all first class tickets, put us up in the Waldorf, where we will spend a week doing nothing but going to movies and discussing film. I would certain walk away from that experience with nothing but being the most blessed human on the face of the earth. Continue your contributions gentlemen, I am at school here, because I am enriched by every comment made on this site.

I agree with you that criticism is subjective. If it weren't it would be empty and mechanical. But I don't agree to the masturbation part, especially if critics are people (as you say) "who feel their opinion is so important as to have an impact on the reader. "

Masturbation has no impact on anybody else.

That was the intellectual kind, not the physical kind...

There is objectivity, Chris, as opposed to subjectivity. While I feel a short story or novel would sound empty with total objectivity, a review is supposed to be "reporting journalistically". The license of modern journalists has been completely stretched out of proportion, however film criticism seldom takes anything objectively into context other than what the reviewer had for lunch, or if they had a fight with their spouse prior to the review. I've even had critics tell me they wouldn't write a good review because they didn't like someone's body of work. What's that all about?

Here I become bombastic: Filmmaking is the most complex form of storytelling there is, involving hundreds of people, taking thousands of hours from start to finish. People are too quick to dismiss a film based on what they are "feeling" at that moment. Sometimes, it takes two, three, or even four viewings of a film to understand or appreciate what the filmmakers are trying to say, or even how they are saying it. You'll NEVER hear a critic say they saw the film more than once. NEVER! Sometimes I feel like critics have bigger egos than the stars or directors they so frequently dismiss so easily.

I was only quoting you: "Criticism is so subjective". I agreed, and now you're saying it's objective. I can't keep up with you. Now you are saying that the "intellectual" kind of "masturbation" does have an impact on other people? Then the analogy doesn't hold very well, and perhaps one shouldn't call it "masturbation" but just "holding forth."

You seem very upset about film critics. I'm sorry. They're a varied lot, but I think it's safe to say that for the most part they're doing their best -- with wildly varying degrees of success, to be sure. I personally enjoy reading and writing film criticism. I wish it well. My world would be a great deal poorer without it.

"Filmmaking is the most complex form of storytelling there is, involving hundreds of people..." --Here again, we have to make a distinction. That is one kind of complexity, only a physical, numerical kind. I can't really agree that Homer or Jane Austen are less "complex" in their storytelling than Ridley Scott! Filmmaking is a popular art, and as such it has to submit to popular treatment, which can be superficial. When you enter the fray, you have to accept that.

It's not true critics don't mention seeing films more than once, and I've been surprised by that lately, especially considering that Pauline Kael never saw a film more than once -- which disproves your assertion, since her ability to discuss details of the films she'd seen was matchless.

If you're good at what you do, it may, it just may, come more easily, and to think that a critic must see a film four times to understand what's going on is to vastly underestimate the critic and overestimate most films.

www.chrisknipp.com

There is an element of subjectivity in film appreciation. What the viewer brings into the experience plays an integral part. A responsible critic has developed self-awareness about predilections, biases and such and discloses them openly. Allow me to get personal for purposes of illustration.

Consider Masked and Anonymous, a film co-written by Bob Dylan and starring Dylan as a fictional legendary musician released from jail to perform in a benefit concert. If I was to review it, I would certainly mention that I consider him a poet of the highest order and that I recently spent $56 to watch him perform. I would point out that those who dislike his writing style and world view may not forgive a couple of incoherent scenes that simply don't work.

Consider the British/German co-production Buffalo Soldiers, about the shenanigans at a US Army base in Germany circa 1989. I found this irreverent satire/action hybrid quite entertaining, but I would certainly not recommend the films to Americans not in the mood to watch comedy at the expense of our military.

My favorite film of the year, along with The Son, is Sokurov's Russian Ark. A critic who respects his readers would take into account that many filmgoers are just looking for stories and point out the film does not offer what you'd call a narrative. It's a one-take tour of L'Ermitage Museum in St. Petersburg while an unseen narrator and an aristocrat discuss art, history and politics.

Awareness of self, disclosure, and respect for the reader are essential elements of good film criticism.

You have some good points here. But surely a love of Bob Dylan shouldn’t blind you to incoherence in movie scenes that he’s in. Let’s distinguish between “appreciation” and criticism. "Appreciation" can be pure passion; "criticism" calls for the balancing effect of reason. It's when these two qualities come together in a powerful balance that you get a great critic.

The best movie critics are unpredictable. "Awareness of self" certainly is essential in any walk of life, particularly in any kind of writing in the arts. But "disclosure" isn't a word that I'd emphasize here. Too many personal anecdotes to explain one’s “biases” paint one into a corner or imply that one is flatly predictable. An accumulated body of reviews is enough evidence of “biases” in a critic. Good criticism surely is all about transcending those biases – while still remaining true to one’s gut reactions.

There can be biases that if hidden are pernicious, such as a simple bias in favor of a certain Hollywood studio or production company. But that’s just to say that some critics are crooks or toadies, and doesn’t help us here.

I gave my preference for narrative structure as a reason for not responding very enthusiastically to Russian Ark. But I certainly do like movies that lack a strong story line sometimes. The fact is I just found Russian Ark boring. That was my gut reaction. Searching for a reason, I gave the lack of a story line. Perhaps I ought to have just said it bored me.

I'm sorry if you wouldn't have the courage to praise Buffalo Soldiers out of fear of offending patriotic sensibilities. Your point of view on such matters is particularly needed right now. Fear of public disapproval shouldn't govern critical writing.

I repeat, film criticsm is not an exact science. It's an art. It's not masturbation and it's not a legal deposition.



www.chrisknipp.com

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Fear of public disapproval shouldn't govern critical writing.

I repeat, film criticsm is not an exact science. It's an art. It's not masturbation and it's not a legal deposition.
www.chrisknipp.com [/B]

---

I am not a film critic (yay!!!) and I don't know if I would want to be one. There seems to be an awful lot of pressure...
I certainly don't let disapproval govern my comments. (I sense you share this sentiment, Chris).
Being liked is nice, but you have to stay true to yourself-damn the torpedoes. There have been many opportunities in my life to be what other people want me to be but I never gave in. That's why I'm flying solo- commitment and I are not bedfellows.
This site allows me great freedom to speak my mind about movies. Freedom to say this:

How can an established artist like yourself be bored with Russian Ark? You of all people should be shouting from the rooftops the genius of Alex Sokurov. And where is your head on Greenaway?
I want to hear your thoughts on Jarman. Are you a single-minded painter, are you influenced by any other men with brushes?

Dali? Picasso? Cubism? Surrealism? the Renaissance? What is the essence of Knipp's art?

I'm glad we agree that a critic should be willing to stand alone.

To think that I must like Russian Ark because I am an artist seems far fetched.

As a person who made first student films, and then worked on productions in Los Angeles, I bristle at film criticism. Its not that I feel its unjustified, because we all want to be liked or have certain faults pointed out in order to better ourselves. Its just that some people seem to delight in "tearing down" another's work of art. Many people in the "industry" don't consider their work a business, but more an art form. Commentary on the other hand is welcome on all fronts. We learn from commentary; from criticism, we just create enemies.

It only takes one person to write a book and maybe another to edit it. However, a film takes hundreds of people thousands of hours to create a final product. To compare film with literature is to say that a hamburger is similar to hollandaise sauce on braised asparagus... both are cooked food, aren't they? While Marcel Proust is not a hamburger, neither is "The Godfather". But I would be a poor artist to say that one form of storytelling is better told than the other. It's just that Proust did not have two hundred people come to his home and dictate their experiences to him. Film is far more complex on just this level alone. Complexity in this sense does not imply a level of intelligence, merely intricacies involving the input of many thoughts and ideas on one end product. However, an automobile, while intricate and made by hundreds of people, is far from what I would consider an art form. Arguably, a mechanic would tell me otherwise. I guess that makes me a critic.

I didn't know you were an artist, Chris. Painting? Or filmmaker? San Fran was filled with artists when I used to fly up there on the weekends in the 70's.

If you prefer the term "commentary" to "criticism" fine, but surely movie reviews exist, and they are criticism as well as commentary, and some filmmakers like them, especially when they're favorable and perceptive. "Criticism" doesn't necessarily mean being critical. It can mean praising. And then it makes friends. To think of "criticism" as something negative that only tears down and "makes enemies" is a mistake.

I'm not sure the involvement of more people in producing a work of art makes the work itself more complex. And what does it matter? Complexity is of many different kinds, and is not a value in itself, and as you yourself point out.

Comparing literature with film is only a rough approximation, but they always and increasingly have a relationship with each other, sometimes a close one.

"Proust did not have two hundred people come to his home and dictate their experiences to him." An interesting thought. Actually, figuratively speaking, he did. At least he put a great many people and their experiences into his books.

It's doubtful that we can grasp anything more complex than a single human mind. But I'm not sure what the issue is here.

My recent artwork is shown on my website which I keep advertising here but nobody seems to go to! There you will see what kind of work I do, and also my writing.

www.chrisknipp.com

Chris, many thanks for your comments (or criticisms, pick your poison) and presence on this site- you usually give me a lot to mull over...(an extra thanks for the personal messages)


We all share a love of film on varying levels, and none of us is wrong given our own universes.


As a friend of mine e-mailed me the other day: SOL INVICTUS and keep writing to beat the band....

Thanks for the positive feedback.

I have enjoyed our recent exchanges very much. I don't think I'm criticizing anybody here, not mostly anyway. I may be arguing from time to time.

Some more Latin (though I don't entirely subscribe to it, as you can very well see):

DE GUSTIBUS NON DISPUTANDUM (EST).

www.chrisknipp.com

Two new additions to the metacritic list that opened this thread:
Richard Linklater's mainstream comedy The School of Rock and the award-winning American doc Love and Diane, about a Brooklyn 40-year-old mom's struggle to regain custody of her 6 kids after rehabilitation from drug addiction.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I'm sorry if you wouldn't have the courage to praise Buffalo Soldiers out of fear of offending patriotic sensibilities. Your point of view on such matters is particularly needed right now.

I characterized Buffalo Soldiers as "quite entertaining" in my brief comment. A review would expound on how and why I found it such fun, without using it to propagate my political views. I would want to give the viewer the information needed for him/her to decide whether to spend $10 and 2 hours on this film. Call me p.c., but it's not my money or my time.

You told us a few posts ago how you "felt badly misled by David Denby's review of Thirteen" and how he gave you "no inkling of how unpleasant this film would be to watch". Maybe an oversight, maybe Denby being "egotistical"(cinemabon), assuming that just because he liked the film, you would too. Certainly not the way a critic gets his readers to trust him.

This is a good point, I think, about the critic's job--that in addition to giving his own personal, gut-reaction-based, opinion, he should perhaps give the reader enough of an idea about what the experience of the film is to warn us of hazards he himself may choose to overlook.

I still think perhaps you're a bit too timid about playing the role of a critic, which should include being willing to buck convention and step out on one's own. This isn't a matter of waving your politics in anyone's face but of fucusing truthfully on how the movie struck you -- and being willing to try to convert others!

But this problem with Thirteen may just be my fault for not reading Denby's review carefully enough. I see now on reexamining the review that right at the beginning of it he wrote, "The audience may suffer..." and its last paragraph begins "This jiggling, frenzied movie never lets up...'Thirteen' makes one uncomfortable" he continues; and he speaks of the viewer's "unease." I allowed myself to become lost in Denby's enthusiam, in his calling it a "living, breathing movie," "emotionally coherent" and "brilliant." The warnings were there. I must take full responsibility for not seeing them.

Oscar... fyi... Winged Migration will be on DVD next month. I still haven't seen it, but I see where the release date is 2001. I know you recommended it for this year, and I read many of the posts on this site, but I assumed it was new.

Chris I checked out your site... loved the linear art; enjoyed your political views, and hope you had a great time in Venice. The subjects of your B&W photography are rather bizarre to say the least. Tires in the trunk of your car? Mine in photo school, however, weren't much better. I chose tops of trees. I liked the way they make abstract shapes in the winter time, their twisted branches against the stark gray skies.

Your film commentaries are vast and extensive. I read several. I understand your propensity toward criticism now and withdraw any objections I may have overstated. I still don't like most of the bums... I'll make an exception with you and Oscar.