Some comments on your "Personal Disclosure"
International Outlook. In adopting this outlook, I think the great danger is OVERCOMPENSATION. This commonly takes the form of rating small foreign films highly because they're small and foreign, and failing to recognize that the ordinary Hollywood products are often very well crafted as well as good entertainment -- and thirty years later turn out to be Douglas Sirk or whatever. An example: In Good Company, with Topher Grace, Dennis Quaid, Scarlett Johansson, et al. Some of the non-European films held up for admiration of late have seemed to me rather crudely thrown together. And naturalism and a low budget aren't justifications for that.
Cinema is a lot more than storytelling. Indeed it is, and I used to champion the purely "cinematic" or (my pretentious coinage) "filmic" in my college days and revile the New Yorker movie critic who wrote about every film as if it were a novel or a play. But you rightly say you respect viewers who enjoy a good story on film. That said, you need to admit that first of all, a movie without a story is unlikely to appeal to many people, and second, there are a lot of marvellous movies being made today that are primarily storytelling. Two examples: Li's Blind Shaft and Zvyagintzev's The Return. In fact, it is hard to claim any film that's other than a pure refraction of light and shape to be NOT "storytelling." Antonioni's L'avventura, for instance, may seem to be eventless, but in its own way it too tells a story.
I think this is a rich topic (it has been me to all these years), and we could get a lot more mileage out of the distinctions between movies and novels, plays, or poems; but very often a movie is another kind of storytelling, but still storytelling, done differently. I too wish more movies were more cinematic. But just having fancy flashbacks or special effects doesn't really make them cinematic. What does? I don't know; you tell me. Examples, please. (I really don't think you can talk about any of the arts without very specific, very tactile examples.)
What's New? "I place a great deal of value on originality." Yes, who doesn't? But originality is in the eye of the beholder. This is a hard quality to prove or identify. I think maybe what you mean is that you don't look for conventional crap. But something quite fine can be made within the confines of a strict tradition, and often in the arts this is the case, even though modernism favors the appearance of innovation above conventionality.
Query: In making this (excellent) list of principles, how sure can you be that these are qualities you find in film, and not simply qualities that you attribute to movies that you like, because in principle you admire such qualities?
Viewer as active participant Fine, but this is rather general. Any great art rewards study, invites interpretation, and does not reveal all its secrets at first view. However, I reject the notion that "difficulty" makes a movie more admirable.
Subjectivity vs. Values. I see some contradiction in these two. Don't you? But I translated this to my French teacher, and she said 'Yes, but contradition is necessary.' 'You mean because that's life?' I asked, and she said 'Yes, of course.'
I strongly agree that "most movies fall between 'mediocre' and 'good.'" Moderation is a good point, and critics are too generous with their praise and also conversely fail to recognize that a movie they don't think lives up to their standards may be good entertainment. But the hipper critics have usually recognized that there's lots of guilty pleasure to be had, and it can be had without guilt, actually. My friend JD is always recommending "good junk" to me, and sometimes I manage to let down my critical strictures and have fun at the movies, which I think Pauline Kael always thought was what should be happening.
Re: Some comments on your "Personal Disclosure"
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
International Outlook. In adopting this outlook, I think the great danger is OVERCOMPENSATION. This commonly takes the form of rating small foreign films highly because they're small and foreign, and failing to recognize that the ordinary Hollywood products are often very well crafted as well as good entertainment.
I'll be vigilant to avoid overcompensation. I'm a huge fan of the LOTR films for instance, and having a Top 10 exclusively for Eng. Language films ensures these get the deserved attention.
Some of the non-European films held up for admiration of late have seemed to me rather crudely thrown together.
I'm wondering what your reaction would be the more free-form, on-the-sly Jean Rouch films I watched at the MIFF. It's possible you may think of them as "crudely put together". The film that term calls forth from my memory bank is the Amerindie Charlotte Sometimes, a film you liked. Go figure.
Cinema is a lot more than storytelling. you need to admit that first of all, a movie without a story is unlikely to appeal to many people
The essay is only about figuring out what I like.
there are a lot of marvellous movies being made today that are primarily storytelling.
Yes, which doesn't contradict the statement: "Cinema is a lot more than storytelling".
In fact, it is hard to claim any film that's other than a pure refraction of light and shape to be NOT "storytelling." Antonioni's L'avventura, for instance, may seem to be eventless, but in its own way it too tells a story.
Agreed, and L'Avventura most definitely tells a story. The films that are not "storytelling", I propose, are the ones that truly deserve the label "art cinema". I'm thinking of Morrison's Decasia, most films by Stan Brakhage, etc.
fancy flashbacks or special effects doesn't really make them cinematic. What does? I don't know; you tell me.
Tough topic to discuss. A point of departure for a discussion would be the statement that the more a film communicates via images the more cinematic it is, the less dependent on the spoken word, the more cinematic.
originality is in the eye of the beholder. This is a hard quality to prove or identify.
Right, it's entirely dependent on each person's level and variety of experience with cinema. The concept "avant garde" is of limited use because what is "avant" varies from viewer to viewer. To most audiences, a relic like Bunuel's 75 year-old L'Age d'Or is still avant garde.
Query: how sure can you be that these are qualities you find in film, and not simply qualities that you attribute to movies that you like
It didn't occur to me to attempt to codify my esthetics until 2004, until I had spent 4 decades at the movies. The starting point was a look at the 215 films (and growing) or so I listed under a personal canon and to try to find patterns and commonalities.
Viewer as active participant. Fine, but this is rather general. Any great art rewards study, invites interpretation, and does not reveal all its secrets at first view. However, I reject the notion that "difficulty" makes a movie more admirable.
Right on both counts. I don't find anything admirable about films that are obtuse and impenetrable. Then again, a few that appear that way after one viewing, end up being films that "reward study", allow for multiple, valid interpretations, reveal their richness gradually. If "difficulty" made a movie admirable, then Godard would be better represented in my personal canon. His most recent films appear to be getting more accessible.
Subjectivity vs. Values. I see some contradiction in these two.
I never wrote "vs.". I mentioned values in the subjectivity paragraph, and decided to expand the discussion of values in the next paragraph. It's more like 4) and 4a).
I manage to let down my critical strictures and have fun at the movies
Me too. But there's all kinds of fun, no?
