Nyff 2009

[Chris Knipp]

Everyone Else Probably I should have rerun that as a forums thread and then you could have responded directly to the Filmleaf Festival Coverage review. I assume you did read it though you don't respond to it, or to the many reviews that have appeared recently since it's been in theatrical release. * No, you restrict yourself to academic publications now and, it appears, have begun producing them yourself. Good for you. Press and industry response when I saw it seemed to be lukewarm and some thought it meandering and self-indulgent, but I found it pretty involving, like you. I commented on the "wonderfully natural acting," "continually interesting to watch," and said the "calibration is subtle, as with Jane Austen."

And that is all in my first paragraph! Any comparison with Jane Austen is as good as it gets as far as I'm concerned. Yet I didn't include this among my choices of the festival's best -- because as you may recall i tended to focus on some of the more provocative items -- WHITE RIBBON, HADEWIJCH, ANTICHRIST, and TRASH HUMPERS. Why exclude EVERYONE ELSE from that list? Well, apart from the fact that it doesn't knock you off your seat, there is the point I also make, that while "it's impossible not to conclude that Ade is doing something right, and has trod familiar paths but avoide""d cliche. She just needs to develop more faith in the value of the cutting room." We're justified in expecting good, maybe great, things from her in the future.

____________
*(In NYC anyway, from April 9; and then it was shown again at the SFIFF April 25.) Metacritic rating 74.

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE=Chris Knipp;24435] Everyone Else: I assume you did read it though you don't respond to it, or to the many reviews that have appeared recently since it's been in theatrical release.
Right, I read all your reviews. I do respond to some. Other times it is more appropriate to write a comment that doesn't directly refer to your review. I don't usually deal with reception issues, either public or critical, involving new releases. I definitely cannot respond to "many reviews that have appeared" because I have only read Hoberman's and yours. I am also not inclined to casually write anything disagreeable about a review. In this case I might argue with your opinion that Everyone Else's director "needs to develop more faith in the value of the cutting room". My instinct tells me that something would be lost if anything is cut, perhaps a certain authenticity or quotidian balance of tone, a certain dailiness. But perhaps you are right, perhaps a more concentrated cut would give it vitality and sprightliness. Also, I could question your assertion that men are more likely to find Everyone Else "self indulgent and interminable". But, hey, you may be right. So I don't knock it.

No, you restrict yourself to academic publications now and, it appears, have begun producing them yourself. Good for you.
Thanks Chris. I am very excited about presenting at conferences because of the potential to get immediate response from people from around the country (and the world really). Usually your audiences are people who have special interest and expertise in the topic and the discussions that follow are very constructive. It is exciting and scary to deliver a paper to a room full of Japan scholars and "Mizo" fans, for instance, as I will do in November.

[Chris Knipp]

Well there! Now I've gotten a direct reply out of you. And you've brought out the only place where we differ on EVERYONE ELSE. What I said about men being more likely to find it "self indulgent and interminable" is only anecdotal. I didn't do a survey. But I did hear as well as read opinions at the NYFF and afterward. On the other hand, obviously the response has been very favorable. Metacritic rating: 82.

Beware of reading only my reviews and Jim Hoberman's! But I meant not that anybody needs to read every review of a film, just that one needs to be aware of what is going said, which is a different thing. I was perhaps only myself aware of one review when I wrote mine last year, Derek Elley's for Variety ("fuzzy filmmaking of the worst sort. An extraordinary choice for a competition slot at Berlin, pic is headed nowhere"). That, plus some negative men's views I heard at the screening, gave me a skewed picture. I was then somewhat surprised and, I guess, pretty relieved, when the many other quite favorable ones came out following the US theatrical release, with only a tiny minority even mentioning the advisability of editing; most saw the minute detail and rambling structure as necessary virtues. I try to consider faults of even the best movie and vice versa, though sometimes I forget.

Listening to the Truffaut/Hitchcock interviews in all their minute, film-by-film detail, I am more and more struck by how often Hitchcock himself -- a man of such firm confidence, forthright speech and decided opinions -- admits to failures and mistakes in his work. (He seems to think far less highly than recent writers of VERTIGO and thinks it had the wrong lead actor, but that's another topic to be discussed elsewhere). When even Homer gladly admits to nodding, I'm the more ready to consider flaws in the work of a young director.

Good luck with the Mizo experts. I hope it's not like a sea full of sharks, that you find some friendly dophins in the waters. And I'm glad you're sticking with this site and hope you can continue to contribute to it.

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE=Chris Knipp;24438] I was perhaps only myself aware of one review when I wrote mine last year, Derek Elley's for Variety
I like to watch movies not knowing about critical response. It's easier to do at festivals.

Listening to the Truffaut/Hitchcock interviews in all their minute, film-by-film detail, I am more and more struck by how often Hitchcock himself -- a man of such firm confidence, forthright speech and decided opinions -- admits to failures and mistakes in his work.
Beware of taking Hitch at his word. One central aspect of his personality is the need to theatricalize himself. This is what motivates his famous cameos, his performances introducing episodes of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents", his appearances in commercials and all kinds of promotional events and, most importantly, his use of the camera in a way that calls attention to the sly presence behind it. When Hitch talks he is constantly aware that he is performing and calculating the effect of what he is saying. Hitch was short, pudgy and plain-looking but he made himself a star.

Good luck with the Mizo experts. I hope it's not like a sea full of sharks, that you find some friendly dophins in the waters.
Thanks. A shark might say that Mizoguchi is no feminist; that showing the suffering of women serves the patriarchy because it engenders sadist fantasies in male viewers and masochistic fantasies in female viewers, or something along those lines. It is good to imagine possible counter-arguments ahead of time.

And I'm glad you're sticking with this site and hope you can continue to contribute to it.
I'm a loyal bitch!

[Chris Knipp]

I like to watch movies knowing everything it's possible to know about them, including the critical response and, of course, any information reviews may provide about the film and the filmmakers. The notion that one will enjoy something more if one approaches it as a tabula rasa, in ignorance, seems puzzling to me. Very often even at festivals one is able to be informed and of course at press screenings press kits are usually provided and the more diligent of us try to peruse them beforehand.

Yes Hitchcock was certainly a performer but the fact remains that in the interviews he readily admits mistakes and failures and does so quite voluntarily. Have you heard the interview tapes? Or read the famous Truffaut book? I never had. Its effect must be somewhat different.

I would hope that you stick with Filmleaf not because you're a bitch whatever that vulgar term means in this case but because it's worthwhile to you and to us. i realize this is practically my personal website half the time but that's by default and not my desire.

[oscar jubis]

I do research only after the screening and only read a couple of reviews. There are exceptions usually involving the few films I find... exceptional.

Long ago, I read the first edition of the Truffaut/Hitch book and found it interesting but frustrating because Truffaut never challenges Hitch's assertions. He is no Pete Bogdanovich. I am not so keen on Truffaut as a critic either, by the way. And yet, it is interesting and worthwhile reading. To know Hitch one should read William Rothman's "The Murderous Gaze" and Robin Wood's "Hitchcock's Films".

Writing challenge: write a paper meant to be heard rather than read. It is a totally different dynamic. If I use too many foreign words (Japanese first names for instance) I lose the attention of the audience. Sentences must be shorter, right, so people can follow without too much effort. I am going to write as usual and then simplify, abridge, and clarify as much as I can. Have you ever written a speech? I have not.

I intend to keep this thread alive. How about Mother? Obviously we agree this is nothing special. Certainly less involving and moving than Memories of Murder (#25 Foreign, 2005), which was not quite a great movie. In general, the Korean boom evinced a robust industry but no director I consider a major talent or artist. No Hou, "Joe" or Jia among this bunch. Hong Sang-soo, which you mention, is the single Korean director I know who merits consideration among the truly great. I also love the films of Jin-ho Hur.

[Chris Knipp]

I understand what you do; so? Repeating that is not an argument. Of course it's more worthwhile researching "exceptional" films but the more you know the more you can appreciate and/or judge, and that could just as well go for GET HIM TO THE GREEK. It helps to brush up on Apatow and on Russell Brand. Ignorance is not an aid to viewing or watching. After you've been an academic for a while, you might reconsider your assumptions on this matter. It is because of my own academic background and coming from an overeducated family that I consider preparation valuable at all times. Probably going to a college where a lot of the students were much smarter than me also helped. Of course approaching with an open mind is also important. If you can't do both, prepare and keep an open mind, you're out of luck.

Well, you were the first one to recommend Korean filmmaking to me. Maybe Hong Sang-soo indeed is the best from a western-oriented point of view but I'm sure there are others. Park Chan-wook's films are mind-boggling. The Koreans know how to create a lot of intensity. Sometimes as with Mother it doesn't go anywhere much. I am not yet in love with "Joe." Jia and Hou are also a mixed bag, though at their best they are magic. Maybe "Joe's" magic will hit me eventually. So far it mostly just seems fey and weird. The one I'd say the Koreans definitely can't yet touch is Wong Kar-wai.

I would not trash the Truffaut/Hitchcock tapes on the basis of a criticism of Truffaut as a critic in general or by saying he doesn't challenge Hitchcock. Actually, in the tapes, he is polite, of necessity, but he often challenges him and I'm struck by how frankly he points out certain films were not a success, were a reversion to relatively trivial material, and so forth, and Hitchcock agrees. Truffaut is not Bogdanovitch? Maybe not, but Bogdonovitch didn't do this set of interviews. So what? I am more interested in what the tapes reveal of Hitchcock's approach. There are plenty of directors I find more exciting or intriguing. Hitchcock was more an enthusiasm of my youth. But in terms of basic technique and clarity of form, Hitchcock is hard to beat, and the interviews help us understand why. Needless to say, you cannot critique the tapes on the basis of Truffaut's book, because they are almost certainly different, though I haven't read the book or read a comparison of the two.

I always write to be read aloud. If you haven't been, it's high time you began. If you're talking about Japanese movies you may have to use Japanese names. I'm sure anybody who comes to hear you is ready for that. The very first writing I did that was a success. I read it aloud to the class. Every sentence was a zinger. They were short. They got more and more laughs. It is of course a good idea to go back and cut up your sentences. I have to do that too. I have a friend in England who has pushed me to do that. My academic writing was never written in academic-ese. Maybe that's why I'm not an academic any more and never really was for long. Good writing "to be read silently" or to "be read aloud" ought not be a different "dynamic." Both should be clear and not require the reader or listener to need to go back over earlier sentences to make out what you're saying.

--
www.chrisknipp.com