|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 15, 2018 9:41:13 GMT
The worst is obviously Rex Reed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2018 19:29:20 GMT
I love Moira MacDonald of the Seattle Times.
|
|
eliuson
Junior Member
Posts: 273
Likes: 55
|
Post by eliuson on Jan 20, 2020 18:44:06 GMT
Bump Grundlez has just brought up so many great film critics, I'll add some more that to my knowledge, are great as well. Love: Holly Willis (Filmmaker Magazine) Adrian Martin (Lola Journal) Michel Ciment (Positif) Bertrand Tavernier (Cahiers du Cinema and Positif) Daniel Fairfax (Senses of Cinema) Nicholas Page (The Big Picture) Edward Lawrenson (Sight and Sound) Chuck Bowen (Slant) Brad Stevens (Sight and Sound) Jordan Cronk ( Reverse Shot) Marc Lauria (Senses of Cinema) Annie Dell'Aria (Moving Image Review and Art Journal) Bert Rebhandl (Frieze) Angelos Koutsourakis (Senses of Cinema) Simon Rothohler (Cargo Magazine) Kent Jones (Film Comment) Catherine Grant (La Furia Umana) David Cairns (Mubi) Josh Cabrita (Mubi) Doug Dibbern (Mubi) Craig Keller (Cinemasparagus) Kim Morgan (New Beverly) David Thomson (Film Comment) Ian Christie (Sight and Sound) Maximilian Le Cain (Senses of Cinema) Rouzbeh Rashidi (Experimental Film Society) Dean Kavanagh (Experimental Film Society) A.S Hamrah (n+1) Jacques Ranciere (Sight and Sound) Volker Pantenburg (Austrian Film museum) Fernanda Solorzano (Letras Libres) Maria M. Delgado (Sight and Sound) Joanna Di Mattia (Senses of Cinema) Lee Hill (Senses of Cinema) Scott Foundas (Variety) Jim Ridley (Nashville Scene) Anne Billson (The Guardian) Quintin (CinemaScope) Howard Feinstein (Filmmaker Magazine) Daniel V.Villamediana (Transit) Geoff Gardner (Senses of Cinema) Aaron Cutler (Slant) Marsha McCreadie (only for her essay on Fassbinder for Senses of Cinema) Ryan Khran (Aufhebung) Dominik Kamalzadeh (Kolik Film) Mallory Andrews (Cleo Journal) Andrew G. Gilbert (Screen Machine) Neil Young (The Hollywood Reporter) Jon Frosch (The Hollywood Reporter) Travis Jeppesen (Artforum) Alberto Saez Villarino (El Antepenultimo Mohicano) Olaf Moller (Film Comment) Stephane Delorme (Cahiers du Cinema) Sergio Huidobro (Revista Iconica) Tara Judah (Desistfilm) Tristan Pollack (Desistfilm) Isaac Leon Frias (Desistfilm) Jonathan Romney (Film Comment) Richard Porton (Cineaste) Geoffrey O 'Brien (Film Comment) Tony Pipolo (Artforum) These are a few too many that I read on a regular basis. Hoping it helps you all to get more into what truly is film criticism.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,271
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Jan 20, 2020 23:35:53 GMT
Manohla Dargis, Roger Ebert, Jonathan Romney, Fernanda Solorzano and Kim Morgan.
Although i like to read the likes of Reed, White, Brody, Cousins and have a laugh
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 21, 2020 5:45:13 GMT
Become a huge fan of Ehrlich (which is to say that he's probably been my favorite critic for two years now, if only because he's more accessible and prolific than Morgenstern who I continue to love). Scintillating writing, delightfully snarky. The epitome of liberal Letterboxd criticism (presumably what pisses ppl off about him) and handily Indiewire's best contributor.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 21, 2020 12:56:46 GMT
Become a huge fan of Ehrlich (which is to say that he's probably been my favorite critic for two years now, if only because he's more accessible and prolific than Morgenstern who I continue to love). Scintillating writing, delightfully snarky. The epitome of liberal Letterboxd criticism (presumably what pisses ppl off about him) and handily Indiewire's best contributor. oh my god bro hahahaha
|
|
|
Post by stinkybritches on Jan 21, 2020 14:18:40 GMT
Become a huge fan of Ehrlich...delightfully snarky. The epitome of liberal Letterboxd criticism (presumably what pisses ppl off about him) and handily Indiewire's best contributor. yes, that's accurate...and you think all this is a good thing??? Da fuck, lol. yea, he epitomizes the worst aspects of letterboxd alright. he's terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 21, 2020 18:24:23 GMT
Become a huge fan of Ehrlich...delightfully snarky. The epitome of liberal Letterboxd criticism (presumably what pisses ppl off about him) and handily Indiewire's best contributor. yes, that's accurate...and you think all this is a good thing??? Da fuck, lol. yea, he epitomizes the worst aspects of letterboxd alright. he's terrible. Definitely don't see why it's a bad thing. Letterboxd is the only film-based social media platform left that hasn't been infested with trolls or fanboys. What's supposed to be terrible about it?
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Jan 21, 2020 18:44:19 GMT
Lost faith in critics years ago. They lost credibility the second they turned into political commentators. These days I depend on the good people of the 'Classic Film' thread for recommendations and insight - Mattsby, pacinoyes and the rest of the gang. Great writing on a daily basis, it's free, and it's all film talk, no BS. Occasionally you find stuff on Letterboxd that's very good, too. What I want is for pacinoyes to write a book or two on film acting. Need it in my library
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 21, 2020 18:55:35 GMT
Lost faith in critics years ago. They lost credibility the second they turned into political commentators. This is the kind of blanket criticism I've never understood. Most critics aren't expressly political, only implicitly so (the way more people are, and can you blame them in this fuckin climate?). Films have never been just about craft, and films which are only craft are not the ones that last or are worth making, and it's not how people approach films in the first place. For myself I try to openminded but I tend to take the stance that one can't separate the art from the artist (because the artist's identity and experience will always inform their art) anymore than one can separate a film from the culture in which it was created and consumed. Movies are political. That perspective always belongs at the table and now more than ever.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Jan 21, 2020 19:38:29 GMT
Lost faith in critics years ago. They lost credibility the second they turned into political commentators. This is the kind of blanket criticism I've never understood. Most critics aren't expressly political, only implicitly so (the way more people are, and can you blame them in this fuckin climate?). Films have never been just about craft, and films which are only craft are not the ones that last or are worth making, and it's not how people approach films in the first place. For myself I try to openminded but I tend to take the stance that one can't separate the art from the artist (because the artist's identity and experience will always inform their art) anymore than one can separate a film from the culture in which it was created and consumed. Movies are political. That perspective always belongs at the table and now more than ever. I'm not saying it's wrong to have a space for that conversation. It's great that that kind of conversation exists. The more types of analysis and the more approaches there are, the better. It's fascinating to watch something like Lang's M, for example, and link it to the political context at the time. Heck I'm all for making interesting connections and interpretations. But there's a tendency to politicize everything these days and that's where the conversation becomes deadening to me. Sometimes people act as if the films themselves are irrelevant (not everyone is like this obviously). I reject the idea that art is inherently political to begin with. That to me couldn't be further from the truth. Art at its core is irrational. That's what the cave artists understood thousands of years ago and the basic truth remains the same. If the work becomes too rational or processed --politicized-- it can be something of great didactic value, it could be propaganda or a nice pamphlet, but as a work of art it has been deformed. It's not the role of art to act as a moral guide. Didacticism is for teachers and priests not artists. You can't watch The Passion of Joan of Arc and tell me it's a political work. It's pure irrational emotion. Obviously you could write a political essay on it talking about the Church as an institution, the idea of martyrdom etc. and that would be very enlightening for a conversation on the historical context but would say nothing about the nature of the movie itself.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 21, 2020 21:16:56 GMT
sorry for the ranty response but I'm genuinely interested in this topic I reject the idea that art is inherently political to begin with. That to me couldn't be further from the truth. Art at its core is irrational. That's what the cave artists understood thousands of years ago and the basic truth remains the same. If the work becomes too rational or processed --politicized-- it can be something of great didactic value, it could be propaganda or a nice pamphlet, but as a work of art it has been deformed. It's not the role of art to act as a moral guide. Didacticism is for teachers and priests not artists. I don't see it quite the same way. I think art is inherently political because humans are inherently political (even apoliticism is an ideology) in a way that far transcends policy. Social issues themselves are fleeting and regional--though sometimes they speak to universal human needs--but humans are always going to be social creatures, and Aristotle made that link in Politics: "man by nature is a political animal". To say that art is political is to say that it doesn't live in a vacuum and that all artistic expressions reflect (implicitly or didactically) the views of the artist who made them and the culture/political landscape/personal experience which shaped those views. There is nothing more personally or politically revealing than artistic expression. As for didactic films... well, there have been several made that are extremely powerful (Costa-Gavras's early stuff, Battle of Algiers, even something like Pakula's Paranoia Trilogy), and what makes them powerful especially in Pontecorvo's case is that they come from a place of naked emotion and speak to a collective disgust for unfairness and cruelty and inhumanity, so there we have a film making a nakedly political statement in the simplest emotional language of torture and suffering vs. liberation and empowerment. It's a human film as well as a political film. Not all films need to be that nakedly didactic, but that's not to say only didactic films are political--all films are to one extent or another. As for the current climate, I don't follow criticism religiously anymore. I used to read more of it but now I'm more interested in the takes here and on Letterboxd. I only visit RT like once every three months. Criticism doesn't only belong to the critics anymore and you can find a lot of interesting takes from just interested viewers. That being said, I don't mind following someone like Ehrlich who wears his leftism on his sleeve. There's plenty of room for that perspective especially in these extremely uncertain times. Most critics skew left (as do most journalists and hell, most educated people generally) and at the end of the day, they're just people too. Just as pissed off and confused as the rest of us, and it informs their writing (another example of art being political, heh). I don't see it as deadening as you. The fact that films like Jojo Rabbit and Joker were only divisive instead of panned (and both performed better on Letterboxd) suggests that criticism isn't just a liberal echo chamber, and I could certainly find other examples if I looked. On the other hand you have a film like J'Accuse directed by a rapist and released in the #MeToo era, and although that film did take some heat it's not like it was universally panned. Honestly Letterboxd is a lot more progressive than mainstream criticism, but even there you can find high scores for films like The House that Jack Built or Dragged Across Concrete (and Ehrlich even loved the former). Full disclosure, I have yet to see this one. The silent era is something I haven't dipped my toes into yet (apart from a couple Chaplins and Vampyr). As for it being political or not, I can't speak to that, but I know it'd be easy to make a political reading of the film (as you could with any film), and Robert Sullivan writing for Vogue associated it with populism for what that's worth, maybe nothing!
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Jan 21, 2020 21:47:10 GMT
sorry for the ranty response but I'm genuinely interested in this topic I reject the idea that art is inherently political to begin with. That to me couldn't be further from the truth. Art at its core is irrational. That's what the cave artists understood thousands of years ago and the basic truth remains the same. If the work becomes too rational or processed --politicized-- it can be something of great didactic value, it could be propaganda or a nice pamphlet, but as a work of art it has been deformed. It's not the role of art to act as a moral guide. Didacticism is for teachers and priests not artists. I don't see it quite the same way. I think art is inherently political because humans are inherently political (even apoliticism is an ideology) in a way that far transcends policy. Social issues themselves are fleeting and regional--though sometimes they speak to universal human needs--but humans are always going to be social creatures, and Aristotle made that link in Politics: "man by nature is a political animal". To say that art is political is to say that it doesn't live in a vacuum and that all artistic expressions reflect (implicitly or didactically) the views of the artist who made them and the culture/political landscape/personal experience which shaped those views. There is nothing more personally or politically revealing than artistic expression. As for didactic films... well, there have been several made that are extremely powerful (Costa-Gavras's early stuff, Battle of Algiers, even something like Pakula's Paranoia Trilogy), and what makes them powerful especially in Pontecorvo's case is that they come from a place of naked emotion and speak to a collective disgust for unfairness and cruelty and inhumanity, so there we have a film making a nakedly political statement in the simplest emotional language of torture and suffering vs. liberation and empowerment. It's a human film as well as a political film. Not all films need to be that nakedly didactic, but that's not to say only didactic films are political--all films are to one extent or another. As for the current climate, I don't follow criticism religiously anymore. I used to read more of it but now I'm more interested in the takes here and on Letterboxd. I only visit RT like once every three months. Criticism doesn't only belong to the critics anymore and you can find a lot of interesting takes from just interested viewers. That being said, I don't mind following someone like Ehrlich who wears his leftism on his sleeve. There's plenty of room for that perspective especially in these extremely uncertain times. Most critics skew left (as do most journalists and hell, most educated people generally) and at the end of the day, they're just people too. Just as pissed off and confused as the rest of us, and it informs their writing (another example of art being political, heh). I don't see it as deadening as you. The fact that films like Jojo Rabbit and Joker were only divisive instead of panned (and both performed better on Letterboxd) suggests that criticism isn't just a liberal echo chamber, and I could certainly find other examples if I looked. On the other hand you have a film like J'Accuse directed by a rapist and released in the #MeToo era, and although that film did take some heat it's not like it was universally panned. Honestly Letterboxd is a lot more progressive than mainstream criticism, but even there you can find high scores for films like The House that Jack Built or Dragged Across Concrete (and Ehrlich even loved the former). Full disclosure, I have yet to see this one. The silent era is something I haven't dipped my toes into yet (apart from a couple Chaplins and Vampyr). As for it being political or not, I can't speak to that, but I know it'd be easy to make a political reading of the film (as you could with any film), and Robert Sullivan writing for Vogue associated it with populism for what that's worth, maybe nothing! No problem, I find this topic fascinating too! I think I see Pontecorvo, Costa-Gavras in a similar way as you. Maybe Pasolini is an even more extreme example of this. Yes, he presents himself as a political filmmaker. His greatness though is in his nakedness, as you say. The viewer can have his own opinions on Marxism, capitalism, Catholicism etc but the movies have their own life. To me that's what makes all of these guys real artists... their rage rings true, it's primal; it transcends whatever didactic qualities the movies may or may not have. You can see the politics in their movies and appreciate them or reject them but ultimately you can "enjoy" them as the full aesthetic experience that they are. Anyway, Aristotle's definition of a political animal is one that is hard to argue with, but I still think art fundamentally precedes the 'political' aspect, that is, the human rationally making sense of his group, his environment, etc. It's quasi-religious in a way (without the morals). I have to run now but I'll check that article later tonight, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 21, 2020 22:49:58 GMT
I think I see Pontecorvo, Costa-Gavras in a similar way as you. Maybe Pasolini is an even more extreme example of this. Yes, he presents himself as a political filmmaker. His greatness though is in his nakedness, as you say. The viewer can have his own opinions on Marxism, capitalism, Catholicism etc but the movies have their own life. To me that's what makes all of these guys real artists... their rage rings true, it's primal; it transcends whatever didactic qualities the movies may or may not have. You can see the politics in their movies and appreciate them or reject them but ultimately you can "enjoy" them as the full aesthetic experience that they are.I have to run now but I'll check that article later tonight, thanks! Definitely agree with all of this. Godard is the other super obvious example of a political filmmaker but the legacy of the French New Wave is mainly craft and technique. I guess I don't think we're living in an era of criticism where political concerns have totally eclipsed craft (though I could see how that'd be frustrating if you did think that) but then I also can't really imagine what it would be like to divorce the world I see from the art I consume and maybe I'm projecting but I imagine that's what a lot of critics struggle with too, and I don't think it should be their job to make the distinction but merely to speak from their perspective. Often a liberal perspective admittedly, but I think that's incidental and reactionary. We live in a time where most liberals who are even semi-aware are nonplussed on a daily basis by what's going on around them. It's hard to critique films in that sphere and not expect some bleed-through. I'm curious if critical discourse was as political under the Bush Administration in the aughts. I wasn't following film criticism back then but I was aware enough of the zeitgeist to know that Bush was all the left could talk about.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jan 21, 2020 22:51:55 GMT
Lost faith in critics years ago. They lost credibility the second they turned into political commentators. These days I depend on the good people of the 'Classic Film' thread for recommendations and insight - Mattsby, pacinoyes and the rest of the gang. Great writing on a daily basis, it's free, and it's all film talk, no BS. Occasionally you find stuff on Letterboxd that's very good, too. What I want is for pacinoyes to write a book or two on film acting. Need it in my library Classics thread is where it's at! And I'm with ya - would love a pacinoyes book on acting - a couple chapters on Pacino's "Banana daiquiri" moment, another on Nicol Williamson's Beckett monologue. A lot of............ punctuation. It writes itself!
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 21, 2020 23:37:41 GMT
This is the kind of blanket criticism I've never understood. Most critics aren't expressly political, only implicitly so (the way more people are, and can you blame them in this fuckin climate?). Films have never been just about craft, and films which are only craft are not the ones that last or are worth making, and it's not how people approach films in the first place. For myself I try to openminded but I tend to take the stance that one can't separate the art from the artist (because the artist's identity and experience will always inform their art) anymore than one can separate a film from the culture in which it was created and consumed. Movies are political. That perspective always belongs at the table and now more than ever. I'm not saying it's wrong to have a space for that conversation. It's great that that kind of conversation exists. The more types of analysis and the more approaches there are, the better. It's fascinating to watch something like Lang's M, for example, and link it to the political context at the time. Heck I'm all for making interesting connections and interpretations. But there's a tendency to politicize everything these days and that's where the conversation becomes deadening to me. Sometimes people act as if the films themselves are irrelevant (not everyone is like this obviously). I reject the idea that art is inherently political to begin with. That to me couldn't be further from the truth. Art at its core is irrational. That's what the cave artists understood thousands of years ago and the basic truth remains the same. If the work becomes too rational or processed --politicized-- it can be something of great didactic value, it could be propaganda or a nice pamphlet, but as a work of art it has been deformed. It's not the role of art to act as a moral guide. Didacticism is for teachers and priests not artists. You can't watch The Passion of Joan of Arc and tell me it's a political work. It's pure irrational emotion. Obviously you could write a political essay on it talking about the Church as an institution, the idea of martyrdom etc. and that would be very enlightening for a conversation on the historical context but would say nothing about the nature of the movie itself. everything is inherently political when you're making art, especially movies which usually require some serious money to get made, and those that don't are often commentary on that. art is not irrational. i have no idea how someone could think this. art is made by human beings who have thoughts and aspirations and opinions on things, it doesn't just conjure itself up from their art mind. there is a suspension of disbelief that people enter when engaging with it that varies from person to person, most people maintain whatever stances are meaningful to them in the film though. this is why films which appear racist to me are always bad movies to me, that's something i as a viewer carry into what is ultimately a personal experience, that being watching a movie. i'm not saying everything needs to be dziga vertov group levels of outwardly political, although i appreciate that stuff at times. i am saying that you can't name a film that isn't marked by a commentary on the sociopolitical context that surrounds it, either explicitly (by the dialogue or structure of the film) or implicitly (its sheer existence in opposition/support of whatever social or political institutions that exist around it). there are tons of great critics out there right now, i would say with the advent of digital and people's ability to be more educated on the presence of commentary in art, that this is a huge boon for great writing on film that doesn't attempt to ignore what is ultimately the core of making movies - communicating things you want the audience to listen to. obviously that film is political. dreyer was always a political filmmaker. commentary about a woman's role in a religious society was pretty well mirrored by women's fights around the world for suffrage and equal rights. in all of his major films, you see the use of the church as an institution which by turn gives transcendence to its followers yet simultaneously (and literally in this film) jails them. i'm not saying you have to write a thesis on every film you watch but for fucks sake that's a terrible example bc the commentary and context is so easy to pick up on you would have to be blind not to see it. there's no "pure emotion" in it in the same way there's no "pure logic" in a hollis frampton pic.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Jan 22, 2020 3:04:09 GMT
everything is inherently political when you're making art
Right, the political motivations behind paleolithic art were something else. especially movies which usually require some serious money to get made, and those that don't are often commentary on that.
Movies are a late 19th century technology that pop up right in the middle of a utilitarian, hyper-rational age. Of course they're going to be politicized. Doesn't make them intrinsically political. The difference is major. art is not irrational. i have no idea how someone could think this.
Art is first and foremost irrational. That's the source of its power. Go to the beginnings of the artistic life of any culture on Earth, you're going to find the same thing: a rebellion against mortality, a need for transcendence, desperation mixed with ecstasy... everything in an elemental and irrational state, elevated to art. Art is born at the same time as religious feeling, by nature irrational. art is made by human beings who have thoughts and aspirations and opinions on things, it doesn't just conjure itself up from their art mind.
This sounds like a lot of modern theories out there and probably a prevalent view today... the opinion that art is a means to an end that goes from the individual to society, that it essentially plays only a social function. It's weightless. As for "thoughts and opinions", that sounds a lot closer to philosophy to me. Obviously intellect is involved in the creative process, in the shaping of it and the structure and the form, but it's not the primary motor and if the work is authentic, "rationalization" enters the picture after the imaginative act itself. The creative act itself can't be anything but irrational. I have no idea how someone could (not) think this. there is a suspension of disbelief that people enter when engaging with it that varies from person to person, most people maintain whatever stances are meaningful to them in the film though. this is why films which appear racist to me are always bad movies to me, that's something i as a viewer carry into what is ultimately a personal experience, that being watching a movie.
So? It's your right to go through life that way, even though to me it sounds like you're limiting yourself for no apparent reason. Again, you are giving moral weight to art. I can watch Olympia, not be a Nazi and be thrilled by Riefenstahl's genius all the way. I must be a sadist i'm not saying everything needs to be dziga vertov group levels of outwardly political, although i appreciate that stuff at times. i am saying that you can't name a film that isn't marked by a commentary on the sociopolitical context that surrounds it, either explicitly (by the dialogue or structure of the film) or implicitly (its sheer existence in opposition/support of whatever social or political institutions that exist around it).
Of course I can't name a movie without a sociopolitical context around it. I said movies are not intrinsically political, which is different. there are tons of great critics out there right now, i would say with the advent of digital and people's ability to be more educated on the presence of commentary in art, that this is a huge boon for great writing on film that doesn't attempt to ignore what is ultimately the core of making movies - communicating things you want the audience to listen to.
I really hope you're right. obviously that film is political. dreyer was always a political filmmaker.
Please don't insult the great Mr. Dreyer like that commentary about a woman's role in a religious society was pretty well mirrored by women's fights around the world for suffrage and equal rights.
A) Are you an expert on women's role in a medieval society? And B) do you honestly see that as the core of the film? Honest question. I think people have a right to insert whatever it is they want to see into a film. I have a right to show no interest in it. in all of his major films, you see the use of the church as an institution which by turn gives transcendence to its followers yet simultaneously (and literally in this film) jails them.
You give way too much agency to "the Church as an institution" in his films. Both The Passion of Joan of Arc and Day of Wrath are about women's souls in the face of spiritual agony, death, extinction, rebirth. Please tell me exactly what is political about spiritual ecstasy. I'm very happy that I missed the connection entirely and hope to continue to miss it.... And yes, Dreyer's movies work splendidly as a mirror to the Europe of the time, I'm aware of that. Still does not make his film intrinsically political... i'm not saying you have to write a thesis on every film you watch but for fucks sake that's a terrible example bc the commentary and context is so easy to pick up on you would have to be blind not to see it. there's no "pure emotion" in it in the same way there's no "pure logic" in a hollis frampton pic.
There's no pure emotion for you before you choose to intellectualize the experience. Your gain and your loss. Or maybe your response to it is more impersonal for any number of reasons, what the hell do I know? As an authority on myself, I can confirm it's "pure emotion" for me.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 22, 2020 4:12:03 GMT
everything is inherently political when you're making art
Right, the political motivations behind paleolithic art were something else. especially movies which usually require some serious money to get made, and those that don't are often commentary on that.
Movies are a late 19th century technology that pop up right in the middle of a utilitarian, hyper-rational age. Of course they're going to be politicized. Doesn't make them intrinsically political. The difference is major. art is not irrational. i have no idea how someone could think this.
Art is first and foremost irrational. That's the source of its power. Go to the beginnings of the artistic life of any culture on Earth, you're going to find the same thing: a rebellion against mortality, a need for transcendence, desperation mixed with ecstasy... everything in an elemental and irrational state, elevated to art. Art is born at the same time as religious feeling, by nature irrational. art is made by human beings who have thoughts and aspirations and opinions on things, it doesn't just conjure itself up from their art mind.
This sounds like a lot of modern theories out there and probably a prevalent view today... the opinion that art is a means to an end that goes from the individual to society, that it essentially plays only a social function. It's weightless. As for "thoughts and opinions", that sounds a lot closer to philosophy to me. Obviously intellect is involved in the creative process, in the shaping of it and the structure and the form, but it's not the primary motor and if the work is authentic, "rationalization" enters the picture after the imaginative act itself. The creative act itself can't be anything but irrational. I have no idea how someone could (not) think this. there is a suspension of disbelief that people enter when engaging with it that varies from person to person, most people maintain whatever stances are meaningful to them in the film though. this is why films which appear racist to me are always bad movies to me, that's something i as a viewer carry into what is ultimately a personal experience, that being watching a movie.
So? It's your right to go through life that way, even though to me it sounds like you're limiting yourself for no apparent reason. Again, you are giving moral weight to art. I can watch Olympia, not be a Nazi and be thrilled by Riefenstahl's genius all the way. I must be a sadist i'm not saying everything needs to be dziga vertov group levels of outwardly political, although i appreciate that stuff at times. i am saying that you can't name a film that isn't marked by a commentary on the sociopolitical context that surrounds it, either explicitly (by the dialogue or structure of the film) or implicitly (its sheer existence in opposition/support of whatever social or political institutions that exist around it).
Of course I can't name a movie without a sociopolitical context around it. I said movies are not intrinsically political, which is different. there are tons of great critics out there right now, i would say with the advent of digital and people's ability to be more educated on the presence of commentary in art, that this is a huge boon for great writing on film that doesn't attempt to ignore what is ultimately the core of making movies - communicating things you want the audience to listen to.
I really hope you're right. obviously that film is political. dreyer was always a political filmmaker.
Please don't insult the great Mr. Dreyer like that commentary about a woman's role in a religious society was pretty well mirrored by women's fights around the world for suffrage and equal rights.
A) Are you an expert on women's role in a medieval society? And B) do you honestly see that as the core of the film? Honest question. I think people have a right to insert whatever it is they want to see into a film. I have a right to show no interest in it. in all of his major films, you see the use of the church as an institution which by turn gives transcendence to its followers yet simultaneously (and literally in this film) jails them.
You give way too much agency to "the Church as an institution" in his films. Both The Passion of Joan of Arc and Day of Wrath are about women's souls in the face of spiritual agony, death, extinction, rebirth. Please tell me exactly what is political about spiritual ecstasy. I'm very happy that I missed the connection entirely and hope to continue to miss it.... And yes, Dreyer's movies work splendidly as a mirror to the Europe of the time, I'm aware of that. Still does not make his film intrinsically political... i'm not saying you have to write a thesis on every film you watch but for fucks sake that's a terrible example bc the commentary and context is so easy to pick up on you would have to be blind not to see it. there's no "pure emotion" in it in the same way there's no "pure logic" in a hollis frampton pic.
There's no pure emotion for you before you choose to intellectualize the experience. Your gain and your loss. Or maybe your response to it is more impersonal for any number of reasons, what the hell do I know? As an authority on myself, I can confirm it's "pure emotion" for me. it wouldn't be that difficult to extract political motivations from paleolithic art or whatever "gotcha"s you wanna throw lol. as a completely baseline, the ones that portray them hunting would be a statement against veganism as a lifestyle, or at the very least, an acceptance of the cruelty of nature on some level. something being politicized (whose commentary exists primarily, though not solely, as a reference to its sheer existence as an item as opposed to its subtext) and others being more intrinsically political does not change the fact that both subsets are political in some way. a rebellion against mortality is political. that one's easy; you can be in a state of rebelling against mortality if the life that you are living is unreasonably bad. or even if you're satisfied and hate the thought of death, you can read the simple act of creating art as an act of antinatalism. people don't feel "desperation" out of nowhere, or "rebellion" out of nowhere. they may speak about those things abstractly out of convenience sake as i'm sure we all do, but those emotions are coming from somewhere and acting against some things. none of those things you mentioned strike me as irrational btw, unless you're using it in a like "rational thought" way a la enlightenment thinkers or w/e. there are artists who act primarily on instinct versus carefully crafted and thought out pieces, but their instinct is that which comes from their experiences and was developed as a response to them on some level. you're getting the process mixed up - it's not that all art is that which isn't thought out explicitly (which we wouldn't even necessarily be able to "de-code") is random and irrational and we make sense of those random and irrational things, but that they made those non explicitly thought out pieces and it transforms as a viewer from a potential piece of more pure emotion to a tangible document that can be analyzed in some way, and yeah, politics play into this as they do in every form of analysis. art has a responsibility in some way to the culture surrounding it. riefenstahl was a kinda poor example wherein yeah i think it's okay if people can glean things they enjoy from one of her pictures while accepting that it's a dangerous work, but i'm suspect of individuals who seem to take pride in doing so without any moral hesitance - this person was responsible for terrible things and we're watching the very art that was the catalyst for that. shutting off your convictions when you enter a theater for some poorly thought out sense of purity seems like you're limiting yourself way more as you're limiting your being bc you think art is separate from that, but art is people just as bureaucracy is people and religion is people and genocides are people and so on. there's analysis to glean from films which have sociopolitical context, and those are, by extension, political analyses. you could have an entirely "standard" early 30s musical comedy that hasn't aged too well, directed by a trans woman, and that in itself is going to open the door for analysis of the film's existence (how it came to be, what the existence said of ideas of trans people at that time) but also how their identity impacts the product (even if that appears to be minimal to most people). if you cannot name a film devoid of sociopolitical context, you cannot name a film devoid of the intrinsic politics that we assign to things with sociopolitical context. it's like how yes, in a democracy, there are politicians (you might say, the films which appear to be outwardly political; the dziga vertov groups) and the non politicians ( The Passion of Joan of Arc, apparently), but everyone there is a voter. and because they vote, they are engaging in politics, even if they aren't elected officials. dreyer was particularly involved in politics in his life (primarily pacifism and social conservatism) which you can often get touches of from his pictures, because he fucking made the movies and they're a reflection of their maker. but he was also not a revolutionary person, which clashes with some elements of Joan of Arc as joan obviously was and the film takes a sympathetic stance towards her struggle. this makes for interesting discussions, you can easily see someone writing about the paradox between being a conservative and making a film that uproots a lot of their commonly held thoughts in a vacuum. or you can see it as the joan story being de-revolutionized by time (joan was a sympathetic figure to most of europe at this point in time, to my knowledge) and something that dreyer didn't see as a revolutionary action. the point is, there's tons of things you can glean from knowing the most basic things about the artist, and from seriously interacting with the art, especially w.r.t. politics. beyond their status as 2nd class citizens, i certainly wouldn't call myself an expert as i haven't read much feminist literature or medieval anthropology. i can see the pretty clear parallel though. it's a pretty complex film and i don't see any strand that sticks out as a core, but i think that's certainly something that dreyer wanted to touch upon, given, again, how many times this type of stuff appears throughout his later filmography. i have emotional responses to films that i don't analyze too hard. most of my favorite avant-garde directors hit me on emotional levels in particular. that doesn't mean i'm incapable of analyzing them, or at the very least, incapable of realizing that they have political subtext and commentary beyond their sheer existence. in fact, when i went to a takashi makino screening (maybe the sole filmmaker who moves me the most at the moment) and he was there at the Q&A, he spoke at length about what he wanted his films to show, and specifically mentioned his politics and how his films are guided by them. and if you've never seen a takashi makino film, they basically look like colored tv static for the most part. my response to his work hits mostly on an emotional basis, though i acknowledge that while realizing that: be that as it may, it exists as a political document nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jul 7, 2020 0:12:49 GMT
This might come crashing back at me but I'm going for it anyway -- Anyone else really looking forward to Armond White's Da 5 Bloods review? Some of his recent reviews (Tommaso, Deerskin) have been pretty on point. I think he published his Black Klansman review three months after release so it might be a bit before we get it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 7, 2020 1:01:59 GMT
This might come crashing back at me but I'm going for it anyway -- Anyone else really looking forward to Armond White's Da 5 Bloods review? Some of his recent reviews (Tommaso, Deerskin) have been pretty on point. I think he published his Black Klansman review three months after release so it might be a bit before we get it. His review of "Hamilton" is classic in his sly dissing that you have to read twice to get what he's really saying .......and I consider myself kind of worthy in assessing and tossing shade - it can be my thing ........ White is consistently throwing his dismissal of progressive politics onto the show in the strangest and most memorable ways - I like this line of backhanded cruelty in particular: The show’s non-traditional casting obsession clashes with the limitations of today’s nutty progressivism that says actors can no longer pretend to be who they are not.
He could go either way on Da 5 Bloods - he often likes Spike's technique and dissing his intellect .......... In "Hamilton" he sees a movie no one else did at all ...........and writes about it like a mystic on mushrooms that really hates all peoples appreciation of any music .........He name drops Son of Bazerk knowing very few people will know that reference and criticizes people for not knowing the reference to begin with then calls it "blackface revision"........that's some grade A level shade for an audience that may or may not even be the audience for his review here or for The National Review at all. www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/review-hamilton-lin-manuel-miranda-monument-political-egotism/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 1:21:40 GMT
Since Mattsby's out here with the controversial takes, here's one from my end - Ebert's a lot closer to being among the worst than he is the best. The "he ruined film criticism" meme really isn't that far off.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jul 7, 2020 1:28:02 GMT
This might come crashing back at me but I'm going for it anyway -- Anyone else really looking forward to Armond White's Da 5 Bloods review? Some of his recent reviews (Tommaso, Deerskin) have been pretty on point. I think he published his Black Klansman review three months after release so it might be a bit before we get it. His review of "Hamilton" is classic in his sly dissing that you have to read twice to get what he's really saying .......and I consider myself kind of worthy in assessing and tossing shade - it can be my thing ........ White is consistently throwing his dismissal of progressive politics onto the show in the strangest and most memorable ways - I like this line of backhanded cruelty in particular: The show’s non-traditional casting obsession clashes with the limitations of today’s nutty progressivism that says actors can no longer pretend to be who they are not.
He could go either way on Da 5 Bloods - he often likes Spike's technique and dissing his intellect .......... In "Hamilton" he sees a movie no one else did at all ...........and writes about it like a mystic on mushrooms that really hates all peoples appreciation of any music .........He name drops Son of Bazerk knowing very few people will know that reference and criticizes people for not knowing the reference to begin with then calls it "blackface revision"........that's some grade A level shade for an audience that may or may not even be the audience for his review here or for The National Review at all. www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/review-hamilton-lin-manuel-miranda-monument-political-egotism/ I think someone earlier in this thread said "At least he isn't dull" and that's true. I agree with some of his Hamilton points (Miranda ain't a "star"), and he brings up some interesting thoughts that others maybe should wrestle with too - at the same time it's like nobody told him it wasn't a movie-movie and he's pissed off the bat. I just read his Little Women review - I didn't like the movie (at least I agree with him there) but holy shite, between sentences you can almost hear the darts going into his Gerwig-face print-outs on the wall.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 15, 2020 21:34:46 GMT
This is basically the Armond White thread at this point - here he dismantles Black is King too - 98% on RT - quite venomous: Beyoncé probably doesn’t even understand that she’s promoting racial division and monarchic rule. Yet these loosely linked, incoherent videos prevent Black Is King from building meaning or power, and achieving art. The underlying message is about privilege and economic advantage and cultural bias. Its rhetoric is doggerel: “As kings we have to take responsibility for stepping outside of the barriers they put us in.” (“Barriers”? In 2020?) www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/movie-review-beyonce-black-is-king/
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 16, 2021 23:22:14 GMT
One I'd mention is Maitland McDonagh who is sort of like a Pauline Kael AND Armond White (um) of horror or schlock or gay themed films which is mostly all she writes about .........that I can find anyway. She is really small time now - writes for TV Guide Online - but she wrote that book on Argento and horror Broken Mirrors/Broken Minds in the 70s and a couple of others. She has a very left field take on horror and is really interesting to me.....in how it fits into cinema history. I thought of her today because I'm about to watch Criterion's Kuroneko (1968) from Kaneto Shindo this weekend - and she did the essay which is really superb - I've never seen this edition before but I've seen this classic a lot. Her last paragraph: "Kiyomi Kuroda’s silky cinematography is as fine as his work on Onibaba, and the influence of Hikaru Hayashi’s percussive score can be heard as far afield as Dario Argento’s 1977 Suspiria. But it’s Kuroneko’s final image of wrenching desolation that ensures its place in movie history: Onibaba’s grotesque O. Henry (by way of Sade) twist ending may be more immediately satisfying, but Kuroneko’s conclusion is a sliver of ice straight to the heart. And now, more than four decades later, the black cat has finally emerged from the shadows, sleek, hair-raisingly graceful, and ready to take its place alongside the other landmarks of Japanese horror history."
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,150
Likes: 1,558
|
Post by Nikan on Apr 17, 2021 18:37:08 GMT
I admire White. He's the closest to my idea of what a critic should be... Ebert on the other hand I've always found overrated.
|
|