tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post4227421587584165415..comments2023-07-12T09:16:45.437-04:00Comments on The Cinema: Canonized auteurs and contrarianismTed Pigeonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04789041055263853568noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-40374781216218477872008-03-06T23:28:00.000-05:002008-03-06T23:28:00.000-05:00"where were you, cinephiles?"Just so Larry knows, ...<I>"where were you, cinephiles?"</I><BR/><BR/>Just so Larry knows, I was in the bathroom. <BR/><BR/>Sorry.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-28069519993217933242008-03-06T20:13:00.000-05:002008-03-06T20:13:00.000-05:00Larry,That your piece was a simple "I liked it," w...Larry,<BR/><BR/>That your piece was a simple "I liked it," was why I found it so refreshing. You <I>didn't</I> launch a full-scale defense of the film, but instead simply turned the issue around on those who so easily dismissed it, and asked, "where were you, cinephiles?"<BR/><BR/>It's a potent question, probably because it's so blunt. With some filmmakers, everything they touch is critical gold for a period, but this is usually followed by a period (later in their careers) in which there's nothing they can do to achieve any kind of relevance, from critical evaluations at least.<BR/><BR/>But it's interesting that you point out that many directors' later work, although disliked at the time, are analyzed most after the fact. As you point out, this is a very common trend, and it seems less about the filmmakers themselves than it does about how critics understand auteurism and how film criticism --whether its individual participants are aware of it-- enacts a love-hate pattern with a great deal of filmmakers.Ted Pigeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04789041055263853568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-63061355100541128542008-03-06T17:12:00.000-05:002008-03-06T17:12:00.000-05:00Ted, thanks for the kind words. I hardly thought m...Ted, thanks for the kind words. I hardly thought my brief write-up of the film was fiery or particularly deep. I just enjoyed the film, and I hope more people give it a chance. One other thought: More and more often you see deeper retrospectives of the later years of an artist, be it Picasso or John Ford. In almost every case, the critics at the time dismissed these later works, only to see them come back in vogue with the passage of time.WelcometoLAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05490618592042119755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-15534661420842459102008-03-06T16:13:00.000-05:002008-03-06T16:13:00.000-05:00Thanks for your insights, Jonathan! I think you're...Thanks for your insights, Jonathan! I think you're absolutely right about the dangers of auteurism. It's something I deal with myself quite a bit. And it's very difficult. Ultimately, it's impossible not to recognize certain pieces of information about a film, whether that's before or after we see it. When we can associate certain styles or conventions with particular filmmakers, we are immediately positioning their film within a particular interpretive schema, one that can actually take away from actually seeing the film. <BR/><BR/>At the same time, films don't exist in a vacuum. The "pure" film experience is not possible. That which we consider fresh is only deemed so because we have exposed ourselves or been exposed to particular ways of doing things. So that when something does not accord to that pattern, we see it as "different" -- that can be "good" or "bad" depending on other circumstances. <BR/><BR/>Much of these ideas can be traced back to standpoint epistemology and philosophy, although standpoint theory is more concerned with matters of class, linguistic, and other social structures. <BR/><BR/>Cinema is perhaps something different; yet we still project age-old social structures onto cinema and employ tired methods of truth-claims and aesthetic evaluation to try to "understand" or "interpret" art. It's a shame really, that we don't push or challenge ourselves more in our methods. Critics are often just as predictabble as the films they judge.<BR/><BR/>Real criticism is not about these things at all, but is instead about the discovery of thought and knowledge. In cinema, images become. In criticism, concepts become.Ted Pigeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04789041055263853568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-53626598989268976472008-03-06T14:14:00.000-05:002008-03-06T14:14:00.000-05:00I believe that all of this is the reason that many...I believe that all of this is the reason that many critics, notably Pauline Kael, had problems with the auteur theory back in its infancy. Though I have my problems with Kael I tend to agree with her in her arguments against Sarris. <BR/><BR/>I believe works of art should be judged on their own merits, not by who did them. I believe who did them is vitally important to understanding the artist but unimportant in judging the work. Thus, knowledge of Woody Allen's personal travails, tastes and experiences enrich our understanding of <B>Deconstructing Harry</B> and it is a worthwhile analytical venture to deconstruct Woody in the face of the film for deeper understanding. But the film itself is what it is and should be judged on its merits as a stand-alone work of art, free of a creator, suspended alone in the ether. <BR/><BR/>I have a love/hate relationship with Auteurism. The love part cherishes gaining deeper insight into a film's meaning in relation to its creator, the hate part finds it a cheap critical rating system. It smacks of "Brand-Name" consumerism. The idea that the label on the jeans make the jeans better. And it does influence critical thought. Last year when the French wine critics were embarrassed by the scientific study of their judging methods I was reminded of film criticism <I>(In case you missed it a study was conducted with 41 wine experts in France. The wines were doctored - literally in some cases serving a white warm with red dye to pass it off as a merlot - And it worked!!! to other cases where when the experts were told a certain wine was by a highly respected vineyard they rated it much higher than they had rated it earlier in blind tests and vice versa when told the vineyard was a little respected one. The experts were very upset after the study was released and came up with the usual excuses - "I knew what they were doing but I didn't want to make waves" - uh huh).</I> I thought to myself, critics do that. Show them a movie with no credits and no advance knowledge of who did it and the reactions would probably be quite different at times. <BR/><BR/>I think one of the best verifiers of this is the independent film done by the first time filmmaker. In many cases the critical reaction to a first time filmmaker (Wes Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson, Robert Rodriguez) is congenial and usually based on the merit of the film alone. The critics have no choice. There is NO HISTORY. <BR/><BR/>Then flash ahead to <B>Darjeeling Limited, There Will Be Blood, Grindhouse</B> and suddenly every review is peppered with references to previous films; how it didn't hold up to prior efforts; how it employs the same "tricks"; how it is or isn't whatever the hell the critic wants to assign it based on everything that came before. <BR/><BR/>And it will keep happening because the history only grows which is why a director not only has his own history used against him but the entire history of cinema as well, i.e. does his latest horror flick "re-invent" the genre, etc.<BR/><BR/>As it snowballs forward into time do not expect more of the same. <BR/><BR/>Expect MUCH, MUCH MORE of the same.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.com