- François Truffaut
- Une Certaine tendance du cinéma français [A certain tendency of French cinema]
- La Politique des Auteurs [The Policy of Auteurs]
- auteur
- Cahiers du cinéma
- André Bazin
- Henri Langlois
- Les Jeunes Turcs [The Young Turks]
- La Tradition de Qualité [The Tradition of Quality]
- Réalisme Poétique [Poetic Realism]
- Réalisme Psychologique [Psychological Realism]
- La Nouvelle Vague [The New Wave]
- mise en scène
- œuvre [work of art/complete filmography]
- plan séquence [single-shot scene]
- montage [editing]
- découpage [cutting]
- ciné-club
- cinéaste [filmmaker; and not "cinéphile"!]
- cinéphile
- cinéphilie [cinephilia]
26 mai 2009
French pronunciation
In relation to the article on Truffaut's La Politique des Auteurs (you can read it at the Indian Auteur website : part 1 & 2), I've recorded a MP3 for the pronunciation of these terms. Enjoy :
17 mai 2009
Seeds for wider diversity in American culture?
World Cinema Foundation (launched during the 2007 Cannes festival) press conference in Cannes 2009 (15 May 2009)
* 4 films previously restored by the WCF and projected in the Cannes Classics program are now available for free online at The Auteurs (original language, subtitled in English), from anywhere in the world (which is quite an achievement in these days of DVD regions and Internet territorial restrictions for viewing!) :
Kent Jones (General Delegate for the WCF) : "One thing that has a tendency to happen at times in film culture is that things can get insular. These initiatives are all organised to combat that. To get the word out. To make the films known, to get them seen, to get people talking about them. To create an online community that begins with The Auteurs*, that will come to our website.
As we know there are many films available for free, it's easy to see films... The idea of [showing restored prints] for free is to create awareness."
Martin Scorsese (Chairman of WCF) : "I just want to make a point, maybe it's more idealistic. Ultimately, the more the audience has seen these films, they more they want to see other films like them. And then what happens is the audience changes. Which means that movies that are being made around the world could change, cause there is an audience for special movies, for new movies, for a different way to look at the world. Not just blockbusters."
The Green Cine Daily interview with Scorsese and Jones (16 May 2009)
Martin Scorsese : "It's important for these film also to be seen. As an American, to see influences from other countries, other cultures, because it only enriches our culture."
* 4 films previously restored by the WCF and projected in the Cannes Classics program are now available for free online at The Auteurs (original language, subtitled in English), from anywhere in the world (which is quite an achievement in these days of DVD regions and Internet territorial restrictions for viewing!) :
- Hanyo / The Housemaid (1960/Kim Ki-young/South Korea) restored for Cannes Classics 2008
- Susuz Yaz / Dry Summer (1964/Metin Erksan/Turkey) restored for Cannes Classics 2008
- Touki Bouki (1973/Djibril Diop Mambéty/Senegal) restored for Cannes Classics 2008
- Transes (1981/Ahamed El Maanouni/Morocco) restored for Cannes Classics 2007
13 mai 2009
Critical Fallacy 10 : Insularity
Insularity is the tendency of critics to look outside their windows, without making the effort to look behind the corner if the weather is changing, let alone checking out beyond the horizon, on the planet cinema as a whole, to properly contextualize whatever aesthetic trends they come up with to qualify domestic "sensations", and speculate on cinema without any global perspective on the full production of this medium. One can always believe the world is gold when this world is limited to a predefined familiar self-indulgent turf, while ignoring everything outside that could challenge it, especially if it'd pale in comparison to better films, better filmmakers, better cinema
The problem of insularity is not limited to national borders and domestic production. Sometimes it gets even more refined, breaking up national cinema in smaller territorial niches, defended by their guardians, who justify their own existence by calling the adverse camp "contrarians".
The contrarian fallacy : Armond White vs. the Hipsters (Lost In Negative Space, 2006)
Jonathan Rosenbaum (The House Next Door, 2006) : "To some limited extent, film can be a road into other cultures and other parts of the world, especially considering how isolated America is and how disastrous some of the consequences of those isolations are. You can see that in the newspaper every day. I feel that I am ignorant about the rest of the world, but an obvious way one can at least start to learn is through seeing films from other countries. I think that is an attitude shared by many people that I know. There is always talk about how there is no interest in foreign films, but I don’t think anybody knows what the audience wants. [..]
One thing that has been important to me is in some way to experiment with form in writing, including film criticism. Getting involved with collaborations and exchanges with other writers has also been very fruitful. I have done several books in collaboration with others. Movie Mutations, co-edited by the Australian film critic Adrian Martin, was written by several people from around the world. It’s made up of various exchanges, letters, and so on. Most people’s concept of writing is that it is a very solitary activity, but this was a very social, communal way of working."
Jonathan Rosenbaum (2009) : "[..] this criticism is often found today in different places (i.e., on the Internet and much less often in libraries), that there’s considerably more of it (including academic stuff, omitted from Peary’s survey), that whether or not it’s American is of little consequence (though whether or not it’s in English is vital), and that it’s about many more films than anyone could have possibly had access to between 1968 and 1980."It's time to realise that since Cinema is one quasi-united phenomenon (as seen at international festivals) therefore Film Criticism is also a one single discourse. Every critic talks about the same films. And English language criticism is hardly limited to the North-American media.
Adrian Martin (Undercurrent, 2006) : "On the general question of reviewing Australian films, I certainly think, for all the reasons that we've been saying, that a film reviewer's contract is with their reader. The contract is not with the film industry, it's not with filmmakers, it's not with the film funding bodies, it's not with the film industry in any way, shape, or form. In other words, the reader has to believe that I am telling the truth about what I felt about that film."Personally I believe that the only accountability of critics is toward Cinema, the art itself, the abstract entity. If readers and audience are dumb and demand entertainment, flourish style, star ratings and thumbs up/down... I say critics don't owe them anything! It's the habits of readers that participated to the newspaper crisis, so if we'd listen to them the self-promotional studio publicists would have won, and Film Culture would be left to the pundits...
Julie Rigg (Undercurrent, 2006) : "We shouldn't run a sheltered workshop for filmmakers just because they're local."
Lorena Cancela (Undercurrent, 2006) : "There are few occasions on which we Argentinean film critics are asked to discuss our own practice or what we have said or written about this or that. In general, the main topic is New Argentine Cinema (but now if it is dead or alive). Sometimes we tend to ignore what our colleagues are doing, or we pretend that we don't care: 'everybody knows what the colleagues are doing, but nobody talks about it.' "
The problem of insularity is not limited to national borders and domestic production. Sometimes it gets even more refined, breaking up national cinema in smaller territorial niches, defended by their guardians, who justify their own existence by calling the adverse camp "contrarians".
The contrarian fallacy : Armond White vs. the Hipsters (Lost In Negative Space, 2006)
Jonathan Rosenbaum (Chicago Reader, 2000) : "No less typical was the refusal of the New Yorker to give even capsule reviews to either Jim Jarmusch’s Dead Man or Andre Techine’s Thieves, two of the most important U.S. releases of 1996 and the two movies I wanted to discuss on Chicago Tonight. Neither feature was deemed important enough by its film reviewers, yet Dead Man was distributed by Miramax and Thieves by Sony Classics. I don’t think Sony Classics could be blamed for the New Yorker ignoring Thieves; that neglect undoubtedly has much more to do with an overall neglect of foreign-language movies spearheaded by Pauline Kael during her last years as critic there, something that’s become commonplace in virtually all mainstream magazines since."
- see illustration here
10 mai 2009
Peary on American-centric criticism
In the latest issue of Undercurrent #5 (sporadic publication!) Chris Fujiwara Interviews Gerald Peary, who made a documentary on American Film Criticism (on the poster are ugly caricatures, including Harry Knowles of all reviewers...!)
See comments on this film by David Bordwell and Jonathan Rosenbaum
If we're playing Jeopardy, the correct question was "What makes you an employee of film review pages?"
If you think getting paid to write on movies makes you a (rightful) film critic, you took the problem from the wrong end, the bureaucratic end. If we are talking about "right", a moral credential, a peer recognition, an achievement test, an intellectual authority in the domain of cinema... salary and employers have nothing to do with that. And the point of this "crisis" was precisely that employers replaced all critics and editors by unqualified reviewers!
See comments on this film by David Bordwell and Jonathan Rosenbaum
PEARY : Film criticism = "a profession under siege"Sieged by who exactly? Readers don't care to read articles... that's not a war, it's free market baby. You might want to rephrase that in order to appropriately address the core of the crisis.
PEARY : "Mine is the first documentary ever to attempt a filmic history of film criticism of one country. May critics in other countries be inspired to make movies detailing their histories.."If this 1h10 long documentary is the full history of American Film Criticism... then Le Fantôme d'Henri Langlois (2004/Richard/France) is as little comprehensive an overview of French Film Criticism in 3h30, from WW2 till very recently, interviewing most major figures alive.
FUJIWARA : "The question of what qualifies a film critic is a nagging one throughout the film. The rationale that seems to emerge most powerfully is that of John Powers ("getting paid") and Harlan Jacobson ("I got the job"). Such a response of course answers the question, "By what right do you call yourself a film critic?" But it doesn't answer the more important questions, which are, "What is a good film critic? What should a film critic be?""getting paid" and "i got the job" qualify any job you can think of! and it's not a pertinent answer to the question "By what right do you call yourself a film critic?" either!
If we're playing Jeopardy, the correct question was "What makes you an employee of film review pages?"
If you think getting paid to write on movies makes you a (rightful) film critic, you took the problem from the wrong end, the bureaucratic end. If we are talking about "right", a moral credential, a peer recognition, an achievement test, an intellectual authority in the domain of cinema... salary and employers have nothing to do with that. And the point of this "crisis" was precisely that employers replaced all critics and editors by unqualified reviewers!
PEARY : "Sarris was an overt auteurist, Kael a covert one, but between them they changed cinema into what is now widely regarded as a director's art."Sure, and you call the French chauvinist? I know it's a documentary on AMERICAN film criticism... but when Cahiers made American critics rediscover their own American directors, it's ungrateful to so boldly overlook the role of Bazin, Truffaut, Godard, Rohmer, Rivette, etc. in establishing the status of the auteur, and American auteurs in particular!
PEARY : "the most appropriately valued American critics around the globe are people like Jonathan Rosenbaum, Jim Hoberman, who themselves have global perspectives about cinema."Amen.
FUJIWARA : "Knowles's remark might suggest that there is some underground of young rebel film critics who are occupying a similar position now to that which Sarris occupied in the 1960s, defending contemporary films that were despised by traditionalist critics because they were commercial films, genre films."In principle, maybe. But that doesn't mean that any blogosphere pundit like Harry Knowles should be taken seriously just because their taste is somewhat subversive or anti-establishment... There is a lot of stuff outside the enshrined pantheon of acclaimed cinema... and most of it is deservedly rubbish. The underdog Truffaut challenged was a genius. There aren't many Hitchcocks in today's overlooked mainstream directors!
03 mai 2009
NYT with mini-balls
It's too rare not to mention. The venerable institution that is the New York Times finally shows some balls and takes a quick break from sucking up to Hollywood ! Are there actual critics in charge in this newspaper? As in critics whose job is to defend the liberty/diversity of cinema, not the other kind of "critics" with stars in their eyes when they talk about the industrial production. I had lost all hopes... This is a big day for American Film Criticism! Please keep at it, EVERY WEEK, until something changes in Hollywood! Thank you.
Memos to Hollywood (NYT, 5-3-2009) :
Well, I can't be totally happy, of course, because I'm a whiner.
I notice a pattern. The bulk of their complaints is scenario, scenario, scenario and cinematography. Apparently that's what critics find wrong with Hollywood. That's what they think cinema is.
They want polished genre, certain characters and not others, less violence, more censorship tolerance, less homophobia, more women, less of that actress, more of that actor, less plot twist, more of... of je ne sais quoi. Are they at the supermarket, or at the fast food of "make-your-own-movie-by-the-menu"? They relay the typical complaints that the average audience has been making for years. But is that really the concern of actual film critics???
Reading this, we'd think that all there is in a good film is a recipe approved by the audience, with the right ingredients in the mix...
Are there people out there who still care about the art in this commercial industry? Who talks about cinema with care for inspiration, intentions, message, worldview, understanding of humanity, aesthetics, mastery of the medium, production of an original visual language regardless for textbooks and conventions?
Well Hollywood wouldn't read these memos otherwise, and the NYT would cut the movie pages if it didn't promote weekly distribution...
Memos to Hollywood (NYT, 5-3-2009) :
Manohla Dargis : "Foreign-film distribution in the United States is in a state of acute crisis: New Yorker Films, which released masterworks from the likes of Jean-Luc Godard and Ousmane Sembene, was recently forced out of business, and other companies are on the brink. If you don’t support off-Hollywood cinema now, it will disappear from theaters and sooner than you think."
* * *
AO Scott : "Did you notice the last election? People paid a lot of attention, took sides, argued back and forth. As they had, come to think of it, for much of the previous eight years. And yet so many of your “serious” movies tiptoe around areas of real public concern, trying to be vaguely topical while strenuously working to avoid offending anybody. As a result, nobody bothers to go see them. So why not risk troubling the waters a little bit? A lot of the audience likes to argue about movies and also about politics. Why not feed that appetite instead of suppressing it?"
* * *
Manohla Dargis : "The tripod is your friend. Few filmmakers can pull off florid handheld camerawork because most aren’t saying all that much through their visuals, handheld or not. (Also: Shaking the camera does not create realism.) Though it’s a cliché of contemporary cinema, fiction and nonfiction both, handheld camerawork that calls aggressive attention to itself tends to make empty images seem even emptier."
Well, I can't be totally happy, of course, because I'm a whiner.
I notice a pattern. The bulk of their complaints is scenario, scenario, scenario and cinematography. Apparently that's what critics find wrong with Hollywood. That's what they think cinema is.
They want polished genre, certain characters and not others, less violence, more censorship tolerance, less homophobia, more women, less of that actress, more of that actor, less plot twist, more of... of je ne sais quoi. Are they at the supermarket, or at the fast food of "make-your-own-movie-by-the-menu"? They relay the typical complaints that the average audience has been making for years. But is that really the concern of actual film critics???
Reading this, we'd think that all there is in a good film is a recipe approved by the audience, with the right ingredients in the mix...
Are there people out there who still care about the art in this commercial industry? Who talks about cinema with care for inspiration, intentions, message, worldview, understanding of humanity, aesthetics, mastery of the medium, production of an original visual language regardless for textbooks and conventions?
Well Hollywood wouldn't read these memos otherwise, and the NYT would cut the movie pages if it didn't promote weekly distribution...
01 mai 2009
Film Theory Branding
When did the last major movement arose in world cinema? Maybe we go through an epoch of individualism, maybe the time of ensemble momentum is over... Always more of the same, with slight variations in synopsis, star names and special FX budget. Even the names of all new pseudo-trends lack personality !
There are film critics who think they are writers, you know, wordsmith artists, poets ! (AO Scott is one of them, see also my previous post).
Well, I don't. In my humble opinion. I've said it many times before, literature is a minor aspect of criticism... What kind of theory branding would we get if these guys were bad at writing...? Our critics need to bribe their muse if they want to claim the divine inspiration of literary artists. It just proves that theoreticians are either unimaginative or that the trends in question are not original enough to deserved a complete name change. New movements always have to be compared to something that existed before, as if it was just a diluted/mutated continuation of the same old. Historians are conservative, always falling back on something known and afraid to call the future by its name.
When you look back at history, you need every period to stand out for itself, to be clearly identifiable, to have iconic names easily distinguishable among the endless list of artists throughout evolution of Art. We don't need distinct arts to share a similar name, soundalike, or even ambiguous.
There are various common blunders in theory branding : empty, generic, self-referencial, obsolete, ambiguous, relative or tautological terms. New-something or Post-something or Adjective-cinema... let's take a moment to free bash a bit the branding of film movements.
NEO NEO REALISM
What is the name AO Scott branded the new emerging American trend? "Neo-Neo Realism" ! When a label is that unoriginal, it doesn't need a name of its own. At least "Mumblecore" shows an ounce of creativity (even if its descriptor is derogatory instead of appreciative; an aesthetic defined by its detractors?).
I know it was just the title of an article, not an official taxonomy, with as much authority as is expected from the "institutional weight" of the New York Time. Not only the direct reference to Italian Neorealism was far-fetched, but stacking neo's in front of existing labels is just laziness.
What is "new-new"? Is it better than "new"? What is a new version of an old trend that wasn't new anymore? Is it Realism 3.0 ? (Realism = 1.0; Neo Realism = 2.0) are we really at a place in History when we can affirm we've reached the 3rd era of whatever is "realism"? The new and improved reality... while everyone else around speaks of virtual reality. Forget about all your old overrated realism... only now do we get the real deal, the latest upgrade brought to you by the NYT.
NEW
Whether it's Neo/Nouveau/Nuevo/Novo/New... it says it's new, that's all. Nothing more.
This is a relative adjective. The effect of novelty is destined to wear off and get outdated. A couple years/decades down the line, after its extinction, the movement is not longer "new" and this word loses entirely its significance. So it's generally a bad idea to use "new" in a title for posterity, a self-centred, short term perspective consideration.
It is also a tautological adjective, meaning that it's only new because it says it's new. If you'd invent a new label, you wouldn't need to add "new" to make sure everyone understands it's unlike what we had before.
Examples : Neorealism, New Cinema, New Hollywood, New American Cinema, New Indian Cinema, New German Cinema, Nuevo Cine, Nuevo Cine, Cinema Novo, Novo Cinema, Neue Sachlichkeit/New Objectivity, Neo-Noir...
NB : Avant-Garde
This is a military term (one sufficient reason not to use it in Art history!), the vanguard, the troops moving at the head of an army. Again it's a relative term. It refers to artists ahead of their time, preceding the aesthetic changes of the conservative, mainstream establishment. But one is only ahead for so long, before getting caught up by the crowd, appropriated, digested and standardised. Besides it's an historical category defining a zone of production outside of the norm, and varies along with the progress of history. But it's not defined by its production, or by artists themselves. You're no longer part of the AG when you're not anymore innovator. The AG of today is not the same content/concern/conceptual reflection/modus operandi than what the AG used to be in the 20ies... obviously. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a group of people, or a cohesive movement. You can't say I want to be in the AG, like you could say you want to make a film Noir or a Soviet Montage film, which are clearly defined stylistically. You're part of the AG if your work deserves it, in regard to the artistic production (mainstream and marginal) in the world. There is absolutely no inner (stylistic, formal, content-driven) coherence among AG filmmakers.
REALISM
What is Realism ? Or conversely, what isn't "realism" in cinema ? The concept of realism in the realm of staged production is absurd in the first place. Would anything else than documentaries tend to some form of realism ? Even most documentaries keep editing their way away from actual realism, allegedly for narrative improvement.
I know what is fiction. But to establish a scale of realism among rather-realist films is very subjective and tricky.
Why appropriate this word of the common language to redefine it with a narrow interpretation, highly connoted with specific stylistic traits that have little to do with off-camera reality? Why make everyone else refer to this appropriation ever after ? This is generally a bad idea to use a common word to brand a singular style.
Examples : Poetic Realism, Psychological Realism, Socialist Realism, Surrealism, Neorealism, Neo-Neo Realism...
MODERNISM
What is Modernism? The problem is this word has already been overused in other disciplines, referring to eras that don't match. For historians, the Modern Era is between the XVth and XIXth century in France (and ending later for English historians in 1920); for Painting art it's between 1907 and 1960, for Musical art it's also the first half of the XXth century; Modernity in Literature is essentially the XIXth century and ends at the beginning of the XXth century. It's usually an opposition to the preceding establishment of Classicism.
In cinema, Modernity appeared in the mid-60ies and found its prime in the 70ies. Even French theory of La Modernité and American theory of Modernism don't quite agree on the scope and time frame of this aesthetic movement. To Jacques Aumont ["MODERNE ? Comment le cinéma est devenu le plus singulier des arts", 2007], cinema has never been "modern" yet. To Adrian Martin ["Que es el cinema moderno ?", 2008], modernist films are still being made today.
The adjective "modern" is a relative temporality, literally it means "contemporary". Since every period we live is "modern", the term loses any meaning as an identifiable time marker. It's confusing and it's NOT specific.
What is Post-Modernism? the post-present! building up on an already dubious term. Very informative indeed. Thanks nomenclaturists.
WAVES
Everything and anything nowadays is called a "New Wave"... La Nouvelle Vague was one major movement indeed, but not to the extent of a normalised namesake franchise for every new generation, on and on, ad infinitum. It's a non-specific descriptor. It's a vague paraphrase for "new movement", thus completely interchangeable. It's a wave, OK, it's new, OK... but it could be anything, as long as it's a new trend of something, good or bad, short-lived or long-lasting. So when you call something a "new wave" it doesn't say anything about it. A name without purpose, without intention, without intrinsic self-explanatory definition.
Repeating "new wave" for every new generation in every country makes no sense. Please stop it with the "new waves"! Get to work guys, come up with your own unique name, so we can get a rich and colorful overview of cinema history.
Examples: Nouvelle Vague/French New Wave, Japanese New Wave/Nuberu Bagu, Argentinian New Wave, Romanian New Wave, Australian New Wave, German New Wave, Taiwan New Wave, Thai New Wave, Persian/Iranian New Wave, Czech New Wave, Brazilian New Wave, Hong Kong New Wave, British New Wave...
ADJECTIVE CINEMA and -ISM
There are a lot of movements only defined by an adjective too. Obviously it's less empty than the above categories of brands. The adjective is there to qualify this movement, and eventually set it apart from the rest, if the word is specific enough. Again, a generic adjective, too often used in other types of films, will make this exclusive appropriation of a common term seem overreaching and confusing.
Examples : Free Cinema, Direct Cinema, Jeune Cinema; Impressionism, Expressionism, Realism, Situationism, Divism...
Related:
There are film critics who think they are writers, you know, wordsmith artists, poets ! (AO Scott is one of them, see also my previous post).
Well, I don't. In my humble opinion. I've said it many times before, literature is a minor aspect of criticism... What kind of theory branding would we get if these guys were bad at writing...? Our critics need to bribe their muse if they want to claim the divine inspiration of literary artists. It just proves that theoreticians are either unimaginative or that the trends in question are not original enough to deserved a complete name change. New movements always have to be compared to something that existed before, as if it was just a diluted/mutated continuation of the same old. Historians are conservative, always falling back on something known and afraid to call the future by its name.
When you look back at history, you need every period to stand out for itself, to be clearly identifiable, to have iconic names easily distinguishable among the endless list of artists throughout evolution of Art. We don't need distinct arts to share a similar name, soundalike, or even ambiguous.
There are various common blunders in theory branding : empty, generic, self-referencial, obsolete, ambiguous, relative or tautological terms. New-something or Post-something or Adjective-cinema... let's take a moment to free bash a bit the branding of film movements.
NEO NEO REALISM
What is the name AO Scott branded the new emerging American trend? "Neo-Neo Realism" ! When a label is that unoriginal, it doesn't need a name of its own. At least "Mumblecore" shows an ounce of creativity (even if its descriptor is derogatory instead of appreciative; an aesthetic defined by its detractors?).
I know it was just the title of an article, not an official taxonomy, with as much authority as is expected from the "institutional weight" of the New York Time. Not only the direct reference to Italian Neorealism was far-fetched, but stacking neo's in front of existing labels is just laziness.
What is "new-new"? Is it better than "new"? What is a new version of an old trend that wasn't new anymore? Is it Realism 3.0 ? (Realism = 1.0; Neo Realism = 2.0) are we really at a place in History when we can affirm we've reached the 3rd era of whatever is "realism"? The new and improved reality... while everyone else around speaks of virtual reality. Forget about all your old overrated realism... only now do we get the real deal, the latest upgrade brought to you by the NYT.
NEW
Whether it's Neo/Nouveau/Nuevo/Novo/New... it says it's new, that's all. Nothing more.
This is a relative adjective. The effect of novelty is destined to wear off and get outdated. A couple years/decades down the line, after its extinction, the movement is not longer "new" and this word loses entirely its significance. So it's generally a bad idea to use "new" in a title for posterity, a self-centred, short term perspective consideration.
It is also a tautological adjective, meaning that it's only new because it says it's new. If you'd invent a new label, you wouldn't need to add "new" to make sure everyone understands it's unlike what we had before.
Examples : Neorealism, New Cinema, New Hollywood, New American Cinema, New Indian Cinema, New German Cinema, Nuevo Cine, Nuevo Cine, Cinema Novo, Novo Cinema, Neue Sachlichkeit/New Objectivity, Neo-Noir...
NB : Avant-Garde
This is a military term (one sufficient reason not to use it in Art history!), the vanguard, the troops moving at the head of an army. Again it's a relative term. It refers to artists ahead of their time, preceding the aesthetic changes of the conservative, mainstream establishment. But one is only ahead for so long, before getting caught up by the crowd, appropriated, digested and standardised. Besides it's an historical category defining a zone of production outside of the norm, and varies along with the progress of history. But it's not defined by its production, or by artists themselves. You're no longer part of the AG when you're not anymore innovator. The AG of today is not the same content/concern/conceptual reflection/modus operandi than what the AG used to be in the 20ies... obviously. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a group of people, or a cohesive movement. You can't say I want to be in the AG, like you could say you want to make a film Noir or a Soviet Montage film, which are clearly defined stylistically. You're part of the AG if your work deserves it, in regard to the artistic production (mainstream and marginal) in the world. There is absolutely no inner (stylistic, formal, content-driven) coherence among AG filmmakers.
REALISM
What is Realism ? Or conversely, what isn't "realism" in cinema ? The concept of realism in the realm of staged production is absurd in the first place. Would anything else than documentaries tend to some form of realism ? Even most documentaries keep editing their way away from actual realism, allegedly for narrative improvement.
I know what is fiction. But to establish a scale of realism among rather-realist films is very subjective and tricky.
Why appropriate this word of the common language to redefine it with a narrow interpretation, highly connoted with specific stylistic traits that have little to do with off-camera reality? Why make everyone else refer to this appropriation ever after ? This is generally a bad idea to use a common word to brand a singular style.
Examples : Poetic Realism, Psychological Realism, Socialist Realism, Surrealism, Neorealism, Neo-Neo Realism...
MODERNISM
What is Modernism? The problem is this word has already been overused in other disciplines, referring to eras that don't match. For historians, the Modern Era is between the XVth and XIXth century in France (and ending later for English historians in 1920); for Painting art it's between 1907 and 1960, for Musical art it's also the first half of the XXth century; Modernity in Literature is essentially the XIXth century and ends at the beginning of the XXth century. It's usually an opposition to the preceding establishment of Classicism.
In cinema, Modernity appeared in the mid-60ies and found its prime in the 70ies. Even French theory of La Modernité and American theory of Modernism don't quite agree on the scope and time frame of this aesthetic movement. To Jacques Aumont ["MODERNE ? Comment le cinéma est devenu le plus singulier des arts", 2007], cinema has never been "modern" yet. To Adrian Martin ["Que es el cinema moderno ?", 2008], modernist films are still being made today.
The adjective "modern" is a relative temporality, literally it means "contemporary". Since every period we live is "modern", the term loses any meaning as an identifiable time marker. It's confusing and it's NOT specific.
What is Post-Modernism? the post-present! building up on an already dubious term. Very informative indeed. Thanks nomenclaturists.
WAVES
Everything and anything nowadays is called a "New Wave"... La Nouvelle Vague was one major movement indeed, but not to the extent of a normalised namesake franchise for every new generation, on and on, ad infinitum. It's a non-specific descriptor. It's a vague paraphrase for "new movement", thus completely interchangeable. It's a wave, OK, it's new, OK... but it could be anything, as long as it's a new trend of something, good or bad, short-lived or long-lasting. So when you call something a "new wave" it doesn't say anything about it. A name without purpose, without intention, without intrinsic self-explanatory definition.
Repeating "new wave" for every new generation in every country makes no sense. Please stop it with the "new waves"! Get to work guys, come up with your own unique name, so we can get a rich and colorful overview of cinema history.
Examples: Nouvelle Vague/French New Wave, Japanese New Wave/Nuberu Bagu, Argentinian New Wave, Romanian New Wave, Australian New Wave, German New Wave, Taiwan New Wave, Thai New Wave, Persian/Iranian New Wave, Czech New Wave, Brazilian New Wave, Hong Kong New Wave, British New Wave...
ADJECTIVE CINEMA and -ISM
There are a lot of movements only defined by an adjective too. Obviously it's less empty than the above categories of brands. The adjective is there to qualify this movement, and eventually set it apart from the rest, if the word is specific enough. Again, a generic adjective, too often used in other types of films, will make this exclusive appropriation of a common term seem overreaching and confusing.
Examples : Free Cinema, Direct Cinema, Jeune Cinema; Impressionism, Expressionism, Realism, Situationism, Divism...
Related:
25 avril 2009
Neo-Neo
I like it when critics break out of their ivory tower and engage with each others writings. I don't care who is right, who is wrong, or whether anyone is pertinent (that's a matter of interpretation and partisanship I guess)... What's important is that it proves film criticism is being read by people who try to chew it before swallowing it whole, that it's thought-provoking, that it invites debate, that it feeds a thriving organic Film Discourse. And Film Discourse is not the gospel of whoever has the privilege of being published and get media circulation.
In fact, I agree with most of Brody's rebuttal as well as the entire counter-rebuttal of AO Scott. However I'm not following his "Neo-Neo Realism" catch, which was the main article (NYT, March 17, 2009) at the origin of this mini-polemic.
I would also like to point out that some of his examples aren't even American filmmakers... so them making films in the USA doesn't really make them part of a trend that would be typically American.
Brody goes all the way back to Film Noir and the 50ies... which are slightly more genre-coded and stylized than what we would expect in a neorealist manner. It would be a stretch to write in the NYT that nothing happened in America around the realm of realism. (I would hope Jonathan Rosenbaum, for example, would be more precise on this subject than both of them)
Burnett for one, the New York scene with Cassavetes and some of the Underground, or the New Hollywood and the outsider hippy dramas, early Jarmusch, some Altman.
But more recently, we already saw several indie films fitting Scott's description even before 9/11.
I'm thinking of :
Smoke (1995/Wang), Sue (1997/Kollek), Sunday (1997/Nossiter), Buffalo '66 (1998/Gallo), The Straight Story (1999/Lynch), Judy Berlin (1999/Mendelsohn), Bobby G Can't Swim (2000/Montias), Apartment #5C (2002/Nadjari), The Station Agent (2003/McCarthy), Land of Plenty (2004/Wenders), Keane (2004/Kerrigan), Bubble (2005/Soderbergh), Day Night Day Night (2006/Loktev), Quinceañera (2006/Glatzer/Westmoreland), The Princess of Nebraska (2007/Wang), A Thousand Years of Good Prayers (2007/Wang) ... just to name a few.
I'm not saying these films are the American Neorealism, but they are as close/far from Italian Neorealism than the ones AO Scott cites, therefore should be incorporated to this reflection on the subject, and its timeline extended.
There I disagree with Brody that it's lame cinema. Most of them are much more interesting than an Eastwood flick. So in a way I agree with AO Scott's general appreciation of this type of realism, but not with the way he simplifies it.
As for the silly name itself "neo-neorealism"... I'll keep that for another post (read here).
And if like me you wonder how long will they keep trumpeting around that the "institutional weight" (sic AO Scott) of the NYT paper press is more reliable than the internets... here is a couple of fact-checking nit picks at what an editor green lights for mass distribution :
In fact, I agree with most of Brody's rebuttal as well as the entire counter-rebuttal of AO Scott. However I'm not following his "Neo-Neo Realism" catch, which was the main article (NYT, March 17, 2009) at the origin of this mini-polemic.
George Washington (2000/Gordon Green)It's tempting indeed to figure out what the cinema of the XXIst century Recession looks like, but all the films AO Scott cites were conceived, written and produced before the stock market crash (Oct 2008) and the official recession (Dec 2008). I also disagree, like Brody, that this "social-realism" trend is so sudden (coinciding with the DVD release of Burnett's film?).
Our Song (2000/McKay)
Man Push Cart (2005/Bahrani) Iran
Half Neslon (2006/Fleck)
In Between Days (2006/Kim So Young) Korea
Chop Shop (2007/Bahrani) Iran
Old Joy (2007/Reichardt)
Sugar (2008/Fleck)
Goodbye Solo (2008/Bahrani) Iran
Treeless Mountain (2008/Kim So Young) Korea
Ballast (2008/Hammer)
Wendy and Lucy (2008/Reichardt)
I would also like to point out that some of his examples aren't even American filmmakers... so them making films in the USA doesn't really make them part of a trend that would be typically American.
Brody goes all the way back to Film Noir and the 50ies... which are slightly more genre-coded and stylized than what we would expect in a neorealist manner. It would be a stretch to write in the NYT that nothing happened in America around the realm of realism. (I would hope Jonathan Rosenbaum, for example, would be more precise on this subject than both of them)
Burnett for one, the New York scene with Cassavetes and some of the Underground, or the New Hollywood and the outsider hippy dramas, early Jarmusch, some Altman.
But more recently, we already saw several indie films fitting Scott's description even before 9/11.
I'm thinking of :
Smoke (1995/Wang), Sue (1997/Kollek), Sunday (1997/Nossiter), Buffalo '66 (1998/Gallo), The Straight Story (1999/Lynch), Judy Berlin (1999/Mendelsohn), Bobby G Can't Swim (2000/Montias), Apartment #5C (2002/Nadjari), The Station Agent (2003/McCarthy), Land of Plenty (2004/Wenders), Keane (2004/Kerrigan), Bubble (2005/Soderbergh), Day Night Day Night (2006/Loktev), Quinceañera (2006/Glatzer/Westmoreland), The Princess of Nebraska (2007/Wang), A Thousand Years of Good Prayers (2007/Wang) ... just to name a few.
I'm not saying these films are the American Neorealism, but they are as close/far from Italian Neorealism than the ones AO Scott cites, therefore should be incorporated to this reflection on the subject, and its timeline extended.
There I disagree with Brody that it's lame cinema. Most of them are much more interesting than an Eastwood flick. So in a way I agree with AO Scott's general appreciation of this type of realism, but not with the way he simplifies it.
As for the silly name itself "neo-neorealism"... I'll keep that for another post (read here).
And if like me you wonder how long will they keep trumpeting around that the "institutional weight" (sic AO Scott) of the NYT paper press is more reliable than the internets... here is a couple of fact-checking nit picks at what an editor green lights for mass distribution :
AO Scott : "“Chop Shop,” released last winter, is, if anything, even more deeply Iranian in mood and method, in part because its protagonist is a child — something of a hallmark of Kiarostami’s mid-’90s work in particular — and also because it seems at once utterly naturalistic and meticulously composed."
I think he meant to say Kiarostami's 1970-89 work (from The Bread and the Alley, to Where is The Friend's Home? and Homeworks), not mid-90s (Taste of Cherry...) much more adult since Close Up in 1990 (with the exception of one single film : Through the Olive Trees in 1994).
AO Scott : "That film [Taste of Cherry], which shared the Palme d’Or at Cannes in 1997, explores the uneasy bond between a driver and passenger, one of whom turns out to want the other’s help in committing suicide."
This is the problem with expeditive encapsulation of a synopsis in a one liner... Why on Earth would you want people who didn't see the film to think it's about a pro-euthanasia hitch-hiker who assists someone's suicide? The guy he's looking for is to bury him, an undertaker, not to help him die. This technical detail might be too subtle, but I do think it will alienate readers (for the wrong reason). The film is a fascinating existential reflection around a metaphysical taboo. It explores the spiritual journey toward suicide, and the various reactions of society to this project; not suicide itself which is relegated to a postscript. People who saw the film know it's not a "suicidal movie".
AO Scott : "AN INTEREST IN MOVIES from other countries is too often, even among people who should know better, taken as a sign of snobbery, an overrefined devotion to the esoteric and the difficult. There may be some commercial benefit as well as creative satisfaction in aspiring to be the next Tarantino or Scorsese — or even the next Spike Lee, Kevin Smith or Wes Anderson. But to set out to be the next Dardenne Brothers, the next Kore-eda or the next Kiarostami is to court stares of incomprehension from your peers and polite demurrals from financial backers."
So the fact that Scorsese borrowed from Italian cinema, Tarantino from Hong Kong and Anderson from Truffaut doesn't make them snob because they became big powerhouse stars? How is the situation any different with the new generation of filmmakers borrowing from Kore-eda, Dardenne bros or Kiarostami ??? What I can see is that the reception of the American public and critics alike to any type of artfilm (i.e. non-Hollywood or non-mainstream) is irrationally anti-intellectual, defensively jingoist, culturally limitative... always draging down cinema to the lowest common denominator to avoid exposing the average crowd to anything culturally challenging. As if it was a demeaning challenge to think outisde the box, to discover the world stage, to expand the scope of individual taste...
13 février 2009
New Indian Auteur website
Nitesh (Winds From the East) and his friends has just opened a new website and a community of cinephiles in India which goal is to promote artfilms and Auteurist Indian cinema in the land of the Bollywood hegemony. The manifesto statement can be read here. There are also a lot of cine club events throughout regions of India as well as participation to retrospectives on foreign cinema. And I wrote for them an article on Truffaut's article "Une certaine Tendance du cinéma français"; the first part is up now.
Cheers to an exciting adventure developing now.
Cheers to an exciting adventure developing now.
FINALLY…persistence paid. Days of dilemmas, confusion, indecision, uncertainty, and countless embarrassed postponements later, the group managed to strike the first death knell finally, as it launched (the beta version) of its own website, www. indianauteur.com, in the wee hours of the morning, on 12th Feb 2009.
The inaugural issue features reviews, the much-read Delhi Manifesto, details of upcoming events by the group, and the various extensive, and exhaustive features on various topics related to the state of Indian cinema. The issue also touches upon an unique topic of Film Education to inform and help Indian readers get acquainted with different styles, forms of cinema and film criticism. HarryTuttle, French cinephile author of Screenville talks about Truffaut and his manifesto in the first issue.
The group held a little party to commemorate a sort of an official announcement of the launch, on the morning of 12th Feb, at Café Turtle, situated in Khan Market. The launch had as its chief guest, Dr. Ziaei, Director, Iran Culture House; along with a few members of the group.
"Congratulations to them. Best wishes, and hope they grow as great writers and filmmakers in an international film event", said Dr. Ziaei.
04 février 2009
CNN Hologram at Obama's election
Francophile only :
Quand CNN convie un spectre de Star Wars (Novembre 2008)
J'avais écrit ce texte après les élections américaines de Novembre 2008 pour la revue "Spectres du cinéma", et comme le numéro suivant ne sort toujours pas, je le publie ici pour qu'il aie un semblant d'actualité avec l'inauguration de la prise de pouvoir du président Obama. Mais c'est déjà de l'histoire ancienne. Enfin, je trouvais ça amusant à l'époque.
Ma participation à cette revue incertaine s'achève ici.
Quand CNN convie un spectre de Star Wars (Novembre 2008)
J'avais écrit ce texte après les élections américaines de Novembre 2008 pour la revue "Spectres du cinéma", et comme le numéro suivant ne sort toujours pas, je le publie ici pour qu'il aie un semblant d'actualité avec l'inauguration de la prise de pouvoir du président Obama. Mais c'est déjà de l'histoire ancienne. Enfin, je trouvais ça amusant à l'époque.
Ma participation à cette revue incertaine s'achève ici.
29 janvier 2009
Epilogue '08
Join the discussion at The Auteurs (January 2009) with Andrew Grant, Kevin Lee, Edwin Mak, Nitesh Rohit, Alexis Tioseco and myself :
Epilogue '08 is the final chapter of the year 2008. An online roundtable looking back one last time on the past year in films, after 2008 came to a close and every year-end poll and commentary has been published. We have gathered here a panel of passionate film critics from around the world to feel the pulse of the cinephile life as it unfolded in half a dozen capital cities where cinema is lively and brewing. We get a chance to take a look at the global village of cinephilia, more than ever bound together by the communitarian feelings of the blogosphere and the communication between foreign film cultures, through films and also the international exchange allowed by film discourse in the English language.List of contributions from the participants :
- Intro : HarryTuttle / Andrew Grant / Daniel Kasman
ROUND 1 - BEST FILMS OF 2008 - Post 1 : HarryTuttle
- Post 2 : Andrew Grant
- Post 3 : Nitesh Rohit
- Post 4 : Edwin Mak
- Post 5 : Alexis Tioseco
ROUND 2 - CINEPHILIA IN YOUR CITY - Post 6 : Local weekly releases (collective)
- Post 7 : HarryTuttle (Paris)
- Post 8 : Kevin Lee (NYC)
- Post 9 : Edwin Mak (London)
- Post 10 : Andrew Grant (NYC)
- Post 11 : Nitesh Rohit (Delhi)
ROUND 3 : DISTRIBUTION - Post 12 : Andrew Grant
- Post 13 : HarryTuttle
- Post 14 : Edwin Mak
- Post 15 : HarryTuttle
- Post 16 : Edwin Mak
- Post 17 : Kevin Lee
- Post 18 : HarryTuttle
- Post 19 : Alexis Tioseco (Manila)
05 janvier 2009
2008 Film Crit Summits
Many times this year was Film Criticism contemplated and reconsidered, with numerous conferences, roundtables and publications around the world. A decline of the Press business with its restructuring purge initiated this exceptional self-examination, as if critics could only reflect on their role in a changing society when their payroll is menaced...
In a synopsis compilation (see the table here), I've noted 22 events this past year, 16 of which were concerned by the Film Criticism Crisis (in blue on the table). But I was only able to follow closely the complete content of 13 of them, so instead of comparing their respective pertinence, I'll check their compatibility with a 21st century discourse. To me, every conference on cinema should be inclusive of varied and complementary aspects of Film Discourse, and accessible to the widest demographic. Each get bonus (in green) and malus (in red). So my criteria to develop the full potential of such events today are :
Philoxenia. Welcoming the Other. The "Other" being the one who doesn't match the pattern of my peers (different language, culture, history, country, locale, city, movies viewed, opinions, taste, theories...) Confronting diversified positions, contexts, conjunctures and school of thoughts, makes a roundtable richer and more powerful. Multiculturalism involves the participations of foreigners in the debate, but also the attention to a non-local audience/readership (with translation for international circulation).
Too often these events are isolated elite groupuscules shut out from the outside world, indulging anachronistic problems inherited from the circumscribed conjuncture imposed by the local industry that shapes their mentality.
Movies belong to everyone, beyond borders. Cinema is a global village and issues should be debated openly with the international cinephile community. No reason to keep Film Discourse segmented regionally.
Half of the events on the list are national-centric. The most open to the worldwide scene are Active Criticism in Portugal (but apparently mainly Euro-centric), the NYFF Film Comment panel (which invited critics from Korea, France and Germany), Ouvrir Bazin (with French and Americans but was a truly bilateral conference almost duplicated both in Paris and in Yale!), Responsabilities of Criticism (with scholars from USA, Australia and also by proxy France), the Bazin event in Shanghai (though I don't have much info on the details), and lastly the best one is Où va le Cinéma? in Paris (which actually held a panel on purpose with filmmakers from Argentina, Romania, Belgium, Malaysia).
Mention to the Sight&Sound poll (which invited critics from UK, USA, France, Iran, Australia, Denmark, Germany and Japan but without interaction between them).
I don't understand the rational to keep the content private, to charge attendance (with prohibitive fees!) and make it a members-only club closed to the general public during the live event... There are other ways to fund an event. The debate itself should be offered to the public domain for the benefit of global Film Discourse.
Certain early 2008 NYC events promised to put up online the transcripts... and never did. So kudos to the Film Comment panel for offering full transcript and videos shortly after the event! Like the Pinewood Dialogues, with audio webcast plus transcript.
The winner of this list is Paris event Où va le Cinéma? with a live webcast of all 11 panels which are archived for permanent viewing.
One of the major improvement (over the Paper Press) brought by Web 2.0 is of course participation of the readers/viewers. Unfortunately first of all there are some unilateral events disregarding any reaction/input from their audience (if there is any), like magisterial lectures, questionnaire, interviews or traditional articles. Honestly I much prefer the more open minded forms of the workshops, panels, seminars. Not only the participants of the conference are able to interact with each other, but with a public (audience/readers) too.
This could be even ameliorated by giving voice to the internet audience, with for example the possibility to leave questions prior to the event (like at the Pompidou seminar in Paris, another award for Où va le cinéma?).
We too often see these debates held among peers, or even between friends who share each others positions. There is hardly criticism within this kind of context. So it's important to favour diversity, reaching out across the aisle to the competitors or the other end of the spectrum to create a productive brainstorming rather than a self-congratulatory consensus. It's more interesting to listen to what filmmakers have to say about their perception of Film discourse from their side of the fence. To invite non-critics to talk about film Criticism theories from their perspectives, like screenwriters or producers or publicists or even onlookers from outside the cinema industry like writers or philosophers or artists...
The critics v. critics always comes down to the same endless territorial battles of preferences and hierarchies.
Fortunately, a good number of these events avoided insularity. And most of them invited bloggers, since the rivalry with the blogosphere was a major issue of this Press crisis.
Thus I hope future events will be designed with these criteria in mind.
Links to the events cited can be found on my earlier hypertext 2008 calendar.
More comments later (in the comments).
N.B. Informations on this table are general indicators, from what I could gather and the eventual replies I received from people who attended. So corrections are welcome if you see fit. You may also add events not on the list in the comments.
In a synopsis compilation (see the table here), I've noted 22 events this past year, 16 of which were concerned by the Film Criticism Crisis (in blue on the table). But I was only able to follow closely the complete content of 13 of them, so instead of comparing their respective pertinence, I'll check their compatibility with a 21st century discourse. To me, every conference on cinema should be inclusive of varied and complementary aspects of Film Discourse, and accessible to the widest demographic. Each get bonus (in green) and malus (in red). So my criteria to develop the full potential of such events today are :INTERNATIONALITY
(foreign relations and multilingual)
(foreign relations and multilingual)
Philoxenia. Welcoming the Other. The "Other" being the one who doesn't match the pattern of my peers (different language, culture, history, country, locale, city, movies viewed, opinions, taste, theories...) Confronting diversified positions, contexts, conjunctures and school of thoughts, makes a roundtable richer and more powerful. Multiculturalism involves the participations of foreigners in the debate, but also the attention to a non-local audience/readership (with translation for international circulation).
Too often these events are isolated elite groupuscules shut out from the outside world, indulging anachronistic problems inherited from the circumscribed conjuncture imposed by the local industry that shapes their mentality.
Movies belong to everyone, beyond borders. Cinema is a global village and issues should be debated openly with the international cinephile community. No reason to keep Film Discourse segmented regionally.
Half of the events on the list are national-centric. The most open to the worldwide scene are Active Criticism in Portugal (but apparently mainly Euro-centric), the NYFF Film Comment panel (which invited critics from Korea, France and Germany), Ouvrir Bazin (with French and Americans but was a truly bilateral conference almost duplicated both in Paris and in Yale!), Responsabilities of Criticism (with scholars from USA, Australia and also by proxy France), the Bazin event in Shanghai (though I don't have much info on the details), and lastly the best one is Où va le Cinéma? in Paris (which actually held a panel on purpose with filmmakers from Argentina, Romania, Belgium, Malaysia).
Mention to the Sight&Sound poll (which invited critics from UK, USA, France, Iran, Australia, Denmark, Germany and Japan but without interaction between them).
OPEN ACCESS
(free availability and permanent online archive)
(free availability and permanent online archive)
I don't understand the rational to keep the content private, to charge attendance (with prohibitive fees!) and make it a members-only club closed to the general public during the live event... There are other ways to fund an event. The debate itself should be offered to the public domain for the benefit of global Film Discourse.
Certain early 2008 NYC events promised to put up online the transcripts... and never did. So kudos to the Film Comment panel for offering full transcript and videos shortly after the event! Like the Pinewood Dialogues, with audio webcast plus transcript.
The winner of this list is Paris event Où va le Cinéma? with a live webcast of all 11 panels which are archived for permanent viewing.
INTERACTIVITY
(multilateral talks, reader feedback)
(multilateral talks, reader feedback)
One of the major improvement (over the Paper Press) brought by Web 2.0 is of course participation of the readers/viewers. Unfortunately first of all there are some unilateral events disregarding any reaction/input from their audience (if there is any), like magisterial lectures, questionnaire, interviews or traditional articles. Honestly I much prefer the more open minded forms of the workshops, panels, seminars. Not only the participants of the conference are able to interact with each other, but with a public (audience/readers) too.
This could be even ameliorated by giving voice to the internet audience, with for example the possibility to leave questions prior to the event (like at the Pompidou seminar in Paris, another award for Où va le cinéma?).
TRANS-CORPORATION
(reaching out to many professions of the industry)
(reaching out to many professions of the industry)
We too often see these debates held among peers, or even between friends who share each others positions. There is hardly criticism within this kind of context. So it's important to favour diversity, reaching out across the aisle to the competitors or the other end of the spectrum to create a productive brainstorming rather than a self-congratulatory consensus. It's more interesting to listen to what filmmakers have to say about their perception of Film discourse from their side of the fence. To invite non-critics to talk about film Criticism theories from their perspectives, like screenwriters or producers or publicists or even onlookers from outside the cinema industry like writers or philosophers or artists...
The critics v. critics always comes down to the same endless territorial battles of preferences and hierarchies.
Fortunately, a good number of these events avoided insularity. And most of them invited bloggers, since the rivalry with the blogosphere was a major issue of this Press crisis.
Thus I hope future events will be designed with these criteria in mind.
Links to the events cited can be found on my earlier hypertext 2008 calendar.
More comments later (in the comments).
N.B. Informations on this table are general indicators, from what I could gather and the eventual replies I received from people who attended. So corrections are welcome if you see fit. You may also add events not on the list in the comments.
03 janvier 2009
Silo Survey - HarryTuttle
Here is my answer to the Silo Survey I've posted earlier here : Who knows where is Film Criticism going to?
The questions are a little pedantic and over-complicated for no apparent reasons (and I tried to tone it down in English!), I give you that, but it poses questions in a new way to go beyond the short term crisis. Because we always read the same clichéd questions about this crisis. It's to consider Cinema as a whole, in all its diversity, its forms, and Film Discourse as a whole.
HarryTuttle (Screenville)
The questions are a little pedantic and over-complicated for no apparent reasons (and I tried to tone it down in English!), I give you that, but it poses questions in a new way to go beyond the short term crisis. Because we always read the same clichéd questions about this crisis. It's to consider Cinema as a whole, in all its diversity, its forms, and Film Discourse as a whole.
HarryTuttle (Screenville)
1. HOW IS IT GOING?
I don't believe there is a crisis particular to Film Criticism today. We've heard these issues before. If Cahiers is going bankrupt and American Critics are laid off, it is a decline of the Paper Press business as a whole, not just the Cinema Press and Film journalists. The shift of advertisers to the Internet necessarily changes the deal. It's the era of decolonisation of the Press empire. An era of post-monopoly of information, that TV and the Press have a hard time to swallow, just like the Music industry couldn't adapt to the free MP3. But the raison d'être of Film Criticism doesn't depend on advertisers or even readership. I refuse to put the blame of a shortage of content on the economical conjuncture. If the Press can't afford to fund film pages, critics need to find new tribunes elsewhere (Internet, fanzine, niche press). Why should critics stay in the generalist newspapers if there is no room to give a proper coverage : brevity without insight, prescription without editorial independence, marketing without cinema.
DVDs more than the Internet have altered the relationship of the viewer with the film. Primarily, the film is no longer an event presented by an auteur, it's an object of consumption that either you own or you don't. Today, critics and cinephiles ask whether a film is on DVD, they don't care if the film has no theatrical distributor, or if they are in fact screened in their city. People want to appropriate a film, even more than to watch them. DVD stack up in piles of potential viewing that are always postponed. The connection with a film has degraded, so casually.
No wonder they end up at museum screenings... where they are respected as exceptional art by reverent visitors came purposefully to meet an artist and not just to spend fun escapist times.
2. HOW DOES IT WORK?
The interaction with a film is manyfold :
I don't believe there is a crisis particular to Film Criticism today. We've heard these issues before. If Cahiers is going bankrupt and American Critics are laid off, it is a decline of the Paper Press business as a whole, not just the Cinema Press and Film journalists. The shift of advertisers to the Internet necessarily changes the deal. It's the era of decolonisation of the Press empire. An era of post-monopoly of information, that TV and the Press have a hard time to swallow, just like the Music industry couldn't adapt to the free MP3. But the raison d'être of Film Criticism doesn't depend on advertisers or even readership. I refuse to put the blame of a shortage of content on the economical conjuncture. If the Press can't afford to fund film pages, critics need to find new tribunes elsewhere (Internet, fanzine, niche press). Why should critics stay in the generalist newspapers if there is no room to give a proper coverage : brevity without insight, prescription without editorial independence, marketing without cinema.
DVDs more than the Internet have altered the relationship of the viewer with the film. Primarily, the film is no longer an event presented by an auteur, it's an object of consumption that either you own or you don't. Today, critics and cinephiles ask whether a film is on DVD, they don't care if the film has no theatrical distributor, or if they are in fact screened in their city. People want to appropriate a film, even more than to watch them. DVD stack up in piles of potential viewing that are always postponed. The connection with a film has degraded, so casually.
No wonder they end up at museum screenings... where they are respected as exceptional art by reverent visitors came purposefully to meet an artist and not just to spend fun escapist times.
2. HOW DOES IT WORK?
The interaction with a film is manyfold :
- The emotional response striking the right chords in us.
- The psychodrama memories resurfacing from our life.
- The political analysis issued from the Real World.
- The acquaintance with an auteur's signature.
- The intertextuality of cinema history.
- Our idea of what cinema should be like.
- The buzz (real or fantasized) within the profession...
And the critic needs to be aware of how each of them will forge and influence our opinion of the film, sometimes genuinely (insightful understanding of the heart of the film), sometimes deceitfully (manipulated by mechanics and prejudices). The critical distance is essential. The critic is not a random audience. The (self-appointed) authority to judge artists gives a tremendous responsibility to articulate a finer appreciation than every other viewers'.
I don't review films very much anymore. I only do when I feel the urge to say something new. Which is a privilege most professional reviewers don't have unfortunately. And I'm not a pro. I buy my tickets! I wish critics would write only when they have a point, not because they are assigned to it to get paid. Look around for the difference between pro bono criticism, out of generosity, and the "professional criticism", like a daily factory job.
I never take notes during the screening. I sit down after the film and note everything that came to my mind, with a precise time line of the scenes order to help me remember the continuity later on. Then I let it simmer for some time. I like to quickly point to possible film references that could be connected either formally or thematically. But to write a review I need to find an angle, to understand the particularity of the film, and maybe some key questions it answers. Only then would I try to write something. And often my ideas stay in my notebook because it didn't germinate or for lack of time.
3. HOW DOES IT SHIFT?
I don't see the nature of cinema changing as much as reading habits. DVDs and the Internet didn't transform (yet) filmmaking, in my mind. What has evolved is the diffusion of images : freely, rapidly, globally. So movies become more accessible to a larger and more varied population. And Film discourse takes a multimedia form more and more.
Criticism has been a franchise of the distribution circuit for too long. If something has to change, it must be to turn critics towards auteurs and films (when they are made, when they première at festivals) instead of only reporting whatever Studios and Distributors decide should be screened that week in that city... Weekly reviews effectively condone and support all choices and (commercial) censorship made by the elective distribution. Cinema history is not an industrial schedule.
If (serious) Film Criticism suffers from a lack of popularity, losing touch with the base of movie goers... critics need to embrace contemporary means of communications, to reach out to a new audience, outside of the acquired choir of exclusive scholars, film critics themselves and hardcore cinephiles. Film Discourse should develop in audio commentary forms (Plastic Podcasts), in video essays (Shooting Down Pictures), in photo montages (365 jours ouvrables), interdisciplinary lectures (CinePhilo), cineclub forums (Girish) and blogs. And we see these forms taken more seriously online every year. Slowly but surely the change is on the way.
4. HOW TO GO ABOUT IT?
Here is a key problem faced by the confused reader. Film Discourse is all and nothing. Critics want to give factual IMDb infos, to be patronising taste makers, committed publicists or speculative theoreticians... all the while being entertaining and snarky. And since they jump from one mode to the next, readers don't take criticism seriously anymore. Meaningful analysis lost authority for the audience who put it in the same bag of impressionistic opinions as any other baseless review. Critics want to be too many things at once, and do justice to none.
Critics aren't the only ones to blame. The press that pushed towards cinema as an industry (fitting in with all schedules, lingo, figures and concerns of producers, distributors and publicists) rather than a production of artworks. And the Studios drag the press closer to their own marketing strategies (junkets, privileged screening, interview deals, movies sold as package).
Film Discourse should be segmented more clearly, in term of venues and writers, even if occasional overlap and exchanges are welcome.
That's why I'd rather want criticism to go back to a primordial state of clarity, simplicity and stability with a well defined object and an appropriate discourse.
Cahiers' attempt to survey the Digital "revolution" has been dubious at best so far. Critics should re-appropriate theatrical cinema correctly first.
I think it would be better if different people (not connoted with the archetypes of film criticism) would engage with new territories like music video, TV ads, TV news, live TV, Vlogs and viral YouTube videos... in order to develop a fresh set of references and jargon that doesn't suffer from the overwhelming history of academic theory. If only to dedicate a full time job to these new media, and not leave them in the sideline of something else bigger.
5. YOUR ADDITIONAL COMMENT
Film Criticism should be in permanent crisis to stay alert and self-critical. It is healthy and progressive for critics to be sceptical and self-reflexive. There is no such thing as a comfortable established self-indulgent complacent routine that would give us good criticism... The Press is defending its turf because that's the only thing they know, but the prestige they stand for is only a shadow of the past. The blogosphere isn't fully conscious of the new modality it brings to the table, and people don't exploit it to its fullest potential yet. The tools in place aren't facilitating everything either. However, step by step, the change is taking firm grip. And it's there to stay so you better understand it and embrace it already.
I don't review films very much anymore. I only do when I feel the urge to say something new. Which is a privilege most professional reviewers don't have unfortunately. And I'm not a pro. I buy my tickets! I wish critics would write only when they have a point, not because they are assigned to it to get paid. Look around for the difference between pro bono criticism, out of generosity, and the "professional criticism", like a daily factory job.
I never take notes during the screening. I sit down after the film and note everything that came to my mind, with a precise time line of the scenes order to help me remember the continuity later on. Then I let it simmer for some time. I like to quickly point to possible film references that could be connected either formally or thematically. But to write a review I need to find an angle, to understand the particularity of the film, and maybe some key questions it answers. Only then would I try to write something. And often my ideas stay in my notebook because it didn't germinate or for lack of time.
3. HOW DOES IT SHIFT?
I don't see the nature of cinema changing as much as reading habits. DVDs and the Internet didn't transform (yet) filmmaking, in my mind. What has evolved is the diffusion of images : freely, rapidly, globally. So movies become more accessible to a larger and more varied population. And Film discourse takes a multimedia form more and more.
Criticism has been a franchise of the distribution circuit for too long. If something has to change, it must be to turn critics towards auteurs and films (when they are made, when they première at festivals) instead of only reporting whatever Studios and Distributors decide should be screened that week in that city... Weekly reviews effectively condone and support all choices and (commercial) censorship made by the elective distribution. Cinema history is not an industrial schedule.
If (serious) Film Criticism suffers from a lack of popularity, losing touch with the base of movie goers... critics need to embrace contemporary means of communications, to reach out to a new audience, outside of the acquired choir of exclusive scholars, film critics themselves and hardcore cinephiles. Film Discourse should develop in audio commentary forms (Plastic Podcasts), in video essays (Shooting Down Pictures), in photo montages (365 jours ouvrables), interdisciplinary lectures (CinePhilo), cineclub forums (Girish) and blogs. And we see these forms taken more seriously online every year. Slowly but surely the change is on the way.
4. HOW TO GO ABOUT IT?
Here is a key problem faced by the confused reader. Film Discourse is all and nothing. Critics want to give factual IMDb infos, to be patronising taste makers, committed publicists or speculative theoreticians... all the while being entertaining and snarky. And since they jump from one mode to the next, readers don't take criticism seriously anymore. Meaningful analysis lost authority for the audience who put it in the same bag of impressionistic opinions as any other baseless review. Critics want to be too many things at once, and do justice to none.
Critics aren't the only ones to blame. The press that pushed towards cinema as an industry (fitting in with all schedules, lingo, figures and concerns of producers, distributors and publicists) rather than a production of artworks. And the Studios drag the press closer to their own marketing strategies (junkets, privileged screening, interview deals, movies sold as package).
Film Discourse should be segmented more clearly, in term of venues and writers, even if occasional overlap and exchanges are welcome.
That's why I'd rather want criticism to go back to a primordial state of clarity, simplicity and stability with a well defined object and an appropriate discourse.
Cahiers' attempt to survey the Digital "revolution" has been dubious at best so far. Critics should re-appropriate theatrical cinema correctly first.
I think it would be better if different people (not connoted with the archetypes of film criticism) would engage with new territories like music video, TV ads, TV news, live TV, Vlogs and viral YouTube videos... in order to develop a fresh set of references and jargon that doesn't suffer from the overwhelming history of academic theory. If only to dedicate a full time job to these new media, and not leave them in the sideline of something else bigger.
5. YOUR ADDITIONAL COMMENT
Film Criticism should be in permanent crisis to stay alert and self-critical. It is healthy and progressive for critics to be sceptical and self-reflexive. There is no such thing as a comfortable established self-indulgent complacent routine that would give us good criticism... The Press is defending its turf because that's the only thing they know, but the prestige they stand for is only a shadow of the past. The blogosphere isn't fully conscious of the new modality it brings to the table, and people don't exploit it to its fullest potential yet. The tools in place aren't facilitating everything either. However, step by step, the change is taking firm grip. And it's there to stay so you better understand it and embrace it already.
31 décembre 2008
2008 Crisis in links
(Photo : Athens, Decembre 2008, a real crisis)Digest calendar of Film Criticism "Crisis" related articles/events or dealing with the evolution of cinema practice/market and the definition of what is supposed to be Film Criticism today. Don't you like the internet open access archive where you can list such a bibliography accessible instantly at once without running to the libraries? I do. This is a selective list of links starting in December of last year. Please add in the comments anything of interest that I may have forgotten/overlooked. In brackets are links to my take on them posted at Screenville.
DECEMBER 2007
- Vertigo UK : "The Belgrade Manifesto" (12-2-2007) [at Screenville]
- "Fonctions Critiques" Roundtable at Cahiers #629 (issue Dec 2007) [FRENCH]
- "Les critiques des CdC et les forumeurs" at the Cahiers forum (12-05-2008) [FRENCH]
- "5 Steps to a Better View. Resolutions to improve NYC film culture in 2008" By S.T. VanAirsdale at The Village Voice (12-25-2008)
JANUARY 2008
- A Pinewood Dialogues with J. Hoberman and A.O. Scott (01-05-2008) J. Hoberman's 30 years career. [at Screenville]
MARCH 2008
- Jonathan Rosenbaum retires from The Chicago Reader (03-01-2008) audio podcast / video interview
- "Budding Channels of Peripheral Cinema. The Long Tail of Global Film Circulation" By Dina Iordanova (03-02-2008) [at Screenville]
- Responsabilities of Criticism (03-12-2008) NYU with Jonathan Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin & Nicole Brenez
- "From the NYU Film Criticism Workshop" By Kevin Lee (03-14-2008) part 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 [at Screenville]
- "The Said Comes From the Seen" By Filmbrain at Like Anna Karina's Sweater (03-22-2008)
- "Movie critics: Pros and cons" By Jim Emerson (03-25-2008)
- The Reeler : Lower Your Voice: Nathan Lee Laid Off For "Economic Reasons" (03-27-2008) By S.T. VanAirsdale
- Variety : "And Then There Were None: Critics on Death Watch" By Peter Debruge (03-27-2008)
APRIL 2008
- NYT : "Now on the Endangered Species List: Movie Critics in Print" By David Carr (04-01-2008)
- Variety : "Times changing for film critics. Younger generation shuns print for web" By Anne Thompson (04-03-2008)
- "Où va la critique de cinéma?" (04-07-2008) Le ciné-club de La Femis with Antoine de Baecque, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Nicolas Klotz, Sandrine Marques [FRENCH] [at Screenville]
- "The Death of the Print Critic" By Kevin Carr at FilmSchoolReject (04-07-2008)
- LAT : "Are they still relevant? Everyone’s a critic." By Patrick Goldstein (04-08-2008)
- "Fireworks" By Michael Atkinson (04-09-2008)
- Moving Image Institute in Film Criticism and Feature Writing (04-10-2008) With Rochelle Slovin, David Schwartz, Dennis Lim, Michael Barker, Heather Chaplin, Harris Dew, Julie Fontaine, Amy Geller, Carl Goodman, Ed Halter, Molly Haskell, Eugene Hernandez, Tom Kalin, Michael Koresky, Donald Krim, Ellen Kuras, Susan Norget, Gerald Peary, Arthur Penn, Bingham Ray, Kelly Reichardt, Andrew Sarris, Matt Zoller Seitz, Cynthia Swartz, A.O. Scott, S. T. VanAirsdale, Ryan Werner
- Panel with Andrew Sarris & Molly Haskell audio webcast at MI (01-15-2009) 1h20'
- "Leaping and bounding towards… what? The Moving Image Institute starts today" By Kevin Lee at Shooting Down Pictures (04-10-2008) part 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4
- Moving Image Institute By Doug Cummings at Film Journey (04-13-2008) part 1 - 2 - 3 - 4
- "Critics v Bloggers Redux (Or: I've heard that song before...)" By Filmbrain at Like Anna Karina's Sweater (04-17-2008)
- The Guardian : "The view: Is the film critic done for?" By Danny Leigh (04-18-2008)
- "In a Time of Change, Pondering the Tension Between New Film Journalism and Old" By Eric Kohn at indieWIRE (04-18-2008)
- Panel with Andrew Sarris & Molly Haskell audio webcast at MI (01-15-2009) 1h20'
- "La fin de la critique?" By Edouard Waintrop at Libération (04-11-2008) [FRENCH]
- Tom O'Neil bashes Sunrise in the LA Times (04-15-2008)
- "Etoiles, pouces et critiques" By Edouard Waintrop at Libération (04-18-2008) [FRENCH]
- Le Monde puts up Cahiers du cinéma for sale (04-24-2008) in Libération [FRENCH]
- GreenCine Daily : "Critics" By David Hudson (04-24-2008)
- New York Press : "What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Movies. Armond White takes aim at the critics who write with their thumbs" By Armond White (04-30-2008)
JUNE 2008
- "Where Have All the Film Critics Gone?" by Vincent Rossmeier at The Brooklyn Rail (June 2008)
- "Thanks a pantload, Michael Atkinson (updated)" By Glenn Kenny (06-09-2008)
- "Film criticism: It's not just a job, it's an adventure" By Jim Emerson (06-11-2008)
- Rethinking film criticism and theory: Commemorating the 90th anniversary of André Bazin (06-12-2008) Shanghai, China
- "Tartan Films, RIP" By Filmbrain at Like Anna Karina's Sweater (06-29-2008)
JULY 2008
- CinEditions roundtables at La Cinémathèque Française (07-03-2008) With Manoel de Oliveira, Antonio Tabucchi, Aki Kaurismäki, Pascal Mérigeau, Gérard Fromanger, Didier Daeninckx, Thierry Lefebvre, Sébastien Layerle, Bernard Benoliel, Claire Vassé, Michel Chion, Catherine Breillat, Jacques Doillon, Pascal Bonitzer, Costa-Gavras, Sergio Vecchio, Florence Delay, Luc Dardenne, Jorge Semprún, Hugo Vieira da Silva, Radu Mihaileanu, Costa-Gavras, Serge Toubiana, Thierry Magnier, Chloé Mary, Malika Ferdjoukh, Nathalie Bourgeois, Carole Desbarats, Charlotte Garson, Alexandre Tylski, Joachim Lepastier, Julien Gester, Frédéric Bas, Luc Lagier, N.T. Binh., Bernard Payen, Alain Cavalier, Michel Marie, Antoine de Baecque, Laurent Le Forestier [FRENCH]
- "La critique de cinéma et le défi internet : de la revue au blog" video at CinEditions (07-06-2008) With Alexandre Tylski, Joachim Lepastier, Julien Gester, Frédéric Bas, Luc Lagier, N.T. Binh. [FRENCH]
AUGUST 2008
SEPTEMBRE 2008
- "Everything is Cinema and Criticism is Nothing" By Ed Howard at Only The Cinema (08-02-2008)
- Cineaste (Septembre issue) : A Critical Symposium (09-01-2008)
- "Critics vs. Bloggers, Chapter 387: The Cineaste Critical Symposium" By Filmbrain at Like Anna Karina's Sweater (09-05-2008)
- "On Film Criticism : Cineaste" By Pamela Kerpius (09-10-2008)
- "Continuity and Innovation: Contemporary Film Form and Film Criticism" An International Conference at the University of Reading (09-05-2008)
- Film Quarterly : "The Rise and Fall of Film Criticism" By Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (issue Fall 2008, Vol. 62, N°1) PDF (09-05-2008)
- "L'état du monde du cinéma" Interview with Charles Tesson in Spectres du Cinéma (09-06-2008) PDF [FRENCH]
- Eyeweekly TIFF roundtable (09-15-2008) videos With Jason Anderson, Adam Nayman, Robert Koehler, Scott Foundas, Mark Peranson and Andrew Tracy
- "'Critic' is a four-letter word" By Roger Ebert (09-18-2008)
- Film Criticism in Crisis? at NYFF (09-27-2008) With Jonathan Rosenbaum, Emmanuel Burdeau, Kent Jones, David Hudson, Jessica Winter, Pascual Espiritu, Seung-hoon Jeong, Gavin Smith
- GreenCine Daily (post NYFF roundtable) podcast By Andrew Grant & Aaron Hillis with Jonathan Rosenbaum, Gavin Smith, David Hudson (09-30-2008)
OCTOBRE 2008
- Sight&Sound (October issue) : Who needs critics? / Critics on Critics (10-01-2008)
- "The state of film criticism" By Adrian Martin at Valdivia Film Festival, Chile (10-08-2008) With Lorena Cancela, Gonzalo Maza, Iván Pinto, Quintín, Adrian Martin, Juan Pablo Miranda [at Screenville]
- British Publisher Phaidon picked up by Le Monde as potential buyer for Cahiers (10-15-2008) in Libération [FRENCH]
- "Film International Special Issue on Film Festivals (Vol. 6, Issue 4)" By Michael Guillen at The Evening Class (10-28-2008) [at Screenville]
- "Cinephilia in India: a search for love and identity" By Nitesh at Winds from the East (10-31-2008)
- "Do Film Critics Have a Future? Who Cares?" By David Sterritt at The Huffington Post (10-31-2008)
NOVEMBRE 2008
- "Movie Criticism Before (and After) Blogging" interview with Gerald Peary at BU Today (11-12-2008) about his documentary For the love of movies. The story of American film criticism (2007)
- "Active Criticism. The role of film criticism today" Cahiers Seminar at the Estoril Festival, Portugal (11-15/16-2008) With Alain Bergala, Serge Toubiana, Arnaud Mace, Jean-François Rauger, Jordi Costa, Carlos Herdero, Paolo Mereghetti, Enrico Ghezzi, Angel Quintana Morraja, Genevieve Troussier, Peter Vonbagh, Jonathan Romney, Tahar Chickhaoui, Francisco Ferreira, Nick James, Martim Dale, João Lopes
- "Votre blog est nul" By Serge Toubiana at La Cinémathèque Française (11-19-2008) [FRENCH]
- Interview of A.S. Hamrah at TischFilmReview (11-16-2008) [at Screenville]
- NYT : "The Way We Live Now : The Screening of America" By AO Scott (11-21-2008)
- "La crisis que faltaba" By Quintin at La Lectora Provisoria (11-24-2008) on the crisis of the festival Mar Del Plata [SPANISH]
- Ouvrir Bazin, U. Paris-Diderot (11-25-2008) With André S. Labarthe, Olivier Faivre, Raymond Bellour, Antoine de Baecque, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Steven Ungar, Marc Vernet, Angella Dalle Vacche, Dudley Andrew, Marc Cerisuelo, Rochelle Fack, Jean-François Chevrier, Bruno Tackels, Diane Arnaud, Florence B. de Courville, Jean Narboni, Philip Watts, Seugnhoon Jeong, Diana Lemberg, Grant Wiedenfield, Nicolas Thys, Ryan Cook, Jeremi Szaniawski, Michael Cramer [at Screenville]
- "Death to film critics! Hail to the CelebCult!" By Roger Ebert (12-26-2008)
- "A refusal to mourn the death, by downsizing, of the metro daily film crit corps"; "The era of the “mom and pop film critic” is over"; "The Hitsville mosh pit: Whither the film critic?"; By Bill Wyman at Hitsville (12-01-2008)
DECEMBRE 2008
- Interview with André Habib at Le Silo (12-03-2008) [FRENCH]
- Open Bazin, U. Yale (12-04-2008) With Dudley Andrew, Antoine de Baecque, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Steven Ungar, Angella Dalle Vacche, Rochelle Fack, Bruno Tackels, Diane Arnaud, Dominque Bluher, Philip Rosen, Tom Conley, Ludovic Cortade, Tom Gunning, Daniel Morgan, Daniel Stern, John MacKay, Monica Dall’Asta, James Tweedie, Ivone Margulies, Prakash Younger, Colin MacCabe, Jean-Michel Frodon
- Où va le cinéma? Inter-professional symposium on the state of cinema in Paris (12-04-2008) With Vincent Dieutre, Chris Dercon, Ariane Michel, Dominique Gonzales-Foerster, Heinz Peter Schwerfel, Caroline Champetier, Charles de Meaux, Jean-Charles Fitoussi, Emmanuel Finkiel, Gilles Gaillard, Benoît Labourdette, Eugène Green, Alain Guiraudie, Christophe Honoré, Mia Hansen-Love, Jean-Marc Lalanne, Olivier Assayas, Claire Denis, Bruno Dumont, Daniel Deshays, Marianne Alphant, André Habib, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Joachim Lepastier, Olivier Séguret, Marcos Uzal, Jennifer Verraes, Julien Gester, Emmanuel Bourdieu, Serge Bozon, Valérie Mréjen, Joana Hadjithomas, Khalil Joreige, Omar Berrada, Frederick Wiseman, Nicolas Philibert, Bouchra Khalili, Serge Kaganski, Eric Altmayer, Pascale Cassagnau, Corinne Castel, Frédérique Dumas, Denis Freyd, Sylvie Pialat, Bertrand Bonello, Pascale Ferran, Stéphane Goudet, Benoit Jacquot, Olivier Meneux, Jean-Jacques Rue, Roger Rotmann, Valérie Jouve, Mark Lewis, Clemens von Wedemeyer, Philippe-Alain Michaux, Philippe Avril, Joachim Lafosse, Tudor Giurgiu, Pablo Trapero, Liew Seng Tat [FRENCH] [at Screenville]
- "Qui sait où va la critique : l'Enquête" Le Silo survey on film critics (12-04-2008) With Emmanuel Burdeau, Jean-Michel Frodon, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Raymond Bellour, André Habib, Christian Lebrat, Antoine Guillot, Raphaël Bassan, Christa Blümlinger [FRENCH] [at Screenville]
- HarryTuttle's questionnaire at Screenville (01-03-2009)
- HarryTuttle's questionnaire at Screenville (01-03-2009)
- "Où va la critique? nouveaux objets, nouveaux supports, nouveaux enjeux" Film criticism panel in Paris (12-05-2008) With André Habib, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Joachim Lepastier, Julien Gester, Olivier Séguret, Marcos Uzal, Jennifer Verraes [FRENCH] [at Screenville]
- "Qui sait où va la critique : l'Enquête" Le Silo survey on film critics (12-04-2008) With Emmanuel Burdeau, Jean-Michel Frodon, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Raymond Bellour, André Habib, Christian Lebrat, Antoine Guillot, Raphaël Bassan, Christa Blümlinger [FRENCH] [at Screenville]
- Deadline Hollywood Daily : "Hungry For More At LA Times" By Scott Foundas (12-09-2008) [at Screenville]
- Variety : "Young reviewers put passion over profit. New voices often find themselves writing for free" By Peter Debruge (12-12-2008)
- GreenCine Daily : "Hard Times." By David Hudson (12-14-2008)
- The House Next Door : HND@Grassroots (12-18-2008) NYC audio podcast with Peter Debruge, John Lichman, Vadim Rizov, Michael Joshua Rowin, Andrew Schenker, Keith Uhlich, S.T. VanAirsdale, and Lauren Wissot
- NYT : "In the Big Picture, Big-Screen Hopes" By Manohla Dargis (12-18-2008) + audio webcast [at Screenville]
JANUARY 2009
- GreenCine Daily : "2009 Resolutions for Film Criticism" Audio podcast by Aaron Hillis (01-01-2009) With David Fear, Joshua Rothkopf, Matt Zoller Zeist
- Vinyl is podcast : "An unfocused invitation to holler on criteria" Audio podcast by Ryland Walker Knight (01-04-2009) with Kevin Lee, Keith Uhlich, Dan Callahan
- "2008 Film Crit Summits" By HarryTuttle at Screenville (01-05-2008)
- Finally Cahiers officially announces being purchased by Phaidon ! (01-05-2008)
- "Approaches to Critiquing" By Kshitiz Anand at Winds From The East (01-13-2008)
- "The Delhi Manifesto" at Winds from The East (01-16-2008)
29 décembre 2008
Survey : Where is Film Criticism heading to?
I briefly mentioned earlier in my post on the Paris MoMA event : "Où va le cinéma?", that Le Silo (a collaborative research group studying the relation between cinema and Contemporary Art) was conducting a survey of some 150 people from the world of cinema on the question at the heart of discussion for this symposium and for the Film Criticism roundtable in particular : "Where is Film Criticism at?", intentionnaly focused on the "how?" rather than the "why?".
Nine answers are already posted online at the Centre Pompidou website (Emmanuel Burdeau, Jean-Michel Frodon, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Raymond Bellour, André Habib, Christian Lebrat, Antoine Guillot, Raphaël Bassan, Christa Blümlinger) [in FRENCH]. This will culminate in yet another summit on the state of French Film Criticism sometimes in spring 2009. So more food for thoughts on the way.
Here is the questionnaire in 5 parts for you to respond and to publish yourself to take part in this open international debate. Consider it like a meme to be circulated on the blogosphere, and to "infect" others :
- You may subscribe to the RSS feed for the comments of this post to be notified of new entries.
Nine answers are already posted online at the Centre Pompidou website (Emmanuel Burdeau, Jean-Michel Frodon, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Raymond Bellour, André Habib, Christian Lebrat, Antoine Guillot, Raphaël Bassan, Christa Blümlinger) [in FRENCH]. This will culminate in yet another summit on the state of French Film Criticism sometimes in spring 2009. So more food for thoughts on the way.
Here is the questionnaire in 5 parts for you to respond and to publish yourself to take part in this open international debate. Consider it like a meme to be circulated on the blogosphere, and to "infect" others :
- If you post your questionnaire, please add your link in the comment section of this post.Who knows where is Film Criticism going to?
1. HOW IS IT GOING?
What is the situation of Film Criticism today? If the golden age of interpretative systems seems behind us, if critics communities, great movements and great trends vanished, on what ground could criticism found itself? Before knowing where it goes, do we know where it's at?
2. HOW DOES IT WORK?
How does the critical relation to the film develop? How did this relation evolve in History? If film criticism comes after the film, what is its own tempo? What kind of distance to put between the film criticism and its objects (the films)? Is it a matter of method, maybe of technique? How do you work yourself?
3. HOW DOES IT SHIFT?
Should film criticism reassess its positions since cinema takes new positions? Do the successive migrations of cinema (from theatre to museum, from the film on the big screen to the DVD on a TV screen, from DVD to internet...) induce new types of writing styles? And maybe other realities, other modalities than just writing? Since other modes of rhetoric appropriated its object (Film theory, Film history, Film exhibition in a museum...), should the function critique be redefined in regard to other discourses on films?
4. HOW TO GO ABOUT IT?
How does film criticism position itself vis-à-vis discourses of the news, of communication or of evaluation? How are dispatched taste judgement, production of knowledge and interpretation? If we consider that film criticism should speak of more than just cinema, what other territories exterior to the strict field of cinema should film criticism cover?
5. YOUR ADDITIONAL COMMENT
- You may subscribe to the RSS feed for the comments of this post to be notified of new entries.
23 décembre 2008
Dargis high on blissful optimism
Dargis : "At the risk of sounding stoned on hope, I offer the following heresy: The movies are fine.""In the Big Picture, Big-Screen Hopes" (NYT, 12-18-2008) :
Dargis : "There is, of course, perverse pleasure in ending the year with an angry rant, as I have proven in the past, if only to myself. But given the clanging of so much bad news, I thought I would try a change of pace. I’m not sure if optimism becomes me, but it sure feels nice. Every year filmmakers from around the world offer us stories filled with grief and tragedy that either feed our souls or rip out another little piece. I tend to fall for movies like these, but I also swoon for those filled with grace and generous sentiments, like “Happy-Go-Lucky,” that suggest that one way to face hard times (and raging driving instructors) is with an open heart and smile. Quickly now: give it a try!"
With so much Major Studio name-dropping, the NYT has turned into Variety! Does the audience really care if a movie was made by such or such studio? Is it the business of a critic to publicize these brand names in the Art pages? in a year-end article? This is corporate talks. Why should the interface with the audience (review publications) should lump them in this industrial jargon?
She prefers to save space with one-liner blurbs for her film picks, and share ample anecdotes on the whereabouts of her fellow publicists and the endeavours of Hollywood speciality divisions...
[EDIT : see comments]Let's remember the NYT is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Now it's easier to understand why AO Scott and Manohla Dargis want us to turn a blind eye on the current crisis in the Press, among Film Critics, in the Hollywood business, on the financial market... (listen to the year-end podcast!)
She prefers to save space with one-liner blurbs for her film picks, and share ample anecdotes on the whereabouts of her fellow publicists and the endeavours of Hollywood speciality divisions...
[EDIT : see comments]
Dargis (podcast) : "As difficult as a year has it's been, as difficult it is in particular for foreign language film distributors to get their movies into theatres and then to get people into seats to watch those movies, the fact is that a lot of good movies continue to get theatrical distribution in this country."
Well let's take a look at the proportion of foreign movies in critics year-end top10s (mostly one or two years old), and the number of good movies sitting on the "undistributed list" appending.
Note that she doesn't mention the issue of foreign movies distribution in her article, it's a podcast-exclusive web-only supplement.
Of the movies she mentions : Paranoid Park (2007); Encounters at the End of the World (2007); Ne Touchez pas à la hache (2007); Une vieille maitresse (2007); Boarding Gate (2007); My Winnipeg (2007); Silent Light (2007); Le voyage du ballon rouge (2007); Still Life (2006); Duck Season (2004)
...is that really an achievement to be proud of for the number 1 cinema nation in the world? If a home-made blockbuster can be released simultaneously in many places all over the planet, surely foreign films deserve a better treatment than such quarantine. I believe there are lots of efforts to be made, and acknowledging them would be the first constructive step for a critical journalist to wake up out of denial.
Note that she doesn't mention the issue of foreign movies distribution in her article, it's a podcast-exclusive web-only supplement.
Of the movies she mentions : Paranoid Park (2007); Encounters at the End of the World (2007); Ne Touchez pas à la hache (2007); Une vieille maitresse (2007); Boarding Gate (2007); My Winnipeg (2007); Silent Light (2007); Le voyage du ballon rouge (2007); Still Life (2006); Duck Season (2004)
...is that really an achievement to be proud of for the number 1 cinema nation in the world? If a home-made blockbuster can be released simultaneously in many places all over the planet, surely foreign films deserve a better treatment than such quarantine. I believe there are lots of efforts to be made, and acknowledging them would be the first constructive step for a critical journalist to wake up out of denial.
Dargis (podcast) : "it's difficult to be optimistic when there is so much bad news, but we are right now in a paradigm shift in terms of how people go to the movies, how they consume movies. And instead of thinking of it as being dire (that the theatrical experience has changed), is to think of it as a change, a pure neutral change, and that we have to shift as a consequence. And it doesn't necessarily mean that the movies are disappearing or the movies are getting worse (which tends to be the kind of vibe that is in the air a lot). There is a difference now. Maybe if you can't see the movie in your theatre, you can catch it on DVD pretty soon."
Dargis and AO Scott are actually satisfied that foreign movies don't get a proper theatrical run (as every film made for cinema should get) as long as you can watch them on DVD... So that's the fatalistic conclusion from the leading team at the NYT? No need to worry about watching foreign films that are 2 years old on the small screen, we're telling you it's a "paradigm shift" you'll have to live with anyway. If I were American I would feel so comforted by such a voice of (Newspeak) reason. Numb down the mass with vacuous smooth talking until their quality requirements are standardized.
Dargis : "And so, dear (and hostile) reader, it is in the admittedly alien spirit of optimism that I offer you my 10 favorite films, and some thoughts about the year in film. Optimism, I should add, perhaps needlessly, does not come naturally to me. (...) For a lot of people both in the movie world and in journalism, this has been the year of eating glass, which is even worse when you know those who have lost their jobs."
Her opening disclaimer doesn't convince me the smiley undertone wasn't imposed from high up. (sarcasm mode on:) Film critics shouldn't care for social insecurities and grim fate... if filmmakers take a hard look at a struggling world with a pessimistic eye, journalists paid by big corporations should call them party-killers and clear up the mind of consumers to make sure the pull towards mindless fun remains intact at the B.O. Let's put a veil over our problems and keep on supporting The Entertainment. Thank you New Yeuk Times! (end sarcasm rant)
Dargis : "But selling movies isn’t the job of the reviewer, which is something I wish some of my colleagues would remember whenever they start moaning about how critics don’t have power anymore. As if making (or breaking) movies were part of the gig. It isn’t, and never should have been."
This is an important thought to be circulated by a high profile newspaper. That would have been a great quote if it wasn't contradicted by the overall sentiment of this complacently uncritical year-end article.
Dargis : "The big studios like being in the big movie business, but it’s rare that art enters the equation as forcefully as it does in “The Dark Knight,” the Christopher Nolan film that earned critical love on its release but is now being shunned by critics’ groups that seem to think complexity, self-conscious contradictions and beauty are exclusive to the art house."
I would rather look to Wong Kar-wai's My Blueberry Nights or Ashes of Time Redux to find Art in a mainstream formula. The Dark Night was alright, but I hope it's not THE epitome of "commercial art" or else we're fucked. Art comes a long way...
Dargis : "I’m keeping my fingers crossed that more specialty divisions keep afloat. Without them it’s hard to see how a modern masterwork like Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood,” which was released last year by Paramount Vantage — whose ranks were radically thinned this year — will be made."
Let's do like Dargis and leave this dire situation up to chance and cross our fingers until someone else wants to change something in that system... Finger crossing is the most outraged a journalist employed at the NYT could afford to go to criticize Hollywood! I'm impressed. No wonder more readers rely on the blogosphere to find reality check with real feelings.
Dargis : "There is, of course, perverse pleasure in ending the year with an angry rant, as I have proven in the past, if only to myself. But given the clanging of so much bad news, I thought I would try a change of pace. I’m not sure if optimism becomes me, but it sure feels nice. Every year filmmakers from around the world offer us stories filled with grief and tragedy that either feed our souls or rip out another little piece. I tend to fall for movies like these, but I also swoon for those filled with grace and generous sentiments, like “Happy-Go-Lucky,” that suggest that one way to face hard times (and raging driving instructors) is with an open heart and smile. Quickly now: give it a try!"
Again, ending her piece with a frown on people who would dare to feature anything else than self-contentment after all we've been through this year (of all recent years)... If Dargis happened to be laid off, like many of her peers, she's already preparing her reconversion as a publicist for euphoric blockbusters. (lame humour attempt)
AO Scott (podcast) : "I think more filmmakers maybe should take up that challenge. Cause it feels to me sometimes that glum and darkness is an easy way out, and sometimes the harder work of art or of film is to hold on to some measure of optimism or hope."
This is ludicrous. Was that a meaningful statement from an Art critic? from a screenwriting expert? from the proverbial "institutional weight" dear to AO Scott?
If you didn't believe they got an executive memo to spread "hope" to their readers... now you know. Obama's hope is grand to boost the moral in Real Life society. But why does it apply to the realm of fictitious creation too?
Sorry I couldn't show that much oblivious optimism without compromising my soul, that tells me the world we live in is far from perfect and that denial is hardly the way to make it better. We need reforms of the system, we need actions, not affirmations and positive thinking.
If you didn't believe they got an executive memo to spread "hope" to their readers... now you know. Obama's hope is grand to boost the moral in Real Life society. But why does it apply to the realm of fictitious creation too?
Sorry I couldn't show that much oblivious optimism without compromising my soul, that tells me the world we live in is far from perfect and that denial is hardly the way to make it better. We need reforms of the system, we need actions, not affirmations and positive thinking.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)