A Meaningless Film-Critic Embargo From Producer of "Dragon Tattoo"

An interesting, but finally meaningless, debate about movie critics and "promises", caught my attention recently...


A firestorm of negative opinion has erupted over David Denby's review of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo",  which is scheduled for publication in the New Yorker, in the December 6 issue. 


It is the date of publication, and not the review itself, that has received the roar of disapproval from "fans" of the as-yet unreleased film, produced by Scott Rudin and directed by David Fincher.


It began when the New York Film Critics Circle decided to announce its annual Film Awards (a year-end precursor to the Oscars) earlier than normally scheduled.  For whatever reason, the New York Critics wanted to be the first to have made their official awards announcement (at the end of November rather than the traditional mid-December time frame), when a few high-profile pictures still had not been released in New York. 


One of the unreleased films, "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", which has high award expectations (at least from the Fincher-ites), was in danger of being unscreened, and therefore, left out of the NYFC voting. So the studio allowed the Critic's Circle a special screening, and then demanded that each critic make a promise not to publish any review before December 13. 


(Another highly-touted major studio release, Stephen Daldry's "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close", was not ready for screening and was left out of the NYFC voting this year.)


Denby published early, citing the glut of year-end movies to review, and limited time to do so, as the reason for the "early" review.


Producer Scott Rudin, infuriated, banned Denby from future advanced screenings for violating the "review embargo".  Fincher, who reasonably expressed his distaste for screenings in advance of the movie's release date, nevertheless blasted Denby for violating his "promise" and supported Rudin's decision to ostracize Denby. (Check this interesting post in Anomalous Material)


That's when the Web heated up with opinion over film critics' honoring their agreements, and a peculiar defense of the film, that seemed designed to protect some fragile Awards fantasy that  Fincher, and this movie, would triumph at the Oscars. The argument was that by publishing an early, potentially negative review, the fan-fiction that "Tattoo" might be an eleventh-hour Oscar game-changer might not hold up. 

And if future reviews prove as lukewarm as Denby's, then there may be little hope for awards-love for the movie.  The venom directed at Denby,  and the support of Fincher and the as yet unseen "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", went beyond fandom and bordered on the irrational.


(In the final count, in spite of the special screening, NYFC left "Tattoo" empty-handed, and the film has not impressed other critics' groups as of this writing.  The "Social Network"s critical juggernaut will not repeat itself this year.)


If Denby had played the good sport in this instance, then the movie would have had to rise and fall on its own merits, rather than receive the benefit of promotion by manufactured "scandal". 


I hold to the notion, expressed previously on this blog, that movie-making is diminished when films are discussed nearly to death before their release. That includes incessant analysis of everything from the studio-leaked photos, to the trailers, to the poster art.  That, as much as early reviews, can ruin the experience for a potential viewer, except for those who will attend that all-important opening weekend anyway. 


I agree with Fincher in my preference that reviews should be written after a film has been released to theaters.


But I  disagree with the studios setting up advance screenings---for no other purpose than to make a film award-eligible--and then demand that critics not write about it. It's an almost laughable double-standard in which critics are "invited" to screenings, and are free to bestow their honors upon a film, which they are then sworn not to review until later. 


Film critics write film criticism.  If studios didn't do early screenings, then they would prevent "premature" reviews.  (The old activist in me reacts against any demand not to write about something, especially something as benign as a movie review....thoughts of freedom of the press linger..) If the film is that good, and promoted appropriately, the work will stand on its own, awards or no.


Also, if "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" happened to win major awards from the New York Film Critics Circle, the continued enforcement of the "embargo" would have been awkward, if not downright embarrassing. 


I also find a desperate inconsistency in the opinions of some writers on this subject. On the one hand, they put forth the idea that critics don't matter, that the only relevant views on any film come from the average moviegoing audience. On the other hand, the outrage over Denby's early review betrays a fear that critics do in fact matter a great deal, that the opinion of a professional movie critic is potentially damaging, and that it has the ability to plant doubt in the minds of those who would otherwise praise the film to Awards glory.


There are no heroes here.  The New York Film Critics need to chill a little, and wait until they have given each eligible film a fair viewing.  The studios should spread out their releases more evenly thoughout the year, and not effectively censor what and when a writer writes.  Banning Denby from advance screenings serves no purpose. 


 It's all about awards, I guess, and that's not good for the full appreciation of the art of film.

Tuesday Short Take #2: The Movie Award Season Begins

Speaking of "Midnight in Paris",  I was excited to see Corey Stoll, playing an uber-masculine and sensitive Ernest Hemingway, nominated for an Independent Spirit Supporting Actor award!  He is worth the attention.

The Independent Spirit nominees for 2011 feature many of my favorite films and performances of the year, including "Paris", "Beginners", "Take Shelter", "50/50", "The Descendants",  and "Martha Marcy May Marlene".

Here's a complete list of Independent Spirit Nominees for 2011.

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

It's ironic (and fun!), in a year that saw the preponderance of movie technology, special effects, CGI, 3-D, (and my laments about the empty bombast of it all), that the possible major-award-winner in 2011 might just be a black-and-white silent film, made in the same manner as the films of the 1920's!

"The Artist", the French valentine to movies and actors, has captured my imagination like no other film since "Tree of Life".

The New York Film Critics caused an artificial ruckus by being the earliest critic's group to reveal their awards for the year. The ruckus intensified when the group decided to delay the voting one day, to include a screening of "Girl With A Dragon Tattoo" (which, by the way, came away empty-handed), but not delayed enough to screen the not-yet-ready "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close". 

I am so pleased that there are a lot of films this year that are worthy of attention.  Sure, there will be some good films that will be crowded out by those with a higher profile or bigger promotional budget.

 But the New York Film Critics Circle, I think, did themselves proud with this year's announcement of winners;  "The Artist" for film and Director; Brad Pitt awarded for "Moneyball" AND "Tree of Life"; Meryl Streep for "Iron Lady", "Moneyball" for Screenplay, "Tree of Life" for Cinematography; and Jessica Chastain ("The Help", Take Shelter", "Tree of Life") and Albert Brooks ("Drive") in Supporting Acting Categories.  (Click this Link for the full list of winners)

*      *      *      *      *      *

And in the biggest surprise at all, the relatively new Gotham Independent Film Group last night awarded a tie for Best Picture to: the small, quirky, intimate "Beginners", and the ethereal, timeless, ambitious "Tree of Life". 

(Click Here to read about the winners)

This could be an interesting Awards season!

"Tree of Life" Second Viewing

(Please play this music while reading. YouTube courtesy of Geode121)


Last night I experienced Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life" for the second time. (My previous review here)


Since my first viewing I have read with interest the excellent reviews of fellow bloggers, including Andrew at Encore's World of Film and TV... and Ben at Runs Like a Gay 


This difficult but brilliant film is now showing on only one cinema screen in all of metropolitan Chicago: the Glen Art Cinema, in the Chicago suburb of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.  It was worth the half-hour drive, the $7 admission fee, and a slightly scratched print.


"The Tree of Life" offered up new insights on second viewing.  Since I knew what I was about to witness, there was none of the mystery, none of the anticipation I had brought in with me the the first time.  I did not have to work as hard to decipher the patterns or to understand the direction in which it moved.  I could relax, and concentrate on the images and sounds.  I was better able to observe the visual and aural connections between shots, as well as the thematic connections. 


I continued to "converse" with the film in my head, to struggle with questions I had the first time, and to let the ideas and feelings, images and music, settle into my consciousness to become part of my way of seeing. 


For example, I still resisted the Mother's idea that man can follow only one of two paths (either the way of Nature or the way of Grace).  However, I was more impressed this time by how the characters played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain embodied these two ideas, while remaining fully human, often idealized, sometimes demonized, with flaws and all.

(I even wondered if Mother had a change of heart near the end...coming to terms with Nature...willing to let go...and simplifying her philosophy to one word, "love".)


I also discovered that the film's point of view shifts fluidly between characters, often cued by their whispered voice-over narrations.  Some of these voice-overs were still difficult to hear, but now I think I better understand their necessity as clues to the film's shifting points of view.  How a character is seen during the film often depends on whose memory, or viewpoint, is working a the time.

To whom are the voice-over questions appealing? God? The deceased son/brother?  I think it could be either, at various points...


I enjoyed the almost constant slow movement of the camera.  This was not haphazard, shaky "documentary"-style cliche, but a patterned, dreamy, fluid movement that kept drawing the viewer in, and was consistent from sequence to sequence.  Water is such an important motif in "The Tree of Life", that I understood the film to be "flowing", like a body of water. We are unable to linger on any one point for too long, but must move along with its carefully-purposed flow.


The Creation-of-the-Universe sequence, and the New-Age after-life finale, I  understood, almost by instinct, were framing devices, meant to represent the unknowable and cataclysmic "consciousness" of what occurred before we were born, and what might happen after we die.  

The film's centerpiece, which is the family story, I think is just a fleeting "moment" in the enormity of time.  The fact that the bulk of the film's running time is devoted to this ethereal narrative gives importance to that "moment", to all of our "moments".

This family narrative is almost rapturous in its observation of everyday detail. It means to answer the question "What are we to you?" by showing that the birth of one child may be as significant as the creation of the universe, and that life is as at once mundane and profound.  

The film suggests that we need not feel desolate in the uncertainty of our importance in this vast, unknowable universe; and that nature and grace wrestle inside all of us,  in our seeming everyday insignificance.
 
The story of this family still plays like a dream, a memory.... Almost completely drained of expository dialogue, we hear just enough to maintain some narrative movement.  What remains are the impressions, the emotions, that are the bittersweet residue of all memory, which is just enough, and yet never enough...


Because it is a film that insists on appealing to the far reaches of our thinking, it is often confusing, because we WANT to be moved emotionally. The images are sometimes so achingly beautiful (along with the music) that we almost NEED the release of tears.....Instead, viewers are left hushed, and thoughtful (at least, those in the audience who are not bored, confused or outraged). 

If it is not an overtly religious experience (and I sensed no dogma in Malick's piece,  just a matter-of-fact statement of one artist's philosophy), "The Tree of Life" is a rare "mainstream" film that tries to touch a purely spiritual element; or, at least, it tries to appeal to us from the waist up, and  to send us out with a new "lens" on the world, if we choose to accept it as such.


The final image, of a bridge, is beautiful and true.  A connection between Nature and Grace?  I could think about the possibilities this image offers for a long time.


And the music...  Rarely has the marriage of music and image been so mysteriously RIGHT in a mainstream full-length motion picture.  I am inspired to become familiar with all of the music in this film, to identify those pieces that I still don't know, so that future viewings will carry even more resonance.

(The piece in the video at the top is "Funeral Canticle" by John Tavener (1996) and is used at least twice: in an early sequence during Jessica Chastain's quiet soliloquy; and later, it soothes us like a balm after an intense argument between Mother and Father. )


I will be looking at "The Tree of Life" many more times in my life...until I know it well, and will speak of it with as much fluency as I do of my favorites from the '70's.  The Blu-Ray/DVD is scheduled for release on October 11.

I look forward to the impressions of other repeat viewers.

500 + 1: My Favorite Movie Writing and Reviews in This Blog

First and foremost, I love to write about movies.  As part of my "celebration" of two years and 500 posts, I offer now a special entry, a retrospective of my favorite writings about the movies.

Writing about film has always been my special interest, my passion.  From my teen years, I have been inspired by great filmmakers, and especially, great film critics.

I considered making this just a blog about movies.  But I then decided not to restrict myself  just yet, and to give free voice to any number of topics and ideas that would interest me.  Besides, the critics I admire most seem to have well-rounded interests. And what better way to educate ones' self (the cornerstone of reinvention) but to learn enough about a topic to write about it? Or, at least, to express one's opinions intelligently.

I have enjoyed the series of posts about Oscar 40 years past. This gave me a chance to revel once again in a movie era that influenced so much to me, in which the films took chances and meant something.  I can't wait to re-visit 1971 next February.(Oscar 1969;   Oscar 1970)

My remembrance of the late Sidney Lumet gave me a new appreciation of the director and his work.  His core of classic films in the mid-1970's are life-long favorites, and his quote about good movies is part of my manifesto.

And there have been my rants, and more thoughtful pieces, about the state of movies today, and the role of film critics and film criticism, not only as a reflection of movie trends, but as a way to even influence the viewing habits of audiences.  (What Makes A Movie Good?, and many others.)

Best of all was the opportunity to write film reviews and criticism.  I always tried to be sensitive to those who had not yet seen the films; I tried to make them WANT to see a movie I really liked.  To readers who saw the film I reviewed, I hoped to provide enough substance so that they could think about the film, articulate their feelings better, and, even if they disagreed with me, they would feel as though they had just had the experience of seeing the film again for the first time.  That is my goal in my reviews.

I was frankly surprised at how many reviews I wrote, even though I would write many more if I had the time (or desire) to see more new releases.

I especially enjoy re-viewing older films I love.  It's like taking a new friend around a town you are intimately familiar with, and love. 

I re-read all of the reviews and created a retrospective list of the ones I felt read the best, or represented the movies--or my views of them--most accurately and honestly.  They were the reviews I was most proud of, seemed most polished, or else I took more chances with them.  A few are very personal.  Quite simply-- I just enjoyed reading them the most.

I never assembled them all on one page like this...it's like an index to a book of reviews by Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael !!  (The reviews are listed in chronological order by the date the review was written). 

They are not all reviews of movies I liked.  I found that I write better if I enjoy a film, but I am more forceful if I dislike a film.

It's my first portfolio. I hope Ms. Kael would have enjoyed them. I hope you enjoy them too.  Feel free to come back often!

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"An Education"  (2009) 11/8/09

"Harry and Tonto" (1974) 11/21/09

"Chris and Don: A Love Story" (2008) 12/12/09

"Cabaret" (1972) 12/13/09

"Precious" (2009) 12/21/09

"Nine" (2009)  12/29/09

"A Single Man" (2009) 1/15/10

"The Blind Side" (2009) 2/15/10

"Citizen Kane" (1941) 5/25/10

"Toy Story 3" (2010) 7/5/10

"The Kids Are All Right" (2010) 7/17/10

"Inception" (2010)  7/25/10

"The Hours" (2002) 8/28/10

"The Tillman Story" (2010) 9/6/10

"The Subject Was Roses" (1968) 9/23/10

"Never Let Me Go" (2010)  10/2/10

"The Social Network" (2010) 10/25/10

"Hannah and Her Sisters" (1987) 11/8/10

"Love and Other Drugs" (2010) 12/5/10

"Black Swan" (2010) 12/24/10

"The King's Speech" (2010) 12/27/10

"Blue Valentine" (2010) 1/18/11

"Come Back, Little Sheba" (1952) 2/9/11

"The Red Balloon" (1956) 2/22/11

"Burlesque" (2010) 4/6/11

"Poetry", (2010) 5/5/11

"The Tree of Life" (2011) 6/7/11

"Midnight in Paris" (2011) 7/2/11

"The Help" (2011) 9/6/11

An Interesting Box-Office Statistic

Recently I finished a short series of essays in which I tried to examine the malaise of the Movie Summer of 2011.  I suggested, as I have in other essays I wrote for this journal, that there is a neglected movie audience  that would come back to cinemas if there were more substantial films, pictures not obviously targeted to pre-adolescents. 

I expressed my belief that "mature" viewers (not necessarily "older", but ones who appreciate something more than computer graphics, explosions, comic book heroes and brutality) would help make more modestly budgeted, high-quality pictures successful if only more of them were widely available.

I even found a recent quote by a powerful industry insider that succinctly summarized what took me several paragraphs to articulate:

"...The last seven or eight months of movies is the worst lineup of movies you've experienced in the last five years of your life. They suck. It's unbelievable how bad movies have been..."
   ~Jeffrey Katzenberg, DreamWorks Animation CEO, at the Brainstorm Tech Conference in Aspen,  Colorado in July. 

As fall approaches, the tide will hopefully turn.  But it is still Summer; "Midnight in Paris" has earned more than its budget;, and it appears that another "adult"film in wide release is poised to become a surprisingly huge hit.

Nothing about it would indicate that it would be a smash movie in the Summer of 2011.


It is a period piece (the American South in 1963).  It is the story of, of all things, a young woman aspiring to become a writer, and a maid who helps her realize her dream.  It tells of how these two unlikely allies collborate with a group of repressed women, and how all of them triumph. 

It is a somber tale of caregivers caught up in a dangerous era of change, when they began to resist the long-standing attitudes and traditions that robbed them of the most basic freedoms in personally degrading ways.  Its physical violence is shocking, wounding, but not shown on screen.  Its tension and sadness are punctuated by  laughter and honest warmth.  There is nary a computer in sight, nor a gun. 

It is an authentic re-creation of an unbelievable time and place in America's history, one whose repercussions are still felt today.  It was made by a competent and talented director, a gay white man who grew up in the milieu of the film, who was a childhood friend of the woman who wrote the novel  (one that no one wanted to publish) from which the screenplay was adapted. 

All it has to offer is a human story that absorbs audiences for 2 hours and 17 minutes, played by talented performers, new and old; and a meticulous design and soundtrack that engulf viewers into a world that requires the same suspension of disbelief as the latest fantasy blockbuster--except that it is based on a real time and place in our world.

The film, of course, is "The Help".

What makes this all the more interesting, in the context of the Summer 2011 Movie Season, is that among all of the billion-dollar franchises, the "safe" blockbusters that were critic-proof and all but guaranteed to be financially successful,  "The Help" is the only 2011 film to achieve the #1 weekend box-office spot for three consecutive weekends (and the first film to do so since 2010's "Inception".) (See more HERE)

That is amazing...and reinforces my instinct about audiences for movies that are real, entertaining and made without compromise (paraphrasing a mysterious voice from an Iowa cornfield):

If you make them--they will come.

Tomorrow...My re-view of "The Help".

Cicely Tyson ("Sounder", 1972) and Lila Rogers in a scene from "The Help"

Film Criticism, Inspiration, Trash and Art: 2011 Summer Films, Part 3

"While the goal of all movies is to entertain, the kind of film in which I believe goes one step further. It compels the spectator to examine one facet or another of his own conscience. It stimulates thought and sets the mental juices flowing."--the late Sidney Lumet

Do Film Critics still matter?  In spite of a growing number of films that rake in millions in spite of critics' misgivings; in spite of large segments of the moviegoing public who were raised on mindless cinema, and have fallen prey to the artless and cynical machinations of a film industry that seems intent (at least all summer) on removing the last vestiges of human sensitivity from our movie screens---


Yes!  I do believe film criticism matters.  Good film critics are the stewards of the best that cinema can give us.  They stand defiant against the willful infantilizing of movies, and are a voice of reason in the preservation of a popular art form that thinks it must devolve into a crude, ignorant amusement park to survive.  The words of Sidney Lumet above speak to the universal pleasures of moviegoing.  Good movie critics, deep down, believe Lumet's words in their own way, create their own philosophy, and apply it to their view of what's on the screen.

Here is a final reflection on the state of popular film, and the role of film criticism, in view of an overall lackluster 2011 Summer movie season.


Of course there were a few bright spots, if you were lucky enough to live near a large city, and  able to fight traffic, and ante up the premium ticket prices, for the privilege of watching movies that aimed higher and honored the emotions and intellect of its audience. 


My bright spots: Terrrence Malick's ethereal history of the universe by way of a small-town family; a Korean poet overcoming Alzheimer's disease; a difficult, challenging parable of twins who must honor their Mothers' dying wish; Danish schoolboys learning life's lessons about loyalty and revenge; a dreamy, meditative wonder from Thailand; and of course, a fairy tale by Woody Allen.  Most recently, something crazy, stupid and lovable (a review in an upcoming post).


It is my privilege, also, to have found writers in the blogosphere who not only embrace contemporary trends, and from whom I learn quite a bit; but who also care about great film, and regardless of the era,  find relevance and universal themes and emotional resonance in "classics" (these days, anything older than, say five years). Many novice filmgoers and bloggers dismiss these movies that "appeal to older people" as insignificant, clinging to an immature belief that only technology and noise are cool. 

Mature film critics contribute to the humanities, and struggle to achieve an understanding of the human condition or gain an elevated sense of beauty in all its possibilities. They seek that in all arts, even as they are entertained, and require nothing less from film.  Great critics can appreciate and sometimes enjoy inept or shallow work that is otherwise harmless, but will not stand for portrayals of degradation for their own sake.


The bloggers I follow regularly are true critics in fact and spirit. They have matured in their outlook on film, and its relation to the world in which we live.  Many of these same bloggers express dismay in their inability to find new films that truly interest them.

We all love to go to the movies, especially in the summer. I long for summer days when I am excited every week by one or two films that will stoke my passion for movies that feeds on itself all year.  It saddens me to see writers and movie-lovers with such promise feel depressed about an art form that should be immensely pleasurable.


Good film critics understand their own unique point of view and infuse their reviews with it proudly.  Good critics often stand alone in their observation that, in spite of the disagreeing roar of the masses , the Emperor has no clothes.  Sometimes great critics feel isolated when speaking their truth about films that have everyone else abuzz. First and foremost should be the work itself. Things like awards and cult-followings are snapshots of cultural history, and window-dressing. Critics with integrity know this.

A good, fair critic makes reasonable criticisms and can support them with examples from the work, or an effective rationale for one's feelings based on experience.  Bitchy critics can be fun, but it's too easy to go for the insult, especially as an anonymous reviewer on-line.

Good film critics also champion for films that aspire to show humanity in its highest evolution and give us something beautiful.  Or, if films portray the world's sororow and ugliness, good gritics will praise those that don't simply leave us to wallow, or exploit our baser instincts, but provide the catharsis that cleanses our cluttered life-paths. 

Good film critics try to understand film and its relation to culture, pop or otherwise. They are good students of other arts, and know how to apply that knowledge for a deeper understanding of those films that deserve the comparisons.  They are also are astute vessels of film history, and understand  the differences between homage, update, re-imagining, and rip-off. 

Good critics have fun at the movies. They are able to look deeply into a film and extract elements for discussion, and reflect them back onto the work, apply them to the movement of culture, or take away a life lesson or new point of view.  Great film critics can have a "running conversation" with the film and the filmmakers.

They refuse to fall victim to the exploitations of the Industry, and often can recognize the elements of a film that will not appeal to them (like reading ingredients on a food label and avoiding what one dislikes, or is even sickened by.) 

That's why many of us have had that lonely, left-out feeling during the 2011 Summer Season.

A great critic writes well.  He or she can use words to do what is often only possible in sound and image: describe their unique experience of the film, and make the reader "see" the movie as though for the first time.  Whether you agree or disagree with a film critic, you will always come away with vivid images and feelings from the movie.

Those mature film essayists that are able to rise above the babel that on-line movie-writing has become, can influence the kinds of films that eventually get made or distributed. Or, at least, can convince reasonable moviegoers to think differently about the films they see, and the moviegoing choices they make.

Great film critics enhance one's enjoyment of being a movie-lover.  They help us see differently. They can also confirm our own views, and articulate them almost better than we can.  They also help us give voice to our disagreements with them, and thus strengthen our points of view.

Sometimes a great work of art hangs on a gallery wall, available for all to see, and does not always get noticed, or understood by a common viewer. But one who is touched and moved by that work has experienced an aesthetic pleasure for a lifetime.  Film criticism can create its own aesthetic.  It is an art form unto itself.  Good critics matter. They must keep on, and elevate movie making and moviegoing to the highest levels of honesty, entertainment, and enlightenment.

I want to close with another tribute to my all-time favorite critic, Pauline Kael. In 1968, she wrote a 40+-page essay called "Trash, Art, and the Movies", which influenced professional critics and amateur moviegoers for decades. 

When I  despair of ever becoming an influential critic, or give up on all hope of movies ever being great, I am inspired by some of Kael's words here. Of course, I violently disagreed with a lot of the essay.  But she made such a good case that I was able to create my own manifesto, which evolves regularly. I will come back to this essay in the future, as I struggle with the art of film criticism. For now, I leave you with these words from Kael:

"A good movie can take you out of your dull funk and the hopelessness that so often goes with slipping into a theater; a good movie can make you feel alive again, in contact... Good movies make you care, make you believe in possibilities again.  If somewhere in the Hollywood-entertainment world someone has managed to break through with something that speaks to you, then it isn't all corruption.  The movie doesn't have to be great; it can be stupid and empty and still you can have the joy of a good performance, or the joy of just a good line... Sitting there alone or painfully alone because those with you do not react as you do, you know there must be others perhaps in this very theater...or surely in other theaters in this city, now, in the past or future, who react as you do.  And because movies are the most total and encompassing art form we have, these reactions can seem the most personal and, maybe the most important, imaginable...

"If we've grown up at the movies, we know that good work is continuous not with the academic, respectable tradition but with the glimpses of something good in trash, but we want the subversive gesture carried to the domain of discovery. Trash has given us an appetite for art."

~from "Going Steady: Film Writings 1968-1969", Pauline Kael

The 2011 Summer Movie Season PART 2--Other Views

Sometimes I think that maybe it's just me....


I love movies, and I have loved them since as far back as I can remember.  I have spent a lifetime watching them, thinking about them, writing about them, and reading reviews and other movie-related articles.  Slowly over time, I have built up my own aesthetic, supported by the opinions of professional critics I have loved and followed, honed by discussion and debate with friends and other movie-lovers, and borne out of a growing confidence in my own critical tastes and instincts.


And of late, it all seems irrelevant.  Is my kind of film becoming extinct?   Has my feast become the few rich crumbs the film industry condescends to throw my way? Has my cup of tea dried up? 


Actually, millions of film-goers might disagree with me.  For them, moviegoing is supposed to be fun, that's all, and they have voted with their time and pocketbooks for the kinds of movies they want to see.


It wasn't always so.  Mainstream movies, while always meant to entertain, had during my formative years also become experiences of great aesthetic pleasure, artifacts and reflections of history past and present, and a way to look at and make sense of the troubled eras that produced them.  These films played on screens all summer long. And teenagers and college-aged students attended again and again and made them hits.


Does anyone else feel that something has been amiss with the summer movie season, especially this summer? Am I the only one feeling left out? Is it just me? 


Well, after doing some reading in various journals and on-line publications, I discovered that I might not be as alone as I thought I was:

--On August 9th, local NPR station WBEZ aired a brief interview with Kim Masters, journalist with the Hollywood Reporter.  She discussed a paradox this Summer: While box office was up, actual attendance was down.  She explained that the reason could be both the cost of tickets and the lackluster quality of movies overall.  When given a choice audiences are choosing the 2-D over the 3-D version of the same films.  The old "franchises" that have spawned numerous sequels are becoming tired.  Only three movies were mega-hits, which may account for the inflated box-office figures: "Transformers", "Harry Potter", and "Pirates of the Caribbean".  As Masters put it, "You notice there aren't a lot of smart movies for grown-ups to talk about this summer."

--Leslie Stonebreaker of the New York Press broke down the season by film, with each film's budget and box-office to date, and brief representative clips from reviews of each film.  By her count, the big movies, defined as having opened in over 3.000 US theaters and had budgets of over $100 million, included: "eight...action films, six...sequels, four ...based on comics, and three.. animated."  She goes on to comment, "Most haven’t yet made back what was invested in production, and few will be remembered by the end of August. Was it worth it?"

One of the more interesting analyses of how moviegoing has changed, and why that change has made the big films underperform was written by Darren Franich of EW.com's PopWatch. He describes the change as a "culture of leaks".  At one time movies like "E.T." would appear in theaters, and people would go, and talk about them a year later.  Now, official, stage-managed "leaks" by ComicCon and others, or accidental, unofficial leaks (by paparazzi, TMZ, etc.)  give movie fans so much minutiae about films before their release (he discusses "Dark Knight Rises" as a current example) that the result is that  the movies hit the screen,they are duly attended, and that's the end of the conversation.  Enthusiasm is already hot for next year's summer blockbusters, rolled out in the trailers.

According to Frainch, "This is why the blockbuster season of 2011 has felt so particularly uninspired. It’s not that the movies are necessarily worse than they were 10 years ago (although nothing released 10 years ago was even half as bad as Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides). It’s just that very few of the movies were even half as interesting as the chatter that led up to their release."  Studios must realize that there is so much built-in attention to these movies before release, that there is little incentive to create something memorable, because interest in them naturally falls off once they hit the screens. Or, as Frainch states it, "...It helps to remember that, in a weird way, the biggest movies of summer 2011 aren’t coming out until 2012."

Finally, there's a fascinating debate by two tech-savvy members of the "golden demographic" (once again, Darren Frainch, film loyalist, and Adam B. Vary, videogame supporter,) who, in another awesome EW.com PopWatch essay, debate the future of movies, and whether video games are already supplanting movies as THE pop-culture art-form.

The essence of this debate is something I have noticed for years, most evident since the release of "Lord of the Rings":  Movies are trying to look more like video games, and video games are trying to adopt the realism and storytelling aesthetic of movies.  Here's a fascinating quote by Vary, who defends the future of videogames, as he comments on the satisfactions of "old" movies vs. current ones:

"...if you press me to stack up my favorite videogames against my favorite movies, not only would the movies pile be much higher, just the act of stacking them would cause me to get misty...
But you know what else is true about the films in that pile?...  A lot of them are really old.   (But) I... am talking about the movies of today. What big, non-Pixarian film of the past three or four years could you honestly add to your Favorite of Favorites?


Of course, there are small films like The Kids Are All Right or Beginners that still captivate me. But if I’m being brutally honest, even a movie as satisfying as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 is still a shadow of the experience of reading the book it is based on. I feel like such a fusty crank saying this, but the vast majority of mainstream movies today truly are just sound and fury, signifying nothing. They are racing to see which one can be the most like, well, a videogame.  


Videogames today, on the other hand, are in a really interesting place. Yes, they are imperfect. ...But I can see them striving to give us something we’ve never experienced before, to hook us into a big story, and to reinvent how we absorb that story. In some ways, they feel like the movies of 100 years ago, as early filmmakers figured out what the visual grammar of cinema would be. So, really, videogames are trying their damnedest to be more like movies."

What Vary is championing is the aesthetic satisfaction of old movies, satisfactions he sees are being infused into his favorite games. He laments the insignificance of today's films.


I believe the motion picture industry, while trying to pander to viewers like Vary, (who willingly empty their wallets for the sake of thrills, peer pressure, or habit), is actually harming itself.  By not crafting the kinds of films that used to provide artistic and intellectual excitement (while remaining entertaining), Vary and his peers will continue to turn to videogames...which I believe can never replace the unique pleasure that a great film can deliver.  Hollywood can manage the "leaks" with quality films, and get future film-buffs interested.

And when young viewers become disenchanted with the fare they are receiving at their local theaters, Hollywood has forever lost a loyal base of film enthusiasts for future generations.

Film critics can be a big part of the solution...in my Part 3.

The 2011 Summer Movie Season PART 1--An Introduction

"Scream 4," "Thor," "Bridesmaids," "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides," "The Hangover Part II," "Kung Fu Panda 2," "Fast Five," "Green Lantern," "Cars 2," "Transformers: Dark of the Moon, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2," "Captain America" , "Cowboys and Aliens," "Conan the Barbarian," "Super-8,"  "The Change-Up," "The Smurfs," "Final Destination 5," "Spy Kids in 4-D"!, "Friends With Benefits,"  "Mr. Poppers Penguins,"  "X-Men First Class", "Horrible Bosses," . . .

"The American movie industry has finally become a playground for the infantile, the creatively-bankrupt, and the mentally stunted techno-geeks and businessmen who run it." 

That was my first thought after once again perusing the local movie listings, and finding screen after screen that offered the following: amusement park rides, superheroes, sequels to amusement park rides and superheroes (and sequels to THOSE), animated kiddie fodder, humor aimed below the waist, (front and back), robots, creatures, fantasy-worlds, self-absorbed romantic morality comedies, and a small sprinkling of serious-minded films (one or two of which I had already seen,weeks ago) that will almost certainly be pulled from release before I have time to see them.

("Tree of Life", "Midnight in Paris", "Cave of Forgotten Dreams", "Crazy Stupid Love"...and some interesting international fare...were available, if you could find them, or travel to see them.)

Now, I maintain that there is room, from the "blue" list above, for any and all of these on our movie screens.  The problem is, these days, that is about all we have from which to choose. 

Hollywood has skewed the banquet:  instead of offering so many great savory "dishes" that we hardly have any room for dessert, we now serve up sweets as the main course, and so there's little taste remaining for something substantial, that is emotionally and intellectually "nourishing".

Those who make millions of dollars serving up these overheated "leftovers"  know that the "golden demographic" of moviegoers, mostly teen and pre-teen (the prime target of most movies today) will eagerly consume a steady diet of sweets and junk food if it is the only thing offered to them.  And when this audience buys millions of dollars worth of tickets, like lemmings, the Movie Pushers justify making more of the same because "it's what makes money."  And they DO make money...however the tide seems to have turned, as I shall explore later.

Meanwhile, audiences' critical "teeth" are slowly rotting, and although viewers have had their fill, they are starving and don't know it.  By the time there is the realization that there is something more sustaining in movies that is no longer readily available to us (but which used to be found commonly in "old" movies), it's almost too late to break the addiction to what is practically the only choice available on movie screens to consume.

The movies, which can provide a cultural touchstone, stir emotions, and inspire the creative impulse of the average viewer, are now seen as a disposable experience, with no more relevance to building art or moving lives than the average Happy Meal.

By not balancing the choices, by not creating and promoting substantial, "adult" fare with the same fervor by which we push the warmed-over, overblown junk that audiences are made to feel they must love, we  deprive young moviegoers of a potentially stunning summer moviegoing experience that they will discuss, study, and revisit for the rest of their lives.  

We are also losing an audience of loyal moviegoers from decades past that still attend thoughtful, original films if they're offered ("Midnight in Paris" is a huge success relative to its budget),  and we destroy the foundation of Cinema in the future.  

We have the technological "tools" but not the materials to create lasting work. 

(Perhaps moviemakers can't be all to blame.  The New York Times Best-seller list, which used to be a goldmine for movie properties and scripts, is now almost all devoted to detective series, supernatural franchises, and the like.  Broadway, which gave us our most beloved movie musicals, is now turning to old movies for their newest productions.  Still, someone with creative and financial muscle can certainly greenlight strong, original screenplays, and market them to so that people feel the need to see them.  Can't they?)

Finally, we're depleting the art of Film Criticism, which not only feeds on cinema but in turn can become an entertaining, informative, and provocative aesthetic all its own.  Today the art and industry of film criticism is starving too.  Many publications have cut their full-time critics. Old-timers like Mr. Ebert stay "relevant" by gamely adjusting to the changes in the industry, but must be crushed at heart or at least feel overqualified (he has already released two books of his bad reviews; never seen that happen before from any critic!) 

And the rest of us, the novices, the serious students, or those that simply love "the movies", feel dissatisfied, stranded.  Based only on the bloggers I follow regularly here, we have some excellent movie writers in our midst. We have the makings of the next Vincent Canby's, John Simons, Pauline Kaels; yet there's nothing for these folks to do, for nine months out of the year, but to accept the swill that Hollywood maintains is great filmmaking, and to do their best to work up some enthusiasm for it.

And so, many of us are left to re-visit films from years past.  It is testament to the richness and staying power of these "older" movies that they have transcended generations and still provide much to think about, discuss, debate, and yes, to love. 

The older movies us bloggers still love and write about (by older, say, anything prior to the internet era, say 1928-2001), rarely had a years' worth of minutiae-buildup from the studios, rarely had cult-followings BEFORE release (for the most part), maybe even reached us through a haphazard TV broadcast, or DVD viewing.  We didn't talk them to death before release (they were already in our midst, each of them with an archive of great writing available to those who were interested).  The movies became part of the conversation, not the end of it.

So...what about this summer movie season?

In Part II I'll offer a brief survey of items I have read and heard in the media.  For the most part, the sense of dissatisfaction is not only expressed by the professional movie-writers, but by the "golden demographic" themselves.  We'll look at box office receipts vs. attendance, the immediate gratification of current audiences, studio "leaks" and the "talking to death" of upcoming films, an odd debate about whether video games are replacing movies for good, and my own take on what critics (starting with myself) might do to get "smarter" films during the summer, and all year.

Readers Guessed the Movie Quote

Congratulations to Walter and Andrew for guessing the origin of Tuesday's quote:

"You kill your film several times, mostly by talking about it. A film is a dream. You kill it writing it down, you kill it with a camera; the film might come to life for a moment or two when your actors breathe life back into it - but then it dies again, buried in film cans.

"Mysteriously, sometimes, in the editing room, a miracle happens when you place one image next to another so that when, finally, an audience sits in the dark, if you’re lucky -- very lucky - and sometimes I’ve been lucky - the dream flickers back to life again..."

These were, of course, the opening lines of the 2009 musical "Nine".

(I watched "Nine" again the other night, and unlike most reviewers who found much to dislike, I actually liked it more... Perhaps just having returned from Rome, I felt, among other things, that "Nine" captured a certain Italian mindset.... And the spirit of Fellini was most strong.  "Nine" holds a musical prism to Fellini, and Fellini's humor and visual generosity show brightly. 

See "8-1/2" and then watch "Nine".  I think "Nine" is a worthy contemporary rendering of [and companion-piece to] a masterwork of one of my cinematic idols.)

The quote sets up the central crisis in the film; creative malaise. In the character Guido's case, he is blocked by his conflicting cultural expectations, experiences, and fantasies.  "Nine" is a concoction borne of Guido's psyche and mind.  It is Guido's ninth film, an ambitious exploration of the country itself titled "Italia". Guido cannot articulate his dream, which is fully formed inside his mind.

"Nine" is actually the film Guido will succeed in creating at the end of the film.

The idea of creative panic does not seem to trouble the creators of much current popular cinema.

This tendency for today's popular filmmakers to plumb old ideas, and their assumption that the "magic demographic" of moviegoers will keep buying tickets, is just one of the elements that are troubling today's movies, and disappointing those who believe there is a place on the local multiplex screens for stories that reflect what's happening today, in this world,  something more closely approaching the pleasures of art and literature.

The quote from "Nine" is a good place to begin my discussion, over the next week or so, about what role film criticism plays in today's movie landscape.

I hope you'll be back to discuss this with me.

A Movie Quote-- Name That Film

Here's a quote from a fairly recent film.  See if you can remember the name of the movie (hint: they are the first words spoken in the film):

"You kill your film several times, mostly by talking about it. A film is a dream. You kill it writing it down, you kill it with a camera; the film might come to life for a moment or two when your actors breathe life back into it - but then it dies again, buried in film cans.

"Mysteriously, sometimes, in the editing room, a miracle happens when you place one image next to another so that when, finally, an audience sits in the dark, if you’re lucky -- very lucky - and sometimes I’ve been lucky - the dream flickers back to life again..."

Can you guess?  (I'll reveal the answer tomorrow unless one of you does first!)

Most of all, do you agree with it? 

First, to all of you who engage in a creative process (most of you do) as writers, filmmakers, graphic artists, stage performers, designers: Do you feel some of your inspiration drains away when you tell about your work before it's finished?

Second, do we somehow "kill" a film when we discuss it in such detail before it is even released?  I'm not talking about a simple anticipatory essay. I mean a virtual dissection of almost every aspect of the movie, including the cast, crew, behind-the-scenes, even the screenplay, and its award chances, before any of us has even seen it? 

I have found in the blogosphere, that these days a lot more writing is devoted to most movies before they are released. After the opening weekend, if a film is still worth writing about (aside from the inevitable cult-worship and box-office performance), it is often less about the film itself, and more about it's standing in the year-end awards sweepstakes.  (And then the critical claws really come out.)

It is hard to be a movie-lover today, especially if we are writers about film.  We have so little material to work with.  Many of the films arrive with a splash, and fade to home video within six months.  Most of these have no substance about which serious film-lovers and critics can discuss, ruminate, debate, compare, and arrive at some consensus as to its status, classic or otherwise. 

Distribution patterns don't allow us to form an attachment to many films; and without that relationship to a film, its resonance and deeper meaning, its relation to culture and its place in film history, are rarely teased out.

Of course, so few films are worthy of this kind of discussion..But we write about them as though they were, because we must write..and we love film....

But we movie lovers deserve better than what we're getting.

Tomorrow I will re-visit my earlier theme of the relevance of film criticism.  I will develop this topic in greater detail with help from some lucid writing by professional film critics I respect.

I want to explore what happened to this summer movie season, and why so few of us are satisfied with what we are seeing.  Instead, we're doing reviews of old classics, resurrecting old Oscar contests, looking for some nugget of something worthwhile in the trailers, anything but the kind of analysis of current releases that a true-blue critic lives for.

I will also further explore whether film criticism is still relevant today; and if it is, how so many critics have dropped the ball.  I'll offer my take on how good film criticism not only evaluates movie aesthetics, but performs a greater good. 

Meanwhile--Any guesses on that quote?

What Makes a Movie “Good”?

 

Everyone who goes to a movie has an opinion about it. Expressing one’s like or dislike of a movie, talking about a scene we found most funny or disturbing, comparing it to a movie we liked better (or worse), quoting a favorite line of dialogue, or dishing about the appearance of an actor or costume, goes back to our first experiences with moviegoing, and our first taste of what could someday develop into true film criticism.

Most of this post-movie chat is subjective. We don’t really need to explain WHY a movie made us feel a certain way. But woe to anyone who disparages a film in front of a friend who holds it in high esteem! Casual dismissal of a well-loved film, without a reasoned argument or explanation for one’s subjective opinion, will cause at least a few heated discussions, and at worst a certain amount of ostracism.


But sometimes, we lack the language or background to explain why a movie really shakes us, or brings us to a new level of happiness, or moves us, or gives us a spark of creative energy. Or worse yet, why a movie annoys us, makes us suspect we were witness to something dishonest, or even damaging. Those few energetic or sensitive souls who struggle early on with these explanations will someday write film criticism.

And those who seek out and read intelligent film critics who write about difficult movies, in order to test their own theories and give voice to their feelings; those that make exciting connections between the literature they read and the storytelling methods on screen;, those that truly study and understand the unique way cinema can make us see the world differently, will, if they follow the path, become great critics.

Some moviegoers, who have never taken a film class or made a film, or even studied literature, theater, art, history or philosophy, feel qualified to write movie reviews. Most of us would not put much trust in any “experts” who never worked in their stated area of expertise, let alone studied it, or any other subject likely to deepen our understanding of it.

Still, some of us take an inexperienced but zeitgeist-y reviewer to heart, even jump on the bandwagon, without considering the source, or without listening to our own hearts and minds. Some of these critics can be very contentious, and draw a line in the sand rather than invite reasoned discourse. We want so much to be part of a conversation, that we can forget our personal credo, and abandon those hard-won criteria that we learned to evaluate works of art, even in an art form as commercial as popular cinema.


Does anyone else sometimes think that Hollywood is listening to these contentious taste-makers, while ignoring those that want something better? True, it’s harder to live up to that standard, but where are the deep thinkers in Hollywood, the readers of great literature? (There are a lot of books written in the last 50 years that would make excellent, relevant films…books without cartoon illustrations, that is).

No, don’t answer that… I know that the industry has changed, and to lament that fact will only isolate me on my porch-swing of nostalgia. But I suspect I’m not alone…


(More power to the blockbusters and special effects. But why invent the technology to make movies seem more “realistic” when we are only applying that technology to “fantasy” which has no resemblance to the world around us? )
 
 

Anyway, I think it’s necessary for me as a film critic to step back and re-evaluate those criteria that I use to judge a film. It won’t do simply to proclaim how “cool” something is, or that it held my interest. I have to move beyond my childhood subjectivity and make a case for my subjective feelings. The more I’m willing to become well-rounded in arts and history and current events, the better my writing becomes, and the more trustworthy and convincing I can be as a critic.


So that even when we strongly disagree, you can look at my dissenting opinion and say, “Yes, I can see perfectly well how this film can be seen in this light, even though I have a perfectly reasoned view to the contrary.”


What makes a film “good”?  I would like to think that there is a universally-agreed upon set of characteristics, but for now, I will stick to my personal manifesto.

No one summarized my own thoughts better than the late Sydney Lumet:

"While the goal of all movies is to entertain, the kind of film in which I believe goes one step further. It compels the spectator to examine one facet or another of his own conscience. It stimulates thought and sets the mental juices flowing."--Sidney Lumet

1. A good movie should be competently made. A great film uses cinematic language to tell a story, create meaning, make the heart soar, make it weep, and make me want to create something as soon as it’s done.

2. The subject matter should appeal to me in some way. This is perhaps the most subjective criterion of all. I have seen many films on the recommendation of trusted critics that I would not have seen otherwise. Many times I am glad I left my comfort zone. More lately, however, I have noticed that what you see is what you get. Comic-book movies just don’t do it for me, no matter how they try to pretend they’re something more. I’ll hold out for something original, something that deals with some recognizable human condition, even if it’s comedic, or fantastical. I am also more likely to champion for a film if it appeals to me on a basic level, because I understand it better.

3. A good movie is honest in its intentions and the way it’s done. Maybe I’ve seen so many movies that I can tell pretty quickly when a film is moving in an intriguing way, or if it’s merely a commercial enterprise that will be as forgettable as a happy meal. I trust my instincts, especially when I think I’m being sold something or pandered to….and I work hard to try to describe this in my writing. I don’t use movies like video games. I avoid movies that sell themselves like a drunken party…for cheap laughs and a queasy guilty feeling afterward.


4. Technology can be awesome in the service of telling a story or developing a theme, but tiresome when it’s all that is there. I can appreciate the effects-work to create a tsunami in “Hereafter”; I recognize how amazing it is at the same time it functions as a chilling plot development. Much of the work in “Lord of the Rings” trilogy was truly astounding; but at least an hour’s worth of battle-scene overkill could have been deleted with no harm to the three films.

5. A good movie exists on many levels, and is comfortable with ambiguity if the work demands it. One of the most wonderful multi-layered works that I will never tire of is “Cabaret”.

6. Good movies exist like other great works of art in that there is always something new to see, something to re-consider, or, like time spent with good friends, the promise of a delightful, thought-provoking, or emotional experience. 

7. Good movies can deal with any kind of subject or imagery. As I get older, though, I more seriously question the need for certain depictions of cruelty, expulsions of various bodily fluids, and reliance on pyrotechnics and destruction. Movies that claim to require these, I hold to a higher standard. 
(I dislike censorship; but I appreciate the discipline of a filmmaker who thinks hard before throwing a taboo subject or horrendous image on the screen, and does so with a deeper artistic intent.)



8. Certain elements can elevate a good movie into greatness, like terrific performances, a wonderful music score, the creative use of montage and editing (not always rapid-cutting), movement within a scene, or even complete silence and stillness, beautiful lensing and lighting, and not the least, excellent writing.  When I can identify with well-developed screen characters, directed with wisdom and sensitivity, I can work through my personal psychodramas, even if I have nothing in common with those characters.

9. Good, even great movies, can challenge us, but are never boring. What some see as “boring” can be fascinating to someone who brings more into the experience. One should use the word “boring” sparingly, or never. We all appreciate some great films that would hold no interest for many average moviegoers.

10. A good, even great movie, ultimately gets me in touch with the best part of my humanity, either by eliciting an emotion, inspiring me to creative and practical action, or stimulating thought to effect a more sensitive way of seeing some part of the world around me.


Of course, we all have our guilty pleasures too, which I will discuss in an upcoming post.