Film critics

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

nonsense derived from pseudoscientific continental European philosophy, like Lacan or Deleuze

heh. this is like one of my favorite avenues of film critique (esp. Christian Metz—tho he was more of a theoretician than a critic). I also have a pretty big soft spot for total fanboys like Kim Newman tho.

Oh, that's totally fine, I was just speaking to my evaluation! I would actually probably exclude semiotics from my criticism - I would never call that work nonsense, it's valuable.

[RenaultR]

Now just to play devil's advocate, why is problematising film in terms of its commercial and industrial nature as someone like Armond White tends to do a bad thing, even if White himself doesn't typically frame his arguments in a very convincing manner? Naturally, we get annoyed with mainstream critics like A.O. Scott and Peter Bradshaw who should know better. After all, those guys presumably know their Ozu, Antonioni, and Renoir but still insist on giving the benefit of the doubt to Oscar bait mediocrity whereas White seems to be taking the opposite stance of calling a spade a spade, even if he's not a particularly great writer. To be fair, even a lot of "serious auteurist" critics like Kehr and Hoberman have a tendency to gloss over the industrial context in which many of the films they praise as "objects of personal expression" are made. That doesn't mean Hawks and/or Nicholas Ray isn't great but that it simply need not be a sin to discuss the industrial realities of narrative filmmaking and how they influence the final product for better or worse.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Now just to play devil's advocate, why is problematising film in terms of its commercial and industrial nature as someone like Armond White tends to do a bad thing, even if White himself doesn't typically frame his arguments in a very convincing manner? Naturally, we get annoyed with mainstream critics like A.O. Scott and Peter Bradshaw who should know better. After all, those guys presumably know their Ozu, Antonioni, and Renoir but still insist on giving the benefit of the doubt to Oscar bait mediocrity whereas White seems to be taking the opposite stance of calling a spade a spade, even if he's not a particularly great writer. To be fair, even a lot of "serious auteurist" critics like Kehr and Hoberman have a tendency to gloss over the industrial context in which many of the films they praise as "objects of personal expression" are made. That doesn't mean Hawks and/or Nicholas Ray isn't great but that it simply need not be a sin to discuss the industrial realities of narrative filmmaking and how they influence the final product for better or worse.

I agree with this. That said, I generally find White's takes more offensive than illuminating. I think White is liked because his perspective is fairly unique in film criticism, Black and gay and conservative, but that doesn't change the fact that his anti-PC rhetoric can quickly become an expression of bigotry or at least a discomfiting reminder that I probably wouldn't feel safe hanging out with him. Still, his perspective is more interesting, more an object of personal expression, than some carbon-copy cishet white guy at a mainstream news outlet making a top ten films of the year that includes six Oscar nominees and the winner of Cannes.

[RenaultR]

Well I think what drives some people up the wall about PC and "woke-ism" is how they're used by the neoliberal establishment to draw attention from more contentious issues that most mainstream politicians would prefer to push under the rug, like economic inequality or US militarism. There's an element of hypocrisy to the way certain kinds of upper middle class white people who attended "good colleges" tend to embrace the PC narrative hook line and sinker while they're complicit in the aforementioned economic inequality. In short, for some people PC-ism itself is probably perceived as being "middle class" in its aims and anxieties. Plenty of old school Marxists also reject the PC narrative on the grounds it downplays economics, so it's not just the populist right that's critical of PC-ism.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Well I think what drives some people up the wall about PC and "woke-ism" is how they're used by the neoliberal establishment to draw attention from more contentious issues that most mainstream politicians would prefer to push under the rug, like economic inequality or US militarism. There's an element of hypocrisy to the way certain kinds of upper middle class white people who attended "good colleges" tend to embrace the PC narrative hook line and sinker while they're complicit in the aforementioned economic inequality. In short, for some people PC-ism itself is probably perceived as being "middle class" in its aims and anxieties. Plenty of old school Marxists also reject the PC narrative on the grounds it downplays economics, so it's not just the populist right that's critical of PC-ism.

Sure, but I've never had any sense that that's Armond White's position. He writes for National Review. If you think the magazine founded by William F. Buckley promotes old school Marxism, I'm not sure what to tell you. He's a Trump supporter who wrote a sympathetic review of The Plot Against the President and who is opposed to MeToo. If we want to wage a left-wing criticism of the hypocrisy of the people of my demographic, and we do, we can find much better places to turn than White.

[rischka]

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/ ... al-history

j hoberman on the film maudit

In the spring of 1949, Cocteau and Bazin began organising a Festival du Film Maudit to be held from 29 July to 5 August, in the Atlantic resort town of Biarritz. Its purpose, per Cocteau, was to showcase those unfashionable, non-commercial and hence invisible films that in “their indifference to censorship and the demands of exploitation were cursed like the books of certain poets”.

[---]

Yeah I agree with Evelyn, like someone saying "intersectional idpol understandings of oppression are correct but secondary to class struggle" is not the same as someone saying these understandings are not connect (like White). That being said the first type of people are wrong anyway. Not really concerned with the opinions of old Marxists because they're old. Not saying all old people are wrong about everything. But whenever an issue on the left or an issue of progressiveness leans towards a generational dispute, the young people are in the right.

[Otello Cagliostro]

If you guys speak french i advise you all to watch Jean Baptiste thoret reviews on youtube maybe my favorit modern critic. Sadly he only partialy enjoys Scorsese so i'll probably never do a book about him.

[RenaultR]

Sure, but I've never had any sense that that's Armond White's position. He writes for National Review. If you think the magazine founded by William F. Buckley promotes old school Marxism, I'm not sure what to tell you. He's a Trump supporter who wrote a sympathetic review of The Plot Against the President and who is opposed to MeToo. If we want to wage a left-wing criticism of the hypocrisy of the people of my demographic, and we do, we can find much better places to turn than White.

I never responded to this. In either case, I certainly won't argue against what you say here. I was only trying to make a general point about resistance to mainstream discourse.

[RenaultR]

Yeah I agree with Evelyn, like someone saying "intersectional idpol understandings of oppression are correct but secondary to class struggle" is not the same as someone saying these understandings are not connect (like White). That being said the first type of people are wrong anyway. Not really concerned with the opinions of old Marxists because they're old. Not saying all old people are wrong about everything. But whenever an issue on the left or an issue of progressiveness leans towards a generational dispute, the young people are in the right.

Well generally speaking, whenever certain cultural phenomena are viewed as being "juvenile" it often is in fact indicative of a generational divide (i.e. a taste for rap music and, yes, even video games, although I'm not much of a gamer myself).

Then again, so much of what White preaches is probably just Boomer-ism taken to its mathematical "limit": "Younger cinephiles today just don't understand".

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Sure, but I've never had any sense that that's Armond White's position. He writes for National Review. If you think the magazine founded by William F. Buckley promotes old school Marxism, I'm not sure what to tell you. He's a Trump supporter who wrote a sympathetic review of The Plot Against the President and who is opposed to MeToo. If we want to wage a left-wing criticism of the hypocrisy of the people of my demographic, and we do, we can find much better places to turn than White.

I never responded to this. In either case, I certainly won't argue against what you say here. I was only trying to make a general point about resistance to mainstream discourse.

Oh okay, fair enough. I assumed you meant this as a rationale for appreciating White's writing, but if it stands alone, then my response doesn't really apply.

I should add that I agree with Curtis that, while secondary to class struggle, identity politics discourse can often be correct and necessary, and I tend to avoid the PC label to describe it since that description comes with a lot of conservative culture wars baggage.

[cinesmith]

I think those who would write criticism today (more than just reviews which seems to be more of a pedestrian activity for most of the media) relies on making more of a valid distinction when they go beyond promoting the status quo. The realm of what/how professional writers/critics are adding to the discussion today is somewhat of a moving target as both the medium itself and the formats have changed so rapidly. Still, the real conundrum isn't just the monetary aspect. It's the filter for which we drive to find readers.

For example, Letterboxd being an example of perhaps democratizing (well, opening the gates to other followers at best- as if to say FB exhibited an improvement in social dynamics when really it's created a rather large sandbox for everyone to sit in rather than validate or improve our relationships) a new kind of interface that allows an individual to share, follow, track and comment on the opinions of others. It can be a daunting task to fill in all the data if you actually make the effort but most people don't have the time.Still, the paid subscriptions don't help anyone connect with the views of others so much as when you turn to the film in question and determine those who are like minded (or valued as worthy of you taking an interest in)

IMDB was the first interface to supply the largest swell of data and MRQE is probably the best tool to populate the published reviews of any such films. It's this criss-cross of the 'taste makers' or the larger social influencer's who have always made for more of a puzzling twist in whose opinions we really find valid.

Armond White is an interesting character in my mind as I always got the impression that he's never really been taken in by most mainstream films. For years in Film Comment when they'd have the collective ratings page (which was not that different from what Premiere used to publish in the nineties) White's reviews were almost always inevitably harsh. Yet, he tends to make some valid points about how dumb some films truly are. I'd also be very reluctant to say I'm a fan as I'm not really aligned with his views most of time. Reminds me of Jim DeRogatis (music critic) Very much like the guy but I don't care much for most of his opinions on music. Still, has done a great show for years now (Sound Opinions)

Having said all this I find it hard to find that many contemporary critics who engage much in film history so much as treat the business in the same formula that sports reporters cover sports. It's more about what's out now and who what they advise you see. In terms of what caveats (exceptions) that certain people seem to have applied as an additional addendum to any viewer. There's a growing roster of micro-mining of info that might be considered hurtful if not unpleasant to a viewer. I consider these sort of nuances to be more of a unconventional method labeling a film for a bias/detailed element but not for the logistical content. (ie. Vegan warnings for meat consumption. I can't tell if this is supposed to be a heads up per a trigger warning or what. Is it not bad enough that the MPA still labels wide releases to abide an outdated moral double standard? You can watch someone be blown up and/or shot but we can't show people having sex)

I'm always befuddled by the breakdowns in how we devise what makes a film good or not. So much of it is about a personal experience and not everyone is likely to see a picture in the same way. Just as there's greater debates about which ones are overlooked or which ones are overrated, etc. In most cases, I expect the majority of people aren't seeking a more complex breakdown of most work so much as whether it will be worth their time. Still, I think the rationale is to have the varying voices to best cover more territory and that's what helps us to make best choices.

[Otello Cagliostro]

I once heard Serge Daney say that he was first very compelled by Guy Debord " La société du spectacle " but later rejected it , anyone as more info on the subject it was during an interview and I don't know if it was mentioned in his writings or not...