Suck It!

[handful_ofdust]

Since it seems to be the season, more Unpopular Opinions (Moooovieeeez Edition):

So: Earlier, I was reading a Jim Emerson post over at his blog, Scanners, which reminds me very strongly of why I ended up feeling so disenfranchised as a film critic…he references two articles, one by A.O. Scott, which perfectly encapsulate what I told Steve the other day: That all early-21st-century critical thought seems to boil down to either “You’re not taking this seriously enough!” or “You’re taking this way too seriously!” (There’s another subset: “You didn’t make me feel for these people!” vs. “You made me feel for these people!”—but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.) Stance one is most often applied to stuff which, in received wisdom, is “artistically valid”—No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, etc. Which is not to say that I can’t appreciate those films; I was re-watching Zodiac just last night, marvelling yet again at the way it essentially exists solely to defeat every one of the audience’s dramatic expectations, yet tell a riveting story nonetheless...but that, as Janet Venable would say, is me.

Stance two, OTOH, is applied to cultural detritus like superhero movies/horror movies/genre movies of any genre you happen to think is cheesy by nature, by people who don’t understand why they—special and unique flowers that they are—should be forced to (make money by) review(ing) disposable trash. And while I sort of expect it from, say, my mother—who takes it as a species of personal insult that Robert Downey Jnr. had to make Iron Man (and Iron Man had to make $100 million) before mainstream people acknowledged just how good he really is, or that Edward Norton made The Incredible Hulk, or that the thing Charlize Theron did immediately after winning an Oscar for Monster was Aeon Flux (don’t even get her started Halle Berry and Catwoman, BTW)—I don’t, necessarily, expect it from professionals. Unless they’re independently rich magazine-owners who only scribble down reviews every once in a while for fun, that is.

Listen, chumbly: You think I never feel annoyed that the big screen has become pretty much pre-booked with one blockbuster after another, reserved for anything studios desperately hope makes at least $50 mil (and dump after a week, if it doesn’t)? I’m the same dame who was ridiculously happy to realize they sometimes book Bollywood films at the Yonge/Dundas AMC, and that Mongol was still hanging around for at least two shows a day, even though X-Files: I Want to Believe was also playing every hour on the hour. Although you may have convinced yourself otherwise, however, even back in the glory days of the 1970s/mid-1990s (both of which eras I lived through too, though grantedly, I could only go see movies rated “R” during one of them), movies like THX-1138 still got their ass handed to them by movies like Jaws. It’s called economics on the one hand, crowd control on the other—Hollywood 101, in other words. And the equation does not change.

(Also, for all those of you crying “sell-out!” on older directors who actually want to connect with current audiences…guess what? There was NO time-period in history where Raging Bull would have beat out The Departed, so fucking well suck it up.)

Aaaand...scene! Off to BodyCombat.

Comments

[ringwoodcomics.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my comments in that post were somewhat... feisty.

Another pretty good take on the whole "seriousness" thing can be found here:

http://cinemastyles.blogspot.com/2008/07/transcendental-meditation.html

Lapper's a favorite of mine.

[handful-ofdust.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that one's not bad, though the usual bullshit creeps in pretty quick in the comments. Here's the thing: There are well-told stories and badly-told stories, and that's it. Dividing them by content, execution or cultural criteria only confuses the issue.

[baggyeyes]

There are well-told stories and badly-told stories, and that's it.

That's pretty much my yard stick for anything - TV, Books (Dead tree edition, online edition), Movies. Sometimes I think critics trot out the hyperbole like that just to make themselves look good - nose in the air.

Or . . . I maybe need more coffee and I completely misunderstood. I do that from time to time.

[handful-ofdust.livejournal.com]

Dude, as a former critic, I think you absolutely understand. A lot of my own early reviews were tainted by an excess of "look! I'm so clev-ah". But then I grew out of it, which is the trick; I'm still not sure everybody else sees it the same way.

[moon-custafer.livejournal.com]

Came across this quote from Raymond Chandler the other day and thought of you:

"The thing that rather gets me down is that when I write something that is tough and fast and full of mayhem and murder, I get panned for being tough and fast and full of mayhem and murder, and then when I try to tone down a bit and develop the mental and emotional side of a situation, I get panned for leaving out what I was panned for putting in the first time."

[handful-ofdust.livejournal.com]

Well, I do think it's possible--even necessary--to do both. Though maybe not by me.;)

[onemoreshadow.livejournal.com]

It's not quite on topic, but since we're posting quotes, here's one from Somerset Maugham that I like:

"I have never pretended to be anything but a story teller. It has amused me to tell stories and I have told a great many. It is a misfortune for me that the telling of a story just for the sake of the story is not an activity that is in favor with the intelligentsia. I endeavor to bear my misfortunes with fortitude."

Always helps to put things into perspective for me, as a reader and a writer. Go figure.

[handful-ofdust.livejournal.com]

Great quote! If I was still getting tattoos, I'd consider putting this somewhere on the empty portions of my arm.