Pondering Frisoli’s comments about movie critics. Presumably an obvious defense for movie critics would be that they cannot take advantage of the conversational nature of a blog. A.O. Scott cannot assume that the average reader of his review this week, read his review of a different movie three months ago. So it is next to impossible to develop an argument, still less to circle back to modify an argument or admit that you wrong the first time around. And of course the whole thing is monological so the movie critic has no particular reason for modifying his/her views. The value of the blog is that it is dialogical, and it has a history of shared understandings (or disagreements) to which we can continually return.
That said, and having got to use the words ‘monological’ and ‘dialogical’ outside of class, it is still hard to understand why most movie critics are so bad. I have a particular dislike of David Denby, who seems to suck the life and enjoyment out of every movie he reviews – a veritable Dementor among movie critics – and simply doesn’t appear to actually like movies. But he is scarcely alone. So, which movie critics do people on this blog read/listen to and what do you think of them? For me it is Denby and Lane at the New Yorker, whoever is reviewing at the New York Times, and David Edelstein. Anyone I should be reading?
i like the onion’s a.v club. i’ll read ebert after i see a movie. i like his energy but he always gives about 97% of the plot away. “movie reviewer” roger, not “movie summarizer”.
my normal modus operandi is to check metacritic. i find the metascores are usually accurate, regardless of who has liked or disliked a movie in a given week. if i am sceptical, based on a film’s preview or general description, i check the nytimes’ score, the onion’s score, the new yorker’s score, slate’s score, salon’s score and the l.a weekly’s score. if they’re all in the same neighbourhood i go with that. of the nytimes writers i prefer scott to dargis.
i think the problem with movie critics, at least in terms of michael’s dissatisfaction, is that many of them seem to have a shtick of their own. the new yorker’s reviews often seem to me to be more about the pleasure of their own language, especially witticisms and put-downs*, than about the films themselves. some reviewers obsess over questions of form, some over questions of content–in general, they mostly seem more invested in maintaining their critical style and persona than anything else.
*even though i liked the film i enjoyed the new yorker critic’s dismissal of “kill bill vol. 1”: “this is what is formally known as decadence and popularly known as crap”. i forget whether that was denby or lane.
i do also think that on this blog we may occasionally be susceptible to letting a reviewer’s take on a film influence our own in reverse before we see it ourselves. i sometimes wonder if i liked “sin city” more because i disliked the terms of dargis’ dismissal of it so much (having read the review before seeing the film).
ARNAB says: “i do also think that on this blog we may occasionally be susceptible to letting a reviewer’s take on a film influence our own in reverse before we see it ourselves.”
I think we are often guilty of the same behavior–the majority of which is bound up by a joy in “taking the piss” out of each other’s likes and dislikes (leavened by the occasional ghostly return of USC English, boys’ club, grad school tomfoolery).
I like to read Owen Gleiberman and have warmed up to Lisa Schwartzbaum over the years. I also like to read whatever J. Hoberman has to say even if I’m completely alienated by his art-school aesthetics. Anthony Lane is perhaps the most fun to read but he probably gets the most words. David Denby is a pill. David Edelstein’s casual yet intelligent approach is always worthy. Michael Atkinson, Stephanie Zacharek, anything by Moriarty over at AICN.
I’d mostly be echoing names already mentioned, so I won’t contribute to the post as originally defined.
But–a slight twist? I’m teaching a course on film in the Spring, and I’d like to give folks–along with the theory and history–some good examples of criticism. I’ll mostly be violently breaking any/all copyright rules, so don’t worry about anthologies–but give me some names, periodical writers past/present, plus other sui generis types.
I have in mind: Robert Warshow, Pauline Kael, James Agee, bell hooks, probably J. Hoberman.
I’m also looking at a couple of the BFI film readers–I really enjoyed Salman Rushdie’s free-range essay on The Wizard of Oz, so I’ve ordered Amy Taubin on Taxi Driver, Ed Guerrero on Do The Right Thing, and some guy named Bascombe on The Searchers.
And speaking of Searchers, there have been a lot of cool essays on that–Greil Marcus, Jonathan Lethem, Sherman Alexie (gotta find that one), Garry Wills….
I’m way out of my depth here, but I really liked the chapter of David Harvey’s “Condition of Postmodernity” that compares ‘Bladerunner’ and ‘Wings of Desire.’ And I remember enjoying “City on Fire” about Hong Kong cinema.
John Hess’s “Godfather II: A Deal Coppola Couldn’t Refuse.” Good, easy-to-read political criticism, with Marxist slant.
i’d recommend judith grant’s reading of “aliens” in her fundamental feminisms–or did you not mean academic stuff? her reading is very accessible though.
jeff, are you saying that i am correct? or are you complaining that i make it a point to not like any movies you do?
I’ve always liked J. Hoberman and find the reviews in the village voice—even though they may sometimes get New York snarky–generally pretty good. The guy for the nation–stuart klawans??–is hit or miss but at least he pays attention to the ideological dimension of films. many good critical essays in the massive collection Movies and Methods. also good is robin wood’s Hitchock Revisited which provides side by side his early auteurist criticism with the revised approaches taken after his ‘conversion’ to marxist-feminist criticism with an overt political advocacy. and speaking of auteurism I recommend the two volume American Cinema, edited by Coursodon and some other french guy–provocative and thorough overviews of major directors. Mike–you also might want to throw some Manny Farber in there and also check out the collection of criticism from Cahiers du Cinema’s heyday (when godard and the like wrote for them)–those essays are an excellent example of the contraditory pull of popular vs esoteric criticism. an interesting novelty to look for–an essay on The Wild Bunch by robert Culp, yes, that Robert Culp from I Spy. for recent reviews I always check out rottentomatoes.com which provides a nice selection of both establishment critics and less “reputable” ‘zine writers
Ah, Farber, yeah. And many good suggestions–thanks.
yeah, i initially read your post as targeting the way our reception of a film can be shaped by reading a critic’s review (i.e. you liked Sin City cause Dargis did not). I was just taking that argument one step further and pointing the finger at ourselves–plus, I hate it when you don’t like the films I like (do you even watch them?)
people here mostly skew my responses positively. and i generally tend not to read the substantive discussions of movies i haven’t yet seen till i get around to seeing them.
no, i haven’t seen “sisterhood of the travelling pants”. what else did you see this year?