You’ve probably read the New York Times “Book Review” and if so I think a conversation on Clive James’ essay on American film critics to be worthy of discussion. Thoughts?
You’ve probably read the New York Times “Book Review” and if so I think a conversation on Clive James’ essay on American film critics to be worthy of discussion. Thoughts?
I am always suspicious of writers who dismiss theory (what they call theory anyway, which isn’t very clear and which seems limited in James’ case to people who make sociological claims about the meaning of films) in favor of a rather questionable idea of “great stylists” who “know more than movies.” On one hand, the stylists are better because they treat the film as a whole object, experienced immediately, but the really superior stylists are those who know a great deal of information beyond the movies (a claim that would seem to beg the question of why sociological analysis is ineffetive, if one is nevertheless able to critique Downfall for its failure to recognize that Germans knew Nazism’s attitude toward the Jews).
I can’t help feeling that James’ remarks are just a glitzed up version of the frequent student complaint that films “are only entertainment” and the constant corporate self-aggrandizement about the “magic of movies,” etc. Both have a certain conception of ideology attached, a term I would expect to be repulsive to James because it intervenes in the all-encompassing activity of viewing a film “as a whole,” whatever that means.
I mean, maybe the Star Wars fan who talks about hair styles could also talk about ideas of imperialism..would that be so far-fetched? but in james’ rather bullying dichotomy you can either be the life of the party or a didactic bore.
I’m with Frisoli–I see no need to hash out James’ catcalls, as it seems to me (like those annual all-modern-literature-actually-sucks,-especially-INSERT-NAME-HERE essays)like just a provocation to get people talking.
Having now said screw the review, I am keen to talk about the book, so I’m ordering it. I also found a used copy of James Agee’s criticism. I’m kind of interested in returning to the question James poses: what makes film writing work well, worth reading, pleasurable *and* thoughtful (to ignore James’ dichotomy, as Michael urges).
Yeah, okay, read the James’ review. One could knock it for doing what too many irritating reviewers do: score points by quickly, and with absolute confidence and no sense of ambiguity or complexity, make one- and two-line evaluations of films. For me, the good reviews (and reviewers) are the ones that noodle around, trying to dig out what it is they like or dislike about a film. Too often, as with Anthony Lane (who is cited affirmatively), we get punchlines instead of insight…
…but, then again, I kind of like Pauline Kael, who was ruthlessly certain about her judgments, but who made little symphonies out of her evaluations (rather than, say, sermons–as David Denby tends to do).
James goes in for the sermon-type review.
You could also knock James for doing what he bashes others for doing: having a theory. His theory is–rimshot–that theory doesn’t work, but… hell, he does what you do to assert a theory: lays out examples and counter-examples to underscore a general truth. I wish there were more irony in his complaints (something Lane excels at), more oomph in his excitement, less priggishness in his pistol-whipping.
I do, though, still look forward to the collection. Amazon is selling it for a very good price right now….