Responding to criticism

From: NOT French <le-gasp@hotmail.com>
To: <film@craccum.co.nz>
Subject: Lousy reviews
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:26:00 +1200

Did we really need a slobbering 2 page dissertation on Synecdoche, New York of all films? Your reviewer seems overly aroused by Hoffman’s gyrations in between bouts of drooling over Kaufman’s supposed narrative complexity. I’m especially glad we were treated to formulaic, glowing epithets to tell us how good each main actor was. Half of the review is devoted to a piecemeal plot and the rest is irrelevant, much like the film in question.

Good film (good anything, for that matter) isn’t an exercise in semiotics. Kaufman and your reviewer don’t seem to get that, with the latter misrepresenting Synecdoche’s this-means-that, that-represents-this approach as revolutionary or insightful. The reason the plot is mechanically complex (do not confuse this with layered) and the simplistic ideas are there is because there’s no humanity or substance to the film. The path of the artist, life and death have all been handled with mastery by competent directors like Tarkovsky and Bresson. Kaufman simply glides over these topics while he inevitably wows you with his next metaphor. Why devote time to garbage like Synecdoche? “Life is meaningless,” while being a superficial feature of Samuel Beckett’s Absurdist writings, was just a frame for human interaction. Kaufman didn’t understand that either, so he had to fill his film up with more superficiality. It’s high concept mainstream fare and nothing more.

Why not give your readers a look at some of the films they’ll never hear about or see without you – the films that are honest with us and reveal emotional truths? It wouldn’t hurt to introduce them to something different. The Class is one such film that deserved the 2 pages, but there are Iranian films, films from the 1930s and independent films that have surely been seen by fewer than a million worldwide that are undoubtedly of greater quality than any Hollywood abomination. It’ll be those films that they remember, and think about, and want to see again because they make them feel (as opposed to seeing them again in order to decipher some asinine puzzle), even if they may hate them and are unable to understand them at first. In fact, they’ll need to see them again, because these aren’t films you can decode or glean meaning from right away. The people (not characters, but people) in them are realistic and unpredictable. You get to know them by spending that time with them. To have seen these films does not mean to have seen them once.

(Rachel Getting Married also sucked. Same problem with style and no substance. Imitation Cassavetes.)

—Arin

From: Hugh Lilly <hughlilly@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:04:03 +1200
Subject: Re: Lousy reviews
To: <editor@craccum.co.nz>
Cc: <film@craccum.co.nz>; <letters@craccum.co.nz>

Dear Arin,

Thanks for your email. To my knowledge this is the first letter the film column has received in some years, and such constructive criticism is very welcome. Additionally, reviews and other pieces will be warmly received; please feel free to contribute.

Craccum is a weekly magazine written by students, not a scholarly film journal published by academics. Its contributors volunteer considerable time and effort to put together each issue and attempt to cover contemporary issues and culture as best they can.

While a number of students would doubtless enjoy reading criticism of “films they’ll never hear about,” the majority—it has to be said—would most likely prefer to read about contemporary fare on offer at local cinemas. Those who would enjoy reading the former are most likely film students who almost certainly read widely already.

I’d love to do a piece a week on an old or obscure film or director—there are hidden gems and whole branches of cinema undoubtedly worthy of considerable praise—but both column-inch and time constraints make covering such films in a weekly magazine like Craccum basically impossible. Moreover, access to such films is limited, both for me and my readership.

My role as a critic—as I see it—isn’t to tell people what to like; it’s to inform them about films they might enjoy, while at the same time offering my opinion. Good criticism, in theory, balances opinion and fact, commenting on, for example, a film’s plot in relation to contemporary political events. I wouldn’t expect such distinguished critics as Peter Calder, A.O. Scott, David Edelstein, Anthony Lane or Manohla Dargis to stop writing interesting columns about contemporary film and retreat to academia any time soon.

While I grant that Craccum is an alternative publication and, as you rightly say, there is much value to be found in obscure films, we are only invited to a select number of press screenings—a student magazine staffed by volunteers is, understandably, not high on the register for most distribution companies—and I try my best to write about as much outside the mainstream as possible, in order to introduce students to something they might not otherwise seek out.

Pieces about “independent films…seen by fewer than a million [people] worldwide” would probably not be something that many of our readers would enjoy. However, if you are interested in such—you seem considerably intelligent with regard to film—please feel free to write about them and send us your work; it’d be great to occasionally have such pieces in the magazine and gauge their popularity.

Synecdoche is not, by any measure, a mainstream film. The film opened to largely positive reviews but enjoyed only a brief and limited theatrical run in the US, showing, at the height of its popularity, on only 119 screens. Being part of the World Cinema Showcase and screening exclusively at Auckland’s only art house cinema would surely make Synecdoche an art film, not “mainstream fare and nothing more,” as you state.

Many students wouldn’t have bothered to read my review of Synecdoche, having already decided to go and see something like Fast & Furious or Star Trek—for which, by the way, I don’t judge them; people are free to like whatever they want, and I happen to have really enjoyed Star Trek, as you can see from my review. On the other hand, I also really liked Synecdoche, and decided to write about it precisely because I think it’s the kind of film that Craccum’s readership would enjoy.

I respectfully disagree that The Class merits as lengthy an investigation as as Synecdoche. While I certainly found Cantet’s film enjoyable, I feel it clings too closely to its source text and the film is hampered by the decision to cast the author of the book in a role of his own creation. This strongly colours his performance and, as a consequence, the film becomes superficial to an extent, focussing almost entirely on him. The only point at which The Class really grabbed my attention was the confrontational scene in the courtyard near the end. But that’s just my opinion, I suppose. Perhaps I need to watch it again. I also really enjoyed Rachael Getting Married—a film I’ve now seen twice, and I’d recommend without reservation—largely for its strong performances and Demme’s ‘hands-off’ direction—something that is relatively uncommon in contemporary cinema. He may have been imitating Cassavetes, but why, exactly, is that a bad thing?

Again, these are just opinions-but is that not what all criticism is? I may not yet be a good film critic—whatever ‘good’ there implies—but I am enjoying learning, as it were, and Craccum is a great ‘incubator’ in which to do so. Once again, if you feel that the magazine does not represent your point of view, please feel free to write your own reviews; I’d happily publish them.

Finally, regarding your comment on seeing films more than once in order to truly ’see’ them, I leave you with a quote from the prominent Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert:

“I think you have to see Charlie Kaufman’s Synecdoche, New York twice. I watched it the first time and knew it was a great film and that I had not mastered it. The second time because I needed to. The third time because I will want to.”

Sincerely,

Hugh

---

A strip from Matt Groening’s Life In Hell.

Bonus links:

1. From an interview with Charlie Kaufman in W magazine, four things to think about when watching his latest film:
   • If you’re confused, says Kaufman, it’s supposed to be funny.
   • If you’re confused and it’s not funny, just roll with it.
   • If you’re still confused, watch it again (please).
   • If all else fails, at least you come away having learned a new word.
2. “Film Criticism in the Age of the Internet: A Critical Symposium” at Cineaste
3. “In critical condition” by David Bordwell & “Critical Condition” by Richard Brody of The New Yorker

and, just for fun:

4. “Why Film Critic Armond White Loves Spielberg and Attacks Spike Lee“
   in New York Magazine

~ by Hugh on April 30, 2009.