The last article of Armond White on film criticism offers nothing new. In their rhetoric, I guess well learned from Pauline Kael, add charges, quite intense and quite serious about the current situation. White can be fun, but his tendency to sensationalism and essentially dual thinking that seems to cry all the time their status as moral authority, disguised arguments learned more or less Frankfurt School and some studies of the media, do not disguise his usual boring Protestant and beyond the self-importance (the critic, of the mainstream, of anything).
However, it is true that cinema is about to debate and dangerously beyond sports. In sports are often won or lost, and the debate comes down to this: to handle wins and losses, to convert that into a moral state. It is rather childish and there lies its charm, but also the setbacks that often produce and tender difficulty for the management period in perspective. One of the most perplexing things about movies is the view constant use of stars, notes and thin rhetoric all complexity to shout from the rooftops something more visceral. Not so much a debate as an attachment and, as in football, is based on using the state of each team to claim a series of values. It's exhausting and dialectic. But it also reduces the movies, and any art, not a possibility to discuss in depth about our approaches to the movies, but a ridiculous competition.
I think it's certainly taking sides and I think a discussion is worthwhile when you learn interesting approaches to a work, even if they are negative. But it would be fun to see this flock of opinions, often prioritize American cinema more or less mainstream over any other production, acting decades as that of fifty or seventy. The fifties were probably the best decade for American cinema and it would be fun to see how a child's rhetoric could reduce the most unlikely successes. The fifties gave a glorious production of fabrics, also great contributions made in the studio system and is little more than endless for any film buff, but this seems an impossible abstraction or a poetic delirium in the hands of movie lovers Champions League as sinister: there can only be a winner and, at most, a list of awesome movie to fit on a top ten.
the country the other day surprised me with an article especially badass. Signed by Gregory came Belinchón, often publish interviews and reports (provided decent, some notable ) in the newspaper, and this tone was so strikingly characteristic of other contexts or sites. Though fans of Nolan have all my skepticism, I think on Inception lecture worth the time and although I appreciate it more like a blockbuster as something distinctly odd that a visionary, which is not even remotely. As a piece of humor, I can understand the tone of the article, but discuss many of the notions implicit (being the more worrisome considering the Godfather as summa has reached Hollywood in artistic fields.)
A very interesting article about online film criticism is that Paul Brunick published in Film Comment in two parts (Part 1 / Part 2). But, of course, there is tremendous trials. Also in that issue is critical a great social network (2010, David Fincher) signed by Scott Foundas. But it is a criticism devoted to explaining the roundness of a trial by a perception, quite cultured and iconoclast of American culture. There is no victory for anyone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment