After thoroughly reviewing all of the films that came out in 2010, I've selected Christopher Nolan's film, Inception, for the final segment of my paper. The justification for my final film selections (Harry Potter, Black Swan, and Inception) is that they have all received a lot of critical attention, they were all widely released (Black Swan wasn't initially a wide release, but was later made a wide release on Dec. 22), and while they don't all inhabit the same genre, they do share some overlap as science fiction/psychological thrillers/fantasy.
So what about Inception? Personally, I was expecting more twists from Nolan based on his previous achievement with Memento (2000). The plot of Inception seemed pretty simple (the basement of the mind harbors one's darkest secrets) and the "secrets" didn't seem all that secret. In fact, the film made them fairly obvious from the beginning.
David Denby of The New Yorker calls the film "an astonishment, an engineering feat, and, finally, a folly." In Denby's opinion, the dream sequences don't add layers of meaning but only serve as tools for "doubling and redoubling action sequences." This fascination with doubles appears again in Black Swan so it seems that the movies this year are border-line obsessed with the uncanny double. Even Harry Potter shares this theme with Harry's constant misrecognitions and his connection to Voldemort (even his resemblance to his father is uncannily similar). Inception pushes this a bit far, and as Denby says, the film is "devoted to its own workings and to little else." The film is too focused on the visual, leaving little for the audience to connect with and ultimately losing us.
A.O. Scott of The New York Times links the film to Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams" claiming that movies are actually very similar the the experience of dreaming. He also claims that the film deals more with "crafty puzzles" than "profound mysteries." Marion Cotillard as "Mal" is the strongest emotional component of the film, but she falls short of any actual character development.
Harry Knowles on Ain't it Cool News also didn't have much to say: "it still kind of underwhelms the shit out of me."
Rotten Tomatometer Ratings:
All Critics Avg. Rating, 87% liked it as of 12/28/10
Audience Avg. Rating, 93% liked it as of 12/28/10
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Things That Come In Threes
Here's one more: the structure of my project. I'm going to center the focus of the research paper on just three films: Harry Potter, Black Swan, and one more that's yet to be determined. Both of the films that I've already selected have a considerable amount of dialogue still going on about them and will also come up again when 2010 film awards come out next year. My intention is to break the project up into three chapters (10-15 pages) that each look at one specific film and make a conclusive statement about the different forms of discourse considering them.
Just need to go ahead and figure out what that last film is going to be.
Just need to go ahead and figure out what that last film is going to be.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
White Swan/Black Swan
As a former aspiring ballerina myself, I was very excited to learn that there was a new Natalie Portman film coming out focusing on the story of Swan Lake. I finally got a chance to see it last weekend and was a bit thrown off with what the film was actually about. Verging on the Halloween-y, Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan (2010) was a painful watch--how can you see the beauty when you're watching the whole film from between your fingers? Despite this, the film has still managed to win the praise of a few critics.
David Denby called the film a "luridly beautiful farrago" in The New Yorker. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a "farrago" is "a confused mixture," which I would agree with as being an accurate description of a film that was trying to be too many things (psychological thriller, cerebral, dance film, sexy) when it really boiled down to something just plain disturbing. Denby also ties the film to Freudian theory: "'Black Swan' turns Freud's uncanny into shtick; the sinister elements are overloaded and overdetermined." It's true that there seems to be an excessive amount of doubles until they overlap and lose their meaning. Denby describes Aronofsky's work as "aestheticizing insanity" as seen in the use of four colors: white, black, pink, and red.
In The New York Times, Manohla Dargis enjoys the self torture aspect. Dargis writes that part of the film's gratification can be found in the "giddy, sometimes sleazy exploitation cinema." As Dargis points out, the main character, Nina, "doesn't just pirouette prettily, she also cracks her damaged toes (the sound design picking up ever crackle and crunch) and sticks her fingers down her throat to vomit up her food." Not a very pretty sight. Dargis, however, argues that Aronofsky manages to "transcend" the clichés that Denby isolates. Dargis also calls attention to the use of the hand-held camera that allows for more "intimacy."
On Ain't It Cool News, Steve "Capone" Prokopy calls Black Swan the "finest work of [Natalie Portman's] career." Capone writes, "in a complex and bizarre way, we are rooting for Nina to complete her transformation, even if it means her losing her mind or her life."
Perhaps I'm alone here, but in my opinion Black Swan certainly is no Red Shoes (1948).
Rotten Tomatometer Ratings:
All Critics Avg. Rating: 8.2/10, 88% liked it, as of 12/19/10
Audience Avg. Rating: 4.3/5, 91% liked it, as of 12/19/10
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Literature Review: The Professional Film Critic
1. Andrew Sarris and the Auteur Theory
In the 1960s, Andrew Sarris first introduced the concept of the auteur or "author" in his essay "Notes on Auteur Theory" published in the Winter 1962-63 issue of Film Culture (Hickenlooper 3). In film criticism, the auteur has come to be associated with the film director and originated from the 1950s when André Balzin and François Truffaut and their "comrades" used it in Cahiers du Cinéma (Hickenlooper 3). In George Hickenlooper's book, Reel Conversations, he suggests that Sarris made the auteur a "policy" rather than a "theory," which Sarris later emphasized in his book, The American Cinema, which rates auteurs by their work (3). While Sarris's theory remains controversial still today, he undeniably was responsible for being one of the first to directly give film directors credit for their role in their work.
To Sarris's surprise, his theory was almost immediately attacked. Pauline Kael published an essay in response to Sarris's entitled "Circles and Squares" (Film Quarterly, 1963) that accused Sarris of valuing works by director's names rather than by actual merit (Hickenlooper 4). Interestingly, it was this debate that suddenly made the field of film criticism "sexy," and it wasn't long after that a whole new influx of young critics were trying to make a living in Hollywood (Hickenlooper 4). In an interview, Hickenlooper asks Sarris about his opinion of the role he played in film criticism:
H: Pauline Kael and you have been called the Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy of film criticism for having made the profession sexy. Does that flatter you?
S: Well, not really [...] I know how to distinguish myself from Pauline as a critic in the sense that she makes herself the center of her piece. She makes it the job of the filmmaker to astonish her, and if he fails, you know, "Off with his head!" [...] I think the function of the film critic is to try to understand what the artist is doing and what he is feeling and how he is conveying it [...] The art means more than the artist. It is this work which is a thing of beauty forever, and it's my job to explain why and who. (9-10)
Sarris considers the "art" over the individual, including even the auteur.
Since Sarris began working as a film critic, there have been various advances in the way film criticism is presented to the public. Originally, most people read reviews in print, but in the 1980s a new form of consumer culture began to take hold: the television. Even in the 1990s, film critics were already worried that the integrity of film criticism was being compromised. Hickenlooper sums up a debate printed in the March-August 1990 issue of Film Comment between Andrew Sarris, Robert Ebert, and Richard Corliss: "Corliss, the founder of the magazine, feels that the profession of print criticism is being seriously compromised by the popularity of the television critic. Ebert, who is featured on his own television show, believes the air waves have made criticism more accessible to the general public" (5). Television does indeed make criticism more "accessible," but the remaining question is whether the theatricality inherent to the screen naturally leads to a "dumbing down" of the material or not. When something is made for general public consumption, does it necessitate a lower quality? And is it such a bad thing to have new, derived forms of criticism? Sarris's response to new media lies between the polar opinions of Corliss and Ebert:
H: What about film criticism? In a recent issue of Film Comment [May-June 1990], Richard Corliss was lamenting over the state of film criticism and how print criticism in particular wasn't flourishing as it used to.
S: I think there are more outlets for critics than there ever were. As I indicated, I think one of the problems is there are many more writers on film then there used to be, and I think that during the sixties, when film studies were at their peak, we propelled out a lot of professional critics who now can't find work. (Hickenlooper13)
Sarris suggests that new forms of media provide "outlets" for professionals who can't find work in print, an increasingly limited medium for aspiring critics. The profession is changing, whether the critics are ready for it, or not.
2. Pauline Kael
One of Andrew Sarris's biggest enemies in print, Pauline Kael has also managed to make her mark in the field of film criticism. In his introduction to his book, Conversations with Pauline Kael, Will Brantley calls Kael a "critic whose work has deeply mattered" (ix). Kael's influence on film criticism has spanned decades, and still continues to do so as a result of the large amount of work she has managed to produce and print. For over twenty years, she wrote reviews for The New Yorker in "one of the most successful liaisons of twentieth century journalism" (Brantley x). In a 1966 Newsweek article titled "Perils of Pauline," she was described as the "bitter opponent of all cinema cults," yet despite that she has her own "Kael cult" of followers (Brantley 3). What made Kael slightly different from other movie critics was her ability to win over her readers-and to offend them. In response to her dismissal from McCall's in 1966 as a result of her almost uniformly negative reviews, Kael shrugs it off: "From the beginning I thought I was the wrong person for their readers [...] but they were willing to take the risk. I had realized that I would sock the ladies right between the ears, but what the hell is the point of writing, if you're writing banality" (Brantley 4).
In one of her most contentious essays, "Raising Kane," published in the February 1971 issue of The New Yorker, Kael raised questions against Andrew Sarris's conception of the auteur theory (Alpert qtd. in Brantley 9). The essay critiques Orsen Welles's film, Citizen Kane (1941), long considered a paragon of American cinema. Kael argued that much of the film's credit shouldn't have gone to Welles, but to the screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz (Brantley 9). Welles is listed high in Sarris's auteur rankings, so Kael's criticism was the source of much debate, critical attacks, and interest. Her contribution to the film world was a constant cause for upheaval, but at least it was never "banal."
3. Roger Ebert
A well-recognized name in the world of film criticism, Roger Ebert has been an active critic in several mediums: print, television, and online. While not really a fan of the amateur film critics who keep blogs, Ebert himself actually keeps a blog titled, Roger Ebert's Journal on the Chicago Sun-Times website. He was also one of the first critics to break into television with his show "Sneak Previews" that he hosted with Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune, and as a result has generally been a proponent of getting criticism to the general public, rather than to an elite few (RogerEbert.com). The weekly television show later evolved into the "Siskel & Ebert" program in 1982 and continued until Siskel's death 23 years later (RogerEbert.com).
In 1975, Ebert won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism, earning him a worldwide readership (RogerEbert.com). According to his website, RogerEbert.com, he is now published in more that 200 newspapers in the U.S., Canada, England, and Greece. Also widely published-even producing some volumes on an annual basis-Ebert has had a wide impact on the public's opinion of what makes a good film. While it is possible to belittle his television performance as a sort of "sell-out," in the context of his published work it's nothing compared to the large amount of printed criticism he has also managed to produce. Also, winning the Pulitzer Prize casts serious legitimacy to the film critic profession, even if it can seem as much of a performance as the medium that it critiques.
Works Cited
Ebert, Roger. "Rogerebert.com :: General Information." Rogerebert.com :: Movie Reviews, Essays and the Movie Answer Man from Film Critic Roger Ebert. Web. 09 Dec. 2010. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/GENERALINFORMATION/40909001>.
Hickenlooper, George. Reel Conversations: Candid Interviews with Film's Foremost Directors and Critics. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Group, 1991. Print.
Kael, Pauline. Conversations with Pauline Kael. Ed. Will Brantley. Jackson: University of Mississippi, 1996. Print.
Rothman, William. The "I" of the Camera: Essays in Film Criticism, History, and Aesthetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print.
In the 1960s, Andrew Sarris first introduced the concept of the auteur or "author" in his essay "Notes on Auteur Theory" published in the Winter 1962-63 issue of Film Culture (Hickenlooper 3). In film criticism, the auteur has come to be associated with the film director and originated from the 1950s when André Balzin and François Truffaut and their "comrades" used it in Cahiers du Cinéma (Hickenlooper 3). In George Hickenlooper's book, Reel Conversations, he suggests that Sarris made the auteur a "policy" rather than a "theory," which Sarris later emphasized in his book, The American Cinema, which rates auteurs by their work (3). While Sarris's theory remains controversial still today, he undeniably was responsible for being one of the first to directly give film directors credit for their role in their work.
To Sarris's surprise, his theory was almost immediately attacked. Pauline Kael published an essay in response to Sarris's entitled "Circles and Squares" (Film Quarterly, 1963) that accused Sarris of valuing works by director's names rather than by actual merit (Hickenlooper 4). Interestingly, it was this debate that suddenly made the field of film criticism "sexy," and it wasn't long after that a whole new influx of young critics were trying to make a living in Hollywood (Hickenlooper 4). In an interview, Hickenlooper asks Sarris about his opinion of the role he played in film criticism:
H: Pauline Kael and you have been called the Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy of film criticism for having made the profession sexy. Does that flatter you?
S: Well, not really [...] I know how to distinguish myself from Pauline as a critic in the sense that she makes herself the center of her piece. She makes it the job of the filmmaker to astonish her, and if he fails, you know, "Off with his head!" [...] I think the function of the film critic is to try to understand what the artist is doing and what he is feeling and how he is conveying it [...] The art means more than the artist. It is this work which is a thing of beauty forever, and it's my job to explain why and who. (9-10)
Sarris considers the "art" over the individual, including even the auteur.
Since Sarris began working as a film critic, there have been various advances in the way film criticism is presented to the public. Originally, most people read reviews in print, but in the 1980s a new form of consumer culture began to take hold: the television. Even in the 1990s, film critics were already worried that the integrity of film criticism was being compromised. Hickenlooper sums up a debate printed in the March-August 1990 issue of Film Comment between Andrew Sarris, Robert Ebert, and Richard Corliss: "Corliss, the founder of the magazine, feels that the profession of print criticism is being seriously compromised by the popularity of the television critic. Ebert, who is featured on his own television show, believes the air waves have made criticism more accessible to the general public" (5). Television does indeed make criticism more "accessible," but the remaining question is whether the theatricality inherent to the screen naturally leads to a "dumbing down" of the material or not. When something is made for general public consumption, does it necessitate a lower quality? And is it such a bad thing to have new, derived forms of criticism? Sarris's response to new media lies between the polar opinions of Corliss and Ebert:
H: What about film criticism? In a recent issue of Film Comment [May-June 1990], Richard Corliss was lamenting over the state of film criticism and how print criticism in particular wasn't flourishing as it used to.
S: I think there are more outlets for critics than there ever were. As I indicated, I think one of the problems is there are many more writers on film then there used to be, and I think that during the sixties, when film studies were at their peak, we propelled out a lot of professional critics who now can't find work. (Hickenlooper13)
Sarris suggests that new forms of media provide "outlets" for professionals who can't find work in print, an increasingly limited medium for aspiring critics. The profession is changing, whether the critics are ready for it, or not.
2. Pauline Kael
One of Andrew Sarris's biggest enemies in print, Pauline Kael has also managed to make her mark in the field of film criticism. In his introduction to his book, Conversations with Pauline Kael, Will Brantley calls Kael a "critic whose work has deeply mattered" (ix). Kael's influence on film criticism has spanned decades, and still continues to do so as a result of the large amount of work she has managed to produce and print. For over twenty years, she wrote reviews for The New Yorker in "one of the most successful liaisons of twentieth century journalism" (Brantley x). In a 1966 Newsweek article titled "Perils of Pauline," she was described as the "bitter opponent of all cinema cults," yet despite that she has her own "Kael cult" of followers (Brantley 3). What made Kael slightly different from other movie critics was her ability to win over her readers-and to offend them. In response to her dismissal from McCall's in 1966 as a result of her almost uniformly negative reviews, Kael shrugs it off: "From the beginning I thought I was the wrong person for their readers [...] but they were willing to take the risk. I had realized that I would sock the ladies right between the ears, but what the hell is the point of writing, if you're writing banality" (Brantley 4).
In one of her most contentious essays, "Raising Kane," published in the February 1971 issue of The New Yorker, Kael raised questions against Andrew Sarris's conception of the auteur theory (Alpert qtd. in Brantley 9). The essay critiques Orsen Welles's film, Citizen Kane (1941), long considered a paragon of American cinema. Kael argued that much of the film's credit shouldn't have gone to Welles, but to the screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz (Brantley 9). Welles is listed high in Sarris's auteur rankings, so Kael's criticism was the source of much debate, critical attacks, and interest. Her contribution to the film world was a constant cause for upheaval, but at least it was never "banal."
3. Roger Ebert
A well-recognized name in the world of film criticism, Roger Ebert has been an active critic in several mediums: print, television, and online. While not really a fan of the amateur film critics who keep blogs, Ebert himself actually keeps a blog titled, Roger Ebert's Journal on the Chicago Sun-Times website. He was also one of the first critics to break into television with his show "Sneak Previews" that he hosted with Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune, and as a result has generally been a proponent of getting criticism to the general public, rather than to an elite few (RogerEbert.com). The weekly television show later evolved into the "Siskel & Ebert" program in 1982 and continued until Siskel's death 23 years later (RogerEbert.com).
In 1975, Ebert won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism, earning him a worldwide readership (RogerEbert.com). According to his website, RogerEbert.com, he is now published in more that 200 newspapers in the U.S., Canada, England, and Greece. Also widely published-even producing some volumes on an annual basis-Ebert has had a wide impact on the public's opinion of what makes a good film. While it is possible to belittle his television performance as a sort of "sell-out," in the context of his published work it's nothing compared to the large amount of printed criticism he has also managed to produce. Also, winning the Pulitzer Prize casts serious legitimacy to the film critic profession, even if it can seem as much of a performance as the medium that it critiques.
Works Cited
Ebert, Roger. "Rogerebert.com :: General Information." Rogerebert.com :: Movie Reviews, Essays and the Movie Answer Man from Film Critic Roger Ebert. Web. 09 Dec. 2010. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/GENERALINFORMATION/40909001>.
Hickenlooper, George. Reel Conversations: Candid Interviews with Film's Foremost Directors and Critics. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Group, 1991. Print.
Kael, Pauline. Conversations with Pauline Kael. Ed. Will Brantley. Jackson: University of Mississippi, 1996. Print.
Rothman, William. The "I" of the Camera: Essays in Film Criticism, History, and Aesthetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print.
Monday, December 13, 2010
More on the Literature Review: The Introduction
The Study of Surfaces:
As William Rothman suggests, film is a "medium of surfaces" but one that also contains "mysterious depths, of the inner, the invisible" (xxv). The screen marks a boundary between "reality" and cinematic representation, but that boundary blurs as film increasingly merges with popular culture and society. Society reflects the images it sees reflected across the screen as a representation of itself, entangling the origin of societal constructs and behavior with its supposed representation. As Guy Debord argues in the eighth point in the first chapter of his The Society of the Spectacle, reality and the image on screen are inseparable:
The spectacle cannot be abstractly contrasted to concrete social activity. Each side of such a duality is itself divided. The spectacle that falsifies reality is nevertheless a real product of that reality. Conversely, real life is materially invaded by the contemplation of the spectacle, and ends up absorbing it and aligning itself with it. Objective reality is present on both sides. Each of these seemingly fixed concepts has no other basis than its transformation into its opposite: reality emerges within the spectacle, and the spectacle is real. This reciprocal alienation is the essence and support of the existing society. (1.8)
The study of the "spectacle," then, is simultaneously a study of life. With the birth of film criticism comes both a commentary on a mass media produced technology and "social activity."
Rothman argues that if we are to understand film's impact on society, knowledge of film experience must be brought to "consciousness" (9). This is the role of film criticism-to articulate what it is we experience through film. From Rothman's perspective, the audience's response to movies has been a "mystery" since the beginning of film history (9). In the thirties and forties, film was a prominent part of American culture, and yet public discourse about it was practically nonexistent (Rothman 9). It wasn't until the fifties and sixties that film began to get its due and the modern American film critic finally emerged as an integral part of the movie business.
Works Cited:
Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. New York, 1994. Print.
Rothman, William. The "I" of the Camera: Essays in Film Criticism, History, and Aesthetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print.
As William Rothman suggests, film is a "medium of surfaces" but one that also contains "mysterious depths, of the inner, the invisible" (xxv). The screen marks a boundary between "reality" and cinematic representation, but that boundary blurs as film increasingly merges with popular culture and society. Society reflects the images it sees reflected across the screen as a representation of itself, entangling the origin of societal constructs and behavior with its supposed representation. As Guy Debord argues in the eighth point in the first chapter of his The Society of the Spectacle, reality and the image on screen are inseparable:
The spectacle cannot be abstractly contrasted to concrete social activity. Each side of such a duality is itself divided. The spectacle that falsifies reality is nevertheless a real product of that reality. Conversely, real life is materially invaded by the contemplation of the spectacle, and ends up absorbing it and aligning itself with it. Objective reality is present on both sides. Each of these seemingly fixed concepts has no other basis than its transformation into its opposite: reality emerges within the spectacle, and the spectacle is real. This reciprocal alienation is the essence and support of the existing society. (1.8)
The study of the "spectacle," then, is simultaneously a study of life. With the birth of film criticism comes both a commentary on a mass media produced technology and "social activity."
Rothman argues that if we are to understand film's impact on society, knowledge of film experience must be brought to "consciousness" (9). This is the role of film criticism-to articulate what it is we experience through film. From Rothman's perspective, the audience's response to movies has been a "mystery" since the beginning of film history (9). In the thirties and forties, film was a prominent part of American culture, and yet public discourse about it was practically nonexistent (Rothman 9). It wasn't until the fifties and sixties that film began to get its due and the modern American film critic finally emerged as an integral part of the movie business.
Works Cited:
Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. New York, 1994. Print.
Rothman, William. The "I" of the Camera: Essays in Film Criticism, History, and Aesthetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Decline or Delusion?
An excerpt from George Hickenlooper's interview with film critic Richard Shickel published in Hickelooper's book, Reel Conversations (1991):
H: In your essay on Chaplin you talked about the decline of film criticism over the past ten years. Would you talk about that?
S: Is it a decline or were we all deluded back then? I don't know. Sure, there's a decline in the sense that film criticism has basically just become a branch of marketing. That's a function of this alleged criticism on television which is some kind of performance--they are performers no less than the performers they are reviewing. Does that, to some degree, lessen the quality of the dialogue about movies? Sure, I think it does, but there are still those of us who are writing in print, seriously attempting to come to grips with movies--both present and past.
Does writing something in print guarantee that it is less of a performance?
H: In your essay on Chaplin you talked about the decline of film criticism over the past ten years. Would you talk about that?
S: Is it a decline or were we all deluded back then? I don't know. Sure, there's a decline in the sense that film criticism has basically just become a branch of marketing. That's a function of this alleged criticism on television which is some kind of performance--they are performers no less than the performers they are reviewing. Does that, to some degree, lessen the quality of the dialogue about movies? Sure, I think it does, but there are still those of us who are writing in print, seriously attempting to come to grips with movies--both present and past.
Does writing something in print guarantee that it is less of a performance?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Kids on Broomsticks: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One
Released just before Thanksgiving, the new Harry Potter film directed by David Yates has gathered a lot of critical attention. I, for one, went to see it at the first possible opportunity and absolutely loved it. I'm not sure if it was the cathartic release after a final round of mid-term exams or if I was just literally moved to tears by the narrative, but I did manage to thoroughly embarrass myself at the theater. Interestingly, critics were not such big fans of the film as, well, all the die-hard Harry Potter fans.
Anthony Lane wrote in The New Yorker that while the second-to-last installment of the Harry Potter film series has not lost the plot, it is "in danger of losing everything else." He laments the notable absence of the "comic fantasy" that always prevailed at Hogwarts and claims that "the whole thing does seem preternaturally stained with Weltschmerz." While the three main protagonists sit around in a tent, dark apocalyptic forces crowd in around them, which Lane claims are only made worse by "blatant thefts from Tolkein, Orwell, and Arthurian myth." Lane ends his review with a pointed note to viewers: "I hate to remind the millions of fans, but didn't this all begin with a bunch of kids buzzing around on broomsticks?"
Clearly, however, the fans were not as turned off by the changing themes of the Harry Potter series as Lane was. Harry Knowles writes on his blog, Ain't it Cool News, that the new release is "the best of the series to date." Knowles did not miss the "comic fantasy" of Hogwarts, in fact he wrote that "breaking these characters out of Hogwarts has been long overdue."
For those self-proclaimed Harry Potter fanatics, the most important critique of the film is how closely it reflects the book. Critics not quite so attached are less interested in the narrative correspondence and even reflect a bit of nostalgia for the more lighthearted, younger version of Harry. Personally, I'm already counting down the days until Part Two is released.
Rotten Tomatometer Ratings:
All Critics Avg. Rating: 7.2/10, 79% liked it, as of 12/19/2010
Audience Avg. Rating: 4.2/5, 87% liked it, as of 12/19/2010
Anthony Lane wrote in The New Yorker that while the second-to-last installment of the Harry Potter film series has not lost the plot, it is "in danger of losing everything else." He laments the notable absence of the "comic fantasy" that always prevailed at Hogwarts and claims that "the whole thing does seem preternaturally stained with Weltschmerz." While the three main protagonists sit around in a tent, dark apocalyptic forces crowd in around them, which Lane claims are only made worse by "blatant thefts from Tolkein, Orwell, and Arthurian myth." Lane ends his review with a pointed note to viewers: "I hate to remind the millions of fans, but didn't this all begin with a bunch of kids buzzing around on broomsticks?"
Clearly, however, the fans were not as turned off by the changing themes of the Harry Potter series as Lane was. Harry Knowles writes on his blog, Ain't it Cool News, that the new release is "the best of the series to date." Knowles did not miss the "comic fantasy" of Hogwarts, in fact he wrote that "breaking these characters out of Hogwarts has been long overdue."
For those self-proclaimed Harry Potter fanatics, the most important critique of the film is how closely it reflects the book. Critics not quite so attached are less interested in the narrative correspondence and even reflect a bit of nostalgia for the more lighthearted, younger version of Harry. Personally, I'm already counting down the days until Part Two is released.
Rotten Tomatometer Ratings:
All Critics Avg. Rating: 7.2/10, 79% liked it, as of 12/19/2010
Audience Avg. Rating: 4.2/5, 87% liked it, as of 12/19/2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
A Follow-up Thought on Methodology
After some brief but very intense reconsideration, I've decided that eight different film review sources might be too much to keep fully up to date on. So I've already cut it down to six, eliminating the film blog by Richard Brody as well as The Movie Blog. Hopefully I'll still be able to check them every once and while, but I intend to focus more fully on the revised list:
Professional Writing:
"The Current Cinema" in The New Yorker (Print)
"Movies" in The New York Times (Print)
RogerEbert.com by Roger Ebert (Online)
Bloggers:
Rotten Tomatoes (Online)
Ain't It Cool News by Harry Knowles (Online)
Cinematic Happenings Under Development (CHUD) (Online)
Professional Writing:
"The Current Cinema" in The New Yorker (Print)
"Movies" in The New York Times (Print)
RogerEbert.com by Roger Ebert (Online)
Bloggers:
Rotten Tomatoes (Online)
Ain't It Cool News by Harry Knowles (Online)
Cinematic Happenings Under Development (CHUD) (Online)
A Thought on Methodology
In order to acquire a basic knowledge of the difference between professional and amateur film reviews, I've decided to follow a (very) select group of published professional reviews, professional bloggers, and amateur bloggers.
Professional Writing:
"The Current Cinema" in The New Yorker (Print)
"Movies" in The New York Times (Print)
"The Front Row" by Richard Brody (Online-The New Yorker)
RogerEbert.Com by Roger Ebert (Online-Chicago Sun Times)
Bloggers:
Rotten Tomatoes (Online)
i. Not exactly amateur, critics must be published and have editorial oversight. For a description of the requirements in order to become a "Tomatometer" see Rotten Tomatoes' list of criteria.
Ain't It Cool News by Harry Knowles (Online)
The Movie Blog: The Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions (Online)
Cinematic Happenings Under Development (CHUD) (Online)
Professional Writing:
"The Current Cinema" in The New Yorker (Print)
"Movies" in The New York Times (Print)
"The Front Row" by Richard Brody (Online-The New Yorker)
RogerEbert.Com by Roger Ebert (Online-Chicago Sun Times)
Bloggers:
Rotten Tomatoes (Online)
i. Not exactly amateur, critics must be published and have editorial oversight. For a description of the requirements in order to become a "Tomatometer" see Rotten Tomatoes' list of criteria.
Ain't It Cool News by Harry Knowles (Online)
The Movie Blog: The Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions (Online)
Cinematic Happenings Under Development (CHUD) (Online)
Friday, November 19, 2010
Even Ben Folds & Nick Hornby Worry About What Bloggers Think
Ben Folds considers the impact of bloggers' opinions in his song, "Working Day," on his new CD, Lonely Avenue. The song was co-written; Folds wrote the music and Nick Hornby wrote the lyrics. See the lyrics below:
I can do this, really, I'm good enough
I'm as good as them, but don't take it from me
Ask my friends, ask my sister
They all think my stuff is great
Up there with any of them
I just need a break
I'm a genius, really, I'm excellent
Better than them, I kick their asses
All of them, even that guy
Who thinks he's fuckin' cool
Gets all of the attention
He doesn't sell shit does he
Some guy on the net thinks I suck and he should know
He's got his own blog
I'm a loser
I'm a poser
Yeah really
It's over
I mean it and I quit
Everything I write is shit
Hey, hey
It's a working day
Hey, hey
Lyrics taken from http://www.lyricstime.com/ben-folds-working-day-lyrics.html
I can do this, really, I'm good enough
I'm as good as them, but don't take it from me
Ask my friends, ask my sister
They all think my stuff is great
Up there with any of them
I just need a break
I'm a genius, really, I'm excellent
Better than them, I kick their asses
All of them, even that guy
Who thinks he's fuckin' cool
Gets all of the attention
He doesn't sell shit does he
Some guy on the net thinks I suck and he should know
He's got his own blog
I'm a loser
I'm a poser
Yeah really
It's over
I mean it and I quit
Everything I write is shit
Hey, hey
It's a working day
Hey, hey
Lyrics taken from http://www.lyricstime.com/ben-folds-working-day-lyrics.html
Friday, November 5, 2010
Literature Review Outline
I've begun planning my literature review/context section. See the outline below:
I. Introduction
II. The Film Critic
III. Interviews
IV. Agenda Setting Theory
V. Conclusion
I. Introduction
- a. Introduction to film history and criticism
- i. Major critical approaches to narrative film/looking at the film text.
- 1. Formal-Aesthetic: Theoretical frameworks
- 2. Sociological-Ideological: Gender, ideologies, and cultural identities
II. The Film Critic
- a. The Professional Film Critic
- i. Description/history of the profession
- ii. Famous/notable film critics
- 1. Pauline Kael
- 2. Roger Ebert
- 3. Siskel and Ebert
- 4. Manohla Dargis
- iii. Impact of film critics
- b. The Blogger
- i. Description/history of blogging
- ii. Notable/widely read bloggers
- 1. Ain't it Cool News
- a. Harry Knowles
- 2. Cinematic Happenings Under Development
- iii. Rotten Tomatoes
- iv. Meta Critic
- v. Impact of blogging sites
III. Interviews
- a. How to Conduct Interviews
- b. Researched Interviews with both professional and amateur film critics
IV. Agenda Setting Theory
- a. Suggests that the media doesn't tell us what to think, but it might tell us what to think about.
V. Conclusion
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Proposal: Reconsidering the Critic
This project will consider the problem of the professional film critic's decline as a result of the growing popularity of the online amateur film critic. Blogs, discussion forums, and websites have all made self-publishing accessible to the public at large, and consumers commonly turn to more "readable" reviews in favor of potentially esoteric, elitist, and overly-intellectual ones. Films shape our ideology and serve as prominent points of reference and influence in society, and what we think of films is crucial to how we form our common perceptions, biases, and shared experiences. This stems from the fact that film critics are an integral part of the process of "making" a film, that is deciding whether or not the film will ever make it to a wider audience, and once it does, what that audience's reaction will be. Film critics who work for newspapers and other forms of media generally review newly released films that haven't yet had a chance to gather a following. A bad review can ruin a film's chance of ever developing a dedicated audience by convincing people not to go see it, and likewise, a good review can suddenly direct the limelight towards an otherwise obscure film that may never have stood a chance with the public.
Roger Ebert claims in his blog, Roger Ebert's Journal, that the disappearance of the film critic is potentially indicative of an even larger problem. Ebert argues, "We are being trained not to think. It is not about the disappearance of film critics. We are the canaries. It is about the death of an intelligent and curious, readership, interested in significant things and able to think critically" ("Death to Film Critics!"). On The Guardian Film Blog Ronald Bergan-while not going so far as to lament the disappearance of an "intelligent and curious" readership-does make the distinction between "reviewers" and "critics" ("The Film Critic is Dead"). Bergan suggests that the problem with critics uneducated in film history and technique is that they are limited to "narrative" and cannot comment on "narratology" ("The Film Critic is Dead"). Consequently, it is much easier to cleverly critique a bad film than to dissect the qualities of a good one.
How does this evolution in film criticism change how we decide what is a "good" film? A blog allows for a higher level of interaction between the reader and the reviewer, but do we also lose something in the process of changing a monologue over to a dialogue? Is it through being made public that film criticism becomes film criticism? Does it have any impact on the type of films that are made/are successful/are nominated for awards? Does it have a positive, negative, or negligible effect on the gender disparity in film criticism? What ultimately makes someone a "critic"? And is it necessary to demarcate between who is a critic and who is not? What happens when anyone can be a critic as a result of new technology such as blogging, and what does it mean for both filmmakers and audience members alike?
For this project, I would like to explore these questions in a research paper that would include a series of interviews from filmmakers, established film critics, and amateur online reviewers to give a wide survey of different schools of thought on the topic. The end result would be an amalgamation of film criticism; commentary on the profession, society, and the academy; critical self-portraits; and my own research on the subject. I think a project that deals in film critics' own reflections, considerations concerning the impact of their work, and general research about the field is pivotal in projecting the future of film criticism, film, and as a result, popular culture and ideology.
Bergan, Ronald. "The Film Critic Is Dead. Long Live the Film Critic." Weblog post. Film Blog. The Guardian, 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.
Ebert, Roger. "Death to Film Critics! Hail to the CelebCult!" Weblog post. Roger Ebert's Journal. Chicago Sun-Times, 26 Nov. 2008. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.
Roger Ebert claims in his blog, Roger Ebert's Journal, that the disappearance of the film critic is potentially indicative of an even larger problem. Ebert argues, "We are being trained not to think. It is not about the disappearance of film critics. We are the canaries. It is about the death of an intelligent and curious, readership, interested in significant things and able to think critically" ("Death to Film Critics!"). On The Guardian Film Blog Ronald Bergan-while not going so far as to lament the disappearance of an "intelligent and curious" readership-does make the distinction between "reviewers" and "critics" ("The Film Critic is Dead"). Bergan suggests that the problem with critics uneducated in film history and technique is that they are limited to "narrative" and cannot comment on "narratology" ("The Film Critic is Dead"). Consequently, it is much easier to cleverly critique a bad film than to dissect the qualities of a good one.
How does this evolution in film criticism change how we decide what is a "good" film? A blog allows for a higher level of interaction between the reader and the reviewer, but do we also lose something in the process of changing a monologue over to a dialogue? Is it through being made public that film criticism becomes film criticism? Does it have any impact on the type of films that are made/are successful/are nominated for awards? Does it have a positive, negative, or negligible effect on the gender disparity in film criticism? What ultimately makes someone a "critic"? And is it necessary to demarcate between who is a critic and who is not? What happens when anyone can be a critic as a result of new technology such as blogging, and what does it mean for both filmmakers and audience members alike?
For this project, I would like to explore these questions in a research paper that would include a series of interviews from filmmakers, established film critics, and amateur online reviewers to give a wide survey of different schools of thought on the topic. The end result would be an amalgamation of film criticism; commentary on the profession, society, and the academy; critical self-portraits; and my own research on the subject. I think a project that deals in film critics' own reflections, considerations concerning the impact of their work, and general research about the field is pivotal in projecting the future of film criticism, film, and as a result, popular culture and ideology.
Bergan, Ronald. "The Film Critic Is Dead. Long Live the Film Critic." Weblog post. Film Blog. The Guardian, 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.
Ebert, Roger. "Death to Film Critics! Hail to the CelebCult!" Weblog post. Roger Ebert's Journal. Chicago Sun-Times, 26 Nov. 2008. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)