Which film critics do you trust (if any?)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1469 of them)

View Previous Page...

i wish DW Griffith had directed an episode of Sesame Street

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:49 (eighteen years ago) link

i wish lubitsch had been the auteur behind "mr belvedere."

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:55 (eighteen years ago) link

I wish they had built an intercontinental train line from La Ciotat to Petticoat Junction.

― In The Court Of The Redd King Harvest (Ken L), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:55 (eighteen years ago) link

Altman directed Bonanza, goodnuff?

phil (I don't remotely think you're a dummy), it's possible that the makers of (mainstream) (network) TV assume the 'proles' are dumber than they are, which results in the LCDness.

And if we don't make some kind of distinction between "cinema" and "movies," people will almost always assume you're talking about the Queen Latifah-The Rock spectrum rather than the Nicole Holofcener-Tsai ming-Liang one. (see every ILE film thread ever)

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:56 (eighteen years ago) link

I wish there was an episode of Fantasy Island that took place in the world of Freaks.

― In The Court Of The Redd King Harvest (Ken L), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:57 (eighteen years ago) link

Nicole Holofcener, wotta genius

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:58 (eighteen years ago) link

There's some question-begging going on here.

x-post EW was iffy on "Friends With Money" because of teh Aniston. Anyone seen it? Opinions?

― phil d. (Phil D.), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:01 (eighteen years ago) link

i really often wish television shows would use long takes and master shots more often, since that's the aspect of movies i like most. there's too much talking and plot in TV. it wears me out.

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:03 (eighteen years ago) link

"i think the greatness of some tv shows is definitely overstated; whenever i hear people talk about how the sopranos equals any film that's come out in the past few years, i wonder if they're even watching the same show as me."

OTM. most overrated show ever!

― latebloomer: 'I will meditate and then destroy you!' (latebloomer), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:15 (eighteen years ago) link

the quality (art/craft/however you want to define that) of the average tv show is in the same league as the average film (these days at least)

This is totally true (as is yr best movies greater than best tv equation), but with the caveat that I would say "these days at least" indicates an increase in quality of television (thanks to cable and its reduction of restrictions on the form) and not a decrease in the quality of movies over time.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:18 (eighteen years ago) link

Nicole Holofcener, wotta genius

Keep doin that strawman workout, gabb -- "genius" was never raised. I mights as well have said Haneke or Paul Weitz, anybody who's not a barrelscraper.

No one is addressing the specifics of inherent TV vs cinema aesthetics Cheshire is talking about, what a surprise.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:24 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, see, because, again, question-begging. Plus, I mean, "the Queen Latifah - The Rock axis?" Like, the gulf between, say, Queen Latifah in Living Out Loud and a Holofcener movie is but a puddle compared to, say, the frigging vastness between Queen Latifah in Chicago and Benchwarmers. If you're going to stack the deck like that, why bother?

― phil d. (Phil D.), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:35 (eighteen years ago) link

At the beginning of the revive, people asked you to explicate the point being made in the paragraph you quoted because, out of context, it is amorphous and meaningless precisely because no distinction is made between "television values" and "cinematic values". Instead of expounding on the point, you decided to sneer at people. Big shocker that the thread didn't go where you wanted it to.

― Dan (Do The Math, Morbs) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:40 (eighteen years ago) link

xpost

Well, see phil, I utterly disagree with your point, given the ADHD butchery of Chicago.

― Dr (Read Cheshire) Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:41 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, for one thing, the interview itself hardly addresses such a thing but in the vaguest terms. I disagreed (and still do) with the '99 essays--some very good points and it's obvious why it is a seminal piece but Chicken Little-isms have never gotten my dick hard. And I really don't think going into opinions expressed in a piece that Cheshire apparently has changed certain stances on is fair to him.

What IS very interesting in the interview is his discussion of film criticism as a dying breed, and a highly unfortunate casualty of the internet age that is indeed.

I admit to having to struggle to continue reading after the laughable Eisenstein/Godard line, I mean that could've been written into a Linklater "comedy". Probably spoken by Ethan Hawke.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:44 (eighteen years ago) link

a.o. scott because he is so cute!

― phil-two (phil-two), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:44 (eighteen years ago) link

He is pretty OTM about the CGI stuff though, going back in the way back machine to the ancient pre-gmail world.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:45 (eighteen years ago) link

if you wanted me to stick to your text, Morbs, I would have asked why you had a black-and-hispanic vs. white-and-asian axis

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:45 (eighteen years ago) link

what are TV values?

i think the main function of tv is familiarity. seeing the same faces and personalities every week or day.

What are cinematic values?

not sure...

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:46 (eighteen years ago) link

i don't really care about how great the sopranos is or isn't, but i do know that it has two actors who interest me far more than anyone in goodfellas

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:48 (eighteen years ago) link

lorraine bracco and michael imperioli?

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 18:55 (eighteen years ago) link

Michael Imperioli was in Goodfellas.

― phil d. (Phil D.), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 19:00 (eighteen years ago) link

So was Lorraine Bracco.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 19:01 (eighteen years ago) link

(Falco and Gandolfini)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 19:08 (eighteen years ago) link

I would have asked why you had a black-and-hispanic vs. white-and-asian axis

Take that crap back to the kitchen, it's underdone.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 19:52 (eighteen years ago) link

haha nobody got gear's joke

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 19:57 (eighteen years ago) link

i got it. i don't especially like anyone in the sopranos who isn't Falco or Gandolfini. Steve Van Zandt, yes, but I suppose the reason he spends most of his time sulking (somewhat operatically) in the corner is that he isn't the world's greatest actor.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:01 (eighteen years ago) link

(xpost) did you get mine?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:02 (eighteen years ago) link

the acting on the show is mostly pretty crap, the best stuff admittedly is the domestic scenes w/tony and carmela

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:03 (eighteen years ago) link

gear i am usually so with you but on the sopranos i'm afraid you're dead wrong.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:06 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.amerika.nl/politiek/images/history/deel1/burrduel.GIF

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:09 (eighteen years ago) link

So, slocks, what do YOU think of film criticism as a dying art (?) form?

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:25 (eighteen years ago) link

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:25 (eighteen years ago) link

honestly i'm trying to think of some going critics i dig right now and i'm drawing a blank

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:27 (eighteen years ago) link

to be fair I'm doing the same thing about music and stage reviews too, so I guess singling out the film critic is disingenuous.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:34 (eighteen years ago) link

is 'trust' really that relevant factor wrt film criticism? i mean, the cost is similar to that of a cd, but you're buying an experience, not an object. and you may enjoy the process of movie-going regardless of the content.

anyway, film much less important to me than music, but if i want to get a sense of what's good, i'll mostly look to rosenbaum for the gut-check, with the understanding that his sensibility isn't precisely the same. i'll go to arguably closer-in-sensibility ebert for a clearer sense of what the experience of the movie is like, and what it is 'about', with the belief that there are certain kinds of films he just doesn't get.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:34 (eighteen years ago) link

there's definitely more music writers i like than film writers at this point, mostly thanks to ilm.

i wonder if there's an alternate reality movie-oriented ilx out there somewhere where all the music discussions suck

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:35 (eighteen years ago) link

or, perhaps i should say, there are certain kinds of films in which he is less willing than i to find something

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:36 (eighteen years ago) link

the best critic i've read isn't a music or film critic, but probably jonathan gold, who is a restaurant critic for la weekly

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:37 (eighteen years ago) link

Ebert is always an entertaining writer, even when I disagree with him vehemently (seriously, dude, not ALL Anime is good, and do you really have to give at least 2 stars to any film with boobies?)

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:37 (eighteen years ago) link

Tom Carson's columns about TV in the Voice were better than maybe any film criticism going now.

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:38 (eighteen years ago) link

Why did the Voice basically demolish its film section anyhow? That was like my final straw with even bothering with that paper.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:39 (eighteen years ago) link

"Tom Carson's columns about TV in the Voice were better than maybe any film criticism going now."

You could probably strike "film" from that sentence and still be OTM.

― Martin Van Buren (Martin Van Buren), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link

"Why did the Voice basically demolish its film section anyhow?"

New Times hates intelligent crit. And paying writers.

― Martin Van Buren (Martin Van Buren), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:43 (eighteen years ago) link

around the time they handed the music section over to suburban bloggers?

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:45 (eighteen years ago) link

snap

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:46 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't know about trust/don't trust (is it really relevant? and if so, I don't trust Medved or Reed or any of those types), but as far as must-reads, yeah, Ebert because he's always entertaining (although his "Oh noes teh handguns!" review of American Gun was just off; pretty much everyone at Slate, because they cut through a lot of overrated bullshit; Rosenbaum once in a while; Manohla Dargis, and that's about it.

― phil d. (Phil D.), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 20:57 (eighteen years ago) link

I haven't read the full Cheshire piece yet and obviously that quote alone needs some unpack, but if you do away with the (always fuzzy) art/entertainment distinction that Ally rightfully complains about, I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that film aesthetics (and I don't mean the "film" distinction to mean "better" or "more artistic" or whatever, but simply the film medium, preferably seen projected as such probably in a theater) differs from television aesthetics (which isn't nessesarily the same thing as video aesthetics)and that there has been (for a number of years) an encrochment of the television aesthetic in to film and maybe that's not such a great a thing.

That's pretty vague and maybe not very useful until it's qualified more specifically (which I'm not up to at the moment and might have a hard time articulating). It's also a pretty complicated issue and has a lot to do with the the equally complicated issues of watching films on DVD or video and speaking about them as film.

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 21:15 (eighteen years ago) link

"The success of films like 'Crash' and 'Syriana' represent the creeping erosion of cinematic values by television values.

This is such an ancient claim.

― Zwan (miccio), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 21:41 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean seriously...2006 is when television values started to creep into cinema. 2006.

― Zwan (miccio), Wednesday, 12 April 2006 21:41 (eighteen years ago) link

Skipping 1369 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.