Which film critics do you trust (if any?)

TS: The Sopranos v Analyze This/Analyze That

well indeed, it's as if (some) (scripted) television shows were made and viewed in exactly the same way that films are or something.

I know this is an important hobbyhorse of yours, but it's not really true. Many people watch both movies and television on DVD now, yes, but there are still huge differences in how movies and television programs are structured, how they look, how they're produced etc (and this is ignoring the differences between theatrical viewing and watching a tv set, because "everyone" just watches DVDs now). AW's comment is obviously banal and thoughtlessly snarky, like almost everything he writes, and I'm sympathetic with the impulse against blind pro-film/anti-tv snobbery, but I don't think it's going to go away by pretending they are the same thing.

most theatrical releases, especially of non-english language films, are loss-leading promotional tools for dvds.

there is an obvious difference in narrative form between serial television drama and the classical 'well-made film', but a lot of hollywood cinema has -- in important ways -- abandoned classical narrative.

some of the old verities of 'proper' filmmaking, like 'well-rounded characters', do better on television than in films.

do films and television look so different? it depends on the film, or the television, i guess. but AW's definition of 'cinematic' is likely the definition of 'cinematic' that the industry came up with to combat television. i don't think US indie movies look much different than TV.

similarly it's hard to generalize about how TV *or* films are produced, but the same kind of business structures and institutions, from the studios to the agencies seem to operate across both in hollywood.

most theatrical releases, especially of non-english language films, are loss-leading promotional tools for dvds.

Most filmmakers, especially of non-english language films, are making films for a theatrical context. This is basically TS: the maker or the industry. (Note: this isn't about authorial intent either. There's a drastic difference between how projected film (and to a smaller extent video)looks and how video on a monitor looks. There's been a lot of talk about Hollywood films being shot to look good for the dvd rather than the release, but to the best of my knowledge the theatrical print is still the main concern in questions of lighting etc.

there is an obvious difference in narrative form between serial television drama and the classical 'well-made film', but a lot of hollywood cinema has -- in important ways -- abandoned classical narrative.

Sure, there are important ways in which this is true, but feature films are still feature films and serials are still serials, so even if certain ideas about narrative (and the importance of things like spatial construction) are moving into film from tv (and have been for years and years), there's still a huge gulf between how the two things are experienced despite the fact they can be played on the same machine by the same disc. Are novels and short stories the same thing?

some of the old verities of 'proper' filmmaking, like 'well-rounded characters', do better on television than in films.

Painting didn't cease to exist because photography blah blah blah. Sure Hollywood will probably abandoned film as-we-know-it when they can figure out how to make enough money from the internet, but video-making is only getting cheaper and there are enough people committed to the theatrical mode of film production and consumption to keep it around in some form or another.

similarly it's hard to generalize about how TV *or* films are produced, but the same kind of business structures and institutions, from the studios to the agencies seem to operate across both in hollywood

Again, this speaks only to one kind of film production.

I'm still not sure what you think we gain from talking about film and television as the same thing. I've probably gotten more from The Wire than from any film released in the past couple years, but a huge percentage of that pleasure is tied into the serial television format and how The Wire uses it.

who's more annoying and incoherent, Armond White or Christopher Hitchens?

Christopher Hitchens if only because we know so much more about his scrotum.

More than White's scrotum, I mean. Not that the ball-shaving piece is Hitchen's Peeling the Onion.

i don't trust any critics in the sense that if they like it, I imagine I'd like it. But I trust a lot of critics to write provocative and interesting essays on movies. Armond White, for all the obvious frustrations, is still one of them.

The difference between movies and TV is that people will watch four, five, six episodes of The Sopranos in a row via Netflix, but probably wouldn't do the same for Berlin Alexanderplatz.

The problem is that White is rarely provocative or interesting, he just finds a way to harp on whatever he was harping on last week and makes some lame, accusatory jabs at whoever he imagines disagrees with him. He's written a few really interesting longer form pieces, but 95% of the time he's basically a Jonathan Rosenbaum parody.

argh, "make".

i'll read a critic if i like their writing and they don't come across as pretentious. that's pretty much david edelstein at this point. i used to love rosenbaum but he bugs me now. never got with man0hla's style, anthony lane david denby LOL. the onion guy's ok (i think he writes for times new media now right?). still like ao scott, love hoberman but he's been a little eh lately. always LOL at peter travers bites, he turns whoring into an art form. slate lady is AWFUL though troy patterson the tv guy there can be OK.

since i never see movies anyway "trust" doesn't matter, i mean i'll probably dislike most movies if i'm sampling from weekly reviews anyway.

yeah so basically i think of film critics as guess who tiles.

i've been enjoying this antagonie.blogspot.com guy over the past few days. well, reading back over some of his earlier stuff.

mark kermode harps on about films that are really only tv-movies, like the Queen (which I think originally was meant to be a tv-movie). I can see the difference between No Country for Old Men and pretty much any TV show, visually at least. narratively you can't escape the aforementioned serial v feature film difference. Still, very few movies look as good as No Country For Old Men, but I do think that it is TV getting better and not films getting worse. If one medium is improving, and this guy finds it to be a problem, then he is a fuckwit (although his writing style pretty much confirmed that already).

ColinB OTM re: the Wire. It's going to take a hella good film to overcome the inevitable "well, it isn't the Wire" funk I go through when a new season starts.

The difference between movies and TV is that people will watch four, five, six episodes of The Sopranos in a row via Netflix, but probably wouldn't do the same for Berlin Alexanderplatz.

-- Eric H., Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:10 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Link

what? 'berlin alexanderplatz' was a television series.

that was the point

so the difference between tv and film is that people watch numerous episodes of one tv show in a row, but not of another.

Basically yes.

how is it possible that no one has mentioned margaret and david

Of course, you could swap out Berlin Alexanderplatz with even a 90-minute Fassbinder film.

many of which were funded by tv stations... but i'm still not getting your point there.

is it something like, RWF's individual episodes are like movies-in-themselves, whereas episodes of 'the sopranos' only make sense as part of a series (ie like 'les vampires' and 'judex' and numerous other films)?

sort of, yeah, but it's more a matter of the ease of flowing into the TV series format and remain inside. TV rhythms are addictive, whereas movie rhythms (which Fassbinder, funded by and even directing for television) are not.

I've kinda given up on Zacharek.

her book reviews tend toward nastiness

I don't think even Feuillade is addictive in the same sense, no matter how much ass Vampires, et al kick.

That said, I have no problem with people listing seasons/episodes of TV shows along with their favorite movies.

TV rhythms are addictive, whereas movie rhythms (which Fassbinder, funded by and even directing for television) are not.

i have no idea how you could ever back this up empircally! it can only be done by cherry-picking certain directors, certain films, privileging certain modes of filmmaking over others. it can't work as a general statement about cinema and television.

I have no interest in backing it up empirically.

ok, we'll go with the random assertion that 'the sopranos' is more serial-y than RWF's multipart doblin adaptation.

To clarify, I'm not really arguing on behalf of the assertion that TV is so tragically different than movies. (I remember liking the notion one friend of mine had that old "Dragnet" episodes were the hard-boiled American version of Ozu.) I only know that I find myself helplessly watching episode after episode of series TV whereas I have to make a committed effort to sit down for a movie much of the time. I don't even know if you could call it lower standards for TV, since one of the reasons I refuse to watch movies is I know I stand roughly an 80 percent chance of it wasting my time.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=snmllnY7-jI

And, as far as the latest Armond kerfuffle goes, I have to say that Lumet's 12 Angry Men feels a lot more like great television than great film. But I don't really want to examine that empirically, either.

a lot of fassbinder 'feels like' television, and was television. also lots of loach, frears, leigh, etc. or the 1966 oscar-winner 'the war game', also made for tv.

I only know that I find myself helplessly watching episode after episode of series TV whereas I have to make a committed effort to sit down for a movie much of the time. I don't even know if you could call it lower standards for TV, since one of the reasons I refuse to watch movies is I know I stand roughly an 80 percent chance of it wasting my tim

So you can't passively enjoy movies? If I've rented a movie, I'm puttering around the house more than half the time.

really? wow, no. i never do that. i actually tried it with a garrel film recently since i couldn't understand it anyway (no subtitles) but it didn't work. i always give a film my whole attention but i can "putter" around during coronation street, much as i love it.

.) I only know that I find myself helplessly watching episode after episode of series TV whereas I have to make a committed effort to sit down for a movie much of the time.

Are James Bond marathons on Spike TV or movies?

reading david thomson's column in the guardian i was thinking about how he seems to be one of the few, very few, critics who ever talks about acting. beyond the standard "____ _____ is superb in the leading role" or mentioning if someone is particularly bad they just never seem to talk about it. maybe acting is just a hard thing to think around but it seems like a huge gap, to me.

I find myself helplessly watching episode after episode of series TV whereas I have to make a committed effort to sit down for a movie much of the time. ...one of the reasons I refuse to watch movies is I know I stand roughly an 80 percent chance of it wasting my time.

All that is exactly the reverse with me. I instinctively vet films so I wdn't classify more than 5-10% of what I see as total time wasters. I can't be bothered taping TV series and won't schedule myself to watch them "live" (and the only one I've gotten into via DVD is Deadwood).

12 Angry Men feels a lot more like great television than great film. But I don't really want to examine that empirically, either.

Well, because perhaps it WAS, first. (I saw the TV orig long long ago, can't swear if it was superior -- Fonda was not the lead, obv.)

If I've rented a movie, I'm puttering around the house more than half the time.

I find this literally obscene.

i think quite a few critics talk about acting. i bet anthony lane does. the us ilx film snob crew do, and the vast majority of non-specialist film coverage is about actors.

I find this literally obscene.

Good for you. Why? Watching a movie at home isn't the same as sitting in a dark theatre (for one, the only phone ringing is yours).

I guess you have that luxury. It is true that I probably need to rent less movies, but there are other reasons for it.

i think i read that scorsese wandered round the house with multiple movies on in different rooms.

Time to put him in the home.

Are James Bond marathons on Spike TV or movies?

I'm the wrong person to ask. Some would say all movies view on television are television.

xp: But they were probably all films Scorsese had seen before.

I don't even play CDs anymore, on the rare occasions that I do, without listening attentively. (Although if you guys only listen while multitasking, it explains why yer so fond of that "pop" garbage.)

http://www.filmkrant.nl/av/org/filmkran/archief/fk204/peeping.jpg

sez the guy who agreed that Dylan made pop singles.

(xpost)

You are positively Zen in your snobbery.

Thanks! It's the sound of one reel leader snapping.

http://manoloshoeblog.com/images/sunset.jpg

No, I really have given up on the notion that there is something of value in every film, so long as you are an active viewer.