the virtues and flaws of Paul Schrader's "building a film canon" article in Sept-Oct Film Comment

dude has two movies post 1990 on his list!!!!!!!

But that math says that there are many fewer canonical films since '90, which I wouldn't quarrel with -- for one thing, by Schrader's criterion of Repeatability, we don't entirely know their place in the firmament yet.

where was schrader's criteria, i was just looking for it? morality was included lol.

where was schrader's criteria, i was just looking for it? morality was included lol.

This explains you purty well.

xp

No, it doesn't, but since it speaks so directly to his cause (and conveniently uses the language of "the enemy"), I can see why he temporarily lowered his lofty standards.

How is Schrader anti-theory -- isn't setting up "refurbished criteria" for creating a film canon a theory?

Also, to clarify, I love compelling criticism, regardless of the presence/lack of solid theory. I don't use it (by "it" I mean theory, though I suppose it's also fair to say "compelling criticism"), but it if's there and used in a way that makes sense, I have no arguments. I don't think Schrader's anti-theory so much as he's anti-new-theory, or boring stuff to that extent.

I especially love overweening articles that attempt to tear down an entire way of thinking (i.e. "Trash, Art and the Movies"). Even though there's probably no real way to quantify the success of these articles, in the case of this particular article, the defensiveness doesn't sit well with Schrader's aims, and he's even further undercut by Gavin Smith's introduction (the this-is-a-grand-moment-in-film-culture-because-it's-the-second-longest-article-we've-ever-run). Couple that with a canon that introduces nothing other than what Sight & Sound just re-confirmed for the third or fourth straight decade, and I think it's a failure.

who knows maybe schrader is talking abt compelling moral dynamics in film, in which case, by all means. (don't know, don't have the magazine)

but no, i wouldn't say that roth is generally moral at the core, whatever that means.

Yeah, otm. A lot of us consider Schrader "humorless" because he's not compelling enough a writer or thinker to consider how any lengthy essay needs irony and wit. "Trash, Art, and the Movies" has both, whatever else.

As for Schrader's essay not being "A MOMENT in film culture." I agree, it fails. (We might fail similarly in our early 60s -- maybe that'll be yr comeuppance, Eric Amberson Minafer.) But the questions intrigue me. Do wejust to continue to stack Spielberg next to Jenni Olson next to Apichatpong Weerasethakul without knowing why?

I think lit-crit has more agreed-upon canonical criteria than film-crit, but since I don't read much of it that could be a delusion.

pdf of the whole essay here:

http://www.m31films.com/?p=8

Schrader on morality, for jhoshea (as mayb you shouldn't snicker at the word, but how he defines its role in his aesthetic):

I'm reluctant to introduce the oldest (and hoariest) artistic criterion, morality, a criterion that streches from Plato... to Ruskin and Leavis (every great work is a great moral work). It's not that I feel moral arguments have no place in the discussion of art, just that they are better implied than spelled out... It makes sense that great films have great moral resonance. I just don't see the aesthetic value of setting one moral resonance against another. Leni Riefenstahl's Nazi documentary Triumph of the Will is arguably the quintessential motion picture, the fulcrum of the century of cinema ...of course, it's a work of moral resonance. Good or bad resonance? Most everyone would agree it's evil, but that's beside the point. The point is that no work that fails to strike moral chords can be canonical.

xpost

Tracer, the Schrader quote? or asserting that the collage/Corleone analogy is funny?

We can "fuck" L.R. all we want (and why not), but the grammar of film was altered permanently by her.

xpost

following Leni: Frank Capra? Kenneth Anger? David Fincher?

which is curious, i note idly, given that tarantino can be very funny, and warm, while michael corleone is famous for his punishing absence of either

anyway, it's hard to talk about this either way, since i imagine very few people have read his thoughts and reasons behind his criteria, which i gather is the only thing up for discussion (since you don't want to debate the list and i don't blame you)

that said, i am suspicious of his criteria, given how many titles on his list are predictable "what a movie critic would like" movies; i am suspicious of "repeatability" (i have had very little desire to see any movie twice, ESPECIALLY my favorites); suspicious of the idea that there is a firmament of great movies

Dude, this is just damn weird (and I buy DVDs with reluctance and infrequently, as I don't believe in endless rewatchings).

The trouble with building a canon of films today is that the art is so new that no one knows what will last or why. Certainly, mere technical excellence or innovation are not useful criteria. Longevity in maintaining an audience is not yet established. As a result, far, far too many films will be listed and only a handful of these are likely to interest more than a few academics in 2100.

noticed this name as an exec producer lol - https://m.imdb.com/name/nm13254828/?ref_=m_ttfcd_cr1

this movie was largely tedious and bad btw but i couldnt help thinking if you play everything about the last scene exactly as it was but have the USA poker bro instead of tiffany haddish visit oscar isaac in prison the movie would be improved

On Facebook:

I’M SEEING DEAD FILM CRITICS. Attending film festivals was always a buzz. You would go, meet filmmakers whose work you knew, run into old film critic friends, make new ones, talk, argue, drink. That moment has passed. Earlier tonight I spotted Richard Corliss in the lobby of the Excelsior. I went over to greet him then realized he’d died two years ago. So many ghosts.