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

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.

In any case, this year's detrius thread may be diminished significantly if the VV doesn't do their poll. (I hear Lim is trying to coordinate a reasonable alternative, though I haven't heard anything about which venue he wants to use ... NYT?)

-- Aimless (aimles...), November 20th, 2006.

"The rule of thumb for literature has long been that, if a signifigant number of people (not merely a few academic specialists) still read a book with pleasure and interest 100 years after it was published, then it qualifies as a classic."

old farts like harold bloom would disagree.

"Certainly, mere technical excellence or innovation are not useful criteria."

no? james joyce does ok on these grounds

"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."

this has been true of literature also. but people do think they know why things wil survive -- eg because it belongs to a tradition. that's how eng lit canonistas roll, anyway.

"Longevity in maintaining an audience is not yet established."

more so than with literature!

I hate to get all Godfrey Cheshire on yo ass, but the art is on its deathbed.

im (re?)reading this

he sure makes some odd claims

like pauline kael's 'trash art and the movies' is 'the most influential article in the history of film criticism'

really dude? really?

idk

i guess there's no such thing rly

influential = lots of non-critics read it

Matt Zoller Seitz is murdering the classics! You can too...

http://www.salon.com/life/slide_shows/index.html?story=/ent/movies/film_salon/2010/09/10/movie_heresy_slide_show

Gran Torino is a classic?

maybe this guy can put together the Kill Your Idols of cinema!

can't wait to find out what the cinematic equivalent of Paul McCartney's Ram is

The Science of Sleep.

Good thread revives all around today, Morbs. I was just thinking about starting that "Make your own S&S '12 ballots" list thread this afternoon.

if he wanted to take down an eastwood movie he should have gone with unforgiven

or, given its surprisingly unimpeachable status among cinephiles, Bridges of Madison County