Which film critics do you trust (if any?)

Well, good luck convincing your kindergartners of that.

In a both a broad sense--what could you write or say 40 years ago that you can't today?--and also very specifically (Edelstein was once viewed as a "Paulette," Last Tango is Kael's most infamous review). We bring her up all the time (not just me) where she's not really relevant, but this time she is.

I am going to talk about this today as a good example of why kids have to realize that anything they write online never goes away. (Grade 3/4, by the way.)

Maria Schneider never said she was *actually* raped in the butter scene; she said she stayed friends with Brando, and that all the sex was simulated.

That's not the whole issue, though. The sex was simulated, but she clearly felt coerced and humiliated in doing the scene. She says she "felt a little raped." I get why a joke that takes that cavalierly wouldn't go over well.

Kinda surprised that Martha Plimpton never said Schneider was raped, but that she was sexually assaulted, which she definitely was? It's ironic that it's the commenters angry at 'rape' being brought into this, who are in fact the ones who brought 'rape' into this.

Oh wait, Salon didn't have all of her tweet. Ok, everyone is bad, sigh.

but that she was sexually assaulted, which she definitely was?

not touching this

http://www.startribune.com/star-tribune-film-critic-resigns-after-ethics-breach/502410192/

If you're gonna plagiarize, don't choose Kael, for chrissake.

seems like a weird kind of plagiarism

Trying to figure out what Kael called "self-glorifying masochistic mush" in 1974.

Plagiarisers are idiots but they're the creation of a maniacal industry that gives its staff constant & un-meetable deadlines, little job security, shitty wages and zero though to work-life balance. By all means blame this idiot writer, but the structures of newspaper and digital journalism are built for plagiarism.

The Little Prince
UK (1974): Musical/Dance

The Saint-Exupéry book, the first of the modern mystic-quest books to become a pop hit, is a distillation of melancholy, and it comes close to being self-glorifying, masochistic mush. Possibly something might have been made of the material if Alan Jay Lerner, who wrote the movie script, along with the lyrics for Frederick Loewe's music, had a more delicate feeling for spiritual yearning. The director, Stanley Donen, is handicapped by the intractably graceless writing and by the Big Broadway sound of the Lerner-Loewe score. Bob Fosse's snake-in-the-grass dance number is the film's high spot, and Gene Wilder, as a red fox, triumphs over some of his material. As the child Prince, Steven Warner holds the screen affectingly; as the author-aviator, Richard Kiley is pleasant enough but colorless.

“Just like real soldiers who are numb to war” Reading these tweets one can imagine how it must have felt to be a tea boy in the offices of Cahiers du Cinéma circa 1954 overhearing a conversation between André Bazin and Éric Rohmer. pic.twitter.com/RcJgGE4fQc

— David Franklin (@davefranklin) December 16, 2019

David Edelstein is now behind a pay wall--only critic I checked regularly.

richard brody used the word "dinosaurically" in his latest column. i trust him to write things that are readable.

i often do not agree with him, but he's more interesting than more "measured" critics. in my view.

It's not really part of my criteria for judging a critic, but I do find myself in sync with Edelstein more often than not. But not always--he put Uncut Gems in his Top 10, as a recent example.

did u not like it? i'm interested in seeing it

See it. I'm a dissenting minority of one.

Vulture seems to waft back and forth with their paywall / article limit, but private browsing is all it takes to get around it.

Hey thanks--works!

Kenneth Turan stepping down as LA Times film critic after 30 yrs

no films to critique

it's hard out here for a critic

James Cameron won.

Not sure if this was posted elsewhere but Film Comment being mothballed after next issue.


https://www.filmlinc.org/daily/covid-19-update-from-film-at-lincoln-center/

Last issue: First Cow

I actually came on here to see if Peter Bradshaw was any good (there's a discounted collection on the book-clearance site I buy from)--the very first post tells me no.

I've been listening to the Unspooled podcast, and it's odd, I really enjoy it and their perspectives but I don't trust *either* of them. Not their opinions, not their tastes, not much of anything. But I do like their general positivity and respect for one another even when they clearly disagree, and perhaps because of that I've learned a few things and learned to reassess a few things despite how often my own preferences and opinions diverge.

very first post otm

I like Peter Bradshaw. I would take his reviews over most other newspaper critics. He often likes what I would like, and the other way round, and that is enough for me.

Has David Edelstein left New York? I was hoping to find a Mank review from him, but he hasn't reviewed anything since September (many reviews since by other writiers). His Wikipedia page doesn't mention him leaving.

(Writiers are like writers, but much more refined.)

This is a useful site that I periodically think has gone down because I can't remember how to locate it:

https://www.mistdriven.com/

The "Critics' Top Ten" section has an index of year-end lists from a whole bunch of critics: Sarris, Hoberman, Rosenbaum, Amy Taubin, even Godard (and Armond White!). Godard's seventh favourite film of 1964 was Love with a Proper Stranger; Hoberman's fifth favourite for 1986 (I still remember this) was Game 6 of the World Series.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/race/critics-choice-association-expels-jeffrey-wells-following-posts-about-atlanta-shootings-exclusive

“Trust” as in “trust to always be a total asshole,” that is.

Sorry wrong thread. For all Arm0nd’s outrages, he is still at the end of the day a critic.

good riddance

This 2004 interview with Owen Gleiberman, freshly reposted to rockcritics.com, is a great read: https://rockcritics.com/2021/03/29/from-the-archives-interview-with-owen-gleiberman-2004/

Wells attributed those views to unnamed "friendos" with whom he says he conversed.

grounds for expulsion on its own imo

Danny Slaski

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWxrHz-JORE

Oh man, I don't know which one comes out worse in this one ...

Without a doubt, the words of a lunatic.

Only a mentally deranged person would use the phrase “quotidian sads” pic.twitter.com/YoUYq6yxjY

— John Magary (@JohnMagary) January 27, 2023

A.O. Scott signs off as NYT film critic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/17/movies/film-critic-ao-scott.html

Hmm I see..

AO Scott on leaving his post at NYT as film critic pic.twitter.com/u8kk6ZZKL5

— @gdess (@GDess) March 17, 2023

Rereading passages of The Press Gang and realizing that Cheshire and White, in particular, were probably my biggest formative-years guiding lights, alongside Rosenbaum

I had to look up Cheshire, don't know him at all. (Also googled "film critic named White"--duh.) Cheshire's Wikipedia entry says GF II was on his 2012 S&S ballot. Condolences.

Both his and (especially) White’s S&S lists are almost reactionarily conservative, compared to their critical stances in the 90s, but at least Close-Up is on Cheshire’s list too

Tarantino:

Today, I don't know anyone. Is it my fault? Theirs? What remains are website names: CinemaBlend, Deadline. I am told: “There are still good critics.” And I always answer: who? I say this without sarcasm. I'm told, "Manohla Dargis [of the New York Times], she's excellent." But when I ask what are the three movies she loved and the three she hated in the last few years, no one can answer me. Because they don't care! OK, if The New York Times is at my disposal then I’ll open it, read it, but that's it. I used to know a critics style of writing, their tastes, intimately! The sad reality is that today, the voice of Manohla Dargis – and it's nothing against her – doesn't matter enough for me to read her opinion on “Notes on a Scandal” or the fourth Transformers.

I get his point, in that no single critic now has the cultural presence and reputation as someone like Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert did at one time. And part of this probably has to do with the rise of aggregation platforms like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and the diminishing valuation of criticism and arts journalism generally. But also? There are absolutely critics whose tastes I know through Film Twitter and Letterboxd and Blank Check, and I'd guess that QT just isn't tapped into those kinds of spaces.

I've wondered whether I should pack it in and move my pots and pans to Letterboxd just for exposure.

Would follow, obv

Tarantino’s point is very good.