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

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

is that unimpeachable? i always thought it was on the lesser end of his critical adorations. could be mistaking Anthony Lane with general consensus.

MZS right about Gran Torino. Unforgiven is great fuiud.

Unforgiven realy did not break new ground, even Clintwise, as was claimed.

I had Madison Co on for the first 15 mins on TCM last week and myGgod, they hadnt even gotten to Clint and Meryl yet. Never seen, but I will skip the first reel if I ever do.

Not necessarily about breaking new ground though is it.

Madison County is pretty tedious.

Streep and Eastwood are excellent together; it's still one of her best.

just wanted to pop in and say I caught Blue Collar on cable last night, had seen it before, but damn that is a good movie.

I've only seen it once, but thought it was good--best after Affliction for me, being a director I don't usually care for.

i totally want to build a film cannon, to shoot film critics with

I was talking about Light of Day with a friend this morning. Schrader misjudges (typically) how good Joan Jett is.

whoah WTF never even heard of that before

you don't remember the Jett song? It's a Springsteen number – and great performance.

Hardcore is still probably my favorite Schrader movie.

Mishima's pretty good too, IIRC, but it's been years since I've seen it so I mostly remember the score now.

I'm replying to history mayne upthread:

I DO think that books are a medium. You said

celluloid is not a medium. that's like saying literature is paper or some shit.

but I think that literature was changed by paper. Actually, that's not even a remotely controversial thing to say - it's more of a truism than anything - so it feels weird disagreeing. I agree that "literature" is more than books, but if you said, "Books are dead," then it would be unfair to reply, "But look at all of the good writing happening on the Internet," because the nature of the literature would be different. I have never and will never read a novel on the internet, for instance. I admit that there is a remote possibility I would do it on an ebook. If I were arguing with you back in 2006 or whenever, I would think the celluloid to non-celluloid shift would be something like the book to ebook shift. The celluloid shift is probably less severe, so point taken, but I sympathize with morbz's position because I'm most drawn to movies made before 1980.

I think that in 2009 or 2011 that Leni Reifenstahl hiccup would have lasted a few hundred posts longer.

Meanwhile, Ellis, Pope and Schrader battled over the film’s final cut. Pope screened a rough cut of The Canyons for Steven Soderbergh. Intrigued, Soderbergh offered to do an edit of the movie if he was given the footage for 72 hours.

Schrader said no. […] "The idea of 72 hours is a joke,” Schrader said. “It would take him 72 hours to look at all the footage. And you know what Soderbergh would do if another director offered to cut his film?”

I said I didn’t. Schrader leaned back in his chair and gave me two middle fingers.

“That’s what Soderbergh would do.”

Premiere of The Canyons at Lincoln Center!

http://www.filmlinc.com/films/series/an-evening-with-paul-schrader-the-canyons

Film Comment really doubling down on this in the next issue.

gtfo w/ 180 minutes !

shouldve def let sodes edit