by Jim.


It seems to me a great irony that in this time of filmmaking, on the eve of the Digital Revolution, when there has been no better time to make films in all of the history of filmmaking, you could hardly find a worse time to talk about films. Formal film criticism, once a thriving enterprise, has all but been stamped out by a mob of American anti-intellectuals, with the hot air of complacent film "critics" at their backs.

Perhaps it didn't seem obvious at the time, but the change was swift and came in three parts : First, American critics like Andrew Sarris were quick to embrace the then flourishing material being produced in France, the biggest export being les politiques des auteurs, then a theory in its infancy. Surely there could be many reasons to account for the gross misunderstandings that would follow, but it is clear that secondly Sarris so misrepresented the auteur theory and its principles that in its weakened state, it was made for easy attacks. Amidst the confusion about just what the auteur theory was, critics such as Pauline Kael came in and impressed upon her readers that the confusion was reason to doubt that the theory (and subsequently any formal theory) had any validity at all, and well, why are you thinking so much about movies - just watch them! After all, we're told that's like dissecting a bunny rabbit to see what makes it cute!

Hiding behind what seems to be a clever rebuke of formal criticism, those who would throw this satin glove of an argument down are missing the point - formal film theory needn't be a series of stodgy rules, spat out in staccato fashion by stuffy intellectuals in lab coats, even as these people would have you believe, this has been largely the case in the past - it can be free and expressive, packaged in efficient and illuminating metaphors.

There lies somewhere between the more literal, exacting words of a critic such as Rudolf Arnheim, whose seminal work on motion picture art Film As Art has yet to be surpassed in my mind as a catalogue of principles of the form, and a more approachable critic like Manny Farber, who delights his reader with informal asides that do not merely form the function of conversation, but serve also to elevate our appreciation of a film, the kind of critic that I'd think we'd all roundly applaud.

This as yet unseen critic would recognize that there are, at a certain level of abstraction, certain principles of the craft which are indisputable. Principles, not rules, for rules imply restrictions (the very antithesis of art in any form) whereas principles merely tell us this is what works and always has.

This sort of critic would keep intellectual posturing at a tempered keel so as not to alienate the average reader. Having no respect for those who would hide their theory behind a smokescreen of big words, this critic would look to ask questions of every kind, simple to grand. At the same time, this sort of critic needn't necessarily lower standards of discussion past the level of those with an active interest in changing cinema and, accordingly, the world - there has to be some work involved.

This sort of critic can exist, will exist with the passage of time.

To insist otherwise seems to me evidence of a lazy populous which bullies those critics and filmgoers who would dare to demand more of films, into accepting standards low enough that the most obese Hollywood production can be rolled across the finish line. Truthfully, their bunny analogies are really pleas for sanctioned apathy, cries of don't rock the boat, fit only for the most blindly deferential of audience members.

Hate them.

They are responsible for the collective dulling down of the art form. They are responsible for creating the atmosphere in which only those comfortable with the middle road, the easy outs and all that is the antithesis of innovative expression - in short, they would deprive us of art, if given the chance.

What I'm after here is that the promise of even trying to accommodate both formal criticism and conversational, if not poetic presentation of such criticism, will inevitably yield wonderful results - filmmakers will have an easier time understanding how to reach their audiences, audiences will be served up films more proficient in delivering what they want (whether it be laughter, tears or suspense - and any reaction in between) and the art form will boundlessly explore new emotional and intellectual territory.

If you care about film, if you find it provides you with some sense of satisfaction, some innate energy, then it would make sense to maximize your time invested in watching films - life is too short for bad films.

Or... you could just not think about movies.


back.