@Matt
So, you don’t see it as an invitation to question our relationship with existing forms of cultural authority in any way?
Me, personally? No.Would others see it that way? Maybe. But the message is so oblique and lacking in any serious argument for this position that I tend to feel this is not what he’s saying. Plus, I do think there is another way of interpreting his piece—namely, that there is burn out from investigating important cultural artifacts—especially from the ones that are difficult or unappealing—because people are just overwhelmed by media. I can relate to this. I’m not really questioning the validity of the importance. I sort of take the importance of some of these films, movies, etc. at face value (unless I’ve actually experienced them and drawn a different conclusion), but nevertheless, I’m not too enthused about checking them out. But I’d feel obligated to check these things out if I was a professional critic or if I really wanted to be in touch and knowledegable about the cutlure (something that is not that high on my priorities).
If Kois is doing what you’re suggesting, others, ostensbily people like Scott and Dargis, should explicitly call out Kois and address the issue head on with a well-thought out rebuttal—something they really haven’t done.
“If Kois is doing what you’re suggesting, others, ostensbily people like Scott and Dargis, should explicitly call out Kois and address the issue head on with a well-thought out rebuttal—something they really haven’t done.”
Two things:
1. Length is an issue in print. Also, rebuttal requires substance to respond to, which imo, there isn’t much. And, as a freelancer writing for the Sunday Magazine section, Kois doesn’t have the same editorial limitations and pressures as do Dargis and Scott, and also he doesn’t have as much at stake because he’s not a actually on staff at the Times.
2. This is why these things are done at the level of implication rather than explication, Jazz. It allows someone like Kois to question the very credibility of Dargis and Scott’s function at the NYT while maintaining the possibility of saying “oh, that’s not what I meant” at any point. If Dargis and Scott take the bait of the implication rather than just responding to some of the things explicitly raised, then Kois could simply say that’s not what he meant.
At the same time, notice how, in the roundtable, rather than address any of the issues raised by any of the responses, Kois says vague things like “at times overheated response to my piece has certainly increased my awareness of critical factionalism and the flair some critics have for being proscriptive bullies” (perhaps, following Kate’s logic, he didn’t understand the objections). Also, notice how the controversy, such as it is, surrounding the piece has gotten Kois out of the more general-interest orientated Sunday magazine section and into the the “Movies” coverage in the “Arts” section proper.
AFLWYDD:
I understand where you’re coming from, but there are certain films anyone heavily invested in film should be familiar with. For example, you’d think will be somewhat familiar with the French New Wave, Hitchcock, Lang, Chaplin, etc., just to name a few. You do make a fair point in saying that one shouldn’t like and watch certain films simply because everyone else does, but there are certain works you’d expect anyone heavily invested in film to be familiar with.I should also point out that familiarizing oneself with film history is not the same, neither in theory nor practice, nor intention, as doing “what everyone else does.”
@Matt
Actually, I think Dargis and Scott had quite a bit of space to respond, at least in the recent conversation. Re-reading the article, I think Dargis and Scott do address some of the concerns you raise (at least a little), but then some of the responses leaving me scratching my head, too. (For example, the part where Dargis talks about directors dealing with time in film.)
I still would like Dargis and Scott to call Kois out and let him respond—even if he denies it. They could also begin to make a case for their position—the value of critics, the value of watching “difficult” films or whatever Kois is supposedly attacking. I don’t know, I’m begining to feel the conversation is sophisticated for me. Everyone else seems to be utterly clear about what’s going on, except for me. I’ve stated my reading of the articles, but I don’t feel confident that it’s the correct one.
Btw, as for Kois saying something controversial, getting attention and pushing out more substantive writing, I think that’s just the nature of the internet. It’s the same thing that happens here at mubi.
Kate said, It’s like he doesn’t have the courage in his convictions about directors that other critics like. He says he doesn’t feel guilty, but the fact that he seems unwilling to argue in favor of his opinions where he diverges from the herd makes it sound as if he is. I agree with him that the burden of proof rests on the critic to make an argument, so why hasn’t he? I’m sure he puts plenty of time into constructing arguments criticizing popular junk when he reviews films like the Hangover II, but it would be far more interesting to hear a critic pick apart a film that is generally revered by other critics.
Yeah, I agree that reading an argument against Costas would be interesting—a lot more interesting than criticism against Hangover II. However, to suggest a possible reason he hasn’t done this: it’s not easy. That’s a lame reason, given that he’s a professional critic. However, my sense is that the parameters for paid critics are rather limited—i.e., they don’t allow for a well-thought out analysis. Still, that’s not a very compelling argument, either. I guess from my vantage point (and I’m not a professional) I understand that it takes a lot of time and effort to explain why something doesn’t work (as well as explain why something does). So, I’m guess I’m more forgiving. Also, I think Scott is making a larger and valid point—namely, that the onus is on critics to explain why a film doesn’t work, not the film or filmmaker; ergo, dismissing Slow Cinema without really making a well-argued case is not really compelling.
That said, he is still missing Kois’ point here. Kois isn’t talking about making value judgments on the quality of different films. He’s talking about whether you should feel guilty about not watching the films you can’t access if no personal pleasure is derived from the experience. Totally different points.
Yeah, that’s my reading, too. But guys like Matt and Greg seem sure this is not the case—and I respect both of them, so I’m starting to question myself. But back to the point. I don’t know if guilt is the key issue so much as the way we deal with important films we don’t really enjoy—especially in a world with a glut of movies and information; and the feeling of less and less time, money and energy. Whether Kois is genuine about this point or not, I think it’s a legitimate issue.
“Actually, I think Dargis and Scott had quite a bit of space to respond, at least in the recent conversation.”
In the context of a print newspaper, I suppose you’re right, but certainly not in comparison to what one can do on a blog, or even a magazine piece of reasonable length.
“Btw, as for Kois saying something controversial, getting attention and pushing out more substantive writing, I think that’s just the nature of the internet. It’s the same thing that happens here at mubi.”
True, I suppose. The main difference, I guess, is that due to the economics and other factors, the internet is getting incrementally larger and larger while daily newspapers are getting smaller and smaller.
The main difference, I guess, is that due to the economics and other factors, the internet is getting incrementally larger and larger while daily newspapers are getting smaller and smaller.
I guess what I’m saying also is that there doesn’t seem to be a big audience for more thorough, in-depth criticism—while there is one for the kind of controversial approach/subjects.
Agreed.
David Bordwell weighs in (albeit, somewhat belatedly).
I liked this insight:
Kois’ piece exploits the special status that film enjoys in today’s culture. High and low mingle. Because movies are so accessible, and Hollywood movies are so eager to give us what somebody has decided that we want, coterie tastes are dismissed as snobbism. Things seem different in other arts. Would the Times publish a piece in which someone confessed to finding Tarkovsky’s contemporary, the Soviet composer Sofia Gubaidulina, boring? No, because to talk about her is already to enter a restricted and high-level conversation. It goes without saying that a great many listeners would be bored by her music, but who cares what non-experts think about a modern composer? Film, however, is a free-fire zone; anybody’s opinion is worth a public hearing.
But I’m not sure I fully agree with Bordwell’s take on Kois’ line—“Surely there are die-hard Hou Hsiao-hsien fans out there who grit their teeth every time a new Pixar movie comes out.” Bordwell replies, “Surely, not” and uses the quote as evidence that Kois’ piece is not serious. I agree that it’s not very well-written, and if Kois is making the argument that Bordwell and others ascribe to him, I agree it’s not a serious piece. However, I’m not sure about this particular line as evidence. Does Kois exaggerate? Probably. But here’s the point, which I think is somewhat valid: fans of arthouse fans who want to be culturally aware (including low culture) could also dread having to sit through Pixar movies, reality TV shows or Apatow films. I know I’d feel that way—although, luckily, I don’t care about being culturally aware (at least of those type of films/TV programs).
I’m surprised you didn’t gravitate to this Jazz:
……. in calling Gertrud …. boring….I took that to be ….. a challenge to conventional viewing habits……. Since then, I think I’ve come up with better ways of talking about … directors ….. A lot of my answer comes down to the way………. they structure our attention…………these filmmakers become engaging, even entertaining, when we realize that they are to some extent shifting our involvement from characters and situations to the manner of presentation. Not narrative but narration is what engages us. … we need…. some schemas for grasping these alternative patterns. We have robust and refined schemas for following a story, but grasping the dynamics of narration, the how as well as the what, takes more practice, and perhaps some instruction from critics.
It responds to the below from the thread: Has an Increase in Film Knowledge and Viewing Hurt or Helped Your Ability to Enjoy Films?
Jazz said: I think I’ve grown tired of certain conventions and tropes (unless the filmmakers do something creative with them). The example I use is the obligatory chase-shoot-’em-up scene in thrillers. This scene happens after the detectives have figured out the identity of the killer, and the scene usually ends with some fight on a tall structure with the villain falling to his/her death.
There could be 100 different ways that certain conventions and tropes are used – that is why we watch the same the obligatory chase-shoot-’em-up scene. The ‘what’ is the same for all 100, but it is the how that we are interested in and our ability to articulate that how by an expanding cinematic vocabulary.
Ultimately this is the problem with KOIS: worse than anti-elitist or anti-intellectual, he is anti-learning.
@Robert
I did like that section in Bordwell’s post. It reminded me of discussions about formalism and Tony Scott, and it’s something I want to explore more.
The ‘what’ is the same for all 100, but it is the how that we are interested in and our ability to articulate that how by an expanding cinematic vocabulary.
By “how,” do you mean things like the use of composition, cinematography, color to convey ideas and feelings? If so I think that’s interesting—and it might make these scenes more appealing to me. I’m not sure if the filmmakers of Hollywood thrillers use filmmaking in this way (at least not the typical Hollywood film), but I’m definitely open to this idea.
Nothing new. I remember being slightly ashamed when I bought my first Dostoevsky book, afraid I’d be called a charlatan. More shame is heaped onto anyone that wants to try something than anyone who’s happy with a stagnant existence. No one who only watches garbage feels bad about it. This anti-intellectual, self satisfied inferiority and resentment is far more damaging to the masses than fashionable cinephiles.
Greg X said: “C’mon now Matt, Kois is taking a brave stance of standing against the tyranny of the .01% of the population who cares about films like Tulpan or Blue and making the demand that he, and the 99.99% of the rest of the population, no longer have to listen to those deluded martinets talk about some sort of higher values.”
This.
haha
This afternoon my friends made fun of me when they saw Gabbeh, Hail Mary and Diary of a Country Priest sitting on my piano from the library. They made fun of me for having Christian movies. One of them was like, “You’ve seen THESE movies, but you’ve never seen Seven…”
@ Mathew Seed
Uh, I think Greg was being sarcastic.
@Robert W Peabody III
Oh I know. It’s absurd that this 99.99% feels oppressed by the .01%. Someone would be more likely to cover up their love of Blue than oppress others with it. Kois is practically fighting smoke.
Matt Parks
Touché