In “A Woman Under The Influence,” when Mabel, while being bullied by her husband, says across the table to her father “Dad … will you stand up for me?” and he thinks she’s telling him to physically stand up.
I don’t think I’ve had a hard time selling anybody on movies, mostly because I don’t spend much time trying to do it. For friends who aren’t really into movies, I usually wait for them to take interest on their own, and I find that people are more receptive when they come into things in that way.
That said, I think it might be pretty difficult to try and sell somebody on early John Waters movies, say “Polyester” or earlier.
Korean film, just like film from most other cultures, is characterized by broad mainstream releases, and more under-the-radar, “artistic” releases. I’m not sure that Korean film sticks out as particularly Hollywood-like, as compared to the cinema of other countries. I live in Korea and I notice plenty of movies coming out that aren’t CG extravaganzas or things like that.
I’m including 1999 in the “past decade,” since it’s only 2009 right now, and naming “Boondock Saints” as the absolute victor here. You can try to disagree, but you’ll only make yourself look stupid in doing so.
Question: Why should this be Criterion’s responsibility? If Criterion isn’t filling the void that exists in the market for film from the developing world, I think another company should fill it for them. Criterion obviously has its motives, whether they be financial or aesthetic, for passing up all of the stuff they don’t put out. Perhaps it’s out of their control and they can’t get distribution rights. That could be the case as well. Why such reliance on Criterion? I think there should be more boutique, niche film distributors. Let Criterion do what they do well. Let other people handle the rest.
What point did I miss? Whether it’s part of their stated goal or not, Criterion obviously operates in a distinctly Western-oriented tradition. The reason why Japan is featured so prominently is not because they are considered “enlightened” or “advanced” by Criterion, but rather because Japanese cinema has had a notable impact on the history of Western cinema (and will have, presumably, on its future as well). As global film industries emerge and expand, it’s certain that more of the world will be brought into this tradition.
If I’m to make a personal ideological case, I’d say that this is a wrongheaded, archaic, distinctly modernist approach to the curation of cinema. But if this is the case, why should I expect Criterion to change its model? I think the outrage here stems from a misunderstanding of the tradition of modernist canon-building that Criterion comes out of. Yes, they provide their customers with a wide range of high-quality eclectic cinema, but this doesn’t mean they are benevolent do-gooders whose curatory aesthetics can be molded to embody every liberal, PC fantasy.
From what I could see, the counterargument was “Well, we don’t expect them to do everything, but their stated goal is to present the best cinema” and “X, Y, Z non-Western, non-Japanese directors aren’t exactly obscure, so obscurity is not an excuse” and things of that sort. But as I see it, Criterion is very much an entity which has decided that the Western tradition is its foundation, and everything it includes with either be in that tradition, or somehow contribute to that tradition, directly or indirectly. Even non-Western films will be described in terms of their impact on Western directors, or of the impact of Western cinema on its creation. That is the one defining characteristic I see in everything they release. So I think that, if we’re going to see releases from, say, Africa, we’re going to first have to start seeing Western directors (preferably those already associated with Criterion) championing African cinema, calling upon it as an influence, or alternately describing the influence of Western cinema on African cinema. Criterion’s main burden is in demonstrating the “relevance” of its releases to its primary audience. If they don’t have established directors and critics lined up—and by that, I mean a significant written historical record of criticism from directors and film scholars and mainstream critics establishing the relevance of African film, for example—it’s going to be difficult for them to find a reason to showcase it. I definitely don’t buy the idea, for one, that Criterion can just release any old thing and the cool kids will just eat it on up. The process isn’t nearly as simple as that.
The last two movies I fell asleep during were “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace.” Both times were at the theater, and I absolutely never fall asleep at the theater. I actually can’t recall ever having done so, other than with the two latest Bonds. I didn’t think either of these movies was horrid, either, so I’m not sure what was up with the drowsiness.
Mike: I’m not saying that at all. If I were running Criterion, I wouldn’t use such an archaic ideology to guide the curation of its catalogue. My argument is not “love it or leave it.” My argument is that, if you know what Criterion is, and you know how it operates, it’s insane to expect that it will deviate from that tradition.
Well, when it comes to the canon-building model that Criterion is built on, we’re well past the point of concern. We know that this model amplifies some traditions and alienates others. We know that this model places value on that which validates its foundational tradition, and ignores most of what’s left over. My suggestion is that you love it for what it does well, and leave it for that in which it’s deficient. Such a thing is possible, after all, in a world with many consumer choices.
I’m sorry that I didn’t painstakingly linger on every word of every single post debating whether the term “colored” was proper to use in the title of the thread, etc. My bad.
Anybody who thinks that X director is “more important” than Y director—as if such a thing were quantifiable fact—simply because his/her work is put out, in part or in full, by Criterion, does not need to have that notion dispelled. What this person needs is a miracle operation to reverse the lobotomy.
The discussion is interesting, but this discovery about Criterion is not exactly surprising or unexpected unless you somehow really believe/d that Criterion is/was/ever has been just about “releasing the best.” Their catalogue couldn’t be more unabashedly exclusive or more clearly a curated thing, grounded on a specific ideology.
So are you just going to keep posting that quote over and over again? I read the original post, and I responded to it.
1) People who don’t understand that Criterion release doesn’t = best thing in the world are simpleminded and aren’t going to be disabused of that notion very easily.
2) Criterion itself is probably not going to be convinced to abandon its adherence to the sphere of Western cinema. When non-Western cinema “makes its mark” (most likely by significantly influencing, or demonstrating influence by, Western cinema, as per the typical Criterion standard), it will likely be included in Criterion’s canon.
3) Idiots make stupid remarks like “the bulk of film history resides in the West” all the time, and they are stupid idiots for doing so. History doesn’t “reside” anywhere, and it cannot really be judged as a quantity, because it necessarily contains qualitative aspects. But just because idiots make stupid remarks doesn’t mean these remarks constitute the beliefs of reasonable people worth convincing of things.
Bobby Wise: I’m saying that Criterion’s “criterion,” if you will, seems to be that the cinema it releases either come from the Western tradition, influence cinema of the Western tradition, or be influenced by cinema of the Western tradition. That is the single thread that seems to weave through their catalogue. This is not my standard, it’s Criterion’s.
Obviously, I think that non-Western film should be met on different terms, those more relevant to its particular concerns, and not through a specifically Western lens. I mentioned earlier that much of the reason why Japanese film is the notable exception to the Western focus of the Criterion catalogue is particularly because it is perceived as having been influential on Western film, that there is a clear dialogue between Japan and the West that has been documented by scholars, critics, directors, etc. for decades. When the same thing happens with more mainland Chinese cinema, or African cinema, or whatever else, I believe that’s when Criterion will begin including more of it in their catalogue.
Would I wait for this type of validation from scholars, critics, and directors if it were up to me? No, I wouldn’t. But I’m me, and Criterion is Criterion. I like them for what they do well (covering cinema of the Western tradition), but wish that somebody else would come along and pick up the slack on non-Western cinema.
How can you debate a subjective list of best movies? There is nothing to debate in that.
A: “Taratino said that X, Y, and Z are his favorite movies of the past 17 years.”
B: “Oh, really?”
A: “Yeah. I think his list is stupid.”
B: “Lemme look at that. That list is pretty good.”
A: “You think so?”
B: “Yeah.”
A: “Huh. Crazy.”
B: “Okay, bye now.”
It seems like a lot of people dislike Tarantino because his influences are (often) incredibly obvious, because he doesn’t make any attempt to artfully disguise them. That has long been a benchmark of successful art: the extent to which the artist obscures his/her influences in order to appear “original.” But I don’t see why it must be our benchmark today.
I think what, kind of oddly, pisses some people off about a list like Tarantino’s is that they don’t see their own aesthetic values reflected in his choices. Some people are arguing that Tarantino’s list is a bland hodgepodge of stuff a male high school student would be into, but how often do you see a list like this from an established film director? His list is not normative in the least. The normative list would be the one put together by elitists using a WWCD (What Would Criterion Do?) model.
“Pretentious” is the single dumbest word ever used to critique film. There are so many more effective, descriptive ways to offer criticism. Kind of tangential to the discussion here, but it needed to be said.
So now the linchpin of your argument is in proving that “the film assumes a great level of importance, culture and meaning than it really has.” How are you going to demonstrate that? Oh wait, you just meant to call it “pretentious” and leave it at that from the get-go.
It’s just lazy criticism.
And yes, I understand you’re saying that you actually liked the movie, but “pretentious” is my #1 pet peeve in criticism, so I have to call it out whenever I see it.
Actually, as I’ve seen the word “pretentious” used, it has pretty much the most generic meaning, because it can refer to any little private, indescribable intimation that a critic feels a movie—or any artwork, for that matter—has made, that is not to his/her taste. It is almost never followed up with any actual defense, because it is assumed that a perceptive audience will understand exactly what the critic is talking about. In my experience, the word has always been attached to lazy, flick-of-the-wrist critical dismissal, and never to well-reasoned, well-supported judgments.
Blue K: So what? I’m not arguing that it’s a morally or ethically superior position for a director to bear overt influences, nor is it for a director to do art in the modernist tradition and hide/obscure influences at all costs. And I don’t personally care whether Tarantino lies about overt influences, or comes right out and unabashedly lists them off. What I’m saying is that the extent to which a director is perceptibly influenced really has no bearing on the quality of a film. I think, on the other hand, that it bears pretty clearly on the quality of (some of) the audience’s reaction. The response to Tarantino in this regard reveals far more about the antiquated value system many people still have regarding issues of influence and originality.
No, I’m not arguing that “nothing is pretentious.” Rather, I think there is always a better way to critique a movie than to dismiss it through use of the word “pretentious.” In the world of criticism, “pretentious” = telling; example-driven analysis = showing.
What film scenes really make you cry? almost 3 years ago
In “A Woman Under The Influence,” when Mabel, while being bullied by her husband, says across the table to her father “Dad … will you stand up for me?” and he thinks she’s telling him to physically stand up.
Go to Comment
Favourite film of the decade (so far)? almost 3 years ago
“3 Iron”
’Nuff said.
Go to Comment
What film do you love but your friends either don't get or like? almost 3 years ago
I don’t think I’ve had a hard time selling anybody on movies, mostly because I don’t spend much time trying to do it. For friends who aren’t really into movies, I usually wait for them to take interest on their own, and I find that people are more receptive when they come into things in that way.
That said, I think it might be pretty difficult to try and sell somebody on early John Waters movies, say “Polyester” or earlier.
Go to Comment
BEST FOREIGN FILMS FROM 2000 ONWARDS - SOUTH KOREA almost 3 years ago
How has Kim Ki-duk’s “3 Iron” not been mentioned yet?
Go to Comment
BEST FOREIGN FILMS FROM 2000 ONWARDS - SOUTH KOREA almost 3 years ago
Law: I only ask because it seems like one of the major post-2000 pieces of South Korean cinema, kind of a no-brainer in a lot of ways.
Go to Comment
BEST FOREIGN FILMS FROM 2000 ONWARDS - SOUTH KOREA almost 3 years ago
Korean film, just like film from most other cultures, is characterized by broad mainstream releases, and more under-the-radar, “artistic” releases. I’m not sure that Korean film sticks out as particularly Hollywood-like, as compared to the cinema of other countries. I live in Korea and I notice plenty of movies coming out that aren’t CG extravaganzas or things like that.
Go to Comment
I know it's wrong but I prefer... almost 3 years ago
Rumplesink: You’re not the only one who feels that way about “Casino” vs. “Goodfellas.”
I prefer “Once Upon a Time in America” to “The Godfather,” as mob-related films go.
Go to Comment
The Worst Social Commentary Of The Past Decade? almost 3 years ago
I’m including 1999 in the “past decade,” since it’s only 2009 right now, and naming “Boondock Saints” as the absolute victor here. You can try to disagree, but you’ll only make yourself look stupid in doing so.
Go to Comment
Can Colored Folks Get Some Love at Criterion too? almost 3 years ago
Question: Why should this be Criterion’s responsibility? If Criterion isn’t filling the void that exists in the market for film from the developing world, I think another company should fill it for them. Criterion obviously has its motives, whether they be financial or aesthetic, for passing up all of the stuff they don’t put out. Perhaps it’s out of their control and they can’t get distribution rights. That could be the case as well. Why such reliance on Criterion? I think there should be more boutique, niche film distributors. Let Criterion do what they do well. Let other people handle the rest.
Go to Comment
Can Colored Folks Get Some Love at Criterion too? almost 3 years ago
Mike Spence: No, I actually didn’t read the rest of the thread! What did you guys come up with?
Go to Comment
The Worst Social Commentary Of The Past Decade? almost 3 years ago
I think the Michael Moore haters doth protest too much.
Go to Comment
Can Colored Folks Get Some Love at Criterion too? almost 3 years ago
Mike Spence: I’m looking back, and I can see that you made a lot of determinations, but I don’t think anything was set in stone.
My point? Stop relying on Criterion to come up with a solution for every cinema-related problem you have.
Go to Comment
Can Colored Folks Get Some Love at Criterion too? almost 3 years ago
What point did I miss? Whether it’s part of their stated goal or not, Criterion obviously operates in a distinctly Western-oriented tradition. The reason why Japan is featured so prominently is not because they are considered “enlightened” or “advanced” by Criterion, but rather because Japanese cinema has had a notable impact on the history of Western cinema (and will have, presumably, on its future as well). As global film industries emerge and expand, it’s certain that more of the world will be brought into this tradition.
If I’m to make a personal ideological case, I’d say that this is a wrongheaded, archaic, distinctly modernist approach to the curation of cinema. But if this is the case, why should I expect Criterion to change its model? I think the outrage here stems from a misunderstanding of the tradition of modernist canon-building that Criterion comes out of. Yes, they provide their customers with a wide range of high-quality eclectic cinema, but this doesn’t mean they are benevolent do-gooders whose curatory aesthetics can be molded to embody every liberal, PC fantasy.
From what I could see, the counterargument was “Well, we don’t expect them to do everything, but their stated goal is to present the best cinema” and “X, Y, Z non-Western, non-Japanese directors aren’t exactly obscure, so obscurity is not an excuse” and things of that sort. But as I see it, Criterion is very much an entity which has decided that the Western tradition is its foundation, and everything it includes with either be in that tradition, or somehow contribute to that tradition, directly or indirectly. Even non-Western films will be described in terms of their impact on Western directors, or of the impact of Western cinema on its creation. That is the one defining characteristic I see in everything they release. So I think that, if we’re going to see releases from, say, Africa, we’re going to first have to start seeing Western directors (preferably those already associated with Criterion) championing African cinema, calling upon it as an influence, or alternately describing the influence of Western cinema on African cinema. Criterion’s main burden is in demonstrating the “relevance” of its releases to its primary audience. If they don’t have established directors and critics lined up—and by that, I mean a significant written historical record of criticism from directors and film scholars and mainstream critics establishing the relevance of African film, for example—it’s going to be difficult for them to find a reason to showcase it. I definitely don’t buy the idea, for one, that Criterion can just release any old thing and the cool kids will just eat it on up. The process isn’t nearly as simple as that.
Go to Comment
MOMENT OF TRUTH: HAVE YOU EVER GONE TO THE MOVIES AND FALLEN ASLEEP DURING THE FILM? almost 3 years ago
The last two movies I fell asleep during were “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace.” Both times were at the theater, and I absolutely never fall asleep at the theater. I actually can’t recall ever having done so, other than with the two latest Bonds. I didn’t think either of these movies was horrid, either, so I’m not sure what was up with the drowsiness.
Go to Comment
Can Colored Folks Get Some Love at Criterion too? almost 3 years ago
Mike: I’m not saying that at all. If I were running Criterion, I wouldn’t use such an archaic ideology to guide the curation of its catalogue. My argument is not “love it or leave it.” My argument is that, if you know what Criterion is, and you know how it operates, it’s insane to expect that it will deviate from that tradition.
Go to Comment
Can Colored Folks Get Some Love at Criterion too? almost 3 years ago
Well, when it comes to the canon-building model that Criterion is built on, we’re well past the point of concern. We know that this model amplifies some traditions and alienates others. We know that this model places value on that which validates its foundational tradition, and ignores most of what’s left over. My suggestion is that you love it for what it does well, and leave it for that in which it’s deficient. Such a thing is possible, after all, in a world with many consumer choices.
Go to Comment
Can Colored Folks Get Some Love at Criterion too? almost 3 years ago
I’m sorry that I didn’t painstakingly linger on every word of every single post debating whether the term “colored” was proper to use in the title of the thread, etc. My bad.
Anybody who thinks that X director is “more important” than Y director—as if such a thing were quantifiable fact—simply because his/her work is put out, in part or in full, by Criterion, does not need to have that notion dispelled. What this person needs is a miracle operation to reverse the lobotomy.
The discussion is interesting, but this discovery about Criterion is not exactly surprising or unexpected unless you somehow really believe/d that Criterion is/was/ever has been just about “releasing the best.” Their catalogue couldn’t be more unabashedly exclusive or more clearly a curated thing, grounded on a specific ideology.
Go to Comment
Can Colored Folks Get Some Love at Criterion too? almost 3 years ago
So are you just going to keep posting that quote over and over again? I read the original post, and I responded to it.
1) People who don’t understand that Criterion release doesn’t = best thing in the world are simpleminded and aren’t going to be disabused of that notion very easily.
2) Criterion itself is probably not going to be convinced to abandon its adherence to the sphere of Western cinema. When non-Western cinema “makes its mark” (most likely by significantly influencing, or demonstrating influence by, Western cinema, as per the typical Criterion standard), it will likely be included in Criterion’s canon.
3) Idiots make stupid remarks like “the bulk of film history resides in the West” all the time, and they are stupid idiots for doing so. History doesn’t “reside” anywhere, and it cannot really be judged as a quantity, because it necessarily contains qualitative aspects. But just because idiots make stupid remarks doesn’t mean these remarks constitute the beliefs of reasonable people worth convincing of things.
Go to Comment
Can Colored Folks Get Some Love at Criterion too? almost 3 years ago
Bobby Wise: I’m saying that Criterion’s “criterion,” if you will, seems to be that the cinema it releases either come from the Western tradition, influence cinema of the Western tradition, or be influenced by cinema of the Western tradition. That is the single thread that seems to weave through their catalogue. This is not my standard, it’s Criterion’s.
Obviously, I think that non-Western film should be met on different terms, those more relevant to its particular concerns, and not through a specifically Western lens. I mentioned earlier that much of the reason why Japanese film is the notable exception to the Western focus of the Criterion catalogue is particularly because it is perceived as having been influential on Western film, that there is a clear dialogue between Japan and the West that has been documented by scholars, critics, directors, etc. for decades. When the same thing happens with more mainland Chinese cinema, or African cinema, or whatever else, I believe that’s when Criterion will begin including more of it in their catalogue.
Would I wait for this type of validation from scholars, critics, and directors if it were up to me? No, I wouldn’t. But I’m me, and Criterion is Criterion. I like them for what they do well (covering cinema of the Western tradition), but wish that somebody else would come along and pick up the slack on non-Western cinema.
Go to Comment
Quentin Tarantino's Top 20 films of the past 17 years almost 3 years ago
Also, isn’t “Boogie Nights” kind of dead-on? That’s a top 5 movie for me.
Go to Comment
Quentin Tarantino's Top 20 films of the past 17 years almost 3 years ago
How can you debate a subjective list of best movies? There is nothing to debate in that.
A: “Taratino said that X, Y, and Z are his favorite movies of the past 17 years.”
B: “Oh, really?”
A: “Yeah. I think his list is stupid.”
B: “Lemme look at that. That list is pretty good.”
A: “You think so?”
B: “Yeah.”
A: “Huh. Crazy.”
B: “Okay, bye now.”
Go to Comment
Quentin Tarantino's Top 20 films of the past 17 years almost 3 years ago
It seems like a lot of people dislike Tarantino because his influences are (often) incredibly obvious, because he doesn’t make any attempt to artfully disguise them. That has long been a benchmark of successful art: the extent to which the artist obscures his/her influences in order to appear “original.” But I don’t see why it must be our benchmark today.
Go to Comment
Quentin Tarantino's Top 20 films of the past 17 years almost 3 years ago
I think what, kind of oddly, pisses some people off about a list like Tarantino’s is that they don’t see their own aesthetic values reflected in his choices. Some people are arguing that Tarantino’s list is a bland hodgepodge of stuff a male high school student would be into, but how often do you see a list like this from an established film director? His list is not normative in the least. The normative list would be the one put together by elitists using a WWCD (What Would Criterion Do?) model.
Go to Comment
An Altman Lack almost 3 years ago
“The Long Goodbye” is ridiculously good. And yes, I think Altman is vastly underappreciated here and elsewhere.
Go to Comment
An Altman Lack almost 3 years ago
“Pretentious” is the single dumbest word ever used to critique film. There are so many more effective, descriptive ways to offer criticism. Kind of tangential to the discussion here, but it needed to be said.
Go to Comment
An Altman Lack almost 3 years ago
So now the linchpin of your argument is in proving that “the film assumes a great level of importance, culture and meaning than it really has.” How are you going to demonstrate that? Oh wait, you just meant to call it “pretentious” and leave it at that from the get-go.
It’s just lazy criticism.
And yes, I understand you’re saying that you actually liked the movie, but “pretentious” is my #1 pet peeve in criticism, so I have to call it out whenever I see it.
Go to Comment
An Altman Lack almost 3 years ago
Actually, as I’ve seen the word “pretentious” used, it has pretty much the most generic meaning, because it can refer to any little private, indescribable intimation that a critic feels a movie—or any artwork, for that matter—has made, that is not to his/her taste. It is almost never followed up with any actual defense, because it is assumed that a perceptive audience will understand exactly what the critic is talking about. In my experience, the word has always been attached to lazy, flick-of-the-wrist critical dismissal, and never to well-reasoned, well-supported judgments.
Go to Comment
An Altman Lack almost 3 years ago
Yes, if you look the word up in the dictionary, it does actually have a listing. I was aware of this.
Go to Comment
Quentin Tarantino's Top 20 films of the past 17 years almost 3 years ago
Blue K: So what? I’m not arguing that it’s a morally or ethically superior position for a director to bear overt influences, nor is it for a director to do art in the modernist tradition and hide/obscure influences at all costs. And I don’t personally care whether Tarantino lies about overt influences, or comes right out and unabashedly lists them off. What I’m saying is that the extent to which a director is perceptibly influenced really has no bearing on the quality of a film. I think, on the other hand, that it bears pretty clearly on the quality of (some of) the audience’s reaction. The response to Tarantino in this regard reveals far more about the antiquated value system many people still have regarding issues of influence and originality.
Go to Comment
An Altman Lack almost 3 years ago
No, I’m not arguing that “nothing is pretentious.” Rather, I think there is always a better way to critique a movie than to dismiss it through use of the word “pretentious.” In the world of criticism, “pretentious” = telling; example-driven analysis = showing.
Go to Comment