To fully understand Carney and his bias you have to understand not only his love for Cassavetes. His admiration of the man reaches a level of idolatry that far exceeds anything I’ve seen in the Hitchcock, Kubrick, or Tarantino cults. He revers the man and understandably so. He owes his fame to Cassavetes and formed a friendship with the man. His dismissal of other greats is a form of mourning, and that’s why I have some sympathy for his rather obtuse remarks. So essential is it to his memory of Cassavetes that the director is depicted as having no rivals, that any other acknowledged “great” filmmaker must be shot out of the limelight. His golden bull Cassavetes was the best and there will be no one better, that is the root of his blinding obsession with the director and the zealotry with which he defends his work. Case in point. Early in his career, he wrote in admiration of critic David Thomson, author of “The New Biographical Dictionary of Film”. After Thomson wrote a dismissive entry on Cassavetes (in particular, “Shadows”) and stated that he couldn’t understand what “sees in his films”, Carney’s opinion of Thomson and his book suddenly shifted. Yes, he praises other filmmakers and, I must admit, with great prose and verve. But what mars the work of this interesting man is that his work is of very limited interesting. I want to know about Cassavetes as I admire the man, and to that end you won’t do better than read Carney’s website (I do so weekly, essay by essay). But beyond that very narrow scope, Carney is of little use to film scholars. Some are perplexed by his love of Capra. It’s no mystery. He was Cassavetes’s idol, and that’s as good a recommendation as Carney needs. I guess some people “must like being told what to think”.
Didn’t mean to offend you Mike, so sorry if I did. Let me clarify my point. Carney likes who he likes and admires who he likes for whatever reason. Fine. But, my problem with him is his tendency to attack those of an opposite view. And yes he does. I’ve been reading his website essay by essay since January of 2010.
I didn’t mean to imply that his website is limited to those interested in Cassavetes. But rather, it is limited to those interested in a handful of filmmakers. I acknowledged that he praises other filmmakers and for my research into Cassavetes, Capra, and Mike Leigh (one of my favorite directors), there is no other resource I trust better than Carney’s site. But your own selected quote actually proves my point. He tells the writer to skip “the junk”. But junk to who? His definition of non-junk is a very narrow stream and if one were to follow it without deviation they would truly miss out on a lot of great artists. To many people as intelligent as Carney, much of Cassavetes’s work was junk (Thomson, Kael, and Leslie Halliwell to name a few).
Listen, I am not without admiration for Carney and I’m in no way responding negatively to his opinions. I agree with much of what he writes, my one issue is that he makes his opinions dogma and his dismisal of other critics confirms this. I love reading his work and I think that “Modernism for the Masses” was one of the most stimulating pieces I ever read on Woody Allen (and this from an Allen enthusiast). But, I always leave his site with a mixed blessing. Too bad that such a genuiswith so many brilliant ideas and a prose that as an amateur film critic I envy, is crippled by such a narrow vision of what constitutes greatness.
Fair enough Mike, thanks for the thoughtful response. I’m actually with you in supporting narrowness. My only caveat is that there shouldn’t be a preemptive classification of “trash” and “art” simply by who the filmmaker is, and that is something Carney tends to forget. For me as well there are few filmmakers with perfect records. De Sica is one. Spike Lee comes close. I’m one of the few here who actually liked “Bamboozled” and appreciated (“liked” is too strong a word) “Girl 6”, but I thought “Jungle Fever” fell far short of its ambition and considering its potential, it’s almost painful to watch. There are others for me, Miyazaki, Fellini, and Godard (though, please, don’t ask me to sit through “Alphaville” again).
We’ll have to agree to disagree on narrowness but I am all for elitism. You need it to recognize great art and if that were Carney’s only approach I would consider him a champion. But I ask you the same question, the filmmakers he loves are great to who? He seems to think that if you don’t consider them geniuses, then you are shallow, a “moron”, or who knows what else. Some examples. He tried to controvert Pauline Kael’s assertion that she didn’t need to see a film more than once to determine its worth. I disagree with her there, of course, but Carney’s only evidence to her erroneous dictum is her negative review of “Shadows” (it may have been “Faces”, not to sure). In other words, she was wrong in her approach simply because she didn’t like his pet filmmaker. In an interview in which he was giving advice to aspiring filmmakers, he told them not to copy any of the filmmakers he championed. Be original. Undoubtedly this is sound advice, but who told him that they looked up to those particular filmmakers as role models anyway? Because he thinks they are great? I guess my problem with him is similar to the one Jonathan Rosenbaum has expressed. If he considers a filmmaker great or trashy, that is the final word. If you think otherwise, you are a member of the duped masses. He’s too black-or-white in taking his stance.
Lol, ok my formidable opponent, thanks for a stimulating and engaging debate. Always a pleasure to discuss a medium I love so much with someone as passionate and articulate. By the way, let’s end this on a note I’m sure we can agree on…I don’t like DePalma’s films at all and their appeal has always been lost on me.
Wacky But True; or, Another Damn Ray Carney Thread about 2 years ago
To fully understand Carney and his bias you have to understand not only his love for Cassavetes. His admiration of the man reaches a level of idolatry that far exceeds anything I’ve seen in the Hitchcock, Kubrick, or Tarantino cults. He revers the man and understandably so. He owes his fame to Cassavetes and formed a friendship with the man. His dismissal of other greats is a form of mourning, and that’s why I have some sympathy for his rather obtuse remarks. So essential is it to his memory of Cassavetes that the director is depicted as having no rivals, that any other acknowledged “great” filmmaker must be shot out of the limelight. His golden bull Cassavetes was the best and there will be no one better, that is the root of his blinding obsession with the director and the zealotry with which he defends his work. Case in point. Early in his career, he wrote in admiration of critic David Thomson, author of “The New Biographical Dictionary of Film”. After Thomson wrote a dismissive entry on Cassavetes (in particular, “Shadows”) and stated that he couldn’t understand what “sees in his films”, Carney’s opinion of Thomson and his book suddenly shifted. Yes, he praises other filmmakers and, I must admit, with great prose and verve. But what mars the work of this interesting man is that his work is of very limited interesting. I want to know about Cassavetes as I admire the man, and to that end you won’t do better than read Carney’s website (I do so weekly, essay by essay). But beyond that very narrow scope, Carney is of little use to film scholars. Some are perplexed by his love of Capra. It’s no mystery. He was Cassavetes’s idol, and that’s as good a recommendation as Carney needs. I guess some people “must like being told what to think”.
Go to Comment
Wacky But True; or, Another Damn Ray Carney Thread about 2 years ago
Didn’t mean to offend you Mike, so sorry if I did. Let me clarify my point. Carney likes who he likes and admires who he likes for whatever reason. Fine. But, my problem with him is his tendency to attack those of an opposite view. And yes he does. I’ve been reading his website essay by essay since January of 2010.
I didn’t mean to imply that his website is limited to those interested in Cassavetes. But rather, it is limited to those interested in a handful of filmmakers. I acknowledged that he praises other filmmakers and for my research into Cassavetes, Capra, and Mike Leigh (one of my favorite directors), there is no other resource I trust better than Carney’s site. But your own selected quote actually proves my point. He tells the writer to skip “the junk”. But junk to who? His definition of non-junk is a very narrow stream and if one were to follow it without deviation they would truly miss out on a lot of great artists. To many people as intelligent as Carney, much of Cassavetes’s work was junk (Thomson, Kael, and Leslie Halliwell to name a few).
Listen, I am not without admiration for Carney and I’m in no way responding negatively to his opinions. I agree with much of what he writes, my one issue is that he makes his opinions dogma and his dismisal of other critics confirms this. I love reading his work and I think that “Modernism for the Masses” was one of the most stimulating pieces I ever read on Woody Allen (and this from an Allen enthusiast). But, I always leave his site with a mixed blessing. Too bad that such a genuiswith so many brilliant ideas and a prose that as an amateur film critic I envy, is crippled by such a narrow vision of what constitutes greatness.
Go to Comment
Wacky But True; or, Another Damn Ray Carney Thread about 2 years ago
Fair enough Mike, thanks for the thoughtful response. I’m actually with you in supporting narrowness. My only caveat is that there shouldn’t be a preemptive classification of “trash” and “art” simply by who the filmmaker is, and that is something Carney tends to forget. For me as well there are few filmmakers with perfect records. De Sica is one. Spike Lee comes close. I’m one of the few here who actually liked “Bamboozled” and appreciated (“liked” is too strong a word) “Girl 6”, but I thought “Jungle Fever” fell far short of its ambition and considering its potential, it’s almost painful to watch. There are others for me, Miyazaki, Fellini, and Godard (though, please, don’t ask me to sit through “Alphaville” again).
We’ll have to agree to disagree on narrowness but I am all for elitism. You need it to recognize great art and if that were Carney’s only approach I would consider him a champion. But I ask you the same question, the filmmakers he loves are great to who? He seems to think that if you don’t consider them geniuses, then you are shallow, a “moron”, or who knows what else. Some examples. He tried to controvert Pauline Kael’s assertion that she didn’t need to see a film more than once to determine its worth. I disagree with her there, of course, but Carney’s only evidence to her erroneous dictum is her negative review of “Shadows” (it may have been “Faces”, not to sure). In other words, she was wrong in her approach simply because she didn’t like his pet filmmaker. In an interview in which he was giving advice to aspiring filmmakers, he told them not to copy any of the filmmakers he championed. Be original. Undoubtedly this is sound advice, but who told him that they looked up to those particular filmmakers as role models anyway? Because he thinks they are great? I guess my problem with him is similar to the one Jonathan Rosenbaum has expressed. If he considers a filmmaker great or trashy, that is the final word. If you think otherwise, you are a member of the duped masses. He’s too black-or-white in taking his stance.
Go to Comment
Wacky But True; or, Another Damn Ray Carney Thread about 2 years ago
Lol, ok my formidable opponent, thanks for a stimulating and engaging debate. Always a pleasure to discuss a medium I love so much with someone as passionate and articulate. By the way, let’s end this on a note I’m sure we can agree on…I don’t like DePalma’s films at all and their appeal has always been lost on me.
Go to Comment