I don't read Slate much anymore since David Edelstein, a real film critic, departed for New York Magazine, and the once-sentient Christopher Hitchens ceased being capable of writing about anything but his own old opinions, circa 2002 and 2003. (Unlike Billy Pilgrim, Hitchens has become stuck in time -- and inside his own head, and nothing beyond what he has previously stated or believed can be processed, mainly because he doesn't seem to think it possible that anything else, like reality, could possibly matter.) A reader reminds me again of why I'm less inclined to visit Slate these days, sending me (with a warning) an inexcusably stupid essay by Stephen Metcalf, of the site's aptly named "dilettante" column, about a classic John Ford Western, called The Worst Best Movie: Why on earth did 'The Searchers' get canonized?"
Clive James, meet Stephen Metcalf.
A better question might be: "Why on earth did Stephen Metcalf think he was capable of writing anything worth reading about 'The Searchers'?" Here's how Metcalf begins:
"The Searchers," John Ford's epic 1956 Western, is a film geek's paradise: It is preposterous in its plotting, spasmodic in its pacing, unfunny in its hijinks, bipolar in its politics, alternately sodden and convulsive in its acting, not to mention boring. Impossible to enjoy, and yet not as obviously medicinal as, say, "The Spirit of the Beehive," "The Searchers" segregates the initiated from the uninitiated; and so it is widely considered, by the initiated, at least, to be among the four or five best movies of all time. At his maiden screening, a young Cahiers du Cinema critic named Jean-Luc Godard wept, later adding, "How can I hate John Wayne … and yet love him tenderly … in the last reel of 'The Searchers'?" Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader routinely name "The Searchers" as one of their favorite films...Yes indeed, those qualities Metcalf describes sure do make the movie sound like a "film geek's paradise," don't they? I mean, where is the film geek who does not just crrraaave the spasmodic, the unfunny, the sodden and the boring? Surely, those attributes constitute the very essence of what we -- and Godard and Scorsese and Schrader and countless other crix 'n' geeks -- value in "The Searchers."
By this point in Metcalf's embarrassingly self-revealing scalping (three giveaway words that neutralize the stance of anyone pretending to offer critical insight: "impossible to enjoy"), I found myself thinking not so much of John Wayne or John Ford or Jean-Luc Godard, but of Joey Nichols, the boorish friend of Alvy Singer's father in "Annie Hall," who thought he was so clever to stick nickels on his forehead and his cufflinks as a gimmick to help people remember his name. And my response to Metcalf suddenly formed itself in the words of young Alvy: "What an asshole."
And what a dilettante. Is it worth responding to an ad hominem attack on a movie by someone who has no idea what he's looking at? Probably not. But earlier today I got a (quite good) Opening Shots submission from someone who began by writing: "Originally I wanted to propose an older film to impress the crowd that demands such esotericness from cinephiles..."
Since when are "old movies" -- especially all those Hollywood pictures that millions went to see each week -- considered "esoteric"? What is the difference between an "old movie" and a "new movie" when they both unspool in the immediate present, at 24 frames per second, the way they always have and always will? A movie is always happening right now as you watch it (a film prof of mine used to call this the "eternal present tense"). There's nothing "esoteric" (or, as Metcalf would have it, "medicinal") about it -- unless, of course, you're simply determined to make it so with a blinkered hankering for the new, or a knee-jerk anti-intellectualism (very trendy now) that insists anything valued by smart or talented or passionate people must be beneath one's dignity to appreciate or enjoy.
More on "The Searchers" (and Metcalf's mindless potshots) later. But as for Stephen Metcalf's critical aptitude, here's another apt phrase: Damn him and the horse (or ass) he rode in on. May he (continue to) wander forever between the winds...
(Thanks to Casey Tourangeau... I think.)
UPDATE (07/07/06): This post is continued here.
Wow. You claim that Metcalf's article constitutes an ad hominem attack -- do you really understand what that means? I ask because I see very little in his article that would qualify as such while your own post is almost a dictionary definition of the term.
You call his essay "inexcusably stupid" without offering any reason why. You say of him "What an asshole!" You ask "Why on earth did Stephen Metcalf think he was capable of writing anything worth reading about 'The Searchers'?"
In short, you're not attacking his arguments, you're attacking him.
Glad you noticed that. While I intended this as a little tongue-in-cheek dose of Metcalf's own medicine, I think the most damning thing about it (besides his snide attitude, which I describe in detail) are his own words -- or, rather, the adjectives he slings like arrows. (I singled out a few of those words, including the preposterously presumptuous "impossible to enjoy.") In what I've quoted so far, Metcalf has made no specific observations about the film, just called it names and disparaged "film geeks" for liking something he didactically insists is "boring" and "impossible to enjoy."
So, I'm not attacking what Metcalf says because of who he is (I don't know who he is, only that he doesn't display a knack for writing about film); I'm attacking Metcalf precisely for what he says and how he says it. I'm just not done yet. As I said at the end of the post, this is just an initial, preliminary (and, I admit, emotional) response -- I plan to go into detail about "The Searchers," and examine more of Metcalf's specific potshots (they don't qualify as criticisms), very soon.
In defense of the submitter who regards old films as "esoteric", depending on his or her age, it's not surprising to me that they might find "old films" esoteric.
I'm only 23, and many of my college age friends consider my taste in films (much "older" than my contemporaries) esoteric.
As sad as it may be, and as unfortunate as it certainly is, the number of people who know what "The Searchers" is, is shrinking by the day. Maybe not to the point where we cinephiles want to admit it's officially esoteric, but definitely to the point where the non-cinephile would perceive it that way.
Anyway, this Metcalf guy sounds like he's just trying to impress people with how much courage he's got for going against the grain. As if we've all just been conditioned to enjoy "The Searchers" and he's the valiant one who's not going to drink the kool-aid.
He can keep his opinion, and I'll keep my sweet 2 disc DVD.
I, too, read Metcalf's article with a sense of bewilderment. So much about it rang false. Roger Ebert is one of the "vocal dissenters in the cult of "The Searchers""? Huh?
Scanning the Slate comments section, I found confirmation of my suspicions: Metcalf's article is riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
For example, "semperpenalcolony" points out that it's Laurie, not Ethan, who says "Fetch what home? The leavings of a Comanche buck..." (which is confirmed here).
And "Giveadogabone" notes that Ebert includes "The Searchers" in his Great Movies series -- hardly a "dissent." In his review, Ebert does note (and I concur) the "silly romantic subplot and characters hauled in for comic relief" which "is without interest, and those who value ''The Searchers'' filter it out, patiently waiting for a return to the main story line."
But that hardly puts Ebert on Metcalf's side!
Such sloppiness pretty much discredits Metcalf’s article completely. There’s more at the comments -- along with, of course the usual trolls looking for somebody’s sneering they can join in with (really, a web magazine writer snarking about “geeks�? Please.)
This is the bit that really gets me: "their own meticulously constructed personas as defenders of a heroic code of the unsettled West was first floated in the early days of film studies, and has been catnip to the institutional critic ever since."
"Istitutional critic?" Cheap straw man arguments like that illustrate exactly why Metcalf's argument is so, well, lame. What is this, the 50s? "You like 'The Searchers?' You're just an agent for THE MAN, man!"
thanks, jim. i almost entered the Fray after this one, but thought better of it.
"Though visually magnificent, the movie is otherwise off-putting to the contemporary sensibility, what with its when men were men, and women were hysterics mythos and an acting style that often appears frozen in tintype."
Yeah, and the language of Moby Dick is a little stilted and purple as well. Why would anyone want to read a blook with such FLAWS!?!
Looking forward to your giving the guy the Clive James (my new phrase for putting a snide dabbler in his/her place).
Jordan: You reinforce my point. How "esoteric" can a film be when it is: 1) available everywhere, from Wal-Mart to Target to Amazon to Netflix, in a brand new, widely advertised 2-disc DVD set from Warner Home Video; 2) stars one of the biggest movie stars in history and was directed by John Ford, another name whose work is generally known not just to cinephiles but to the general public; and 3) consistently cited, almost universially, as one of the best movies ever (heck, it even made the AFI's much-publicized list of the top 100 American movies, placing between "Pulp Fiction" [that obscure, esoteric, ancient 12-year-old movie] and "Bringing Up Baby" [a screwball comedy starring some esoteric actors named Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn])?
Can somebody be considered a "cinephile" (or a plain ol' "movie lover") without having seen, say, "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane" or "Star Wars" or "The Godfather"? I think not. That would be like someone considering himself an oenophile, but who has only tasted white wines -- and never anything more than three years old.
This is definitely one of your less "critical" tirades, but I agree, in this case, it wasn't necessary. I would like to know if you ever send these off to the people you reprehend.
Not to worry, Alexander. I have not yet begun to criticize. (I'm working on that more detailed follow-up piece now, as promised.)
And, yes, if I can find an e-mail address, I usually send off my comments and invite a response. Sometimes I hear back, but the person asks that the response be kept private. Never did hear from Clive James, though!
When I finally saw the Searchers I was deeply unimpressed and I still vehemently dislike it. It is as shallow as a teaspoon and massively corny. Other classics also leave me non-plussed. Among them High Noon.
Thanks for the nod, Jim, but both Dana Stevens and Steve Metcalf are wonderful writers and well worth going to Slate to read. (And visit me at New York, too!) I suspect Steve was being deliberately outrageous--but I confess the first time I saw The Searchers I was mystified at the fuss about it, too. I came around to it (and to Ford) once I began to concentrate on the endless tensions in his work between the masculine archetype and the human being underneath. And The Searchers remains one of the most interesting treatments of revenge in the American cinema. That said, I enjoy the occasional flaying of a sacred cow. If I weren't such a coward I would have outraged you even more by now on the subject of Wong Kar-Wai.
Well gosh, jpeg, guess we better scratch The Searchers from the canon then. If personal taste were the final arbiter in these matters, we'd have precious little cultural or artistic heritage to build on. Slagging an acknowledged classic armed only with the slings and arrows of one's personal taste is neither criticism nor revisionism (both of which are vital and necessary), it's just, as Jim says, taking potshots.
While you may be correct in criticizing Mr. Metcalf, your attack on him is extremely unprofessional and distasteful. You have unfortunately put yourself in the position where he can say, quite correctly, that it would be beneath him to respond to you.
I look forward to your piece where you take him to task for not qualifying each individual adjective. I agree that it's not ok to do that, not with a classic.
Dear Santos:
I'd like to say, echoing "The Godfather," that it's "nothing personal, just business." But, no, it's personal -- at least, the way Mr. Metcalf has framed the argument. Metcalf mounts personal attack on Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, John Ford, John Wayne, and film students and cinephiles everywhere, so I think it's fair to respond -- and then go him one better, to show the speciousness of his argument.
Metcalf invokes the name (and even some of the writing) of Pauline Kael -- somebody who REALLY knew how to mount a critical attack. By comparison, I have been kind. So, I think he'll be just fine.
I wrote a more detailed criticism of his piece here. And he's always welcome to defend himself (and what he borrowed from Kael) if he so chooses.
Hi David: I responded, in great detail, to Metcalf's "Searchers" piece, as promised, here. And, actually, I would love it if you would take down Wong Kar-Wai (or Abbas Kiarostami, for that matter). I think it would be illuminating -- and not just insulting, which I think was the entire point and substance of Metcalf's piece. (You didn't write about "The Searchers" for a big web site/publication after just one initial exposure to it. That's a good thing.)
I don't know about you, but I get e-mails all the time from people -- mostly young people in their teens and twenties -- who wonder what the "big deal" is about, say, "Citizen Kane" or "Tokyo Story" or one of those OLD movies -- particularly if they're in black-and-white! What I resent is not so much that they say they don't like these movies (if they've seen them and that's their reaction, it's their loss; maybe they'll grow into them), but that they accuse those who do (like me!) of being disingenuous or hypocritical when we say we love them. Well, I do love "The Searchers" AND "Citizen Kane" and "Tokyo Story." I've never seen a film more moving than "The Searchers" or "Tokyo Story" -- and can't even imagine one more endlessly and thoroughly entertaining on every level than "Citizen Kane." So, maybe I feel a bit defensive when speaking up for movies that some claim are "off-putting to contemporary sensibilies." I say: Great! Let 'em put off!
P.S. I hope you got my invitation to contribute a description of one of your favorite shots for our Opening Shots project here.
Hi jpeg:
Obviously, I disagree with you about "The Searchers" -- for the reasons (and more) I detailed in my follow-up post.
But I agree with you about "High Noon." How do you feel about "Rio Bravo" (another John Wayne Western I dearly love)? Did you know Howard Hawks made "Rio Bravo" as a response to "High Noon"? He was so disgusted with the idea that the sherrif played by Gary Cooper would solicit help from amateurs -- thus endangering them -- that he responded with "Rio Bravo," a film in which John Wayne's sherrif, though outmanned by the bad guys, keeps refusing help from the townspeople because he is the professional and they are liable to get hurt because they simply aren't good enough at doing what he knows needs to be done. He'd rather take the responsibility for himself and the men he knows and trusts than get amateurs involved.
I actually get tired of the way High Noon gets slagged by some critics. Although I understand where the criticism is coming from, there's an opposite end to it, in that when it comes down to standing up for someone who has stood up for us before, most people won't do it. Yes, High Noon is a parable about witch hunts, but there is something to that after all. Maybe it's not manly to hope that your community might support you in a time of your dire need, but that's also a legitimate human emotion, too. It's appropriate how Mr. Edelstein would mention how Ford explores the conflict between masculine archetypes and the human beings underneath, because that description fits the Rio Bravo vs. High Noon debate to a T. Rio Bravo is manly men living up that ideal archetype; High Noon is what it might feel like to be a real person facing a fearsome situation and actually be scared, even if you are a heroic man.