Waldo Lydecker: "I don't use a pen. I write with a goose quill dipped in venom.... Hand me my towel, would you?"
First, let me again express my gratitude to all those who got into the spirit of the Contrarianism Blog-a-Thon (see new category at right) -- with submissions, comments, and other observations on their own sites. My hope was that this would spin off conversations on other blogs as well, and I've participated in some of them myself (and in e-mail, too). I was especially pleased that some of the contributions were from people with new blogs, or who hadn't participated in blog-a-thons before. This was the first time I've hosted one, and I was thrilled and relieved that I hadn't thrown a party to which no one came.
It was just a little over a year ago, in January of 2006, that some movie bloggers over at girish's were discussing the whole idea of writing about film when the subject of Paul Verhoeven's eminently disreputable "Showgirls" came up and this idea evolved: What if they chose a date and everybody who wanted to participate would post something about "Showgirls" on that date and link to the other postings? (You can witness the idea taking shape here.)That, as legend has it, is how the "blog-a-thon" was born. (Andy Horbal at No More Marriages! has been keeping track of recent ones, and offers an overview with his reservations about them, here.)
The Contrarianism Blog-a-Thon grew spontaneously out of a couple posts I did in January (Do the Contrarian (Part I) and (Part II), which I impulsively turned into what I called "Contrarian Week." None of this was planned when I wrote the first post -- not even Part II. (I went back and added [Part I] to the original title after I'd thought of the second part.) And the whole effort was an attempt to distinguish between genuine contrarian arguments, and what I considered to be the equivalent of "shock jock" statements by some mainstream/print critics, just striking a pose to call attention to themselves without anything of substance to say. You used to actually have to subscribe to their publications in order to read what critics were writing; now you access so many print critics online, and with a blog you can link to them and respond immediately to what they've written.
Anyway, with so much contrarian joy and ambivalence still fresh in my mind, and at the risk of gazing so intently into my own navel (and/or the collective belly button of the blogosphere) that I fall in and am sucked through a black hole from which only lint has been previously known to emerge, I'd like to share with you some of my feelings about the experience....
Probably the scariest thing was hosting what one of my correspondents called (with considerable skepticism) a kind of "open mic." The subject was contrarianism (not, I hasten to point out, about labeling individuals as "contrarians," but about the idea of championing an unpopular point of view -- and whether it was positive or negative was irrelevant). That meant I knew I'd get submissions that I was bound to strongly disagree with. And I did. But, although this blog has always been an attempt to call for critical standards (mostly mine!), I didn't feel that, in this case, I should play the role of the gatekeeper. I've written for traditional (and non-traditional) "gatekeeper" media all my life (well, for the last 35 years or so -- since Junior High School!), where I had to make decisions about what was suitable for publication or not, and I didn't want to play that role this time. And that scared the bejeezus out of me.
There was also the fear (as I alluded to above) that people would either find the subject too vague and uninteresting (though I hoped there would be enough of a range of contributions that anybody interested in movies would find something to engage them), or that (as a few e-mailed me -- facetiously, I hope), the ultimate "contrarian" stance would be to not participate! (Matt Soller Zeitz, proprietor of one of my favorite movie blogs, The House Next Door,
The limitations of the format were also a bane. I felt there had to be some kind of deadline (although I eventually stretched it over four days), some way to give focus to the thing, but a single weekend couldn't accommodate some people who (strange though it may seem) had other things going on in their lives. (In contrast, Harry Tuttle's Contemplative Cinema Blogathon expanded across the entire month of January.)
And because I was so sincerely grateful for all the contributions, I didn't feel that it was my place to argue with them. I was hoping readers would do that. My function would be to give people a forum to express whatever they wanted to say, and to get feedback from whoever read them. I wanted the posts to stimulate discussion, but didn't have the technology I'd like to have had to make that easier. I wound up with a big list of links to contributions, but didn't have a handy way to let people comment on them individually at Scanners (although they could post their comments on the individual blogs that allowed them). I don't know if my Moveable Type blog software (hosted at the Chicago Sun-Times) has a plug-in that would allow threaded discussions, but I'd sure like to have something like that. If anybody knows how it can be done, please tell me!
I've always liked David Edelstein's Slate Movie Club as a model for what could be done with online film criticism. The oldest one I could find was from 1998, just between Edelstein and Jonathan Rosenbaum. And after some of my specific criticisms of Rosenbaum's reviews of late, I thought Edelstein's introduction captured just the spirit I was looking for with the Contrarianism Blog-a-Thon:
"I am honored, Jonathan, to have you as my correspondent. Although I sometimes find your opinions wacko and your style unduly belligerent, you're one of a handful of critics in this country of real stature, and one of the few perennial antagonists for whom I can muster a lick of respect. Not to mention that you're partly responsible for one of the cinematic highlights of 1998, the restoration of Orson Welles' 'Touch of Evil': a different and significantly greater film than the studio-mandated recut released over Welles' weary objections."I feel the same way (re: the first part of the second sentence) -- not just about Rosenbaum (one of our best critics), but about most critics at some time or another. (Including myself.) Oh, and by the way, one of the Contrarian Blog-a-Thon contributions rips apart that 1998 version of "Touch of Evil" as a travesty of Welles' work! I don't know what to think. Now I'm going to have to go back and watch the 1998 version, then compare with my laserdisc of the second studio version (with a copy of Welles' memo in hand) to get a better idea of the changes.
See what Dennis Cozallio and That Little Round-Headed Boy are doing with their SLIFR-TLRHB OSCAR CLUB (and TLRHB's Oscar Dreams). And what Zach Campell and Matthew Clayfield are doing with their intercontinental exchange of letters about John Cassavetes.
So, I would very much like to hear what readers and contributors have to say. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the "blog-a-thon" format I used last weekend (or the blog format in general)? How could it be improved -- technologically or otherwise? What did you appreciate or not appreciate about the Contrarianism 'thon itself? How much of it did you read? Should I have taken issue with some of the postings in order to help stimulate discussion? Or is it better that I just shut up? And you could comment on the individual submissions too, you know...
Cineliciously yours,
jeeem
P.S. Ah, here's the comment from Girish that I'd been thinking about earlier today. It's at Cinephiliac, from about a year ago, under Code Well Known, or How to Build a Better Blog-a-Thon:
I don't like the idea of having a centralized system either.Blog-a-thon ideas should be spontaneous, growing organically (or dying organically, which will also happen), and can and should come from anywhere and anyone.
Some ideas will catch fire and attract many bloggers, others won't, and that's fine too.
Let a thousand blog-a-thons bloom, free and unfettered from constraints, approval procedures, and other Kremlin-ian (word?) bureaucracy.
And I love Aaron's passage that you excerpted. Those are the kinds of films I would love to write about (but not exclusively, not anything exclusively--any and every movie, however "high" or "low", should be game).
Spontaneity. Freedom. And Mutual Respect For Each Other's Choices.
This is my vision of a perfect blog-a-thon world!
I was thrilled and relieved that I hadn't thrown a party to which no one came.
Sorry, Jim, but I didn't come.
I read most of the entries and I almost responded with some comments a few times (in addition to which I went back-and-forth all weekend on whether or not to contribute a post of my own), but ultimately I decided not to.
In a way I guess I was being the "ultimate contrarian" by deliberately choosing not to participate in the blog-a-thon. Perhaps someday I'll go into my reasons. For now, I'm just pleased it was a success and was enjoyed by so many people. Congratulations.
Jim,
I know you are referencing in part Andy Horbal's post about blogs and blog-a-thons (regarding structure and the way we go about doing all of this). I respect Andy and his writing (why else would I subscribe to his blog?), but I read his post and my initial reaction was that I took issue with it.
It's all a little too self-conscious. When he said, "Additionally, I'm frustrated by the imitative quality of much blog writing: specifically, the way film blogs imitate journalistic film criticism which, as I said, frustrates me itself," it feels like he's saying, "Okay, pay attention and make sure you're doing something different, because we're trying to change cinema here," which in turn makes me genuinely think, "Geez, I'm sorry. I actually thought I was starting to get okay at this."
"We all have a finite amount of time to dedicate to blogging and to compose a post or participate in a 'thon by commenting requires sacrificing other blogging activities." Why not let things happen, as girish points out, organically? As others have mentioned, I certainly don't feel the need to participate in every blog-a-thon. I pick the ones that spark something and I know the others will have their own participation. Plus, Blog-a-thons provide content for your site too, y'know, so while participating in many would in a sense limit some of the topics you address, it does not change the fact that you are still putting your ideas about film out there.
The way Blog-a-thons came about seems natural to me, just as some people experiment with open letters to each other. It's just happening. Obviously some people are not afraid to try new things. And I think part of my point is that instead of hearing someone say, "You're doing this the wrong way," I'd rather hear them say, "Hey, check this out! Wouldn't that be interesting? Let's try this," or "Think of all the freedom you have. Think of everything you can do."
As for the blog format itself, again, I think we just need to stop being so self-conscious about it and let it become what it will become, because I really don't think we're pointed in the absolute wrong direction. I understand Andy's reservations about copying the "journalism" format too much, but maybe I just don't see it as much as he does. One thing that he does catch onto that I agree with is that, at least in some part, blogs should be more like letters. The way I see it is that a blog is supposed to be a public journal, and what's a journal but pretty much a letter to yourself? On my own site, I have a blog, but my "formal reviews" are on a separate blog elsewhere in the site. It may seem redundant, but I do see the logic in their separation.
The problem I find with some of these open letters is that the few times I've seen it done and publicized in the past, it feels incredibly masturbatory. It became one guy waxing another guy's car and everyone basking in how smart they all are in terms of film theory and a lot of other boring hogwash. Part of my problem (but not all of it) is that I'm just beginning in my "film edification" so I don't know a lick about Cassavettes or Bergman or Leigh or whoever is popular this year, and some of these discussions just come off as verbose snobbery, the kind that turned me off to the film community a long time ago. I know all of it won't seem that way when I know more of what they're (and I'm) talking about, but I do think some of it still will be. What's refreshing is the SLIFR-TLRHB Oscar discussion, because so many times in the online film community, we feel like we're "above" talking about certain movies or subjects like the Oscars. We feel like every conversation, to be considered legitimate, has to be about boring old films. The Oscar Club has proven, at least to me, that this semi-experimental form of open blog letters doesn't need to be restricted to those types of conversations to be legit.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm all for intelligent, stimulating discussions. I don't think "all old films are boring." Being quite young, sometimes I don't feel up to watching "heavy" films (they usually require a big meal beforehand), but when I do force myself to watch some of them, I do not regret it. I'm glad I do, and some of my favorite films are "old boring movies." To catch up on old films and then to see what we can get out of them, and to see how modern day filmmakers are influenced by the past -- I love it, and the online film community has gotten me really excited over the last few months. But then for someone to come out and say "I'm frustrated by the film blogosphere" seems a bit off. And then to point to conversation that, with all respect and self-ignorance acknowledged, feels like that film snobbery I used to hate, and then to say, "this is good film criticism," well, as you can tell, it sort of put me over the edge.
(I am only now realizing that maybe I should have posted this on Andy's blog, not Jim's)
I know that Andy said that he in no way wanted to discourage anyone in his or her blogging, and I truly believe he doesn't, but I can't help but feel that this is what's happening. Instead of thinking, "Wouldn't it be interesting if I did this on the blog," I'm thinking, "Goodness, I hope I'm not copying journalism too much. Am I copying it? Then what should I be doing? Goodness...."
What I liked about this Blog-a-thon is that it showed that there's room for discussion for anything. There were posts about "contemplative cinema" and there was one about Freddy Got Fingered. There were posts about "classics" and there were some about You've Got Mail and Epic Movie. I found them all to be legit; no one is above anything, and we shouldn't be. The only thing we should be above is a poorly thought out argument. If you can support your ideas, I want to hear them. And this acceptance includes me accepting what I carelessly and sometimes ignorantly refer to as "film snobbery."
Reading back over this, I do realize that I have exaggerated a lot. See what you've done, Jim? All this contrarian talk. Again, I respect these open letters. I respect Andy, I respect his writing, and more importantly I respect his opinions and his intentions. These are merely mine. But I think it's good to have these ideas around. How can we make all of this even better? I hope that his observation of blog-a-thons and blogs in general this year will not serve as negative discouragement, but more as a barometer for us to see where we are (which, I believe, is mostly his intention).
PS - And I was complaining about being verbose....
The obvious strength of a Blog-a-Thon is that it gives a lot of bloggers the chance to express their thoughts on a chosen subject more or less simultaneously. For the interested reader, it's an excellent way to compare different points of view on a topic, while bloggers are given a platform to develop their personal voice. The format is especially useful to tackle controversial matters (contrarianism, Brian De Palma) and to put a spotlight on subjects in need of attention (be it contemplative cinema or Robert Altman). At best, this collective burst of focused interest can lead to some kind of new critical consensus.
Time constraints are a disadvantage. And indeed, it's difficult to organize a centered discussion that does justice to all the different posts scattered throughout the blogosphere. The Blog-a-Thon is better at showcasing individual voices than it is in engaging true conversation. (Then again, that may be too much to ask.)
Harry Tuttle's dedicated Contemplative Cinema website showed us how those two problems could be solved, but what it sacificed was the pluriformity I enjoy so much about ordinary, browsable Blog-a-Thons.
Although I'm a firm believer in moderating discussions, I think you did well to not interfere this time around, Jim. After all, you asked for trouble!
Jim, I'd be interested in whether Girish still believes a zillion blog-a-thons should roam free, because my only concern is there are too many of them. I even begged off of yours because, for some reason, I just didn't have it in me to be lovesick and contrarian(ism) all in the same week. And with the Oscar stuff (thanks for the plug! Dennis thanks you, too, I'm sure), it's getting too busy to take part in the Kieslowski blog-a-thon. So, maybe it's OK to have as many as possible and just pick and choose. My guess is that the number of blog-a-thons will die down over the next year and Girish will dream up something new for us! Right, Girish?
Hey Jim,
This is a bit off topic, but I was wondering about what would happen if more people took the spirit of contrarianism to heart? What if the Oscar voters decided that they wanted to be contrarians, decided that the public felt that they were too predictable. What if they realize that all pundits and the movie-going audience have all but predicted their own opinions? So maybe Eddie Murphy wont win for best supporting actor, or Clint Eastwood beats Scorcese out again? Or they decide to play the intellectual indie card and Little Miss Sunshine wins Best Picture?
The all-encompassing power of the Blog!
I'd like to see that...
Jim: I'm still reviewing the contributions to your blogathon and regret being so time-pressured of late that I haven't been able to contribute either to yours or anyones in the last few weeks. Suddenly blogathons seem to be crawling out of the woodwork!
I respond warmly to this comment of yours: "I was especially pleased that some of the contributions were from people with new blogs, or who hadn't participated in blog-a-thons before." I think there's something very important there.
When I first contributed to the blogathons last year, I had just started writing about film online and was testing my feet in these social waters. I've always suffered from feeling odd man out or the last one chosen for the softball team. So the blogathons were a great "coming out" as you will among other film aficionados and I gained great comfort in interacting with others writing on line.
Since then luck has been good to me and my little blog has secured me both print and online gigs. I find that the blogathons served an added purpose in providing something of a self-imposed deadline, which has helped me cope with true deadlines as my so-called film writing career develops. That's why I like your comment, because I think blogathons are especially helpful for those starting out, who need to learn to write about subject matter that might not ordinarily be their first choice, and who need to do it in something of a loose deadline. I still hope to contribute to blogathons in the future (I'm working up my Billy Wilder piece even as we speak), but it's clear to me I'm going to need to be more discriminating about which I indulge as time, lately, has become such a valuable commodity. Notwithstanding, I still read voraciously and enjoy so much--as you have expressed--all the youngblood to the scene.
It is our socialized democratization that has made the blogathon community such a rich social experience. I want very much to do a blogathon on the theme of the fétiche acteur and one of my fave rave Kiyoshi Kurosawa, but, am still somehow very shy of throwing the party that no one will come to. Isn't that ridiculous. Congratulations on throwing yours and having it be such a resounding success.
To Pacheco: You make some interesting points, but I don't see Andy as discouraging so much as questioning. There are a lot of writers who would raise those same points in a more pugnacious style. Andy raises them as a conversation with himself, more than telling others what to do. All writers find the minds of other writers endlessly fascinating, so I love "watching" Andy work his way through his passion for movies. As far as another point you make, I agree completely that you must avoid trying to impress the "cool clique" of cinema bloggers. It's a trap, and it always has been. Just pursue your blogging on the paths it takes you. I'll never be an academic type film writer or have anywhere near the interest in emerging cinema that some other bloggers have. On some days (perhaps most days), I like to stick up a dumb YouTube video and make a snarky comment. Do what you want to do. And don't let anybody discourage you. This is supposed to be fun, not work (except for Jim, where it's work and fun. I hope.) I think we might lose track of that sometimes.
Hi there, everyone! Very interesting discussion here...!
To respond a bit...
In the past year, I think I took part in about 8 or 9 blog-a-thons, and hosted 4 of them. They were terrific experiences and I'm glad I went through them. I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel a bit 'exhausted' by them, but rewarding learning experiences can also be demanding and exhausting, and that's fine.
This coming year, I'll probably take a part in fewer blog-a-thons (and that's fine too) and I'll be hosting only one (still working on the idea, shall do an announcement post at some point).
I think I still feel the same way about the blog-a-thon as I did a year ago: I'm not sure we need to collectively regulate or determine in any way the number and frequency of blog-a-thons; let them bloom as profusely (or not) as the blogosphere permits/desires. I myself feel no pressure to take part in any more blog-a-thons because of it. (I think I did in the beginning, and then realized that obligation was taking away some of the fun of blogging, so I stopped feeling guilty about all the bog-a-thons I couldn't take part in...)
What I'm for is constant, churning film-thought in the blogosphere, and thought that occurs in a wide variety of personal-critical modes and styles. I'd always rather have more (and diverse) stuff out there to choose (and learn) from than less, even though I know I'll manage to read only a small portion of it all...
Briefly: dense reading... can't figure what side I'm on. I'm on YOUR side Jim!
Can't figure: critics who criticise critics criticising. Someone dissed you and American Bi-polarity (the reasoning, not affliction).
Continue the fight Jim! I am anti!
Maya: I'd love to take part in a Kiyoshi Kurosawa Blog-a-Thon! Or a fétiche acteur (though I had to look up that word) Blog-a-Thon. Or even the combination thereof: a Koji Yakusho Blog-a-Thon.
Jim, I really appreciate your thinking out loud on this topic. I've enjoyed your event. I haven't read everything yet (much less tried to mount a defense of Once Upon a Time in the West when my copy's lent out), but I've liked what I have read.
Your thoughts on how much a Blog-a-Thon should be left to run itself are particularly interesting. When I hosted a Friz Freleng Blog-a-Thon last summer I remember trying to leave comments on as many contributions as I could, partly in the hopes that it might stimulate more discussion. It didn't always happen that way, though. More often than not my comment ended up being the "last word". Perhaps in my eagerness to talk about Freleng, whose cartoons I'd been obsessing about on and off for years, I ended up scaring away conversation. More likely, people were just busy. At any rate, I thought it was a really successful day (and more; some of the conversations did last for quite a while afterward).
I'm excited about my Virgin Stripped Bare By her Bachelors Blog-a-Thon a month from now, in part because it promises to be so different from the last one I hosted. Unlike Freleng's films, I've only seen this film once in full so far (though it made a great impact on me at the time, it's been several years) and I'm as eager to learn my own reaction to a second viewing as I am to learn what others come up with.
Pacheco, thanks for the comments. I wish you had posted them on my site, only because I would have seen them before now!
I've been waiting to dive into this discussion, which is about something I've been pondering for some time, until I had time to devote my full attention to it. Briefly, though, I want to speak to some of your comments, Pacheco.
The way Blog-a-thons came about seems natural to me, just as some people experiment with open letters to each other. It's just happening. Obviously some people are not afraid to try new things. And I think part of my point is that instead of hearing someone say, "You're doing this the wrong way," I'd rather hear them say, "Hey, check this out! Wouldn't that be interesting? Let's try this," or "Think of all the freedom you have. Think of everything you can do."
I agree with you completely. I want to see what we call "blog-a-thons" continue to evolve. My fear is that people will identify specific ways in which this form is "successful" (it increases site traffic, David Hudson will link to you at GreenCine Daily, etc.) and slavishly repeat the form. Instead, though, I want to see people try things with the form. Experiment...
But then for someone to come out and say "I'm frustrated by the film blogosphere" seems a bit off. And then to point to conversation that, with all respect and self-ignorance acknowledged, feels like that film snobbery I used to hate, and then to say, "this is good film criticism," well, as you can tell, it sort of put me over the edge.
I am frustrated, though. One of the things I value the most about the blog form is the honesty it permits. I think that's a luxury that, to some extent, isn't always afforded professional critics. I'm not saying they're liars, but isn't it somewhat disingenuous to take a third-person authoritative tone about a director you don't know well? Doesn't that imply a degree of familiarity that hasn't been earned?
We can say whatever we want and, more importantly, whatever we believe. Cinema knows, Pacheco, that I don't think my opinion means more than anyone else's. I try to make it 100% clear at my site that I'm not an expert on film. There are thousands of "great" films I've never seen. There are hundreds of books I've never read. I'm learning. And I'm keeping a diary while I learn. I'm frustrated with the blogosphere and that's all I am: frustrated. I don't want to suggest that it's broken, only that I'm a bit fatigued by it!
So when I say "good film criticism," I mean only "film criticism that I want to read."
How can we make all of this even better? I hope that his observation of blog-a-thons and blogs in general this year will not serve as negative discouragement, but more as a barometer for us to see where we are (which, I believe, is mostly his intention).
That is absolutely my intention!
I thank you again, Pacheco, and I hope I've clarified my stance on these few questions. But I'm not suggesting that your criticisms are misplaced or ill-considered. On the contrary, I'm always surprised and dismayed by this community's unwillingness to engage each other critically. You speak here for all of the many people who were turned off by my post and I'm glad.
To criticize something is a sign of your respect for it: this thing is worth criticizing...
Jim,
Looks like you have a blog-a-thon going on right here about blog-a-thons of all things.
Here's my take. I'm new and I loved it. It makes me want to be a better writer. How's that for ripping off Jack Nicholson.
And I appreciated riding the coat-tails of your enormous readership so that I could spike my audience if only for a few days.
Thanks again.
And BTW,
I appreciate why you started Contrarianism in the first place. I recently read a post calling the Academy racist for not nominating Dreamgirls. To me that's an insincere post designed only to load up on comments for the day.