Frustrated with the constraints of watching films as a critic, the strange new world of publishing in HTML, and the diminishing returns of the movies themselves, critic Duncan Shepherd of the San Diego Reader, after 38 years, says "So Long":
Old Hollywood, it would not be mere nostalgia to recall, always strove to be inclusive. Not with every movie, but with the aggregate. These days I find myself asking after a movie -- a gestating new critical criterion now aborted before its public debut -- whether, if I were not a critic, I'd have gone to it, and whether, having gone, I was glad I went. The declining percentage of affirmative answers translates into a declining percentage of hope. [...]
Attractive alternatives are fewer and farther between. "Appaloosa," a thickly disguised reworking of the Earp-Holliday tale, was a chewable bone thrown to us Western bitter-enders two years ago, but we would have to dig back five more years for another such bone, "Open Range." A healthy movie industry ought to be hatching five of those every year, not one of those every five. It goes against my sense of the fitness of things. Could "Hickey and Boggs" or its equivalent come out today, a pair of marginal L.A. private eyes on a case that embodies E.M. Forster's slogan of "only connect," it would be by a mile the year's peak pleasure. An inconceivability. The long and short of it is that what seems nowadays to fire up other people (3‑D, CGI, comic books, video games, Brangelina, the weekend box-office) seems unable to fire up me. That was always true to some extent, given the disparity between a casual interest and a vocational one. But the extent has yawningly widened.
And yet, he sees new possibilities ahead, watching movies "without notepaper and pen in my lap," guided by free will and "personal preference instead of professional obligation." I went through this years ago, and though I am still thrilled I get to make choices like any other moviegoer, I do wish there were more mainstream movies that I actually wanted to see. I still feel the occasional obligation to buy a ticket at the multiplex for something I wouldn't choose to see if I weren't still writing about movies, but I haven't been on what my editors used to call "the review treadmill" for years.
When Pauline Kael retired in 1991, she joked that "the prospect of having to sit through another Oliver Stone movie was too much." Shepherd says he won't miss a few things he'll be leaving behind, either:
The timing is such that Harry Potter and the "Twilight" people will have to finish their respective courses without me. But that's one of the benefits. I won't be standing in line to find out how it all turns out. This is, for me, virgin territory. Up to now, and for a lot longer than thirty-eight years, my goal has been to go to as many movies as possible. First it was a habit, then a job, finally a slog. All of a sudden the goal requires adjustment. My romance with movies, if that's what it was, has cooled. Hasn't, heaven forbid, ended. And it will be interesting indeed to discover how often I am willing to fork over the price of a ticket, brave the cellphones and the iPods, endure the preludial advertisements, attempt to blend in with the crowds of kids, etc. We shall see. Correction: I shall see. Franchisewise, it is with somewhat greater regret that I'll miss out on writing about the forthcoming chapter in "The Chronicles of Narnia," but I'll not miss out on seeing it (in 2‑D if given a choice). There will always be, would always have been, something.
(tip: Matt Zoller Seitz)
61 Comments
I question his finding worth in "Appaloosa" of all things.
But he is right. I'm not excited to see anything at the theatre right now. Not the indies or the studio films.
Studios these days, even the small production companies, no longer know what it takes, and in most cases doesn't care what it takes to make a good movie, simply a flashy trailer. Notice how I didn't say 'good' trailer.
I work for a producer from a long line of film producers, who is also from a bygone time of filmmaking, and its tragic to see how he somply can't work with anyone out there right now.
I take that back. I'm looking forward to seeing 'Morning Glory' of all things. More out of a hope that McAdams will finally have a role that showcases her like 'Slings and Arrows' did and because I want Ford to be awesome again.
I was really excited when I saw, what's that, a new Russell Crowe movie not based on another movie? Oh...wait...but it's written and directed by ...Paul...Haggis...never mind...
He might also find time now to watch the hundreds of old movies that he (perhaps) hasn't yet seen.
I didn't last nearly as long in the full-time film critic role, but I have to ask: what does the number of Westerns released in a given year have to do with anything?
Respectfully to Mr. Shepherd, this sounds like yet another case of film critic fatigue a chronic and seemingly inevitable syndrome that befalls just about everyone in this business who reviews movies for decades upon decades. That doesn't diminish the legitimacy of his exhaustion at watching similar movies get made over and over again, or ones that he's uninterested in, or ones he's interested in that turn out poorly, but in what business does someone do the same thing every day, week and year and not get tired of doing the same thing? We often seem to act like we're entitled only to brilliant works of art and/or entertainment, forgetting that the subjectivity of individual reaction could brand that piece of crap you dubbed "unwatchable" a masterpiece, and vice versa. Not to mention the fact that in plenty of past decades there were proportionately the same amount of bad films to good, but our memories of those are dimmer. And although his point is valid that Hollywood should be making more great whatevers in a year than in five years, to reference Westerns feels painfully outdated, since in plenty of other genres (even disincluding fanboy-friendly ones) there have been multiple, terrific, artful films made each year.
Ultimately, I acknowledge that Mr. Shepherd is speaking only about what "fires him up," not what fires (or should fire) everyone else up, but it's important not to conflate the two, as many critics and industry pundits are often quick to do. Because no matter what a person does for a living, they're never going to enjoy every aspect of what that entails, even though as a byproduct of critiquing "entertainment" or art we do feel inclined to believe that we should be able to enjoy all of it. And most importantly - and Roger Ebert is a living embodiment of this - if you are going to continue to do that job with the same insight and relevance as when you started it, you have to grow and evolve along with it, and adjust (not to be confused with reduce) your expectations to suit what it IS, not what it was, or what you want it to be. Your analysis and interaction with texts becomes richer and more interesting, and your observations more incisive - and hopefully, your enjoyment that much stronger and more satisfying. And even without more throwback westerns to celebrate, you can still have a lot to look forward to and appreciate anyway.
True That.
Here's great films this critic obviously missed out on: The Dark Knight,Wall-E, The Hurt Locker, The Prestige,3-10 To Yuma, The Social Network, The Harry Potter Series, Casino Royale, Juno, No Country For Old Men (A great western, in a modern setting), There Will Be Blood, Memento, Spiderman 2, The Lord Of The Rings Series, The Matrix Reloaded, Shoot-em Up, Sideways, The Rocket, Lost In Translation, Signs, united 93, Farenheit 9/11, Bowling For Columbine, Crash, and finally, but not the last great film of the decade for there are many others, Amelie.
If you can appreciate the sunshine, you can make it through the night.
That's very well put, Todd. And, of course, fatigue/burnout is an occupational hazard in any occupation -- especially when you've been at it for 38 years. Shepherd has certainly earned the right to make his own decisions -- and nobody who hasn't been reviewing movies steadily since 1972 is in a position to begin to understand what he's experienced. What may seem like an abrupt jump to the subject of Westerns is my fault, because (as indicated) I took out the transitional paragraphs to get to a point I wanted him to make. But the Western is a seminal genre -- one of the foundation blocks of American cinema. Today it appears in other guises (as science-fiction or horror or urban action-adventure). But what if your favorite genre was romantic comedy and they just stopped making those? (Oh, wait, they have.) What I find most interesting about all this is to consider how very, very young movies are, and how they are still the same in many ways as they were in 1920, and utterly unlike what they were even in 1980.
This whole discussion got me thinking. I write reviews on classic and contemporary films for my university paper. Luckily, I work at a theater, thus allowing me free screenings. I watch at least five or more movies a week, and I can say with a degree of certainty that mainstream movies are--for the most part--absolutely awful.
How lovely it would be to get a couple of solid Westerns a year, rather than these rom-coms with interchangeable titles, actors and plots. Everything that comes out is so rote, routine and repetitive that it makes going to the movies an often dreary experience. I found some interesting words from John Simon's early criticism (Private Screenings: Views of the Cinema of the Sixties). I know he isn't the favorite critic of buffs and auteurists but his words ring true to me (I may be accused of being "too literary" [whatever that means] for often agreeing with things he has said, but so be it). Check it out:
though the history of film may be short, it
is also extremely wide: the output is
tremendous. What self-respecting literary
critic would try to keep up with every novel,
or even every slightly better novel, that
comes along, to say nothing of all the other
literary genres? That way madness lies....
The first and last responsibility of the
film critic, then, is--prepare yourselves for
a thundering truism--to raise the standard of
motion pictures. Unfortunately this is not
nearly so self-evident as it might be to one
segment of the population: the movie reviewers
[Simon argues emphatically that there is a
very large difference between a critic and a
reviewer]. To be sure, they will all tell you
they are in love with excellence; meanwhile,
however, they are perfectly happy in their
sordid concubinage with the second-rate. How
depressingly they will latch on to this scene
or that brief moment, gush over some very
funny bit performer or a few clever little
directorial touches. Now,I am myself
pathetically grateful for the slightest bit
of genuine quality or inventiveness, in
whichever corner of a movie I can track down,
but that does not mean that I am willing to
forgo my appetite for the best in the work as
a whole, or that I will bend over backward to
justify that whole by one or two tolerable
parts. It is not enough to love the good, it
is also necessary to hate the bad; indeed, I
submit that he who does not hate the bad
cannot truly love the good ... there is no
rodless way of bringing up the movie
industry, a big, fat, and extraordinarily
corrupt baby.... sometimes the question
arises... "Why do you insist on judging the
film according to some hypothetical notion
of what ought to be there, rather than on
what is actually there?" The answer to that
may be simple: "Because there is nothing
there." Yet, in some cases, that may be
putting it too strongly: Something may be
there, albeit scarcely worth serious
discussion. Of course, sometimes it is these
very somethings that give rise to the most
heated discussions and impassioned
partisanship--in which case, one may have
to take a stand. But whatever you do, never
abandon that image of perfection at the back
of your head, on which the film,
superimposed, must fit like identical
triangles; unless, that is, the film is
better than your image of perfection, in
which case drop the image. (Simon)
I know some will likely not agree, but I thought I'd put it out there for the sake of discussion. Personally, I think he's right on.
-Oliver
We come to the comments section to agree in general and then to disagree in high specificity with our hobbyhorse footnotes. So here goes mine.
Jim's right about Romantic (modifier) Comedies (the main thing it is). They almost don't make them anymore. Instead you get mostly Light Romance or Bromance with the occasional peripheral female. But as for laugh-out-loud stories of falling in and out of love, it's time for the reincarnation of Preston Sturges.
Pauline Kael, bless her, is wrong about Oliver Stone. Any number of random Stone pictures would compare favorably to the output of, say, Brian De Palma, the golden child who in her eyes could do no wrong but to my eyes so often has.
Duncan Shepherd -- at least as excerpted by Jim -- comes off as just plain strange citing as personal/critical touchstones old mediocrities like HICKEY & BOGGS or new ones like the nominal Westerns APPALOSSA and OPEN RANGE while ignoring pretty much the best work in the genre since Peckinpah died, Andrew Dominik's THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD.
And for his idea that no one makes humane quality films for the mass audience anymore, I suppose he wasn't forced to see films like TOY STORY 3?
I'm sure I'd feel differently if I were compelled to screen everything that came out for work, but I'm frankly tired of hearing how there's nothing good to see from anyone who's alive right now.
If you're breathing and have a DVD player and an Internet connection then your only excuse for being bored with the movies is that you yourself are boring. Anyone out there who thinks there's nothing to see either isn't looking hard enough or wouldn't know a real movie if it bit him on the nose.
I would add DEADWOOD and THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA to the list of great Westerns of recent years.
Ok. Fine, Jim. I'm addint 'Three Burials' to my netflix queue. Now stop badgering.
Still totally confused at the love for Assassination. I just watched "I Shot Jesse James" for the first and I don't see what TAOJJBTCRF does that that movie didn't do better, and in a lot less time (is TAOJJBTCRF considered an official remake of that movie?). Of course TAOJJBTCRF had great cinematography, but I'm indifferent to even the best cinematography if I feel like nothing is happening. I don't mean to tear into you or anything, but if you have the time, could you explain to me why TAOJJBTCRF was the best Western since Pekinpah died, better than "Unforgiven" or "The Proposition" or "Tombstone" or (I'm sure) a whole whack of other movies I'm forgetting?
Okay, now I've read Shepherd's full piece and it doesn't really make any more sense to me. One quote that jumps out:
"I’m highly dubious about any re‑do of TRUE GRIT."
Huh? Did we see the same original film? Has he even bothered to read the book, which is pretty much an American masterpiece? (Just ask Donna Tartt, for instance.) I can't imagine how the Coen Brothers won't make a more interesting film out of it than the flabby John Wayne star vehicle. And I'm not even that big a fan of the Brothers C.
I suppose if the old TRUE GRIT is Shepherd's idea of a good movie, or even a worthwhile Western, then I can see why he's disenchanted. If that's the romanticized ideal, then I, for one, am glad they don't make them like they used to.
People forget that Hathaway's True Grit retains most of the dialogue and events of the book. It's actually more faithful to the book than most adaptations tend to be, on par with the Coens' No Country for Old Men. People always complain that Kim Darby was too old but I don't think a 19-year-old woman had much more say than a 14-year-old girl back then, so I don't see what the big deal is (I liked her, sue me). Overrall a good movie, not flabby unless the book was flabby.
Actually, between "Appaloosa" and "Open Range", Deadwood aired -- which for my money stands with some of the best Westerns ever produced. Maybe Shepherd should stay home and watch TV, where (arguably) the cinematic form continues to evolve, and -- depending on the program -- is as daring and engaging as it has ever been?
Not trying to be snarky, but ... what? It seems to me like romantic comedies are far and away the leading genre of movies released in the past several years.
That was intended as a little joke about the endless "think pieces" critics have been producing over the last 20 years on the subject: "Why can't Hollywood make decent romantic comedies any more?" I'm as tired of reading those stories as I am fatigued by the lameness of most of the attempts at romantic comedy.
I could see how you would feel that way if watching as many wide-release movies as possible were your job. And I heartily second him on the need for more westerns (though I'd throw in the 3:10 to Yuma remake as an acceptable example of the form from recent years).
I've said before that the frequently made claims about the decline of cinema baffle me slightly. Yes, it may be true that the cinema-going experience, with the interminable per-movie advertisements and trailers, has become tiresome. But the films themselves? I wonder.
There's a list I encountered somewhere...oh, here it is:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2thumbs.html
Of recent movies that a famous critic gave outstanding reviews to. There's about eighty movies on that list alone. That's enough to keep an average movie goer, including a retired critic, busy for a long time, and when that person is done, there will be another such list. Plus, there are five seasons of Mad Men to keep you busy for sixty or seventy hours if you haven't seen them. The Twilight movies only have to bother you if you're required to go see them.
Actually, Mad Men won't keep you busy for anywhere near 60-70 hours. Its total screentime up until now clocks in at just over forty hours.
Nonetheless, it does provide at least 18 to 20 films worth of extremely high quality drama (though one can only watch the first 3 seasons on dvd at the moment.) It remains a prime example of how the top tier of TV is probably as good now as it's ever been (if not better.)
I can't help but hear a grumpy old man in Shepherd's words. A lot of it boils down to "things were soooo much better in the good old days". And yet, there were vast numbers of terrible films made in the good old days; we just choose to forget them. Most of them aren't even revived on home video.
It seems to me that his real beef is not that bad films are being made, but that so many people like them. The disconnect between his personal tastes and the mass-market tastes (an inevitable side-effect of the teen demographic's dominance at the box office) has perhaps left him feeling a bit alienated, and frustrated. It is as if he is saying "I can't stand all of you people ignoring what I'm saying about movies any more".
Exactly. The truth is that there were just as many bad films/books/music released or produced in the good old days as there are now. People just remember the classics.
There are so many films released that even if one has a problem with many or most of them, there is bound to be a jewell there somewhere.
Yeah, I haven't been too inspired in the last 6-9 months, but 2009 was pretty great. If you can't retain an excitement for cinema in a year with A Serious Man, Inglourious Basterds, Still Walking, Fantastic Mr. Fox, A Prophet, Hunger, Observe and Report, 35 Rhums, Goodbye Solo, The White Ribbon, The Headless Woman, Ponyo, The Informant, Bad Lieutenant Port of Call: New Orleans, Up, The Hurt Locker, Star Trek, Summer Hours, and a LOT more that I'm leaving out, well.....the problem might be burnout and not what's actually going on in theaters.
And yes, I know that seeing every Twilight and Shrek film and all those miserable rom-coms with interchangable titles takes its toll, but still.
Maybe a problem is movies have lost their mystery through endless commercials making everything appear the same and exclamations by the characters during those commercials in almost the same voice.
How would marketers make a trailer for Night of the Hunter today? Would they find a way to mitigate its beauty?
This is probably the first time someone has mentioned Hickey and Boggs in print since the 70s. It's a film that has been totally forgotten and will probably never be released on DVD, despite the novelty of seeing Bill Cosby in a straight role as a hard-bitten P.I. (He's quite good in the role.) It's also notable as the first produced screenplay by Walter Hill.
Are literary critics asked to review every book that comes out in a given week? Are music critics forced to digest every album in every genre that might come out?
Occupational burnout is, as you say, Jim, a possibility in any game. But newspaper and magazine outlets don't help the film criticism game by asking their critics to attempt to digest and appraise nearly everything that ambles into the cineplex. Of course, the difference between reviewing and film criticism has been discussed here often, but it still the system that Shepherd has fallen to makes little sense to me.
If you want an arts section that treats movies like a real art form (rather than a bastard step-child), give your critics some latitude in choosing what they write on. And if you still want a little piece on "Due Date", hire someone from the AP or another outlet...or I bet you could find a blogger who would be willing to do it for free or a miserly sum.
A side note on Westerns: though there have been a few very good or great Westerns in the past 20 years (does "No Country for Old Men" count?), we have to remember that the Western is basically a period piece now. For most people, the very existence of a modern Western film comes off as anachronistic.
I think Nathan makes a good point. The vast majority of films that come out every week have no content worth writing about for the serious film critic. They are junk, the people making them know they're junk, and they're going to find a certain audience no matter what the reviews say. So why are they even reviewed? Does a food critic offer a review when a new McDonald's restaurant opens in town? I have a number of full-time reviewer friends who have to see every release - good and bad - and I don't know if I could cope with watching worthless films against my will and then having to write about them. I think I'd very quickly suffer from burnout and lose my enthusiasm for writing about films when subjected to the same rubbish every week.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some critics (literature, food, theatre, art etc.), have the luxury of operating in fields where it is accepted that only "important" pieces of work will be reviewed.
It is worth noting however that most of these critics write for highly specialized readerships often in specialized publications. Additionally, it's also worth noting that such critics do have analogs in film criticism, but that such critics are also writing for the most part in specialized publications targeting readers with knowledge and and interest in film beyond the scope of the average member of the public.
In terms of the workaday newspaper film critic, it's probably more pat to compare them to a music or book critic for something like Time or Rolling Stone, whose job it is to write reviews of "popular" works, regardless of merit.
Shepherd's piece is kind of familiar at this point (didn't Jonathan Rosenbaum basically do the same thing a couple years back?), but I wish him well anyway with his future excursions in movie-watching and criticism. What actually struck me most was --- oddly enough --- that he singled out "Appaloosa" and "Open Range" as the only two great westerns of recent years. 2007 produced two far better ones, "The Assassination of Jesse James..." and "3:10 to Yuma," and you already mentioned TV's "Deadwood."
I would agree with what others here have said regarding the supposed "decline of film quality" in recent years.
In my view, the problem is a combination of the facts that people have a bias against considering any modern film truly great, while at the same time cherry picking the best of the best from past eras. I'm relatively young, but have always had an interest in older classic films and as a result have seen more "old" films than almost anyone else I know even close to my age. On balance are they better than most new films I see? Yes. However, this is less a comment on the overall quality of older films as it is reflective of the reality that the older films that are well known enough for me to have heard of them (or get a viewing recommendation etc.) are generally good films.
In addition, my personal favorite two films were made 1n 1997 and 2003 respectively. This probably has a lot to do with my age, but I would still hold both of them up as at the very least "very good" films by any standard.
That said, I am very forgiving when it comes to film, and will watch almost anything, so maybe I'm not the best person to comment...
I truly do hate to be the one who breaks it, but the "plight" of film critics simply is not that interesting to the public. You are complaining about watching movies and what, should we feel pity for you? It is a luxury crisis, and quite frankly if your writing to the public you should spend your space on something more interesting and enriching to the public, like the actual discussion of movies, not the sorry state of critics viewing of them. The public only sees a small fraction of the movies produced each year and would love to see more movies (especially this intellectual audience that reads your blog), while critics get to see all. And as pointed out by an earlier commenter, everyone's got problem's with their job, but you, Mr. Emerson, have a podium and are a supposed to talk about movies, not complain about your job. Stop abusing your authority.
And yet I understand critics' complaint, critics wish to only see the good movies so as to spend more of their time discussing them, a benefit for the public. And this piece reflects "the sorry state of the movie industry"
And yet still, moaning for only seeing good movies does nothing, and "the state of movies" for the longest time has been to make returns, not the next great westerns, that's nothing new. Pieces like this don't change the system and the don't add to the readers knowledge. We all know about "the treadmill". We agree about it in the comments. You're just saying the same old thing here . When one publishes something like this they take space away from the discussion on the current good movies simply to make one look (especially you, Mr. Emerson, who has the power to decide what to put up and what not to on your blog, unlike a newspaper) like a grumpy old man.
So if one wants to talk about good movies just do so, don't opine on how "the system" sucks because its not interesting reading material for the public.
1) This guy isn't being fired. He's quitting.
2) Number of Scanners posts in the category "Critics & Criticism": 388
Well, I got thoroughly trounced.
The thing about the westerns, folks keeps mentioning Dominik's Assassination of etc but I don't know that it was a Western proper in the sense he's talking about (especially given the references).
Just because a movie is set in the Old West doesn't necessarily make it a capital 'W' Western for someone who self-describes as a "dead-ender" (see The Harvey Girls). 3:10 to Yuma should've been in his wheelhouse, though. And, perhaps, John Hillcoat's The Proposition.
I think the reason they don't make many Westerns today is simply because few know how. When Henry Hathaway made the original True Grit he had been making westerns regularly for 35 years. How many directors today have made 1? And it's not just the directors, back then you had plenty of actors who could ride horses, writers who could write the dialogue, the studios had Western sets already built on the lot, costumes at the ready, etc. Nowadays you're starting from scratch if you try a Western (or doing a meta-Western).
Not to mention modern cinema's reliance on Bordwell's 'intensified continuity' would completely miss what made the Old Hollywood Westerns worth watching.
In a way, the TV procedural (CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, Castle, Fringe, Blue Bloods, etc) is to us what the western was to generations past.
I would agree that not every film set in "the west" is a Western. That's why it's interesting to me that he singled out Appaloosa, as structurally it is very much an "old school" western.
I guess, like the movie says "Poetry don't work on whores."
TOMBSTONE and UNFORGIVEN are jokes. If you want Eastwood's best Western try the highly underrated OUTLAW JOSEY WALES instead.
The Outlaw Josey Wales is a masterpiece, but so is Unforgiven, and to a lesser extent Tonbstone. I don't see how you can call them jokes?
Set your DVRs to scan. HICKEY & BOGGS has played or is playing on some of the cable HD channels. I believe I caught it on MGM-HD. Anyway, it's weird that the post right before you mentions NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, a far more impressive one-film-wonder from another actor turned director. That was my main problem with Duncan Shepherd's entire lamentation. All his examples were more HICKEY than NIGHT. Seems like he was more nostalgic for his own viewing history than actually burnt out for real reasons, like a giant drop in the quality of contemporary cinema.
Can't wait for the Criterion release. It is truly a film out of time. While films like Singin' in the Rain literally witewash who was part of early Hollywood, Night of the Hunter provides a brilliant criticism of evangelicals who use Christianity for self-aggrandization.
UNFORGIVEN is Oscar-bait, White Elephant art. And it's mostly the script, but the script drives the whole thing. Eastwood's direction is fine as it usually is, but I tried watching it again last year and was hopelessly bored by the whole didactic story. Peckinpah covered all this de-mythologizing much more interestingly in his run of great Westerns. TOMBSTONE, I've only made it through once. And the 3:10 TO YUMA remake that everyone else keeps lauding, all I can say is that the director can't even get his leads' hats right. How can you make a Western if you can't even pick proper hats? I love the Western deeply, but for me, with a few notable old and newer exceptions, it's mainly about the work of John Ford, Anthony Mann, Budd Boetticher, Sergio Leone and Sam Peckinpah.
In the case of the 3:10 to Yuma remake, I don't think it's so much a case of "lauding", as it is one of saying "doesn't suck." Perhaps that's a sign of just how badly the Western has fallen as a genre, that even a decent film is now good enough to be lauded as a superior example.
The least you could do is describe your judgements as personal opinions rather than universal truths. I've watched Unforgiven maybe a dozen times, and I find it compelling every single time.
As for 3:10 to Yuma, it seems as if you're looking for an excuse to attack a movie when you harp on hats.
I can't wrap my head around what "White Elephant art" is supposed to mean. Can anybody elaborate?
I wouldn't call Unforgiven White Elephant art, by what I understand the term means. It absolutely burrows deep into the themes of violence, hero-worship, masculinity and good versus evil.
As for Oscar bait, I think it's a very overused term. I don't think you will find any filmmaker who chooses particular projects to win Oscars. Plus given that certain films do tend to win Oscars, one could argue that Schindler's List was oscar-bait. Afterall, it was a Holocaust film about a 'good' German directed by Steven Spielberg, which ended with hope and optimism. Yet it is regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, so very few people would call it oscar-bait. I wouldn't BTW. Unforgiven is a dark and violent film which doesn't end with much hope (not to mention that Morgan Freeman was murdered!) so I don't see how you can describe it as oscar-bait, even if you don't much like it. Which is actually the point. People only refer to films they dislike as oscar-bait.
Anyway, I would definitely put Eastwood in with the people you mentioned.
UNFORGIVEN desperately wants to be about all those big themes that are better realized in Ford's LIBERTY VALANCE, various Peckinpah films and Dominik's JESSE JAMES. The script tells you repeatedly how very much it's about all those themes. But the whole effect of the movie never comes close to earning it for me. I have copies of JOSEY WALES and HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER. I'd even rather watch PALE RIDER again than UNFORGIVEN. Eastwood's a very good director and he's made some good films and one great Western.
But the big Western directors for me are the ones who've made three or more truly great films in the genre.
To the people who think Westerns aren't about hats, I don't know what to tell you. The right hat can make or break a Western hero and the perfect hat can turn a hero into an icon. Who can imagine Eastwood's Man With No Name or Warren Beatty's McCabe in any other hat? Hats matter utterly. So much so that Jimmy Stewart wore the same one in run of excellent Westerns, often scuffling with directors who wanted him to switch it out. And the films say he was right! So I'm not merely nitpicking about some minor unimportant detail. The bad hats in YUMA are emblematic of the director's failure to grasp the essence of what he's doing in the genre.
I don't even think you have to argue about SCHINDLER'S LIST. Definitely Oscar bait and it worked. Not regarded as one of the greatest films of all time in my circle or even close to the greatest Spielberg. Do people only refer to films they dislike as Oscar bait? Obviously, because it's an insult to the film, but one that's used--at least in my case--when it feels like the film itself is an insult to the audience.
All this UNFORGIVEN stuff reminds me a bit of the reputation of a film like EASY RIDER. I could never understand why anyone thought that was such a great film. It seemed so on-the-nose to me the couple of times I've seen it. And then I finally caught TWO LANE BLACKTOP and understood. Here was the poetic film about the road and the counterculture and the illusion of freedom at the end of the 60s that everyone wanted EASY RIDER to be. Sometimes we want to see something in a film so badly we'll see it whether it's legitimately there or not.
But what's so good about The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford? Other than the cinematography, which is pretty, and Affleck, who is suitably creepy? And if Unforgiven only does, to a lesser extent, what Liberty Valance does (I'd have to see both movies again to know if I agree), then what does Assassination do better than I Shot Jesse James, and why does it need so much time to do it? I felt like Elaine watching "The English Patient" watching that movie.
I know what it has to say about celebrity, so please don't use that. What a movie is saying has nothing to do with how good or bad it is, which is why I disagree with your brief criticism of Unforgiven. Maybe its statement was weak, I dunno, I wasn't thinking about it, I was struck (or, gut-punched) by Munny's arch and the brutality of the violence.
So I posted and then sat down to watch William Wyler's Western THE BIG COUNTRY which has been sitting on my DVR for months now. The entire action of the first ten minutes of this film revolves around Gregory Peck's fancy city hat and the country roughs who pick a fight with him because of it. Godard said famously that tracking shots were a matter of morality. In Westerns so are the hats.
"UNFORGIVEN desperately wants to be about all those big themes that are better realized in Ford's LIBERTY VALANCE, various Peckinpah films and Dominik's JESSE JAMES. The script tells you repeatedly how very much it's about all those themes. But the whole effect of the movie never comes close to earning it for me. I have copies of JOSEY WALES and HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER. I'd even rather watch PALE RIDER again than UNFORGIVEN. Eastwood's a very good director and he's made some good films and one great Western."
I don't agree. It may desperately want to be about these themes (that's neither here nor there since it ultimately comes down to how good the film is), but I think it is incredibly effective. Rather than list numerous examples, I'll just list one; the conversation between Little Bill and the biographer. Little Bill's dissection of the story and his talk about how speed is overrated was IMO more effective than many of the films you list. There are numerous other examples, such as the killings of the cowboys.
Anyway, I also adore Westerns, but I would absolutely put Eastwood in with the greatest directors (not just of Westerns).
"But the big Western directors for me are the ones who've made three or more truly great films in the genre."
Which is why I consider Eastwood to be a big Western director. I definitely think he has made three truly great Westerns; The Outlaw Josey Wales, High Plains Drifter & Unforgiven. Not to mention Pale Rider which IMO is very good.
"I don't even think you have to argue about SCHINDLER'S LIST. Definitely Oscar bait and it worked. Not regarded as one of the greatest films of all time in my circle or even close to the greatest Spielberg. Do people only refer to films they dislike as Oscar bait? Obviously, because it's an insult to the film, but one that's used--at least in my case--when it feels like the film itself is an insult to the audience."
Well, the thing about SL is that I do think it's one of the greatest films ever made. On that basis I wouldn't describe it as oscar-bait because people do use that term negatively (you do as well when you say the film is an insult to the audience.) However there is no doubt that the Acadamy loves its Holocaust films. It's like when Kate Winslet was on Extras and she joked that in order to win an Oscar, she would have to make a Holocaust film. Well, what do you know, she won for The Reader; which is not to suggest BTW that she made The Reader because she wanted to win an oscar. But certainly, Holocaust films do tend to win Oscars.
Unforgiven was different, as it became just the third Western to win Best Picture, and Eastwood previously wasn't as respected in the US as he was in France, for example. In fact, Dirty Harry, as an example, doesn't appear to me to be as respected in the US as outside of it. Putting aside my feelings about Unforgiven (I think it's an absolute masterpiece and one of the greatest films ever made), that fact that it's a violent Western which doesn't end with hope and in which Morgan Freeman dies, well, that doesn't strike me as oscar-bait. If you contrast it with Dances With Wolves, the previous Western to win Best Picture, Unforgiven is a dark and pessimistic film.
Alright, Aussie Dan, it's time to agree to disagree and smoke a peace pipe. How about this: Since I never have too many movies to see, since my Netflix cue is ebbing below 500, how about a list of your favorite Westerns? (I promise in advance to not say a single thing about any I'm less than fond of)
Here's mine first--
Ford: Wagonmaster, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, My Darling Clementine
Mann: Man of the West, Winchester '73, The Man From Laramie, The Naked Spur
Boetticher: Seven Men From Now, Ride Lonesome, Commanche Station
Leone: A Fistful of Dollars, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Once Upon A Time in the West
Peckinpah: Major Dundee, Ride The High Country, The Wild Bunch, Pat Garret and Billy the Kid, The Ballad of Cable Hogue
Hawks: Rio Bravo, Red River
Eastwood: High Plains Drifter, The Outlaw Josey Wales
Sturges: Last Train From Gun Hill, Hour of the Gun, The Magnificent Seven
the rest:
The Gunfighter, Yellow Sky, Vera Cruz, Hombre, Little Big Man, The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, The Hired Hand, The Shooting, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
Jim, thanks again for creating a space where we can all talk about the movies that matter to us and grope towards why.
If there's one thing you can say about the movies it's that the actors never stop being good. James Franco, Mark Wahlberg, Tilda Swinton, grey-haired Bill Murray, Ellen Page, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Michael Cera, none of these people made movies thirty years ago. Every year a few actors win the lottery and get a great role, and it makes it worth it to go to the movies. And there's progress being made, "minorities" are more present (but less present) in movies, gay characters are starting not to look so much like Gay Characters...it'll get better. I don't know what the ratio of good to bad cinema is now and what it was then, but I know that I've never seen a movie like "Inglourious Basterds," and I know that if they stopped making westerns there'd still be enough of them for Shepherd to watch end-to-end from now until the day he dies.
I'll miss Duncan Shepherd. I've always loved how independent he is; he never jumped on a critical bandwagon, and fiercely championed overlooked films. And as far as I'm concerned he was the expert on Westerns. He completely got that genre.
He did seem to dislike almost everything he reviewed, though. In 2005 I decided to test that impression, and ran the numbers on all his reviews to that time. His ranking system went from five stars to the dread black spot. Counting 2, 1, and black spot reviews as thumbs down, it turns out he disliked 84% of the movies he reviewed in that time period. Out of 5,857 movies, he gave five stars to 82 films, and the black spot to 1,781. How can anyone have stood that for so long? By comparison, Roger Ebert disliked 32% of the movies he reviewed.
Bob K writes:
If you can't retain an excitement for cinema in a year with A Serious Man, Inglourious Basterds, Still Walking, Fantastic Mr. Fox, A Prophet, Hunger, Observe and Report, 35 Rhums, Goodbye Solo, The White Ribbon, The Headless Woman, Ponyo, The Informant, Bad Lieutenant Port of Call: New Orleans, Up, The Hurt Locker, Star Trek, Summer Hours, and a LOT more that I'm leaving out, well.....the problem might be burnout and not what's actually going on in theaters.
Bob, I would argue that anyone retaining an excitement for cinema with some of the excruciatingly awful films on your list is in all likelihood a young-ish trendy whose tastes are skewed by a nascent hipsterism. Many of the titles you cite would, in the 1970s, have been considered drive-in fodder. And of the so-called art films you mention, "Summer Hours," which I'm pleased to say I walked out on after the first 75 minutes, has value only as a litmus test in a game of "spot the phony." This insufferable film begins with a group of children on a treasure hunt, then the rest of the running time is given over to vapid adults carelessly tossing away their treasures -- and that's it. The desiccated little movie gimps along on this single, offensive irony.
Speaking of offensive, Michael Wong's comment re Duncan Shepherd being "a grumpy old man": well, as you may eventually learn in life, that's the price one pays for having some authority and integrity.
There was another commenter who objected to or was flummoxed by Shepherd's praise for "Hickey and Boggs." Ah, that's what a real critic is: an individual with idiosyncratic taste. Often confounding. I rarely agreed with Shepherd, yet relished some of his deflations of the crap that we're all supposed to love.
Finally, Oliver, thank you for the excellent quote from Simon's "Private Screenings," one of the most invigorating volumes of movie criticism ever to be published. Did you notice that Jeem's minions did not follow up with you on it? There's one line in the long quote that remains especially pertinent today: "It is not enough to love the good, it is also necessary to hate the bad; indeed, I submit that he who does not hate the bad cannot truly love the good."
And there you have it -- a summation utterly lost on our parade of fanboys vogueing as critics.
"...anyone retaining an excitement for cinema with some of the excruciatingly awful films on your list is in all likelihood a young-ish trendy whose tastes are skewed by a nascent hipsterism"
"There was another commenter who objected to or was flummoxed by Shepherd's praise for 'Hickey and Boggs.' Ah, that's what a real critic is: an individual with idiosyncratic taste."
Hmm...not totally contradictory, but still pretty contradictory. Unless I'm supposed to look at you like you clearly look at yourself: as The Authority. Because no one but The Authority could get away with making a snap judgment about a commenter's age, taste or "hipsterism" (by the way, Bob K. never called any of those films "art-films").
I thought 2009 was a pretty exciting year for film. Beyond what was already mentioned there was "Gamer," "Invictus," "Police, Adjective;" and "Public Enemies." You might think some of those films reek of 'nascent hipsterism,' (would love to hear your criteria on that), if they do, sorry! I'm only 21. I haven't had enough time for my "authority" or "integrity" to transform me into a grumpy old man. And I must be a fanboy, too, because your "summation" is utterly lost on me.
"Speaking of offensive, Michael Wong's comment re Duncan Shepherd being "a grumpy old man": well, as you may eventually learn in life, that's the price one pays for having some authority and integrity."
Ultimately, no matter how much experience or knowledge one may may have, everyone need to understand that there is still much about cinema they don't know and have yet to learn, and that their opinions are just that.
Not once in your post did I get the impression that you understand that.
Gee, I always thought a real critic is someone who engages with a particular work in an incisive and thoughtful manner, and often illuminates aspects of the work that enhance or challenge the perspective of the reader. I also thought a critic is someone adept at communicating the experience of viewing/listening/reading/etc. in an eloquent and intelligent way. I had no idea that idiosyncratic taste was a factor, in fact I never realized that the idiosyncrasy of someone's taste had any bearing on their critical thinking skills! Boy, I guess I'm wrong...
Of all the films N.P. Thompson could single out as suspect from last year SUMMER HOURS is a curious one. Even curioser is how he proceeds to admit that he walked out halfway through and yet still asserts that he knows exactly what happened in the film and what it all meant in the end. Had he a little more patience, he may have been open to the film's extraordinary Ozu-like meditation on the passage of time, the gap between generations and the fleeting nature of things.
And it's not the HICKEY AND BOGGS is undeserving of all praise. Duncan Shepherd singled it out mostly because it was the first film he reviewed for the reader and it was not that bad at all. The fact that he'll miss reviewing acceptable, well-crafted, not-that-bad and still somewhat forgettable detective films just strikes me as odd. Same with his recollection of the old TRUE GRIT.
Wouldn't you rather see masterpieces or even interesting failures? Hasn't most of that HICKEY AND BOGGS level talent and energy fled to TV anyhow?
So what are the films we should like from 2009 then NP?
I think "Summer Hours" has a magnificent ending, quiet and melancholy and ebullient, worthy of Renoir. It's fully organic, but it sneaks up on you.
You said it. Here's a film I feel like recommending to everyone. One that's as formally interesting as it is affecting. The way that Assayas gets to those quiet melancholy meditative places with counterintuitive means-- his customary moving camera, relatively quick cutting and almost wall-to-wall dialogue.
I also loved Summer Hours. I thought it was a beautiful examination of loss and memories.
Here are some of my favourites: (perhaps unsuprisingly, many of them appear on your list as well)
A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Once Upon A Time in the West, The Wild Bunch, The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, High Plains Drifter, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Unforgiven, The Searchers, High Noon, Pale Rider, Tombstone, The Quick and the Dead, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Rio Bravo, The Magnificent Seven; and among neo-Westerns, El Mariachi, Desperado, No Country For Old Men and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.
BTW, I rewatched Unforgiven last night. I adored it just as much as I had previously (I even picked up a few details such as when Little Bill, in response to being told Munny was an 'innocent man' said 'innocent of what?'), however I realised why some might not love it. The meanings are really communicated through the characters, in particularly their dialogue. While I think it's perfectly natural, my suspicion is that other might regard it as artificial. That's my guess. Anyway I think it's an absolute masterpiece.
Leave a comment