criterionforum.org

lacritfan wrote: Conversations: Ingmar Bergman and John Simon

So who do you think is the worse critic of these two?

;~}

(I'd award a tie to Simon and Bergman here. The latter may have been a genius as a director -- but he strikes me as one of the worst film critics ever. Simon routinely placed maintenance of his wise-ass persona over thoughtful reflection and commentary).

At least Bergman liked Fucking Åmål. Broken clock, etc

domino harvey wrote:At least Bergman liked Fucking Åmål. Broken clock, etc

A stopped clock is right two times a day.

;~}

Does anyone have a link to Simon's incomplete review for Stop Making Sense? I was looking around for it but can't track it down- to me, it's a pretty good encapsulation of what I don't like about him. He walked out of the movie, remarks that 'intellectual rock' is an oxymoron', and makes fun of Pauline Kael for bothering to take notes. The whole thing comes entirely out of what seems more like a cultural elitist's sense of deliberately cultivated contempt rather than any attempt to experience the movie on its own merits.

How did you get this:

tavernier wrote:In other words, if you are interested in other art forms, you can't be interested in films.....only film buffs need apply, I guess.

From this:

GringoTex wrote:That's my biggest problem with him: he was unable to approach film criticism from a cinematic perspective. Which is why he was incapable of writing intelligently about the image. He reviewed films the same way he reviewed plays. Actually, he and Kael were very similar in this regard, but Kael was ten times the writer and much more humorous.

?

I don't wanna put words in his mouth, but I think the complaint is that Simon is incapable of understanding filmic image a function of the inherent nature of cinema. If he had been able to do this in addition to brining his other interests to bear on a review, my guess is people might take him more seriously as a film reviewer.

As it stands, his review of "Stop Making Sense" says all one could hope to say about him as a reviewer. Committing ink to paper to review a film he didn't actually sit though is, at a minimum, a breach of integrity unless his review simply states "I cannot review this film because I did not see it in its entirety."