criterionforum.org

A lot to respond to diamonds, but my point about great movies is simply that I think there’s a notion in the general public consciousness about what a great movie is and it doesn’t always necessarily align with what cinephiles typically think of as Great Cinema in an artistic sense if that makes sense. See Brody’s article on The Godfather and John Cassavetes for an example of what I mean.

The Godfather is the archetypal example of the sort of film that’ll make people go “Great F**king Movie Man”, and sure, it’s arguably great cinema too, but it’s not necessarily the go-to example of artistically great cinema the way things like Ordet and Vertigo are for someone steeped in the Cahiers/Sarris school.

Of course, I’m not saying films can’t be both Great Cinema and Great Movies the way the general public tends to define “Great Movies”. Either way, surely you see my point here.

P.S. I actually did have that Kent Jones article in mind when I wrote that bit.

rrenault wrote: Sun Dec 21, 2025 6:24 pm The Godfather is the archetypal example of the sort of film that’ll make people go “Great F**king Movie Man”, and sure, it’s arguably great cinema too, but it’s not necessarily the go-to example of artistically great cinema the way things like Ordet and Vertigo are for someone steeped in the Cahiers/Sarris school.

While I agree with what you said before this paragraph... I don't agree with this one. The Godfather reached #12 on the BFI Critics list (only 11 spots below the glorious Jeannie D! which of course is every cinephile's favorite movie) and reached #3 on the director's list (one spot above Jeannie... unimaginable but true!)... thus a critical and filmmaker favorite. Although maybe not specifically Sarris/CdC...

Regarding Dave Kehr, I just remember this one time he dismissed La Dolce Vita as Cecile B. Demille-esque spectacle (I’m paraphrasing a bit), and, while being a bonkers opinion, it also just sort of came off, to me at least, as indicative of an overly precious investment in a certain conception of “pure cinema”.

I guess my frustration is for all of Kehr’s general astuteness as a critic, the way he pans La Dolce Vita so blithely(because it violates his ideal of what cinema with a capital C *is*) can make it hard to take him seriously. At least Rosenbaum tries to approach films on their own terms as much as possible.

I guess I just get the impression a lot of auteurists are strictly interested in film-qua-film, and unless you’re dealing with avant-garde cinema like Deren, Brakhage et al or perhaps some very early silent cinema, such a critical approach will inevitably gloss over the realities of narrative feature film production, even when it comes to narrative feature films auteurists do love.

‘Pure cinema’ is a lost cause. What makes film such a wonderful medium is how gloriously impure it is, taking from theatre, vaudeville, music, painting, photography, and adding a few elements besides. I get in trying to make a case for cinema as a major (instead of merely a popular) art, film critics of the day pushed a conception of film as separate from other arts, pure in itself. But that should’ve remained a convenient fiction instead of a critical principle, where it led to some unfortunate attitudes like, for example, Jonathan Rosenbaum treating Bergman’s stage influence as a kind of impurity that kept him outside the borders of real cinema. Total nonsense from a man who ought to know film is the least pure of arts.

I think the French idea of the nine arts eating into each other beautifully is probably the best way of looking at it. It’s a pure Art conception that can be expressed in 9 different ways.

Mr Sausage wrote: Sun Dec 21, 2025 7:19 pm ‘Pure cinema’ is a lost cause. What makes film such a wonderful medium is how gloriously impure it is, taking from theatre, vaudeville, music, painting, photography, and adding a few elements besides. I get in trying to make a case for cinema as a major (instead of merely a popular) art, film critics of the day pushed a conception of film as separate from other arts, pure in itself. But that should’ve remained a convenient fiction instead of a critical principle, where it led to some unfortunate attitudes like, for example, Jonathan Rosenbaum treating Bergman’s stage influence as a kind of impurity that kept him outside the borders of real cinema. Total nonsense from a man who ought to know film is the least pure of arts.

Well said. And wasn't it spoken by a few theorists back in the 30's that cinema wasn't PURE anymore because of the invention/application of SOUND?

Rudolf Arnheim definitely said that, not sure about others.

As knives alluded to... cinema is a prismatic white not a void-less black. Or a least a muddy brown when kindergarders mush all the crayola colors together.

Finally, an answer for why the Young Turks turned so quickly on Vadim:



(I regret to inform you that Vadim’s movie is actually pretty good too)

Godard with additional Vadim ire circa 1964

The author of that article subsequently published an open-access two-volume work called The Red Years of Cahiers du cinéma (volume I / II), for those who want something even more in-depth.

Fantastic, thank you!

And on a similar topic, a UToronto PhD has self-published his dissertation chronicling the journal between the early '80s and the early 2000s, which purportedly includes many interviews with the critics who wrote for it at the time. Sounds interesting, but man does the humanities publishing landscape suck

Never Cursed wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2026 6:11 pm And on a similar topic, a UToronto PhD has self-published his dissertation chronicling the journal between the early '80s and the early 2000s, which purportedly includes many interviews with the critics who wrote for it at the time. Sounds interesting, but man does the humanities publishing landscape suck

That book looks very interesting, particularly because the standard books to reference for this, Antoine de Baecque's 2 volume history, ends at 1981. Hopefully this is a worthy successor.

In this week’s installment of What Were They Thinking, I watched Norbert Carbonnaux’s Courte-tete, which received top scores from Bazin and Truffaut in the Conseil (and Godard would name Carbonnaux’s follow-up to this film, with much of the same cast, as one of his favorites of the year). I had previously seen and not much enjoyed his Candide adaptation filmed a few years after this but I liked this one much less. I am at a loss on what could have been of enough interest to this crew to rate this so highly (though in a fit of sanity, Rohmer gave it one star, which is closer to my perspective), as this is a laugh free and unpleasantly mean-spirited conman comedy with a protagonist who torments a starving criminal for like half of the film with not being able to eat in what could have been amusing once or twice but soon turns repellent as a running gag. Of what could possibly interest Godard about this director, there are several odd sequences where audio effects overpower the soundtrack and act at odds with the action. As for Truffaut and Bazin, I don’t know. The conman doesn’t get away with it and falls for his own scheme, is that all it takes for these moralists?