Directors' masterpieces in relation to their overall oeuvre

[Mr Sausage]

Well hopefully we all can agree that rating a movie with any form of numerical value (stars, letter grades, etc) is perhaps the most marginalizing method possible of discounting and ultimately discarding any film.

Perhaps we should seperate film "reviewers" from actual film "critics." A reviewer does what Domino here says, and what I think HerrShreck is railing against: he gives his opinion or his feelings concerning the worth of a film. This, at best, helps one decide whether or not to see a movie; at worst, it's a trivial bore.

A film "critic" functions like a literary critic: their job is to understand how film (or a film) works, to submit it to analytical and historical consideration, and then present their argument. At best, this leads one closer to truth and to deeper appreciation; at worst, it can do real damage.

I do think that reviewers are mostly irrelevant and that the profession is of middling importance. Film critics, on the other hand, are very important, worth reading (since they can either positively inform your own opinion or negatively lead you toward a stronger opinion), and should be encouraged when they do well, reproached when they do not. Interpretation is a high intellectual and imaginative process that encourages sensitive viewing: why shouldn't this be held in high regard?

[Polybius]

Imagine if I'd typed "Gristly Man," we'd be on page four!

There's a joke in there somewhere about Timothy Treadwell, but I don't think I want to take a shot at it...

If pressed on this, I'm closer to Mr. Sausage's idea. I like people who have a body of work that shows consistent creativity. One in which even their failures are interesting and noteworthy. The target(s), for me, would be the likes of Scorsese, Kubrick and Coppola. Each man has several films that could arguably considered their best, but none that are so clearly superior that it would end any real argument.

And as for Hendrix, I'm partial to Machine Gun, myself.

At best, this leads one closer to truth and to deeper appreciation;

See: Klawans, Stuart pre-1995.

at worst, it can do real damage.

See: Klawans, Stuart post-1995

[domino harvey]

Well hopefully we all can agree that rating a movie with any form of numerical value (stars, letter grades, etc) is perhaps the most marginalizing method possible of discounting and ultimately discarding any film.

Perhaps we should seperate film "reviewers" from actual film "critics." A reviewer does what Domino here says, and what I think HerrShreck is railing against: he gives his opinion or his feelings concerning the worth of a film. This, at best, helps one decide whether or not to see a movie; at worst, it's a trivial bore.

A film "critic" functions like a literary critic: their job is to understand how film (or a film) works, to submit it to analytical and historical consideration, and then present their argument. At best, this leads one closer to truth and to deeper appreciation; at worst, it can do real damage.

I do think that reviewers are mostly irrelevant and that the profession is of middling importance. Film critics, on the other hand, are very important, worth reading (since they can either positively inform your own opinion or negatively lead you toward a stronger opinion), and should be encouraged when they do well, reproached when they do not. Interpretation is a high intellectual and imaginative process that encourages sensitive viewing: why shouldn't this be held in high regard?

I doubt that anyone who posts here would really confuse the two and need a lesson

[Mr Sausage]

I doubt that anyone who posts here would really confuse the two and need a lesson

Actually people all over the board make little distinction between the two (including Schrek, or so it seems). The distinction had to be once made before in some thread long since forgotten. Just because you think something obvious has never stopped people from overlooking it before.

[HerrSchreck]

I think it's a completely arbitrary and meaningless distinction you're making Sausage-- critic (assigned value by you) vs reviewer (no assigned value by you). What is a critic -- a reviewer whos been tenured? How can a reviewer "review" a film without engaging his critical faculties?

The more important distinction I think is the touchstone here is the difference between a film historian vs the typical obligatory newsrag reviewer, who becomes tenured, gets feature articles on the weekend magazine because of the occasional epiphany and sign of half a brain (and help here & there helping move worthless product on the dl), and if he's well connected gets a book out thru a university press or something.

Folks tend to bond to critics who tell them something they already know-- it's a process more about the reader seeking affirmation and connection viz "intelligent culture" within the corridors of his own mind. The same way you will read an article on the Op Ed page by someone who you already know is going to stoke your preexisting opinion viz Bush, the economy, the arab/israeli situation etc. The means to coming to really love a critic (why I couldn't know) often comes thru ex post facto readings on films one has already seen and hearing something one has felt but not been able to articulate, or really had anyone to articulate it to or with. Not to say there arent those one or 1.5% out there with genuine insight who are quite simply impressive human beings... for which we enjoy seeing things thru their eyes.

That said there are active film historians, or those (ie Jean Epstein, any of your Cahierist monks) working on the disallowed fringes writing theory and seeking entry to a stodgy rusty indiustry, who donate hugely valuable cinematic ideas to the ongoing aesthetic process of development. Historians and theorists are not reviewers or critics. They don't throw down their own personal reactions to an artform as a membrane to be slid over the collective mind-- "this film fails because" "this film works because", etc, as opposed to "this film failed for me-- though you may love it-- because...".

Idiotic statements like "Those who don't get Bresson miss the whole idea of cinema, missed the train that pulled into the station in front of Lumiere's camera etc"... I love RB insanely but to make this kind of statement-- about BRESSON!-- is just off the hook.

Reviewers and critics are at best "reporters" going in there before you've viewed something.. something entirely subjective, and walking out and issuing factual pronouncements regarding Mass Public Response. It's most absurd illusion on earth. You read them as reportage once you get to know the reviewer and his own specific tastes, weed out the "critical" side of his review and find out if after this has been stripped away if there's anything in the fucking thing that might pinch your cortex.

That said, there's those very few folks for every human being whose aesthetic processing is so close to their own that after awhile they'll develop the habit of seeing whatever they recommend-- and do well with this routine. But these (for the seasoned cineaste) are usually very few and far between. I'm talking about the thousands and thousand of tv, magazine, newspaper, etc population of drekhead critics... worthless as tits on a bull.

[domino harvey]

I think it's a completely arbitrary and meaningless distinction you're making Sausage-- critic (assigned value by you) vs reviewer (no assigned value by you). What is a critic -- a reviewer whos been tenured? How can a reviewer "review" a film without engaging his critical faculties?

It's actually not a value judgment any more than identifying a scholar as a scholar or a limo driver as a limo driver are value judgments. "Critic" has been misappropriated by reviewers and you seem to be furthering the incorrect assumption that they share something in common. For critics and theorists, "Did I like or dislike the movie" never enters into it-- academic pursuit is absent of value judgments for the reason that they cloud your ability to see an argument clearly-- it's impossible to leave them fully behind, granted, but they do not belong front and center. Personal opinions are simply not necessary and often detrimental to real scholarly work. M. Sausage, I owe you an apology because you were right.

[HerrSchreck]

I think it's a completely arbitrary and meaningless distinction you're making Sausage-- critic (assigned value by you) vs reviewer (no assigned value by you). What is a critic -- a reviewer whos been tenured? How can a reviewer "review" a film without engaging his critical faculties?

It's actually not a value judgment any more than identifying a scholar as a scholar or a limo driver as a limo driver are value judgments. "Critic" has been misappropriated by reviewers and you seem to be furthering the incorrect assumption that they share something in common. For critics and theorists, "Did I like or dislike the movie" never enters into it-- academic pursuit is absent of value judgments for the reason that they cloud your ability to see an argument clearly-- it's impossible to leave them fully behind, granted, but they do not belong front and center. Personal opinions are simply not necessary and often detrimental to real scholarly work. M. Sausage, I owe you an apology because you were right.

You're so wrong your certainty should make you dizzy. Your belief that what a critic does is devoid of a value judgement is itself a value judgement that is entirely in the wind. They're all just reviewers for newsprint:

The NYCFilm Critics, the National Society of Film Critics, etc, they're all just the same old names who write for the usual rags. This is what a film critic is. A reviewer for a newspaper or magazine. Nothing more. The glory is fostered by your own love for a few faves who've aided your own journey (my own non-educated guess of the hour).

[domino harvey]

Those. Are. Not. Critics. They. Are. Reviewers.

[HerrSchreck]

You. Better. Call. Them. (Cough). Up.

Because they don't know the Special Domino Theory (which rules)yet. But once they do I'm sure they'll change the names of all those film critics Societies & Associations.

(Gunshot. >slump<)

[bunuelian]

Alas, it had the makings of an interesting topic, but we can't have discussions that steer too close to ESPN-style Film Power Rankings without this conversation repeating. I think once someone says "subjective" here to disprove the merit of another person's feelings about art, it's the equivalent of dropping the "Nazi" card. The thread might as well close upon the declaration, "Subjective!"

How shall we discuss things if not subjectively? Shall we all sit down and analyze the chemical composition of a shot from our favorite film and compare it to similar shots in other films, and revel in the astounding lack of certain molecules in a given director's work?

It's sometimes hard to choose a masterpiece, and it's an interesting question to discuss. We're not the fucking Vatican of film opinion, and we're not deciding the Universal Truth in these discussions.

[HerrSchreck]

How shall we discuss things if not subjectively?

I think what gives so many folks here a reverse boner is the idea of a "Community Subjective Starting Point" i e, starting a conversation searching for The One Great Masterpiece in each director's cannon, and, this agreement in hand, moving on to the beef of the thread.

It's impossible for obvious reasons.

Better to go filmmaker by filmmaker in each appropriate thread, and ask-- "What do you think is ________'s best film."

Stopping a convo w the "subjective" card aint really nazism (terrible word beneath your genuinely formindable intelligence bunealian), but starting a conversation on a hopelessly impossible subjective point of aesthetic agreement, is a bit Hynkelesque!

[Awesome Welles]

Isn't a reviewer someone who writes for a lowest common denominator publication discussing a film's points of merit in terms of modern cultural value rather than aesthetic or historical value reducing said film discussion to a final analysis of a star or numerical point system. And a critic someone who writes for a niche audience examining the aesthetic, cultural and historical value of a film in an interesting way, hopefully written in some sort of entertaining style?

[Cinetwist]

Isn't a reviewer someone who writes for a lowest common denominator publication discussing a film's points of merit in terms of modern cultural value rather than aesthetic or historical value reducing said film discussion to a final analysis of a star or numerical point system. And a critic someone who writes for a niche audience examining the aesthetic, cultural and historical value of a film in an interesting way, hopefully written in some sort of entertaining style?

I agree with Schreck; people seem to be making a distinction that the reviewers/critics are not aware of.

Why is a reviewer someone who writes for a lesser publication? Sight and Sound is about as high-brow a film magazine you can get in the UK but they call it the Reviews section. Therefore the people who write in that section are reviewers and probably call themselves that, or a critic, without much thought.

The reviews in Sight and Sound are undoubtedly for a niche audience but the majority aren't interesting (and often don't discuss aesthetics etc), probably for the reason that most of the films being reviewed aren't interesting.

[Awesome Welles]

I agree with Schreck also, I was making the point that they are both the same thing it is just how they do their job differently. The difference with a magazine like Sight and Sound is that the reviews do not boil down to a star system or numerical rating - which lowest common denominator magazines do because they know their readership flick through a don't really want to read extensive reviews, they want to know should I go and see this? and they want that answer quickly. They (the reader) are also unlikely to go and see the films that Sight and Sound take more care over, which incidentally are less likely to be able to able to be reviewed in a simple star system or reduced to a log line. I think, unfortunately, this is yet another thread that has become confused by semantics. Ok so I'm wrong, everyone shoot me down.

SUBJECTIVE!

[King Prendergast]

There are clear distinctions to be made (for instance Richard Roeper is a reviewer, Kent Jones is a critic), but I think there is the potential for cross-over, for an intelligent reviewer working in the capacity as a reviewer at a daily to approach the vaunted air of criticism. Someone like A.O. Scott at the NY Times would seem to fit this description. He is obligated to turn in weekly reviews, and often has to review Hollywood garbage, but always does so with wit and aplomb. And his occasional long pieces in the Sunday arts and leisure section and the magazine are decidedly criticism, not lowly reviews.

[MichaelB]

Why is a reviewer someone who writes for a lesser publication? Sight and Sound is about as high-brow a film magazine you can get in the UK but they call it the Reviews section. Therefore the people who write in that section are reviewers and probably call themselves that, or a critic, without much thought.

I would certainly call my Sight & Sound pieces "reviews" without any hesitation, even though they undoubtedly tick many of the boxes labelled "criticism", in that while I do certainly attempt to place films in as much of an aesthetic, cultural and historical context as space permits, my primary aim is to give an accurate and reasonably comprehensive account of what the film is actually like.

Since I tend to be given relatively obscure titles (I've just knocked off my sixth contemporary Polish film review in as many months, and none of the titles I've covered - Testosterone, My Nikifor, The Extras, The Wedding, Midnight Talks, Hope - is likely to be recognised by non-specialists outside Poland), I'm very conscious that there's every possibility that my review might well constitute the most substantial English-language coverage that it gets - which is why I tend to prioritise accurate description over subjective reaction.

[Antoine Doinel]

I agree with Schreck in that the reviewer/critic distinction is a fallacy in many regards of which he has pretty much gone into already.

But to get the thread back on track, sort of, I also have to disagree with the notion of "masterpiece" as it has been presented here. Yes, I believe masterpieces do exist but to evaluate them outside the rest of a director's work is doing both yourself and the director a huge disservice. For many directors, their "masterpiece" is an accumulation of motifs, styles etc explored and refined from their other works. I don't think a masterpiece can be considered on its own without the knowledge of previous director's works, similar works by other directors, literary influences etc etc etc. The way "masterpiece" has been introduced in this thread, is to suggest that the film in question appeared out of thin air.

[cinemartin]

I also agree with Schreck. The distinction between reviewer and critic seems to be one of pure snobbery, the difference usually being what films they review/criticize. If one reviews the new Martin Lawrence film, they are reviewers; if one reviews the new Haneke film, they're a critic. Just because one's (usually generic) lexicon and (usually generic) ideas have more affinity with your lexicon and ideas, doesn't elevate them to a higher form of (objective) consciousness.

[ByMarkClark.com]

Speaking as a former professional film critic (at a newspaper) and current film historian/author, I don't see any discernible difference between the term "critic" and "reviewer," and don't believe any exists in the minds of critics/reviewers, whether they write for USA Today or for Film Comment. Certainly none of my colleagues at other papers and magazines during my days as a full-time critic called themselves anything other than a "critic," or sometimes reviewer. Rogert Ebert and Gene Siskel introduced themselves as "critics" at the opening of every episode of SNEAK PREVIEWS, even though both wrote almost exclusively REVIEWS.

Now, if you want to draw a line between film critics and film theorists (academicians), I could see that.

I also must disagree categorically with the basic supposition of this thread. I don't think it's possible to point to one film by, say, Bergman or Hitchcock, or Kurosawa or Welles or name-your-master, and say, "yes, that's the masterpiece of masterpieces," with any sort of credibility. It's hard enough to narrow the canon of such filmmakers to a group of 6 or 8 or 10 masterworks. It's only easy to point out the masterpiece in the case of lesser filmmakers who break through with a single film of enduring significance.

[Cinetwist]

which is why I tend to prioritise accurate description over subjective reaction.

I take it you mean a description of the film in the formal sense and not narrative/plot. This is the problem with a lot of film criticism/reviewing, at least for me. I don't give a hoot about the plot most of the time and can't remember choosing to watch a film because of its story. And since S&S introduced the synopsis segment which accompanies every review, I'm not sure all the reviewers have taken note (I'm not reoffering to you Michael, I'm not familiar with your film reviews, although I am with your dvd reviews). I often stop reading reviews because they're just telling me what is/should be in the synopsis.

I think there's a real need for subjective reaction and violent subjective reaction too, laudatory or negative. For me, it's far more interesting to read.

---I just read your review of Midnight Talks and I wouldn't say you're guilty. Quite something that it got a simultaneous release. I suspect it was only in London though?

[Mr Sausage]

*sigh* I'm not going to involve myself in these latest twists because it's too depressing. I will however answer this:

How can a reviewer "review" a film without engaging his critical faculties?

Making critical remarks also requires use of the imaginative faculty, but we do not go around calling critics poets, or painters, too.

[Cinetwist]

*sigh* I'm not going to involve myself in these latest twists because it's too depressing. I will however answer this:

How can a reviewer "review" a film without engaging his critical faculties?

Making critical remarks also requires use of the imaginative faculty, but we do not go around calling critics poets, or painters, too.

But the 'latest twists' have come from two 'critics' who don't acknowledge the distinction which you propose........

Godard's film criticism is quite poetic.

[King Prendergast]

Godard's film criticism is quite poetic.

And quite cryptic in an almost Wittgensteinian way.

[Mr Sausage]

*sigh* I'm not going to involve myself in these latest twists because it's too depressing. I will however answer this:

How can a reviewer "review" a film without engaging his critical faculties?

Making critical remarks also requires use of the imaginative faculty, but we do not go around calling critics poets, or painters, too.

But the 'latest twists' have come from two 'critics' who don't acknowledge the distinction which you propose........

They can come from anywhere--that hardly matters to me.

Godard's film criticism is quite poetic.

I suspect your understanding of the term "poetic" is alien to me.

[MichaelB]

I take it you mean a description of the film in the formal sense and not narrative/plot.

Actually, it's both - house style demands a 250-word synopsis plus at least an acknowledgement of the basic narrative content in the main body of the review. How much depends on the actual film.

This is the problem with a lot of film criticism/reviewing, at least for me. I don't give a hoot about the plot most of the time and can't remember choosing to watch a film because of its story.

For me, it depends entirely on the film. Children of Glory, which I've just reviewed, appealed to me because I quite fancied a film about a real-life Hungary-USSR waterpolo grudge match in the wake of the 1956 revolution - which is far and away its most appealing element.

And since S&S introduced the synopsis segment which accompanies every review, I'm not sure all the reviewers have taken note (I'm not reoffering to you Michael, I'm not familiar with your film reviews, although I am with your dvd reviews). I often stop reading reviews because they're just telling me what is/should be in the synopsis.

We're explicitly told to assume that the reader will not necessarily read the synopsis (which is intended more as a reference tool) and should therefore compensate accordingly. I've even had a review sent back for revision because it was insufficiently descriptive!

I think there's a real need for subjective reaction and violent subjective reaction too, laudatory or negative. For me, it's far more interesting to read.

But this depends very much on the publication and its purpose. It was impressed upon me from the start that Sight & Sound is a journal of record and it's widely anthologised in university libraries - so anything excessively subjective might well detract from its fundamental purpose.

I just read your review of Midnight Talks and I wouldn't say you're guilty.

I do try to offer some degree of subjective opinion, though anything too effusive will get subbed out. (I found that out the hard way, needless to say!)