From: "hugh bone" <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Aren't we all critics?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:00:12 -0500


Bob,

I know Agee was a famous critic, but do not remember his reviews.  I have
his book:  "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" with the Walker Evans photos - one
reminds me of my
mother.  Is a collection Agee reviews available?

It seems to me, our views are much more similar than different.
pas de probleme..

But first, about the List:  Yes, a lot is abstruse, but it is un-moderated
and a lot of us would abandon it, if it were moderated.  There was intense
discussion of  "Eyes Wide Shut", both pro and con and with reasons.

Lately, a few of us posted our personal selection of  of 3 favorite English
language and 3 favorite foreign language movies of  the year.  So many new
movies have come out (as usual) at year's end, that we haven't had a chance
to see them.

So newcomers can submit new lists and others may
re-submit.  We can compile them before the Academy Awards.  Maybe eliminate
the language distinction if majority want to.

As I see it, to say much or little about one's reasons for choices is up to
the person submitting.

As for the rationalizing and emotionalizing:  Some scenes and sequences are
rational/believeable or irrational/unbelievable,
and the makers of great movies often, deliberately, keep us off balance.

Another thing is the viewer's attention span.  Some movies have fantastic
scenes that really get my attention, Yi. Yi , for example has some of the
most beautiful city scenes ever.
"The Color of Paradise" has outstanding rural scenes.

But get deeply involved in the scenery, and you tend to lose some of the
words - rapid action and dialogue give one little time to think, especially
in a whodunit.

It's my experience that a movie in which I become deeply involved frequently
inhabits some waking hours for a day or so,
provoking more thoughts.  "How do I know what I think until I hear what I
say?"  Or, at least, say to myself.

I agree that emotion without reason and reason without emotion
approach the oxymoronic, but I can't imagine a reviewer giving
a performance complete attention and composing his/her review at the same
time.

Cheers,
Hugh














> hugh, let me toss another problem into this discussion: we must keep in
mind
> that immediate " emotional "reactions to a film  are largely the product
of
> preexisting assumptions,theories , prejudices, i.e rationalities, belief
> systems, world views, etc as well as personal  life-experience and one's
> history of film viewing, most of which we are not usually conscious of at
> the moment of the emotional reaction so that maybe we shouldn't see
> emotional and and rational modes of thinking about film as so  opposed and
> separate.  perhaps they are not even separable in real life, only in
theory
> for purposes of analysis. so you can't say emotional response is primary
> without saying opinion and rationale. usually watching a film i will have
an
> intellectual / emotional response at the same moment, and later i try to
> deepen my understanding of why i reacted that way. as a sometime movie
> reviewer i find the process reviewing a film  to be intensely subjective
> and intensely emotional and intellectual at the same time. a reviewr
without
> brains and heart, and opnions is pretty boring,btw, one of my favoite
movie
> critics was james Agee,who, incidently, wrote the script for African
Queen.
> So far i've found this thread very abstruse how come folks are not talking
> very much about the films they like and why? bob brown
> --
> "solidarity means sharing the same risks" - Che
> ( la solidarita significa correre gli stessi rischi)
>
> ----------
> >From: hugh bone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
> >To: film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
> >Date: Sun, Jan 7, 2001, 4:56 PM
> >
>
> > OK,
> >
> > Occasionally I remember that we : "Rationalize our emotions and
emotionalize
> > our reasons".
> >
> > The fact that telephonic robots diminish personal contact would have
been
> > fantasy a few decades ago.
> >
> > Let's fantasize that a few decades in the future, unsalaried movie
critic
> > robots, will save $millions and increase the profits of newspapers, TV,
and
> > Internet media who presently pay humans to write the reviews they
publish.
> >
> > Question:  How to design and build the robots?  How to build
> > in the emotional and rational qualities which will make them comparable
to
> > human observers?
> >
> > Enough fantasy.  The point is that each human viewer is an instrument
with a
> > history of movie and real-life experiences built into its memory by
natural
> > processes.
> >
> > The separation of the emotional from the rational-analytical
> > is a sophisticated and difficult process, as you have noted.
> >
> > It seems to me the emotional is primary. It occurs instant-to instant as
the
> > movie appears on the screen.  Reflection comes later.
> >
> > One recollects and compares with other movies, including for  example,
> > comparison of the performance of an actor who
> > appeared in both - or a director, or cinematographer, or special
effects.
> >
> > Considering whether to see a new movie, one anticipates emotional
reactions,
> > decides, yes or no.  But once in the theater, the movie takes over -
> > emotions are spontaneous -sometimes you walk out.  You are, so to speak,
a
> > victim of your
> > emotional history, a truism of "real" life.
> >
> > Then you rationalize, analyze.
> >
> > At least that's my view.
> >
> > Let's try to keep the matter clear and easy to understand.
> > But realizing that sensibilities and philosophy are important to film
> > theory, there is a broader view.
> >
> >>From childhood, we are taught standards, rules, ideology.  We  respect,
> > admire, condemn, the dispensations of celebrated elites.
> >
> > We absorb (often subconsciously) the stories, theories, prinicples, of
> > authorities in the arts, politics and science.
> > This seems to be the background for the "functionality of the
> > devices" you mention below.
> >
> > For me, functionality of devices implies the method(s) by which
> > which audience emotions are produced; for example, a couple of brief but
> > extraordinary, and extraordinarily quiet, scenes and sounds of the
tropics -
> > in "The Thin Red Line", or, the 25 minutes of noisy mayhem on the
Normandy
> > beach in "Saving Private Ryan".
> >
> > To the extent that such devices take us to a pleasant place
> > (emotionally) we are glad to go.  Sometimes the opposite occurs.  An
example
> > for me, was "Twin Falls Idaho".
> >
> > I would say one's "independent" analysis and critique can not rise above
> > personal experience, and at the same time, one's relative indpendence
and
> > judgment is inevitably influenced by "expert" doctrine we absorb through
the
> > media.
> >
> > Best,
> > Hugh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Lita Coucher <lita_coucher-AT-hotmail.com>
> > To: <film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 3:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > LC,
> >> >
> >> > Not to be finicky about words,
> >>
> >> Hugh,
> >> PLEASE be finicky about words.  That's what I'm trying to figure out!
> >>
> >> but your illustration seems to be
> >> >
> >> > 1) a contrast of feeling, emotion, one's personal reaction to, and
> >> enjoyment
> >> > of a movie, vs.
> >> >
> >> >  2) logical definition of its story, characters, cinematography etc.,
> > and
> >> > how they relate to each other.
> >> >
> >> > Two people may not agree about the emotional impact of a scene, a
> > segment
> >> or
> >> > the entire movie, but are likely to agree about the facts
> >> > of item 2.
> >>
> >> Yes.  I agree.  I'm in a bind about seperating emotional response from
the
> >> functionality of the devices used to illicit that response.
> >> lc
> >> >
> >> > HB
> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > > And about what Lita was asking... I think in some cases it's more
> >> > > important
> >> > > > to have opinions than to analyze. I, mean, you can understand
> >> something
> >> > > and
> >> > > > still don't like it. I remember an article by a music critic of
the
> >> New
> >> > > York
> >> > > > Times saying just that... that he understood Schoenberg but still
> >> didn't
> >> > > > like him.
> >> > >
> >> > > Right.  My example of this is "Fight Club."  I really found it
> >> distasteful
> >> > > and grotesque, but i recognized it's value as a film.  I enjoyed
> > getting
> >> > > into the themes, subplot, etc.  Film is such a subjective realm, i
> > think
> >> > > it's almost impossible to seperate completely the opinion from the
> >> > analysis.
> >> > > It's difficult, at the very least.
> >> > >
> >> > > LC
> >> > > >
> >> > > > cheers,
> >> > > > Manuel
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
>
>
>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>




     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---