Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:47:29 -0800
Subject: Re: Aren't we all critics?
From: Michael Moretti <moretti-AT-mac.com>


To me, a movie which "inhabits some waking hours for a day or so" is how I
might regard its overall success. It's easy to recall movies where I had a
very strong emotional or intellectual response, but for a movie to really
succeed for me it has to transcend such effects.

Nostalghia, for example, left me contemplative for days afterward. During
the film I tried to decipher the various symbols (the mineral baths, the
doves). In other scenes I felt frustration as I watched Eugenia struggle
with Gorchakov's detachment. At other moments I found myself watching the
film's most excellent cinematography. The overall effect of the film has
been its measure for me, and this particular one is a favorite.

Unless one has a pre-defined agenda going in to watch a film (criticism,
escapism), it doesn't seem possible (or particularly useful) to
pre-determine a film-goer's approach to any film. Perhaps one goes into a
movie with the same agenda one would use in day to day life. In such case,
the degree to which the movie conforms to that perspective may underlie to
which degree the film succeeds for that person.

I personally like a movie that will open me up emotionally (as long as it
doesn't manipulate me overtly). If the a film can succeed at this, to me
it's a good one. On the other hand, some days I want smart dialog and killer
story line so I can think along with the action. Consequently, you can ask
me every day what my favorite film is and I'll make up a different list.

I'm with you, Hugh, on the point that it seems unnatural to believe that a
reviewer can go into a movie with an objective (to write a review) and yet
be able to "get" the movie. I generally allow movie reviewers the same level
of credibility that I give wine reviewers. Instead I listen for what the
real audience has to say. I'll be seeing some of the movies discussed on
this list real soon.

michael


 on 1/10/01 2:00 PM, hugh bone at hbone-AT-optonline.net wrote:

> 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 ---



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