Advertisement
Patrick Goldstein, who has been banging the “critics are irrelevant!” drum for awhile, yesterday devoted over 600 bloggy words to shaming one critic in particular for daring to be critical. An excerpt:
It’s an open secret in indie Hollywood that no one wants Manohla Dargis to review their movie, fearing that the outspoken critic will tear their film limb from limb. It’s the ultimate backhanded compliment, since what they really fear is Manohla’s persuasiveness — that she’ll write a review whose combination of vitriolic snarkiness and intellectual heft will actually persuade high-brow moviegoers to drop the film from their must-see list.
Goldstein goes on to say that his thoughts on the Fear of Manohla were sparked by her review of The Reader. Goldstein says it’s not a problem that the review was negative, but unlike her peers, who “clean the knife before they stick it in,” Dargis’ review betrays a “lack of empathy for the challenge of tackling difficult material.” In other words: people like Harvey Weinstein, who take the noble risk of milking Oscar bait out of an Oprah-approved novel about a sexy Nazi cougar, should be given extra points just for doing something a little bit more ambitious than “dumb summer comedy.” It’s almost as if Goldstein is advocating for a kind of affirmative action for art (or, at least, artsy) films: all pictures may be on a level playing field in Manohla’s eyes, but a certain type of picture should be given special consideration for at least trying to be art, even if it fails.
This is the kind of argument I get a lot from angry commenters, when I publish negative reviews of films which star their favorite stars, or otherwise hit some kind of sweet spot that puts the reader on the anti-criticism defensive. “Nice to completely disregard a lot of hard work by a lot of talented people,” wrote “Pete” on my Changeling review. “Sad, really.” When I wrote a long piece on Benjamin Button, “John Sanders” was harsher, slamming me for “criticizing people’s years of hard work in the form of some shitty blog.” As is usually the end game with this kind of thinking, I was then challenged to make my own film. “And hey, If you truly believe in what you’re selling here, and you think you know what makes a film good or bad, perhaps you should attempt to create a better film. I’d love to see it.”
I guess it’s not that surprising that Goldstein’s attack on Manohla would resemble the faux-populist, “Let’s see you do better” line of the over-protective commenter class. But if he’s actually suggesting that critics should allow “empathy” for the architects of blatant awards bait to temper their judgements, then this might be his harshest anti-criticism statement yet.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
I read the review first and thought it was harsh, but probably deserved, summing up my own feeling about the film before even walking in to see it: “You have to wonder who, exactly, wants or perhaps needs to see another movie about the Holocaust that embalms its horrors with artfully spilled tears and asks us to pity a death-camp guard.” Her emotionless knife skills is why I like her as a reviewer. But I wonder how hard it must be for people who work at the L.A. Times and places like that, where they cover the industry not just as reviewers, but as journalists who need connections and access. Because of that, I liked Goldstein’s piece for the glimpse into his position as an editor in that position, more than as a critique on Dargis.
I liken the “Try making your own movie” response to the creative variations on “Well obviously you have never loved” I get whenever I dare say anythig negative about Slumdog Millionaire, which some people absurdly believe is still an underdog. ‘Tis the season for unfair attacks!
Erm, “anything.” Not any “thig.”
Manohla absolutely nailed “The Reader,” particularly with her plain, blunt, and absolutely on-target description of Winslet’s character as “impossible.”
Patrick Goldstein is really the worst kind of know-somethingish clod. He was mildly tolerable when he was writing record reviews for “Creem,” back in the Mesozoic era, but as a movie writer he’s just…unspeakable. But I’m sure quite a few people feel the same about me.
Manohla, however, rocks.
I haven’t seen THE READER yet, and given the fact it comes from the same director and writer of THE HOURS, which I loathed, I don’t have high expectations (although, to be fair, I liked the source material of THE READER, while I also hated the book THE HOURS was based on). And I enjoyed reading Dargis’ review, I don’t enjoy reading Goldstein, and being a part-time critic myself, think his “critics are irrelevant” argument to be wholly without merit.
However, I must take issue with Longworth’s snide remark about “affirmative action for art films.” Maybe she doesn’t see that as a critic’s duty, but I wonder what she’ll think when, say, BRIDE WARS, a film that seems to have been copied out of every bad romantic comedy playbook ever made, and is making no effort at all to be anything except a cash register film, opens in a couple of weeks. Yes, I will reward a film with ambition even if it fails, rather than a movie that sets out to do absolutely nothing and succeeds at it. If that makes me an “anti-critic,” so be it.
Why does Goldstein have to carry the weight of what he apparently supposes is the filmmakers’ umbrage? A micro-budgeted indie film I co-produced and edited was just slammed by Manohla in the Times last week; a bit of a dissapointment, and potentially even more deadly for a film of this size than for something like THE READER - but it comes with the territory. I’d have hated to see her give us bonus points for working with such limited means, or our artistic intentions. Lame.
This is not a defense, just a possible explanation: I think what prompts responses like Goldstein’s is the general perception that people have towards professional critics who review popular works– that they are elitist authority figures who must be ‘put in their place’ if their opinions are contradictory or invalidating. It’s not the opinion in-of-itself that offends people, but the ‘questionable’ authority that critics are assumed to have that compels people to dismantle a critic’s point-of-view.
This point of mine will probably seem obvious, but it seems to me that critics rarely discuss or acknowledge this when they’re prompted to be ‘meat-critical’. People don’t necessarily become defensive when another’s opinion counters their own, but they are very likely to be so when someone is perceived to be an official.
Ultimately, I think that professional critics and non-critics who get upset at critics should realize that it’s all subjective and that all of the hoopla won’t add up to a hill of beans in the end.
And I meant to write ‘meta-critical’, not ‘meat-critical’ (!)
This kind of thing has been going on in the theater world for decades, as everyone from producer to Wednesday matinee habitues complain about the power of the New York Times and their big bad theater critic(s). It’s not a problem with critics, but a symptom of the America’s goofy take on arts criticism in general. Folks should know the difference between Andrew Sarris and Richard Roeper. Critics’ takes on films should be personal, rhetorical and pleasurable to read. Leave the scientific evaluation to Consumer Reports and its fleet of gadget wonks.
What, you don’t like this building and how structurally unsound it is? What do you know, you’re not an architect? What, you don’t like this meal and how over-salted it is? Well, why don’t you become a professional cook? Excuse me, do you take issue with the bus running red lights and swerving radically? Why don’t you try being a fucking bus driver? Don’t you know you have absolutely no right to be critical of anything unless you do it?
[...] Manohla Dargis and Affirmative Action For Artsy Films | SpoutBlog (tags: movies) [...]
Do you think Goldstein sees critics as part of the production apparatus, as performing a sort of “quality control” function? If so, this blog post could be interpreted as saying that critics should be gentle with films like The Reader that tackle “difficult” material not because these films deserve it or it’s the right thing to do, but because otherwise Hollywood will stop trying to make “serious” films that rely on critical acclaim to be successful. In other words, Manohla Dargis, who presumably wants to see better Hollywood product, is shooting herself in the foot when she trashes The Reader because she’s going to be rewarded with less ambitious, and thus worse films, for her trouble.
I don’t agree with this, necessarily, but it’s at least an argument that I’d be willing to respond to.
Karina, I love you to death (as you well know) but what’s up with using Affirmative Action as a pejorative? Has our “center right” society (cough) hijacked your thinking? This is more like Patrick Goldstein is asking for critical CORPORATE WELFARE for these companies; Try something big and get a critical bailout. Affirmative Action (and I know you know this already so why am I still typing) is a just and worthy activity to correct an historic wrong.
[...] for her pan of the Weinstein Co’s The Reader. Then Spoutblog’s Karina Longworth got into the dogfight and finally, Schnack gave the play-by-play and practiced diplomacy in a Rodney King-esque [...]
[...] for her pan of the Weinstein Co’s The Reader. Then Spoutblog’s Karina Longworth got into the dogfight and finally, Schnack gave the play-by-play and practiced diplomacy in a Rodney King-esque [...]
I’d love it if Manohla Dargis watched my independent movie EUGENE… I’m not afraid.