Comments on: Manohla Dargis and Affirmative Action For Artsy Films

By: jake barsha

jake barsha — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:20:24 +0000

I’d love it if Manohla Dargis watched my independent movie EUGENE… I’m not afraid.

By: Critics - A Nearly Extinct but Vicious Species | Hollywood Life Magazine

Critics - A Nearly Extinct but Vicious Species | Hollywood Life Magazine — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:26:43 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Critics - A Nearly Extinct but Vicious Species

Critics - A Nearly Extinct but Vicious Species — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:37:34 +0000

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:10:19 +0000

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.

By: Andy Horbal

Andy Horbal — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:31:15 +0000

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.

By: The PHA : links for 2008-12-13

The PHA : links for 2008-12-13 — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:35:20 +0000

[...] Manohla Dargis and Affirmative Action For Artsy Films | SpoutBlog (tags: movies) [...]

By: David

David — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:40:47 +0000

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?

By: Paul Kosidowski

Paul Kosidowski — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:46:18 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:02:08 +0000

And I meant to write ‘meta-critical’, not ‘meat-critical’ (!)

By: John

John — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:00:39 +0000

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.

By: David Lowery

David Lowery — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:49:17 +0000

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.

By: seankgallagher

seankgallagher — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:21:28 +0000

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.

By: Glenn Kenny

Glenn Kenny — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:50:00 +0000

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.

By: qwiggles

qwiggles — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:45:19 +0000

Erm, “anything.” Not any “thig.”

By: qwiggles

qwiggles — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:43:59 +0000

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!

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:24:42 +0000

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.