Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world

TOP STORY:

Mumblecore, David Denby and the Line in the Sand

Karina Longworth
By Karina Longworth posted 8 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

It would take a certain amount of energy and emotional strength to produce a full consideration of David Denby’s piece in today’s New Yorker, which swiftly traces the lineage of the last seven years of American micro-independent film up to and including Joe Swanberg’s upcoming SXSW and IFC VOD debut, Alexander the Last. I currently feel that this variety of strength and quantity of energy are resources that I cannot access, and if I could, I’m not sure the best target to point them at would be a piece that has already been declared late to the party by two reliable sources.  However, in case it seems imperative to take up this task at some point in the future, here are the vague bases I would try to touch in such a consideration:

    • Prior to this, David Denby has produced two notable works in the past six months (in this case, we’ll take “notable” to be equivalent to “provoking of blog posts and/or mocking on The Daily Show“; if there is another definition of the word here on Planet Earth in 2009, I don’t understand the question and I won’t respond to it). Most recently, there was Snark, a polemical book in which the film critic argues that “snarkers like to think they are deploying wit, but mostly they are exposing the seethe and snarl of an unhappy country, releasing bad feeling but little laughter,” and goes on to cite with no apparent humour intended the nine elements that make snark so dangerous.  A short time after Snark was published, Denby wrote off The Curious Case of Benjamin Button — a film which might rightly be considered to embody the bloated sincerity that finely calibrated snark so successfully deflates –– with the witty rejoinder, “who cares?” Denby then went on to point out, clearly without “bad feeling”, that “many people in Hollywood endlessly have ‘work’ done to put off aging, and here’s a movie that begins with a wizened baby and ends with physical perfection, a progression that may encapsulate both the nightmares and the dreams of half the Academy.” …Read more

    Iron Man: Too Critically Acclaimed To Be A Hit?

    Karina Longworth
    By Karina Longworth posted 1 year ago
    • del.icio.us
    • Technorati
    • Reddit
    • Ma.gnolia
    • YahooMyWeb
    • Facebook
    • StumbleUpon

    Iron ManInteresting. David Poland, who is not crazy about Iron Man (”I just wanted a character who actually dealt with the obvious demons that he overcomes… and not just another really, really cool suit of CG armor”) posits that the fact that other critics are crazy about the film (it’s currently at 86% on Rotten Tomatoes) might be a sign that it’s not going to connect with audiences:

    This appears to be the Pass movie of the early summer for critics. Is it because of Downey or the middle-aged hero or talk about a huge opening or the use of the Middle East and the half-ass political arguments of the film that play out hypocritically but pay active lip service to liberals… I don’t know.

    All I do know is that when film critics are the ones identifying with your superhero, you may be being successful with the wrong demo for mega-bucks… which is all the film producers wanted in the first place.

    …Read more

    Knocked Up: Let’s Beat The Realism Dead Horse One More Time

    Karina Longworth
    By Karina Longworth posted 2 years ago
    • del.icio.us
    • Technorati
    • Reddit
    • Ma.gnolia
    • YahooMyWeb
    • Facebook
    • StumbleUpon

    The New Yorker’s David Denby recently published a long essay in consideration of contemporary romantic comedy. Because it’s Denby and it’s the New Yorker, he’s able to wank off for 600 words or so before getting to his not at all uninteresting thesis: “For almost a decade, Hollywood has pulled jokes and romance out of the struggle between male infantilism and female ambition.” Citing Judd Apatow’s Knocked Up as “the culminating version of this story”, Denby then traces a history of the male-female relationship through romantic comedies of the ages, and five pages later concludes that Apatow’s film “represents what can only be called the disenchantment of romantic comedy.”

    KnockedUp.png

    Denby certainly makes some preposterous statements in the piece–the idea that Vince Vaughn is some kind of second coming of Cary Grant who “has displayed a dazzling motormouth velocity, but” has never found “an actress who can keep up with him” was my personal favorite–but I don’t really have a problem with his methods. A lot of other people do. Of the commentary I’ve read, Emdashes is home to the most interesting/infuriating. The self-professed reader of “The New Yorker between the lines” laments that Denby “doesn\’t seem to have faced what\’s happened to dating”:

    Throw in comics, MTV, Sex and the City, reality shows, Neil Strauss, Seinfeld, porn, online dating, and social networking sites, and you\’ve got part of a picture of how fucking romantic (to quote Stephin Merritt) the world seems to be. I\’m not saying no one ever had a sleazy thought before or failed to come through for their sweetheart. What I\’m saying is that just as screwball comedies were shiny fairy tales for the eras of disappointing early marriages, stock-market crashes, and limited opportunity for personal expression, There\’s Something About Mary is a shiny fairy tale for ours.

    All well and good, but then Emdashes lets her argument lapse by posting “an email conversation a (female) film-minded friend.” You’ve seen this kind of thing on blogs before, surely, and as usual, what should probably have remained a joke amongst friends takes on a whole new life of its own once posted on the blog. Here’s the part that really rankled me: Emdashes and her friend conclude that Denby has failed to acknowledge the real-world state of contemporary romance. Emdashes’ friend cracks, “Also, if a woman had made Knocked Up, it would have been called Abort It, and it would have been a very short film.” Emdashes responds: “Ha! So true. Especially with Seth Rogen, who is no one’s idea of a catch. I laughed often during Knocked Up, but that’s a premise I couldn’t get over no matter how hard I tried.”

    When I hear that kind of argument coming from women, I honestly wonder what kind of lives they lead–as if every 20-something woman in America just has loads of abortions, no big deal. Beyond the cringe factor of the joke, it seems like they’re confining this Abort It fantasy to a realm in which all women who unexpectedly become pregnant are easily able to have abortions–”able” both in the sense that a) they live in a major city where they have easy access to a clinic or doctor that will actually perform the procedure safely and without incident, and b) that they could face the decision to terminate a pregnancy without experiencing any kind of personal moral qualm or emotional trauma. That all seems to me to be more unrealistic than anything Apatow put on screen.

    Stepping away from Denby and Emdashes for a moment, this brings us back to the elephant that’s always in the room when talking Knocked Up: the idea that Katherine Heigl’s character is poorly written, because someone like that would never get involved with someone like the character played by Seth Rogen. I know it’s a stretch to ask anyone whose natural analysis of character stops at “Pretty” or “Fat” to think this way, but do you think it’s maybe possible that the Katherine Heigl character was written that way for a reason? Is it so hard to imagine that a woman whose chief asset is her body, whose greatest aspiration is to follow in the footsteps of Giuliana DePandi (no offense to Giuliani), who is clearly lonely as hell (her only friend is apparently her shrewish older sister, who’s clearly occupied with her own pre-midlife crisis) would be lacking in self-confidence and self-worth, and for all of the reasons above, would be attracted to the unconditional love that a baby would represent?

    It’s like there some kind of post-feminist block that won’t allow some female critics/viewers to admit that some real-world women are less than total braniacs, and/or that *most* women make decisions from time to time that don’t make total sense, and/or that in real life, attractive-but-dim women often date down the social ladder, picking men who they feel they can control without worrying that they’ll get dumped. At least Seth Rogen’s character showed promising glimpses, signs that he was capable of being genuinely caring, witty and kind. This puts him miles ahead of the average 23-year-old boy.

    Here, I’m in agreement with Emdashes–”Spend a few hours reading Craigslist Casual Encounters, Nerve Personals, the multiple choices on social networking sites (what’s the difference between “random play” and “whatever I can get,” by the way?), Maxim, Gawker, ad nauseam, and suddenly Knocked Up is going to look real, real romantic to you”–and so, so glad that I’m not going to have to return to the world of dating anytime soon.

    FilmCouch #2

    Paul Moore
    By Paul Moore posted 2 years ago
    • del.icio.us
    • Technorati
    • Reddit
    • Ma.gnolia
    • YahooMyWeb
    • Facebook
    • StumbleUpon

    Spout’s CEO, Rick DeVos, and Paul chat about David Denby’s article, “Big Pictures,” on the state of the movie industry for 2007 (or at least January). Also discussed, Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of Men, is it more omen than sci-fi? And words inspired by Guillermo Del Toro’s new film, Pan’s Labyrinth.

     
     Standard Podcast [21:36m]: Play Now | Download