Scanners

Sarah Silverman, critics & the new PC

Jim Emerson

View image Sarah Silverman in “Jesus Is Magic.” Her Comedy Central sitcom, “The Sarah Silverman Program,” begins Thursday at 10:30 p.m. (9:30 Central).

I love Sarah Silverman and A.O. Scott all the more for this, from today’s New York Times:

While most actors are reluctant to discuss critics’ opinions of them, Ms. Silverman addresses them head on, particularly a 2005 review of “Jesus Is Magic” by A. O. Scott, a film critic for The New York Times.

“It totally hurt my feelings and was like a kick in the stomach,” but, she said, she found it fascinating.

In the review Mr. Scott said her act was “the latest evidence that mocking political correctness has become a form of political correctness in its own right.”

“She depends on the assumption that only someone secure in his or her own lack of racism would dare to make, or to laugh at, a racist joke, the telling of which thus becomes a way of making fun simultaneously of racism and of racial hypersensitivity,” he wrote. In short, he added, “naughty as she may seem, she’s playing it safe.”

Ms. Silverman said the review articulated a point that she had felt, but had been struggling to express. “That was something that always festered in the back of my mind that I never talked about,” she said. Her crowds are usually liberal ones, “and we know we’re not racist,” she said. “But the whiter the crowd, the more that kind of voice in the back of my head comes toward the front, and I feel grosser doing that kind of stuff.”

“At the very least, it’s made me assess the choir,” she continued. “Context is everything, and I don’t think he would be pondering all that stuff if I was doing the material in front of an all-black crowd or a very mixed crowd,” which, she said, she regularly does.

Still, she added, she is reassessing at least part of her work.

“It was rebellious to be politically incorrect now and in the past couple of years,” she said. “But I don’t know how rebellious it will be when everybody has that point of view. It becomes hackneyed and it becomes irrelevant and it turns into something else.”

I’ve been arguing for several years now that, especially since 9/11, “political correctness” has evolved into a mostly reactionary phenomenon. The lefty PC that began as a way of showing sensitivity to minorities and those who had been discriminated against for years (women, the disabled, etc.) eventually turned into a form of monolithic, euphemistic denial of reality, where questioning was verboten and anything that could be interpreted as doubt or dissent was denounced as “fascist.” Now we see the same thing coming from the right. The terminology has changed but the brainwashed thinking hasn’t.

The inevitable backlash to liberal PC came in the form of the right-wing, talk-radio rebellion, in which uppity women were “feminazis” and liberals were “terrorist sympathizers” (even when they were too timid and spineless to oppose the administration’s foreign policy blunders, which, ironically, flagrantly violated traditional conservative principles). Fox News took the talk-radio attitude mainstream, appealing to its viewers’ PC biases so that it appeared, at least to the network’s partisans, “fair and balanced.” (If somebody already sees the world in black and white, and you show them a black and white image, they won’t notice it’s not in color.)

Anyway, even though I was a fan of Silverman’s “Jesus Is Magic,” I appreciate Scott’s warning about where this is all going in the era of so-called “‘South Park’ Republicans.” And I admire Silverman for questioning her own (and her audiences’) underlying assumptions, as well.

Dias de Los Muertos: Hasta los huesos

Jim Emerson

“Hasta los huesos” / “Down to the Bone”

(tip: Daniel Montiel)

The evolution of a hat

Jim Emerson

View image Figure #1.

View image Figure #2.

(My final contribution to the Close-Up Blog-a-thon at the House Next Door, which just wrapped.)

Warning: This post (and the short film montage/hommage I put together to accompany it, above) may contain spoilers.

Jesus, Tom, it’s the hat.

Take a look at the four shots from Joel and Ethan Coen’s “Miller’s Crossing” on this page: three close-ups of the same hat and a long shot of another one with a body under. The hat in all three close-ups, hat belongs to Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne). The other one is on the head of his boss and friend, Leo O’Bannon (Albert Finney). But let’s re-wind a little bit.

The movie is set into motion with a close-up of three ice cubes plopped into a glass tumbler. We don’t see Tom, our main character until the next shot, where he appears behind the bald head of a man (Johnny Casper, played by Jon Polito) who’s delivering a lecture into the camera — or just past it — about friendship, character, ethics. Tom is the one who put the cubes into the glass and poured himself some whiskey. He crosses the room out of focus, moves past the camera, and when we see a reverse angle, he’s standing behind and to the side of Leo. His tumbler of whiskey is in the frame, but his head isn’t. When we finally do get a look at his mug, he’s not wearing a hat. Meanwhile, Casper’s henchman, the cadaverous Eddie Dane (J.E. Freeman) stands behind his boss, holding his hat. And wearing one. It’s a sign of respect.

View image Figure #3.

View image Figure #4.

When Tom leaves the room at the end of the scene, he puts on his hat. Then there’s this strange credits sequence, like a dream in a forest, with a canopy of autumnal branches overhead. On the forest floor, a hat falls into the foreground of the frame, the title of the film appears (Figure #1), and the hat blows away into the distance. In the next close-up, Tom is roused from a stuporous slumber. He sits up and feels his head, for his hangover and for his hat.

“Where’s my hat?” Tom asks.

“You bet it, ya moron,” says the friend who woke him up. “Good thing the game broke up before you bet your shorts.”

Turns out, the hat left with Mink and Verna. Together, they are the link between Tom’s hat and his shorts. We’ve already heard, in the opening scene, that Mink (Steve Buscemi) is “the Dane’s boy.” Mink appears only in one brief scene at the Shenandoah Club, explains the whole movie (“as plain as the nose on your — Turns out he’s also involved with “the Schmatte,” bookie Bernie Birnbaum (John Turturro), who also happens to be the brother of Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), Leo’s twist and Tom’s secret squeeze and the subject of Johnny Casper’s opening rant.

Got that, or do I have to spell it out for ya?

OK, here’s the deal:

Rescuing “articulate” from the Language Police

Jim Emerson

“I mean, you got the first sorta mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and- and- and clean, and a nice lookin’ guy. I mean, it’s — that’s a storybook, man!”

or

“I mean, you got the first sorta mainstream African-American, who is articulate and bright and- and- and clean, and a nice lookin’ guy. I mean, it’s — that’s a storybook, man!”

What Joe Biden said of Barack Obama — it all comes down to one li’l comma.

Or a pause that is the equivalent of a comma.

I guess I’m a little behind on this story. A Scanners reader (thanks again, Matthew!) posted a comment with this link from Language Log that gets into more detail about what Biden said (including an actual recorded excerpt of the interview, so you can hear for yourself) versus what the New York Observer reported he said. It’s so interesting I thought it deserved a separate top-level post.

From Mark Lieberman at Language Log:

But there’s also a linguistic and a journalistic point here. Senator Biden’s word sequence corresponds to two different sentences with very different meanings, and the Observer misquoted him by omitting the comma.

I don’t know whether the Observer misrepresented Biden’s statement out of ignorance, carelessness, or malice. Maybe [reporter Jason] Horowitz and his editors don’t know the difference between the two types of relative clauses; maybe they didn’t bother to think about the difference in interpretation in this case; or maybe they know the difference in general, thought about it in this case, and decided that it would make a better story to present the wrong version.

Again, let me emphasize that I do not know what Biden was thinking when he said what he said. As I wrote before, I’m sure that some people use “articulate” (intentionally or not) to express their mild surprise that some African-Americans have a command of the English language.

But having listened to the Biden interview excerpt, and considering the context of his remarks (sizing up his opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination), I agree with Lieberman that what Biden most likely meant was: Obama (the storybook political phenom behind “Obama-mania” — a phrase that returns “about 105,000” results on Google) is the first African-American candidate who has a serious shot at the nomination because he is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking. (I’m more disturbed by the word “clean,” but I assume he’s talking about the first-term senator’s lack of negative baggage, not how often he showers. But I don’t see how any of those adjectives in the second part of his sentence can be construed as prejudicial — especially in politics. I welcome Joe Biden to say the same things about me, as long as he’s sincere.)

In this context, if you can’t describe a man like Senator Barack Obama, former president of the Harvard Law Review, as “articulate” (as in “Expressing oneself easily in clear and effective language: an articulate speaker”), then the word has no real-world meaning — unless you honestly think Biden was attempting to point out that his fellow senator is “Endowed with the power of speech.” Look: With Obama in the race, Biden doesn’t have a chance at the nomination, anyway. I would love for Obama to be our next president. How refreshing it would be to have someone in the White House who expresses himself easily in clear and effective language. Or who knows how to pronounce “nuclear.” Or who knows the difference between “dissemble” and “dissasemble”…

“I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right.” — President George W. Bush, Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

The Eleven Worst Ambiguous Movie Endings

Jim Emerson

Everybody hates it when they don’t explain everything that happened by the time the movie is over. What we need at the end is not open-endedness but clarity, loose-end tying-up, closure. We need more movies like “Psycho” (unfortunately Simon Oakland has passed, but Larry King is still with us) and “Mulholland Dr.” — movies that take a little time to explain exactly what happened so we’re not left feeling stupid all the way home. You know what they say: The difference between a comedy and a tragedy is where you end the story. Well, the same goes for the ending: The difference between a good ending and a bad ending is how good the ending is. Here are eleven of the most outrageously unsatisfactory ambiguous endings in movie history:

“Gone With the Wind” (1939) Scarlett O’Hara says, “I’ll go home. And I’ll think of some way to get him back. After all… tomorrow is another day.” That’s not the ending of a movie — that’s the beginning of act three! Put up or shut up, Scarlett. Clark Gable has just said the word “Damn” at you and that’s it? If tomorrow is such another day, then bring it on!

“Casablanca” (1942) What do you mean Ingrid Bergman goes off with Paul Henreid and all Bogart’s left with is the barest hint of a homosexual future with Claude Rains? At the end he puts her on a damn plane (something about how she doesn’t amount to a hill of beans) and he and Rains walk off into the fog together as Bogart says, “Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” Whoa! What the hell happened then? What if “Brokeback Mountain” ended right after Heath Ledger threw up? What kind of ending would that be? And how does Peter Lorre figure into it?

(Kar-) Wai, Oh Why?

Jim Emerson

View image A graffito on Norah Jones.

It’s confession time again here at Scanners: I’ve never gotten into Wong Kar-Wai (aka -wai, aka -Wei). I watched about half of “Chungking Express” and it seemed like better-than-average Tony Scott, but that didn’t particularly interest me. (I guess I was hoping for something more like the hilariously deadpan first segment of Jim Jarmusch’s “Mystery Train,” which is what various descriptions had led me to expect.) So, while humming Peggy Lee (“Is That All There Is?”), I turned it off and vowed to give it another shot at some future date. Never happened. And I wanted to see “2046” (despite my, er, reservations), but when I found out it was a semi-sequel, I felt like I should first see its predecessor, “In the Mood For Love” and (although I have both saved on my TiVo — in HD, no less) I’ve never gotten ’round to either.

Now my friend (and MSN Movies Editor) Dave McCoy, who’s disliked more Wong than I’ve even seen (but likes “In the Mood for Love”), writes about the shade-sporting hypester’s English-language “Blueberry Nights” from Cannes. This would have been ideal for the Contrarianism Blog-a-Thon:

I’ll admit it: I don’t get Wong Kar-Wai. I don’t get his movies, I don’t get his silly dark glasses that everyone else finds chic and cool, and I especially don’t get the universal adoration heaped upon him. It’s one of those things I know I should probably appreciate more. Like Björk. Or Thomas Pynchon. Or golf. Or brussels sprouts.

When the Hong Kong (by way of China) filmmaker burst on the international scene with “Ashes of Time” and, more prominently, “Chungking Express” in 1994, he immediately became both a critical darling and cult fan favorite. I found both films boring stylistic exercises. Friends told me his next film, “Fallen Angels,” would turn me around. “It’s got multiple story lines; you like Altman!” they said. I couldn’t make my way through it. “Happy Together,” an emotionally brutal gay love story, won him Best Director at Cannes in 1997. I fell asleep during it. His last film, “2046,” an experimental sci-fi/time-travel thingy was so pretentious and infuriating and laughable to me that I walked out of the press screening. Of course, it topped numerous critics’ top 10 lists in 2004 and that’s when I started referring to the director as Wong Kar-WHY? But what about “In the Mood for Love,” you ask? OK, I’ll give you that one, in that he toned down the “look at me” cheap theatrics and for the only time made me feel something for Kar-Wai’s tragic characters. And Tony Leung’s performance killed me. […]

But here’s the thing: I always give WKW another chance. I always feel like, yes, this is the one that will turn me around! […]

Look folks, I tried … but “My Blueberry Nights” flat blows…. It’s atmospheric … it looks cool, man. And all of his other showy, decorative tricks made the trip to America, as well: the lingering slo-mo shots of actors looking into space (soooo deep), the claustrophobic framing, the melancholy soft focus — everything, we suddenly realize, to take our mind away from a thin story about lost love and shattered souls that we’ve seen hundreds of times…. It’ll probably win the Palme d’Or.

My one consolation happened when I was sitting in a movie theater before the next screening. Two prominent critics were talking to one another. One asked how the other was doing, and he replied, with lovely sarcasm, “I just flew in today and had Wong Kar-Wai inflicted on me.” Right on, my brother. You don’t by any chance hate brussels sprouts, too?

A few notes:

1) Brussels sprouts are my favorite green vegetable. Steamed with butter, garlic and a little lime juice. I’m telling you…

2) Although Dave is perfectly correct to characterize lead actress Norah Jones as “the pleasant singer whose CD is found in every soccer mom’s gas-guzzling SUV” (and, yes, she’s probably been the subject of as much fashionably middlebrow hype as the Great Wong), she has achieved one moment of sublimity, a year or two before her rather bland debut album. Listen to her sing Roxy Music’s “More Than This” on Charlie Hunter’s “Songs From the Analog Playground.” It’s heaven.

3) Read the whole piece, with Dave’s specific observations about “Blueberry Nights” (is that a wine spritzer?), and please feel free to rise to Wong’s defense with your comments.

4) My advice: Beware of films bearing Natalie Portman, the Julia Ormond of the 00’s. Or at least approach them with trepidation. (OK, I did think she was good in “Closer.” So good I forgot it was her.)

5) Anybody feel similarly about other much-ballyhooed contemporary sacred cows (and Cannes winners) like, say, Abbas Kiarostami, or Lars von Trier, or Theo Angelopoulos, or Quentin Tarantino, or… ?

“Blow-Up” corpse pays tribute to Antonioni

Jim Emerson

Click to blow up image From “Blow-Up”: A blow-up image of… what?

“Until the film is edited, I have no idea myself what it will be about. And perhaps not even then. Perhaps the film will only be a mood, or a statement about a style of life. Perhaps it has no plot at all, in the way you use the word. I depart from the script constantly. I may film scenes I had no intention of filming; thing suggest themselves on location, and we improvise. I try not to think about it too much. Then, in the cutting room, I take the film and start to put it together, and only then do I begin to get an idea of what it is about.” — Michelangelo Antonioni to Roger Ebert in 1969

I can think of no better tribute to the late Michelangelo Antonioni than this 1999 letter to Ebert:

A friend recently sent me your column in the Nov. 8, 1998 Denver Post about the movie “Blow-Up.” As I actually played the blow-up in that fine movie, I thought you might enjoy knowing the behind-the-scenes story of how the film was made (or not made, in fact). Your column proclaims it to be a great film, and I am not trying to discret that opinion. But it is nonetheless an unfinished work, and it raises the fascinating question of how much of the “art” of a final film is intentional — or accidental.

My name is Ronan O’Casey, and I played Venessa Redgrave’s gray-haired lover in the film. The screenplay, by Antonioni (“just call me Michelangelo”), Tonio Guerra, and Edward Bond, told the story of a planned murder. But the scenes depicting the planning of the murder and its aftermath — scenes with Vanessa, Sarah Miles and Jeremy Glover, Vanessa’s new young lover who plots with her to murder me — were never shot because the film went seriously over budget.

The intended story was as follows…

Are Movies Going to Pieces?

Jim Emerson

View image Pauline Kael.

“I love subtextual film criticism, especially when it’s fun, when a guy knows how to write in a readable, charming way. What I love the most about it is that it doesn’t have a f—ing thing to do with what the writer or the actor or the filmmakers intended. It just has to work. And if you can make your case with as few exceptions as possible, then that’s great.”

— Quentin Tarantino, in Sight & Sound, February, 2008

Quentin Tarantino is a big fan of Pauline Kael, who may have encouraged more people to articulate their love for movies than anyone of her generation. She wasn’t necessarily all that big on what he calls “subtextual film criticism,” but she knew how to write in a readable, engaging and idiosyncratic style. The titles of her collections of reviews and essays, with their suggestive sexual and romantic overtones — “I Lost It at the Movies,” “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang,” “Deeper Into Movies,” “Reeling,” “When the Lights Go Down” — told you everything about her approach to movies. I don’t remember her using the word “film” or “cinema” much, unless it was to deride them as vacuous or pretentious. Though she became most famous and influential while writing for an upper-caste, urban(e) institution, The New Yorker, that reeked of calcified East Coast provincialism, she presented herself as an ardent movie populist. (Kael came from the northern coast of California.)

In November, 1964 — that would be about 43 years ago, for those keeping count — she published an essay for The Atlantic Monthly called, “Are Movies Going to Pieces?” in which she asks a lot of questions we’re still asking today (see recent Scanners post and discussion, “Moviegoers who feel too much,” and Stephen Whitty’s column in last Sunday’s Newark Times-Ledger,” Critic’s Choice”).

View image “If I say I am a film critic, you will agree.”

Standard disclaimer-cliché: I obviously don’t concur with all that Kael says here (but at least at this point in her career she was willing to admit to feeling some ambivalence!). One of the things I’ve always found fascinating about her is that, even when I believe she’s dead wrong, she unwittingly includes much of the evidence to make a case against her right there in her review. It’s not that she didn’t observe what was there, but that she drew such different conclusions from it. Also, her favorite rhetorical trick is the false dichotomy. It’s fun to consider her arguments, but are we really forced to make such dramatic (or simplistic) either/or choices: “The Eclipse” or “His Girl Friday”? “Art” or entertainment? Right brain or left brain? Herman J. Mankiewicz or Orson Welles? George W. Bush or Osama bin Laden?

“Are Movies Going to Pieces?” (1964). Most of these excerpts are from the middle and the very end:

I trust I won’t be mistaken for the sort of boob who attacks ambiguity or complexity. I am interested in the change from the period when the meaning of art and form in art was in making complex experience simple and lucid, as is still the case in “Knife in the Water” [Roman Polanski, 1962] or “Bandits of Orgosolo” [Vittorio De Seta, 1960], to the current acceptance of art as technique, the technique which in a movie like “This Sporting Life” [Lindsay Anderson, 1963] makes a simple, though psychologically confused, story look complex, and modern because inexplicable.

Wall-E, Mickey Rourke, Dark Knight,Synecdoche NY take the big awards!

Jim Emerson

I speak, of course, of the Muriels, the most glamorous and prestigious movie of awards named after Paul Clark’s guinea pig. (You can put a comma in the previous sentence if you like. Anywhere you like.) More than thirty movie bloggers (including yours truly) cast their point-weighted ballots in umpteen fabulous categories. The winners, the runners-up, and the voters’ comments about them have been announced every day since February 6. And now, they’re all here. Nibble Feast away.

Other big winners: “Rachel Getting Married,” “In Bruges,” “Man on Wire”…

Meanwhile, live from Istanbul: Ali Arikan liveblogs the Oscars!

More about the Muriels later, but first…

The 100-Year-Old Contrarian

Jim Emerson

Selznick, Rossellini & Fellini, by Rossellini & Maddin.

Brad Damaré of Ann Arbor, MI, was kind enough to point me to a marvelous YouTube post of the entire 16-minute 2005 collaboration between Guy Maddin (“The Saddest Music in the World”) and Isabella Rossellini: “My Dad Is 100 Years Old” (in English, with Italian subtitles). In this personal tribute to Roberto Rossellini, the subject of recent retrospectives and the father of neorealism (and more), Isabella creates imaginary conversations between herself, her papa, producer David O. Selznick, Federico Fellini, Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin and her mother, Ingrid Bergman — with the actress/daughter playing all the parts. (My delight in her performances is only enhanced by Isabella’s recent appearances as Alec Baldwin‘s volatile ex-wife on “30 Rock.”)

Through his daughter, papa Rossellini expounds on his contrarian theories of film — not as dreams or distractions, manipulations or entertainments, but as works that engage the viewer’s conscience. As is often the case on YouTube, the soundtrack slips out of synch partway through, but it’s not all that distracting. In some ways it’s perfectly appropriate (I wouldn’t put it past Maddin to have come up with the effect deliberately), since Italian films were shot without sound (MOS) into the 1960s, with little attention to precisely matching looped dialogue to lip movements.

Voltaire addresses the voodoo of Pat Robertson across the chasm

Jim Emerson

From Voltaire’s “Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne,” written in response to the Lisbon earthquake of 1755:

What crime, what sin, had those young hearts conceived

That lie, bleeding and torn, on mother’s breast?

Did fallen Lisbon deeper drink of vice

Than London, Paris, or sunlit Madrid?

In these men dance; at Lisbon yawns the abyss.

Tranquil spectators of your brothers’ wreck,

Unmoved by this repellent dance of death,

Who calmly seek the reason of such storms,

Let them but lash your own security;

Your tears will mingle freely with the flood.

Film criticism mash-up: Exciting and new!

Jim Emerson

Another exercise in Godardian film criticism (making a movie as a critical response to another movie): This one’s simple and straightforward (existing footage; new soundtrack), but it makes its points unimprovably. I don’t mean to pick on “Bobby” (which opens November 23), but after the work-in-progress press screening in Toronto I compared it to an Irwin Allen disaster movie:

It’s “Earthquake” with the RFK assassination as the disaster. It’s “Airport.” It’s “The Towering Inferno.” A whole bunch of familiar actors play “colorful” characters swarming around the hotel, and their day will culminate in the death of a Kennedy…. Why turn this traumatic national event into a Hollywood soap opera? The performances are fine for this kind of glitzy manufactured melodrama (“Where Were YOU When They Shot RFK?”), and on that level it’s swell, trashy fun. It’s just that the whole concept is inappropriate.Last week, I said the movie turns the Ambassador Hotel into “Neil Simon’s California Suite with Assassination.” But the filmmaker/critic whose work is embedded above has an equally valid take — and impeccable comic timing.

(Tip: David Poland, who rescued the clip after it was pulled off of YouTube.)

What we talk about when we talk about movies (Part 2)

Jim Emerson

Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule

When I noted last week that I see films and film criticism as two sides of the same coin (“The unexamined film is not worth watching”), I was trying to imagine what it would be like if the conversation about movies (whether academic study, criticism, or casual after-movie talk) ended with the final credits. What if the movie was just over and you never thought about it or discussed it with anyone again? It’s unthinkable, about as likely as the prospect that movies themselves — storytelling with moving images — would cease to exist.

On his newly snazzified (i.e., attractively redesigned) web site, David Bordwell has a piece (from 2000) analyzing the different ways we talk about movies: in ordinary conversation, reviews, and study; what needs they serve, their different methods and goals, and what they have in common. All of them contain an evaluative component (“I loved it!”), and are meant to communicate something about the experience of watching the movie. (I might question whether this applies to certain applications of “film theory,” however — stuff that’s not really intended to convey ideas, or be read or understood even by other academics; it’s just meant to be published. Job security, you know.)

Bordwell notes that criticism and academic study are more likely than ordinary conversation or daily newspaper reviews to put films in a historical context and to provide analysis of how they do what they do. Read the piece. I was especially delighted by his conclusion, in which he compares the in-depth analysis and appreciation of fans to that of academic study. I think he’s right — which is the source of my enthusiasm for certain intelligent and enthusiastically analytical movie blogs.

Speaking of which: Dennis Cozzalio, whom you must know as the owner and proprietor of Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule, has a terrific overview of critical approaches taken to Brian De Palma’s “The Black Dahlia,” wherein he puts his finger on something that I think captures why I love good film criticism as much as I love movies. Dennis quotes from a splendid and passionate review by Matt Zoller Seitz, before exploring his own response to “The Black Dahlia.” He writes:

What’s fascinating to me in reading a review like Matt’s, as a self-avowed, but not uncritical or all-forgiving, member of the De Palma camp, is the degree to which it is utterly convincing—that is, a compelling, understandable, no-bullshit analysis of the film from his distinct point of view– while being so divorced from my own experience and conclusions. Where Matt locates zeal and energy in the formal aspects of “The Black Dahlia” that proceed on to artistically engorge the film for him and flush it with meaning, I saw a film that lacked exactly the urgency that he and others have found to be so abundant in it. To my heart and mind, “The Black Dahlia,” despite its considerable craft and obvious serious of intent, feels listless, indifferent, and disconnected from the film noir tropes, character conflicts, and even the meticulously reconstructed 1940s-era Los Angeles (shot entirely on sets in Bulgaria) it so tantalizingly recreates.What Dennis describes is exactly what I get from the best film criticism I read, and illustrates why I’ve always felt a good critic’s verdict is the least interesting thing he/she has to say about a particular movie — or a director or a genre or a double bill or a movement or a national cinema…

No fatties

Jim Emerson

I made a mistake this week. I followed a link from a discussion among reputable movie critics to a showbiz gossip blog that I usually find too sleazy to visit. There I once again found all manner of bilious items that creeped me out and reminded me why I shouldn’t go there. One of them insulted a late, internationally renowned film critic for choosing, on his deathbed, a Howard Hawks western as his favorite movie over another title the gossip prefers. (No doubt the latter feels entitled to express an opinion about what your last meal should be, too.) Another post included the observation that Vince Vaughn “needs to lose 30 pounds. He appeared to be at the tipping point during the ‘Couples Retreat’ press junket.”