July 8, 2006
Weekend shorts.
At Quick Stop Entertainment, DK Holm notes that, after a severe drought, this is a damn fine time for film books and then reviews Annalee Newitz's Pretend We're Dead: Capitalist Monsters in American Pop Culture, "a terrific survey of 'monster' movies of the last 20 or so years and pop culture well before that, and focusing on cannibals, robots, and serial killers."
How did The Searchers get canonized, wonders Stephen Metcalf in Slate: "It is preposterous in its plotting, spasmodic in its pacing, unfunny in its hijinks, bipolar in its politics, alternately sodden and convulsive in its acting, not to mention boring.... Though visually magnificent, the movie is otherwise off-putting to the contemporary sensibility, what with its when men were men, and women were hysterics mythos and an acting style that often appears frozen in tintype." Jim Emerson responds, arguing that Metcalf isn't actually all that concerned about the film itself: "Using The Searchers as an anecdotal, ideological bludgeon, Metcalf attempts to attack the impudent and insidious notion that movies are worthy of serious study and artistic interpretation."
Two meaty entries from Girish to chew on: "Taxonomies" and "Signpost Films."
Michael Atkinson: "Don't call it nostalgia - what's beguiling and hilarious and dazzling today about unpretentious star vehicles like China Seas (1935) are exactly the same lovely resources that suckered audiences in the 30s: personality amperage, fun-loving sexuality, pulp honesty, and the brazen let's-play-pretend energy of Clark Gable and Jean Harlow." Also in the Voice, Dennis Lim on Urbanscapes.
In the San Diego Reader, Jay Allen Sanford takes a nostalgic tour of the area's drive-ins, most of them now long gone.
"Somehow, Tennessee Williams and the movies have never made a comfortable fit," writes Geoffrey Macnab in the Independent. "On screen, the intensity was invariably lost. Worse, in the name of decency, Williams' work was all too frequently bowdlerised."
Macnab makes an appearance in the Guardian as well: "Talking to [Paul] Schrader about the origins of Taxi Driver is a disarming experience. On the one hand, he waxes nostalgic about a movie he is still clearly immensely proud of. On the other, he is forcing himself to rake over one of the most troubled moments in his own life."
Also in the Guardian:
At Cinema Strikes Back, David Austin talks with Bill Barounis, whose Onar Films has been releasing Turkish films from a "golden age" which "seems to start in 1967 and end in the late 70s.... Turkish cinema was unrepeatable and unparalleled. No country whatsoever produced such films."
Bradford Nordeen: "Sebastien Lifshitz's Wild Side is one of the most moving and impeccably constructed films I can recall seeing in a non-revival theater in ages."
Peter Gelderblom on Takashi Miike's The Great Yokai War: "You won't hear me declare it a masterpiece. To tell the truth, I don't know what the hell it is.... Think Miyazaki, but live-action, with a slightly fetishistic sensibility."
Bryant Frazer: "Takeshis', Takeshi Kitano's crazy, weird, indulgent, breathtaking, strangely titled fantasy, is as entertaining as it is puzzling - a marvelous movie about movies with a sense of humor and a surreal streak."
At Not Coming to a Theater Near You, Ian Johnston reviews "one of Sokurov's best," The Second Circle.
Peter Debruge at Collider on Kino's package of early films by Michael Haneke: "Few filmmakers have generated as conceptually unified an oeuvre as Haneke, and this is, hands down, the most significant DVD release of the year.... Haneke's early films resonate with contemporary concerns and reinforce his standing as one of the most audacious filmmakers working today."
Though he doesn't frame the piece quite this way, Kenji Fujishima does show that directors of the current crop of summertime blockbuster wannabes could learn a thing or two about the action genre from Die Hard. Also at the House Next Door, NP Thompson has a long talk with Stewart Stern, which he introduces with a brief appreciation of Rachel, Rachel.
Jay Seaver at Hollywood Bitchslap: "The Descent doesn't mess around on its way to being the best action-horror movie to come down the pipe in a while."
Robert Ito: "Die-hard fans of Asian film are quick to recoil at any remake, whether it's The Ring or Shall We Dance? or this summer's Lake House. But with Battle Royale the reaction has been particularly vehement."
Also in the New York Times:
August Brown: "For the African American musicians who appear in Afro-Punk, their ethnic identity and their deep attraction to the aesthetics and idealism of punk rock often keep them from being fully accepted as a member of either group." Also in the LAT, Kevin Thomas finds Tahmineh Milani's Cease Fire "talky, too long at 1 hour, 44 minutes and [it] tends to be preachy and tedious." Also, Mark Olsen on Only Human.
Shawn Badgley talks with Ward Serrill about The Heart of the Game. Also in the Austin Chronicle, Anne S Lewis on Rebecca Dreyfus's Stolen and Steve Uhler on The Loved One.
Eric Kohn in the NYP on The Motel: "The compositions, usually unfolding in Jarmuschian long takes and viewed through wide angles, tend to look flat, and extended dialogue scenes grow tired. But... there's little doubt that [director Michael] Kang's style will grow."
Christopher Bray remembers the falling out between Alfred Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann in the New Statesman.
Via Jenni Olson, a list from Christie Keith: "Notice I'm not calling this the ten best lesbian/gay films. I have no idea what the ten best queer films of all time are. I probably haven't even seen them. These are my ten favorite gay movies, period."
2006. We're a little past the halfway mark, and Jason Whyte's got a top ten and bottom five "so far, anyway" at Hollywood Bitchslap.
"Satellite radio DJs and programmers offer perhaps the best example to artists and other creative types looking to take advantage of the new technologies of their respective media," writes Daniel Nemet-Nejat. "Filmmakers could take a page out of their book."
"The allure of the trailer is the realization that immense power need not come in a 90-minute package," writes Adriane Quinlan in the Washington Post. "Sure, it's advertising. But often, it's art."
Online listening tip. Karen Allen recalls Raiders of the Lost Ark on the Leonard Lopate Show.
Online viewing tip #1. The trailer for DOA: Dead or Alive, via Bilge Ebiri.
Online viewing tip #2. At the Culture Blog!, Mark Morford introduces Joss Whedon (introduced by Meryl Streep) accepting an award in honor of the strong roles he's written for women.
Online viewing tip #3. James Israel's found some vintage Dennis Hopper.
Online viewing tip #4. Noam Chomsky vs Michel Foucault. Via Fimoculous.
Online viewing tip #5. Andy Rector points to Jean-Luc Godard talking (without subtitles) about the differences between Santiago Alvarez and Stanley Kubrick's depictions of the war in Vietnam.
Online viewing tips, round 1. Brasscheck TV: hours of leftish documentary viewing.
Online viewing tips, round 2. Erik Davis launches a new feature at Cinematical: "Eat My Shorts."
Online viewing tips, round 3. Alison Willmore rounds up some of the most interesting of the recently released trailers at the IFC Blog. Also, Thom Yorke.
Posted by dwhudson at July 8, 2006 8:07 AM
I heartily agree with Stephen Metcalf. I am completely mystified as to why The Searchers is held in such high regard. Seen today, it seems horribly dated, offensive, simple-minded, poorly-acted, and boring.
Posted by: Stephen Dierks at July 8, 2006 5:18 PMI'm more mystified at Emerson's dumb personal attacks on Metcalf. Now dissenting opinions are seen as attacks on ALL intelligent film lovers? That's precisely the film-nazism that Metcalf's article was speakign out against.
Posted by: Daniel at July 9, 2006 9:05 PMI'm sure Girish is a lovely bloke, but that sort of hardcore cinephile stuff makes my head hurt. Just strikes me that the amount of time spent worrying about what sort of film lover one is could be more profitably spent actually watching films.
Posted by: James Russell at July 10, 2006 4:20 AMStephen Metcalf should know better than to use the completely meaningless and subjective word 'boring' when describing a film. In what way is a film 'boring'? The adjective always seems to be used in connection with so-called 'slow-paced' films. And why is 'slow-paced' most often used perjoratively whereas 'fast-paced' is used as a term of praise? Some of the greatest films could be termed as having a slow-pace. It's like saying one is 'bored' by the slow movements of a symphony. I always smell the whiff of philistinism when someone uses the word 'boring' about a film without their ever being able to justify it. If Metcalf dislikes The Searchers, perhaps the most distilled version of Ford's mythology, then he must dismiss most of Ford's work to which most of his crticisms of The Searchers could equally apply.
Posted by: ronald bergan at July 10, 2006 7:35 AMHey, Daniel: I think you misunderstand what I wrote. Did you read Metcalf's piece? He's the one who is mounting "personal attacks" (on Scorsese, Paul Schrader, and other assorted "film geeks," as he puts it), inappropriately using "The Searchers" as his weapon. If he'd stuck to criticizing "The Searchers," that would have been fine. But instead he uses the movie to smear all who dissent from HIS opinion. He writes:
"Its reputation lies elsewhere, with two influential and mutually reinforcing constituencies: critics whose careers emerged out of the rise of "film studies" as a discrete and self-respecting academic discipline, and the first generation of filmmakers—Scorsese and Schrader, but also Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, and George Lucas—whose careers began in film school. The hosanna chorus for The Searchers is impossible to imagine, in other words, without the formalized presence of film in the university curriculum."
So, nobody is allowed to genuinely appreciate "The Searchers" for their own reasons, whatever they may be. They must all have drunk some kind of geeky academic kool-aid, instead. Only brainwashing can explain others' opinions. So, who's promoting film-nazism? As you can see from reading what he wrote, Metcalf isn't really interested in taking down "The Searchers" (which he is perfectly entitled to do). He just wants to attack the idea of film as a fit medium for criticism or academic study. Hence all the name-calling directed at those who love or admire this particular movie: "film geeks," "the interpretation factory" -- or "well-credentialed nerds" and "unworldly men" as a blanket smear against filmmakers of the '70s, from Scorsese to Coppola. That's not film criticism; it's just nasty insult-mongering. And that's what I was responding to.
Posted by: Jim Emerson at July 11, 2006 5:04 PM






Subscribe to GreenCine Daily by email