Mr. Hillis is an obvious moron -- why keep linking to his pedantic and wholly misguided clips?

So you disagree with Mr. Hillis's take on Wonderful Town? I don't. Guess I'm a moron, too.

http://www.fipresci.org/festivals/archive/2007/pusan/wonderful_town_dbrodersen.htm

I, more than less, agree with Hillis. The ending was disappointingly too pat. However, I remember having to make an agonizing choice as a member of the Fipresci jury in Pusan last year between Wonderful Town, passionately fought for my Argentinian colleague (see link above), and the three other members opting for The Red Awn, which won.

It's not that I disagree with Mr. Hillis about WONDEFUL TOWN, which I haven't yet seen. It's that his "review" of Kobayashi's THE HUMAN CONDITION in the new Voice is one of the risable and insulting reviews of a major film by a major director that I've ever seen. He seems to believe himself when he claims the film is without "subtext" -- yet he seems to have no clue about Japanese history, Socialist Realism (or its ironic Others), or Kobayashi's work in general. Had he, he might have managed to stop watching the clock and watch the film he was supposed to review. Had he a library card, he might even have done some reading on the topic. Instead, he settles for idiotic assertions and wholly misguided analogies (THE HUMAN CONDITION was, for example, never intended to be screened in a single sitting, ala SATANTANGO). The man is a doofus -- and David, you are far. far from a moron.

Well, I appreciate your appreciation of The Human Condition, but "doofus" is no more of an argument than "moron." I know Aaron pretty well, and I can assure you that he's neither.

You're right: name-calling isn't the way to win an argument -- which is why I provided ample examples of the man's cluelessness in my post. Let him defend himself against these charges (which I also sent to the editor at the Voice.) No need to be so defensive David -- afraid Hillis can't take it?

But Chuck, your mere claiming that there is subtext to THE HUMAN CONDITION isn't proof enough now, is it? Isn't that just as empty a statement as those you accuse Hillis of?

I recently sat through the entire film again (the third time in 30 years) and, well, Hillis isn't wrong. Its ambition, running time, and progressive socio-political commentary can't disguise the fact that in the end it's just a soppy melodrama.

Sorry, I have to agree with Chuck here, and I don't even care much for the movie. This is one shallow review; the level of insight here is accurately reflected by the Voice's headline for the article.

Subtext(s) exists in every text, by its very nature. It is the critic's duty to realize it (them), define it, and explain how it works. I argue could a variety of subtexts for THE HUMAN CONDITION -- the ways it works within the context of Kobayashi's "desires" and other films; its relationship to Socialist Realism generally; its relation to the actual circumstances of Japanese wartime involvements; and etc -- but then, I'm not the one who was paid to review it. Mr. Hillis was, thus the onus is his. As for any film being "just a soppy melodrama", well...without accusing anyone of else of lazy thinking, I will simply point you to the entire career of Douglas Sirk, whose films were long accused of being "just soppy melodramas", yet have, with critical assistance, long since been shown to be anything but.

Mr. Stephens can argue about subtexts and contexts until he's blue in the face, and it won't change the way "The Human Condition" will play, even with the viewer making good faith allowances for the cinematic/aesthetic conventions it follows. "No, this isn't prolix or trite, it's SOCIALIST REALISM!", Mr. Stephens would have us know. Oh, well, okay then, everybody, take it back.

Hillis was providing his Warshovian perspective on the picture—that is, reporting on his immediate experience of it, which is about the best you can do in that format. As for Stephens' invoking of Sirk, nice try—only with Sirk, the proof is in the pudding. Everything's up there on the screen. With Kobayashi, well, apparently you need all the knowledge of Chuck Stephens to make the case. "Socialist realism." Yeesh.

That said, I will give Mr. Stephens this—Aaron kind of IS a moron.

Kidding.

"The way THE HUMAN CONDITION will play"? Isn't that an entirely subjective matter? So Mr. Hillis was bored -- what does that have to do with the film, which he gives no indication of having even attempted to appreciate in any sort of informed manner?

"Hillis was providing his Warshovian perspective on the picture—that is, reporting on his immediate experience of it, which is about the best you can do in that format." -- which "format" would that be? print journalism? the pages of the Village Voice? Gee -- Jonas Mekas, Andrew Sarris, Carrie Rickey, Jim Hoberman, etc all used to manage to actually deal with the films they were reviewing, and even give us rather rich historical materials to consider while they were at it, rather than drone about their own "Warshovian" limitations. How about, as I've said several times now, DOING SOME FUCKING RESEARCH? GIVING THE READER A SENSE OF YOUR ACTUALLY HAVING SOME CONTEXT FOR SPEAKING ABOUT A FILM?

As for everything being up there on the screen with Sirk (and my "nice try") -- what are you on? If "everything" had been up there on the screen (a condition that never exists, except in the minds of the lazy), generations of Sirk aficionados (Fassbinder included) wouldn't have had to rescue Sirk from his purgatory in the land of "just soppy melodramas." Is Rock Hudson's sexuality "up there on the screen"? Was Lana Turner and her daughter's personal turmoil "up there on the screen" in IMITATION OF LIFE? Those are just a couple of subtextual avenues one might travel when considering Sirk, and that’s barely scratching the surface.

As for SOCIALIST REALISM -- hey pal, look it up, then get back to me. Look up Kobayashi while you’re at it. Look up Junpei Gomikawa too. And a page or two on Japanese postwar history. I don’t claim to be an authority on Kobayashi, though I know a thing or two about his films – but then, as I’ve said already, I wasn’t paid to review the film; Hillis was. Let him do his own research. (And by the way, I never claimed THE HUMAN CONDITION as an exemplar of SOCIALIST REALISM – in fact, I think much of it is a calculated rebuttal to just such “art”.)

The funny thing is, I don’t even like THE HUMAN CONDITION – and I pretty much agree with Hillis on the films’ boredom count. What I deplore is critical laziness, lack of research, cultural ignorance, insufferably smug attitudes and clueless analogies – all of which Mr. Hillis’s “review” contains in spades. You don’t have to know anything about SOCIALIST REALISM to review THE HUMAN CONDITION – as Mr. Hillis’s “review”, and his vigilant protectors like Mr. Kenny, makes clear absolutely clear. Indeed, you don’t need to know anything to be a working film critic – the proof is in attitudes like those currently being expressed right here.

Shorter Chuck Stephens:

Why aren't you me?

And another thing:if Sirk's greatness can only be apprehended via a command of "Hollywood Babylon"-style factoids, then Sirk's greatness is fraudulent. Which it isn't. Do some "fucking" research into cinematic language some time, maybe.

Gee, and to think Premiere let a deep thinker like you go...

Gee, and I thought accusations of narcissism were best reserved for those who accuse others of saying things they never said, refuse to respond the actual issues at hand, and presume to rewrite others in their own image -- the mirror, pace Sirk, is a tricky place, eh Mr. Kenny?

And just be clear, those "factoids" have nothing to do with Sirk's "greatness", nor did I ever contend that did. The subject was "subtext" -- but then, it must be difficult for you to reason, what with your echo chamber turned up so loud.

p.s. At exactly which point did I contend that Sirk's greatness had anything to do with those "factoids"? The subject, as most readers will recognize, was "subtext" -- but then, it must be difficult for you to follow a line of thought, what with your echo chamber turned up so loud.

Took you a little while to get to my employment status, huh, Chuck? You really are a class act.

Chuck, it seems that bitterness is blinding you, so let me help you out: Stop digging.

Thanks David -- I will, though I'm not bitter. This is scarcely the first time I've been beset by ninnies.

And...scene.