SUMMER READING: Cinema Scope, Summer '09

In his scathing Cannes 2009 wrap-up "Stupid, Adjective," from the latest issue of Cinema Scope, editor and publisher Mark Peranson lambasts this past May's edition of the festival as "far and away, the stupidest Cannes ever." Before tearing into Lars von Trier's Antichrist, Park Chan-wook's Thirst, Andrea Arnold's Fish Tank, Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock, Brillante Mendoza's Kinatay, and especially Gaspar Noé's Enter the Void ("I felt like I had seen perhaps the stupidest film I'd ever seen at Cannes," he writes, smacking Noé's latest as a "repetitive, punishing, and alienating experience."), Peranson has another, unlikely target in his sights:

Every year, the stupidity at Cannes begins with the critics. Before the festival began, there was a feature in [indieWIRE] that asked, "Is Cannes still important?" Asking this question is stupid: of course, Cannes is still important, and, of course, it will remain important so long as film festivals exist. But important for whom? Let's be precise: Cannes is important because it presents the critic with perhaps the last remaining opportunity to be in a leading position to set the terms for discourse about how a film is going to be treated, discussed, and analyzed. Cannes plays into the ego of the critic to be part of something important—a fact made even more crucial at a time when, on a daily basis, the influence of film critics is being hacked away body part by body part, while, paradoxically, there is more film criticism than ever before. At Cannes one is surrounded by literally thousands of people of various degrees of intelligence all eager to make their views well known in as rapid a manner as possible. In other words, a recipe for complete and utter disaster. When exacerbated by technology that enables an even rapider response time than ever before, and a slate of films that insists on poking at one's gray matter with a sharp stick to elicit a reaction, the end result, for me, was a closing-down of sorely needed critical functions. And why bother to write anything? It's got to the point where one doesn't even need to go to Cannes to experience it: Cannes has become the most virtual of all festivals.

At Cannes, stupid critics lose sight of the goals of film criticism—instead, their function becomes the need to make over-the-top, egregious generalizations and pronouncements with as little critical thinking and reflection as possible. Part of this surely stems from the ceaseless waves of projections, one "masterpiece" giving way to another "abomination." Thus, what otherwise, in a different context, might seem acceptable becomes plain-out stupid; what may be a mediocre effort by an always talented auteur—as great filmmakers never make bad films—becomes a high masterpiece. And never the twain shall meet.

Posted by ahillis at July 17, 2009 9:21 PM