Zero for Conduct: Recent Comments

Comment on Duck, You Sucka

Michael Atkinson — 2011-12-26T23:15:32Z

Well, to clarify, I am talking about knowledge of diversity, depth, history, aesthetics, etc., not merely technical imperfections, which I think are close to irrelevant. It's amusing when a crummy and expensive Hollywood movies gets even the simple shit wrong, but otherwise that stuff is nitpicking, and doesn't necessarily impact style, theme, thrust, etc. (Within reason: very, very badly made films are usually hopeless for that reason.) I'm not joking about "real estate critics" -- Gene Siskel was a real estate reporter when he got called up; other papers have roped in dance critics, jazz reviewers, book critics, general editors, etc., because they just don't fucking care. But to your finer point, I'm not putting down anyone for "enjoying" anything -- which is a subjective matter, and of only marginal relevance when you're having serious discourse about culture. (Unless we're good friends, and your gut reaction means something to me personally.) And I don't think Tree of Life is symptomatic of anything; clearly, it's own beast, and one that glows with nothing so much as its maker's cosmic narcissism. If that doesn't bother you, or doesn't impact your esteem of the film, that's fine, make your case somewhere. But don't do it pretending that the cosmic birth-of-the-universe = little-Terry equation isn't there, because it is.

Comment on Duck, You Sucka

Carson Lund — 2011-12-20T23:35:30Z

I guess I just see the aforementioned swipe (and the generalizations thereafter about real estate journalists or whatever) as unnecessary and rather mean-spirited. You're free to dislike these films, but it's not admirable criticism to put down those who do enjoy them. I suppose I'm also curious about what you mean when you speak about the knowledge of the medium. Are you merely classifying knowledge as an awareness of diversity in film culture, or are you getting at something more technical about the medium (which is how I interpreted it)? If the latter is the case, I'm tempted to mention that, as much as I love Uncle Boonmee and its thematic accomplishments, it suffers from some qualitatively bad filmmaking (flat lighting, awkwardly framed close-ups, questionable lens choices, overexposure). Finally, I don't think that praising The Tree of Life is symptomatic of a failure to see beyond Hollywood pulp. It's my favorite film in a year that also left me amazed by such comparatively obscure international films as Two Years At Sea and Mysteries of Lisbon. And I don't think I'm alone in this regard.

Comment on Duck, You Sucka

Michael Atkinson — 2011-12-20T18:08:14Z

I never said "ultimate" anything -- they're just unchallenging, predictable, mindless pab, getting dissed by me for having been too overhyped and beloved by critics so far, critics who, as I've said, haven't seen nearly enough films, haven't thought very hard about what they have seen, and in many cases are either green college grads or journalists literally enlisted to review movies because their editors thought it'd be a good idea to give them a break from the real estate desk or wherever. If you've read my S&S review of the Malick, you know I'm ambivalent about it, and honestly don't want to trample on swooners. But if that movie isn't about to explode from its own unvented narcissism gas, no film ever would.

Comment on Duck, You Sucka

Michael Atkinson — 2011-12-20T18:02:38Z

You could argue that some swanky-pantsers would choose a foreign film, because blah blah, etc., but you'd be wrong, and you're dissing Boonmee, which you admit to still not having seen, because you're afraid to admit you don't understand what it's trying to do. Your preference for unchallenging Hollywood pulp is yours to brag about, but that doesn't make you knowledgable about the art form, just about how much mindless fun you know you can have in the dark. Which isn't much good to anyone else. But also: the new Apes film is a doodle compared to the conceptual majesty of the original five.

Comment on Duck, You Sucka

Carson Lund — 2011-12-19T17:50:24Z

Your comment that writers who include any one of the films you list in the first big paragraph after the main top ten "know next to nothing about the medium of which they are ostensibly expert" strikes me as profoundly condescending and disingenuous. I'll agree with you that many of the films there suffer from weak filmmaking, but who are you to stand on the ivory tower and declare them ultimate examples of bad filmmaking? I'm a filmmaker and critic myself and can stand proudly behind The Tree of Life. What exactly makes it so abysmal? There is both supreme technical craftsmanship and aesthetic ingenuity in the film.

Comment on Duck, You Sucka

Erich Kuersten — 2011-12-19T15:09:42Z

Michael - No one wants to argue with the Dr. Zaius of original Planet of the Apes series defenders about Rise of the Planet of the Apes, but you was wrong, Mr. Dunston.

You can argue the rest of us don't know about the medium just because we couldn't get more than 10 minutes into Uncle Bonmee without dozing off (and we tried, not once, not twice, but thrice). We could argue instead that a swanky pants critic is much more likely to praise an artsy film made in a foreign country--especially if they're the only ones who saw it, at some snooty festival us non-comped mortals would never go to for fear of boredom-- than recognize one from their own native soil, especially if it's a big old blockbuster. There wasn't a more ballsy film made this year than Rise of the Planet of the Apes! At least you didn't put on the goddamned 'The Artist.' Being as you're one of my favorite critics by and large for your superlative Apes essay in Ghost in the Machine, I'm aghast, yes, aghast.

PS - Pazz and Jop hasn't been relevant since 1997, the year Liz Phair broke.

Comment on Straight to Hell

Chris — 2011-10-23T19:39:32Z

Why berate and bemoan teenagers, when we have professional reviewers like the nearly 50-year-old Stephanie Zacharek of MOVIELINE, for example, still to this day going into raptures and ecstasies over the likes of PRINCE OF PERSIA, THOR, and SALT (while also constantly sneering at more ambitious, less formulaic movies)? Thanks to Pauline Kael's enormous influence, we've had several generations of smug, preening, solipsistic Paulettes bound and determined to prove their hipster credentials by praising as much pulp and trash as they possibly can. Ultimately it's probably true that the fault lies primarily with the ticket buyers, but reviewers (adolescent in mind if not body) don't do us any favors either when they insist on treating trash like gold, and gold like trash.

Critics might not praise Kung Fu Panda 2, but take a good hard look at Rotten Tomatoes scores: most superhero movies get a kind reception from the majority of reviewers. Unless the thing is an absolute dog, most reviewers tend to be quite generous to tentpole releases.

Comment on Heroes for Sale

RussFilms — 2011-03-24T12:54:29Z

Greetings from Moldova!

Comment on The Man Who Wasn't There

Michael Atkinson — 2011-02-21T20:42:57Z

Sorry, it's Cracked.

Comment on Time of the Wolf

writer jobs — 2011-02-09T11:47:55Z

Clearly, I haven't even heard about many of these films. But now a lot of them are in my have-to-see list. Nobody cares, but I just wanted to comment on films from this list, which I saw and liked.

6. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - one of my favorite films. Jim Carrey is genius!
16. Mulholland Dr. - I watched this film again and again... And I still don't understand everything. Even with Lynch's hints
43. Once - I liked the atmosphere of this film. And music... It is just great.

P.S. I know that I am not a great judge :)