I'm uncomfortable bashing a fellow film writer (except if it's Roger Ebert), but Caryn James' Critic's Notebooks in the New York Times defy good logic and simple structure. In the Times today, she tackles a subject close to my heart, the films in the race for the foreign language Oscar category. But this rambling, disorganized essay is totally incoherent. What was her idea? Throw a dozen dissimilar ideas up into the air and see where they fall?
She tosses off one sentence about the Academy's "maze of regulations" for the foreign films, but barely scratches the surface of the issue. She tosses in some remarks about overlooked entries "Cache" and "L'Enfant." Fair enough. But the bulk of the piece is supposed to be about some commonality between the entries, and all she comes up with is something like they all deal with urgent issues and "they're not exactly cheerful." And this is a think piece? Wasn't James the critic who blasted Hollywood for making political films that weren't political enough? Where is the consistency? Where is the editor?
“For the last 20 years, every director in China has faced a kind of tremendous torment & that torment is censorship,” http://t.co/uJIfxrts3ZPosted 20 hours ago
"What makes an image gay positive or not gay positive?" - on BEHIND THE CANDELABRA and queer cinema | ReelPolitik http://t.co/MsvEIWcaTOPosted 21 hours ago
The Anti-"Milk": Will "Behind the Candelabra" Get Tarnished as Homophobic? #Cannes2013 #HBO #GLAAD | ReelPolitik http://t.co/DpRQBcW6XgPosted 1 day ago
Self-censorship, Iranian cinema and Asghar Farhadi's "The Past" | ReelPolitik http://t.co/8at5HbbYCKPosted 1 day ago