|
Contra Nathan Lee
Today, the New York Times review came out, and while it was for the most part extremeley positive ("Mr. Zahedi is charming and disarming even at his most debased"), the reviewer (Nathan Lee) nevertheless felt compelled to include the obligatory back-handed compliment ("a minor triumph of sincerity") and the obligatory concluding dig. In this case, the obligatory dig took the form of an allusion to one of my favorite songs of all time. I quote:
"Still, the missing song on the soundtrack is "No Compassion" by Talking Heads: 'What are you, in love with your problems?/ I think you take it a little too far.'"
Well, that's a great song, and it's a clever dig. But what are the ideological assumptions behind it?
The main assumption, it seems to me, is that there is something a little bit excessive and unseemly in making an autobiographical film about "one's problems." But why? The reason, it seems to me, is because of yet another underlying assumption, namely that "one's problems" are one's own, and are not shared. And yet, the entire history of storytelling is based on the idea that we all share common traits, and that one person's story can stand in for other people's stories (see "The Odyssey" by Homer, or "Everyman" by Anonymous).
So why the dig? And more importantly, why the underlying assumption that "one's problems" are only one's own?
The answer, I think, has to do with a fundamental confusion about the difference between documentary and fiction, or, in the case of literature, between memoir and fiction. If I had made a fiction film, I don't believe Mr. Lee would have complained that the author is too in love with his character's problems. In fact, being in love with the problems of one's fictional characters is considered a sine qua non in fiction writing. But in autobiography or memoir, it's considered a vice, and a certain disinterest in one's "own" problems is somehow considered a virtue.
But I believe that there is no essential difference between fiction and documentary. Jean-Luc Godard was fond of saying that every documentary is also a fiction film, and that every fiction film is also a documentary. Well, he's right. Documentary and fiction are two sides of the same coin, and my film, among other things, is a demonstration of that fact. And yet, autobiographical filmmaking continues to be treated as self-indulgent, even though the history of art is filled with autobiographical works, not only in literature but also in painting and photography.
There is something so inherently reactionary in this societal taboo against self-expression, so on the side of social conservatism and a maintaining of the status quo (with its concomitant pre-ordained forms of etiquette), that I can't understand why Mr. Lee would write favorably of my film at all, since every frame of the film was conceived in opposition to the ideological assumptions that his review seems to embody.
This said, his review is not without the occasional witticism: "Here is everything you never wanted to know about Mr. Zahedi's sex life." Nor is it without the occasional insightful and well-turned phrase: "It never mugs for our good will, only our witness, which it rewards with honesty and wit." But why does Mr. Lee feel compelled to end his review with one final backhanded compliment: "But tonic honesty and lack of cool are precisely what saves "Sex Addict" from going too far down the path of "Tarnation," another exercise in mixed-up aesthetics, sordid subject matter and maniacal self-exposure."
It is a commonplace of psychology that what you accuse others of is usually more true of yourself than of the others in question. In this case, Mr. Lee's assertion that the missing song to the soundtrack of my film is "No Compassion" by Talking Heads may ultimately say a lot more about him than it does about me. Here is another quote from the same song: "Takes a lot of time to push away the nonsense."
None of this would matter very much, and the dig in question could be easily laughed off, if it weren't for the fact that a New York Times reviewer has the power to make or break a film, and that an off-handed remark like that can mean the difference between success or failure at the box office. And it's not just the fate of the film that is at stake: it's also the fate of the filmmaker and of his or her ability to make more films in the future. With such power comes a dizzying responsibility, and it saddens me to see film critics wield their formidable power with such breezy insouciance. 
| Comments |
I loved your I Am A Sex Addict (were you present at the Elmwood in Berkeley on that opening Friday rainy night? I thought I saw you afterwards out near the box office, but thought again that I must be half-hallucinating under the strength of your film). But I have to say I'm not surprised about the My Space crap and the little backhands from the NYT critic. You talk about S.E.X. and addiction as frankly and as openly as you do and you're going to run into the deepest-seeded problem in a monotheistic society. Indeed, that's but one of the reasons I liked your film: you took ALL THAT on. Ballsy as all get-out! And you're profoundly funny! (Hey Peorians: it's a COMEDY! He gets married at the end!)But back to the sad stuff: I was reading the mostly positive reviews of the film by regular folks like meself at the IMDb, and one person said they thought the bit in the montage where you're crying for "Mommy! Mommy!" was hilarious, but I'd recognized Reichian therapy when I saw that scene. And whatever Wilhelm Reich's "bodywork" merits, his theories about massive sexual repression and the mass psychology of fascism seem to make A LOT of sense to me. (But then I'm nothing but a "crank" too.)Have you seen the new DVD of Robert Anton Wilson's play _Wilhelm Reich In Hell_? It's put out by Deepleaf Productions. I hazard you'd like it. Anyhoo... We Unistatians seem deeply, profoundly authoritarian. Not all that much different from the Taliban, really. (Or why aren't Pat Robertson, Falwell, and Lou Sheldon laffed out of the public eye?) Too many people ALLOW that NYT critic the power TO make or break a work. And the bewildered herd deeply need to take in your film, but will you end up preaching to a mostly knowing and sympathetic choir? (Cd we get some empathy too, on the side?) You noted PKD liked to quote from the Latin,"non gustibus disputandum est," (er some jit like 'at),trans:"there's no disputing taste." Well, PKD also said a few times, "The Empire never ended."
On that happy note...I'm off to masturbate.
Again.
Non illegitimati carborundum Caveh! You're - as they probably say on My Space - da bomb.
-michael
Three things annoyed me about the Times review:
1. That they didn't bother to have one of the "big" critics (Dargis, Holden or Scott) do the review (I guess they don't work the mid-week shift...)
2. That Mr. Lee, though a talented writer, seemed more intent on producing a 'clever' review and showing off his own 'cool' (the Talking Heads reference; blithely writing off the film as "an exercise in mixed-up aesthetics, sordid subject matter and maniacal self-exposure")
and 3. That neither the Times, nor any other newspaper that I've seen, have mentioned, even in passing, the fracas with Cuban and Landmark.
But maybe I'm just feeling complain-y this morning.
Caveh,
Any chance your new film will be playing at a cinema near me (Brisbane, Australia)? I understand any wider theatrical release will be wildly peripheral to you at the moment, given the difficulties you have had (and continue to have) in securing a proper release in the US.
But still, any hopes of an extended, more intercontinental release in the future (especially since it seems to be doing so well over there)? I heard it ran at last year's Australian International Film Festival but I, alas, did not have my ear as firmly to the ground as I should have at the time.
Dave.
Caveh,
I'd also like to see this film in England. I think that you are likely to have a better chance of making a 'proper release' in Europe than in States, for obvious reasons of sex-related censorship that is apparent in the US. But what do I know about films, I am studying computing after all. :)
Cheers,
Constantine.
I thought the NYTimes review was great, sweetie. I thought he had a good handle on the film, especially when he marked the crucial distinction between the self-expression of IAASA and that of Tarnation: "tonic honesty and lack of cool."
Glass half full.
xo, Mandy, your darling wife
Congratulations on ther release of Sex Addict! I read the review in today's Times and I thought it was a good review. I see your point about his insult at the end of the review -- it was almost as if he felt he had to say something negative -- but it did not spoil the review by any stretch.
Keith
I'm not often in the habit of responding to criticism of my criticism, but given the nature of this particular film (confess!), my respect for Mr. Zahedi's work, and certain misconceptions my words have fostered, I thought I'd weigh in. Plus I'm bored at my day job, and this is way more interesting.
Caveh -- can I call you Caveh? this is the internets after all - "A minor triumph of sincerity" was not meant as a backhanded compliment. "Triumph" isn't a word I use lightly, modified or not. There is a triumphant quality to your cine-confession (no small feat), the defining quality of which I take to be sincerity. "Major," however, the film is not (in my estimation), and a step too close to lazy blurb whoring. I hedged the phrase to calibrate my opinion with exactitude, not superiority.
As for the "No Compassion" "dig"" -- quite the opposite! Being a fan, you know as well as anyone how thick with irony that song is ("They say compassion is a virtue, but I don't have the time.") Sharp as you are, I'm surprised you didn't catch my meaning here. With typical wit and cunning, the Heads are playing head games with personae. The song assumes a role (impatient, peevish, judgmental, urbane) in order to knock someone for not being "cool." It invites the listener to be in on this hip attitude while dryly skewering their complicity.
But tonic honesty and lack of cool are precisely what saves SEX ADDICT -- from the hipness and disingenuousness of TARNATION. Yes, Mandy, a distinction is being made here, although perhaps it relies too much on shorthand ("No Compassion," "Tarnation"), and asks the reader to do too much work.
Continuing on this thin-skinned rant (when in Rome!) -- I'm nuts for mixed-up aesthetics (dude, I'm with you on Godard, and don't get me going on Warhol and Weerasethakul) and bonkers for sordid subject matter. Maniacal self-exposure is not, it seems to me, a judgment call, but a close description of what's up on the screen. That these qualities are taken as negative is your assumption, not mine.
But here's the thing: this review was assigned at 200 words, slightly give or barely take. Try it some time. After naming the title, director, and a two-line synopsis, you're just about half done, so freaks like me get all tricky and try to cram an essay into a capsule. And then post on blogs.
Anyway, I should get "back to work," though its so damn nice out it seems criminal to do so. Best of luck with the film, Caveh. I'm glad you said what you said, even if I disagree with some it. Its interesting to see how my words are interpreted, and I appreciate you offering this forum for discussion.
Dear Nathan,
May I call you Nathan?
First of all, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your kind, thoughtful, and eloquent rebuttal of my hastily scrivened diatribe, for which I sincerely apologize. I'm so used to being attacked that I've gotten somewhat trigger-happy of late. Your response to my screed is utterly persuasive, and all I can really do as an act of contrition is to say thank you and sorry.
My wife, Mandy, is much more level-headed than me, and I'm glad that she helped set the record straight.
I just read the truly vicious review by Jay Carr, and it made me appreciate just how intelligent, thoughtful, and compassionate your review was.
And yes, having dabbled in film criticism myself, I can totally understand how hard it must have been to come up with a considered 200 word review of the film, and my appreciation of the craft that went into your review has multiplied exponentially as a result.
Thank you again, and I will try harder (with my next film) to earn from you the epithet "major" in describing my work.
Sincerely,
Caveh
Dear Caveh,
First name basis - that's better!
Thanks for the thanks. But wait a second, what is this, a circle jerk? I AM A SEX ADDICT!
No need to apologize. I said my thing, you said yours, and neither of us is the final authority on any damn thing in the (bathtub of the) world. Far from being upset at your post, I welcomed it as an opportunity to bridge the gap between filmmaker and critic - both of whom might benefit from more dialogue of this sort.
I know very well how massive a Times review is for a small release, and having followed the fucked up scenario with your distribution, can understand why you'd be sensitive. I'm sure this is only, like, the most nerve-wracking week of your entire life.
yrz,
NL
Dear Nathan,
I apologize for being so schizophrenic (is that a bad thing?). I just really, really appreciated your taking the trouble to respond to my objections.
As for the major/minor thing, it all depends on what one values in a film. What do you, personally, consider major?
For me, what constitutes a major as oposed to a minor work is something that embodies a paradigm shift. It has very little to do with a certain notion of quality or craft. Warhol embodies, it seems to me, a very radical paradigm shift, whereas the quality or craft of his films is arguably quite low. Spielberg is, I think, a minor artist, because despite the undeniable quality and craft of his films, none of them embody a truly radical paradigm shift. This is why Godard is a major filmmaker and Chabrol a minor one, or why Weerasethakul is a major filmmaker and Ang Lee a minor one, despite his obvious talent.
The reason I disagree with you on the major/minor issue is because I believe that my films, despite their undeniable weaknesses and limitations, embody a paradigm shift.
John Pierson once said of one of my films: "I don't even know if one can call it a film." This hurt my feelings at the time, but looking back on it, I think it was a great compliment.
The problem with any paradigm shift is that it is inevitably seen through the misprision of the previous operative paradigm, and is thus inevitably misread.
This was true of Warhol's films, certainly, but also, to a lesser extent, of the films of Godard and Weerasethakul.
My contention is that you do not in fact really and truly understand my film because despite your perspicaciousness, you are still seeing it through the looking glass of a previous paradigm, and the film represents something paradigmatically new in the cinematic landscape, something for which there are not yet any viable categories.
It is perhaps this, more than anything, that upset me most when I read your review. Because you were so close to getting it, and yet didn't quite.
This is not something that I can persuade you, or anyone else, of, but I hope it elucidates my disagreement with you, and at least palliates the earlier circle jerk accusation.
Respectfully,
Caveh
So, the film is about masturbation?
Because this thread certainly is.
the digs, dig?
what is the QL dude supposed to say, after watching a CZ production? "caveh's refreshing candor and honesty is only exceeded by what a damn great guy he is!!!" ??
art is subject to interpretation
and no honey, critics can't just give everything 4 stars and two thumbs up. it just doesn't work that way!
THE MOST IMPORTANT LESSON 4 TODAY I AM SPEAKING ORACULARLY NOW AND THUS IN OUIJA STYLE:
NEVER DEFEND YOUR WORK.
(Someday I suppose you will look back on the letter you wrote to QL and find it rather an embarrassment.)
Théophile
|
|
(04/12/06) Insouciant crickets: Caveh's cavil - I Am A Sex Addict's Caveh Zahedi contests cricket Nathan Lee's song stylings in the 243-word notice he wrote for the NY Times. "[W]hile it was for the most part extremely positive [Lee] nevertheless felt compelled to include the obligatory...
|
| |
