Caveh Zahedi
films biography interviews news orders
The State of Film Criticism

The New Yorker review came out today. It was written by Anthony Lane, and like most of his reviews, was less about the film in question than about Mr. Lane's formidable wit. Mr. Lane writes well. He has a slithery ease with the pen which is almost reptilian in its meanderingness. If one loves the intricacies of prose (and I, for one, do), then one can read his reviews with real enjoyment. They are, in that sense, a form of entertainment, although of a resolutely recondite nature.

The problem with Mr. Lane's reviews is that they don't tell one much about the film. In this sense, Mr. Lane is less the servant of the reader than its buffoon. He is like the court jester trying to spin everything into a joke, no matter its gravity or urgency or true import.

This has, unfortunately, become the norm in film criticism. In the race to entertain to which we all must succumb in the end, content has been replaced with form. The ideal, it seems to me, would be a review in which content and form were one, but here content has been abandoned as too difficult, too demanding, and too much of a party pooper. So instead, critics don their party hats, and blow on their noise makers, and act drunk. It's alll fun.

The problem with this form of criticism is that it is blind to seriousness (and I'm not talking about seriousness in the narrow sense of humorlessness). The breezy, ironic tone of most film critics (of whom Mr. Lane is only one of many, unfortunately), while arguably entertaining, in the end serves no one, but only contributes to the on-going debasement of public discourse. It makes one nostalgic for the film criticism of a James Agee, or a Jonathan Rosenbaum, whose reviews not only manage to avoid the showoffy fluffiness of a Mr. Lane, but are positively punctilious in their rigor and willingness to actually grapple with the moral and esthetic issues present in each individual film.

Mr. Lane's review of my film is not negative, only irrelevant. He neither gets it nor addresses it. It is merely a pretext for him to wax eloquent about nothing whatsoever. According to him, the overriding reason to see my film is my uncanny resemblance to Harpo Marx. Well, it's very kind of him to say so, but whatever my resemblance to Harpo Marx may be, that's hardly the overriding reason to see my film. It is merely an example of Mr. Lane being funny (or at least thinking he's being funny).

You're very funny, Mr. Lane. Keep up the great work.


Comments

I think you are a control addict more than anything else! Lighten up and let life be what it is once in a while... you seriously doth protest too much! your film looks funny... people are seeing it... why not enjoy this part????


Caveh,

I think you are hitting something very relevant here. There seems to be a trend in this country where a majority of film criticism has become increasingly crude and in some cases even philistine (proudly so, no less). Have you read David Bordwell's article in cinemascope: http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs26/col_bordwell_backpage.htm?

Nick


Most critics seem to be so frustrated. It must be because they would rather be making a living actually writing or making films, than tearing them apart. It's lame when they use a filmmakers film to show case their corny humor. Boring.


But Anthony Lane's review is entertaining to read, just like your film, but unlike your increasingly whiney blog.


rosenbaum's one of my favorite critics, simply because he's brief, to-the-point, and whether he likes a film or not, you never sense that he's bitter. in fact, a true critic showcases his love of movies EVEN when tearing one apart. in the case of lane, he just comes off as goopy intellectualism. that said, you shouldn't be bugged by the reviews, caveh. the real opinions matter from audience members you speak to. they actually paid for the movie, and are more concerned with the experience of watching it as opposed to the science of reviewing it professionally - which i think makes a world of difference.


I think you need a vacation.


Ironic too that Anthony Lane can only understand the film-maker's need to also act and produce in his own film as a narcissitic impulse, when he is both subject and object of all of his reviews.


Me again. Just read the David Bordwell piece in Cinemascope decrying film criticism that promotes "self-assured...jaunty wordplay" and abandons "probing for posturing." He's got a point, and so do you. I wonder about how easy it was for me to project two totally different tones onto your blog entry: at first, your words seemed snarky and and a "party-pooper" themselves; now they sound incisive and true. Your desire to have a review in which form reflects and probes content is entirely understandable. I guess I'm just panicking about this whole process of public reception, etc. Hard to have much (any) perspective. xo, Mandy


What? A New Yorker reviewer bullshitting more than reviewing? Well I NEVER!

Still, I think he treated your film well.


Hi Caveh. I have nothing new to add, just that I think your wife is on the money in that last post.


you also got a capsule review last week from richard brody. the fact that 2 people from new yorker reviewed your film is a big deal considering how few films they review at all.


In the end, I'm still framing it and placing it prominently by our bedside, along with an 8 x 10 glossy of Anthony Lane.


Imagine if Pauline Kael would have reviewed your film?
And what if she hated it?
Then I think you would have a reason to make noise.
She could get personal.
Anthony Lane is just a yuckster.

And BTW James Agee wasn't all that indepth. He once criticized a film he hadn't seen based on a photo still!


I read the review of "Sex Addict" and can see Mr. Caveh's point. Lane also managed to diss Dr. Strangelove in an accompanying article on "American Dreamz". While I think Mr. Lane is a delightful stylist, his light, but not profound touch reminds me of that great line in Brideshead Revisited about charm being the great English blight. Like Sebastian in Brideshead, Lane is very amusing, but he will never have the influence that Kael did on filmmakers as well as readers and fellow critics.


But film criticism isn't about influence. It's about helping the reader gain some insight, making them think, whether they agree or not.



Trackback (ping URL)


Post a Comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

NAME
EMAIL
URL
COMMENTS
(HTML allowed)


Remember personal info?

contact