The Hot Blog

That should be "epigraph." Epitaphs go on tombstones.

Good gravy. I often have dreams where someone calls bullshit on me in a way similar to this but it's never actually happened. Tapley just got OWNED big time.

And Larry is dead-on as well.

Truly great art succeeds both in aesthetic terms and in popular terms.

"every poor misbegotten idiot academic who has read Hitchcock in the light of psychoanalysis, semiotics, and feminist theory"

That's the discussion we were just having in that very same entry.

I don't know, I kind of prefer Godard's version - something along the lines of, every great work of art that's popular is popular because it's misunderstood.

That's the attitude that drives people to argue that Shakespeare's plays weren't written by Shakespeare, but by someone else with that name.

There are so many staggering assumptions here that it would take all day to address them. A face-to-face with Larry would be required. We could trade top 10 lists. I'm guessing mine would surprise him.

Blackcloud, the attitude you're thinking of ("No mere commoner could contemplate ART!") isn't exactly the same as what I have in mind, which is a tad more cynical (shit happens).

I'm not saying that the popular success occurs on the same level as the aesthetic success, or that the latter is always the source of the former. But truly great art combines the two. I'm not going to say what the causal relationship is. Aristotle tried to figure it out in the Poetics and we're still arguing about it 2300 years later.

Jeff, thanks for the clarification. I see what you mean now. I wasn't sure if my interpretation is what you meant, but you will agree that Godard's attitude can lead to the stance I was criticizing.

Yes, and I especially agree with your first point, that the highest art appeals to all levels of taste.

"Appeals" is a good word. I was at a loss there to find a suitable term. Thanks for the assist.

We can think of it this way. Right now on this blog arguments are raging about two movies, one of which will be seen on its first day by more people than will see the other one in its entire run. Both set out to achieve different aesthetic goals, and will find different levels of popular success. Yet the commenters here are treating them as equally worthy of their attention, analysis, time, money, interest, etc. Both are, in that sense, art. And we are all here defending what we think of that art. Which is fantastic.

Also, as I say in the other thread, this is all just a rehash of Kant.

Yeah, David, I'm pretty sure you mean SUBJECTIVELY mediocre up there in your first paragraph, because obviously by definition something cannot be OBJECTIVELY mediocre if it is indeed beloved by more than a few of those who have already seen it. Unless, of course, your ego is large enough to conclude that because you feel a certain way about a piece of art then it must be factually, inarguably, unilaterally the case for the rest of us as well.

But no. You couldn't have meant that. You obviously intended to write SUBJECTIVELY mediocre.

HA HA! You tell em Larry! I personally can't stand TGF but only because mediocrity laid claim to the genre. The art of these films can't be compared, one is the single vision of an artist and both Trek and Wolv are a product of the machine. No matter how geeky chic these directors or execs may be they are cogs in a wheel.
Are all the posters not reading well?
"Epitaph" WTF?
OH and biscuits - Dave used the appropriate word, exactly so people like you wouldn't get all sensitive. Trek and Wolv are under most "standards" mediocre. I assume he phrased it specifically to counter the point you are making. Funny how he did that with one word huh?
This is not just another "Davids world view" rant. There's enough of them to respond to(he he),but this isn't one of them.

Who is Kris Tapley? I honestly don't mean to offend him but I've never heard of this guy. I checked out his site and it looks like a bit like a vanity project. Why would his opinion mean anything to anyone and why would anyone take the time to respond to idiotic statements? That Incontinence site reminds me of those people who start seriously watching films 5 years prior and then proceed to shout some film analysis in my face. Pass.

Blackcloud-
I agree with what you're getting at re; Kant. Wouldn't it be ironic if his search for the sublime and discovering empirical taste was resolved by all these crappy, boom-boom/bang-bang billion dollar summer movies?? I always maintained he was operating too far ahead of his time, but if the spectrum or testing point turns out to be "Wolverine" or the new "Star Trek" franchise....yipes.

Anyway....as is always said, there's no accounting for taste. But I agree the best movies, that stand the test of time appeal to aesthetic and intellectual ideals, as Larry pointed out. Makes me actually concede a point to Noah in the mumblecore argument in fact. Maybe the lack of aesthetics will make some of the movies in that movement fall away in just a few years. Huh...

Actually, one point I'd like to make to the post above...

I don't see Eyes Wide Shut as being influenced by Hitchcock. In fact, I generally refer to it as "anti-Hitchcock."

Hitchcock's method was to show the audience more than the on-screen character knew to manipulate and build suspense. However, what Kubrick did in EWS was antithetical -- the suspense arrives from the lack of the reveal. EWS is hardwired to Dr. Bill's experience; the audience only knows as much as he does, and he doesn't know anything.

Perhaps there are thematic connections. But in terms of the filmmaking intent they're quite different.

"I honestly don't mean to offend him..."

Of course you did. It makes you feel better about yourself. Fine with me.

JBD-
Kris runs a website that covers the most important thing in cinema....who might win an Oscar.

Don, I don't think Kris has ever claimed that what he's covering is the most important thing in cinema. In addition, I think he and Guy Lodge and the rest of the folks over there discuss a lot of really important things in cinema. But, then again, we're talking about movies. I love movies, but what's the most important thing in cinema, really? Your love of mumblecore movies about the "reality" of kids fifteen years younger than you?

That came out harsh, I didn't mean that. All I'm trying to suggest is that "importance in cinema" is a strange topic. It's not curing cancer, so I don't see how the Oscars are more or less important than anything else.

Ebert 2-stars it: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997

Odd. Between the time that I grabbed the link, posted it and clicked on it, another half-star appeared. Unless I was hallucinating.

Don has a problem with me he can't quite deal with maturely. Par for the course. No harm done.

I don't "love" mumblecore, I just think it's being hated on for all the wrong reasons. And Kris, I don't have a problem with you. I have a problem with your site and more specifically, the way you cover the Oscar situation.

As I stated previously....when you're listing Oscar charts for movies that aren't even out yet, completed or seen, I think that's a problem. I mean "Untitled Nelson Mandela Project" is "in contention??!!" It doesn't even have a name dude! But now all these stupid Oscar voters and these hacks who promote "Oscar movies" are going to start parroting " 'Untitled Nelson Mandela Project'is in the hunt for next eyars Oscars" when, gee whiz, I thought Oscars were supposed to be based on merit of film, not pedigree of going in, execution be damned.

And I honestly don't mean to constantly get on your case about it as you aren't the only site like that out there, but well, you're here and so am I so I get on your case.

Don, Revolutionary Road was on charts a full year beforehand based on the pedigree...it didn't even get a nomination for Best Picture. I don't think a single person votes based on the charts they see on a website.

And isn't it the same as being excited about James Cameron's Project 880 before it has a name? Thinking about and discussing movies months and years before they come out, that's part of loving movies. If it was 1974 and you knew Godfather Part II was coming out, wouldn't you think that it would be something worth being excited about? And wouldn't you think, "man, that movie will win a ton of awards" without knowing anything about it?

But Don does have a point - there's a lot of groupthink in the minds of the Oscar voters, and a lot of the Oscar campaigning is based on hype, and if the same five websites are saying 'untitled Mandela movie' will be a Best Pic nominee for a year before it comes out, a certain proportion of voters will believe and vote for it regardlessof the actual quality of the movie.

But Jeff, then how do you explain Revolutionary Road, Sweeney Todd, Phantom of the Opera, etc.? Maybe when Academy members vote similarly to what the charts predicted, maybe that means the charts predicted it accurately and maybe the voters just enjoyed the film.

don: I don't think a title is necessary to judge what's out there to be judged, "dude." I've read the script, after all, so it isn't always blind guess work. That said, year-in-advance nonsense is nothing but perennial fun at this point. I won't be touching the Oscar stuff for a while, probably after Cannes, when some assessments have landed for those films. Everything in the interim is honest-to-God film coverage. If you actually read (I assume you don't), I'd expect you to know that.

Also, if you really think Oscars are based on merit, you're being naive. It's a business like any other, It's not precious. As much as you or I wish it to be a lot more sacred than it is, it simply is not. A guy like me enjoys the race of it all and sees it as a way to write about films I'm passionate about. But that said, I'm simply offering up expectations. Predictions. I'm certainly not saying film "A" or film "B" DESERVES Oscar attention because of pedigree, which seems to be what you are bizarrely implying. And like Noah said, no one looks at a set of predictions and says, "Well, I guess I'll vote the way that guy expects things to turn out."

Anyway, hopefully you can square yourself with all of that and move on.

Also worth noting: I think we've come to the point where there isn't a studio in this town that wants a film brought up in year-in-advance speculation. More often than not, they think that kind of expectation can damage a film.

Noah, what exactly are you asking me to explain? Revolutionary Road didn't get a Best Picture nomination, but it still got 3 Oscar nominations and 4 Golden Globe nominations on top of a whole slew of other awards and nominations that, in my opinion, it didn't quite deserve.

I'm more referring to the times when the hype did succeed over substance - it would be pointless for me to name specific titles, because that would distract the conversation, but I'd say that in the last five years there have been 1 or 2 Best Picture nominees that really didn't deserve to be there.

The only mitigating factor is that it's more-or-less always been this way, because before blogs there were the studio publicity machines and Hedda Hopper.

So you're ignoring the times when the "hype" didn't succeed in favor of the times when it fits your argument? Clearly, this tactic of getting listed on Oscar charts ahead of time is not a fool-proof plan then, correct? Which means that the voters' opinion must have something to do with the way they vote. And personally, I think Revolutionary Road got robbed of a Best Picture nomination, but whatever.

My underlying point is that every time somebody talks about the same 5 or ten movies as contenders for awards, it means that they aren't talking about another 5 or 10 movies that are slipping under the radar, and allowing the studios to do their jobs for them.

Movies like Juno, Capote, Brokeback, Sideways, Lost in Translation, In the Bedroom, etc. were on nobody's Oscar charts before they were seen and admired. Isn't that the point? So movies do slip through the cracks if the Academy members like them enough. Of course the Academy doesn't reward the "best" movies, in my opinion, but they reward films they feel are deserving, not ones they see on Oscar charts.

Just because it's not a terrible, all-encompassing problem doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Jeff's comment about the attention being focused on some thus negating attention from others is exactly what I'm talking about. And there's a WORLD of difference between getting psyched up for James Cameron's newest film and Oscar buzzing say, the new Mendes. Who out there is suuuuper excited for the new Mendes or suuuuper excited for a Nelson Mandela biopic? Sure, I'd *like* to see both, but I think most every film fan is heavily anticipating the new Cameron.

Kris-
we're actually pretty close in the feelings on enjoying the Oscar race. Well, I used to enjoy it. Now it's a matter of trying to see through hype. But whtehr or not you agree with the way I feel about what your doing, I think it's clear to everyone not on your site that you're playing into Oscar buzz and hype. I know it's all a game nowadays, but I don't like the game so the players mean nothing to me.

Also- reading a script means shit, man. There's plenty of ways to screw up a great script.

I'm really feeling alot of frustration with this new wave of internet criticism where people are reading scripts, visiting sets and generally schmoozing instead of judging a film based on the film itself. I'm sorry for being such an obnoxious, repetitive dick about it (to Kris, Drew and sometimes Devin F.) but it just doesn't seem "right." It doesn't feel like film criticism...it feels like PR under the guise of film criticism.

"it means that they aren't talking about another 5 or 10 movies that are slipping under the radar"

I actually take exception to this because I make it a point of screaming to the rafters when I feel certain films are getting the shaft.

don: You're not offering any big revelation with your script quip. All I was saying is that it's not as if things are always considered in some vacuum.

"I'm really feeling alot of frustration with this new wave of internet criticism where people are reading scripts, visiting sets and generally schmoozing instead of judging a film based on the film itself."

This does not pertain to me at all. We did have a script review column, but I discontinued it this year and was never comfortable with it to begin with. I've never run a set visit report. And I've dogged plenty of films made by people I'm quite friendly with.

And I'll close by saying that I don't consider myself a proper film critic, never have. I give an opinion of films, an opinion my readership is interested in (and who can't do this, really?) and I have a centralized "beat" so to speak during the awards season, which is a legitimate beat whether you like it or not. Sometimes I'm above the fray, sometimes I'm in the muck, but I'm pretty sure you can't question my integrity, don.

Kris, I should emphasize that I have nothing against you or your site on this subject. I think you do a good job of paying attention to smaller movies and not getting wrapped up in hype, which can't be said of most of your rivals.

This is all so incredibly pointless. There are people out there who discuss The Hills too. Lots of people like lots of different things. So people like hypothesising about the Oscars before they see the movies? Who fuckin' cares?

JBD's comment was by far ruder than Don's though. If you don't know who Kris is then you mustn't pay attention to the names of people who comment around here. And Kris' site is one of the best out there.

Also, wasn't everyone predicting Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers a few years ago? Exactly.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(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.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: