David Denby on the future of Hollywood
January 11, 2007 1:39 PM Subscribe
I think Denby is a fine critic, even if he doesn't live up to matteo's high standards, and I enjoyed the linked piece—especially since he name-checked my man Godfrey Cheshire and referred to his 1999 NY Press article "The Death of Film/The Decay of Cinema." (I'm still waiting for Cheshire to finish the book on Iranian film he told me he was working on years ago.)
posted by languagehat at 2:44 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by languagehat at 2:44 PM on January 11, 2007
Well you're one to talk about a now - complete stage of suckage.
posted by vronsky at 3:08 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by vronsky at 3:08 PM on January 11, 2007
David Denby called "Crash" "hyper-articulate and often breathtakingly intelligent and always brazenly alive" and "easily the strongest American film since Clint Eastwood's "Mystic River"..."
That's just one of the more striking demonstrations of the depth of his suckage. He's so very bad. He's a bad writer, his opinions are poorly formed (and informed) and always horribly argued. Even his knowledge of film history is shoddy.
posted by ghastlyfop at 3:26 PM on January 11, 2007
That's just one of the more striking demonstrations of the depth of his suckage. He's so very bad. He's a bad writer, his opinions are poorly formed (and informed) and always horribly argued. Even his knowledge of film history is shoddy.
posted by ghastlyfop at 3:26 PM on January 11, 2007
Confession: I am a very big fan of Pauline Kael's.
posted by ghastlyfop at 3:29 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by ghastlyfop at 3:29 PM on January 11, 2007
He may suck in terms of his general aesthetic judgements, but...is what he's arguing here wrong?
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:47 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:47 PM on January 11, 2007
He doesn't suck in terms of his general aesthetic judgements; matteo and ghastlyfop are just taking out their Kael nostalgia on him. But your question is a good one anyway: what on earth does his opinion of Crash (I didn't realize anyone who disagreed with ghastlyfop about the merits of a movie sucked, but never mind) have to do with his thoughts on the state of the film industry?
posted by languagehat at 5:11 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by languagehat at 5:11 PM on January 11, 2007
But what were his thoughts on the state of the film industry? I read the article a few days ago and realized that it managed to say remarkably little about . . . well, anything. It would have been the worst article in the magazine had not Gopnik's bizarre football piece taken the cake. I sometimes like Gopnik, but when he is bad--and the football article was very bad--he almost singlehandedly sinks the ship.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 5:28 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 5:28 PM on January 11, 2007
What computer analysis could synthesize “Borat”?
The A.W.E.S.O.M.-O 4000?
posted by mrgrimm at 5:40 PM on January 11, 2007
The A.W.E.S.O.M.-O 4000?
posted by mrgrimm at 5:40 PM on January 11, 2007
I think he does himself in at this part right here, "The old downtown picture palaces have been gone so long that to think of them at all is to indulge in nostalgia for nostalgia, a faintly remembered dream from childhood of cathedral lobbies and ushers in red uniforms with gold braid."
posted by philosophistry at 6:02 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by philosophistry at 6:02 PM on January 11, 2007
But what were his thoughts on the state of the film industry?
There were quite a few interesting points. This little one stood out for me:
"The studio heads, however much they try to shorten the odds, must choose talent over formula. If they can’t do that, they should get out of the way, or soon enough cheaper ways of making movies may push them out."
I think the main point was that the current practices of big-budget studios are pushing the movie market to non-theater alternatives, which will permanently change the type and quality of movies made by Hollywood. I would agree. Movies made for theaters are on their way out.
The other interesting point was about high-def, just for a personal perspective on a technology I don't get to see.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:07 PM on January 11, 2007
There were quite a few interesting points. This little one stood out for me:
"The studio heads, however much they try to shorten the odds, must choose talent over formula. If they can’t do that, they should get out of the way, or soon enough cheaper ways of making movies may push them out."
I think the main point was that the current practices of big-budget studios are pushing the movie market to non-theater alternatives, which will permanently change the type and quality of movies made by Hollywood. I would agree. Movies made for theaters are on their way out.
The other interesting point was about high-def, just for a personal perspective on a technology I don't get to see.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:07 PM on January 11, 2007
I think he does himself in at this part right here, "The old downtown picture palaces have been gone so long ...
I thought that was a little silly too. As far as San Francisco goes, we had a bunch of those theaters as late as the late '90s. However, they've all closed (except for the Castro) since.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:12 PM on January 11, 2007
I thought that was a little silly too. As far as San Francisco goes, we had a bunch of those theaters as late as the late '90s. However, they've all closed (except for the Castro) since.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:12 PM on January 11, 2007
This thing has been making the rounds in the film blog world for a while. As usual, David Hudson at GreenCine has a comprehensive roundup. Anne Thompson: "Every so often a film critic flies to Hollywood, interviews a few studio heads about what's happening and writes up a good solid term paper." More from Chuck Tryon.
posted by muckster at 7:16 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by muckster at 7:16 PM on January 11, 2007
I think the main point was that the current practices of big-budget studios are pushing the movie market to non-theater alternatives, which will permanently change the type and quality of movies made by Hollywood. I would agree. Movies made for theaters are on their way out.
And that's the tragedy, right there. I hope this doesn't happen.
As David Lynch says in his new book, "Catching the Big Fish,"
"It's so magical- I don't know why- to go into a theater and have the lights go down. It's very quiet, and then the curtains start to open. Maybe they're red. And you go into a world.
It's beautiful when it's a shared experience. It's still beautiful when you're at home and your home theater is in front of you, though it's not quite as good. It's best on a big screen. That's the way to go into a world." [emphasis mine]
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 7:27 PM on January 11, 2007
And that's the tragedy, right there. I hope this doesn't happen.
As David Lynch says in his new book, "Catching the Big Fish,"
"It's so magical- I don't know why- to go into a theater and have the lights go down. It's very quiet, and then the curtains start to open. Maybe they're red. And you go into a world.
It's beautiful when it's a shared experience. It's still beautiful when you're at home and your home theater is in front of you, though it's not quite as good. It's best on a big screen. That's the way to go into a world." [emphasis mine]
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 7:27 PM on January 11, 2007
Ah, that Lynch and his book! I just got home from getting shut out of his reading on Union Square. Apparently people lined up at 4pm for the 7pm event. The book's great though--I posted about it (and TM) last month. He's right about the theaters, too. I doubt they're ever going to go away, but perhaps all the talkers will stay away?
posted by muckster at 7:42 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by muckster at 7:42 PM on January 11, 2007
I couldn't go - but I wanted to. If I weren't on a set right now I'd have been there at 4 as well!
Seeing "Inland Empire" in a full theater was an experience that absolutely can not be matched by a screening at home. It was a fully enveloping experience.
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 7:48 PM on January 11, 2007
Seeing "Inland Empire" in a full theater was an experience that absolutely can not be matched by a screening at home. It was a fully enveloping experience.
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 7:48 PM on January 11, 2007
This was a perfectly good article, as all of Denby's stuff is. Perfectly good. Never better or worse. I notice none of the Denby detractors have offered more than vague platitudes as to why he so thoroughly sucks - I find him readable but never inspiring. Anthony Lane is uneven but makes me laugh out loud pretty regularly, and that's good enough for me.
posted by soyjoy at 9:05 PM on January 11, 2007
posted by soyjoy at 9:05 PM on January 11, 2007
Anthony Lane is uneven but makes me laugh out loud pretty regularly, and that's good enough for me.
Really, soyjoy? Laffs are pretty low on the list of things I look for in a film critic.
As for Denby's essay, I agree that it's perfectly fine--but I don't feel that I'm in the target audience for an article that begins, in 2007, with this: "The device was as elegant as an old cigarette case and not much larger than a child’s palm. I was holding a video iPod, poised at the frontier of a new digital age, a new platform for movies, a new convenience that will annihilate old paradigms."
posted by muckster at 9:49 PM on January 11, 2007
Really, soyjoy? Laffs are pretty low on the list of things I look for in a film critic.
As for Denby's essay, I agree that it's perfectly fine--but I don't feel that I'm in the target audience for an article that begins, in 2007, with this: "The device was as elegant as an old cigarette case and not much larger than a child’s palm. I was holding a video iPod, poised at the frontier of a new digital age, a new platform for movies, a new convenience that will annihilate old paradigms."
posted by muckster at 9:49 PM on January 11, 2007
This was a perfectly good article, as all of Denby's stuff is. Perfectly good. Never better or worse.
I guess my point about the article is that it doesn't bring an original thought to a (by now) several-year old dinner party conversation. Which is also a lot like his film criticism--perfectly adequate, well-written encapsulations of what just about anyone would say, including me, which is why I don't write movie reviews for anyone, let alone the standard-bearing New Yorker. He just isn't interesting. Anthony Lane is often witty, and sometimes I laugh, but in the end I don't find much there there. I guess I look forward to his reviews more than Denby's but not by much. Oh, where are the brilliant critics of our time? At least I could count on Rogert Egbert for a nice workmanlike thumbs up or down which I would usually agree with, but even he is gone now.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 10:46 PM on January 11, 2007
I guess my point about the article is that it doesn't bring an original thought to a (by now) several-year old dinner party conversation. Which is also a lot like his film criticism--perfectly adequate, well-written encapsulations of what just about anyone would say, including me, which is why I don't write movie reviews for anyone, let alone the standard-bearing New Yorker. He just isn't interesting. Anthony Lane is often witty, and sometimes I laugh, but in the end I don't find much there there. I guess I look forward to his reviews more than Denby's but not by much. Oh, where are the brilliant critics of our time? At least I could count on Rogert Egbert for a nice workmanlike thumbs up or down which I would usually agree with, but even he is gone now.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 10:46 PM on January 11, 2007
Shooting with lightweight digital equipment, he could put together a feature-length movie for very little money and then distribute it through the Internet. All he needs is ability and a cast and crew open to adventure.
I hope he's right, as this is what I'm doing right now.
posted by Poagao at 12:32 AM on January 12, 2007
I hope he's right, as this is what I'm doing right now.
posted by Poagao at 12:32 AM on January 12, 2007
Muckster, SmileyChewtrain: I was sitting in the second row! (I know the publicist who put the event together.) It was great. I now own a copy of "Catching the Big Fish" autographed by the author!
There will be audio of the event posted here sometime soon (probably next week).
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:30 AM on January 12, 2007
There will be audio of the event posted here sometime soon (probably next week).
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:30 AM on January 12, 2007
I'm trying to figure out why I don't care about this story. I mean, I love movies, and I think Hollywood is quite capable of mismanaging itself into the ground. But this story reminds me vividly of critics' hysteria about the home video revolution back in the day. They wrote horrified stories about how the tech would kill big-screen releases and ruin movies as an art form. Meanwhile, home video was great for movies.
posted by Tuffy at 5:43 AM on January 12, 2007
posted by Tuffy at 5:43 AM on January 12, 2007
Do you really not see the difference between watching a movie on a screen in a theater and watching one on a TV screen (or, god forbid, on a tiny computer screen)? If not, I guess I'm glad for you, since it means this change doesn't affect you negatively, but believe me, those of us who love the experience of immersing ourselves in a grand vision in a dark, public place do care. Just because you're not "horrified" doesn't mean anyone who is is nuts.
posted by languagehat at 6:32 AM on January 12, 2007
posted by languagehat at 6:32 AM on January 12, 2007
That's hilarious, Artifice_Eternity. I called Lauren from downstairs but she said there was nothing she could do to get me in. She was also the publicist for my wife's novel. Small town.
posted by muckster at 7:42 AM on January 12, 2007
posted by muckster at 7:42 AM on January 12, 2007
I thought it was worth reading if only for this portion:
And executives can remember what it was like to be twenty-one. “You want to have sex with someone,” Schamus said.
Although I do have problems with any critic that would condone Crash and Million Dollar Baby. I wanted to go to that Union Square Lynch thing as well, but I guess I wouldn't have made it anyway. I'm interested in what he has to say about TM because it's obviously done wonders for his psyche.
posted by mosessmith at 9:51 AM on January 12, 2007
And executives can remember what it was like to be twenty-one. “You want to have sex with someone,” Schamus said.
Although I do have problems with any critic that would condone Crash and Million Dollar Baby. I wanted to go to that Union Square Lynch thing as well, but I guess I wouldn't have made it anyway. I'm interested in what he has to say about TM because it's obviously done wonders for his psyche.
posted by mosessmith at 9:51 AM on January 12, 2007
« Older Fabric for Bachelors | Canadian Espionage? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Hiring the Lane/Denby duo was a particularly devilish way to deface the Kael legacy at the magazine.
posted by matteo at 2:28 PM on January 11, 2007