How does the rss feed work so I can get updated on your blog?…

Again, I must not be making myself clear, because my entire point is that one could not possibly say the same thing of a performance in a film by a bad filmmaker. What I am talking about is not Colin farrell’s performance, considered as a thing in itself, but the use to which a great filmmaker puts it.

“Yet, I don’t really understand what you’re driving at.”

I’m simply saying that, if you find, for example, Colin Farrell’s performance in THE NEW WORLD “baffling or botched”, it might be a good idea to take V. F. Perkins’ advice, and ask yourself whether “the fault may not be in the movie so much as in (y)our way of looking at it”. You say that you agree with Perkins’ statement, just not with my interpretation of it. But it’s not clear to me exactly how you interpret his statement.

“I don’t understand why it can’t be enough to simply disagree, admit that there are different orientations and worldviews at work here, and leave it at that. You seem to be implying, perhaps without trying, that your overall viewpoint and interpretations are correct, and thus more enlightened. So of course you’re going to get disagreements there.”

Of course I’m satisfied that my opinions are correct, just as I’m sure you are satisfied that your opinions are correct. Obviously, I wouldn’t be debating these issues with you if I thought you were an idiot, or if I felt that our worldviews were simply so different that all we could do was agree to disagree. This, surely, is a given in any critical debate. And, unless you object to the concept of critical debate (which you clearly don’t), I don’t see why you should feel insulted (which I get the impression you do) when I disagree with your opinions, try to demonstrate why, in my belief, they are incorrect, and offer my own reading, which takes into account certain aspects of a given film which I believe you have negelected. It goes without saying that I’m quite prepared for you to find the alternate reading I have offered incorrect, and to tell me exactly why it is so. I have, I hope, made it clear why I find your reading of THE NEW WORLD flawed, but it’s not clear to me why you find my reading flawed, or what evidence you wish to cite that would demonstrate my reading to be implausible or inaccurate.

“Finally, I will throw this out there: that for me, the interaction between the energy of the film and the energy of the actor at any given moment, the harmonies and discordances, whether the film is by Bresson, Preminger, Kazan or Ferrara, is and always has been very exciting. For you it seems to be less so.”

No, I find it a very exciting thing. I just don’t find it to be the only thing.

Personally speaking, I don’t think that “Can the apparent flaws of this performance be interpreted thematically?” is a very useful question. Not because iI find it invalid – Tim Holt in THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is an obvious and perfect case in point. For me it’s not useful because it doesn’t usually lead in a fruitful direction. You could say the very same thing of a performance in a film by a bad filmmaker, as dm494 wrote. Quite easily, in fact. It’s a fairly common occurrence. Your objection to that, if I remember correctly, was that you were speaking exclusively of “great filmmakers.” Fair enough.

But there is no absolute truth when it comes to questions of aesthetic value. You think NEW ROSE HOTEL is a great film. I don’t. I think THE DARJEELING LIMITED is a great film. Most people I know strongly disagree. I don’t have much use for IN THE CITY OF SYLVIA. Many of my friends think it’s a masterpiece. It was Michael who cautioned me against saying “we,” and while this was temporarily wounding, I think he was finally quite right. Of course, when we write about films, we write in a language that suggests absolutism – that’s human nature. But it’s important to get around that tendency and under it, to suggest the constant flux of things. That’s why I’ve always admired Manny Farber so much – judgment really is secondary in his writing.

I never said that Colin Farrell spoils THE NEW WORLD, or that Martine Carol spoils LOLA MONTES. So I suppose this discussion is over who is the most willing to bend over backwards and be charitable to Malick and Ophuls. Clearly that would be you. You see something seamless. I don’t. So what?

I understand that you want to clarify what you meant when you quoted Perkins. Fair enough. Precise expression is tricky in a blog post. Yet, I don’t really understand what you’re driving at. I don’t understand why it can’t be enough to simply disagree, admit that there are different orientations and worldviews at work here, and leave it at that. You seem to be implying, perhaps without trying, that your overall viewpoint and interpretations are correct, and thus more enlightened. So of course you’re going to get disagreements there.

Finally, I will throw this out there: that for me, the interaction between the energy of the film and the energy of the actor at any given moment, the harmonies and discordances, whether the film is by Bresson, Preminger, Kazan or Ferrara, is and always has been very exciting. For you it seems to be less so.

All kinds of ambiguities and misperceptions creep into these exchanges – by which I mean blog posts in general.

As for the difference between “not necessarily” and “mutually exclusive,” you’re absolutely right. What I fail to understand is how people who love cinema can feel comfortable picking and choosing which of its elements they feel to be worthy of discussion. I can’t think of a single director who doesn’t value actors, or who would fail to be astonished by some of the remarks I’ve read here about acting. I don’t mean to be hyperbolic, I’m being sincere. The reason, of course, is that they’re primarily involved in the creation of characters – another term that doesn’t come up so comfortably in certain circles.

We listen intently to what composers have to say about music, to what painters have to say about painting. It becomes part of our critical vocabulary. But somehow in cinema, there’ve always been these strange gulfs between criticism, theory, and filmmaking. Sometimes, I get the feeling that, for some, the reality of the filmmaker, not to mention the business of making films, actually INTRUDES on the film-watching experience.

In short, it seems only logical to me that if it’s important to the creator, it has to be important to the critic. The critic’s job is to place it, to illuminate it from all sides, and to sort out the discrepancies between intention and effect, a sobering practice which has nothing to do with respect for a filmmaker and everything to do with respect for one’s self and one’s perception. The filmmaker’s job is to keep the patient alive, said Paui Schrader, and the critic’s job is to perform the autopsy and see what made the patient live or die. One can argue, but on the difference between intent and outcome, I think he’s absolutely, cruelly correct. Which is why I disagree with Brad Stevens’ interpretation of V.F. Perkins’s statement but agree with the statement itself.

For me, there’s a certain strain of film criticism that concerns itself too exclusively with questions of form, and not enough with the contingencies of the films themselves – if the film in question is FROM THE POLE TO EQUATOR, then character and drama are not relevant; if it’s RIO BRAVO, then they are. As is the relation of actor to character, of the actor’s achievement within the ecology of the film and the context of what is being asked of him or her. So, in RIO BRAVO, I don’t really care about how awful Ricky Nelson is: within the context of that film, where ritualized gestures and behavioral vocabularies are everything, it’s fine that this lousy actor in this limited role does such an awkward job of sticking his thumbs in his belt or brushing his hand behind his ear “in thought.” But I do care about John Wayne and Dean Martin, without either of whom the film is unimaginable, both of whom are so creative and work so closely with Hawks. I care about Keir Dullea being so awful in BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING because the film hinges on his character (a terrible realization of a ridiculous conception), but I don’t care at all about the extremely awkward actors who play the young lovers in STEAMBOAT ‘ROUND THE BEND, because their vocabulary of movement is so refined by Ford. For me, while it’s possible to speak of generalities in cinema, it’s impossible to not discuss the contingencies, the individual cases, the films themselves. As I watch them, one by one, I certainly find myself drawn to the excitement and greater drama of following a director’s overall body of work. But one also has to keep the film itself in mind at the same time. thus, anti-essentialist auteurism.

This is my long-winded attempt to answer your queries. Thank you for posing them.

You wrote: “Why? Because I, and some other people, happen to have an opinion that’s irksome to what you refer to as “auteurism.” Which has nothing to do with Andrew Sarris or the politique des auteurs, and everything to do with the statement of purpose on A_Film_By. Where it seems that a certain orthodoxy reigns.” I believe my only objection in regards to auteurism as discussed on this blog was in regard to Professor Echo stating his relief at there not being so much discussion about Pollack’s mise-en-scene. I thought I said that it was silly to complain about people writing about the mise-en-scene of a director on a board that is –and I believe this can be easily demonstrated by simply looking at the posts themselves—primarily focused on the discussion of films via mise-en-scene.

You wrote: “ Is the point that everyone should AGREE that performance is secondary? That auteurism is demeaned or besmirched by discussions of actors?” I didn’t think I said that everyone should agree that performances are secondary or that auteurism is somehow tainted by the discussion of actors? I thought I only elaborated on why I do not consider performances to be of great importance when evaluating the value of a film.

It was not my desire to indulge in “syllogisms and tautaologies” when I asked you if auteurism is not indeed essentialist. Yet, what does it mean to you to say that you are an anti-essentialist and an auteurist?

When I wrote that I believe that “the practice of filmmakers I find to be very different to the practice of film analysis, and what is valued in one does not necessarily need to be of the same importance in another,” you said I was asserting: “that the practice of filmmaking can be made mutually exclusive from the practice of film analysis.” When I tried to point out to you that was a mischaracterization of what I said, you said I was getting into semantics. I believe that there is a great chasm between what I said and what you represented me as saying. How does “not necessarily” become “mutually exclusive”? Why should a critic consider everything a director thinks is important If everything that’s important to a director is important to us, what is the role of the critic?

I am sorry if my responses to you seemed accusatory.

Michael Worrall

You miss my point. Max Ophuls, unlike Arthur Hiller or Rob Reiner, has directed many films that most of the individuals who are attacking LOLA MONTES (or at least attacking the film’s lead performance) regard as masterpieces. All I’m saying is that if they have a problem with one particular aspect of an Ophuls film (particularly an Ophuls film which they agree is splendid in most of its other aspects), then they should at least be prepared to consider the possibility that, in V. F. Perkins’ words, “the fault may not be in the movie so much as in our way of looking at it”.