The Screengrab : andrew sarris

SXSW: The Final Roundup

Scott Von Doviak — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:30:00 GMT

The whirlwind of SXSW often takes on a life of its own, and that was certainly true this year for me and the rest of the Screengrab contingent. There are movies we fully intended to see and cover for you here, but fate decreed otherwise. (Winnebago Man proved particularly elusive for various reasons; my worst SXSW memory this year involves sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic on 5th Street with no hope of finding a parking space before a screening began. In my anger, I cursed the Winnebago Man, but I now understand it wasn’t his fault.) There are also movies I saw and never found the time to review during the festival. And they are:

For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism . How does a film critic review a movie about film critics made by a film critic? It’s a tough question for me, which is probably why I kept putting off a review of Gerald Peary’s years-in-the-making documentary. With the help of interviewees ranging from the old guard (Andrew Sarris, Richard Schickel) to the increasingly endangered critics of today (Owen Gleiberman, Wesley Morris), Boston Phoenix mainstay Peary does an admirable (if a bit square and PBS-ready) job of tracing the history of film criticism and revealing the ways in which it mirrors the history of cinema itself. One thing I learned: most film critics were not meant to be seen in extreme close-up from the front row of the Alamo Ritz.

Modern Love is Automatic. Writer/director Zach Clark’s second feature has attitude to spare, but for the most part, it left me cold. It’s the story of two women who become roommates – nurse Lorraine (Melodie Sisk) and would-be model Adrian (Maggie Ross). The lovely but robotic Lorraine is so bored and jaded with everyone and everything that she launches a side business as a dominatrix, while deluded Adrian can only find work at a unique mattress store where the customers cuddle with the hired help. There’s no denying that Sisk makes the most of her leather bondage-wear, but her monotonous performance wore on me, as did the ‘80s MTV color scheme, jarring bursts of heavy metal on the soundtack, and a couple of dark developments that don’t really feel earned.

Monsters from the Id. Here we have another group of film buffs, although most of the ones featured in David Gargani’s documentary are actually professional scientists. They just happen to share a love of the sci-fi movies of the 1950s, which helped inspire them to pursue careers in their chosen field. The interview subjects, including Rocket Boys author and retired NASA engineer Homer Hickam and physics professor Dr. Leroy Dubeck, bemoan the loss of the scientist heroes of the golden age, worrying that the kids of today have no role models in the field, and therefore are not pursuing careers in science. Whether or not their fears are legitimate, the doc is worth seeing for the copious clips from ‘50s sci-fi classics both renowned and forgotten, which will have you racing home to your Netflix queue.

Related:
SXSW Review: Along Came Kinky
SXSW Review: The Slammin' Salmon

Armond White Brings the Noise

Phil Nugent — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:00:00 GMT

The movie American Gangster grew out of a profile of Frank Lucas that Mark Jacobson wrote for New York magazine, and now Jacobson is back at the same place with another troublemaker, Armond White, movie critic for the New York Press and newly elected chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle. As Jacobson notes, White has the position "because he was the only one who wanted the generally thankless job." That's a clue both to how seriously White takes his job and also to the mixed feelings, to put it gently, that he arouses among many of his colleagues. White is a man of strong opinions, opinions that run against the main current of received opinion more often than not. (He panned the Dark Knight and thought the world of Torque.) The late, great Pauline Kael used to say that people who could agree to disagree with other people about politics and religion and whether their own kids belonged in rehab or on Death Row would lapse into seizures and hurl death threats at you if they found out that you disagreed with them about some stupid-ass movie. You might think that people who form and express opinions about movies for a living would be beyond this sort of thing, and boy, would you be wrong. But even in the the smaller-than-it-looks world of movie criticism, White is a contentious figure. He says that his father "taught us about the rights of the working man, and also that if you didn’t have anything to say, you should keep your mouth shut. But if you did have something on your mind, you should talk up, don’t keep it to yourself." There isn't much that White doesn't feel comfortable sharing when it comes to movies and writing about movies. There was a time when Kael and the self-styled "auteurist" critic Andrew Sarris had a rivalry that inspired younger critics to pick sides and keep old fights going, but when White spoke to Jacobson, he made a point of pledging allegiance to both critics, as a way of declaring his admiration and kinship with any good writer and sharp thinker who takes movies seriously. The reason so many other contemporary critics treat White as the enemy isn't that he provides an alternative to a chorus of mainstream voices but that when he goes after his colleagues in print, he isn't shy about suggesting, or even saying out right, that they're not as serious as they should be. This can even take the form of things such as White's decision, back during his previous tenure as head of the New York Film Critics Circle in 1994, to schedule the annual awards dinner "during the Sundance Film Festival, creating conflicts for some members. White defends this decision. 'The circle is the oldest and most legitimate film-critic group in the country. We’re not the Dallas Film Critics Circle. If people wanted to carry water for penny-ante shit like Sundance, that’s too fucking bad. The circle comes first.' ”

"If you cut me open," says White, "that’s what you’d find: the movies, Bible verses, and Motown lyrics.” He recalls growing up on movies as a kid, when “I used to love to see stuff like The Long, Hot Summer and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. To me, this was a window into the adult world. Now people watch movies so they can stay kids, which proves how infantilized the culture is. I wanted to see how grown-ups acted, in CinemaScope." And for all his vitriol, he sees himself as a positive force, claiming that "he has never knocked a film without suggesting a superior movie a viewer might more profitably spend his time watching. Instead of the usual ten-best list, White offers the 'Better-Than List,' in which he expounds on why one lesser-known or critically unfashionable movie is better than another highly touted but ultimately empty product." It sounds great in theory. In reality, you'd be surprised how few fans of The Dark Knight are soothed by hearing that while the movie they love is a piece of shit, they can redeem themselves by trading it in for Transporter 3. Meanwhile, some of the critics who respect his intelligence and faith in his own taste and who might be expected to have his back feel that he's showboating when he does what they call his "last honest, angry man" routine. His show of principles has also taken the form of writing a controversial piece a few years ago in which he castigated his fellow critics for accepting DVD screener copies of movies for review, thus ending the accepted idea, once taken as gospel among critics, that you haven't earned the right to claim to have really seen a movie unless it's been on a large screen in proper theater conditions. “I don’t say these things to call attention to myself or to get a rise out of people," White protests. "I say them because I believe them. We’re living in times when critics get fired if they don’t like enough movies. People don’t need to hear what mouthpieces for the movie industry tell them. They need to hear the truth.”

Roger and Out; A. O. Scott Applauds Ebert's Return to Writing

Phil Nugent — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:00:00 GMT

A. O. Scott of The New York Times pays tribute to Roger Ebert, who recently announced that he won't be returning to TV--persistent illness having robbed him of the ability to speak since 2006--but that he will be returning to his regular written column. (Ebert's farewell to Richard Widmark and Charlton Heston appeared on his website last week.) Of course, Ebert had made his mark as a film writer (and as the screenwriter of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls) long before he first teamed up with fellow Chicago reviewer Gene Siskel on Sneak Previews, the local public television show that made the two of them the most recognizable film critics in the country when it went national in 1978. That show made Ebert a TV star (and, in the process, probably did more to persuade publishers to bring out collections of his reviews than his Pulitzer ever did), as well as inspiring a wave of copycat shows and dueling on-camera critics, including such lesser tackheads as Michael Medved. It also made Ebert a target, and not just for Homer Simpson, who was once seen watching the show and guffawing, "I love watching the bald guy argue with the fat tub of lard!" Some began to think of Ebert as an overexposed grump who had thumbs for brains.

Scott isn't having it. He considers Ebert "one of the few authentic giants in a field in which self-importance frequently overshadows accomplishment," and while his praise is scaled in proportion to some of the other film critics who may have appeared to leave a bigger mark on literature and film scholarship, he turns the relative modesty of Ebert's shadow into cause for respect. Ebert's "writing may lack the polemical dazzle and theoretical muscle of Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris, whose names must dutifully be invoked in any consideration of American film criticism. In their heyday those two were warriors, system-builders and intellectual adventurers on a grand scale. But the plain-spoken Midwestern clarity of Mr. Ebert’s prose and his genial, conversational presence on the page may, in the end, make him a more useful and reliable companion for the dedicated moviegoer. His criticism shows a nearly unequaled grasp of film history and technique, and formidable intellectual range, but he rarely seems to be showing off." As he sees it, Ebert's extension of his work into television, "far from advancing the vulgarization of film criticism, extended its reach and strengthened its essentially democratic character," whereas the Internet and the blogging revolution may have resulted in "a glut: an endless, sometimes bracing, sometimes vexing barrage of deep polemic, passionate analysis and fierce contention reflecting nearly every possible permutation of taste and sensibility." While I myself am hard-pressed to think of down side at all to writing about movies on-line (got my check today, boss!), Scott's views make for an interesting and well-argued counterbalance to the recent spate of pieces wondering if film criticism will make it through the night one more time.

(As Scott freely notes, he writes as a personal friend of Roger Ebert's. This is nice to hear, since back when Scott got the job with the Times back in 2000, Ebert complained that the hiring showed a cheap disrespect for the profession of film criticism, because Scott was then known mainly for writing about literature, which Ebert deemed poor preparation for making sense of Keanu Reeves. Scott is too classy to bring that up after all these years. Fortunately, I'm not classy enough to not bring up shit.)

Nathan Lee Loses His Voice

Phil Nugent — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:00:00 GMT

When film critic Nathan Lee signed on at The Village Voice in October 2006, he said, in reaction to the staff cuts and other problems then plaguing the paper (even as it was patting itself on the back on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary): "I came into this at a point where the Voice had been bought," he said. "The change was done; it had happened. I'm coming into it afterwards and my sense is, 'What is still valuable here; what can we still do? How can the Voice continue to have a strong, lively, influential and really smart sense of film coverage?' That's what I'm really invested in at this point." The paper turned out to be invested in other things, and now, eighteen months after claiming his first-ever regular staff position ("I've never had health benefits in my entire adult life"), Lee has been let go, from the Voice. Lee's own announcement of the unhappy news reads as follows: "In great Village Voice tradition, I was abruptly laid off today for 'economic reasons.' My employment at the paper ends immediately: someone else, alas, will be tasked with specifying the precise shade of periwinkle frosting atop the cupcakes in My Blueberry Nights. And so I am, as they say, 'looking for work,' though presumably not as a staff film critic as such jobs no longer appear to exist."

Lee, a gifted writer with his own idiosyncratic taste and a brawler's verve, who earned attention for his work in the New York Sun and The New York Times, will surely land on his feet. It's not so clear how much of the Voice's reputation as a vital force in film coverage will be left standing by this latest development. The paper that served as a home base for such writers as Andrew Sarris, Manohla Dargis, and David Edelstein (now keeping house at, respectively, the New York Observer, the New York Times, and New York magazine respectively), still has a living landmark in J. Hoberman (whose thirty-year-career at the Voice is currently serving as the basis for a tribute at the Brooklyn Academy of Music), but the paper had barely recovered from the firing of section editor Dennis Lim and writer Michael Atkinson around the same time as Lee's hiring. Lee's firing may revive talk that the head office (which, make no mistake about it, has also done its best to decimate the other Voice arts sections) has been urging the paper to do more to hype big films and cut back on the more cerebral writing about avant-garde and offbeat fare. As S. T. VanAiresdale has noted, "New York newspapers have now lost four full-time film critics in the last month." If Lee's departure really stings, it may be partly because he's a hot property and also partly because there was a time when you expected better from the Voice.