IN/CIVILITY

...

Following my post on Commodore Palin, and after reading Brian Lowry’s column last week (Variety, January 19, 2011), as well as much commentary on Armond White being literally the devil (http://www.nypress.com/blog-8067-connect-the-dots-how-to-criticize-a-critic-when-he-doesnt-play-the-game.html; thanks Joe), I thought I should opine—because my self-aggrandizing, flabbergasted self thinks such things—on the idea of ‘incivility’ in film reviews. I’m talking about the bitchy, caustic climate of online reviewing, altered indelibly as “amateur” film buffs worldwide have access to (however poorly-read) platforms for their ideas.

Twitter gives Joe the Plumber a voice after he belched his way through FURRY VENGENCE (‘genius!’), and lo if I had a blog back when I realized BOYS AND GIRLS: SEX CHANGES EVERYTHING (starring Freddie Prinze Jr, 2000) was the first portend of the prophesized end of human society. Friends have recently given me shit for switching to the Jets (a decision three years in the making, assholes), but I’ve long received guff for a perceived negativity in my movie reviews. When I admitted to someone I hated BLACK SWAN, another friend issued the caveat: “but that’s okay, because you hate every movie you see.” Aside from its outright inaccuracy (don’t make me enumerate, again, the list of movies I ‘liked’ over those I did not like from last year --the ‘likes’ far outnumbering), I always fail to understand these sorts of comments: there is just simply a lot of shit out there and I know what I like and what I don’t.

I guess, though, I do understand a perceived negativity but I think it comes not only out of rhetorical style but also a particular psychological bias on the part of many moviegoers. Starting with rhetoric, yes, I’ll be the first to admit: there’s a certain annihilating flamboyance to my writing: at it’s lightest, a penchant for hyperbole; at it’s most hyperbolic, a douchebaggy cockiness that thinks it knows better than everyone else. After all, it’s not like I directed TITANIC, who am I to say AVATAR is a partial birth abortion of a sapphire fetus? Filmmakers, even bad ones, contribute SOMETHING – a ‘work of art’ or at least a reel of moving images – that didn’t exist before. Criticism, at least chronologically, comes after the abiogenesis of the “something” -- and so, because it doesn’t stand on it’s own, it is more reflexive to societal trends, individual tastes, and general a priori deductions than filmmaking is itself.

As an example: as my friend Adam pointed out to me yesterday, a few early reviewers called TRUE GRIT “good but not one the Coen’s best” and this stance has been subsequently bequeathed onto the critical community, and its readers, at large (until, perhaps, today -- with the Oscar nominations giving credit indeed where it is due. Winning’s a different story.) Maybe, and this is certainly up for debate, this is true -- but the truth is wholly besides the point. To repackage all this: critics comment not only on a particular piece, but the entire EXISTENCE of that thing, its coming-into-being, its “hype,” its historical significance, its ‘worth,’ its flashes of nudity. This isn’t the crucible of art, but of journalism, and thus there is a level of discourse that can definitely seem hostile, inhospitable, even ‘bitchy.’ It’s true, as Lowry points out, “On the internet, it’s often difficult to get noticed without raising one’s voice” and while that is a timely and dulcet lament, I’d counter with what I tell my parents when they can’t work the ionic breeze we bought at Brookstone – deal with it. This is the way of things, this is how communication sounds right now, so we either whine about how great the record player picked up those deep tones or we talk about how to maximize and learn to operate under the latest dispensation. I’m not dogmatically for “Out with The Old,” I’m just pointing out that a LOUD VOICE doesn’t necessarily mean one without points to make. It may be a bit grating, or self-congratulating, but being ebullient or dismissive doesn’t necessarily mean being uncivil. It CAN mean this, for sure, but doesn’t have to. And even if it’s a bit uncivil, in the sense of being a bit brasher than ‘polite society’ generally permits, so what? Even though I think BLACK SWAN is the most egregiously overrated, actually-shitty movie of the year, I don’t think all the people who liked it are moronic assholes. I’d never say this. Loudly saying my opinion on the film, even obstinately in an aghast state, isn’t an attack on you. Feel confident enough in your own tastes to not let the taste of some douche on Facebook offend you so personally.

So we are dealing rhetorically with a problem of “mood” – modern English, lacking a working subjunctive, doesn’t suitably moderate “I believe this movie sucks!” in the way that, say, Spanish would. But we are also dealing with (I mean ‘I believe we are dealing w-- – oh fuck it) a psychological bias, whereby people seem to LIKE more than they DISLIKE things they spend time and money on. I know that’s offensive and ego-dystonic, but I happen to think it’s true. It’s a bad habit – and one I’m often guilty of myself – but (relax) it’s also understandable. Being of limited resources, and desiring generally a state of happiness, I want to feel my purchases are wise and time well-spent. But often I go to the movies and only eat half the large popcorn I paid for; often I have high hopes that are dashed by a mediocre film. This doesn’t make me a fool for having high hopes, and it doesn’t make me a snob for not “just going with it” because (‘after all’) it’s “only a popcorn movie” or it “was just supposed to be fun”. Popcorn movies are fine, fun is fine, not everything needs an elaborate and cerebral metaphor, in fact I wish LESS movies had central metaphors, but there is nothing to be ashamed of to acknowledge that BLADE TRINITY was BAD. X3 was BAD. MARIE ANTOINETTE was BAD. BLACK SWAN was BAD. I don’t regret seeing any of these in the theatres, because I try to only regret things that affect other humans, but I still think they blew major dick. Sue me.

Lastly, turning back towards Armond White (NY Press’s infamously contrarian, but also ruthlessly intelligent film critic), there is the idea that amateur film criticisms somehow harms Criticism with a capital C because it lowers the discourse to that of a unmannerly fracas -- necessitating LOUDER VOICES, as we discussed, to rise above the fray. Granted, I speak from a defense position – and thank you for reading my blog by the way – but I think of it more as an affirmative defense. I think there’s something inexact with the pro-professional viewpoint: Tom Shales, Pulitzer Prize winning former Washington Post critic, points out amateurs lack of “training” and “standards” in Lowry’s piece – though I remember taking more than one film course in my fancy-person college and turning down more than a few sketchy Thai hookers in my travels (no standards-hah!). The question of course is WHAT IS AN AMATEUR (I do not get paid per se for my criticism, but I do get paid by the greater film industry, and writing opinion is part of my job), but this is only half of it. I also think there is something more sinister with the argument that Joe the Plumber should stop tweeting and I should stop wanting hurricanes. It’s something even a bit totalitarian that limits speech because of what it does to other speech. If my thoughts are worthless, don’t read. Armond White is a big fucking asshole, but he’s smart, and even though I only agree with him 50% of the time, I read his column whenever I can. Mr. Shales, delightful for you and your four decade career as a professional critic, but I think the “great equalizing” effects of the internet/Facebook era should be regarded as a good thing, not just for finding an audience, but for advancing THOUGHT. More voices is never bad, until one of them forces you to listen. Be discerning with the opinions you read, not simply because you agree with them, but because you RESPECT them. Sure, this puts the responsibility on the individual consumer, and maybe that’s a lot for many of us to handle, but I’m not sure responsibility is a bad thing either. Think, act, vote, don’t complain.

The word civility, commonly understood today as ‘politeness’ comes from the Latin civilis, which means ‘relating to citizens’. Relating, exchanging ideas, building thought from the ground up. Why would we ever denote which of our civilians should be the ones to speak? Thus, it is in the name of civility itself that incivility has its place – being a bit rude but not purposelessly rude, confident enough to shout, wise enough to listen.

Logging things that bother me about Palin's Special Comment

Logging things that bother me About Media Personality Sarah Palin’s special comment on the “terrible tragedy” ... and a one and a two and a...

WATCH HERE: http://www.vimeo.com/18698532


00:00 Too much bronzer.

00:00 Rimless glasses. I was never aboard.

00:20 “I agree with the sentiment shared yesterday at the beautiful CATHOLIC mass” -- really punched out CATHOLIC, didn’t you? Don’t worry we know you love all good Christian people. Except gay Christians.

00:35 “Our country…so vibrant with ideas and passionate debate and exchange of ideas” -- Who wrote this speech, because I have a few ideas.

01:05 NOT IRONY.

01:33 “Like many, I spent the last few days reflecting on what happened, praying for guidance” -- and here I was, watching SARAH PALIN’S ALASKA, thinking you spent the last few days baking soda bread and birding in Seward Island with Kate Gosselin. You’re a joke.

01:45 REAGAN INVOKED

02:08 “acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own” -- This is the heart of her “argument” (I guess). But it’s also patently untrue. To separate criminality from criminology is the kind of retrograde antintellectualism that will get this total bitch elected. Not to mention what we know about psychology, sociology, and just, you know, common sense. Like, didn’t this deranged man BUY A GUN. Shouldn’t he have been on MEDICATION? Didn’t society somehow “miss” him in its efforts to identify, and help, people who are disturbed? Is all this totally irrelevant, is that actually your argument, that if someone is “evil” enough (you keep saying evil. We get the Miltonian undercurrents, sweetie) a gun will just magically appear in their hands and they will kill innocent people, and there’s nothing society or science can do to help? So we should just give up? So “criminality” just IS and we shouldn’t try to reduce this by intoning age-old “ideas” on how rhetoric can lead to actual physical violence? Are you effing serious?

02:47 “Last November, the other party won” Nader won??

03:29 “Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a ‘blood libel’ that serves only to incite the very violence they purport to condemn” Forget about the fact that ‘blood libel’ is used incorrectly here (the point every liberal commentator is now making). THIS COUNTERS THE VERY POINT YOU JUST MADE, YOU SLAG. So it’s DEFINITELY NOT the fault of Rush Limbough and Glenn Beck, because criminality begins and ends with the act right? But somehow it IS the fault of “journalists and pundits” who criticize violent rhetoric?? This a major logical problem. THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE NEED TO FOCUS ON HERE. So typical poltical bullshitting - -saying one thing and doing the exact opposite in the next breath.

03:53: “But when was [political debate] less heated? Back in those calm days when political figures literally settled their difference with dueling pistols?” First of all, I don’t appreciate your tone here, missy. Secondly: No not then. Sometime after then and before Bush. There.

04:05 in an “idyll” world?? Learn to speak.

05:17 “public discourse and debate isn’t the sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength...It is part of why America is exceptional” Classic sleight of hand. No one is arguing that DEBATE should stop. It’s the quality and content of that debate – the tone of it – that has caused such problems. You’re changing the content of the current debate right now, actually. Very tricky, media personality Sarah Palin.

05:40 “ [we will not be deterred by those who] mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinions and seek to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults” WAIT WHAT? I’m seriously lost on that one. I think she combined lines on the teleprompter. Who is muzzling and who is imagining here?

06:47 9/11 INVOLKED. Took long enough, seriously man. Six minutes in??? Do you hate America, media personality SP? Do you not respect the servicemen and women who gave their lives for our continued freedom and justice and dignity and freedom and justice and ideas!!!!

06:54 GOD INVOKED.

07:40 Rimless glasses




And so, true belivers, ends another rant on my blog. Palin is a cancer on our planet, and bitch is malignant. At least the whole epidemic gave us Levi Johnston...who is probably the best thing about the Palin years in general. Possible tie going to Tina Fey's SNL impression.

KOAN BROTHERS

True grit indeed: who else but the Coen’s have the sheer chops to make such a water-logged, hefty film? Well, exactly the people who could make its buoyant inverse—BURN AFTER READING—a few years prior. And the same people who made A SERIOUS MAN, the heady existential exercise that bridged these poles. Oh, right, and who also made the Oscar-nabbing action thriller NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN just before those. Oh, and fucking FARGO, which is just the best movie ever made, aye? Oh yeah, these guys can make movies – I forgot.

Still, TRUE GRIT, is remarkable – even in a oeuvre of such pervasive ass-kicking. From the very first shot, this is the real McCoy; nothing is wasted. The bit at the gallows, with the “last words” of the trio to-be-hanged, is a veritable see/hear/speak-no-evil that speaks volumes towards the period, the Coen’s dark humor, and the film’s overall themes of redemption and justice. Or the detail of the dentist wandering the territory on horseback, with a bearskin pelt to keep him warm – not actually a pelt, though, an entire bear skin. There is something so wonderfully odd, and with such tremendous depth, to every single sketch the Coen’s etch out on their filmic pad. They are so unlike most filmmakers, in that the more they tell stories the more I’m convinced they have stories to tell; each successive and wonderful film does not represent the consumption of a finite resource of creative ideas, but rather a forum by which new ideas take shape, where new movies are conceived. There’s something organic and interminable about the Coen’s creative process then, that gives me hope for storytelling in general. And this is a good thing.

The ‘tween’ at the center of this film – a precocious up-and-coming actress named Hailee Steinfeld (Jew Grit) – is the fuel running this furnace. She elevates every scene to another level, which is impressive for any actress, not to mention such a young one, but doubly impressive when she plays against Jeff Bridges—who is Marlon freaken Brando with an uglier mug. Method Acting is only the beginning of Bridges performance here, where he’s as much of a Dude as he ever was, with grit, indeed, to spare. Watching such talent perform, under such meticulous direction and against such intelligent mise-en-scene, gives me that same sensation I have after reading a REALLY GOOD BOOK after a couple of back-to-back beach-reads that, you know what, I actually kind of liked. It’s that edifying moment of realizing what a real artist is capable of; not just entertainment but enlightenment. So much more than fun.

And so they do it again. The Coen Brothers films are experiences that they ask to have with each of us who are wise enough to listen. As if they are producing not films at all but Buddhist koans, tiny paradoxical stories, the contemplation of which, between master and student, achieves an utterly deeper kind of comprehension. And I can’t think of better back-to-back Coen Brothers koans than A SERIOUS MAN and TRUE GRIT, especially when you consider the immensely disparate sensibilities of these works. A SERIOUS MAN, if it’s about anything, is about the meaninglessness of life, the unknowability of God, the futility of plans. TRUE GRIT, recognizing the thematic standards of its genre, is set in a world and in a time of immense order; of clear cut good-and bad; of utter and inescapable justice. It’s Mattie Ross’ RIGHT to shoot Tom Chaney, the man who killed her father. Retribution, and restoration of order, is never a question. There is something so comfortingly unwild about the wild west, at least as it appears on film – its tropes are so grounded in moral justice that we never have to worry about postmodern disorientation, about disorientating pastiche. There is no tornado of meaninglessness undoing the causality that our narrative so stridently achieved (as we saw in the closing of A SERIOUS MAN). In TRUE GRIT, a tornado is just a bunch of air, swirling wildly, kicking up dust. And we know, as we always know, that when the sandstorm calms and the clouds part, the bad guy will be shot dead, the Baby will be born, the Law will be restored to the Land of Opportunity. Words will have meaning again and will be capitalized accordingly.