I’ve been (mostly) off Twitter since the Oscars (I’ve gone there to share links to new work, but have avoided reading any but one full tweet outside of that). It was just a lot to be on there. In general I’m on Twitter too much, with diminishing returns. I’ve seen my productivity increase in the sense of reading a lot more. I’ve made a lot of headway in Roger Ebert’s Alone in the Dark. I also recently read the Pauline Kael-Andrew Sarris auteur debate that took place over several issues of Film Quarterly in 1963, which empowers me to say things like “The rehabilitation of Michael Bay’s style is what Kael was warning about when she talked about having a style not being an inherent merit if the films are still bad.”
I’m paraphrasing her point, hopefully not minimizing it (and I’m sure we wouldn’t agree on everything and I don’t presume I’m anywhere near as insightful a critic, yet) but the point stands. Nonetheless, as much as I enjoyed Pain and Gain, we’re not obligated to pretend the art of filmmaking or the world at large is better for Michael Bay’s films having existed. For my part, I once spent a hungover morning in the summer of 2017 gleefully reading pans of the then-latest Transformers film. I guess it could also be found in the lionizing of Knock at the Cabin just because Shyamalan is trying to make his movies look like something. And perhaps this flailing for heroes is a reflection of the decrease in quality of films across the spectrum, or rather more accurately or precisely the alteration of studio focus reflected in box office receipts.
And I’m reminded in reading sixty-year-old debates between titans of the art of criticism, just as I was reminded by the spread of films nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars and the ensuing exhausting discourse (within which I suffered and of which I am not completely innocent) of the beauty in the variety of ways that film can be interpreted, enjoyed, compared, and contrasted.
Here I’ll make a short note on the Oscars (now nearing what, two weeks past?). Firstly, they should always show all the awards. It’s an award show. Less monologues about how that’s doing a favor to the audience; it oughtn’t be exceptional. Secondly, it’s funny how the Game Awards want to be like the Oscars but seemingly have too many commercials, whereas the Oscars are starting to do trailer reveals (I don’t know why that Little Mermaid movie exists but I know I didn’t need a commercial before my commercial break). The presentations were good (playing people off so you can do a bit with a man in a Cocaine Bear costume notwithstanding), I think in the end the nominations are more important than the winners because they reflect how the people invested in film are thinking about the medium, and I think it’s good for that to reflect a variety of perspectives.
I wish The Northman had been nominated for something and Blonde nominated for more things. I can’t believe Nope wasn’t nominated for anything. Hong Chau ought have been nominated for both her work in The Menu and The Whale. A long time ago they listed all the work an artist did in a year and – as it’s hard for me to believe it never works into anyone’s vote – it would be a worthwhile thing to do if the artists in question have earned it.
Mostly I don’t think Everything Everywhere All At Once winning is the death of cinema or of cinema awards. The year Greenbook won (which it shouldn’t have), it was nominated alongside BlackkKlansman (a bastardization of history in the dress clothes of an important message movie), Infinity War (I liked it but come on), and Black Panther (same, even if it’s more relatively culturally important); The Favourite is one of my favorite films of all time, but people also felt strongly about Roma. But me saying what shouldn’t have won in this or that year, or even reflecting on the history of makeup calls (Denzel getting best actor for Training Day because he didn’t get it for Malcolm X because they had to give that one to Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman because he didn’t get it for The Godfather Part II because they gave that one to Art Carney for Harry and Tonto, a comedy about an old man and his cat which no doubt could have been sublime but which I’ve only ever heard of in the context of this trail) is a reflection of my own tastes, my own changing perspective. There are no objective ways to measure film quality – the closest things we have are box office receipts and aggregate reviews; while the latter are probably superior to the former, in either case it’s hard to say what stands against the test of time, which films live in the personal and collective imagination for long. There’s no knowing that future from a present vantage point, but the value of discussions around films to me is in generating new pathways for conversation about film and new ways for the artform (of film, and of criticism, and of all the arts related to either of those mediums, such as television and games and literature) to develop.
So that’s that.
Here’s my two most recent reviews:
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves – Vague Visages
John Wick: Chapter 4 – Vague Visages
Here’s my most recent work outside of here before that:
Classic Sc-Fi and RTS Themes Combine in the Thoroughly Modern Chaotic Era – Paste
The Best Movies Featuring Wrestlers – Paste
Here’s what I’ve got upcoming here:
A couple weeks ago I watched Titane and Crimes of the Future as a double feature that I’ve been wanting to do for a while. So, reviews of those will be up between Saturday and Monday. Unless they aren’t. I need to finish Mad God and watch Pinocchio to review those. I’ve started watching Pre-Code Paramount films on Criterion Channel starting with Dorothy Arzner’s 1931 Honor Among Lovers. O and I saw A Good Person (a bad movie) and I’ll have that up soon.
I’ve got a closer-to-the-heart piece about the way transgender people have been treated in the media and by legislators lately that I’ve been working on in fits and starts since last month. We’ll see if it sees the light of Substack day.