Martin Arnold

Mickey Rooney and Faye Holden in Alone. Life Wastes Andy Hardy.
Gas prices being what they are, I shouldn’t be taking movie road trips, but some unmissables have presented themselves lately, and you can’t put a price on great cinema, right? So I drove up recently to George Eastman House in Rochester for an avant-garde program curated by Jim Healy called “Tampering With The Image.” When I got there, Jim waved me in, saving me the price of a ticket (what a guy).
Am I glad I went. There were a number of strong films on the program, but for me the revelation of the evening (of the year, even?) was the work of Austrian filmmaker Martin Arnold. No overstatement: An electrifying experience. I haven’t been able to shake it for several days. And I can think of no better way to affix the memory of seeing these film-gems than….telling you about them.
Martin Arnold, I’ve discovered since, has a formidable reputation in avant-garde film circles, based predominantly on three experimental short films, each about 15 minutes long. He takes found footage from old Hollywood films and manipulates it by means of a home-made optical printer, frame by frame, using no digital means. An example: he might take a frame, freeze on it, and then slowly rock back and forth to frames ahead of it and behind it. First, this immobilizes the image and allows us to look at it carefully. Then, it takes minute gestures or micro-elements of a gesture, and dilates them so that every small movement in that gesture is writ large. Subtexts—of gender, family or sexuality—that were previously invisible suddenly rush to the surface, often with horrific humor.
For instance. Arnold’s first film, Pièce Touchée (1989), takes an 18-second segment from a B-movie with Gary Merrill called The Human Jungle (1954) and expands it into a film forty times its length. In the original, a wife waits at home for her husband, reading a magazine in a chair. He opens the door, enters, kisses her, and they both get up and leave the room. End of segment. In Arnold’s film, the wife taps her finger over and over again, fidgeting spastically as she waits for her husband—Arnold plays the frames repeatedly to cause this nervous twitching. The door takes forever to open—bit by bit, opening then closing, the frames stuck in a loop, inducing a sense of dread (who is trying to get into the house?). When the husband finally enters, he leans over his wife’s chair to kiss her, but the approach to the kiss becomes a Herculean, long-drawn-out exercise, repeatedly intiated then aborted, reaching Buñuelian levels of frustration. He stands (dominant) while she sits (subservient) and when he moves, she responds to his motion, like a puppet. And this sudden foregrounding of gender politics never feels like an academic exercise; instead it's grotesquely, uncomfortably funny.
Passage À L’Acte (1993) takes a brief scene from To Kill A Mockingbird in which Gregory Peck, his son, daughter and a woman neighbor are at the breakfast table. The boy gets up to leave and Peck orders him to sit back down and finish his breakfast. Arnold chooses specific sections (consisting of one or more frames) and repeats them, making them stutter. When Peck jabs his long forefinger at his son’s breakfast plate, we see it not just once as in the original, but dozens of times. When the boy leaves and the screen door shuts, it reverberates like a machine gun repeating deafeningly, endlessly. What we have here isn't a family kitchen but a conflict-charged battlefield.
The third and possibly the most radical of the films is Alone. Life Wastes Andy Hardy (1998). It combines clips from three musicals starring Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland and Faye Holden. What seems like an innocent trio of characters (boy, girl, boy’s mother) turns into a devatasting oedipal triangle. Rooney kisses his mother quickly from behind, his fingers giving her arms a little squeeze. Perfectly normal and ordinary, right? But when Arnold’s done with it, slowing it down, playing it frame by frame, rocking it back and forth, it looks like a positively scandalous, unmistakeably erotic, outrageously ecstatic moment.
There are many traces of truth hidden in Hollywood films: truth about power relationships between men and women, the family as a microcosm of conflict, and the role and potency of sexuality in everyday relations, not to mention the unspoken rules in place for the representation of society and individuals in Hollywood movies. Many of these traces are veiled by swift narrative, camouflaging dialogue and quick accretion of event. By slowing down the film to the level of single frames, and “sampling” these frames like a hip-hop DJ might sample a “break,” these hidden traces, these invisible gestures, come to life. The unspeakable is thus spoken. Revelation results. To me, this is what Arnold's films are about.
You can view a Quicktime clip of Alone. Life Wastes Andy Hardy at Martin Arnold’s site here.

111 Comments:
The Miyazaki Blog-A-Thon continues at Walter's place.
The Siren's 10 Most Underrated Films.
Arnold's work sounds fascinating girish, thanks for the heads up on someone I've never heard of.
Thanks, phyrephox.
I hadn't heard of him either until I walked into Jim's screening. Then discovered a wonderful interview with him in Scott MacDonald's (indispensable) Critical Cinema [vol. 3].
He literally spends years of his life fashioning mere minutes of film. Gotta admire that...
I really enjoyed the work that Ken Jacobs did with Tom, Tom The Piper's Son. It sounds like Arnold's doing a lot of the same things. Very cool.
I like the cadence of Arnold's films, it's almost like Michael Snow repetition for the MTV generation; it's fluid but rhythmic. The flopping of images to create a kind of closed "unintended" looped actions in Pièce touchée (like the woman's alternating newspaper "fanning" that becomes one continuous motion with the husband leaning over to kiss her, or the inverted images that make it seem as though the couple were alternately rising or falling). And the transformation of iconic drama to percussion performance in Passage à 'acte is really cleverly done. There's even one sequence where it does look like Atticus' "rocked" pointing turns into musical conduction, with Jem on screen door drums and Scout as 'spoon man'. :)
Girish, did you get around to watching To Kill a Mockingbird? I'm sure I've seen it ten or more times over the years, and there are still scenes that choke me up every time.
Andy ~ You know, I've never seen anything by Ken Jacobs, but I believe Star Spangled To Death is now available on video, for those of us who don't live in large cities to catch it theatrically.
Acquarello ~ Great points, all. I didn't pick up on Atticus' "conducting" at all! :-)
You know, once I started writing this post, I realized I had gotten myself into some serious trouble. :-) I could've spent 1000 words on simply one of these films. I liked all the details you cited. The laterally inverted footage in the first film also gave the impression that she was dancing with herself--two versions of herself, dancing with each other--a split woman. At other times, she was juggling herself, throwing herself into the air (when the image was vertically rather than laterally inverted).
For nearly every idea he employed (and he had scores in each film), one could make a metaphorical connection. Flat-out amazing.
Darren ~ It was after I saw the Arnold films that I realized I badly wanted to see To Kill A Mockingbird. I have it on my night-stand, ready to fire up. And the book was required reading (even in India!).
As I mentioned earlier, Arnold is hard to write about because his films (though brief) are so damn fertile, bursting with ideas yet lucid and precise.
And one could write an entire essay on his use of sound (which I didn't even mention in the post).
Oh, I forgot to mention the other films that were part of the "Tampering With The Image" screening:
--Peter Tscherkassky's INSTRUCTIONS FOR A LIGHT AND SOUND MACHINE. (These Austrians are far-out). Saw it at Toronto last year and it looked even better this time.
--Joseph Cornell's ROSE HOBART (my first Cornell).
--FAST FILM, by another Austrian, Virgil Widrich.
--DAYLIGHT MOON by Lewis Klahr, inspired by Marnie.
--A visiting artist/filmmaker, Natalie Frigo.
This is interesting: in one of her films, she took news footage of US presidents with their wives at social occasions, etc and reframed the footage to focus just on the wives. (The film was called FIRST WIVES). Writing a sort of "alternate history".
In another film ("NOVEMBER 22, 1963"), she took the Zapruder footage and working frame by single frame, erased JFK from it.
So we saw Jackie stunned, devastated, climbing across the back of the convertible...for no reason.
It was eerie.
A 70-ish couple sat behind me. I heard the man say: "Jesus!"
November 22, 1963 sounds fascinating, Girish.
Let me add my own recommendation to Siren's for Raoul Walsh's little-known Strawberry Blonde. Taped it off TCM some weeks back, and it's a lovely little pleasre--"little" here meaning fragile, precious, miniature and not minor in any way. Cagney's touching as the ne'er-say-die dumb Irish who keeps saying over and over "That's the kind of hairpin I am!" admitting without a trace of irony that he's a forlornly bent and twisted bit of wire. I don't agree that de Havilland is "Warner's idea of a wallflower;" what pushes men away are de Havilland's too-modern ideas, I think, not her candy-box sweet face. And Hayworth and Carson come off as obvious at first, then develop their own, subdued kind of poignancy. It's a wonderful list overall, I think, (I love Portrait of Jenny too), but this one is a special favorite.
Tuwa ~ It was also useful that she was there in person to talk about her films.
Eastman is great at having people come in as guests to present movies and chat. Last month: Kris Kristofferson. Last coupla weeks: Isabella Rossellini, Tab Hunter. Next month: Albert Maysles, Jonathan Rosenbaum (who'll be showing Jia's The World).
Noel ~ I've never seen The Strawberry Blonde but I'm pretty sure I have a TCM videotape of it in one of my TCM boxes in my TCM closet.
Acquarello ~ I wanted to add.
I think there are three aspects to Arnold's films that captivate me:
(1) Their visceral "sensuality" (of movement, repetition, pattern, choreography).
(2) The fact that the movement doesn't merely stand for itself (though it would be ingenious even if that was the only thing it did!), but instead is also loaded with ideological import.
(3) The grotesque, devilish humor in the movement of image (PIECE TOUCHEE) or that of image+sound (the other two).
It's also interesting that Arnold does not think of himself as a conceptual artist. "Idea" is NOT more important than "object". They are both important. So, the footage manipulation never feels weighed down with simply (and only) the need to make ideological points (though they exist aplenty).
Excellent post that you must read:
Brian "Hell On Frisco Bay" Darr.
Cool stuff all around this morning:
a back-and-forth on Cronenberg's A History Of Violence at Noel Vera's.
And Eric Henderson on Chris Marker.
"And the book was required reading (even in India!)."
That's great! Two summers ago, I read To Kill a Mockingbird with my English as a Second Language students. After our last discussion, Joanna and I had the whole class over for a big Southern meal and a viewing of the film.
Darren ~ And I bet they were thrilled to hear all the personal Harper Lee stories you both were probably able to tell them.
Which reminds me: I wonder if there's a Harper Lee post at Long Pauses. Don't remember seeing one since I discovered your site (which was in the summer of '04, a couple of months before I met you), but I should check the archives...
Regarding Virgil Widrich's Fast Film, I really like the rough hewn origami found film idea behind this. Widrich, Tscherkassky, and Arnold are all disciples of Peter Kubelka, and while Tscherkassky is probably the most adherent in terms of manipulating the materiality of film and Arnold is closer to the metric aspect of Kubelka's cinema, Widrich's interest seems to lie more in the materiality/manipulation of the transfer image.
In Fast Film (and also Copy Shop), his intesrest was as much in capturing the "character" of paper in the way it tears or creases, as much as how it translates that photographic image.
Yeah, I really liked the origami aspect too.
And there was something a bit child-like about it (almost Art Brut-like) about the origami creases/textures.
Didn't know about those two Kubelka streams (materiality/metric).
I've never seen anything by Kubelka; I'd kill to.
Need to keep my eyes peeled for another road trip...
Great post Girish! I love Martin Arnold's work. You're on an Avant-Garde roll it seems. The August blogathon has already started... ;)
Thanks, Harry.
Yeah, I'm starting out a bit early in that avant-garde blog-a-thon, ain't I? :-)
Beautiful writing, G. Keep giving it up for the avant-garde! That program sounds awesome! I met Lewis Klahr a few weeks ago. :)
J. ~ You're an avant-garde celeb rubbing shoulders with other avant-garde celebs!
Okay, the Cinemathque Ontario in Toronto just released its summer schedule.
Dyno-mite.
Large retrospectives of:
--Mizoguchi
--Antonioni
--Kieslowski
and lots of other stuff.
* Programmes
* Schedule
Think I better start saving up some gas $.
Damn! I want that Monica Vitti poster! Oh yeah, the programs are cool too. :)
Acquarello, I'll do the next best thing. I'll pick up an extra copy of the programme guide with the Monica Vitti cover (they're large-sized) and put it in the mail to you.
Oh, man, I just followed the link and checked out the program and schedule. What I would do to be near Toronto this summer. That's killer.
And, Girish, I've been enjoying your Arnold post and the ensuing discussion -- it's taught me a lot, and my films-to-see list just got longer.
I wish . . . I do get to talk with a lot of avant-garde celebs though. It is the biggest/only perk!
Ooh Antonioni and Mizoguchi. Maybe you should open a Canadian savings account. Or keep a few drums of fuel in a shed out back.
We're getting the Kieslowski series at the PFA in June, although I think it's missing the "short films about" killing and love. We're also getting a neat Isabelle Huppert series that includes a number of Chabrols and Godards that I haven't seen. Maybe the PFA and Cinematheque will tag-team as they sometimes do. I've become a much bigger fan of Antonioni in the last year or two and would love to see a few of those in the Cinematheque schedule.
Incidentally, the new Chabrol, with Huppert, is great -- Comedy of Power.
Rob, I think you're right that the Short Film versions of Dekalog 5 & 6 have been left out of the PFA retro, which is something of a shame since they're the better versions.
Girish, are you a Hiroshi Teshigahara enthusiast? I noticed the Cinematheque is showing four of his films too.
Thanks for linking my piece with such a forceful recommendation!
I've been wanting to see Life Wastes Andy Hardy for a while now. Will now keep an eye out for Arnold's other titles, too.
Michael ~ I was sure those Antonionis and Mizoguchis would catch your eye!
Rob ~ "Drums of fuel." I love it.
By the way, the Canadian $ is at a 30-year high against the US $, and might only get stronger by the time we get to Toronto in September. Ouch.
The Huppert series played in T.O. and is now at Eastman. Caught up with a screening in it last week; hope to blog about it soon.
And the new Chabrol--I really hope it plays TIFF.
Brian ~ Your post was just great. Loved it.
And you know, I haven't seen any Teshigahara films. Though I got The Face Of Another as a gift from a friend recently. And The Woman In The Dunes is in my college library on DVD.
Teshigahara is one of my very favorite non-prolific directors. I haven't watched the Woman in the Dunes DVD but I hear it's a pretty poor transfer- this is one to see on the big screen if you possibly can. The other three films on the program are all excellent too.
Good tip, Brian. Thanks.
Noticed Gaudi and Dunes are on a double bill on a Friday night. Sounds like something to shoot for.
Dave Kehr on Jami Bernard being let go at the New York Daily News.
Ah, glad to hear that the Huppert series made the rounds. I'm not usually drawn to actor-oriented series, but this one is a particularly good opportunity to fill in some holes from fave directors (along the lines of Brian's excellent post ...).
Antonio Gaudi is very cool. A city symphony of sorts.
I like The Woman In The Dunes a lot. I saw it on a grainy slightly-chewed VHS copy and it was still amazing.
Of the Teshigaharas, The Face of Another is definitely my favorite, although I would have programmed Man Without a Map instead of Antonio Gaudi (great film, but the only non Kobo Abe based film in the series).
Brian, I appreciate that Teshigahara remained prolific in art (if not film) after he became more involved with Sogetsu School. His ikebana sculptures, particularly the wood constructions, look as though they could have come directly from a Shindo's early gothic films. There was no way that he could have come up with Rikyu in the 60s, it takes maturity and a return to roots to make a film as patient and zen-like as that.
Acquarello--You could write a rocking book about world cinema. Seriously.
Just noticed: A great interview with film critic Walter Chaw at MZS's.
Good idea Girish! Why don't you write a book acquarello? That would be priceless.
Another vote for Face of Another. I happened to see the film at about the time that the face transplant in France was announced.
If the Kieslowski retro is the same one that recently played NYC, it should have the Short Film About... versions of said Decalogue episodes. Saw both of 'em recently (though, shamefully, not at the retro), and yeah... damn. They're pretty great.
And I'd heard of "Andy Hardy" before, pretty much just in passing as an unusual title. Now I kinda really hafta see it, along with Arnold's other films. These sound absolutely fascinating.
Thanks for linking to my History of Violence debate. It was an interesting back-and-forth.
Speaking of short films with better expanded versions, ever checked out Fruit Chan's Dumplings? Thought it was the best horror film I've seen in some time. Actually prefer Chan to Wong Kar Wai, myself.
I've only seen the short version of Dumplings and would like to catch the full version at some point. Other than that I've only seen Public Toilet of Chan's films, though I have unwatched VCD's of Durian Durian, Little Cheung and Made in Hong Kong sitting on a shelf somewhere.
Acquarello, thanks for the perspective on Teshigahara's non-prolific film career. I've never seen the direct products of his involvement in the ikebana school; do you know of a good book or website to learn more about them?
I'd love to have a book (or even just a pamphlet) by acquarello in my hot little hands someday.
Thanks for writing this up, Girish--I have been meaning to see these films for a while. I think it's great that you've been fighting the good fight, drawing attention to worthy a-g work ...
(Also, a belated congratulations on the Outstanding Professor Award!)
Dumplings was already a feature length film though that was shortened for Three Extremes, unlike the two Kieslowski shorts which were expanded to become features (and, in the case of A Short Film About Love, Kieslowski gave into the lead actress' request for a "happier" ending).
The only Chan film I find problemmatic is Hollywood Hong Kong in the way he inserts the grotesque "pig people" imagery. It's actually a great predecessor to Jia Zhang-ke's The World in the way that the idea of "finding Hollywood without leaving Hong Kong" resonates with similar themes of entrapment and globalization. That said, I do think Chan's Made in Hong Kong is one of the best films of the 1990s. :)
Regardging Teshigahara, there's actually a bunch of short films beyond Jose Torres 1 & 2 that aren't listed on IMDb (and I've given up trying to add films in that infernal database a long time ago). One of them is Ikebana, and you can see some of his work in the Sogetsu School. He also did one on the famous woodcut artist Hokusai. There's also one called Tokyo, where I'm pretty sure that the "typical American" in the film is Donald Richie. There used to be an excellent Hiroshi Teshigahara website which went though his work as filmmaker, sculptor, and artist, but the domain has expired and it's now a crap-shilling portal.
Oh, and thanks for the vote of confidence guys, but if I take time out to write a book, I'd lose all that film viewing time. ;)
Thanks for the link and the Strawberry Blonde thumbs up. There is something irresistible about that movie. When the topic came up once before on my blog, Surlyh (who's been AWOL, sadly!) mentioned loving that one, high praise from a commenter with most exacting standards. When I said Olivia de Havilland was WB's idea of a wallflower, I was just joking; but over the years she did get cast as several plain Janes, which is too funny considering her incredible prettiness.
I should see the Andy Hardy movie but just that still you posted is wreaking havoc with my nerves. It creeped me out even before I read your excellent post.
I am going to have fun going through all these good links this morning. As for the Cinematheque, the summer sked is so sad it's funny. Life has been such that I haven't made it once this spring, and now I am moving just in time to miss Mizoguchi. I guess I can't complain, though, because at the end of the month we are going to Paris for three weeks, and then moving straight to NY. Brooklyn, in fact, though I don't know if we'll be anywhere near Filmbrain.
Thank you, everyone.
It's a pleasure to rise to all this great reading.
You know, I don't believe I've seen anything by Fruit Chan. And I've missed the few that've played at Toronto over the years.
About Acquarello writing a large, well-designed, exhaustively indexed, globally distributed book on world cinema--he already has! And it's a mere click away...
Thanks, Zach. You might appreciate this impulse as a fellow academic (I know you think of yourself as a budding academic but I think of you as a full-fledged one!), but blogging about new and unfamiliar things (as so much a-g cinema is to me) is a way of teaching myself about them.
Campaspe, your move sounds exciting.
I shall sorely miss our marathon three-and-a-half-hour non-stop-movie-talk lunches. They were so much fun.
Hey girish,
Great post (as usual!) I'd heard of Arnold before, but never seen any of his work until you pointed us to that website. I'm always sort of torn about recent avant-garde work, because in many ways I wonder if cinema over the last twenty years or so hasn't made it less relevant.
For instance, while it's true that those old Hollywood films are brimming with subtexts and barely concealed repressions, it's also true that Hollywood itself has explosed these things by "updating" genre conventions so relentlessly. You can think of almost any genre or style--film noir, say--and look at how much of the latent stuff has been made explicit. Doesn't a film like "Brokeback Mountain" take the homoerotic undercurrents of so many classic westerns and foreground them?
But even beyond that, I suspect that audiences today ALREADY see the repressions, gaps, subtexts, etc. in those old films. In many ways, we are ironic spectators, alert to the familiar (and thoroughly deconstructed) invisible codes of the classic period. I wonder in what sense Arnold's work is avant-garde when we already live during a time when the relentless recycling and deconstruction of historical forms is a part of our everyday lives?
Hey, Nick--Great points!
And hard to refute.
Let me offer a couple of preliminary ideas on why I think of these films as being avant-garde.
Despite our increasingly ironic stance as viewers, I still see commercially-exhibited cinema as being predicated upon being, to a lesser or greater extent, narrative-driven. (I wonder if this is a tenable assumption?)
The films Arnold works with are strongly narrative-driven, but Arnold's films oppose their intrinsic narrative qualities by taking a slice of film, wrenching it from its context and fetishizing it by re-choreographing the same images (often in a different order) into a sort of "mechanical ballet." I wonder if there analogues to this blatant anti-narrative "subversion by appropriation" in mass-entertainment movies.
One thing that struck me as interesting with Arnold's films is that sometimes, instead of bringing to the surface buried and repressed elements, he occasionally seems to create these elements where none might have existed (through manipulation of footage by looping), almost by a personal projection of these qualities or elements on to the film. Which is a bit different from an alert and ironic spectator using clues to deconstruct a film by picking up on elements that are already there, even if they are buried.
Thanks for your points, Nick. And by the way, I picked up your 33 1/3 Ramones book a few weeks back and look forward to reading it.
Hey Girish--
Excellent points about to what extent some of mainstream cinema is avant-garde. I'm not sure about this myself, but I do think that popular forms (like some music videos by Michel Gondry, etc.) are non-narrative and essentially experimental. And they are popular. One of the first MTV -videos I remember seeing back in the day was Herbie Hancock's "Rockit"--with the scratching, and the bizarre jerky robot with the beak. It struck me as something that I would now call avant-garde. There are other videos from that era (i.e., the Talking Heads' "Once in a Lifetime") that are resolutely non-narrative.
I think so much of what we call "commercial" or "avant-garde" has to do with context. I went to the Ann Arbor Film Festival this year, which is dedicated to experimental and avant-garde work. So much of what I saw reminded me of commercial work (music videos, vlogs, tv commericials) but because I was watching these things in an "art theatre" with an "art crowd" at an experimental film fest., I tended to view them as avant-garde.
I wonder if viewers raised with mash-ups, sampling, mixing, etc. would view Arnold's work as much different from the pastich quality of so much everyday media. It's an almost incoherent (not in a bad way) time we're living in when the categories between mainstream, avant-garde, experimental are so blurred.
Thanks again for your post, and for your blog (and I hope you enjoy the Ramones book!)
N.
So true, Nick...
Fascinating.
Linkies.
Andy Horbal on the future of film criticism.
At Screenville: Bazin on criticism.
Nick Rombes on "digital imperfection."
A terrific debate about on-line criticism at the Arts Journal.
Those are four suberb links. The first one is especially on point, I think.
That is, it's the one that meshes most readily with the gears already spinning in my head, helping them turn better. The others may take a little more time to work into my bloodstream.
Glad you liked 'em, Brian.
And here's a Liza Minnelli appreciation from Michael Guillen.
David on Lodge Kerrigan's Keane.
So glad to know that Terry Teachout shares my love for The Fabulous Baker Boys:
"I may have said it before, but if so I’ll say it again: The Fabulous Baker Boys is the only film I’ve ever seen that is true to my own experience of playing music (except that I never got to sleep with anybody who looked even slightly like Michelle Pfeiffer)."
Good news: Kelly Reichardt's Old Joy has distribution.
Back with a post in a few hours.
Campaspe --
SO happy that Brooklyn is about to go +1 on great film bloggers. Feel free to get in touch with any/all questions about the hood.
Girish (and everybody) --
Was wondering what your thoughts were on the Chaw interview that you linked to. I was more than a bit put off by what he had to say (as my comment clearly indicates), but I'm curious as to what the regulars here think about it. (Especially Harry Tuttle, who has never been shy when it comes to discussing critics.)
[Girish - I hope you don't mind me raising the subject here.]
Oh I don't mind at all, Filmbrain.
That's what this place is for.
I enjoyed reading your comments and shall return with my 2 cents as soon as I'm done fiddling around with this post I'm working on.
Chaw lashes into Ebert and into middlebrow films, accusing them of patronizing the audience, which I think means he's assuming the audience is just like him when, actually, much of it is not. So he is (unintentionally? self-righteously, at least) patronizing the middlebrow, which includes me and most of my family and friends. In short: yes, horribly off-putting. He can write about whatever he wants to; that's his right, but I doubt I'll be reading any more of his work because I'm annoyed by his smugness.
More's the pity, because MZS and filmbrain and Peter Nellhaus and The Siren and Girish all write about films I might never see, in ways I don't expect, referencing people and things I've never heard of, and I find it all immensely enjoyable.
I have a personal beef with Chaw regarding his very ungratious comments on an exchange that Rob Davis and I had when I posted my Senses of Cinema list. He totally misread Rob's comments about not liking the two films that happened to be American on my list, and instead, Chaw went off on a screed against me (gleefully enabled by Bill Chambers) as being anti-American in my "ridulous" film selections for the year. If the guy can't even read a written dialogue accurately, how can "read" a film accurately? For someone who tries to play the sympathy card with people accusing him of being elitist, he dishes it out just as viciously and unprovokingly. Pot calling the kettle black, I say.
Sorry, that's "ridiculous". And yeah, I'm pissed. >:(
acquarello, someone using my comments as leverage against you is laughable. I remember our original exchange but not the screed. It must have been elsewhere. Got a link?
I've bookmarked this Chaw interview but didn't have time to read it yet.
Is it bad to "discuss critics" and not be shy about it? ;)
To comment someone's writing/positioning doesn't infer superiority or contempt. Criticism from "below" is as valid as judgement from "above", I hope.
What I take from the Bazin article I quoted in my last post (thanks Girish for kindly linking it), is that criticism must be snob and militant precisely because the momentum of the industry and the audience majority would otherwise go naturally for the lower quality. For the simple reason that higher quality requires efforts and awareness.
All these online critics blogging ABOUT the (grassroot) state of film criticism is really invigorating! Now instead of scattering the insights in all directions, it would be more fertile to join forces around the same table...
p.s. this Arts Journal debate looks fascinating too, great tip Girish.
Found it. I've never heard of this guy before this thread, but his misquoting (and clearly knowing nothing about) me is a fine introduction. At least the attribution was anonymous.
Acquarello, I'd love to read that as well. I find that type of hypocrisy amusing.
Heheh, thanks Rob, that's the one (I had a devil of a time going through the blogger archives). I appreciated that "talk to the hand"/non-response web anonymity he pulled too. Nice touch. :)
Incidentally, I never visit that site either, except that one of the people who tried to defend me in those comments sent me a link. As I said in my unresponded comment, different purposes...
Thanks Davis!
Chaw writes:
A few lists that I’ve read (one, in particular, that Bill pointed me to at a particularly ridiculous film site), are comprised entirely of films that have only gotten play on the festival circuit or, as I like to say, on the side of a camel, projected by the grace of match-light and crank. (The comment on one? “I like your choices, despite the pair of American narratives” – referring to Miranda July’s Me, You, and Everyone We Know and Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale.) It’s the kind of airless stunt that defines “elitism” to me, not as a celebration of and indulgence in good taste, but as a means by which to squeeze all the joy out of going to the movies by making it a pursuit based in large part on classism and intellectual bigotry.
I am so SICK of this argument, which is brought up time and again -- "You didn't actually ENJOY those films, you just threw them on your list blah blah blah..."
Of course, what Chaw really means by the above is: "Man, it sucks that these great films never make it to Denver, so I'll just vent on anybody who has seen them."
It reminds me of this article, which resulted in my hurling things across the room.
But admit it Acquarello, you just put The Sun on your top ten to look cool. ;-)
Actually, the cool factor was The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, 'cause, umm..., you know, it has the word "Death" in the title. ;)
I saw The Sun on the same Saturday marathon fest as Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story, The Passenger, and Gabrielle, and it was the only one that really made an impression on me. I really like the "starkness" that Sokurov creates for this film, in the sense that you see this diminutive man doing very bookish, seemingly trivial things in perpetual isolation, but that you always get this enormous sense of historical weight that his little "ripple" actions have, and the fate of the sound engineer captured it perfectly. Now, that's good stuff!
Nick: Those MTV videos & commercials have ripped off the American avant-garde!
I am not the one to say what is avant-garde or not. I will venture to say that it is doubtful that Michael Gondry is doing his own optical printing, hand-painting, photography, and curatorial endeavors with the vast communities of experimental film video/artists from around the world! Part of what makes something experimental or avant-garde is the process used to create the image with one's own hands & it's a whole process of learning the history and the new contemporary work.
You can just laugh about this type of reaction acquarello! ;)
The guy is entitled to his preferences but he's more judgemental than your site has ever been.
When personal preferences pose as a prism through which the world around is observed, the critical argument is out of sight. A taste battle does not criticism make.
Now I have to read his (expectedly ridiculous) interview. lol
Okay, so I go out for Indian buffet lunch and come back to all this great dish.
Didn't know any of this.
Geez, that guy's some piece of work.
Sorry to draw the discussion away from its current subject, but I just can't help it...:)
Acquarello, a great list, though I stil have some 'titles' to catch up with. But what bothered me, since there was a talk about the gut-criteria, was that nobody mentioned "L'Enfer"... It is certainly my 'guttest' film up to now and while that doesn't mean anything, I believe it is covering much higher standards than the pure subjectivity... Why did, and still does, it get so little recognition?
I exclude the reviews (including on Acquarello's site), which too, however, were not as many and thorough as they should've been... (excluding Acquarello's again, which I found truly inspiring)
To sum it up, it seems that it's getting more recognition in the Internet-spheres...
Oh, and I had never heard of Chaw or his site before yesterday, and I linked to the interview not because I endorsed his sentiments (!) but because I thought it was an interesting specimen in the on-line criticism debate.