TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2022
Balthazar suffers and dies: Just to be completely honest, we've seen and liked several films which might strike others as boring.
We're thinking of My Dinner with Andre (1981). We're thinking of Wings of Desire (1987).
We saw Wings of Desire at The Charles one night long ago, probably during its first run. We came home and dreamed a highly affecting dream, whose contents we can't recall.
Several decades later, we watched it again on our TV screen. Our reaction was totally different. Plainly, you had to see it in a darkened theater, perhaps on that very night.
For these reasons, we can't reject the possibility that we would also like and admire Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, the newly-crowned world's greatest film, assuming we could make it through the length of this greatest film's title.
Based on what we've seen and read, we'll guess that we wouldn't like the famously unwatchable film with the seemingly stereotypically downbeat Euro-"feminist" framework.
We prefer a more hopeful feminism. But it's certainly possible that we'd end up liking this.
As we noted yesterday, the New York Times' Manohla Dargis has listed Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles as history's third greatest film. In her estimation, the greatest film of all time is Robert Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar (1966).
By happenstance, we have seen that film. Through the miracle of YouTube, you can watch it too, simply by clicking this link.
We're going to guess that you won't like it. We suspect that you're likely to find it puzzlingly amateurish, weirdly tedious, also quite possibly dull.
That, of course, doesn't mean that Dargis' judgment is "wrong." It does raise a question about where our tribal frameworks come from.
Yesterday, we showed you Dargis' list of the ten greatest films of all time. As we noted, we've seen three of these films, one about ten million times:
Manohla Dargis, ten greatest films
1) Au Hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson)
2) The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola)
3) Jeanne Dielman (Chantal Akerman)
4) Flowers of Shanghai (Hou Hsiao-Hsien)
5) The Gleaners and I (Varda)
6) Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu)
7) Killer of Sheep (Charles Burnett)
8) Little Stabs at Happiness (Ken Jacobs),
9) There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)
10) Shoes (Lois Weber)
The Godfather is highly familiar to many Times subscribers. Many of those others are not. Therein lies a possible bit of a small minor lurking conundrum.
Without attempting to be too haughty, we'll note that lists like those of Dargis and her colleague A. O. Scott tend to come straight outta film studies degree programs. There's nothing necessarily "wrong" about that, until such time as there may be.
In our view, it's slightly odd when a major newspaper employs a pair of high-end film critics whose aesthetic sensibility is so separate and apart from that of the paper's subscribers.
In the case of the New York Times, it may well be that this exercise in academic high taste helps establish one of the newspaper's branding themes, in which the Times is thought to be a smart publication. Subscribers tend to play along, knowing that the red tribe's rubes would never tolerate lists of that type, the way we brainiacs do.
Go ahead—we dare you! Go ahead and take the Balthazar Challenge! Go ahead and try to watch 15-20 minutes of Dargis' world's greatest film.
We're going to guess that you'll have no idea why this film would strike someone as the greatest film of all time. When you react that way to the selections of Dargis and Scott, you make us flash on sacred Nietzsche, explaining where certain types of values come from.
We've often written about the way we've been abandoned by the logicians. Have we possibly been abandoned by the high-end film critics too?
Go ahead—take the Balthazar Challenge! There's no such thing as the world's greatest film, but if there actually were such a film, can you really see why this film would be that?
Your lizard will tell you to play along. Are you able to ride herd on such deeply sourced advice?
ReplyDelete"Many of those others are not. "
Well, There Will Be Blood was popular when it came out. Hasn't left a lasting impression in out memory, we're afraid...
...as for your brain-dead tribal priests being brain-dead highly politicized snobs, that ain't a great surprise, obviously...
I loved Pauline Kael's comment about Magnolia, something like, "I know he's up to something, but I'm not quite sure what it is." She liked part of that film alot.
DeleteMao, here you are, day after day, month after month (except for a few weeks after Trump lost when you apparently fell into the abyss of severe depression) repeating the same schtick over and over, endlessly, boring and tedious to the max.. They're brain dead! you say, never getting tired of it. Never seeing it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
DeleteMao is a paid troll. Stop treating him like an actual person and let him do his job.
DeleteYou get paid for trolling on this site
DeleteThis is a training site for trolls.
DeleteSelena is a great movie.
ReplyDeleteIt's bad when she gets in to that funk.
Delete1. Blade Runner
Delete2. Stalag 17
3. Jane Eyre (2011)
1. Selena
Delete2. Chinatown
3. Smokey and the Bandit
4. Shoah
5. Selena
3.2 Scorpio Rising
Delete4.5 The Apartment
4.9 Road House
4. The Birds
ReplyDeleteHitchcock is for the birds.
DeleteI always root on them too.
DeleteYou’re a traitor to your class— the mammals.
DeleteMany birds are mammals.
DeleteBigot.
No bird is a mammal. No mammal is a bird. These two classes are disjoint.
DeleteBigot.
DeleteBirds and mammals diverged over three hundred million years ago.
Delete"We came home and dreamed a highly affecting dream, whose contents we can't recall."
ReplyDeleteThis is a situation where the royal (or editorial) "we" doesn't work very well. Dreaming is a solitary activity. Saying we makes it sound like something it cannot be, and just comes across as odd, not that Somerby's habitual use of the plural pronoun doesn't do that a lot.
Pronouns again.
Delete"Based on what we've seen and read, we'll guess that we wouldn't like the famously unwatchable film with the seemingly stereotypically downbeat Euro-"feminist" framework.
ReplyDeleteWe prefer a more hopeful feminism."
Here, Somerby is confusing the framework with the content of the film. There is no reason why a film with a feminist framework cannot be optimistic or downright happy.
Or long and boring.
Delete"We're going to guess that you won't like it. We suspect that you're likely to find it puzzlingly amateurish, weirdly tedious, also quite possibly dull."
ReplyDeleteSomerby knows nothing whatsoever about his readers and yet he assumes all of this.
All it takes to appreciate such films is some education about the history of cinema and about film-making techniques. If you get that kind of education, such as by taking a continuing education class, you will never look at movies the same way again, but you will also notice much more about them and understand what is going on and why such films are praised. That is the power of education, to reveal what others see and to understand what the writer and director intended. Or you can read film books, like the ones that might be assigned for such study.
Somerby is assuming that no one here has done that or is motivated to do it now. How can he know that?
"In our view, it's slightly odd when a major newspaper employs a pair of high-end film critics whose aesthetic sensibility is so separate and apart from that of the paper's subscribers. "
ReplyDeleteHow many subscribers follow sports? Mostly men who have played sports in youth, I would bet. How many do wordle? Mostly those who have strong languages skills. How many care about restaurant reviews? Mostly those who don't cook. How may care about recipes? Mostly those who use their kitchens. And so it goes...
Why would Somerby assume that no one reading the paper is going to care about films in a more educated and less superficial way than what is shown at the multiplex? No doubt, some subscribers visit the NYC art museums or the opera! Will Somerby be mocking those tomorrow?
"Go ahead and try to watch 15-20 minutes of Dargis' world's greatest film.
ReplyDeleteWe're going to guess that you'll have no idea why this film would strike someone as the greatest film of all time. "
Is it fair to judge such a film based on only the first 15-20 minutes, without seeing it all the way through? I don't think so. Just as it isn't fair to judge Jeanne Dielman based on that 5 minute youtube clip of making dinner.
Bresson is a tough slog. I like him, but he's not for everyone.
DeleteA Man Escapes is the easier one to watch.
"you make us flash on sacred Nietzsche, explaining where certain types of values come from."
ReplyDeleteWould anyone appreciate "sacred Nietzsche" (favorite philosopher of white supremacists) by reading just a few sentences here and there? If not, why expect people to appreciate a film by watching snippets of it?
Somerby doesn't do context.
Delete"Subscribers tend to play along, knowing that the red tribe's rubes would never tolerate lists of that type, the way we brainiacs do."
ReplyDeleteBrainiac is a disparaging term -- Somerby doesn't like people who like obscure films. Why not? All it takes to watch such films is time and a more open mind than Somerby has. Maybe all it takes to be a brainiac is a bit of curiosity and openness to the world. Somerby seems to be flattering know-nothingism and ignorance, as if these were not conditions that can be changed. This kind of pandering is beneath both Somerby and his readers. It is a kind of reverse snobbery that is worse than the so-called elitism of those who enjoy experimental films. Why shouldn't people be permitted to enjoy whatever recreation they want without being ridiculed by folks like Somerby?
What would Somerby write about Bollywood?
ReplyDeleteThis is why Pauline Kael was so great. She liked the down-to--earth films a lot.
ReplyDeleteJD is a good film, and it's not "feminist" anything. It's just about a woman. It's also very watchable.
Kael also acknowledged that there were films that were more challenging, more artistic, less fun. She didn’t think such films were “elitist”, and She wouldn’t look down on them like Bob does.
DeleteDamn, if looks could kill
ReplyDeleteYou look like your host was a ghost from your grill
But still, what's the new fad, to recollect
To our passing phase to facades to '80-deca
For my label reads Hood, street might have a tattoo
Don't pick any card or no rabbit from my hat
Never a magician if I ever tricked em
"Oh shit!" Another Gas Face victim
From Digby:
ReplyDelete"Talking Points Memo rolled out a series of posts Monday chronicling hundreds of text messages involving Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and 34 members of Congress. The texts “obtained from multiple sources” sent before, during, and after the Jan. 6 insurrection pull back the curtain on behind-the-scenes Republican efforts to overturn 2020 election results. They also reveal the lengths to which Trump’s lieutenants would go to subvert the will of the people, the law, and the U.S. Constitution to install Trump the loser as president.
Maybe I missed something, but the TPM scoop is getting the Big Ignore from a lot of major news outlets. Not even to mention that they have not reviewed the texts themselves.
So determined was the insurrection caucus that their efforts persisted even after the Jan. 6 ransacking of the Capitol by the Tump mob. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) texted Meadows three days before Joe Biden’s inauguration pleading for Trump to call out the military to stop it (TPM)"
And what is Somerby talking about? He's calling on people to listen to Tucker Carlson, ridiculing movies, and telling us that maybe Elon Musk has a point when he calls on Fauci to be prosecuted (while taking a swipe at trans people).
Meanwhile there is real news that needs to be discussed, both by the media but also by Somerby, so that we beknighted readers of his blog will know about more than donkey movies.
“Subscribers tend to play along, knowing that the red tribe's rubes would never tolerate lists of that type, the way we brainiacs do.”
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that Times subscribers are interested in the views that come out of “film studies degree programs”, without necessarily agreeing with them?
“the red tribe's rubes would never tolerate lists of that type, the way we brainiacs do.”
ReplyDeleteEven the film review section is a liberal conspiracy between the Times, its critics and subscribers to show contempt for the “Others”, according to Somerby.
Is he a crackpot?
The short answer is yes. Most of us read a best list for fun. Maybe I don't think "Like a Rolling Stone" is the best rock and roll song ever written. Does that mean that I shouldn't tolerate music critics who claim otherwise? Who would care so much that they would be intolerant of someone's expressed opinion in a matter of taste? The only value that Bobby finds in the opinions of these NYT critics is to use them as a springboard from which to criticize those who don't place such value in these best lists as to formulate two days worth of diatribes against them.
DeleteIf the Times had more lowbrow film critics, white working class people would read the Times. Just like they read ... whatever it is white working class people read. Which is almost nothing, as I, someone who, unlike Bob, has spent much of my life around working class people can say with some confidence. You might find some women who read romance novels here and there, but that's almost entirely it. Institutions like the NYT develop the way they do for obvious reasons, as do trees grow in forests rather than the desert.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:25pm, what do black working class people read?
DeleteIf you were as clever as you pride yourself on being, you'd know that Black working class people don't count in Bobworld, except when he talks about when he taught them lo, those many decades ago.
DeleteFor much of American history, your typical journalist was not college educated. In fact, a lot of them hadn’t even finished high school. This was a low-status job. The kind of person who would become a journalist was the kid in the back of the room in school who couldn’t shut up, who couldn’t stop cracking wise, who thought that his job was to point out that the teacher was wrong about everything. And who put the teacher in charge anyway? And why does the teacher have power over us. Right? Somebody super anti-authoritarian, who was maybe even too anti-authoritarian to go work in the factory where all of his classmates were going to go after high school because he would’ve presented a danger. So he’d become a journalist, right? He’d go and he’d meet powerful people. And he’d demand justice and accountability on behalf of his friends who were toiling away in the factory, or who were plumbers or electricians or linemen. Journalists worked and lived in working-class neighborhoods. And they were part of the working class. It was a low-status, blue-collar trade. It was not a profession. And over the course of the 20th century, that really changed. And of course, it’s not just journalists. The whole Democratic coalition, the whole Democratic Party, the left that used to represent labor, used to be deeply embedded in the working class, today is really the side of the overeducated, the coastal, people with a certain kind of taste palette and setup and so forth. And what ended up happening was journalists now are, it’s one of the most educated professions in America, despite the fact that you can’t actually teach journalism in school, which is something that Americans knew for the vast majority of our history. It’s something that you do by going out and talking to people. Now over 92% of journalists have a college degree. The majority of them have a graduate degree. One in five journalists lives in Los Angeles, New York, or D.C. Seventy-five percent of digital media journalist jobs are on the coasts in those corridors. So there’s been a total profile shift in who journalists are. Today, journalists are the kid in the front of the class going, “Oh, me, me, me,” every time the teacher asks a question. “Me, me, me.” And the teacher has to pretend they can’t see them because otherwise they’d only be calling on them. These are people who are super comfortable with authority, super comfortable with massive government. They think that somebody should be telling everybody what to think and what to do, and they should be the ones in charge of that messaging. It’s just been a complete shift in the makeup of this class. And as journalists ascended to the elites, to where they’re making … they’re in the top 10% today. As they started to go to school with the scions of billionaires, of international billionaires, of people who are going to go on to become politicians or have super high-status jobs in America, the people that they end up covering, right? But they have class solidarity with. It shifted their focus because they ended up on the beneficiary end of the radical class divide in America. Nobody wanted to tell that story anymore. So instead they shifted the focus of inequality from class, which is where it really is, to things like race and gender in order to avoid talking about the ways in which they were implicated in the class divide.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:58am, it wasn’t Bob who consigned working class white women to romance novels, it was Anonymouse 5:58am.
DeleteIn other words- you.
6:43,
DeleteEasier to just say corporations, and the rich folk who own them, control the media.
Ever tell your boss(es), "Thanks for the input, but I'm gong to do the job the way I want to"?
If so, how'd it work out, for you?
Apparently one can't appreciate highbrow films AND be able to competently review lower-brow fare as well.
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to that Joe Bob at the Drive-In dude? The NYT should hire him. Except then Bob would complain because they are both pandering to and insulting regular people.
The indictments are coming. Bob better
ReplyDeletesubscribe to Film Comment.
Another fanny has been summoned
ReplyDelete