Michael mentioned that “usually only passing remarks are made about cinematography, lighting, sound design, etc., as if they’re tangential aspects of a film rather than the entire presentation.” Which may be true. But of course that’s not the whole story either—plenty of writing on film exists which makes mention of the more technical, artisanal aspects of filmmaking (some would call these aspects more “cinematic,” which is a blood-red herring if ever there was one) to no insightful end. Some of the most exciting film writing I have read is that which talks about actors (stars or not) and performance in a genuine attempt to articulate what these performances are, and what they do to us. Continue reading →
What aspects of filmmaking do I think are most often overlooked – or, conversely, belabored – in film criticism? That should be an easy question to answer, but for some reason I’m drawing a blank . . . which might mean that I’m repressing something. So I’m going to speak to a couple of previous points that struck me, and hope that something gets uncovered.
Melissa says “eventually you realize that it’s impossible to ingest – or love – it all”; the conflict/overlap between ingestion and love is something I’ve been struggling to come to terms with for a long time, which I suppose is common to people in our wide field. This echoes Kent’s mention of the anxiety around list-making. And I can’t help, when thinking about things like this, to think of IMDb comment threads, which I tell myself, for the sake of sanity and hope, are not representative of contemporary human movie-thinking, but which nevertheless are the ne plus ultra of some sort of current thought-mode. Comment threads like “Neil Jordan’s top 10 films, in order”, where commenters post a series of lists and the discussion’s high point is “I agree with your list except I would make Interview with the Vampire #2, and The Crying Game would be #5”. An endless stream of data posing as content… but why do I keep reading? Continue reading →
Thanks so much, Kent. Daniel, I’d obviously like for you specifically to keep in mind Kent’s closing words regarding filmmaking and its critical appreciation existing on what seem like two different planets. Considering you’ve played both sides of that fence, you seem well positioned to talk about this….especially considering that you refuse to play both sides of that fence….your critical writing is not about evaluation per se, but rather, like your feature You Are Here, it’s about searching for a way to describe a form. Or at least it seems to me. Continue reading →
On the heels of our first Online Roundtable, Project: New Cinephilia has invited five critics based in North America (New York, Los Angeles, Toronto) to discuss how cinephilia manifests in today’s digital age, how it differs from past incarnations, and what this means for criticism, filmmaking, and cinema culture in general.
Our distinguished chair for this session is Michael Koresky, co-founding Editor-in-Chief of Reverse Shot and the staff writer for the Criterion Collection. Joining him are the estimable Kent Jones (author of PhysicalEvidence), Melissa Anderson (Village Voice, Artforum), Daniel Cockburn (director of You Are Here) and Genevieve Yue (Film Comment, Reverse Shot). Check back daily all week as the conversation continues.
For full biographies please visit our Contributors page. You will find all related posts under the Online Roundtable 2 heading. Read, enjoy, and be sure to respond by clicking the link at the bottom of each post.