Yesterday, I received the following comment in response to my blog entry about the smugness of film critics.
"But Caveh - You are quite possibly the most smug elocutionist ever to grace the blog-o-sphere! For a man who purportedly makes films about self-revelation and honesty, you display a glaring lack of self-understanding here! Read your own posts and see who's smug."
Well, okay. The point is well taken. But I would like to say three things in response.
1) There is a difference between a personal blog (which I see as the modern-day equivalent of pamphleteering) and a film review (which I see as an art form which demands a much higher degree of equanimity and circumspection). A derogatory film review isn't just a random person's opinion (which would be no big deal whatsoever). It's a random person's opinion which has a tangible and immediate effect on the career and fortunes of the filmmaker in question. In short, it has a very real effect on the shape and content of contemporary film culture.
If a filmmaker is truly untalented, then so much the better. He or she is an embarassment to humanity, and arguably should be ostracized from the social arena. But a critic has a certain responsibility to be well-educated in film history, and to write about films with a certain amount of fairness and pre-meditation. What passes for film criticism these days is often a film illiterate's knee-jerk response to something he or she doesn't understand, and with no humility whatsoever as to the possibility that there may be more going on than meets the (beholder's) eye.
2) The truth is that no one knows anything. I don't know anything. Anthony Lane doesn't know anything. And my blog commenter doesn't know anything. So why not discuss things from that place? "It seems to me that..., etc." It's both more civilized and more conducive to understanding and persuasion. To the extent that I often fail in this, I too am guilty of the smugness that I object to in film critics and I hereby concede the point and apologize. But it does seem to me that this particular problem is at the root of a lot of other more serious problems (like war), and that a greater reflection on the forms and ideological implications of our modes of discourse would be a good thing for all concerned. I see no reason to exempt film critics from that high standard.
3) I once interviewed Frank Black about a proposed collaboration with Morrissey which had come to naught. Frank Black explained that he had made a thoughtless and derogatory comment about Morrissey's first solo album after only one cursory hearing, and that Morrissey had subsequently rejected his collaboration offer. Frank Black expressed regret about his published comment because he admired Morrissey's work, and feared that he had inadvertantly offended him. I expressed surprise that Morrissey would care, but Frank Black defended Morrissey, saying:
"I mean he was just defending his own art. He didn't need some little like punk rock guy telling him that his record was no good... Some people get really offended because it's close to them and they can't help but being offended... It's their baby. It's what they're most paranoid about. It's what they love the most but it's also the thing that they're afraid of the most: "Oh am I really any good?" So it's really hard to hear something like: "Oh, so and so can't stand you're new record." You're just totally getting them in the Achilles heel."
I thought that was a beautiful and insightful thing for Frank Black to say.
posted by Caveh Zahedi at
2:10 AM
