In defense of his picking Terry Zwigoff's Art School Confidential as number ten film on his 2006 best list in the IndieWire critics poll, IFC News's Matt Singer confessed that "if I wasn't so afraid of being laughed out of the critical community, it'd be a lot higher." Well, I can relate to that--as maybe we all can in a variety of ways--except right now I'm starting to feel a little antsy about my own critical delights. Immediate case in point: my "favorites list" for 2006 posted January 2--what's on it that even remotely challenges the consensus, that thumbs its nose at the unofficial "hipper than thou" avant taste machine? Not a lot actually: Happy Feet, Manderlay, Miami Vice, arguably Caché ... though even these balky mavericks have enough high-end endorsement ("ooh look, Dave Kehr likes Manderlay!") to reinforce the feeling of incestuous complicity, like the monastic seeker in Raul Ruiz's Snakes and Ladders who stays buried in the theological trenches even as he strives to extricate himself, every fitful act of resistance (even atheism!) ultimately co-opted by the discourse. Or maybe Taxidermia, which didn't get a single vote in IndieWire's "best undistributed films" roundup--though maybe all that means is that whenever I'm set loose on a film that nobody else has seen, much less reviewed, then critical discernment flies out the window ... So what does that make me: an almost too perfect mirror, like a straight-A student mastering the art of regurgitating what teachers want to hear, the ideal standardized test taker? And is any "independent" critical personality there at all, or are we all simply perpetuating each other's biases to infinity?
Which is partly why I'm grateful for Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth--on the 2006 best lists of "more than 100" critics, including any number I value highly--since I really don't understand what the hyperbolic fuss is all about: drab, gray CGI embedded in yet another Spanish civil war run-through (shades of del Toro's The Devil's Backbone, an altogether subtler psychological confection with similar blue gray mood), where again we're invited to hiss the bloody fascists and cheer on the partisans (except the partisans are committing atrocities too, albeit with more discretion, plus viewer-friendly doses of moralizing attitude). But maybe it's a case of no one (OK, hardly anyone) bothering to watch del Toro's Hellboy of two years past--too disreputable to contemplate, just a pulpy comic knockoff, ergo beneath our notice if not literally our contempt--so the level of expectation, the precedent established for exquisite detailing and expressive tonal flourishes, was never there to begin with. Yet there's a single caressing moment in Hellboy, involving a green handprint on an aquarium glass, that's probably more tenderly inflected than any of the chromatically challenged CGI work to be found in Pan's Labyrinth. Not to mention an impossibly delicate snowfall in a churchyard, deftly one-upping the would-be poetical climax to Tarantino's Kill Bill Vol. 1 ... or the ubercluttery mise-en-scene, Mesoamerican bric-a-brac and wonder-cabinet detritus coalescing in a musty baroque stew ... and yes, even the explosions, handsomely appointed with micromanaged detail--what few other filmmakers would even bother to attempt since, well, they're only explosions after all. So: number two on my list for 2004, and of course I could go on ... but obviously there's a more palatable alternative than that.





1. TAXIDERMIA wasn't eligible for Indiewire's undistributed poll, because it actually has a distributor, Tartan, and it's due out in '07.
2. Maybe the reason HELLBOY didn't make a lot of best-of lists wasn't because people didn't see it, but because they saw it and judged it for what it was: a well-designed-and-imagined action-adventure film without a lot of resonance. (You ask what's different about PAN'S LABYRINTH. It ain't the look. It's the *feeling*. And the meaning: A paean to the history-changing capabilities of the turly righteous.)
Choosing your favorite films should be easy--when you leave the theater delighted or saddened, that's a good film. Articulating that response is another matter, since the really great films touch some part of you that's beyond words.
To answer Ray's question, assessments of quality are just aggregations of individual taste over time. So when you discount your own taste in favor of the critical consensus, you're not only invalidating your own writing, you've invalidating the whole process.
Your question comes up whenever THIS IS SPINAL TAP screens in town and I reread Dave Kehr's capsule, a mixed review noting that the movie's attitudes "are too narrow to nourish a feature-length film." Twenty years later, SPINAL TAP is pretty well acknowledged as one of the essential American comedies (even Anthony Lane could be found rhapsodizing on it in his review of FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION). I could replace Kehr's capsule if I wanted, but I enjoy his writing too much--it gives me pleasure.
I guess that's another way of saying that I'm more interested in writing than in movies. I suppose if I were really interested in movies, I'd be out making one.
Sometimes, I have liked things that I have known are bad (although I haven't felt guilty about liking them). I feel that quality can be determined outside of personal taste, for example if some declared and relatively objective standards are set up beforehand which determine quality. E.g., a good story has a beginning, middle, and an end; cutting within a scene should respect the axis; scenes should transition one to the next; a film should (or shouldn't) have social and political relevance; white balance should be used according to norms.
All of those could be set as standards of "quality," and then, if you follow them, you have made something "good." But I still might not like it. Or, you might have made something "bad." But I still might like it.
Perhaps you're rejecting the idea that quality can be based on criteria like that. Which is fine (subjectively speaking); just different than what I have in mind here.
Anyway, nice "talking" to you again. Keep fighting the fight in Chicago.
Ray
I don't think the film lived in the special effects; I thought it lived in the characters, and their scenes together.
which is how "liking" this or that comes into being, bit by bit through insinuating pressures over a whole lifetime, always in the process of construction ... though if you're like me you might not even be sure what the word actually means * a lot like "personality" or "selfhood" in that, and probably just as fragile--except of course we believe in that construction too
as for the rest, recall farber's distinction between white elephant and termite art and consider the following: between HELLBOY and PAN'S LABYRINTH which is the termite and which is the elephant?
thus do i rest my case ...
Now back to dealing with movies about the end of the world (and also with the end of the world itself).
I thought Pan's Labyrinth was good but I also think this: if Spielberg's name were on it instead of Del Toro's, critics would be taking this angle: it runs the risk of turning the fascist captain into a fairy tale villain, promoting a cartoon understanding of evil.
And (grumble grumble) I love Notorious Bettie Page and relate to the Singer quote here. (It's in my personal top ten.) It's been pretty much ignored critically (and by audiences) from the moment it opened. It may not be terribly intellectual, but I found it to be beautiful on many levels. Perhaps because I'm gay (with little interest in a pin-up queen), I was esp. moved by the filmmakers' integrity in handling the character's religious journey. Gretchen Mol has been robbed--she should at least have gotten an Independent Spirit nomination for one of the most generous and fearless performances of the year. If you haven't seen it, keep an open mind and rent it.