Thanks for that. I can't stand Blue.

It's not clear to me just what you object to here: Kieslowski's film, "or at least the acclaim it conventionally enjoys," or the kind of art Kieslowski chooses to spin his tale around. Forgive me if I've misunderstood you or projected my own bugbears onto your column. Although I agree with your initial point about the abuse of the word "art," I have to say that finally I think you're guilty of what you condemn. Instead of doing the hard work of "close, burrowing analysis" to show how this particular film can't stand up by itself aesthetically, you appear to have disenfranchised it (or whatever the opposite of privileging is) "before the fact," for what you take to be its implicit politics. You drag out the left's usual suspects/whipping boys--affluent, well-educated characters, comfortable, "tasteful" interiors, classical music, Juliette Binoche's complexion (not so usual, that one)--as if that's all it takes to show what a bad film this is. Relative to your other points, you give the most space in your column to a hypothetical movie; forgive me if I conclude that your major criticism of Kieslowski is that he didn't make the film you would have. A more instructive comparison might have been to a real film like "Hustle and Flow," and I'm certainly open to an argument that "Hustle and Flow" is a much more interesting and achieved film than "Blue." And yes, part of that argument might be that Craig Brewer chose much richer material to work with. That's not enough, however. Henry James is probably not a good choice to cite as any kind of authority here, but he said very emphatically that you have to grant the artist his starting point; criticism judges how he goes on from there. You begin your piece by stating that criticism does the work of examining "this is what's happening, this is how it's done." I hate to tell you, but James would be in perfect agreement with this. You might have criticized Kieslowski (with good reason, in my opinion) for starting with fairly tired material and not doing anything very fresh with it. Instead, you finish by condemning Blue just for it's starting point, condemn it for not being a totally different film. The real object of your dislike seems to be the "comfortably born and bred" and the notion of "high" art that has had this audience hung around its neck for at least a century. I hold no brief for the privileged class, but judging any art by its audience is close to Zhdanovism, and I find your piece more of a denuciation than real criticism, even--especially--as you have defined it. There was a time when working people enjoyed "classical" music (and many "popular" musicians still do), before they were told it was for snobs.Something similar has happened with film, except that, as your colleague Jonathan Rosenbaum has persuasively shown in Movie Wars and elsewhere, the mass of moviegoers are never given a real opportunity to take in films which are not invitations to cheap self-congratulation or mindless titillation. Your piece starts off going in this direction, but then you start picking on the artist. I was a grad student in literature in the early 1980s, when intellectual allegiances began to shift from Derrida to Foucault, from metaphysics to "New Historicism." Don't get me wrong, of course art is part of history, and part of understanding art is understanding its context, but where e.g. Adorno saw art as an ally in the struggle against the oppressive and destructive forces of history, many of my erstwhile academic peers built careers attacking art. They enjoyed great satisfaction in liberating people from doing what they weren't doing anyway, like reading Henry James, or listening to classical music, or watching foreign films.

I have no problem with you not liking Blue or Kieslowski in general, but dismissing the film because the central character played by Juliette Binoche is upper middle class doesn't make much sense to me. Kieslowski certainly doesn't let the character get off lightly. I think almost anyone, regardless of class, would enter a difficult period of mourning and grief if they lost their immediate family in a car crash. To me, the achievement of Blue is the way it examines that kind of despair without sentiment and yet with the kind of irony that was badly needed at a time when that quality had been debased by Quentin Tarantino and his imitators.

I think the problem with your argument is that you are using it to attack a film (and perhaps a whole realm of filmmaking for all I know) that you just don't like. Hey, I dig it. One man's well intentioned polemic is another man's rant.

BINKIEANDMARCEL--thanx for your response, my short answer to which is simply this: i'm not interested in critiquing the film, only what the consensus regarding it seems to be

though in fact your very first sentence--"the kind of art Kieslowski chooses to spin his tale around"--offers a good example of what i'm driving at: beginning with "art" a priori, rather than ultimately arriving there ...

While reading this text I was expecting to hear some other things, so does it mean the article is kitch?
Anyway, the thing I was expecting is the mention of the more important aspects of Blue. But I don't expect an American to know about it because it is more of an European issue. The film is about the unification of Europe, and it was made in a naive time when former Eastern block countries were dreaming about joining EU. Those who did not, still dream about it. So the film is about the need for the upper class ("old" Europe) to accept the bond, the unity and stop the isolation towards the lower class ("new" Europe). To become open minded. To trust, be open to other people despite the tragedy (WWII). If the film was concieved around rock music, the whole point would be lost. And the Song for the Unification of Europe (an European hymn) is for the standards of classical music rather romatic and populist.
So, by being anti-elitist, this film is the opposite of what you say it is. In fact, in my own country people consider this less demanding art film. Or an art film for the masses. Otherwise it wouldn't have been so popular back then which didn't evade even me (I was 10 or 9 years old when it came out).

I'm sorry, for interrupting yer conversation fellas, I'm just looking for the bathroom.

Somebody help me, I can't get out of this place.

pat g, if you want to condescend to kieslowski at least do so with knowledge of his polish films (blue's context) behind you. you are simply ignorant.

Who the hell names their kid pat nowadays? Patrick I can tolerate, but who in their right mind would be called by the diminutive pat? I thought that name went out of fashion with the likes of Wilbur and Hortence. Anywho, I resent the previous comment (that dastardly gb), for it's lack of capitalization.

GB--then it's a good thing i didn't mention CAMERA BUFF, which plays the same identity game in reverse: anthropological distance from the great unwashed, those wee proletarian strivers ...