The current cinema: "Sarah's Key"

So I was thinking of composing a post entitled " 'Theres' to which one really ought not go" in which I would take friendly but firm issue with Andrew O'Hehir's rather feckless speculation that maybe RKO had a point in mutilating The Magnificent Ambersons (a notion that one could say is almost too easy to disprove), and then pick apart certain points in Matt Singer's proposal concerning a critical parlor game for albums and its potential adaptation for films (extremely problematic in both cases, plus which, and this really can't be overstated, anyone who continues to promulgate the notion that "indie-minded filmmakers ike Steven Soderbergh take high profile gigs like Ocean's Eleven to off-set the costs of more personal projects like" blah-blah-blah literally does not know what he or she is talking about), but then I thought, hell, I'm still on ostensible vacation, I shouldn't even be reading this stuff let alone starting debates/fights over it, and so back to Catch-22 it is. (Can you believe I've never read it in its entirety before? Weird, right?) In the meantime, my review of Sarah's Key, which is really not bad as Holocaust-themed-pictures-with-Harvey-Weinstein's-name-attached-to-them go, is up at MSN Movies, and the wi-fi at my undisclosed location is such that I'm not gonna risk trying to put up a post as big as my July Blu-ray Consumer Guide, so see you some time Friday at the earliest...

Comments

[David Ehrenstein]

I like her best HERE.

[David Ehrenstein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7SYplYBVo

[bill]

Oh, that five-album horseshit! I was just reading that. No, it is not "really interesting". No one on the AV Club ever writes anything that is "really interesting" (or even grammatical: "It’s as hard-to-watch of a scene as anything in 'New Girl'", from a recent review of a pair of episodes of the original THE OFFICE; someone was paid to write that, and someone else was paid to edit it), for one thing, and for another this brand of arbitrariness used to just be a fun little way to pass the time. Now we're supposed to take it seriously for five seconds.

[bill]

Also, judging by O'Hehir's choice of tense in the CATCH MY SOUL entry, he's under the impression that McGoohan is still alive.

Sorry, but I'm feeling kind of pissy today.

[Glenn Kenny]

Sounds like you could use a vacation, Bill!

Also, "The Replacements make it, but the Rolling Stones don't" is five different kinds of Fucking Stupid Wrong, and that's BEFORE you start allowing for "differences" in "taste." Jesus.

[bill]

Bob Dylan? No. Fountains of Wayne? Well, sure!

[Glenn Kenny]

Nothing against Fountains of Wayne, who are lovely fellows who make fine records and at least one of whom could destroy with withering sarcasm that A/V Club writer.

[bill]

Well, maybe. I'll grant you that I've only heard some of their stuff. But even THEY would admit beating Dylan out of any sort of music-based judgery is absurd! ABSURD!

[Glenn Kenny]

Precisely my point!

[bill]

If we're going to be complaining about stupid things, I just saw that Jeff Wells's post about the DARK KNIGHT RISES teaser is titled "Nolanesque". Oh, is it? A teaser for a Christopher Nolan film resembles Christopher Nolan's films? Well! I say! Etc.

[Glenn Kenny]

It would seem the heat is turning Standard Issue Dumbasses into Very Special Dumbasses.

[Ryland Walker Knight]

Catch 22 is one of the funniest.

[lazarus]

So Full Metal Jacket and The Color of Money are good enough to give Kubrick and Scorsese a pass, while arguing that Marnie is on the level of The Birds is a stretch?

Also, no mention yay or nay of John Ford? Stagecoach --> Drums Along The Mohawk -> Young Mr. Linccoln --> The Grapes of Wrath -> The Long Voyage Home is a no-brainer. And while I wouldn't expect this guy to be educated enough to be aware of Ophüls, is Renoir (who easily has 5 in a row) that obscure?

My head hurts. This guy needs to go watch the Ozu he admits to being underversed in, and stop writing shit articles like that one.

For the record, my personal champs would probably be The Archers, who have an astounding 7-film run of gems from Col. Blimp to The Small Back Room.

[Michael Adams]

I'll see your Ford and raise you to nine Hawkses in a row: Bringing Up Baby, Only Angels Have Wings, His Girl Friday, Sergeant York, Ball of Fire, Air Force, To Have and Have Not, Big Sleep, Red River. Some might consider including York a stretch.

[Pete Segall]

Something Happened - that's tops for Heller.

[BLH]

McCabe-Images-Long Goodbye-Thieves Like Us-California Split-Nashville.

But we're not actually supposed to be playing this game, I don't think.

[Glenn Kenny]

Legend-Unrest-Desperate Straights-In Praise Of Learning-Western Culture.

No, we are not.

[bill]

NORWOOD-TRUE GRIT-THE DOG OF THE SOUTH-MASTERS OF ATLANTIS-...okay, I haven't actually read GRINGOS yet. But it's a fair assumption, I'd say.

[Michael Adams]

Sartoris-Sound and the Fury-As I Lay Dying-Sanctuary-Light in August-Pylon-Absalom Absalom. Well, maybe not Pylon, but it's the basis of a terrific Doug Sirk film.

[Glenn Kenny]

"Just Like Me"-"Kicks"-"Hungry"...shit, that's just three.

[Marc Basque]

The Benchwarmers - I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry - You Don't Mess with the Zohan - Grown Ups - Just Go With It.

[otherbill]

I've never seen Ridley Scott's IN PRAISE OF LEARNING. Is it on Netflix streaming?

I'm ashamed of myself.

[David Ehrenstein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJqxxA2hmjs

(An especial favorite of Lance Loud's)

[Pete Segall]

Don't know exactly how the game works but if I'm following correctly: The Victim-Augie March-Seize the Day-Henderson the Rain King-Herzog.

[jbryant]

Yes, the game is dumb. Still, I can't stop myself from positing the following:

The Bellboy-The Ladies Man-The Errand Boy-The Nutty Professor-The Patsy-The Family Jewels-Three on a Couch. It's been too long since I've seen The Big Mouth, and I haven't seen One More Time - otherwise, I might have kept going.

[Joseph Neff]

Just one of the problems with the Five Album Test is how it essentially ignores '70s punk rock. The writer includes The Ramones, but I'd disagree- END OF THE CENTURY is fascinating but average. Some of the greatest of all punk bands never managed five great LPs or five LPs period: The Saints, The Damned, Electric Eels or The Pagans just for starters. The only two I can think of that make it: The Fall and Billy Childish (if you consider all his different bands to just be variations of the same evolving idea. I do).

The article's Rolling Stones problem sort of points to the blind spots in many younger critics concerning pre-REVOLVER rock music.

Bah. But here goes....

THE RECOGNITIONS-JR-CARPENTER'S GOTHIC-A FROLIC OF HIS OWN-AGAPĒ AGAPE

or

CONFUSION IS SEX-BAD MOON RISING-EVOL-SISTER-DAYDREAM NATION

or

L'AVVENTURA-LA NOTTE-L'ECLISSE-RED DESERT-BLOWUP-(oh, why not?) ZABRISKIE POINT

[That Fuzzy Bastard]

"I’m not saying the five-albums rubric is the superior measure of a musical artist’s greatness (I’m not an idiot) nor am I saying that Dylan and the Stones don’t deserve to be ranked among the greatest rockers ever. (Seriously, I’m not an idiot.) I just think that the five-albums test is an interesting lens through which to examine music history. "

Lotta reading comprehension problems 'round these parts. Must be the heat.

[John]

I feel the need to jump in and defend The AV Club. While I agree the 5 album post was off the mark there are some fine writers on that site including Scott Tobias, Noel Murray and Mike D'Angelo (not fulltime but still his single scene analysis column is excellent). Like any film website with multiple contributors it's a crap shoot but let's not throw a blanket over it.

[Glenn Kenny]

EXCEPT it's really not that interesting. Rather, it's just kind of silly. Also, once the perfunctory apologias are out of the way, the authors of the pieces dive in with a purposeful glee that suggests they prefer parlor games to actual...you know. It's similar to Dan Kois's "I really wish I had been smart enough to get this movie" protestations in that NYT mag piece; preemptive, ineffectual Bad Faith insurance.

I think the first guy for some reason was eager to create an assessment measurement that would enable the Replacements to best the Stones at SOMETHING. And even then...

[Jason Melanson]

And even then... indeed. There is no way THE REPLACEMENTS have one album that is as good as GOATS HEAD SOUP or THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST, which could also allow The Stones to meet Mr. Hyden's criteria. I really don't understand this need to take down the "canon" that some writers seem to have. I get really annoyed at pieces like this and Kois' because the writer tries to hide behind this smoke screen that what they are doing isn't meant to be taken seriously, it's just a thought experiment or some such thing. In reality they just want to find a venue to cram their favorite artists down everyone's throat and let the rest of us know that Tarkovsky, Dylan and The Stones aren't as great as everyone thinks they are.

At least Stephen Metcalf, who "took down" THE SEARCHERS a few years ago in Slate, had the balls to be upfront about what he was doing. Mind you that piece is one of the worst pieces of "criticism" I have ever read, but there's something to be said about putting your cards on the table.