« In Petaluma | Main | The current cinema, 420 edition »

November 01, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


errmmm - is the "Razzie Watch" something to actually GET agitated about? Everyone's humor MMV, but it reads to me like a deliberate parody of EW-style 'Oscar Watch' blather. Then again, right now I'm more down with the classic rock kittens...


Jaime: Yeah, I guess maybe the Razzie Watch thing is a parody after all, but it's pretty easy to read it and see only the Clint diss, at least the first time through. The only obvious humor to me is the part where it says Kois will be giving a seminar on bad screenwriting at a Lady Foot Locker (which I didn't see until I re-read it).

So in that case, I'll revise my annoyance with Kois to include lame humor at the expense of a fine director.

James Keepnews

Well, I always arrive late to these parties, fashionably or otherwise.

Revisiting the discussion upthread a piece, somehow "flag-planting" sounds dirtier than "monkey fucking," and I'm not sure I'd ever want to do either in polite company. Or otherwise. But damned if -- in Francis Davis' sorta slight interview transcription with La Pauline after she retired, AFTERGLOW -- La Pauline pretty well aligned with my assessment of both AMERICAN BEAUTY and of critics who extolled that egregiously manipulative swing-and-a-miss at der zeitgeist. That latter assessment, briefly, goes something along the lines of: fuck's'a matter with you? Though, yes, Ms. Bening was robbed.

I took advantage of my renewed unemployment to run over to Barnes & Noble and read the new Dissent (BTW, WTF's up with their AWFUL logo? Did Gary Panter's assistant on Pee-Wee's Playhouse make it on a Video Toaster in 1989, waiting for the right moment to spring it on Irving Howe?) featuring Mr. Taylor's essay while ingesting alot of caffeine I couldn't really afford. I invite you to tell me what he's on about, much less why Dissent felt the need to run this head-scratcher. Something about the sick soul of film-critical practice with the death of traditional journalistic models in advent of the internet era, a pitched battle between two camps/sensibilities (and two camps, only) -- those marching under the banner of noted sensualist and carnivore Dan Kois and the pleasureless goosestepping to the pronouncements of arid meanie, Chairman Boardwell?

It is, as is sometimes said, a notion. I wonder why Mr. Taylor thought it had any bearing on what is actually transpiring on the planet Earth, where, say, Mr. Boardwell's site and Senses of Cinema aren't exactly racing up the Alexa charts, even in the narrow cinephile demographic. Sure seems like there's a whole lotta strata of film critique covered in the flyover between Harry Knowles and Chris Fujiwara -- enough, from my cheap seat, to think the overall binary thrust of Taylor's argument's crackers, where not deliberately reductionist.

Boy, he sure showed us, though, by finally popping that gaseous Antonioni bubble, didn't he? Silly, anhedonic sapheads...what WERE we thinking?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad