| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 21:11:06
My awards-related M* piece.
|
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/13/2008 : 00:51:40
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
I like your reviews but this article has a very marxist bent to it.
Alas I am a capitalist.
Thank you!
Yes, it makes references to Marxism because in the awards overview, it spins off the UK release of There Will Be Blood, which has an avowedly anti-capitalist literary source. And although Anderson retains much of Sinclair's novel, he loosens the connections of what is essentially a morality tale, focusing instead on Plainview's character. But all the clues are still there -- this isn't a simple tale of god versus mammon. In fact, the Sunday family [and what an evocative name that is!] is presented with much of Sinclair's irony. Eli and Daniel follow very similar roads to self-aggrandisement, the one through a fabricated, dishonest construct of churchifying, the other through the swagger of acquired swag. And, let's not forget, by his very silence, Eli is complicit in his father's abuse of his daughter.
So, if we're not in simplistic good versus evil territory, and we're not in one man's tale of the corrosive effects of greed, what we ARE in is a questioning of a particular economic system, in which we're all as complicit as Eli, as proactive as Daniel.
Although Sinclair - more a campaigner/author than only a novelist - wears his leftist heart on his sleeve, Anderson downplays the metaphors. They're actually there if you look, like Hansel's breadcrumbs dampened in the forest.
But it's the Coen Brothers who pose the questions even more powerfully. And that's really what I was writing about.
Whether we embrace the capitalist society we all live in, or negotiate it uneasily, we do well to let films like these speak to us. They're taking the temperature of the times, and we're fools if we don't pay attention.
|
| turrell |
Posted - 02/13/2008 : 00:18:08
I like your reviews but this article has a very marxist bent to it. I didn't know if your other reviews were also written for the same paper or if when you write for this paper you review things from a socialist point of view - and no I do not thikn of the New York Times as being a leftist front - but its no Wall Street Journal.
Alas I am a capitalist. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 23:49:09
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Its nice to see Marxist film criticism applied appropriately for a change! There Will Be Blood lends itself to that critical method. I find that too often Marxist film criticism is applied to films when they really don't fit. I remember reading a Marxist critiques of Odds Against Tomorrow (the Harry Belefonte bank heist film) and another for Little Caesar (the Edward G. Robinson gangster film) in film school and thinking they were both a bit of a stretch. I often find the same problem with feminist film criticism.
Thanks for the kind words, GHC!
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 23:46:54
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Do you do straight film reviews or are you required to show how the film contributes to the common good? I have never read a socialist paper (the NY Times doesn't really count).
Uhm ... I honestly can't tell if you're being serious  You don't actually consider the NYT even remotely leftist, do you? And you know my reviews, as I've had the temerity to post them here with annoying frequency 
If you are serious - goody! Another chance for an essay!!
It's not a matter of how a "film contributes to the common good" but of how it reflects the society which produced it. I'd be making the same quintessential points whichever paper I wrote for, but perhaps would choose slightly different idiom.
As you may know I studied literary criticism [among other things] at university, and I apply the same basic analytic principles whatever I'm reviewing. It's amazing how applicable they are to all the arts, because, of course, the creative process is pretty much the same. It stood me in good stead when I was a reviewer on BBC radio4's now defunct Kaleidoscope program, which asked us to review a variety of new offerings, whether theatre, books, museum exhibits, etc. And, of course, as a tv script editor, producer, and development executive, analyzing drama sharpened my critical sensibilities. These were really tested in my 10 years as London Editor of Film Journal International - which was about as far from a socialist publication as you can get, addressed as it is to distributors and exhibitors.
I think mine ARE 'straight' reviews. They relate content to context. I hope I don't make inappropriate connections. I think, too, that as a creative artist myself I have a perspective which many critics lack -- i.e. I have a working knowledge of the process.
Honestly, I don't think I'm so great, or above disagreement ... whatever. I just can't find all that many people who profess to be professional critics who've been as lucky as I have to find that particular route to assessment.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
|
| GHcool |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 22:18:30
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
My awards-related M8 piece.
Its nice to see Marxist film criticism applied appropriately for a change! There Will Be Blood lends itself to that critical method. I find that too often Marxist film criticism is applied to films when they really don't fit. I remember reading a Marxist critiques of Odds Against Tomorrow (the Harry Belefonte bank heist film) and another for Little Caesar (the Edward G. Robinson gangster film) in film school and thinking they were both a bit of a stretch. I often find the same problem with feminist film criticism.
|
| turrell |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 22:17:28
Do you do straight film reviews or are you required to show how the film contributes to the common good? I have never read a socialist paper (the NY Times doesn't really count). |
|
|
