Please point out to me the thoughts expressed in this post that qualify as “great.”
Were they in the first paragraph where he bemoans the critical establishment of NYC media circa 1967 while holding up lightweight phrase-smith Dargis as an exemplar of erudite critical perception? And yes, I did read Crowther in 1967. Unlike Mr. Murphy, instead of wasting my time whining about the prevailing cultural winds, I shrugged my shoulders and sought out Ozu, Mekas, and Brakhage.
Possibly those great thoughts were in the second paragraph, where he wiped the nervous sweat off his brow on discovering the “third” death wasn’t Godard, but only Isou? And then, the irony! His most famous film just came out on DVD!
Is the greatness in the third or fourth paragraphs? The paragraphs that consist of Wiki-like background facts? Well at least we get some meat in our stew, including the useful information about the Re:Voir version of the film.
The next three paragraphs are a strict retelling of what any viewer who has seen the film will know. Again, the type of content usually found on a bad DVD commentary. After a two paragraph interruption in which real critical thought is expressed (regardless of its value), it’s back to the retelling of which any viewer can see, provided his eyes are open. This retelling lasts for eight tedious paragraphs. The viewer doesn’t even have to be thinking while watching in order to catch these things, as this is the film’s content. OK, I exaggerate. He did preface one description with the word “dubious.”
His last paragraph does contain actual critical content, though I found it to be of that rah-rah ordinary type usually written by advocates of personal cinema. This is the paragraph that really prompted this note. When will the day come when we can read critical, discriminating essays on works of an experimental nature? It is as if those that admire such work are reluctant to criticize, as they feel that there are already enough Crowthers in the world.
Please point out to me the thoughts expressed in this post that qualify as “great.”
Were they in the first paragraph where he bemoans the critical establishment of NYC media circa 1967 while holding up lightweight phrase-smith Dargis as an exemplar of erudite critical perception? And yes, I did read Crowther in 1967. Unlike Mr. Murphy, instead of wasting my time whining about the prevailing cultural winds, I shrugged my shoulders and sought out Ozu, Mekas, and Brakhage.
Possibly those great thoughts were in the second paragraph, where he wiped the nervous sweat off his brow on discovering the “third” death wasn’t Godard, but only Isou? And then, the irony! His most famous film just came out on DVD!
Is the greatness in the third or fourth paragraphs? The paragraphs that consist of Wiki-like background facts? Well at least we get some meat in our stew, including the useful information about the Re:Voir version of the film.
The next three paragraphs are a strict retelling of what any viewer who has seen the film will know. Again, the type of content usually found on a bad DVD commentary. After a two paragraph interruption in which real critical thought is expressed (regardless of its value), it’s back to the retelling of which any viewer can see, provided his eyes are open. This retelling lasts for eight tedious paragraphs. The viewer doesn’t even have to be thinking while watching in order to catch these things, as this is the film’s content. OK, I exaggerate. He did preface one description with the word “dubious.”
His last paragraph does contain actual critical content, though I found it to be of that rah-rah ordinary type usually written by advocates of personal cinema. This is the paragraph that really prompted this note. When will the day come when we can read critical, discriminating essays on works of an experimental nature? It is as if those that admire such work are reluctant to criticize, as they feel that there are already enough Crowthers in the world.