JPod has some fun today with Mahnola Dargis of the NYT: You know, at times, people come up to me randomly on the streets of New York and ask me, “Say, JPod, how exactly would you define the word ‘pretentious’?” And I have to admit I am usually stumped and unable to sum up exactly the qualities of pseudo-thought that the word represents. That is why I am grateful today for the film critic of the New York Times, Ms. Manohla Dargis.
John’s referring to Dargis’ review of David Lynch’s latest, which, among other “sophisticated” uses of the English language calls the director’s Mulholland Drive a “meta-cinematic masterpiece.” [Does that mean it has a score by Zubin Mehta?-ed. No, it means it had a score in the style of Zubin Mehta. I see.]
Simon’s rule for movie reviewing: Short reviews good. Even shorter reviews even better – as in HIX NIX STIX PIX. By way of example, here’s two more from my growing pile of Academy DVDs. There were two movies about magicians this year. The Illusionist: worth seeing. The Prestige: not worth seeing. [Aren't you going to back up your opinions?-ed. Maybe later.]
besides, who says you can’t love a David Lynch movie?
The Mahnola, she is the sister of the superfantastic blogger of the shoes, no?
Gee, the NY Post’s movie critic, Lou Leminick, calls Mulholland Drive a piece of incomprehensible pretentiousness. Who should I believe, down to earth Lou or the queen of affect, Miz Mahnola? What a conundrum….
Roger avers,
The Illusionist: worth seeing. The Prestige: not worth seeing.
Surely your have these judgments reversed.
I couldn’t even sit through the first, it was so cheesy – while Christopher Nolan is now the filmmaker whose films I look farward to seeing the most.
I mean who else can handle four story lines and not become incomprehensible and lose the entertainment? Only, maybe, Scorsese in the “The Departed.”
Lynch directed The Straight Story, the least pretentious film I have ever seen.
Sorry (no not really) to point this out, but “STIX NIX HIX PIX” was a business headline about the lack of interest in rural areas for movies about rural folk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stix_Nix_Hix_Pix
moheroy, you are right. It wasn’t really a review. As I recall it was used in a Jimmy Cagney movie with Jimmy explaining to a “civilian” how to read Variety. Obviously, in this case, I was kidding around. Poetic license, as we say.
And Orson 2, no I don’t have MY judgments reversed. But they are MY judgments. You have yours and I completely respect them. Having seen and discussed more movies over the years than I care to remember, I have come to the conclusion that this is one area in which you can never convince anyone that you are right. You may have brilliant arguments, but the other person still had their EXPERIENCE of the movie – and that will never change. My experience of The Prestige was boredom. I wanted to turn it off. My experience of The Illusionist was mild (not exceptional) pleasure. I could write more details about my reasoning but it would never convince you – nor should it.
Speaking of poetry, the wiki article has a link to the original article, fascinating. When I used to work at a small distributor in Minnesota, I loved reading Variety. Even today it is great stuff.
“Short reviews good. Even shorter reviews even better.”
My fave fim review of all time, in the L.A. Weekly (or maybe the now-defunct L.A. Reader), was of the 1988 epic “Casual Sex?” The review, in full, read, “No, thanks.”
I agree with Dargis on the merits of David Lynch. I can understand why people may hate his films, but I think he’s one of few artists in the movie business.
(Another is Terence Malick. See “The New World” on a big screen TV when you’re in a quiet mood.)
I haven’t seen “Inland Empire,” but if it’s anything like Mulholland Drive, which I liked, it must be a bitch to review. Lynch’s movies are like dreams, so how do you review them?
Most reviews these days are crappy plot synopses. I quit reading anything but the first and last paragraph of any review to avoid having the story spoiled.