And Now I Will Make Everyone Hate Me
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage4.asp
A very funny, angry, and smart shot across the bow of modern film's worship of referentiality by Ron Rosenbaum. At times Rosenbaum goes too far, but it's better than not going far enough.
I'm going to get called an idiot for posting this and/or agreeing with anything this guy says, but why should I let that stop me?
posted by Seb @ 10:30 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Anyone who can reference Ron Popeil is ok in my book. Showtime Rotisserie pride!
Notice how he doesn't really make an argument against Sin City, he just uses the cop out that its "obvious." I don't think Sin City is a masterpiece, but part of the reason I like it so much more than Kill Bill is because I thought it had none of the pretension and efforts to be profound that Kill Bill had. I can only imagine that he is responding to the the reviewers of Sin City, they are the ones trying to give it profoundity, not Rodriguez.
I didn't like sin city. and it, in the opinion of me, was NOT enjoyable despite it have a gilmore girl in it. what was the point of the movie?
Re: responding to reviewers giving profundity to Sin City - well, yeah, that's a big part of his argument. It's as much the movie watching culture, and the critics that trumpet these directors as the vanguards of filmmaking that are responsible for the state we're in as anything. I liked Sin City more than this guy, too, but that doesn't mean that what he said didn't make me think a little bit. And I'm not sure what differentiates Kill Bill's pretensions from Sin City's - they are born of different genres, which produced movies with two different tones and styles, but they are both Big Fat Genre Movies. Just because Kill Bill leans on Chiba and Leone, while Sin City leans on Spillane, Chandler and Thompson doesn't mean the latter isn't pretentious.
As for the admittedly P-A intro, whether you think it's BS or not, the truth remains that of the other three users for this blog, two of them liked the movie considerably more than me and the third is probably the biggest Rodriguez fan of all of us. Besides, as Isaac points out, the main gist of the piece's film criticism bent is directed at Kill Bill. There's no indictment against you for liking Sin City, so you don't have to take it as a personal affront.
Also, for the last damn time, Sin City the books and Sin City the movie are two entirely different mediums, two entirely different works and two entirely different experiences. Just because I like Jackson Pollock doesn't mean that I am required to think that a movie transposing a few dozen of his most famous works onto the big screen would be a masterpiece.
When I speak of pretensions in Kill Bill that are absent in Sin City, I am largely referring to the way Tarantino presents his fetish movie as a story of girl power and feminism. Miller and Rodriguez, on the other hand, do not try to disguise Carla Gugino's boobs as anything but nice to look at.
Secondly, I don't think Sin City relies on its references for its virtues. No one would tell a non-fan of Sin City that they didn't get it because they haven't read Chandler, in the way a Kill Bill fan would tell someone they didn't get it because they're not familiar enough with Sonny Chiba's early work. This kind of Tarantino pretension of discrediting people who don't fit into his tasteless geek niche, again, does not apply to Rodriguez and Miller. Basking in being nothing but a genre movie does not show pretension, I would think, it shows the opposite.
So KB is all about Girl Power; Sin City is all about Man Power, and how for all that women are useful for (mainly to look at and to be objects to save and make your crappy life worth living), you need a Man to solve Men's Problems. Miller's men and women are just as fetishized as Tarantino's, in or out of their clothes. One look at the insanely elaborate costumes worn by the prostitutes should tell you that.
I think that you're right that Kill Bill stands more on the merit of its references than Sin City; however, just because a fan of Sin City wouldn't necessarily point out its referentiality as its strength doesn't mean it doesn't draw its essence from other sources. Maybe you don't need to know specific films like you do for KB, but the tone, structure and themes of film noir are all required to understand the mechanics of Sin City.
Of course, the women are fetishized, that was my point. But unlike the asian school girl in KB presented as a powerful woman able to defend herself against horny guys, Rodriguez and Miller completely acknowledge their women are there for looks, hence the elaborate whore costumes. This does not necesarily make the film good, but certainly makes it less pretentious than KB by not disguising guilty pleasures.
As to the second point of your last comment, I don't see how that adds up to pretension. Many great films are built around playing around within a genre, that itself shouldn't equal pretension. Its when that type of thing is the sole point and purpose, like in KB, that we can see pretension.
Re: KB: I would argue there's the same amount of pretentiousness in a girl in a schoolgirl outfit brandishing a mace as there is in an incredibly stylized, painsakingly lit shot like the one that we first see Gugino in. I absolutely believe that Miller and Roruiguez think that that first shot of her in the G-string at the dresser, with the smoke and the light and the look, is not just boobs, but "art."
Most film noir and hard boiled crime film is not pretentious; a lot of the best ones don't have a pretentious bone in their body. What's the difference between Sin City and movies like Detour, Asphalt Jungle, Gun Crazy, etc? In Sin City, style is everything - style is king. It's not what is done or said, it's how does it look? Does it look properly stunning in black and white? All the silhouettes of white figures against black background - I liked em too, but don't tell me they're not pretentious. The look of the whole movie is so carefully wrought, it is as if M&R engineered it to make the actual content of the film beside the point. If that kind of slavish devotion to the culture of the visual isn't pretension, I don't know what is.
"If that kind of slavish devotion to the culture of the visual isn't pretension, I don't know what is."
If that kind of masturbatory indulgence in diction isn't pretension, I don't know what is.
If that kind of ad hominem attack isn't completely off topic, I don't know what is.
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia was universally panned by critics upon its release in 1974. It was referential (a character was named Fred C. Dobbs), it was violent and disgusting (Warren Oats converses with a fly-covered severed head while driving in his car (sound familiar--Tarantino directed this very scene in Sin City)). Nice, I got the reference, I'm in the in crowd now.
The answer to "what is art?" should be left to art historians, then summarily ignored. The look of Dick Tracy was great--it added to the film more than the script and more, even, than Madonna's acting. The yellows were really yellow. It looked like a comic book. The look of Sin City was great. Carla Gugino's meticulously lit boobs were great. Why is it pretentious to do great work? If the Godfather was just an OK movie, the babtism scene would sure be pretentious. But that's just it, if you like the movie, the pretention is not pretentious, it's good.
I love a classic story about family--Grapes of Wrath, The Godfather, Fanny and Alexander--but now Sin City says that we've seen movies that are well-written and well acted, and about true human characters--it's been done, who needs it? We do, but not while we're watching Sin City. The possible trend in American film toward stupidity does frighten me but if the trend stops here, Sin City can be called an innovative, fascinating, one-of-a-kind, "avante garde" piece of filmmaking. And I like it.
I would say that this blog has always been a "masturbatory indulgence in diction" but when among writers that is to be expected.
As for the pretenses in films, I think that to a great extent these "pretensions" are brought in by the viewer. However I don't think anyone can argue that there are no pretenses in a movie like Kill Bill, or any Tarentino film for that matter. When a directors style relies so heavily on previous works I think its impossible to not be pretentious. For me though that doesn't significantly alter my opinion on the film. But to say anymore then that on this topic would be fruitless, Mike summed it all up perfectly.
On another note when it comes to lodging a claim against a director I am under the belief that you should back it up. I am of course referring to the comment on Lynch and his "misguided gravitas". I find his better movies to be such a calculated art that to label his films as misguided in general is just that. I am no authority, but both "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland Dr." deserve a good viewing and if you pay attention I think "misguided gravitas" is the last thing you will find.
Thanks for the clarity. Now lets all go out and enjoy Sin City in its stylistic glory.
Post a Comment
<< Home