Rob Sietsema has been the food critic for the village voice since 1993. He has a lot to say in regard to who is a legitimate food critic and how the art should be approached.
Mr. Sietsema cuts lose on the infamous "restaurant girl" who swept New York City with her unorthodox, flamboyant style of restaurant reviewing. He cites anonymity and return trips to gather a fair sample as necessary in his article "Everyone Eats ... But that doesn't make you a restaurant critic" for the January/February issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. The articles sets up a forum for some relevant ethical questions that pertain to those of us interested in food criticism, and reviewing in general: How important is it to conceal identity as a reviewer? Does anonymity mean forfeiting the opportunity to speak with chefs (directors, actors) about their vision? Does researching need to be an individual experience or can we engage with the people who created what we are reviewing? Unfortunately the article is not available to non-subscribers in the online version of the magazine, but it is available in the Kalamazoo College Library.
Here are some links:
Counter Culture (Mr. Sietsema's column in the Village Voice)
Restaurant Girl (Danyelle Freeman is Restaurant Girl)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Assume a Pose: Oscar Wilde and Glam Rock
"Velvet Goldmine"
1998 Goldwyn Films
Audience: Readers of an alternative weekly(eg: City pages or The Village Voice)
Most anyone can relate to the crude glamor of performing self. In his 1998 film ¨Velvet Goldmine”, director and writer Todd Hayes weaves together performance, identity, and the desire to evoke social change in a succulent eroticism of stardom. Mr Hayes frames a journalist's literal manhunt, and reconnection with personal history as a lurid, sickeningly appropriate metaphor for the hedonistic invention and reinvention of public image, and the unintended consequences of these deliberate images on his characters.
Mr. Hayes is no stranger to examining complex, public characters in a given moment and well outside of their comfort zone; one of his short films (“Superstar”) chronicles Karen Carpenter's traverse through fame. He does not give his audience any answers, but instead endeavors to take them on a journey that entangles them in the perspective of each character. He does this by creating a sort of surreal fairy-tale documentary that compresses time, immerses us to saturation in every scene, and fragments the narrative in such a way that we make every discovery along with the characters. Mr. Hayes capitalizes on the effectiveness of using old forms to explore and dissect new, difficult material, he employs “Citizen Kane” as a template which serves to makes his own work more readily digestible.
“Velvet Goldmine” is opulent, the soundtrack carries its own Glam Rock subplot as well as serving to punctuate specific moments with drowning force. It dances around a powerful trifecta of popular culture's marginalized heroes: Oscar Wilde, Kurt Cobain, and David Bowie. It resists being biographical (which was, admittedly, Mr. Hayes' original intent), and instead covers more varied, allegorical ground. Oscar Wilde saturates the film with innumerable quotations (mostly from “Pictures of Dorian Grey”) woven into dialogue (often with absurd hilarity), and with more stylistic inclusions like the Victorian roots that show in costumes of the Glam Stars. Wilde's presence in the film gives the glam rock era in London and its relationship to the scene in the US awesome depth, and historical context.
The audience is bombarded with image and style, but this is really a film about individuals and the circumstances that created (and destroyed) them. The characters in “Velvet Goldmine” are magnificent, and aptly cast. Eddy Izzard, in particular, gives a scintillating performance as the manager who is primarily responsible for the greedy success of a revolution that might otherwise have avoided such commercial success, and also, perhaps for the pressure that caused pop idols Curt Wild and Brian Slade. Wild is performed by Ewan McGregor and modeled after various elements Kurt Cobain and Lou Reed, and Slade is a specific portrait of David Bowie and performed by Jonathan Rhis Meyers. Slades wife, Mandy Slade is played by Toni Collete and mirrors Angela Bowie.
It is Mandy who finally brings the elements together and begins to show us that in a creation so precarious as stardom, even the burning out is a lavish undertaking. She speaks with resignation, but there is a cheap grandeur to her memories which illuminates how in the process of changing the world, it is the self that is revolutionized.
We seem to arrive at the end of the film unexpectedly, after several false conclusions, exhausted by a backwards game of clue and a hurtling, mysterious journey to nowhere, but perhaps that is the point; what more is growing up, after all? What more is self discovery than the creation and recreation of possibilities?
Sources and awesome links:
Theauteurs (you can view some of Haynes' harder to find films here)
Sense of Cinema (Todd Haynes and Social Criticism)
http://www.velvetgoldmine.com.ar/info.php (quirky fan site with lots of information)
1998 Goldwyn Films
Audience: Readers of an alternative weekly(eg: City pages or The Village Voice)
Most anyone can relate to the crude glamor of performing self. In his 1998 film ¨Velvet Goldmine”, director and writer Todd Hayes weaves together performance, identity, and the desire to evoke social change in a succulent eroticism of stardom. Mr Hayes frames a journalist's literal manhunt, and reconnection with personal history as a lurid, sickeningly appropriate metaphor for the hedonistic invention and reinvention of public image, and the unintended consequences of these deliberate images on his characters.
Mr. Hayes is no stranger to examining complex, public characters in a given moment and well outside of their comfort zone; one of his short films (“Superstar”) chronicles Karen Carpenter's traverse through fame. He does not give his audience any answers, but instead endeavors to take them on a journey that entangles them in the perspective of each character. He does this by creating a sort of surreal fairy-tale documentary that compresses time, immerses us to saturation in every scene, and fragments the narrative in such a way that we make every discovery along with the characters. Mr. Hayes capitalizes on the effectiveness of using old forms to explore and dissect new, difficult material, he employs “Citizen Kane” as a template which serves to makes his own work more readily digestible.
“Velvet Goldmine” is opulent, the soundtrack carries its own Glam Rock subplot as well as serving to punctuate specific moments with drowning force. It dances around a powerful trifecta of popular culture's marginalized heroes: Oscar Wilde, Kurt Cobain, and David Bowie. It resists being biographical (which was, admittedly, Mr. Hayes' original intent), and instead covers more varied, allegorical ground. Oscar Wilde saturates the film with innumerable quotations (mostly from “Pictures of Dorian Grey”) woven into dialogue (often with absurd hilarity), and with more stylistic inclusions like the Victorian roots that show in costumes of the Glam Stars. Wilde's presence in the film gives the glam rock era in London and its relationship to the scene in the US awesome depth, and historical context.
The audience is bombarded with image and style, but this is really a film about individuals and the circumstances that created (and destroyed) them. The characters in “Velvet Goldmine” are magnificent, and aptly cast. Eddy Izzard, in particular, gives a scintillating performance as the manager who is primarily responsible for the greedy success of a revolution that might otherwise have avoided such commercial success, and also, perhaps for the pressure that caused pop idols Curt Wild and Brian Slade. Wild is performed by Ewan McGregor and modeled after various elements Kurt Cobain and Lou Reed, and Slade is a specific portrait of David Bowie and performed by Jonathan Rhis Meyers. Slades wife, Mandy Slade is played by Toni Collete and mirrors Angela Bowie.
It is Mandy who finally brings the elements together and begins to show us that in a creation so precarious as stardom, even the burning out is a lavish undertaking. She speaks with resignation, but there is a cheap grandeur to her memories which illuminates how in the process of changing the world, it is the self that is revolutionized.
We seem to arrive at the end of the film unexpectedly, after several false conclusions, exhausted by a backwards game of clue and a hurtling, mysterious journey to nowhere, but perhaps that is the point; what more is growing up, after all? What more is self discovery than the creation and recreation of possibilities?
Sources and awesome links:
Theauteurs (you can view some of Haynes' harder to find films here)
Sense of Cinema (Todd Haynes and Social Criticism)
http://www.velvetgoldmine.com.ar/info.php (quirky fan site with lots of information)
Monday, January 18, 2010
NYT Critical Defense #1: Or, Why A.O. Scott is the shit
(photo: A.O. Scott via the Ithaca Times Art Blog)
I have begun to follow A.O. Scott (from the New York Times), in the past weeks and have yet to be bored in the midst of one of his reviews; boredom was the preliminary dis-qualifier for my reviewer defense this week. I have a hard time making it through most of the reviews of performances that I have not seen on account of losing interest or getting lost in the unnecessary wordiness. When gleaning the arts section for pure entertainment and inspiration, he doesn't disappoint.
What is it that that makes A.O. Scott a critic worthy of defense in his review of "Fishtank"? It is the way he incorporates and analyzes bits of triva like, "Ms. Arnold [director] gave the script to her cast one scene at a time so that they did not know what was coming next." He discerns nuances in character from the actors' approach, "[M]s. Jarvis's tentative, sometimes opaque self-presentation registers the crucial fact about Mia, which is her confusion."
In terms of structure, Mr Scott begins with director, and the overarching sense of claustaphobia that the movie is meant to convey to the viewer. He touches on the characters, both in terms of their scripted relatinships to eachother, and as they are constructed by the actors. Within the sentences, Mr. Scott orders the words in a way that builds suspense. He does this, I believe, with anecdotes, and small insets of his own observation without giving to much away. He says, "The contradictions of adolescence create their own sadness." And I comiserate with him for a moment before moving on. He gives the reader the sense that we are on the same team, rather than giving us a lecture. Mr. Scott places the film in a ring with it contemporaries and builds his authority by comparing its elements to "An Education" and the director's first film "Red Road". The 'but' comes toward the end of the review after he has presented the film to the readership and given us a chance to come to our own conclusions about whether it is worth seeing.
Mr. Scott has been writing reviews for the New York Times for ten years, and still brings a fresh perspective to one more movie about a teenage girl in the projects, complete with a creepy stepdad.
FISHTANK REVIEW
from the New York Times on Friday January 15, 2010
Sherlock Revisited, again
Director: Guy Ritchie (Snatch., Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong
Rating: 2.5 out of 5 Corn-Dog Kudos
The game's afoot! It's called: how many classic stories can be reworked into big budget Blockbuster action flicks, and Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes has stepped up to take its turn under the stylized direction of Guy Ritchie. Is the predictable detective story that we all know, and may have seen several versions of already worth seeing in 2010? Yes. How successful is it? That question requires a little deducing.
The latest take on our Victorian detective remains in gritty, percussive 1821, London England (complete with a 221b. Baker Street). Hans Zimmer is a behind the scenes genius who places us wholly in the midst of the grime, punctuating exaggerated action with comic book folk (think zippy accordion and punchy, jig-inducing fiddles) and epic swells that are enough on their own to bring one to the edge of their seat.
For the most part, updates are in the form of graphic, testosterone-centric violence for the sake of violence that is par for the course with Guy Richie's cool ass gangster repertoire (think “Snatch” or “RocknRolla” where no moral abounding, decisive protagonist to root for).
There is no question about who to root for here, Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson are the definitive, albeit attractively flawed dream-team. Downey Jr. brings his audience into the mind of Holmes, to the point of talking us through his fight strategy in slow motion and making us feel his stifling social discomfort; Law is the perfect counter playing Watson as suave, but rigid with a gambling problem. They navigate fantastic mysteries, and the quirks of living together with nimble banter which is at least seventy-five percent of what makes the movie a joy to sit through.
Besides tantric explosions and violence, the newest Sherlock story features a delightful screenplay by Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg that is brimming with hilarious wit-swapping. The writing team includes a twist that renders this particular version especially relevant and engaging beyond its clever-isms. This time, the “bad guys” aren't just our for normal “bad guy” booty; they are all about using Fear (capital “F”), deceit, and conformity as a means of control over England's Parliament and citizens—a solid, yet subtle nod to our present global politics.
This “Sherlock Holmes” features a giant ax wielding henchman with manners played by a very convincing menace, Robert Maillet. The new number one bad man is a black magic murderer named Lord Blackwood; the character is power-mongering and reminiscent of certain political figures, and Mark Strong's performance truly encompasses his character's grandiose expectation.
By far, the worst element of “Sherlock Holmes” is Watson's fiance Mary Morstan played as well as could be expected by Kelly Reilly. Mary never develops beyond two scenes worth of simpering, typical “I love you and am a loyal woman” dialogue even though Reilly is convincing as she rushes off screen, offended. Rachel McAdams is a seductive, smooth Irene Adler who sweeps onto the smoky London scene as a silky femme fatale in a stunning red gown. In the end, though her character is predictable and flat, falling for Holmes, but still succumbing to the will of the man who pays her. The female roles in Ritchie's 2009 adaption are unfortunate as they reflect a 1891 point of view despite his state of the art cinematography.
“Sherlock Holmes” as seen in 2009 is no intricate mystery, but the game afoot is one worth playing out.
Helpful Articles in the Revision of Sherlock
Row Three Review
In his review for Row Three (a site that aims to foster community and discussion around films) Johnathan B. reflects on the worthwhile, entertaining aspects of the movie despite it's lack of "masterpiece qualities". He fits its violence and style into the context of Guy Ritchie's gangster flicks, and analyzes each element of the film in its own right, and he includes pictures.
New York Times Review
A.O. Scott strikes me as the ideal reviewer in terms of a review that is written in order to be enjoyed in a strictly entertaining sense. He does an excellent job of mirroring the film that he is reviewing and using its elements to bring the reader up to speed and help them understand exactly why he has come to whatever conclusion he has reached. His authority as a critic stems from the way that he brings well researched historical elements into his review and situates it in the context of other current pop culture happenings.
Rotten Tomatoes
Having a scale in mind (and expressed) as I think about reviewing and writing a review is fantastically helpful, as is keeping in mind a sort of consistent criteria as I consider different elements of the film. The "star" scale is kind of boring, although I can't give all of the credit to rotten tomatoes for inspiring my own deep fried food-based scale for rating (some of it has to go to an anonymous individual).
In his review for Row Three (a site that aims to foster community and discussion around films) Johnathan B. reflects on the worthwhile, entertaining aspects of the movie despite it's lack of "masterpiece qualities". He fits its violence and style into the context of Guy Ritchie's gangster flicks, and analyzes each element of the film in its own right, and he includes pictures.
New York Times Review
A.O. Scott strikes me as the ideal reviewer in terms of a review that is written in order to be enjoyed in a strictly entertaining sense. He does an excellent job of mirroring the film that he is reviewing and using its elements to bring the reader up to speed and help them understand exactly why he has come to whatever conclusion he has reached. His authority as a critic stems from the way that he brings well researched historical elements into his review and situates it in the context of other current pop culture happenings.
Rotten Tomatoes
Having a scale in mind (and expressed) as I think about reviewing and writing a review is fantastically helpful, as is keeping in mind a sort of consistent criteria as I consider different elements of the film. The "star" scale is kind of boring, although I can't give all of the credit to rotten tomatoes for inspiring my own deep fried food-based scale for rating (some of it has to go to an anonymous individual).
Monday, January 11, 2010
midgets in coffins: or the new, old detective story
Sherlock Holmes
(December 2009)
Is a predictable detective story that we all know, and may have seen several versions of already really worth seeing again (or for the first time) in 2010? Yes.
The latest take on Sherlock Holmes is directed by Guy Ritchie (RocknRolla, Snatch) and set in 1891 London, England—complete with a 221b Baker St.. The twist that makes this particular version currently relevant and interesting is that the “bad guys” aren't necessarily out for normal 'bad guy' things, they're all about using Fear (capital “F”) deceit, and conformity as weapons, and as a means of control over England's parliament and citizens. They give a solid nod to current global politics and their historical contexts. The driving motive on the evil side is power, and reclaiming the fledgling United States as a rightful colony.
This version features a giant ax-wielding henchman and midgets (excuse me, dwarfs) one of which is, very predictably, in a coffin. The new number one bad guy is a black magic murderer named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a frumpy, near miss genius with a knack for boxing and offending people, Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is a fastidious man of action with a secretly maternal spirit and a spending problem.
The movie opens with a tedious, over-done chase scene. The most difficult thing about watching the movie might just be its slow motion, hyper-styled, talked through fight scenes. The only redeeming quality they posses is that Holmes narrates his train of through, and it becomes clear that even his fighting strategy is a methodical scientific experiment. Once the opening yawn-fest is over, things pick up with a hilarious wit-swapping between Holmes and Watson. Nimble banter between the pair is at least 75% of what makes the movie a joy to sit through. It doesn't take a detective to deduce that there is something of a bro-mance between the leading men. Holmes is profoundly upset that Watson is planning to get married and break-up the mystery-solving partnership.
The females portrayed in Sherlock Holmes are woeful, they hung on the movie like a damp, heavy tent. The two scenes between Watson and his fiance Mary (Kelly Reilly) were sparse, dry and completely unnecessary. I did not believe for a moment that they really care about each other, and their relationship did not develop enough over the course of the movie to provide any evidence one way or the other. Holmes nemesis, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) had promise as a brilliant femme fatale, but as the movie progressed she seemed flat.
If you're looking for a straightforward murder mystery in which the good guy will absolutely prevail; if you're looking for a second hand thrill where you can be certain of coming out unaffected; if you're looking to enjoy someone's company and a few laughs at a smart date movie, then Sherlock Holmes will certainly help pass a winter afternoon, but don't bother if you want a particularly significant, moving experience.
(December 2009)
Is a predictable detective story that we all know, and may have seen several versions of already really worth seeing again (or for the first time) in 2010? Yes.
The latest take on Sherlock Holmes is directed by Guy Ritchie (RocknRolla, Snatch) and set in 1891 London, England—complete with a 221b Baker St.. The twist that makes this particular version currently relevant and interesting is that the “bad guys” aren't necessarily out for normal 'bad guy' things, they're all about using Fear (capital “F”) deceit, and conformity as weapons, and as a means of control over England's parliament and citizens. They give a solid nod to current global politics and their historical contexts. The driving motive on the evil side is power, and reclaiming the fledgling United States as a rightful colony.
This version features a giant ax-wielding henchman and midgets (excuse me, dwarfs) one of which is, very predictably, in a coffin. The new number one bad guy is a black magic murderer named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a frumpy, near miss genius with a knack for boxing and offending people, Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is a fastidious man of action with a secretly maternal spirit and a spending problem.
The movie opens with a tedious, over-done chase scene. The most difficult thing about watching the movie might just be its slow motion, hyper-styled, talked through fight scenes. The only redeeming quality they posses is that Holmes narrates his train of through, and it becomes clear that even his fighting strategy is a methodical scientific experiment. Once the opening yawn-fest is over, things pick up with a hilarious wit-swapping between Holmes and Watson. Nimble banter between the pair is at least 75% of what makes the movie a joy to sit through. It doesn't take a detective to deduce that there is something of a bro-mance between the leading men. Holmes is profoundly upset that Watson is planning to get married and break-up the mystery-solving partnership.
The females portrayed in Sherlock Holmes are woeful, they hung on the movie like a damp, heavy tent. The two scenes between Watson and his fiance Mary (Kelly Reilly) were sparse, dry and completely unnecessary. I did not believe for a moment that they really care about each other, and their relationship did not develop enough over the course of the movie to provide any evidence one way or the other. Holmes nemesis, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) had promise as a brilliant femme fatale, but as the movie progressed she seemed flat.
If you're looking for a straightforward murder mystery in which the good guy will absolutely prevail; if you're looking for a second hand thrill where you can be certain of coming out unaffected; if you're looking to enjoy someone's company and a few laughs at a smart date movie, then Sherlock Holmes will certainly help pass a winter afternoon, but don't bother if you want a particularly significant, moving experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
