Slate Movie Club 2003

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Every year, Slate.com hosts an e-mail exchange among four film critics to discuss the year in film. It's usually pretty entertaining, as you get to see the critics really defend some of their choices (especially the polarizing films) -- or else just have an intelligent discussion about the year's trends and highlights.

The critics this year are David Edelstein (of Slate.com), J. Hoberman (of the Village Voice), Sarah Kerr (of Vogue), and Manohla Dargis (of the Los Angeles Times). Unfortunately, Roger Ebert, who participated in past years, was unavailable this time around.

By the way, I considered posting this to I Love Film, but since there are a lot of people who don't frequently check that board (myself included), I didn't want to ghettoize it. If someone wants to start a concurrent thread over there, by all means, go ahead. But hopefully, this will get some more responses. (Sorry.)

(Also note: In his first sentence, Edelstein links to his own year-end summary from last week. Be sure to read this as a "prelude" to the roundtable discussion.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 5 January 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

From that prelude:
...there isn't that much difference between my ninth-favorite movie and my 20th, and any numerical distinction is pretty much whimsical. That's why I've done four 10-best lists for sundry newspaper, Internet, and radio outlets, and no two are the same.

I like that Edelstein admits that his top 10 is to some degree arbitrary, since it's not something I see many professional critics do. Although maybe I see it more often recently, I'm not sure. I guess I used to be intimidated about the idea of making lists like this, because I was sure all the REAL critics made lists that were definitive and unassailable, and they could tell you EXACTLY why #7 was better than #8. It's sort of a relief to realize that's not the case, even though to some readers, it probably makes them look uncertain or wishy-washy.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 5 January 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I know a pro critic who hadn't seen 'Spider'

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 5 January 2004 17:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, I'm buoyed by the fact that Edelstein's #1 is Spellbound, which might actually be in my top 5, too -- except it seems like Capturing the Friedmans is getting more love across the board as the doc of the year. But Spellbound, as I've said before, was a sheer delight from beginning to end.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 5 January 2004 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Enrique:

From Jonathan Rosenbaum's year-end essay:

I should note that I didn't consider, among others, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, or Something's Gotta Give for my list because I haven't seen them.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 5 January 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Hah! Well. I haven't seen 'em either. I can't deal with the lists -- I mean you don't expect book reviewers to have read everything. I haven't seen 'Spellbound,' 'Unknown Pleasures,' *any* of the LOTR films... some of these I'll get round to, some I might not (ie the LOTR).

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 5 January 2004 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Ta for this Jaymc, as I'd never known about Slate before. These four may actually turn me on to liking critics for a change, since they actually aren't scared to admit when they don't like what's 'popular'.

If there's anyone I haven't pissed off, here's a question for J. Hoberman. You wrote, in your review of Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, "Its hobbituary denouement is gayer than anything in Angels in America." Dude! Having speculated on Mel Gibson's fixations, can we move on to the erotic life of hobbits?

Yeah, can we?;> Clearly, she needs to be introduced to ILX, as Frodo and Sam have become subject to a few fantasies round here.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Monday, 5 January 2004 17:47 (twenty-one years ago)

That's hardly a local phenomenon, though. I mean, it is the gayest film ever made.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 5 January 2004 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Nichole, who are these critics you hate so much for being 'scared to admit disliking whats popular'?

― pauline kaeno, Monday, 5 January 2004 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)

That's hardly a local phenomenon, though. I mean, it is the gayest film ever made.

Andrew, remember My Beautiful Laundrette? Has the hobbits beat, hands down.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Monday, 5 January 2004 18:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Nichole, who are these critics you hate so much for being 'scared to admit disliking whats popular'?

To hate any of them, I'd have to bother to pay actual attention to critics' words in the first place (which I generally don't).

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Monday, 5 January 2004 18:28 (twenty-one years ago)

thats exactly what I thought, thanks Nichole

― pauline kaeno, Monday, 5 January 2004 18:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Whoops, I forgot to add in my original post that A.O. Scott of the New York Times is also part of this exchange. New post by Sarah Kerr is up now.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 5 January 2004 19:17 (twenty-one years ago)

A.O. Scott? Ew.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Monday, 5 January 2004 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)

This is great, jaymc. thanks.

I still refuse to believe that In America can contain anything of worth, but maybe I should see it for myself...

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 5 January 2004 19:40 (twenty-one years ago)

In America is pretty bad, it should have been called The Legend of Basquiat Vance.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Monday, 5 January 2004 19:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay, it's not that bad. I liked it but thought it was more of a charming, pleasant little film and probably not as profound as it might have wanted to be. There are some nice moments, but it doesn't quite add up.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 5 January 2004 19:47 (twenty-one years ago)

And actually, Nicole, the Djimon Hounsou character could've been A LOT worse. Based on the trailer, I was ready for the character to serve a purely symbolic end: the big, angry black artist who's a living embodiment of crazy multi-ethnic New York (i.e., everything the innocent Irish family is not). I was pleased to see this wasn't entirely the case.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 5 January 2004 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Not entirely the case, but it was still disappointing.

The acting was very good, but overall I can't understand the love for this movie.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Monday, 5 January 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

And in the theater I saw it at, the pause after Mateo says, "No, I love YOU" was filled with predictable laughter.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 5 January 2004 20:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Nichole, who are these critics you hate so much for being 'scared to admit disliking whats popular'?

To hate any of them, I'd have to bother to pay actual attention to critics' words in the first place (which I generally don't).

Yes, much better to rely on adverstising copy: how exactly do you come to see films without critical opinion? If word of mouth, then you're lucky; but you're also susceptible, surely, to second-hand critical opinion. If I were you, I'd just stick to the films with the nicest posters.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 12:07 (twenty-one years ago)

But it's pretty easy to tell second hand criticism from first hand opinion from people you know, right?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 12:19 (twenty-one years ago)

"What'd you think about Master and Commander?"

"It's a fantastic film, full of the crash of the sea and wonderful performances..."

"Did you see it?"

"...No. But Jonathan Ross has nice hair."

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 12:19 (twenty-one years ago)

ppl know with me, cos I'll say: 'well, siegfried kracauer...' and then they suggest 'love, actually'. there aren't many critics i'd trust in fairness, but without them i'd be at the mercy of puff-writers. will 'lost in translation' be any good? no idea, everyone's too busy fellating scarlett johanssen to tell me. a good critic avoids all that filmflam.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 12:23 (twenty-one years ago)

"fellating"?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

By the way, A.O. Scott's first post nicely sums up what I disliked about Big Fish.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Eating out

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a problem with eating out Scarlett Johanssen?

― ModJ (ModJ), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

In the pages of newspapers and magazines, dressed up as journalism, yes. Otherwise, no.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Gosh, Sarah Kerr's comments (Sorry, I don't know how to jump to just her post) on Mystic River feel pretty spot-on. This was exactly how I felt: entertained, captivated, but ultimately not devastated as some folks were.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

eleven months pass...

Edelstein has announced that this year's participants will be himself, A.O. Scott, Stephanie Zacharek, Charles Taylor, and Armond White. (Get ready, haters!) The exchange begins next week.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 17:21 (twenty years ago)

awesome. armond white will make it fun and interesting (to me at least, i think white is a decent provacateur)

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 17:32 (twenty years ago)

That's kind of what Edelstein said.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 17:35 (twenty years ago)

shame: no sarah kerr.
not just the one that I've met
but WAY the hottest

(disclaimer: we once
shared a road trip from brooklyn
to akron and back)

― Haibun (Begs2Differ), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 18:24 (twenty years ago)

How'd ya score that?!

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 18:27 (twenty years ago)

we were college friends--
well, more like acquaintances--
well, we said hello.

our mutual friends
ann and bernardo got hitched
a few years later,

so a bunch of us*
zoomed through some long boring states.
*one is now my wife

― Haibun (Begs2Differ), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 18:35 (twenty years ago)

I love the footnote within the haiku: beautiful.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 29 December 2004 19:43 (twenty years ago)

The first thing I saw in the entire exchange:

"Good God, Armond—are you saying that movie polls should be regulated, like utilities?"

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Thursday, 6 January 2005 12:58 (twenty years ago)

oh wtf! TWO salon peeps? could care less.

― enrq, Thursday, 6 January 2005 13:53 (twenty years ago)

but charles and stephanie are great! i've really been digging this year's incarnation.

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Thursday, 6 January 2005 15:42 (twenty years ago)

this is seriously the best criticism i have read in ages. the newbies today are amazing! and armond white continues to be a douchebag!

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Thursday, 6 January 2005 18:11 (twenty years ago)

holy fuck, who is this armond white? he's amazingly bad!

― henry miller, Friday, 7 January 2005 09:13 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.