Andrew Sarris, of course, is one of the more prominent figures in twentieth century American film criticism--the one who introduced Americans to the auteur theory emergent in the circle centered on the French film journal Cahiers du Cinema.
Sarris also played an important role in the politics of the era's film criticism. As Peter Biskind argued, Sarris and Pauline Kael were the two predominant figures of the post-war years, and Sarris as well as Kael a Cold War centrist, along with her fighting against "ideology" in filmmaking with his typewriter.
Naturally Sarris' exchange with film critic David Walsh makes for very interesting reading, the more in as in spite of their significant intellectual and political differences each is respectful of and gracious to the other. Indeed, Sarris, at least the Sarris of the interview, can come off as more leftish than one might expect from having read a good deal of his work. Answering a question from Walsh about the tenability of the social situation Sarris confessed that it was "awful" and no "fair-minded person" seeing anything at all could call "the situation . . . ideal," the "bourgeois complacency" of political debate reached "a stage . . . such as even a bourgeois like me finds unthinkable," the more in as, if comfortable and secure in his own life at this point, Sarris says that he "can understand the pain out there."
Sarris' remark is the more interesting because the exchange took place way back in 1998--just when the tech boom was reaching its climax, when we were constantly being told how great everything was, globalized info-utopia that would just get better and better near at hand--illusions today long since shattered as the realities to which Sarris alluded remain, and grow only more pressing.
Saturday, April 20, 2024
"What is an Independent Filmmaker?"
Over the years I have had something to say of "independent film," and certainly American independent film from the 1990s, as not simply film made on certain financial terms, but film embodying a certain spirit. Summing it up some years ago I basically deemed it a cinema of pseudo-maturity--of young people of hazy ideas, vague rebellious impulses, essential conventionality posing and posturing as smarter and more tough-minded and cooler than they really are, trying to impress us and in the main failing as they rework the same themes and devices over and over again in that spirit of cheap edgelordism, with Quentin Tarantino embodying the extreme limitations of the tendency, and some three decades after its breaking onto the scene, still seeming to me to stand as its symbol (even as he has become the Cranky Old Man talking about the theatrical experience).
Of course, not every independent film was like that (even if the more talked-about movies leading the movement were), while one can add that this spirit soon came to pervade non-independent film, such that there was room for observations such as David Walsh's quip that an "independent filmmaker" is simply "a director whose films have not yet made anyone a great deal of money--a hack commercial filmmaker in training" (a conception not necessarily exclusive).
Still, discussing many of the more ballyhooed independent filmmakers Walsh and his colleagues have suggested certain patterns evident in the more prominent indies as well, with Joanne Laurer recently raising the observation again in her review of The Holdovers (part of their comprehensive coverage of the past year's Best Picture Oscar nominees). As she observed, Alexander Payne, like his fellow indie movie stars Steven Soderbergh, David O. Russell, the Coen Brothers et. al. tend toward "cynicism and misanthropy" as, reflecting the prevailing politics of their formative years, they tended toward "'neutral' or non-commital'" responses to the troubles of the world, As an assessment this seems to me to be entirely fair--and another way in which that generation of filmmakers is, like the rest of their generation, showing its age, persisting in '90s irony even as the 1990s, in many ways, its mood included, recedes into the past.
Of course, not every independent film was like that (even if the more talked-about movies leading the movement were), while one can add that this spirit soon came to pervade non-independent film, such that there was room for observations such as David Walsh's quip that an "independent filmmaker" is simply "a director whose films have not yet made anyone a great deal of money--a hack commercial filmmaker in training" (a conception not necessarily exclusive).
Still, discussing many of the more ballyhooed independent filmmakers Walsh and his colleagues have suggested certain patterns evident in the more prominent indies as well, with Joanne Laurer recently raising the observation again in her review of The Holdovers (part of their comprehensive coverage of the past year's Best Picture Oscar nominees). As she observed, Alexander Payne, like his fellow indie movie stars Steven Soderbergh, David O. Russell, the Coen Brothers et. al. tend toward "cynicism and misanthropy" as, reflecting the prevailing politics of their formative years, they tended toward "'neutral' or non-commital'" responses to the troubles of the world, As an assessment this seems to me to be entirely fair--and another way in which that generation of filmmakers is, like the rest of their generation, showing its age, persisting in '90s irony even as the 1990s, in many ways, its mood included, recedes into the past.
A "Harvard Man" in 1959
Even the most lightweight-seeming cultural artifacts can acquire a sociological interest with the passage of time--and the 1959 Michael Gordon romantic comedy Pillow Talk is no exception.
In the course of that film's rather tangled goings-on protagonist Jan Morrow (Doris Day) ends up going on a date with "Harvard Man" Tony Walters (Nick Adams). As we come to realize from Walter's incessant references to himself as a "Harvard Man!" to be a Harvard Man was, at this time, to be above all a "gentleman," in the sense of a man of upper-class background. This was as against today's presumption that being a "Harvard Man" marks one as a person of superior intelligence and academic accomplishment.
Given the reality of who really ends up in elite schools, and why--and who does not end up there and why--it seems to me fair to say that being a Harvard Man is still a more reliable indicator of privileged background than of superior intellect, the meritocratic premise confused things rather than demonstrated genuine change on this score.
In the course of that film's rather tangled goings-on protagonist Jan Morrow (Doris Day) ends up going on a date with "Harvard Man" Tony Walters (Nick Adams). As we come to realize from Walter's incessant references to himself as a "Harvard Man!" to be a Harvard Man was, at this time, to be above all a "gentleman," in the sense of a man of upper-class background. This was as against today's presumption that being a "Harvard Man" marks one as a person of superior intelligence and academic accomplishment.
Given the reality of who really ends up in elite schools, and why--and who does not end up there and why--it seems to me fair to say that being a Harvard Man is still a more reliable indicator of privileged background than of superior intellect, the meritocratic premise confused things rather than demonstrated genuine change on this score.
My Other SSRN Listing
Some years ago I began using the Social Science Research Network to publish past and current research. Most of it has tended to be about economic matters (economic models, the real-world structure of the economy), the record of growth and the causes of its decline in recent decades), political ideology (neoliberalism, centrism), and the manifestation of all this our political culture (in ways ranging from the national "mood" of the 1990s to media bias). With the material accumulating it seemed a good time to try and provide a more organized listing. You can now find that listing at my other blog.
Are People Going to Watch More Old TV?
A while ago music industry-watchers noted that people seemed to be listening to (and even buying) more old music than before. Are they also watching more old TV shows?
I don't know.
Certainly those shows have never been more conveniently available than they in the age of streaming--but also never more likely to get lost in a sea of "content," while I think it all goes over differently with different audiences. For those of us who grew up with an expectation of TV as light entertainment rather than our sole cultural nourishment, and for whom reruns of shows that in many cases went off the air before we were even born were a staple of such light entertainment, may well be doing so--especially if, unimpressed by the pretentious, middlebrow, grimdark, edgelord stuff the critics claque for hardest (and it must be admitted, if finding it congenial to forget the twenty-first century every now and then).
By contrast the young may be more resistant. Still, it does not seem inconceivable that those more dissatisfied with the moment could find themselves pleasantly surprised by the charms of shows that they had initially been prone to write off simply because they came from their parents' day.
I don't know.
Certainly those shows have never been more conveniently available than they in the age of streaming--but also never more likely to get lost in a sea of "content," while I think it all goes over differently with different audiences. For those of us who grew up with an expectation of TV as light entertainment rather than our sole cultural nourishment, and for whom reruns of shows that in many cases went off the air before we were even born were a staple of such light entertainment, may well be doing so--especially if, unimpressed by the pretentious, middlebrow, grimdark, edgelord stuff the critics claque for hardest (and it must be admitted, if finding it congenial to forget the twenty-first century every now and then).
By contrast the young may be more resistant. Still, it does not seem inconceivable that those more dissatisfied with the moment could find themselves pleasantly surprised by the charms of shows that they had initially been prone to write off simply because they came from their parents' day.
The Return of the Rerun?
In the '10s the big streaming companies sought to establish an audience, and, while learning what could and could not work in this format, spent heavily on new production, not always wisely. However, with their brands established, debt loads high, interest rates up, flops mounting, and a particular pattern of failure indeed established (streaming is not the place to try and turn a profit on a megabudget action spectacle), they now devote smaller resources to this end, more cautiously--as they actually pursue more licensing of old stuff at the expense of the creation of new stuff.
Of course, this is not a comfortable thing for those making a living from the creation of new shows, and of course, they have been saying as much. Still, even in the laments there is an admission of what the hosannas over "peak TV" slighted--the appeal of reruns of old shows that people feel they can easily watch over and over and over again.
Of course, this is not a comfortable thing for those making a living from the creation of new shows, and of course, they have been saying as much. Still, even in the laments there is an admission of what the hosannas over "peak TV" slighted--the appeal of reruns of old shows that people feel they can easily watch over and over and over again.
Considering Fertility Rates in South Korea
For a good long while Japan was the country most associated with demographic decline--its population peaking in 2008, and declining consistently for the nearly two decades since (from 128 million in 2008 to 125 million in 2022 according to the World Bank). However, South Korea has in recent years got more attention, hitting that peak later (2020), and declining only slightly after, but seeming to be in an even more precarious position due to the slippage of its fertility rate even below Japan's in the twenty-first century. Where Japan's figure has fluctuated between 1.3 and 1.4 since the 1990s, Korea's has usually been below that level these past couple of decades, slipping below 1 in 2019, and in 2020-2021 standing at 0.8.
Unsurprisingly the country has got a good deal of attention for the fact, with a recent BBC report from the country interviewing various women about the matter. Most of what they found struck me as unremarkable for anyone who has followed discussion of these matters for any length of time. One expects a BBC report to hew to a particular line about the subject, and for the most part it does.
Still, the story of a woman identified as "Minji" got my attention--because it looked beyond "the usual." Minji discussed what can only be called the brutality of the educational system, and the world of work for which it prepares the young. As she put it "'I've had to compete endlessly, not to achieve my dreams, but just to live a mediocre life'"--and indeed "not want[ing] to put a child through the same competitive misery she experienced" was the decisive factor in her not having a child.
Competing endlessly not to achieve one's dreams, but just to live a "mediocre life," is exactly the kind of life that a great many people, most people, end up with in a society where people are offered aspirationalism instead of egalitarianism, and, in line with the view that society is to be judged not by how it treats its "least" but rather its richest and most powerful members, "winner take all" outcomes as everyone else is told that they have nobody to blame but themselves for their discontent. Of course, they rarely have a platform from which they can speak of their experience, while those who do have platforms (in the main, the courtiers of those rich and powerful winners whose first and foremost qualification for the position of courtier is consistency with the winners' prejudices) are generally disinclined to say anything on their behalf. Still, here is a piece of such testimony, deserving of consideration by those at all capable of a critical view of the way in which people today have grown accustomed to living--the more in as it is here explicitly connected with a deep personal rejection of the Rules of the Game to which the conventional so gleefully insist There Is No Alternative.
Unsurprisingly the country has got a good deal of attention for the fact, with a recent BBC report from the country interviewing various women about the matter. Most of what they found struck me as unremarkable for anyone who has followed discussion of these matters for any length of time. One expects a BBC report to hew to a particular line about the subject, and for the most part it does.
Still, the story of a woman identified as "Minji" got my attention--because it looked beyond "the usual." Minji discussed what can only be called the brutality of the educational system, and the world of work for which it prepares the young. As she put it "'I've had to compete endlessly, not to achieve my dreams, but just to live a mediocre life'"--and indeed "not want[ing] to put a child through the same competitive misery she experienced" was the decisive factor in her not having a child.
Competing endlessly not to achieve one's dreams, but just to live a "mediocre life," is exactly the kind of life that a great many people, most people, end up with in a society where people are offered aspirationalism instead of egalitarianism, and, in line with the view that society is to be judged not by how it treats its "least" but rather its richest and most powerful members, "winner take all" outcomes as everyone else is told that they have nobody to blame but themselves for their discontent. Of course, they rarely have a platform from which they can speak of their experience, while those who do have platforms (in the main, the courtiers of those rich and powerful winners whose first and foremost qualification for the position of courtier is consistency with the winners' prejudices) are generally disinclined to say anything on their behalf. Still, here is a piece of such testimony, deserving of consideration by those at all capable of a critical view of the way in which people today have grown accustomed to living--the more in as it is here explicitly connected with a deep personal rejection of the Rules of the Game to which the conventional so gleefully insist There Is No Alternative.
Of "Common Sense"
Those who speak of something as "common sense" usually seem to mean that what they describe as such is how all right-thinking people naturally apprehend a matter, with no argument to be brooked on that score.
Of course, subtler and finer minds recognize that this is simply not so--this apprehension they take so naturally a matter of unspoken and unreflected upon prejudices that may or may not lead to a correct apprehension in an instance, such prejudices being a culturally relative thing.
Certainly it is so in the work of Thorstein Veblen, who would describe the "common sense" of a barbarian who thinks in terms of transcendence and personal force as very different from the "common sense" of a civilized person who thinks in matter-of-fact cause-and-effect terms for example--with, reflecting the vast distance between the two positions and the slow progress of peoples across it, many gradations existing in between.
That few appreciate that make much of the ranting about common sense being on their side an expression of their small-mindedness and nothing more.
Of course, subtler and finer minds recognize that this is simply not so--this apprehension they take so naturally a matter of unspoken and unreflected upon prejudices that may or may not lead to a correct apprehension in an instance, such prejudices being a culturally relative thing.
Certainly it is so in the work of Thorstein Veblen, who would describe the "common sense" of a barbarian who thinks in terms of transcendence and personal force as very different from the "common sense" of a civilized person who thinks in matter-of-fact cause-and-effect terms for example--with, reflecting the vast distance between the two positions and the slow progress of peoples across it, many gradations existing in between.
That few appreciate that make much of the ranting about common sense being on their side an expression of their small-mindedness and nothing more.
The Limits of "Hopescrolling"
Just as some (rather problematically) speak of "doomscrolling" some now speak of "hopescrolling"--people looking for positive news stories.
Certainly there are such stories out there. Indeed, over the years I have discovered a number of news sites specializing in positive stores--like the Good News Network.
I do not deny that people might feel better looking at these stories--perhaps enough so as to give seeking them out some justification. However, it strikes me that there are distinct limits to what they can offer. Those who are distressed by the state of the world are probably more often than not in that state because they are aware of massive problems, problems many regard as systemic--like climate change, or war. Alas, those looking here for stories suggesting progress toward solutions are unlikely to find very much grounds for hope about such things in the offering of mainly small and individual stories (tales of personal accomplishment, generosity, "heroism," etc.)--and certainly nothing to compare with the tidal wave of horror coming at them from the rest of the media.
Certainly there are such stories out there. Indeed, over the years I have discovered a number of news sites specializing in positive stores--like the Good News Network.
I do not deny that people might feel better looking at these stories--perhaps enough so as to give seeking them out some justification. However, it strikes me that there are distinct limits to what they can offer. Those who are distressed by the state of the world are probably more often than not in that state because they are aware of massive problems, problems many regard as systemic--like climate change, or war. Alas, those looking here for stories suggesting progress toward solutions are unlikely to find very much grounds for hope about such things in the offering of mainly small and individual stories (tales of personal accomplishment, generosity, "heroism," etc.)--and certainly nothing to compare with the tidal wave of horror coming at them from the rest of the media.
On the Word "Doomscroll"
I object to the role the term "doomscroll" plays in our conversations about the news.
The term's users claim that the unhealthy effect of online news perusal is a matter of the Internet user seeking out the negative. This slights the reality that an obscenely crass and criminally irresponsible news media is engaged in relentless fear-mongering for the sake of exploiting the feelings of fear and anger they create--to say nothing of promoting their assorted political agendas. It slights, too, the reality that the media has much to work with in fostering this situation--in part because that news media has so well-served these agendas, and created such confusion and apathy in those who have anything to do with it. (Indeed, they are quite happy to give platform space to doomists of various kinds who keep insisting that the public is not scared enough, effectively defending their exploitative and apathy-extending behavior.) To the extent that individuals do end up chasing the negative, they have been conditioned to do so by the ceaseless barrage of bad news intended to terrify, to infuriate, ultimately to break them.
The criticism could and should go where it is due--though those who like to accuse Internet users of doomscrolling instead prefer to adhere to the eternal principle of the sniveling conformist, that with all of the power comes none of the responsibility.
The term's users claim that the unhealthy effect of online news perusal is a matter of the Internet user seeking out the negative. This slights the reality that an obscenely crass and criminally irresponsible news media is engaged in relentless fear-mongering for the sake of exploiting the feelings of fear and anger they create--to say nothing of promoting their assorted political agendas. It slights, too, the reality that the media has much to work with in fostering this situation--in part because that news media has so well-served these agendas, and created such confusion and apathy in those who have anything to do with it. (Indeed, they are quite happy to give platform space to doomists of various kinds who keep insisting that the public is not scared enough, effectively defending their exploitative and apathy-extending behavior.) To the extent that individuals do end up chasing the negative, they have been conditioned to do so by the ceaseless barrage of bad news intended to terrify, to infuriate, ultimately to break them.
The criticism could and should go where it is due--though those who like to accuse Internet users of doomscrolling instead prefer to adhere to the eternal principle of the sniveling conformist, that with all of the power comes none of the responsibility.
Is the Internet Making People Dumber? (Short Answer: Yes)
Many have for a long time expressed concern that the Internet has had a negative effect on its users' habits and mental capacities, with obvious issues the capacity to concentrate on anything at length, and cope with text, particularly of more complex kinds, for various reasons (that screen-based devices work less well than paper books at rewarding attention, that the Internet encourages the skim over the close-read, etc.).
All this seems to me very plausible--and it also seems plausible to me that, rather than as I had hoped, technology progressing so that the disadvantages of screen-based devices were reduced, the opposite has happened, because of how the Internet has changed. It has become more oriented toward shorter items over long (as with the way "microblogging" through Twitter replaced real blogging), and less text-based and more audiovisual (as with how all blogging has been replaced by vlogging), with all that implies for users' habituation to doing anything but reading with attention for long (even the "six paragraph blogpost" that the "genius" Sam Bankman-Fried demanded everything be reduced to likely getting beyond many of them).
And as if that were not enough, there is the way in which any prolonged, deeper, usage has come to entail ceaseless interruption, ceaseless diversion, ceaseless breaks in any train of thought by endless popups extorting from them "agreement" to allow cookies, disable ad blockers, login, pay up, etc. for the privilege of looking at what they were likely pushed to look at thanks to search engine optimization, "sponsored" results and the rest, in spite of the fact that the search results are ever more likely to be pure garbage. (Never mind the kind of research I do for books such as these; simply following the news has become far more of a grind than it was before.)
The endless assault on the Internet user's thought process, with all its intellectual and even psychological effects, seems all too likely to corrode the ability of an Internet user to think at all should they subject themselves to very much of it.
But one should not expect to see the (apropos of a more fitting but far more offensive term) courtiers of Big Tech who write the news--the kind of people who said Sam Bankman-Fried was a genius--to admit it. Instead they dutifully defend everything that has been done, and will be done (they are always sure paywalls work, always sure the problems must be the work of something other than the vicious exploitation of the web user, etc.), while sanctimoniously attacking everyone who thinks that the Internet ought to actually be useful as simply scum who want "free stuff."
All this seems to me very plausible--and it also seems plausible to me that, rather than as I had hoped, technology progressing so that the disadvantages of screen-based devices were reduced, the opposite has happened, because of how the Internet has changed. It has become more oriented toward shorter items over long (as with the way "microblogging" through Twitter replaced real blogging), and less text-based and more audiovisual (as with how all blogging has been replaced by vlogging), with all that implies for users' habituation to doing anything but reading with attention for long (even the "six paragraph blogpost" that the "genius" Sam Bankman-Fried demanded everything be reduced to likely getting beyond many of them).
And as if that were not enough, there is the way in which any prolonged, deeper, usage has come to entail ceaseless interruption, ceaseless diversion, ceaseless breaks in any train of thought by endless popups extorting from them "agreement" to allow cookies, disable ad blockers, login, pay up, etc. for the privilege of looking at what they were likely pushed to look at thanks to search engine optimization, "sponsored" results and the rest, in spite of the fact that the search results are ever more likely to be pure garbage. (Never mind the kind of research I do for books such as these; simply following the news has become far more of a grind than it was before.)
The endless assault on the Internet user's thought process, with all its intellectual and even psychological effects, seems all too likely to corrode the ability of an Internet user to think at all should they subject themselves to very much of it.
But one should not expect to see the (apropos of a more fitting but far more offensive term) courtiers of Big Tech who write the news--the kind of people who said Sam Bankman-Fried was a genius--to admit it. Instead they dutifully defend everything that has been done, and will be done (they are always sure paywalls work, always sure the problems must be the work of something other than the vicious exploitation of the web user, etc.), while sanctimoniously attacking everyone who thinks that the Internet ought to actually be useful as simply scum who want "free stuff."
Average Shot Length, Beyond the Action Movie
Still, it struck me while watching a Hallmark film that was a simple made-for-TV production remote from any pretension to being an action film, or technically dazzling the viewer in any way, the shot length was pretty short--mainly because of the use of close shots. All that happened in the scene was two people talking--but the camera cut from one face to the other whenever each of the actors said their line, because rather than frame the two faces together in the same shot there was just close shot of one face all the way through the dialogue.
One can achieve certain effects that way--but one can also achieve certain effects with that shot of the two faces together as the conversation went on.
It seemed to me that rather than there being a compelling narrative or visual reason for preferring one cinematographic approach to the other the makers of the movie opted for the alternation between close shots of whoever spoke at the moment out of habit, habit formed in an era in which short, close shots had simply become standard.
Power, Responsibility and "Personal Responsibility"
It is a truism that with power comes responsibility. (Uncle Ben's formulation is particularly popular, but only one relatively late wording of an age-old theme.)
Most people speaking it (who are not Uncle Ben) are simply paying the tribute to virtue that is hypocrisy.
After all, the person of conventional mind is very comfortable with a hierarchical and unequal order of things in which power is concentrated at the top, but it is those at the bottom endlessly held responsible.
It is the latter, not the former, for whom phrases like "personal responsibility" are meant--Cory Doctorow all too right when he notes that "personal responsibility" is code for "total lack of empathy," for "respectable" opinion is never short of explanations for why those at the bottom deserve none.
Most people speaking it (who are not Uncle Ben) are simply paying the tribute to virtue that is hypocrisy.
After all, the person of conventional mind is very comfortable with a hierarchical and unequal order of things in which power is concentrated at the top, but it is those at the bottom endlessly held responsible.
It is the latter, not the former, for whom phrases like "personal responsibility" are meant--Cory Doctorow all too right when he notes that "personal responsibility" is code for "total lack of empathy," for "respectable" opinion is never short of explanations for why those at the bottom deserve none.
The Criteria for Claqueurs
Where being a claqueur is concerned it seems that two traits are of particular help.
One is having no memory at all, because with no point of reference one has no standards--and thus finds it much easier to pretend that everything put in front of them is a staggering work of heartbreaking genius, then totally forget it so that they can praise the next thing just as highly, pouring forth hyperbolic praise upon hyperbolic praise.
The other trait is the eternal sneer of the insufferable "cool" person when it is useful for them to put something down--because that is the nature of their hire in this case (the reviewers know when a hatchet job is expected, and deliver it accordingly), but also because when everything is a remake it is necessary to put down the old thing for the sake of elevating the new thing. ("Yeah, it's a remake. But the old one was lame." Like with how they beat up on the pre-reboot James Bond movies for the sake of promoting the Daniel Craig-starring movies.)
These two traits, independently and certainly in combination, generate endless stupidity--but it is of course the promotion of stupidity that the claqueur mainly serves in this era of debased standards.
One is having no memory at all, because with no point of reference one has no standards--and thus finds it much easier to pretend that everything put in front of them is a staggering work of heartbreaking genius, then totally forget it so that they can praise the next thing just as highly, pouring forth hyperbolic praise upon hyperbolic praise.
These two traits, independently and certainly in combination, generate endless stupidity--but it is of course the promotion of stupidity that the claqueur mainly serves in this era of debased standards.
Ted Gioia's Odyssey as a Facebook User
I have in the past found Ted Gioia's music journalism quite worthwhile--as with his pieces on the degeneration of music criticism into lifestyle reporting, and the purchase of more old music relative to new as of late. However, his recent item about the decline of Facebook usefully took up rather a different subject. Where the word "enshittification" has come into wide and useful usage, here we have an in-depth personal account of the experience of the enshittification of a major platform from the standpoint of a longtime user that does that much more to further clarify just what enshittification is all about, well worth the time of anyone interested in the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
