I promise to lay off of this for a while after this, but the Cap'n isn't quite done talking about the "critical" attitude that's pervasive throughout film. I get that there's enough "high art" out there to study for a lifetime, but I'm so tired of film professors, critics, and students telling me that "if it isn't high art, I don't see why I should bother".
This is especially obnoxious when they then choose to cite directors widely considered to make "low art" like Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino or pick out one movie (like Last House on the Left) that somehow represents the "transcendence of trash cinema", which makes it okay for them to watch. This includes, but is not limited to the derisory comments made by James Naremore about Joe Bob Briggs or people who refuse to take someone like Vern seriously.
Just because they champion "low art" doesn't mean they have no credibility, or don't know what they're talking about. It's great that you're too good for The Toxic Avenger, but it doesn't make me a bad person for seeking out the good qualities while you're holding your nose.
Of course there's shit down in the lower depths; for crying out loud, I've banned the names of two directors from this blog until next year because there's nothing of merit to be found in their schlock. Some of you disagree with me, and you're welcome to hash it out if you don't mention them by name, but I don't think less of you.
In fact, many of the blogorium readers frequently disagree with me, but with the exception of The Happening, I hope few of you think less of me for mixing the occasional Taco Bell in with my Angus Barn.
What bothers me about this pervasive critical attitude is that this is the field I want to enter, to write about, and it's admittedly narrow about what you don't turn your nose up at. That bothers me, and I don't necessarily like the prospects of having to take the high road or be looked down own for the rest of my life. Especially when I think Last House of the Left is overrated*. So is Funny Games, but that's a relentlessly nihilistic slasher film critics can like because it "has something to say about violence and audience expectations".
The Cap'n, as some of you already know, borrows his moniker from The Exorcist, but I'm not going to pretend I haven't seen The Exorcist II: Heretic, Legion: The Exorcist III, and both prequels (of the followups, only Legion is any good, if you were wondering). I didn't stop at the first one because "it's the only film of merit". I'd rather not be summarily dismissed because I dare to consider the alternate versions of Payback in relation to Point Blank, even if either iteration of the remake isn't anywhere as good.
I like to think that the "low art" can have merits of its own without having to pretend it's something other than what it is. You can play in the mud and still find treasures, instead of just raining indifference while parsing the Criterion collection and wondering aloud why they'd bother releasing The Rock.
So that's my two cents. There must be some middle ground between derision for anything not canonized and the Al Adamson Collection** where people who want to write about cinema can go without fear of reproach. Help me out here, people.
* look, I understand it's supposed to be sleazy and boundary pushing, but if we're seriously going to look at early Wes Craven, The Hills Have Eyes is in practically every way a superior movie. Don't just drag up the old "remake of The Virgin Spring" argument, fellow students; I've heard it, and it doesn't elevate House by association...
** he of Horror of the Blood Monsters and Blazing Stewardesses fame, movies which are both too boring and too badly made to bother watching again.
No comments:
Post a Comment