So I was thinking of composing a post entitled ” ‘Theres’ to which one really ought not go” in which I would take friendly but firm issue with Andrew O’Hehir’s rather feckless speculation that maybe RKO had a point in mutilating The Magnificent Ambersons (a notion that one could say is almost too easy to disprove), and then pick apart certain points in Matt Singer’s proposal concerning a critical parlor game for albums and its potential adaptation for films (extremely problematic in both cases, plus which, and this really can’t be overstated, anyone who continues to promulgate the notion that “indie-minded filmmakers ike Steven Soderbergh take high profile gigs like Ocean’s Eleven to off-set the costs of more personal projects like” blah-blah-blah literally does not know what he or she is talking about), but then I thought, hell, I’m still on ostensible vacation, I shouldn’t even be reading this stuff let alone starting debates/fights over it, and so back to Catch-22 it is. (Can you believe I’ve never read it in its entirety before? Weird, right?) In the meantime, my review of Sarah’s Key, which is really not bad as Holocaust-themed-pictures-with-Harvey-Weinstein’s-name-attached-to-them go, is up at MSN Movies, and the wi-fi at my undisclosed location is such that I’m not gonna risk trying to put up a post as big as my July Blu-ray Consumer Guide, so see you some time Friday at the earliest…
The current cinema: "Sarah's Key"
You May Also Like
Take your "Punishment"/Outside service advisory
Take your "Punishment"/Outside service advisory
Peter Watkins' amazing 1970 film Punishment Park, in a new 35mm print, begins a three-day…
Glenn KennyMay 14, 2010
Spider/pig
Spider/pig
Yes, I do have an opinion, sort of, on the deraimification of the Spider Man…
Glenn KennyJanuary 15, 2010
Q & A
Q & A
I see that film writer Anthony Kaufman has invoked my name in a blog post…
Glenn KennyJuly 12, 2009
I like her best HERE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7SYplYBVo
Oh, that five-album horseshit! I was just reading that. No, it is not “really interesting”. No one on the AV Club ever writes anything that is “really interesting” (or even grammatical: “It’s as hard-to-watch of a scene as anything in ‘New Girl’ ”, from a recent review of a pair of episodes of the original THE OFFICE; someone was paid to write that, and someone else was paid to edit it), for one thing, and for another this brand of arbitrariness used to just be a fun little way to pass the time. Now we’re supposed to take it seriously for five seconds.
Also, judging by O’Hehir’s choice of tense in the CATCH MY SOUL entry, he’s under the impression that McGoohan is still alive.
Sorry, but I’m feeling kind of pissy today.
Sounds like you could use a vacation, Bill!
Also, “The Replacements make it, but the Rolling Stones don’t” is five different kinds of Fucking Stupid Wrong, and that’s BEFORE you start allowing for “differences” in “taste.” Jesus.
Bob Dylan? No. Fountains of Wayne? Well, sure!
Nothing against Fountains of Wayne, who are lovely fellows who make fine records and at least one of whom could destroy with withering sarcasm that A/V Club writer.
Well, maybe. I’ll grant you that I’ve only heard some of their stuff. But even THEY would admit beating Dylan out of any sort of music-based judgery is absurd! ABSURD!
Precisely my point!
If we’re going to be complaining about stupid things, I just saw that Jeff Wells’s post about the DARK KNIGHT RISES teaser is titled “Nolanesque”. Oh, is it? A teaser for a Christopher Nolan film resembles Christopher Nolan’s films? Well! I say! Etc.
It would seem the heat is turning Standard Issue Dumbasses into Very Special Dumbasses.
Catch 22 is one of the funniest.
So Full Metal Jacket and The Color of Money are good enough to give Kubrick and Scorsese a pass, while arguing that Marnie is on the level of The Birds is a stretch?
Also, no mention yay or nay of John Ford? Stagecoach –> Drums Along The Mohawk -> Young Mr. Linccoln –> The Grapes of Wrath -> The Long Voyage Home is a no-brainer. And while I wouldn’t expect this guy to be educated enough to be aware of Ophüls, is Renoir (who easily has 5 in a row) that obscure?
My head hurts. This guy needs to go watch the Ozu he admits to being underversed in, and stop writing shit articles like that one.
For the record, my personal champs would probably be The Archers, who have an astounding 7‑film run of gems from Col. Blimp to The Small Back Room.
I’ll see your Ford and raise you to nine Hawkses in a row: Bringing Up Baby, Only Angels Have Wings, His Girl Friday, Sergeant York, Ball of Fire, Air Force, To Have and Have Not, Big Sleep, Red River. Some might consider including York a stretch.
Something Happened – that’s tops for Heller.
McCabe-Images-Long Goodbye-Thieves Like Us-California Split-Nashville.
But we’re not actually supposed to be playing this game, I don’t think.
Legend-Unrest-Desperate Straights-In Praise Of Learning-Western Culture.
No, we are not.
NORWOOD-TRUE GRIT-THE DOG OF THE SOUTH-MASTERS OF ATLANTIS-…okay, I haven’t actually read GRINGOS yet. But it’s a fair assumption, I’d say.
Sartoris-Sound and the Fury-As I Lay Dying-Sanctuary-Light in August-Pylon-Absalom Absalom. Well, maybe not Pylon, but it’s the basis of a terrific Doug Sirk film.
“Just Like Me”-“Kicks”-“Hungry”…shit, that’s just three.
The Benchwarmers – I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry – You Don’t Mess with the Zohan – Grown Ups – Just Go With It.
I’ve never seen Ridley Scott’s IN PRAISE OF LEARNING. Is it on Netflix streaming?
I’m ashamed of myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJqxxA2hmjs
(An especial favorite of Lance Loud’s)
Don’t know exactly how the game works but if I’m following correctly: The Victim-Augie March-Seize the Day-Henderson the Rain King-Herzog.
Yes, the game is dumb. Still, I can’t stop myself from positing the following:
The Bellboy-The Ladies Man-The Errand Boy-The Nutty Professor-The Patsy-The Family Jewels-Three on a Couch. It’s been too long since I’ve seen The Big Mouth, and I haven’t seen One More Time – otherwise, I might have kept going.
Just one of the problems with the Five Album Test is how it essentially ignores ’70s punk rock. The writer includes The Ramones, but I’d disagree- END OF THE CENTURY is fascinating but average. Some of the greatest of all punk bands never managed five great LPs or five LPs period: The Saints, The Damned, Electric Eels or The Pagans just for starters. The only two I can think of that make it: The Fall and Billy Childish (if you consider all his different bands to just be variations of the same evolving idea. I do).
The article’s Rolling Stones problem sort of points to the blind spots in many younger critics concerning pre-REVOLVER rock music.
Bah. But here goes.…
THE RECOGNITIONS-JR-CARPENTER’S GOTHIC‑A FROLIC OF HIS OWN-AGAPĒ AGAPE
or
CONFUSION IS SEX-BAD MOON RISING-EVOL-SISTER-DAYDREAM NATION
or
L’AVVENTURA-LA NOTTE-L’ECLISSE-RED DESERT-BLOWUP-(oh, why not?) ZABRISKIE POINT
“I’m not saying the five-albums rubric is the superior measure of a musical artist’s greatness (I’m not an idiot) nor am I saying that Dylan and the Stones don’t deserve to be ranked among the greatest rockers ever. (Seriously, I’m not an idiot.) I just think that the five-albums test is an interesting lens through which to examine music history. ”
Lotta reading comprehension problems ’round these parts. Must be the heat.
I feel the need to jump in and defend The AV Club. While I agree the 5 album post was off the mark there are some fine writers on that site including Scott Tobias, Noël Murray and Mike D’Angelo (not fulltime but still his single scene analysis column is excellent). Like any film website with multiple contributors it’s a crap shoot but let’s not throw a blanket over it.
EXCEPT it’s really not that interesting. Rather, it’s just kind of silly. Also, once the perfunctory apologias are out of the way, the authors of the pieces dive in with a purposeful glee that suggests they prefer parlor games to actual…you know. It’s similar to Dan Kois’s “I really wish I had been smart enough to get this movie” protestations in that NYT mag piece; preemptive, ineffectual Bad Faith insurance.
I think the first guy for some reason was eager to create an assessment measurement that would enable the Replacements to best the Stones at SOMETHING. And even then…
And even then… indeed. There is no way THE REPLACEMENTS have one album that is as good as GOATS HEAD SOUP or THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST, which could also allow The Stones to meet Mr. Hyden’s criteria. I really don’t understand this need to take down the “canon” that some writers seem to have. I get really annoyed at pieces like this and Kois’ because the writer tries to hide behind this smoke screen that what they are doing isn’t meant to be taken seriously, it’s just a thought experiment or some such thing. In reality they just want to find a venue to cram their favorite artists down everyone’s throat and let the rest of us know that Tarkovsky, Dylan and The Stones aren’t as great as everyone thinks they are.
At least Stephen Metcalf, who “took down” THE SEARCHERS a few years ago in Slate, had the balls to be upfront about what he was doing. Mind you that piece is one of the worst pieces of “criticism” I have ever read, but there’s something to be said about putting your cards on the table.
Wheat Chex-Corn Chex-Rice Chex-Oat Chex-Raisin Bran Chex
Night of the Hunter-Night of the Hunter-Night of the Hunter-Night of the Hunter-Night of the Hunter
This is the most fucking stupid little parlor game in a realm that takes pride in coming up with fucking stupid little parlor games (remember the whole “swimming pool movie” thing a while ago?).
The thing I hate about the AV Club is its need to compartmentalize and list-ify all encounters with music/movies/etc. It won’t be long before every article on there is a series of bullet points.
That said, I do very much admire the Mike D’Angelo column. But, ye gods, that New Cult Canon thing? Ugh.
It’s rather obviously not a way to say The ‘Mats are better than the Stones (as the author, y’know, explicitly says). It’s more like a way to talk about which bands (or artists) are consistent journeymen versus which are flashes-of-genius (again, as the author keeps saying). You may or may not find that interesting, but yeah, I did think it was kinda neat to contemplate how certain bands that aren’t Towering Figures are also mighty inconsistent, while others who seem a step down maybe have a more consistent output. But then, around these parts, The AV Club could write about “Why Tarkovsky Is The Greatest” with a five-page analysis of a single cut in THE SACRIFICE and people would still be insisting that those damn Onion kids are all savages.
That said: My Aim Is True – This Year’s Model – Armed Forces – Get Happy – Trust
Yo Bum Rush the Show – Nation of MIllions – Fear of A Black Planet – Apocalypse 91 – Muse-Sick
(I wish De La Soul had five greats, but no)
“One More Time” is quite good. Sammy Davis Jr. plays the Jerry role and Peter Lawford the Dean. Many excelelnt gags including a hommage to Hammer films.
Sorry, “that are Towering figures are also mighty inconsistent”. It’s actually kinda striking how many of the very best bands don’t have five masterpieces in a row (3 or 4, but not 5).
@ Jason:
Pleased To Meet Me, Let It Be, and Tim are all better than Goat’s Head Soup and Their Satanic Majesty’s Request. And every other Stones album other than Sticky Fingers, Exile, Let It Bleed, and MAYBE Beggar’s Banquet.
Pssst, Glenn… I see what you’re saying, but Desperate Straits is a Slapp Happy album, the Cow is just the backing band. Of course, I prefer Slapp Happy, so maybe I’m just biased.
Marnie IS a great film. So is The Wrong Man. But yeah, stupid little game.
Speaking of the Holocaust…
http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2011/07/21/fait-diver-%e2%80%9cthis-isn%e2%80%99t-happening-this-can%e2%80%99t-be-happening%e2%80%9d/
Fuzzy, I think the disconnect here is that parlor games like this or desert island discs (or, yeah, year end lists) can be fun and interesting discussions, but only because of what they tell you about the person choosing, not the artists chosen. Saying The Rolling Stones don’t qualify doesn’t tell me anything except maybe that the speaker is unimpressed by white boy blues (since there’s no argument to my ear that they pulled off five in a row right out of the gate) or psychedelia (assuming Their Satanic Majesties Request is the sticking point for the late ’60s-early ’70s run not being considered). Teasing out the reasons over a good meal and ever-increasing rows of empties could make for a lively evening, but not much more. And I second Hollis Lime’s examples of what kind of whoppers can slip by when listmaking is mistaken for analysis.
And for the record I think there are some good writers at the A.V. Club (Donna Bowman’s look back at NewsRadio is the gold standard of this lately mandatory episode-per-episode style of TV criticism), but there’s also so much navel-gaze musing projected onto the work at hand I fear your hypothetical Sacrifice article would start off with multiple paragraphs of the writer’s childhood fears of nuclear holocaust or the time a boring day, a collection of no-longer-read comic books, and a box of matches got way out of hand.
They HAVE reviewed The Sacrifice. Grade: B-. For real.
Bruce: Well sure—I’d say very few pieces of critical writing really tell me more about the piece than the writer. But nu, it’s not like this was intended as A Definitive Statement; the article says over and over that it’s intended as a fun little game that might lead to some interesting observations (I was shocked to realize that John Coltrane doesn’t really have five classics in a row either). I mean, all music criticism is pretty subjective, but I find it weird that this is being singled out as egregious when it’s actually (as the above comments ably demonstrate) kinda fun.
As for the grade on The Sacrifice: I go back and forth on whether my favorite movie ever is Stalker or The MIrror… and I kinda think The Sacrifice is a B+ movie. Too much Bergman, too much talk; Tarkovsky was at his best when he had to dodge censorship. Like Solzhenitsin, he became something of a windbag when he had no more contraints. But of course, that ending makes it all worthwhile.
Thank you Bruce for pointing out Donna Bowman’s NewsRadio pieces, a finer body of criticism one cannot find. Cavell-ian in the finest sense. So, see everyone? The AVClub is not all solipsistic wanking. I have no affiliations or anything but it is a regular stop on my internet meandering and some of the slagging off here seems to be focused on one’s idea of the AVClub rather than the thing itself. Of course there is bad criticism contained within, there will be anywhere, but there is good as well and some of the jabs here seem to be unwilling to recognize that. Certainly in the realm of TV writing they have gone far beyond most, if not all, other outlets in appreciation, attention and respect (see Community for new shows ((reviews and that wonderful, epic interview with Dan Harmon)) and the aforementioned NewsRadio for an older show ((Arrested Development going on at the moment too)), as examples… ). Yes, their music reviews can be short and thrown out there, not all special features are excellent, but really, where is? A site that goes beyond the junket, repeated questions for Random Roles seems worthy of a bit more appreciation. And, yes, those NewsRadio reviews dammit!
I find the their TV reviews, in particular the COMMUNITY and recent OFFICE reviews to be nearly unbearable. The actual *writing* is bad on that site – just plain tedious most of the time and eye-rolling all the rest of it. It really depresses me that what goes on over there gets a pass.
The AV Club is a traffic mill – they know that parlor games/slide shows/shit content are all in the game, and the “occasional good piece” doesn’t count for much. What we hate is exactly what counts for them: eyes on the ads.
That’s the internet. Take something promising and turn it into a freak show. The one thing that’s truly recession-proof.
Anyway!
As much as I like ONE MORE TIME (and I like it a lot), I think the practically invisible THREE ON A COUCH is one of his very best. So let’s see:
THE BELLBOY – THE LADIES MAN – THE ERRAND BOY – THE NUTTY PROFESSOR – THE PATSY – THE FAMILY JEWELS – THREE ON A COUCH – THE BIG MOUTH – ONE MORE TIME – WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT?
I haven’t seen the last one yet, but after the “lost” decade and the unseen THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED, there’s HARDLY WORKING and CRACKING UP.
Jerry wins. Except.…..wait! Hold it! Hold it! Stop with the brushes!
LES DAMES DU BOIS DE BOULOGNE – DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST – A MAN ESCAPED – PICKPOCKET – THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC – AU HASARD BALTHAZAR – MOUCHETTE – UNE FEMME DOUCE – FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER – LANCELOT DU LAC – THE DEVIL, PROBABLY – L’ARGENT
All right, we’ll call it a draw.
Bertolucci likes “Three on a Couch.” It has its moments. “Cracking Up” by contrast is brilliant from frist to last.
I was a kid when WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT came out and sat through it three times in a row. My guess is there were more drugs and alcohol consumed during the making of ONE MORE TIME than on PERFORMANCE.
Harold and Maude —>The Last Detail—>Shampoo—>Bound For Glory—>Coming Home—>Being There
Sorry.
Why couldn’t he have BEGUN his article by admitting he hadn’t seen much Ozu, instead of leaving it right till the end?! At least then – by the ‘rules’ of my own ad hoc, equally meaningless ‘parlour game’ – I could’ve skipped the whole thing.
You forgot “Second-Hand Hearts” Chris.
He forgot “The Landlord” too.
Still haven’t seen “Second-Hand Hearts” and I hesitated on “The Landlord,” which I think is great but didn’t know what the general consesus was. The point is it’s a hell of a (possibly unmatched?) consecutive run.
Here’s a run no one will mention: AN AMERICAN IN PARIS, THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, ‘Madamoiselle’ in THE STORY OF THREE LOVES (and possibly large parts of the rest), THE BAND WAGON, and that masterpiece of uncomfortable gross-out comedy, THE LONG, LONG TRAILER. Followed by BRIGADOON and THE COBWEB. Or, DR. MABUSE THE GAMBLER, DIE NIBELUNGEN, METROPOLIS, SPIES, FRAU IM MOND, M, THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE. Von Sternberg had about ten masterpieces in a row.
Another really great run is STRANGER ON HORSEBACK, WICHITA, GREAT DAY IN THE MORNING, NIGHTFALL, NIGHT OF THE DEMON.
I don’t know what the consensus is for The Landlord (I think it may be hard to form one because that’s a movie that was unavailable for so long) but I think it’s Ashby’s best film possibly.
I’m late to respond to this, K, Van, but I do beg to differ with the notion that the Cow was merely the “backing band” on “Desperate Straights.” At the time “Straights” and “Learning” were recorded, the bands had gone on record as proposing/enacting a full merger, lefty-coöperative style, albeit with different records concentrating on different composing components of each band. Hence, “Straights” is credited to Slapp Happy/Henry Cow and “Learning” to Henry Cow/Slapp Happy. As it happens “Straights” has the first Blegvad/Greaves composing collab (“Bad Alchemy”), and the final track, “Caucasian Lullaby,” unfortunate as it is, is credited to “Cutler/Moore.” Those Faust guys never got composing credits on Happy’s Wumme recordings. Also, the record IS included on that awesome Cow original-covers-replica box from some years back. Such is my evidence at the moment. I’ll also bring it up with Mr. Blegvad when next I e‑mail him…
Lubitsch: THE LOVE PARADE, MONTE CARLO, THE SMILING LIEUTENANT, THE MAN I KILLED (aka BROKEN LULLABY), ONE HOUR WITH YOU, TROUBLE IN PARADISE, DESIGN FOR LIVING, THE MERRY WIDOW
Some of the suggestions here point out a major problem with Singer’s article: other than a cursory mention of Hitchcock at the beginning, Ford and Hawks toward the end, and an admission of general unfamiliarity with Sturges and Ozu, he focuses almost entirely on auteurs who made their names in the 60s and later (Kubrick’s 50s output doesn’t make his cut). Not sure how you even broach this subject without mentioning Fellini (every feature from his first through 8 1/2) and Bergman (your mileage varies depending on where you start – SUMMER INTERLUDE? MONIKA? THE NAKED NIGHT?…). Maybe some Boetticher, some Anthony Mann? The unspoken thing here seems to be that even if the occasional filmmaker of “yore” managed five goodies in a row, who really cares? Films weren’t “cool” until the 70s.
This is off-topic, but: fame at last! http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/24/internet-anonymity-trolling-tim-adams Paragraph 15 onwards.
Maybe the unspoken thing is that Singer just doesn’t know much about pre-70s film. I don’t think the message is that Ophuls managed five goodies in a row, but who really cares, Ophuls isn’t cool. He just doesn’t know who Ophuls is (or who Dreyer is, or who von Sternberg is, etc.) Personally, I know nothing about post-70s film so I don’t feel I’m in a position to fault him, although my ignorance is probably relatively more defensible.
Asher: That’s kinda the point I wanted to make, but I can see that I didn’t actually make it. Many young cinephiles see no need to familiarize themselves with older films that take a little more work to appreciate (B&W, different pacing, supposedly less naturalistic acting, “cheesy” f/x, the usual friggin’ suspects). Maybe Singer’s in that group.
Hey, I just realized: for some folks, everything made pre-70s is cultural vegetables!
Why would he want to destroy a writer who offered nothing but sincere praise for his work with sarcasm? Glenn, shouldn’t you read pieces before you complain about them?
I have no idea what you are talking about, Mr. Phipps. Is this another one of those “you shouldn’t be sarcastic because your sarcasm is more toxic than anybody else’s” whinges or something? ‘Cause I don’t know what the fuck I said to send you to this particular fainting couch; if I look at the initial post I see I was careful to specify “friendly issue.” But apparently my Bad Personness is such that I DESTROY with sarcasm, like Dinsdale Pirahna or something. Don’t knoe my own strength apparently.
The dangling modifier muddying up Phipps’ first sentence certainly supports bill’s case about the quality of writing over at the AV Club. Who’s being sarcastic? The destroyer or the writer offering sincere praise?
Sorry to be such a grammar authoritarian, but, given bill’s criticisms, it struck me as funny.
Yeah, I read that sentence 3 or 4 times before I figured out, more or less, what he was trying to say. And I’m still not sure – I assume “he” refers to Glenn (but why address him as “he” in the first sentence and “Glenn” in the second?), but is “writer” supposed to be O’Hehir or Singer?
I would like to offer some ‘sincere praise for Glenn’s work with sarcasm.’ He’s doing some of the best work with sarcasm I’ve ever seen. And how an elephant got into my pajamas, I’ll never know.
“Nothing against Fountains of Wayne, who are lovely fellows who make fine records and at least one of whom could destroy with withering sarcasm that A/V Club writer.
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | July 20, 2011 at 12:36 PM”
Sorry if my reference wasn’t clear.
If it weren’t for the fascinating/maddening Dune (which I wouldn’t wish into non-existence because the fascinating parts are so fascinating and it did put him in the position to get funding for Blue Velvet) Lynch would have an absolutely perfect filmic run going, IMO. Or did they already say that in the Onion article? I have little to no interest in checking to be sure…
Favorite five-album run: Al Green Gets Next to You, Let’s Stay Together, I’m Still in Love With You, Call Me, Livin’ For You
Well, as it happens, I’ve heard Chris Collingwood get pretty withering with far less provocation (my point being that a conscientious pop songwriter would likely not be amused with such a “compliment” as the piece)so while I might have been cavalier in my hyperbolizing, I can’t see that I was WHOLLY inaccurate.
Another thing about the A/V Club: a lot of its people get really tetchy when your reaction to their stuff is something beside a pat on the head and some cooing about how cute yet innovative it is.
A dude who loudly threatens to quit the biz any time a commentor fails to to Ed McMahonishly chortle at his swipes should maybe not be quite so eager to proclaim someone else tetchy. I mean, I understand, touchy crankiness is the schtick (and it’s a good, funny schtick, which produces entertaining writing), but, the weird jihad against the a site that is actually inspiring people who don’t give a shit about who knew who in the middle period of the Voice to look at Fassbinder is more than a little Abe Simpson.
Get 2 Free AMC Silver Movie Tickets or buy them for $15
your choice the deal is up to YOU. Follow this link to get 2 free amc silver movie tickets or buy them for $15 either way its a great deal. Free shipping either way you choose.
http://www.likefree.org/amc