I argue for the development of a middle-ground film criticism, less jargon-filled than academic writing, yet one that uses historical and theoretical methods beyond those found in journalistic, mass media popular criticism. I develop a case study of Steven Spielberg\u27s Lincoln (2012), using Jean-Louis Comolli\u27s essay,  A Body Too Much  to reveal the limitations of popular reviewers\u27 reliance on a simplistic formulation of  good  acting

Metz, Walter C

OpenSIUC

Southern Illinois University CarbondaleOpenSIUCArticles Department of Cinema and Photography1-2016There's Something Rotten in Film Criticism, andHis Name is, Regrettably, Not JohnnyWalter C. MetzSouthern Illinois University Carbondale, wmetz@siu.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cp_articlesPermalink: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.13761232.0040.121This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Cinema and Photography at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusionin Articles by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact opensiuc@lib.siu.edu.Recommended CitationMetz, Walter C. "There's Something Rotten in Film Criticism, and His Name is, Regrettably, Not Johnny." Film Criticism 40, No. 1 ( Jan2016): n.p..“There’s Something Rotten in FilmCriticism, and His Name is, Regrettably, NotJohnny”Walter MetzVolume 40, Issue 1, January 2016Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.13761232.0040.121 [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.13761232.0040.121] [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/]   There’s something profoundly rotten in the state of film criticism, and not just inDenmark. Professional journalists—who are trained to know nothing about cinema otherthan what someone should or should not like—are the best of the lot, surrounded byhoards of “citizen” Internet denizens, full of inanity and vitriol. On the academic side ofthings, wonderful ideas are being placed (certainly not shared) onto library shelves andin the “deep web” online sector, to be accessed by almost no one.There is an obvious cure to this disease, but one easier formulated than implemented.We are in desperate need of a “middle-ground” criticism, one that is fueled by researchand learning, yet written with a generous spirit of accessibility, and published in venuesthat people can actually read. While this is an old Ivory Tower saw, it seems particularlyapropos at the present moment, when the humanities at public research universitieskneel at the guillotine of public indifference. To attempt an intervention, I teach anonline course in film criticism to as many students as possible, all-year round (especiallyin the winter intersession, to capture the Oscar bait; and over the summer, todemonstrate how important blockbusters are to a proper understanding of Americancivilization). All of this work is publicly collaborated on with my present and formerstudents via my “surface” website, accessible to anyone who cares to look (it is locatedat: http://waltermetz.com [http://waltermetz.com] ). Finally, I have been doing audioreviews for our local National Public Radio affiliate, WSIU, often with the expresspurpose of questioning, refuting, and/or otherwise problematizing their national(certainly professional is the incorrect formulation) reviewers. A case in point is KennethTuran’s review of Lincoln (Steven Spielberg, 2012).On Friday, November 9, 2012, Turan gushed on NPR about what a great writer TonyKushner is and the miraculous way Daniel Day-Lewis disappears into the role of Lincoln.These simplistic claims obfuscate the complexity of the matters at hand. First, TonyKushner is indeed one of the most accomplished figures in the contemporary Americantheatre. His historical epic, Angels in America (1993), uses the Brechtian techniques of“There’s Something Rotten in Film Criticism, and His Name is,... http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.121/--there-s-som...1 of 4 2/29/16, 9:32 PMsplit stage and one actor playing multiple characters in order to express how humandignity can triumph over the diabolical political machinations of the likes of Roy Cohn aslate 20th century America grappled with the AIDS plague.Yet the translation of political modernism into popular audiovisual representation hasnot gone well. HBO's conversion (2002) by Moises Kaufman of his play, The LaramieProject (2000), resulted in gimmicky stunt casting of Hollywood stars—Peter Fonda andthe like—stripping the multiple casting of its political effect: the theater actor playinghomophobic preacher Fred Phelps puts down his "God hates fags" sign, walks across thestage, and sits down as another character, one of the jurors at the trial of MatthewShephard's murderers. No justice possible, Kaufman’s play thus speaks without words,merely relying on the horrifying stage picture. To have television stars embody separateroles hamstrings the political impact of the play.HBO's televisual adaptation of Angels in America, on which Kushner collaborated withMike Nichols, fares just slightly better: the multiple casting was retained this time, butnonetheless, the reliance on big Hollywood stars—on the order of Meryl Streep—stripsthe play of its modernist minimalism. However, despite this time collaborating with afilmmaker even more committed to classicism, the populist master Steven Spielberg,Lincoln solves the problem of classical cinema's stripping of modernism's politics withskillful ambition. In the opening scene, despite there being no Brechtian tricksemployed, the splitting of historical subjects is nonetheless directly presented on thescreen. In a clever gesture, Kushner and Spielberg present the Gettysburg Address as adiscursive battle, delivered not coherently by Lincoln, but through multiply diversevoices speaking it at him, and us.And here we get to the crux of the impoverishment of contemporary popular filmcriticism. In his review for the McClatchy-Tribune service, Roger Moore (alas, no JamesBond in sight) declares, “the Lincoln that American schoolchildren picture in their headsfrom now on could now have a weedy drawl provided by an Oscar-winning Englishman,one of the finest actors who ever lived.” Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis does a wonderful jobportraying Abraham Lincoln, but so would any number of method actors, ranging fromRobert DeNiro to Dustin Hoffman. In a tragically understudied essay on historicalfiction, "A Body Too Much," film theorist Jean-Louis Comolli suggests that the problemwith the biopic is that there are one too many persons present within a performance of afamous historical figure, both the actor and the person whom she portrays. [1] [#N1] Theclassical Hollywood film, Young Mr. Lincoln (John Ford, 1939) has Henry Fondaembody the triumph of down-home American values on the precipice of World War II.Similarly, Day-Lewis evokes a Lincoln caught in the swirl of present-day chaotichistorical forces. But Comolli's brand of post-structural theory posits that splitsubjectivity, not individual coherence, describes the human experience in the cinema.Daniel Day-Lewis does not disappear into one coherent Lincoln, but instead embodiesone fragment of the many possible.There is no one coherent Lincoln into whom Day-Lewis could disappear. Would he be“There’s Something Rotten in Film Criticism, and His Name is,... http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.121/--there-s-som...2 of 4 2/29/16, 9:32 PMthe revered storyteller of simplistic American myth? Or, is his Lincoln the shrewdpolitical manipulator portrayed by the book on which the film is partly based, DorisKearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals? [2] [#N2] Or should he be the villain of theneo-confederacy, as Thomas DiLorenzo positions poor Abe in Lincoln Unmasked andThe Real Lincoln? [3] [#N3] The Kushner of Angels in America prepares us to see history asthe debate among the shards of historical subjects who make up our past and affect ourpresent. When Lincoln finally stops hiding in his office to stump for passage of the 13thAmendment to banish slavery in the United States, he reminds one of Lyndon Johnsonon late-night phone calls in the 1960s, threatening and cajoling Congress for the passageof the legislation that would fulfill the Great Society.More pressingly, as Lincoln depicts the wildly divisive 1860s House of Representatives,on the floor of which Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens had to endure the racisttaunts of border state Democrats, viciously defending the specious eugenic argument ofwhite people's superiority to black people, one cannot help but think that PresidentObama's struggle with health care reform in our divisive Tea Party House pales incomparison. And thus, I concur with the popular film critics' celebration of DanielDay-Lewis' masterful embodiment of the president: Lincoln... and Johnson... andObama. Let us as academic film critics follow his path, and write about the cinema in away that does intellectual justice to such great actors, and leaders. Middle-groundcriticism must be about WHY films matter, not about whether they are good or not. Evenmore importantly, good criticism must study HOW such films are able to achieve whatthey do as artistic re-workings of our precarious, decaying civilization.Author biography:Walter Metz is a Professor in the Department of Cinema and Photography at SouthernIllinois University, where he teaches film, television, and theatre history, theory, andcriticism. He holds two Bachelor’s degrees, one in Materials Science and Engineeringand the other in the Humanities, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hehas a Master’s degree in Communication Studies from the University of Iowa, and aPh.D. in Radio-Television-Film from the University of Texas at Austin. He is the authorof three books: Engaging Film Criticism: Film History and Contemporary AmericanCinema (2004), Bewitched (2007), and Gilligan’s Island (2012). Currently, he is draftinga book manuscript entitled Molecular Cinema, a new theoretical exploration ofmaterialism in cinema as a way of re-thinking the relationship between science and film.NotesJean-Louis Comolli, “Historical Fiction: A Body Too Much,” Screen 19, 2 (1978),41-54.  [#N1-ptr1]1. Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln(New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006).  [#N2-ptr1]2. Thomas DiLorenzo, Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About3. “There’s Something Rotten in Film Criticism, and His Name is,... http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.121/--there-s-som...3 of 4 2/29/16, 9:32 PMDishonest Abe (New York: Crown Forum, 2007); and The Real Lincoln: A NewLook at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (New York:Crown Forum, 2003).  [#N3-ptr1]Hosted by Michigan Publishing, a division of the University of Michigan Library.For more information please contact mpub-help@umich.edu.Online ISSN forthcoming“There’s Something Rotten in Film Criticism, and His Name is,... http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.121/--there-s-som...4 of 4 2/29/16, 9:32 PM

There\u27s Something Rotten in Film Criticism, and His Name is, Regrettably, Not Johnny

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=cp_articles

There\u27s Something Rotten in Film Criticism, and His Name is, Regrettably, Not Johnny

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenSIUC