A Happy New World New Year

I offer a series of rhymes.














[All taken from the New Line DVD without permission.]

Merry Christmas Cotton Candy Screenshot of the day

From Ryland Walker Knight to you, dear readers.

A brief missive amidst this mess

by Ryland Walker Knight

Phase one of the movie is done: I'm back in California. After a week without internet I'm glad to see the 'sphere still generating. Too much to read with all that's on my plate. There's a little light at the end of this beaucratical tunnel I'm in and I may, cross your fingers, get a loan to pay for my return to school. But it's still a wish and a prayer at this point so I'll have to keep you posted.

As for the movies: here it is, what I've been waiting for: the ultimate viewing list: Denis Lim's annual poll, now on indieWIRE. I gotta say, it's pretty heartening to see other critics put BLOCK PARTY on their lists. (I'm not alone after all, Steve!) Lim's end-all lists are always a great way to catch up on all the blind spots I've acrued this year (of the top ten I've seen two, of the top twenty I've seen five) what with my Canyon trip and constant pinballing across this wide country. The one I ache to take in is that big bad behemoth, David Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE. I've read so much already I've pieced together a rough cut in my head but I know that will only pale in comparison to the real deal. Really, how can I pretend to know what's in store? All I do know is that trailer did the trick and I feel like I need to see why Laura Dern's crying on the sidewalk, all fish-eyed blue.

The poll also brings to mind how to reconcile my end of the year recollections. I don't like a top ten list but I don't like falling back on an alphabetical list either. I guess I've just grown wary of value judgments in general this year. A star-rating feels inadequate and shorthand & a top ten list feels reductive and consumerist. But time constraints keep me from writing the multiple essays I'd like to finish addressing the movies I did see and grappled with this year so who knows what my contribution will be come January 1st.

All I know is it's been a revelatory year despite a lack of revelatory current releases: the Best movie I saw this year wasn't even made in 02006 (or 02005, as it may be) but 01969, Jean-Pierre Melville's ARMY OF SHADOWS. However, my favorite movie of 02006 remains BLOCK PARTY. How can I not rank the Melville above the Chappelle when I know the latter is flawed and nowhere near the essential classic of the former? I suppose it's a dilemma many critics encounter but let's face it: trivial quibbling. Best to simply write about why I liked both. Honestly, I didn't think I was "allowed" to include Melville's film in my list until I saw Ed Gonzalez & Nick Schager's Slant Magazine 2006: The Year In Film. So hey, all bets should be off. We'll just have to wait and see what I can dish out for a recap. For now, though, I gotta get wrapping -- and prepping, you know, my brain (& heart) for these days ahead.

Stay tuned. And happy holidays!


(Couldn't help it.)
(I fill out my ballot in the comments below.)

Regarding Andy Horbals's Film Criticism Blog-a-Thon, much belated

by Ryland Walker Knight

I wanted to post a sprawling personal history to run parallel my contribution to Matt's call for a site-wide 5 for the Day: Life-Changing Critcism. But work, fatigue, my mom and a 7.5 hour Hungarian movie got in the way of completing the piece. It's still sitting there, waiting to be finished, but in light of my recent headaches with university beaucracies I couldn't find the motivation or emotional energy reserves to throw myself into the essay. Instead I dashed off my list for The House. It, too, seems inadequate and rushed but I'm pretty happy to be a part of such a fun project.

What the list doesn't quite convey is how new I am to this whole criticism racket and how lucky I feel to have popped up in Matt & Keith's radar. And not only that but how rewarding the criticism is to write. It's a much more pro-active process than the fiction writing I still struggle with. Fiction is fun (who doesn't dream up stories?) but the criticism feels much more relevant and useful and, well, life-affirming. Plus, with a blog, and the comments section, you don't feel like you're writing into a void, as Matt said (in a comment thanking Annie Frisbie for mentioning him in her 5/day list). Also, in the Manny Farber interview Keith cites -- and I make a passing reference to -- Farber keeps saying stuff like, "This is what I love to do so don't say I'm not contributing." Criticism is a two-way street.

As evidenced by my archives, I'm not as prolific (1) as I'd like to be or (2) as other renowned, erudite bloggers like Andy or Dennis Cozzalio or Zach Campbell. Nor do I have the background of Keith or Matt. I'm still learning quite a bit, one essay at a time. While I'm probably most proud of my MARIE ANTOINETTE critique/appraisal, I still think there's some value in my first effort on this blog (a positive, apologist take on SUPERMAN RETURNS, which has only gotten better in my brain) for the sheer excitement and enthusiasm in the writing. It's a little fanboy-silly but that's kinda what the movie did for me despite being intensely sad.

I think the fun is what's lost on a lot of readers who think critics are stuffy jerks who go into a movie looking for a way out, an angle to further propagate their singular bent on movies. Or, much worse, they think critics are shill-buffoons like Michael Medved or Richard Roeper. (It should be noted, though, that these men do, in fact, hold real journalism positions and that should be commendable on some level, however misguided I find their film criticism.) The great ones (Roger Ebert included) aren't on a mission, for the most part. For the most part they're wrestling with the picture, too, trying to make some sense from the movie. My first hero, Mick LaSalle, will often have a wildly different take on a picture that baffles me but his reviews are always intriguing because (1) they're usually funny (2) they're well-reasoned (3) it's clear he spends time thinking about the piece and its place in the world not only of criticism but general discourse. In his blog bio he says, "From the beginning, he has been interested in the place where culture, sociology and the movies meet." Not every critic I adore has this kind of take on the movies but given this nugget, it illuminates his entire career and how he can think CLICK is one of the best movies of 2006 and not sound like an idiot. Granted, as I get older I find myself agreeing less with him but I'll still cherish reading his work because even if we disagree, I can understand his take on the film at hand. And he hated CACHE, too.

So what's the value of a critic? A recurring question in 2006, it seems. The simple answer, as far as I can tell, is that we critics are here not merely to guide the public to the best movies (we know that can't happen in a world where PIRATES 2 rakes in such egregious, outlandish sums) but guide our readers through our wholly subjective take on each film. There are aesthetical values to uphold and stand by but in the end we should remember that what we say isn't the end-all: it's the beginning. At least, I hope it is.

[For the blogathon's full table of contents click here.]