"The way to criticize a film is to make another film"

That is according to the legendary French filmmaker/critic Jean-Luc Godard, at least (and no, it is not a recent quote ).

I am fascinated by the implications of this axiom in two capacities: 1) Do the debits of one movie serve to illuminate the merits of another, merely by contrast?; and 2) if the first point is answered to in the affirmative, does that consequently negate the function of traditional film criticism (as far as you are concerned, not in general), or simply reveal the properties of said discipline in a more cogent fashion?

My feeling is that Godard?s observation has some merit when applied in a specific, rather than general manner; for instance, two films of similar distinction ? for the purposes of this exercise, let?s cite "Jurassic Park" and "Jurassic Park III" ? can be contrasted against one another in order to gauge their discernible artistic values and/or deficiencies. In other words, when taken in a comparative sense, the shortcomings of "III" help to illustrate the virtues of its predecessor. My primary issue, though (and I?ve already alluded to this), is that these sorts of comparative analyses are dependent upon the specific type of films that are being examined; by that I mean that it is somewhat fruitless to invoke such pictures as "Jurassic Park III" and "Double Indemnity" and then employ them against one another in this particular application, because the movies in question are of such dissimilar tonality that an unqualified critical apparatus would not be able to accommodate their aesthetic disparity. It would be more useful, I suspect, to forge an exercise of this nature between pictures that are derived from a similar genre.

The second point, which is sort of an extrapolative conceit, is meant to question the notion of abstract film criticism and its usefulness in relation to Godard?s statement. My opinion is that because it so highly analytical, criticism of a distinctive nature will almost always be relegated to those persons who can function reasonably well within the framework of this vocation; there is a demand for appointed 'critics' in popular culture, and the best ones provide a useful, informative service. In that sense, Godard?s comment kind of exists in a vacuum; a small percentage of the general public is actually interested in forming exhaustive critical analyses of the movies they watch, which in turn defeats the use of the aforementioned dictum for those who don?t have a more academic investment in film. For those who are interested, however, Godard?s statement does help to elucidate some of the underlying 'mechanics,' if you will, of criticism.

Your comments on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

 

I think the answer is affirmative and no it doesnt marginilize the more traditional film criticism. Simply put ( and just for myself because Im not that intellectual ) I think there two seperate entities.

 

There are lots of ways to criticize a film, but for a film-maker, which Godard is, I suppose that making another film is the mode that makes the most sense.

American film-makers tend to express themselves differently. They say, I loved this film as a child, therefore I want to remake it. A statement which, if you look at it closely, makes no logical sense whatsoever, but has given us the remakes of "Psycho" and "King Kong"; "Always" (Speilberg's remake of "A Guy Named Joe") and Warren Beatty's remake of "Love Affair". Or they can keep revisiting the same material in different guises, as some directors do.

 

I wouldn't say this is the best way,lets say a movie was horrible would the best thing to do be remake it or use the same basic plot line.

The best way to critcize a film is in the eyes of the critic which in Jean-Luc's case is making another film

 

Just coming out and saying "Your movie is bad" doesn't work. People tend to say things like "You couldn't do any better."

Which is why this quote speaks sooth. Let your actions speak for you.

 

I think the idea is incomplete.
If you want to go with this concept, Mr. Godard, go all the way.
I believe the best way to criticize a film is to make another film....that is A TRULY GREAT FILM!



By the way, this is the most extraordinarily expensive form of
criticism (or therapy) I've ever heard of.

 

i'm kind of going by that.

i always had this feeling that godard meant to say trather than picking things apart, why not see for yourself what it means to create a movie?

 

I can't wrap my mind around Godard's quote. I can not fully comprehend the implications because it is a somewhat blase, somewhat egotistical, and a rather simple form of film criticism. There are alot of factors to account for in a single film's successes or failures. Let's not forget the "tastes" conundrum.

Personally, I am not one of the biggest film wh***s around and yet I am one of the biggest film wh***s around. A contradiction really.

But something that does parallel this quote is filmlovers can be mercenary (by no means an allusion to the importance of box office impact or production values).

 

i always had this feeling that godard meant to say trather than picking things apart, why not see for yourself what it means to create a movie?

I like this interpretation! And as someone who went from life-long film nut and whiner about other people's films to someone who has completed a film (after a year of hard work), my project was definitely a lesson in humility. It's a TOUGH job making a movie and the number of things that can wrong, or be totally out of your control, despite your best intentions, is just staggering, even on a very small film project.

 

My primary issue, though (and I?ve already alluded to this), is that these sorts of comparative analyses are dependent upon the specific type of films that are being examined;

I think that?s key. The intent of the filmmaker, as well as an appropriate context for the genesis of a given filmmaker?s film, is of the utmost importance if one is to find truth in Godard?s dictum. In the case of your example, it shouldn?t be a chore to come upon the knowledge that decrees Jurassic Park III wasn?t made as some critical rebuke of Double Indemnity. Hell, logic should tell you Jurassic Park III wasn?t intended as a critical rebuke of Jurassic Park. But beside all that, the very practice of weighing a film against another film suggests the intrinsic mode of criticism that Godard seemingly denies with his suggestion that purest means of deconstructing a given film is to construct a separate entity of your own making.

Perhaps then, Godard?s dictum reaches its full weight in regards to trying to bring an exhaustive set of critical counter-points to the type of person you allude to, Tyranus, who?s not overly concerned with sitting down to provide the exhaustive analysis that gurus would liken to the most sumptuous of meals. I?d offer a film like Clint Eastwood?s Unforgiven as proof of this idea. In reality, many likely viewed this picture not because it was a revisionist Western, but because it was a Western. They might have entered the theater with expectations that would?ve been met as long as common descriptors like pistols, horses, and open plains were present. Unforgiven presented these tropes, of course, but of more consequence was the severe tone and theme revolving around a decidedly more realistic portrayal of the outlaw and the outlaw life. Thus, while the aforementioned viewer may not have went home and immediately started putting analysis to paper, it?s a sure bet they were left with the knowledge that they didn?t witness a whimsical, frolicking adventure, but rather a meditation on death, violence, and other truths of life that a great many films labeled under the Western genre choose to ignore.

In this way, Godard may have hit the nail on the head when it comes to finding the most efficient means of ensuring the largest possible audience becomes aware of a given filmmaker?s critical retorts.

 

Ezekiel, your example Unforgiven is truly tricky business as realism can be counterpointed by textual alternates and canvasses no less meaningful or powerful to audiences or the film-maker. What is "better"? What is a "retort"?

 

So slow tonight, I just wanted to further elaborate that Eastwood's westerns weren't intended as a criticism on the genre. In fact, he isn't the first to inject realism and sombre themes into western film.

The genre experienced a new breed of psychological westerns in the 50s and 60s. He was relatively late in the game and no less significant either.

Clint Eastwood is a gifted director and he loves westerns. I love his westerns and admire him as person and film-maker. Honestly he doesn't even rank in my top five genre directors but undoubtly in my top ten.

But that argument is purely based upon "style".

 

I think the quote is also a justification of the French New Wave. Let's not forget that the directors of this movement began as film critics. However this doesn't always result in great films. Roger Ebert wrote a terrible movie "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", after watching a film like that it makes you question Ebert's opinions on film.

As for Eastwood. He tells a story about Leone not knowing the rules of Hollywood & Eastwood keeping silent of them. Leone would have people get shot & fall in the same frame. Thanks to the production code this was a Hollywood no-no. Eastwood knew the rules but he kept silent and Leone was none the wiser. After the success of the Dollar films the restrictions of gun violence eased up. Due in large part for Eastwood's silence. Years later Eastwood would go on to comment about the violence he helped create with "Unforgiven."

 

What is "better"?

In the context of my thoughts on Godard?s axiom, ?better? would be a more efficient means of providing critical analysis. In this case, constructing a film rather than the formal thesis most often confined to scholarly circles.

What is a "retort"?

In this case, a filmmaker?s response to a prior film or set of films.

So slow tonight, I just wanted to further elaborate that Eastwood's westerns weren't intended as a criticism on the genre. In fact, he isn't the first to inject realism and sombre themes into western film.

First, I never claimed Eastwood was the first to inject somber realism into a Western. My citing of Unforgiven was based on the fact that that particular film is arguably the most recognized Western to exhibit such traits. Second, I don?t think one is wrong to assume that Unforgiven was in fact a criticism against prior Westerns which failed to convey the thematic depth Eastwood felt was important enough to be brought back into the limelight. Let?s take a look at Eastwood?s own words on Unforgiven, taken from a documentary on the semi-recent 10th Anniversary DVD (not verbatim, but pretty damn close):

?It was everything I ever wanted to say with a Western, but wasn?t able to because a lot of times people take the obvious route, they go with the formula.?

Sounds to me that, at least in Eastwood?s eyes, Unforgiven was a criticism against a majority of Westerns which predated his film. In fact, it?s very possible that the ?they? in the above quote refers to writers and directors responsible for films Eastwood previously starred in, but played no significant role in the construction of narrative or the stylstic conveyance of filmic parameters not limited to his own individual performance. So yeah, tell me again how Unforgiven is ?truly tricky business? in regards to directly pertaining to the axiom that Tyranus based this thread on, because I'm just not seeing it.

 

Westerns have been approaching a wide range of themes long, long before Eastwood.

Have you ever seen the violence, thematic brilliance, or psychological and moral implications of Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, Mann's The Naked Spur, Ford's The Searchers, Sturges' Last Train From Gun Hill. EDIT: King's Bravados!

And... the most racially charged and violent western ever made, Ralph Nelson's Soldier Blue (1969), a seeringly brutal commentary on the Vietnam War based on a novel about the Sand Creek Indian massacre. Makes Peckinpah look relatively tame.

The list goes on and one.

Raoul Walsh's "western noir" Pursued (1947) is said to have controversial material suggesting immoral relationships... namely incest. I haven't seen this one however.

Tomorrow evening at 7:00 PM, Mann's finest western The Naked Spur will be shown on Turner Classic Movies channel.

Many westerns have themes they did not all consist of just rollicking adventures.

 

Zombi, you?re again skirting the point I tried to make in relation to this thread?s purpose. I wasn?t attempting to make a brief but definitive analysis of the Western genre as a broad entity. What I was doing was stating a specific example of a filmmaker bringing to life Godard?s axiom. As was shown with the Eastwood quote I provided, obviously that particular filmmaker not only felt that a further critical breakdown was still necessary, but that a film was the best venue to push his thoughts.

 

And do you believe he succeeded with despite a load of contemporary 90s western revisionist films such as Dances with Wolves, Wyatt Earp, and Tombstone? Or is it just another product of it's time? An anachronism!

 

I haven?t seen the latter two films you speak of, but did take notice that they were released after Eastwood?s film. If nothing else, to me this suggests that Eastwood wasn?t capitalizing on a trend so much as voicing what he considered necessary, relevant thought. Dances With Wolves, of course, came before Unforgiven, but to me is so marginally above fluff level that I?m wary to mention it in the same breadth as works I consider to represent true revisionism.

Which means that, yes, I do believe Unforgiven meets the criteria I suggested in terms a film being the purest apparatus for the largest possible critical rebuke. Eastwood relied on a significant audience that carried with it built-in expectations of what exactly comprises a Western, thus chose Unforgiven as the most prudent means of his analysis. Given the film?s performance at the Academy Awards, and that it out-grossed both Wyatt Earp and Tombstone, I think it?s safe to say Eastwood?s message was one received.

 

And Eastwood would be walking irony if the " they " meant that, for if Eastwoods westerns were meant as a retort to Leones westerns starring Eastwood ( and thats very plausible - Eastwood wasnt the happiest individual with that arrangement, he thought he shouldve been an American star by then ) then he must appreciate the ironic dynamic of being a director of westerns that show a more realistic west while critiqing an early rendition of the west that was perceived by many as shockingly honest as well even though it relegated the lead to a one dimensional angel of death, which is of course also ironic because without the mass adoration of The Man by men all over the world, Eastwoods star wouldve never have shined. Considering the way his talent seemed to " develop " with time, it might be equally plausible that Eastwood feels that Leones films set his acting back decades, which it did. Considering that that steely eyed bad ass characterization made Eastwood tens of millions of dollars AND he really is in many, many senses an American Leone, Clint shouldve be thanking the Italian maestro every night right after God for the success of his career.

 

Well, I can assure Eastwood failed to spin the genre on it's head. The greatest irony of his western is he relies on the same quality of Leone in which he devises and adopts those very same mythic qualities to his self portrayed protagonist.

High Plains Drifter
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Pale Rider
Unforgiven

I fail to see any difference and there is no real psychological complexities. They are all characters driven by revenge for murder.

Rebuke? Critical analyses? Eastwood made basic story in four different verses. Eastwood simply won't bow and give audiences a genuine rebuke and deconstructionism like ... take for example -- Marshall Kane from High Noon.

 

This is true. But one thing I would amend is your thoughts of Eastwood relying so heavily on the qualities that Leone previously established. The difference is that Leone?s incarnations of the Eastwood Figure never took the time to dwell on family life, fully realized friendships, and direct self-contemplation on the level of violence the character was both willing and hesitant to undertake. Will Munny exhibited all these qualities. Thus, Eastwood?s rebuke is evident.

Edit:

I like your points, severian. Your words bring to mind another way in which Unforgiven is a possible critical analysis on the part of Eastwood. Will Munny wants a family life, wants to turn away from violence and a life of sin, but at the climax of that picture is arguably right where Eastwood?s character left off in Leone?s films. A metaphor for Eastwood?s career, perhaps? He may have yearned for something beyond forever being known as the silent, hard-edged drifter, but ultimately this image has yet to be fully replaced by something different.


Edit again:

I?m not trying to dismiss your knowledge and contributions to this thread, Zombi, but I still think that various films you cite could be irrelevant to my point of Eastwood in relation to Godard?s axiom. I don?t it?d be wrong to assume that a sizeable audience is most familiar with Westerns that star Eastwood, and not the type of pictures you suggest that exist as film class favorites. Again, this comes back to bringing critical thought to an audience who normally wouldn?t be exposed to it.

 

But, you see, it is very relevant, that's where you are wrong.

These very themes have been presented in stronger focus many previous westerns.

Ethan Edward's (Wayne) racism and spends literally years pursuing his niece that was kidnapped by Indians. And because of his hatred feels compelled to destroy her once if ever he finds believing she is beyond any rehabilitation in The Searchers. Or how about "Do you want me to draw you a picture?" emotionally devestating tirade.

Kirk Douglas' US Marshall Matt Morgan serving in the town of Pawley whose squaw wife he learns has been raped than murdered upon investigation after his surviving adolescent son flees reporting the attack in Last Train from Gun Hill. And soon discovers the son of his distant but close friend Craig (Quinn), a powerful cattle baron, no less, was responsible for the crime. A man whom built and rules over a town named Gun Hill. The actual title of the film plays an intricate part of the plot. Devestating ending.

Alan Ladd's departure before the credits roll in Shane.

In The Bravados, Peck pursues four men he believes were the rapists that murdered his wife but becomes distressed and repulsed over his own vengeance.

Really, there are few moments I've experienced any catharsis from the violence portrayed in a Eastwood western aside from the Union mowing down the Quantrill's Raiders, not the most sympathetic bunch of outlaws either. It's usually more thrilling than anything.

Violence was better treated and more powerfully depicted in films such Ride The High Country, Pat Garrett And Billy The Kid, The Shootist, and The Wild Bunch.

 

Zombie, we?re at a point where we keep spouting the same thing back to one another, a fruitless endeavor since we seem to be arguing different points.

You?re saying that Unforgiven failed to present any thematic or stylistic depth that hadn?t already been portrayed in any number of Westerns before it. I never denied this fact.

I?m saying that, circa 1992, Eastwood felt the need to explore aspects of the Western narrative that he felt he didn?t do with previous roles. Obviously feeling that his criticism would benefit a mass audience, Eastwood chose Unforgiven as the vehicle for his thought, as opposed to another method such as penning a novel, an essay, a non-fiction book, or partaking in a lecture tour of various scholarly venues. He essentially came to the realization that ?the way to criticize a film is to make another film.?

This is the point I used to illustrate my own my idea of Godard?s axiom being most appropriate when it comes to bringing critical thought to an audience that for the most part would not actively seek a more blatant form of criticism.

Again, I never sought to bring anything else to the table than the above two paragraphs. If you think the The Searchers is a more critically trenchant work than Unforgiven, then I offer you my congratulations. Unfortunately, I?m still failing to see how any of your recent posts disprove the argument I was making.

 

In exploring the western narrative the way he does Eastwood makes Unforgiven a relevant movie in the history of film because although it certainly isnt revisionistic it seems that it is because of the waning genre. And it was refreshing that Hollywoods return to the event western was at least honest in mood and characterization. It also corrects things from Leones' and Siegals' westerns in that it maintains the high level of violence but chucks out the notion of the sleek, uber-cool, quick drawing gunman who never misses. That guy ( Richard Harris ) gets soundly embarrassed in Unforgiven. Its most honest in that respect.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree, ezekiel, your last post is significantly downsized in focus than your initial.. um first post in the thread.

And I think a large piece of the reason for Unforgiven big office draw was also it's star power and Eastwood's return to western.

I am not sure the genre will ever recover it's greater days... but in hindsight this genre has enjoyed monumental character and a monumental history.