Critical Condition Response

“Critical Condition” offers up many coinciding and contradicting views about the current state of criticism in these changing times. Through all of the discourse on the subject, the voice of Donna Seaman (the books critic for Booklist and WLUW’s Open Books) stands out as a voice of clarity and inspiration.

Seaman begins the conversation with one of her more profound statements. When the question, “What qualifies someone to be a critic?” is posed, she responds with, “Passion first and foremost. You must find consolation in the art you dedicate yourself to and devote your critical attention out of hunger for what books or music or, literally, food grants you. One must be receptive and adventurous, while also sustaining enough distance to see the work in context.” Seaman makes her passions clear right off the bat. Her view of the critic isn’t one with a “holier-than-thou” attitude, but one with an admiration and passion for the art. To truly write good criticism, one must love the art, while still managing to maintain intellectual distance in order to create context. She then states that “passion must lead to discipline and immersion” and that “expertise is gained from sustained attention.” Passionate people will immerse themselves in whatever they love, and an incredible knowledge of the subject will blossom after such an immersion.

Of the criticism itself, Seaman asserts that it needs “to be clear about what matters in a work of art.” The best criticism is that which explores the important aspects of the work of art, not simply expounding a “good or bad” opinion. A critic should interpret and reconstruct the art in terms of their personal experience with it – to “be clear about what matters.”

As the conversation shifts to the state of criticism in the Internet age, Seaman likens web-based criticism to a “stream-of-consciousness monologue” as opposed to the “sonnet”-like criticism that exists in print. She asserts that the role of the editor is downplayed on the Internet, and that there are less “constraints regarding form, length, and voice.” The analogy to poetry is an insightful and accurate one. The Internet allows much for freedom, which is often a double-edged sword.

Seaman goes on to lament many things about the digital era. She states, “Creative, thoughtful work is undervalued,” and that, “We want everything for free.” She later advocates for a mix of professional and amateur criticism. There are no barriers to entry with web-based criticism, and that can be a force for both good and bad. What Seaman advocates is a mix or professional critics and amateurs. In her eyes, both are valuable. While the amateur critic may not be as informed as the professional, it would be remiss for us to deny their experience with a piece of art. It’s possible for the two to coexist.

Seaman’s view of criticism is exciting and insightful. A clear passion is communicated throughout the entire interview, and the analysis of today’s playing-field is on the mark.

Antichrist: A Review that Doesn't Work

Michael Phillips’ review of Lars von Trier’s Antichrist fails to give justification to its claims. While the review seems to be overall positive, Phillips allows himself a few irresponsible, unsubstantiated statements that discredit his overall point.

The review begins strongly, eliciting images from the film to bring the reader into the chaotic world of Von Trier. When he’s dealing with thematic content, Phillips is on his game. His summary of Antichrist’s effect is beautifully put, “It dissects a psyche unraveling and a marriage, shrouded by tragic loss, being torn apart.”

The review takes a turn for the worse when he begins to call the film “insane.” He makes this claim without any justification – attributing the artistic effort to insanity. He later reduces Von Trier’s artistic output to “the most sadistic battle-of-the-sexes comedy ever made,” a blurb that never backs itself up. Not once in his review does he point out where the comedy is to be found, and seems to be saying these things in an attempt at humorous reduction.

Claims like this always make me angry. I understand thinking a film has gone too far, and I even understand the interpretation of painfully serious art as comedy. It’s when these claims aren’t justified that I begin to have a problem with them. Rather than analyzing and exploring, the review reduces the film to a blurb about how “insane” or “crazy” it was. The word “insane” doesn’t tell me anything about the film. It just feels like an awkward attempt at describing an uncomfortable reaction to something onscreen. While I agree with some of what Phillips says, his review lacks justification.

 The review can be found here.

La Dolce Vita - A Review that Works

Roger Ebert’s review of Fellini’s La Dolce Vita is insightful and impactful. He perfectly encapsulates the energy of the film, the experiences and reactions that he has had viewing it, and the larger questions that Fellini has posed. Rather than butting up against the film, the review works with it, using it for a humble grasp at a universal idea or theme.

Ebert doesn’t break the film down piece-by-piece. In fact, he rejects the whole idea, not wanting to “reduce the movie to a crossword puzzle.” He analyzes by letting the film speak for itself. Simple, succinct descriptions of events are employed to give just enough for the reader to vividly recall scenes from the film. A kind of “ah-ha!” understanding is achieved through the way this previously known information is presented. Ebert gets at larger ideas by rearranging the film and describing it as he saw it.

His personal experiences with the film are also of note. He explains in the review that the film has meant something different to him each time he has seen it. This hits at the idea that art is constantly moving, and morphing to adapt to our experiences with it. Ebert sees La Dolce Vita as constantly flowing and changing, and alludes to this idea as applying universally to all art.

Through his descriptions of the film and his experiences, Ebert has given readers an artwork in and of itself. He paints a portrait of himself: a man in varying stages of life, reacting to a piece of art that’s important to him. We’ve all had similar experiences in our lives, and Ebert allows us to reflect on those experiences for ourselves.


Ebert's review can be found here.