As we are in a correspondence and it is easier to fall into digressions, we tell you something even if it is a small detour. we admit that we felt a great relief when in a special about Tim Burton on the radio program where you collaborate, El rayo verde, Ignacio Pablo Rico, Roberto Morato and you coincided in the terrible decadence of his career, and you even did accounts and asked yourselves with a certain dread when it really had been the last good film by this filmmaker whose alleged aesthetics now seems to me disgusting. The on demand reviews really work there.
The Right Life Picture
Well, it is just an example, but it had been a long time since we had heard such a resounding truth about this trafficker of a style from which, decades ago, and really interesting questions emerged. We suppose you will remember Eduardo Manostijeras (Edward Scissorhands , 1990). Well, who were really the eccentrics in that story, Eduardo himself, whose eccentricity is only apparent, or the residents of his neighborhood, internally and externally deformed by the values of the American way of life? That sardonic, funny and rabidly incorrect Burton has become a gross caricature of himself.
Tim Burton and More
Sorry we stopped with something so anecdotal, but the case of Tim Burton could be extrapolated to other phenomena. Because in film criticism we sometimes become slaves of this or that filmmaker and, in each new film, we act like hounds, trying to find connections with his previous filmography, as if that were, by itself, synonymous with quality. Have you ever thought about how the valuation of an entire cinematographic exercise would change if the films came without credits? There is a good approach for a science fiction story there … because, really, the last Cronenberg, Scorsese, Allen, Polanski, etc., which seem insubstantial to me, continue to genuflect much of the criticism. It is a consequence of closely following the authors’ policy, from Cahiers du cinema, which has caused some vices in critical writing that, finally, we can denounce today without being branded as heretics by the critical Holy Office. We have acquired unwarranted easements and accessions that persist in the most elitist spheres: can someone explain to me why there is a fixed list of filmmaker’s at the most reputed festivals, which seem to have managed to approve a civil service position?
Mirror of the World
But, taking up our previous argument, today we live in a much more complex world than twenty years ago. The marketing digital overwhelms us everywhere, in every corner of cyberspace forums, social networks, websites, blogs, etc. And with it, film marketing. But, meanwhile, we consume images. Continually. With ferocity; the vast majority without reflecting as we should, suffering indigestion without realizing it. And those images, to a greater or lesser extent, are injected with ideology. And they influence us. Yes, this is an old approach, and some will say that it is out of date.
But it is that, while in film criticism there is, in general, an attitude of disbelief, and even mockery, against everything that smacks of political or social commitment – yes, we recognize that these terms also give me chills, as much as the name of the supposed “necessary” films, as Aarón Rodríguez recognized in his correspondence with Óscar Brox.
, at the same time market strategies continue to be developed to persuade us. We are one of the first to oppose this “pamphleteer” cinema that automates rather than makes people think. However, we are quite bothered by the attitude of irony and cynicism of the critic on duty when he is in front of a film that has the audacity to point out some injury to the system. A terrifying thought: while all these years the pose of the cool intellectual prevailed Cynical, oblivious to any problem, the ants in the financial sector have taken the opportunity to build their great anthill… and we all know what has happened in the end.
We end our speech with a reflection that more or less followed from Monica Jordan’s text. Criticism, in the first place, is not intended for anyone; it is intended for oneself, to question their own beliefs, tastes, thoughts … all that subjective wealth that is shaped by personal experiences (including audiovisuals, of course). And, sometimes, one, in that clarification exercise that is film criticism, may be astonished to discover things about oneself. However, discovering them and, if necessary, trying to correct them, is already a giant step? Consequently, we question whether film criticism is marginal or not; if it interests more or less people. From a purely selfish perspective, we do find it useful.