For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism

I love this examination of the rise and fall of the professional film critic... while today we have Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael and A. O. Scott, in the beginning this was just not so. This documentary shows how the critics (notably Frank Woods) pushed how film was more "subdued" in its acting than theater and how Pauline Kael helped get Martin Scorsese noticed.

I loved the bit on "Two Thousand Maniacs" from Elvis Mitchell, which briefly touched on the b-movie sensibility. Indeed, not all films can be reviewed by the same meter.

I also liked how they used "Amelie" as a example of difference, with one critic loving it and another saying it was nothing but a "cartoon" with "no human dimensions". This is quite the difference.

And, of course, one much touch on the effect of the Internet Movie Database and the Internet in general on film criticism. Is it democracy on the rise, or a race to the bottom? I can see it both ways.

... but then this is about film criticism, not really the love of the movies.

It tries to break out the areas of film criticism by eras, but eras overlap and some years are just left out entirely. Still, if you want a good overview of how movie critics began and how the craft changed through the years, this will fit the bill. It starts out in 1909, when films were just a little more than actualities, with maybe the first prototypical film critic, Frank E. Woods. Interesting bit about Mr. Woods - he cowrote the script for "Birth of a Nation" and became wealthy via buying up real estate in southern California. There is lots of footage of individual important film critics. Funny excerpts include Kenneth Turan talking about how James Cameron tried to get him fired over his bad review of Titanic. I have always agreed with Turan's assessment that the plot is ham fisted. But then that seems to be a hallmark of Cameron - make something that is technically dazzling yet empty. But I digress.

Then the documentary turns to the invention of the internet (oddly Al Gore is never mentioned) and how suddenly everybody is a movie critic. I don't think that they mentioned that Amazon initially hired paid reviewers for products - including movies - but soon realized that there are plenty of us willing to do this work for free.

You can't fit 100 years of history - this documentary was made 12 years ago - in one 80 minute film. Things left out? The documentary mentioned James Agee and his mid twentieth century piece on silent comic Buster Keaton. It is not mentioned that this one piece resurrected Keaton's career from the dead. He was a gag writer at MGM at the time, and suddenly he had offers rolling in from early television for guest appearances.

What did it mention that I did not know? Elvis Mitchell's personal journey in film criticism, and him mentioning a 1964 film I had never heard of before called "Two Thousand Maniacs" in which a back water town takes revenge for the loss of the Civil War out on complete strangers. Yikes! That will stay with me.

There are not too many documentaries on this subject, so if you are interested in the subject, it will be worth your while. Just realize it is broad but not very deep.

For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism (2009)

*** (out of 4)

Somewhat uneven but entertaining documentary taking a look at film critics from the past to the present. The documentary from director Gerald Perry actually features plenty of interviews with actual critics, which is a major plus as they get to comment on various subjects including the history of film criticism, how they got into doing it, their relationship with studios and directors and there's even some nice talk about the theory that everyone is a critic. As someone who loves movies, loves writing about movies and loves reading other's opinions on movies, this documentary kept me entertained from start to finish. I really liked the knowledge of how film criticism first started back around 1907 and it was fascinating to learn about the few critics who were out there at the time. It was also fascinating being able to see how the profession has changed throughout time and during which eras were critics most important when it came to people listening to them. The likes of Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris are discussed as well as what Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert brought to the table. Other critics like Rex Reed, Owen Gleiberman, Elvis Mitchell, Janet Maslin and even Harry Knowles are interviews as well. FOR THE LOVE OF MOVIES certainly has some faults including how it jumps around on its subjects too much. I'm not sure if this was originally much longer and then edited down but it just seems like several subjects are brought up and not fully discussed. Either way, if you're a fan of film then this here should keep you entertained and especially if you like discussing and debating movies.

For the Love of Movies is an interesting, if rather dry, history of film criticism. It starts from the beginning of cinema going to the present day. Overall, it is a mixed bag with difficulties in pacing.

The long span of the subject matter has both benefits and drawbacks. On one hand, viewers are introduced to now obscure film critics such as Otis Ferguson. You will inevitably come up with a reading list of critics you'll want to track down. However, many of the critics, especially from the first half of the twentieth century, are dealt with in passing, so that it is easy to confuse them.

The film goes into greater depth from the 60s onward, as it examines figures such as Pauline Kael and the debate over auteur theory. However, there are distracting elements such as periodic 'questions' which interrupt the narrative, such as how the critics got their jobs.

Furthermore, it would have been interesting to learn more about how the critics evaluate movies, what criteria they use, and so forth. In the end, the film is worth a rent if you stumble upon it, but is not worth seeking out.

I don't know why so many people have been critical of this production. If Gerald Peary hasn't put together a masterpiece, he's at least delivered a documentary history of film criticism, full of talking heads and clips from the films themselves, that is both entertaining and informative.

The two most engaging points, I thought, were the feud between Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris. I won't get into the substance of the conflict. Kael was a splendid writer who knew how to structure an essay, but, as a personality, she comes in second -- bitchy and manipulative -- while Sarris seems generous and forgiving.

The other observation was that print criticism by professionals is fast disappearing, along with the media that were their conduits to the public. Experienced reviewers cost money. It's easier to replace them with red hots who will work for coolie wages. Furthermore, nobody reads newspapers or magazines anymore. Everyone is on the internet. (Even Gerald Peary.) If you want to write a movie review, you can do so, even if you can't spell your own name. I expect this reflects a general degradation of our arts.

I'll give an example of what I mean by that last Olympian generalization. In, I think, 1968, Stanley Kauffmann was teaching film studies at Columbia. He had just shown Otto Preminger's "Joan of Arc" and asked for responses. Man, did he get them, and they were sophisticated too, comparing Preminger to Carl Dreyer's silent "The Passion of Joan of Arc," commenting on the evolving historical and regional images of Joan of Arc, drawing from Shakespeare, who portrayed her as a villain, and so forth. Kauffmann was inspired to write an essay, "The Film Generation", predicting that in another twenty or so years everyone would be as familiar with historical films as they were with classic novels. Twenty years later he wrote another essay, correcting himself. Students were dumber than ever. Not only couldn't they compare Dreyer to Preminger, they had to stretch for Joan of Arc. (My students were unable to identify my peerless impression of Jimmy Cagney.)

Peary doesn't blame the internet entirely, and neither would I, but a general deterioration of our intellectual curiosity -- our willingness to face any kind of challenging material -- just seems so obvious. We elect governors because they've been stars of mindless movies and presidents because we'd like to have a beer with them. "Belles lettres? Think I'll pass on that. I'll have another chili dog, and a Bud for my main man here." And I suppose it's becoming excessive to ask that an indefinite article and a common noun be separate words -- "a lot" rather than "alot." And that "losing" shouldn't be spelled "loosing." On top of all that, today's youngsters are promiscuous, by cracky. Well, don't get me started. I get all excited, my pince-nez falls off.

Among the ranks of talking heads, I sort of missed John Simon. Of course he's retired now but there ought to be footage of him around somewhere and he was by far the most savage of critics from the 70s and 80s. Who else, of the Maysles brother's "Gimme Shelter," featuring the Rolling Stones, could write: "Here we are, hungry for bread and the director gives us stones"? At any rate, I enjoyed this documentary and would recommend it to just about anyone with an interest in movies -- and to anyone under the age of 30, with or without that interest, because it will all be news to them.