This site, though, is not about joining the fray of critical kudos for big stars like Tom Hanks nor is it about doubting the next feature that Kevin Costner's is working on. I don't care about big-budget movies, I couldn't care less about the Academy and frankly, I don't think many people really care either. If you're like most viewers I know you just want to be entertained. So it's my job to try to expand your horizons of what "entertainment" is.
This site is, in many ways, a celebration of cinema -- particularly foreign cinema. Most of the voices we hear are just an echo in the Hollywood mainstream wilderness and I believe it is the critic's duty to help guide the viewer through this territory.
We live in a media world where we are swamped every day by write-ups of all the major studio releases. And there just isn't enough time to read all of it. So I would rather write about the films that get a smaller release and minor press coverage. (The exception to this is to discuss the current trends in mainstream cinema - for instance over the past few years there have been numerous nostalgia films about World War II).
Being a critic is about giving readers an historical perspective and turning them on to what's significant, fresh and new as well as what's unique, meaningful and old. It's about letting people know how great a Renoir film is, or how important Soviet silent cinema was, or why films from Iran or Taiwan are more significant to what's really happening today in the world -- and the film world -- than what's happening with George Lucas and his new toys. Not to say it's not important that the world is going to high definition Digital Video cameras but it's more important what somebody does with this technology once it becomes the standard.
I could go on one long tirade about what's wrong with Hollywood cinema today, about how amazing it is that PR companies and advertising dominate our lives--but that's not going to be my focus. Anyone can carp about the state of the marketing machine today but nobody will really listen. I could spit bile about how horrible the latest Mel Gibson movie is until I'm blue in the face but it won't really prevent it from making $200 million world wide at the box office.
The marketing companies have already defeated the critic. It's over. The Hollywood blockbuster mentality is here to stay and no matter what The New York Times, TIME Magazine or the alternative press says in favor of or in opposition to this predicament it doesn't matter. The critic therefore must make a case for the smaller indie films, the better foreign films, the older classic films and the rarely seen experimental masterpieces. Critics must open the eyes, as it were, of the viewer and attempt to drag them out of the multiplex. I believe this site is one way I can do that.
I want to beat the marketing machine at its own game by advising people to see films outside of the mainsteam. To let them know that they do have a choice and that if they really want to see that new Julia Roberts movie they can wait -- because it will be in video next month anyway.
In short, I would rather espouse the greatness of a rarely seen film like I Know Where I'm Going! or one that's sure to die a box office death like the Iranian film The Circle than tell someone how bad the next Stallone movie will be.
The other problem today is the state of film criticism. Many critics bemoan the current state of cinema and wish it were like the old days, while a whole other (younger) segment of critics write about cinema as if it began the year of their birth (around 1977). The former crowd is merely waxing nostalgic about their youth and, a good number of them, are either burned-out on movies by now or haven't been to the art house or on the festival circuit lately to see the great films being made today - work that is as significant as the work of the great European directors of yore. To the other critics I can only advise them to see as many films as possible made before their time. Like a doctor giving advise I want to tell them to watch three Godard's, three Hawks, two Eisensteins, a Mario Bava or two as well as a smattering of silent films, 1930's French cinema, 1940's Hollywood, 1950's Italian, 1960's Brazilian, 1970's experimental films and then call me in a few weeks when it becomes clear that almost everything they see now has been done before - and in most cases done better.
The biggest difference between critics and the average audience is that critics see movies for free and that makes a huge difference. As a critic I have to see the movies I am assigned and very often I stumble upon something truly unique and interesting. And I'll admit that based on the poor marketing of some foreign films I wouldn't feel confident either about paying $9.00 or $10.00..
So, how can I convince you to pay money for them? That's my job. Read the reviews and hopefully I will not only teach you something but give you a reason to try and see something you wouldn't normally see. And if you have seen the films then maybe we can begin a dialogue about some of the best films being made today. E-mail me.
Happy reading and viewing,
Matt Langdon
