This guy is such a hipster movie snob I can't see him sitting through another Jen Aniston romcom. Or Scary Movie 13. Or another Adam Sandler film. He'll break down.
share
.
Unreal, where did they find this kid ?
Am finally watching the 1st Episode now, and for the VERY 1st Review - No Strings Attached - he gives a 'Thumbs Up' but later as he and the lady discuss the Film, he says, "Yes, I must admit this is not a great film."
Then why do you give it a 'Thumbs Up' ?
Duh.
Sorry Roger, hope you're not responsible for the selection of this young man.
Someone needs to critically review his ability to critically review, and determine what criteria he follows.
.
Uh, you know that a "thumbs up" just means they recommend a good movie, not that think it's great, right?
I'm sure that if "thumbs up" required them to think a movie was a masterpiece, we'd go through several episodes that were all thumbs down from both critics in a row.
.............
Killing people is easy...if you can forget the taste of sugar.
I like the kid. He's a little green and rough around the edges, but he definitely knows movies and movie history, which is more than can be said about 90% of critics, including Christy Lemire. Give it a few years and Ignatiy will become a great critic.
I don't have a signature.
He has no screen presence, and I don't want to wait "a few years" for that to happen.
_________
Disclaimer for the clueless: The preceding is my opinion...your mileage may vary.
^What's the hurry? What's wrong with watching someone develop before our eyes?
I don't have a signature.
What's the point of watching a sucky show in the hopes that it will one day be good, when I can change the channel and watch something that's already good?
_________
Disclaimer for the clueless: The preceding is my opinion...your mileage may vary.
[deleted]
Weird way to bump this thread, by copying someone else's quote from a random Google TV group, lol.
Ignatiy's doing a great job. I loved Siskel, don't get me wrong, but even at half his age Ignatiy already has a better command of cinema history, and can back up his views much more elegantly than Siskel ever could, whose defense of a film would often amount to not much more than getting flustered and repeating one or two talking points over and over.
Also iirc Ignatiy didn't exactly say that he flat out prefers a small tv to a cinema big screen, but rather that he does enjoy watching movies on a small tv because it allows one to take in a film differently, as an object rather than as an experience - his point being that viewing something on a smaller screen lends itself more towards approaching and analyzing a movie on aesthetic/formal grounds, something inevitably harder to do sitting in front of the expanse of a theater screen where it is much easier to simply get sucked into the surface experience.
even at half his age Ignatiy already has a better command of cinema history, and can back up his views much more elegantly than Siskel ever could, whose defense of a film would often amount to not much more than getting flustered and repeating one or two talking points over and over.
"Critically, Siskel was light years ahead of Ignatiy, and I don't think it's an area where the latter can catch up."
Really? I think Siskel was very weak as an actual film critic. There's a reason there aren't any collections of his reviews or any books by him.
I think that episode where they talk about "the movies that made them critics" is a mess, but I don't think Ignatiy is to blame. If you look at the Viewer Mail segments they've done since then, both critics are very engaging when talking about what they like. I just think the format of that episode was wrong, and that Ignatiy was still finding his way. Compare his talk on HISTOIRE(S) DU CINEMA in that episode to his talk on FILM SOCIALISME in the Best of the Year So Far episode. It's a world of difference. The more recent one actually sounds like Ignatiy's writing about Godard and not like some book report he has been asked to deliver.
I've never found Ignatiy condescending. I get the sense from the show and from his writing and from the few times that I've seen his speak in public that he's an unpretentious guy who takes movies very seriously but not himself. I don't think he's an "average moviegoer" but a very good critic, so wouldn't it be dishonest for him to pretend to be "average?" But I also happen to think that late-career JLG is a thing that deserves adoration, though I don't share Ignatiy's love for everythign George Romero and John Carpenter.
Have you ever read Ignatiy's stuff?
As a television personality Siskel was a nice, thoughtful movie reviewer, very likeable as you say and certainly more streamlined towards the "average moviegoer". As a writer on film he was (from the very few pieces I've been able to find) thoroughly mediocre - like knownothingparty correctly points out, none of his writing has been archived, and for good reason. It was nothing special at all. Ignatiy on the other hand is a Critic with a capital C, meaning that his approach to film stems more from trying to grapple with individual works in wider terms, whether that be aesthetic, political, canonical, cultural or whatever, and his writings on Mubi and his blog represent, in my opinion, some of the most essential critical thoughts from the last 5 years or so.
We can play the "So-and-so knows more about film history" game over and over all day long, but the fact of the matter is that Siskel has nary a written word available either in print or on the net, while you can find detailed and thoughtful considerations of figures such as Griffith, Feuillade, Civeyrac, Tourneur etc., from Ignatiy in mere seconds, far more probing pieces than the few superficial writings from Siskel I've stumbled across over the years. So it's patently ludicrous to state that critically Siskel was "light years of ahead of Ignatiy". I mean if that's your opinion then fine, but I doubt you'd be able to mount any kind of convincing case for it, and pretty much all available evidence would point to the contrary.
Your ridiculous characterization of Ignatiy as just some condescending, film-school poser probably doesn't merit any reply, but needless to say that it's symptomatic of a rampant kind of *beep* anti-intellectualism that's just getting so tiresome. He strikes me as nothing but considerate and well reasoned and pasionate towards film. "Oh WOW, someone actually likes those late Godard films? They MUST just be looking for attention." It's pathetic.
I love Godard, love his 60's work, love his 70's, 80's, 90's an 00's work. In fact I think the 80's was his best decade, marked by a particular sensitivity and unique sensual beauty completely lacking in the majority of his oeuvre. Movies like Passion, Hail Mary and First Name: Carmer are masterpieces, and I would confidently stack them up against anything from the 60's. Film Socialisme was one of my favorite movies from last year. Sonofabird I would be very curious to hear what late Godard films you've seen, and why you don't feel they are worthy of any consideration. I have a feeling you probably haven't seen any at all, and are just grasping onto what has become unfortunately a tired and common point of attack these days, but I'm curious nonetheless.
Reading your responses, I realize I probably should have clarified my original post a bit more. My opinion is premised first on a disdain for most high-flown film criticism, which I generally find pseudo-intellectual and fundamentally dishonest. This isn't to dismiss it wholesale, or to argue that Siskel has any place in film criticism as an academic discipline (you're right, he doesn't), or to say that Ignatiy doesn't or won't have a place in high-flown "probing" film criticism.
I used "critic" and "critically" in their more classic sense, i.e., one who judges the merits of a thing. And I'd much rather read/watch Siskel's opinions on anything than Ignatiy's. It would be unfair to compare the two on any other level, because I really don't think Siskel had a shred of interest in being a hardcore academic-style film critic. And it's not like he lacked the chops.
Ignatiy just comes off like someone overly desperate to be taken as a worldly intellectual. I find it a caricature, an accidental self-parody, and it makes him someone whose opinion I can't take take seriously, even if he can pump out something of academic merit. I have read some of his stuff, and it doesn't change my general impression. And I did not mean that Godard's later work is indefensible, or that one can't be taken seriously liking all of it, only that I found Ignatiy's review and defense of Film Socialisme eye-rolling, and I'm not convinced that if Godard made a joke movie that Ignatiy would get it.
I don't consider this anti-intellectualism, but anti-pseduo-intellectualism. I realize that these opinions are not universal and I have no interest in arguing over the intellectual merits of film writing or the difference between genuine intellectual thought and pseudo-intellectual mimicry, but I merely wanted to elaborate on what I wrote yesterday.
Well first off if you simply prefer watching Siskel on television then obviously that's fair enough. I still find it funny that you continue to mention "reading" Siskel, as that's basically impossible to do! His writing was completely disposable and is not available anywhere. Honestly though, it sounds to me like you are for some reason overly determined to pigeonhole Ignatiy into this model of the highfalutin puffed-up pseudo-intellectual type you obviously don't care for (and neither do I for that matter), and I simply see no such evidence that he is that kind of person at all. I've watched every episode of the show, and he comes off to me as basically a good-natured, smart guy with firm opinions and a huge, geeky passion for film. How is he "desperate to be taken as a worldly intellectual"? What are some tendencies he has that turn him into a "caricature" and "self-parody" as you posit? I simply don't see it. Sure, he'll reach back a handful of decades for an obscure reference here and there, is this the kind of thing you're talking about? I think it's refreshing, and as a film lover myself I enjoy hearing names of great, neglected directors such as Chabrol and Feuillade get a mention on national American televion. Overall I think he's developed a very relaxed, thoughtful presence on the show. He's not a "hardcore academic-style" critic either, not at all. His writing is certainly slanted towards an academic approach I would say, but I think this informs his TV style in only a very minor-degree, if at all.
Of course Ignatiy's defense of Film Socialisme on the show was dumb, as it's virtually impossible to discuss a movie like that in any meaningful way in 2 minutes 40 seconds or whatever - particularly when you have Christy sitting across the way haranguing you - and any attempt to do so would very possibly result in one coming across as precisely the kind of pseudo-intellectual strain you so depsise, a road Ignatiy likely purposefully sidestepped. He wrote a nice bit on it here if you're curious for some of his thoughts - http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/comment-on-no-comment
Why do people keep bringing up this notion of Godard making a "joke" movie? This is not the first time I've read someone proposing such a thing. So a man in his 80's, a rigorous intellectual who makes 2-3 movies a decade and likely has to move mountains to find financing, is going to do it all as some goof? So he can point his finger down at the cretins lapping up his joke and have a nice laugh at their expense? This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard. Are people really so frustrated by the prospect of engaging with his cinema that they must chalk it up to being a giant joke for the sake of shrugging it off their shoulders without a second though? I genuinely don't get it.
I think that if Ignatiy was so big on being treated seriously as an intellectual, he would probably write in a more formal way and wouldn't write so much about Jean-Claude Van Damme and Sylvester Stallone. I mean, of course he loves silent movies and film theory, but from what I gather in film critic circles he's known as the guy who writes really well about Tony Scott. For a "high-brow" guy, he likes a lot of low-brow stuff.
shareI actually read a bunch of Siskel's year-end review/lists through my LexisNexis account in college. They're good reads but yes, not really memorable.
I'm not really determined to "pigeonhole" anyone. It's just an honest reaction I had/have. He comes off like a poser grad student whose insecurities lead to overcompensation by needless citations to authority, tedious speech/writing, etc. I may be completely wrong, and he may soften and remove himself from the stereotype as the show goes on. And don't get me wrong: I think he's bright, and I welcome informed commentary that can make on-point references (the off-point ones are obnoxious, see below).
Thinking more about this, I think he's become more watchable as the show has developed. Early on, it struck me that they were trying to create a silly dichotomy between the two of them, with him eagerly adopting the pompous intellectual stereotype. It's gotten better, but there are still a variety of traits that I think push him towards character/tool territory:
-The "five films" episode. His choices seemed disingenuous, or at the very least that he didn't grasp the topic at hand. For one example, True Heart Susie is not a well-regarded Griffith film, and I can't see anyone seeking it out before Intolerance, Birth of a Nation, Broken Blossoms, Way Down East, etc. And I don't know anyone who has seen those films - much less True Heart Susie - who isn't already a huge film buff, if not an armchair critic. It's possible it "made" him a critic, but I think the odds are against it, as I have to think he was already there if he was that "deep" into cinema history.
-Going along with the above, check out this list:
http://soundsimages.blogspot.com/2011/01/paying-debts.html
He seems to have an almost perfect knack for hailing what are usually 2nd- or 3rd-choice films by various directors as the movies that "turned a corner" for him. To be fair to him, he says these aren't favorite/best films, but films that "sent him a new direction" (to where? Switzerland?). Call me skeptical, but if Antoine and Collete, The Soft Skin, and Two English Girls "sent him in a new direction," what did Jules and Jim or The 400 Blows do? Look at the selections from Wilder, Hawks, Bergman, Fuller, Struges, Vidor, etc. It seems almost uncanny to me.
The reason this makes me think he's playing to a stereotype is that it's a common trait among advanced students in the liberal arts, especially philosophy, English, comp. lit, etc. Many would rather be caught dead than admit that their favorite work by author x happens to also be the most popular, canonical choice, and many list completely obscure works as their favorite/most inspiring works not necessarily because they're their favorite books, but rather as a signal that they're well-read. It's not always disingenuous, but it often is. Film is no different, and looking over Ignaity's list, the simplest explanation seems to be that he cherry-picked titles to show his breadth. It's possible he has some weird disease that causes him to not move "in a new direction" after seeing a canonical film, but rather at the films that came after them from the same director, but I somehow doubt it.
-Randomly name-dropping references is not a sign of intelligence; it's a sign that one wants to show off intelligence.
This is his introduction to Kevin James' most recent movie:
Our next film, Zookeeper, is a drama whose alternatively playful and rigorous use of form manages to recall the works of both Tsui Hark and Maurice Pialat.
For most of the 20th century, American comedy was distinguished by its variety of strong rhythms: bossa nova (Wilder), waltz-time (Lubitsch, Chaplin), an escalating merengue (Edwards), polka (Taurog), tango (Tashlin, early Lewis), bebop (May). Albert Brooks was maybe the last American comedy director to introduce a major innovation in terms of structure and timing: great swelling, interlocking, tinkling accumulations of neurotic comic matter that eschewed the usual one-two of a punchline in favor of a steady build-up of offhand comments. From there—somewhere around the time, in the Reagan free-market 80s, when “convention” (a creative shortcut) was replaced by “formula” (an economic guarantee)—American comedy started to pay less and less attention to construction and rhythm. Maybe it’s because, while convention provides an expectation to be played with or against, formula imposes ratios and quotas; comedy, once the ultimate domain of directors and screenwriters (Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond, for example, even managed to make Jack Lemmon bearable), began to depend less on construction and more on delivery, especially on a sort of anti-virtuosic improvisation, where the comic effect lay less in how well an ad lib fit into a flow of planned activity, and more in how that flow was completely negated.
I thought Ignatiy is doing a great job - they both are working together well.
He has quite an extensive knowledge of films.
but he would love to watch a lot of John Carpenter films, what is with him and his love for Carpenter
share