New REVIEWS AND OTHERWISE: 1970s WESTERNS: CLINT EASTWOOD/GENRE DECONSTRUCTION

 The latest episode continues my occasional examination of 70s Westerns (essentially the last hurrah for the genre before it became mostly niche product seen in 80s art houses).  First 12 minutes on Clint Eastwood, with a shoutout to Burbank’s LexG and his comprehensive podcast episode on Clint’s career from Sergio Leone’s Man With No Name trilogy to 1990’s THE ROOKIE, which could be regarded (in spirit) as a better farewell to Dirty Harry Callahan than Clint and Buddy Van Horn’s THE DEAD POOL.

Remainder of the episode defines deconstruction of the Western as a conscious veering away from traditional storytelling by way of scripting, aesthetic choices, directorial/actor decisions.  Films discussed include McCABE AND MRS. MILLER, BUFFALO BILL AND THE INDIANS, BAD COMPANY (1972), THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JUDGE ROY BEAN, ZANDY’S BRIDE, THE MISSOURI BREAKS and PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID (with mentions of Sam Peckinpah’s later BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA and CONVOY).

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7pC8HI5tw0s6nlHVC4n88N?si=RZ6tnfK6RoifNrYiRp71NA&dl_branch=1

Examples of the writing of film critic Pauline Kael--subject of new biography and reviews collection.

Pauline Kael on A CLOCKWORK ORANGE http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0051.html

Kael's essay on Cary Grant "The Man From Dream City":
http://www.carygrant.net/articles/dream%20city.htm

Kael on LAST TANGO IN PARIS:
http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/834-last-tango-in-paris

Kael's controversial pre-release review of Robert Altman's NASHVILLE:
http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=1975-03-03#folio=079

And the review of BONNIE AND CLYDE that led to her being hired at THE NEW YORKER:
http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=1967-10-21#folio=147

Kevin Smith vs. Amy Taubin (ex-VILLAGE VOICE film critic): when filmmakers and critics fall out of love.

Here's another examination of the grey areas that filmmakers and film critics occasionally dwell in together:
http://www.indiewire.com/article/amy_taubin_responds_to_smith_attack_he_doesnt_want_to_get_into_the_substanc/

Kevin Smith's specific quote:
I always considered film critic Amy Taubin a friend. I was pretty sure she considered me a friend as well, as she called me after the Village Voice let her go, asking if I could help her get a book deal. Over the years, Amy hasn’t always liked the films I made, but at least she never made up horse-shit in her reviews. However, in a Sundance 2011 piece she filed with Film Comment, she lost my respect by being as “careless and heavy-handed” at her job (in print) as she insisted I was at my job (in film) by suggesting nobody would’ve bought Red State.

The above reminds me of when Pauline Kael (the legendary NEW YORKER film critic) turned on Robert Altman after the first half of the 1970s.

At one point, Altman even showed Kael a rough cut of NASHVILLE so the latter could write about it--ensuring Altman would get his way regarding the film's three-hour theatrical running time.

That relationship ended a year later when Kael was underwhelmed by Altman's BUFFALO BILL AND THE INDIANS (an underrated mashup of Western motifs and sharp-edged parody of Show Business).

And here's the blog entry from Kevin Smith mentioning Taubin in the midst of discussing the forthcoming theatrical/VOD distribution of RED STATE: http://silentbobspeaks.com/?p=416

Another conniption fit from Richard Schickel--this time about film criticism.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/03/over_the_hill.php

After a recent takedown of the late Robert Altman, film critic/hagiographer/professional scold Richard Schickel [who, at his best, gave the world the 70s PBS miniseries THE MEN WHO MADE THE MOVIES and made the restored-and-expanded reissue of Sam Fuller's THE BIG RED ONE possible] lurched into action at a recent film critics' panel at UCLA's Billy Wilder Theater at West L.A.'s Hammer Museum recently.

I'll sort-of-agree with Schickel that nowadays newspapers and magazines want film critics to be
cheerleaders for current mainstream product (evidencing the career of Betsy Sharkey at
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES).

But Schickel can't help but to blurt out dumb insults of online film critics (that he allegedly doesn't read) and defame Ain't-It-Cool News founder Harry Knowles solely for his physical appearance.

As I said in the Hollywood Elsewhere comments section, Schickel--in a perfect world--would be best off founding a website/critics' blog (a la Glenn Kenny's SOME CAME RUNNING) with, say, ex-NEWSWEEK critic David Ansen.

Then, Schickel (provided he was willing to do the work) could write only about the current domestic and international films that come up his personal standards.

Richard Schickel's nuclear hatred of Robert Altman--as man and filmmaker.

It's official now: Richard Schickel, longtime film critic/essayist/enemy of Hollywood Commies/hagiographer of Clint Eastwood, doesn't like Robert Altman. Here's Schickel dumping on a new oral history of Altman, while grudgingly admitting to partially liking McCABE AND MRS. MILLER, NASHVILLE and CALIFORNIA SPLIT:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-book22-2009oct22,0,2690542.story

[UPDATE 10/30/09] Since Schickel's review was published, there's been a fair amount of disagreement going on, from LA TIMES film gossip columnist Patrick Goldstein to filmmaker/Altman disciple Alan Rudolph. Here's an excerpt from a letter actor Jim Beaver (DEADWOOD) wrote to the TIMES (found this on USENET's group rec.arts.movies.past-films):
However, the fact that no one I know who takes film seriously has much respect left for Schickel's opinions does not lessen the intensity with which we feel bewildered and often angered with how he has become some sort of éminence grise in the public eye, the wise and irrefutable voice of "film history" as represented in TV specials and DVD commentaries. Publications such as the Times and organizations such as the AFI and many other public dispensers of information or perceived wisdom about film history often turn to "experts" such as Schickel who have managed the leap from reviewing movies to a hallowed place where they are the authority of first resort whenever a book on film needs reviewing or a talking head is needed on CNN after a film legend has died. I know hundreds of people who know more, understand more, and are able to discourse more usefully on film than Richard Schickel ever could, yet I daresay he is asked to review more books on film than any other reviewer in America. This latest diatribe is perhaps the most flagrant example of his unsuitability for the unelected post he has been raised to. I hope at some point the brand known as "Richard Schickel" stops being pasted onto every article relating to film and that actual, as opposed to presumed, experts be given a chance. I bear Mr. Schickel no malice and am grateful for his early contributions to my knowledge of film. But enough is enough. His slander of Robert Altman ices a cake that is far too stale.

Some quick opinionating on WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE.

To put things in historical context, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is probably the first major-studio children's/family film with a tres hipster pedigree since 1980's POPEYE--a collaboration involving director Robert Altman, writer Jules Feiffer and singer/songwriter Harry Nilsson.

And, at its best, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is a much more watchable, harmonious blend of the sensibilities of director Spike Jonze and co-scenarist Dave Eggers (WILD THINGS, like the Eggers/Vendela Vida/Sam Mendes AWAY WE GO, has the same finding-your-place-in-the-world throughline) than the collective efforts of POPEYE's creative braintrust.

One fears, though, that the starts-out-frenetic-ends-up-thoughtful tone of WILD THINGS may be too subtle and offputting for mass audiences from its second weekend in theaters onwards.

(It's easy to imagine that Jonze got a lot of Warner Bros. development notes pleading for him to dub in some fart noises when young Max and all the creatures collapse into a big pile before going to sleep at night.)