The author of the piece comes from a base of fans for whom Star Wars is unquestionably one of the pillars of movie art, along with what else I can only guess. His distaste for the "hilariously damning review" (by John Simon) derives from the assumption that the first Star Wars installment, released in 1977, is an inviolable film masterwork: "When Star Wars came out in 1977, nobody knew it would become the classic that we all recognize today. Some people were skeptical, for sure. But few reviewers were as hilariously savage as John Simon, with New York Magazine, who called it 'a set of giant baubles manipulated by an infant mind.'"
The author offers "some choice passages from Simon’s review," which I won't repeat here. Simon was possessed of two things that sometimes acted against each other: acute discernment and a sometimes brutal means of expressing it. While recognizing that shooting ducks in a barrel wasn't very sporting, he occasionally couldn't resist the sheer fun of it. Simon's conclusion ("Still, Star Wars will do very nicely for those lucky enough to be children or unlucky enough never to have grown up.") was virtually identical to Stanley Kauffmann's assessment: "This picture was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world’s affairs or—in any complex way—sex intruded. Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers and their peers guard the portals of American innocence, and Star Wars is an unabashed, jaw-clenched tribute to the chastity still sacred beneath the middle-aged spread."
When the 3rd installment of the Star Wars franchise was released, in 1982 I think, Simon appeared on ABC News Nightline in a "debate" with Chicago movie reviewers Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. Simon repeated his opinion that the Star Wars films were made for kids, both underage and overgrown, and that they were trying to make kids dumber. Siskel & Ebert, smiling like they were in firm possession of the high ground, played straight into Simon's argument first by questioning Simon's upbringing (the only explanation they can imagine for why he chooses not to revisit his childhood), and by pointing out the overwhelming popularity of the films among children. Siskel told Simon he should've been with him at a matinee, surrounded by delighted kids who easily identified the good guys and the bad guys, cheering and booing in perfect synchronization (I'm paraphrasing).
What Simon should've asked Siskel was what was he doing sitting among a throng of squealing kids at an matinee? Didn't he feel even the slightest bit out of place? And would he try to smuggle a child into an audience of grownups at an R-rated movie, at the risk of getting kicked out of the theater? (I argued before that the MPAA ratings should cut both ways. Adults should be prevented from watching films marketed to children. But, of course, Star Wars wasn't marketed exclusively to kids. It was given a PG rating, after all - albeit there wasn't much parental guidance at Siskel's matinee.)
John Simon, like myself, probably had a perfectly normal childhood, of a normal duration, ending some time in his mid-teens when self-knowledge and knowledge of the ways of the world impelled him to turn away from childhood and embrace adulthood. Speaking for myself, if you had asked me when I was 12 what I wanted to be when I grew up, I am confident that I would've replied that I wanted to be an adult. That's all. My profession was unimportant. I saw my childish condition as manifestly, if necessarily, unfair. I was at a disadvantage - one that grownups capitalized on. I wasn't taken seriously because I was a child. And, of course, adults who used physical violence against me as a form of coercion did so precisely because I was too small to defend myself. Why is it that no one remembers this about being a child, but only the endless process of discovery and wonder that is the natural result of being new to everything?
I read comic books when I was a kid and loved watching Western movies and cheered when the cavalry arrived in the nick of time to save the white settlers from the clutches of the the savage "injuns". Even John Ford's "masterpiece" The Searchers is informed by this creed. My heroes were Johnny Unitas and Wilt Chamberlain and Hank Aaron. I thrilled to the Leatherstocking Tales of James Fenimore Cooper. On TV, I watched Daniel Boone and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and The Munsters. But when I arrived in my teens, I saw Fellini's La Strada (because it had two Hollywood stars, Anthony Quinn and Richard Basehart) and I was inadvertently made aware of a whole world of films that had been deliberately kept from me, just as they were kept from most Americans, by a monopolizing Hollywood.
What ultimately determines the value of any work - a book, a piece of music, a film? Not the opinions of critics, no matter how learned and deftly expressed. Longevity decides. Will it still be known and celebrated in 20, 50, 100 years? Only posterity will tell. Ask a film producer if he cares what posterity will say of his film. He only cares about the film's first run. Not even a cult following can make up for a film's disastrous first showing. The vast majority of what are stupidly called art-house films (by a generation of doofuses) are also known as "niche" productions. They aren't expected to make a killing at the box office. So when they don't, no one is surprised. But if a blockbuster bombs (the word blockbuster was first applied to an actual bomb), it sends shock waves through the film industry. A manufactured product designed expressly to put butts in movie theater seats has failed to function. The butts failed to materialize in sufficient numbers to offset the enormous cost of the production. Careers are in peril.
What can be done to prevent it? Is there no algorithm that can be used to guarantee box office receipts? I can tell you from experience, just as every other experiened critic can tell you, that there is no connection at all between critical success and sales. What is good and what sells exist in different dimensions that never touch. A good film can sometimes sell, but it is unlikely to. What sells, to the extent of its popularity, is mostly bad, but not invariably so.
The clash of sensibilities that the aforementioned Star Wars article highlights is not, of course, an isolated event. It happens whenever a believer comes in contact with the expressed views of a skeptic. I wrote about a similar encounter at the beginning of this month. A website for fans of J.R.R. Tolkien published a review of The Lord of the Rings (by Edmund Wilson) that was highly unfavorable. It was inconceivable to these fans that everyone couldn't share in their unquestioning enthusiasm for the books. Of course, it was also inconceivable to them that a literary world could exist in which Tolkien wasn't among the greatest writers who ever lived, even if they were unacquainted with the writing of Flaubert, Joyce, Mann, Fitzgerald, or any other writer whose work is esteemed to be great. Edmund Wilson came from such a literary world. Which is why, when his job as a professional literary critic required him to read Tolkien's books, because some misguided critics had praised their literary qualities, he had to denounce Tolkien as a writer for children. More recently, Harold Bloom denounced J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter books for identical reasons.(1)
John Simon came from a world of film that Star Wars fans know nothing about. It is a world in which the standards were set by films that no Star Wars fan has probably even heard of. So when Simon was required in 1977, as the film critic of the weekly New York Magazine, to express his judgement of the first Star Wars movie, it wasn't at all in accordance with the feelings of its fans. Simon saw it as a poorly written, clumsily executed (however buttressed it was by technical effects) dud aimed at undiscerning children and adults whose childhoods never ended. It's no wonder, then, that Ebert & Siskel took exception to Simon's judgement, even if, as critics, they were miserably unequal to Simon's standard. Had they been book reviewers (which is unlikely), they would've mistaken Stephen King's phenomenal success as some dubious proof of literary prowess, not knowing that sales is never enough of a guarantee of quality.
(1) “The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character stretched his legs’. I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling’s mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.”
No comments:
Post a Comment