The hypocrisy of Mark Kermode and film critics

[Funcrusher]

I honestly much prefer Kim Newman (and Nigel Floyd and others) on genre stuff to Kermode. I don't even think Kermode is much of a reviewer of geek/horror/exploitation/genre stuff, but he really isn't up to reviewing more heavyweight auterist cinema. He's essentially a horror/exploitation geek and he should stick to what he knows, but he's been cannily building his profile for years and now he's snared Phillip French's reviewing spot, one of the most prestigious ones. In fairness, he's more qualified for the job than Peter fucking Bradshaw who seemed to have no real qualifications when he took over from Derek Malcolm at The Guardian. Still, Phillip French is being replaced by someone who's favourite film of all time is The Exorcist.

[Bill]

I think the bit Scorsese's been pulled up for is the ending. This is the part of the film where (to a rendition of Sid Vicious' My Way) you have Joe Pesci firing a gun straight at the viewer. Dunno if the studio made him ad-hoc it, but it does basically undermine everything that came before.

The end is a homage to the end of the short silent film The Great Train Robbery, though, since it cuts the scene with Hill on his doorstep as he turns his back, I also infer it to mean (whether intentional or not) that he will always have to be looking over his shoulder, and/or that the mob will get him eventually.

[batwings]

The end is a homage to the end of the short silent film The Great Train Robbery, though, since it cuts the scene with Hill on his doorstep as he turns his back, I also infer it to mean (whether intentional or not) that he will always have to be looking over his shoulder, and/or that the mob will get him eventually.

IIRC Scorsese confirmed that the last shot was about Hill always having to worry about the mob catching up to him. I think it was in a documentary and interview with Mark Cousins in which Scorsese went over his filmography.

[Noodle Lizard]

I have a love-hate relationship with Kermode.  Some things I think he's really right about, other times I think he's a smug contrarian who says things more or less for the sake of having something to say, and sometimes transparently allows his personal relationship with a filmmaker or their films to fuck up his critical faculties.  And all that shit about how he doesn't watch TV is just annoying.

His recent book 'The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex' is alright, his opinions on the industry itself are more or less worthwhile and I suppose it's kind of refreshing that one of the most well-known film critics in the country is often opposed to the mainstream when deserved, and does a fairly good job of promoting older, sometimes forgotten films to his listeners (he was instrumental in my taking an interest in 'The Devils', which now sits somewhere in my top 50).

I don't get why he thinks 'The Exorcist' is the best film ever made, really[nb]it's almost demonstrably not, and there's actually some surprisingly clunky narrative editing early on in the film[/nb] but it's not like he's saying 'Titanic' is the best film ever made as one of my film professors did.  And his affinity for horror is not something I've had much cause to doubt - he's one of the only critics who quite rightly knocked a few of horror's more recent darlings ('Paranormal Activity', 'Insidious', 'The Conjuring') down a few pegs.

So yeah, he's sort of alright.  As far as "big" critics go, I'd rather it be him than many of the other possibilities.  Is Claudia Winkleman still giving it a go?

[CaledonianGonzo]

"the bitch is dead."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_%28novel%29#Plot

[checkoutgirl]

Kermode is just one man. He is solid on horror and can be quite funny when he kicks off. See the Sex and The City 2 and Pirates of The Carribean 3 reviews for excellent Kermode rants. Occasionally he hasn't really got a clue what he's talking about but he's a human being and can't know everything. More often lately it's hard to know if he liked a film or not and that's all I really want to know these days. Did you like it ? Fucking just tell me if you liked it or not goddamnit. They should force him to give every film a rating. Stars, percentages, letters or whatever.

It bothers me that he never watches telly or plays computer games and seems really proud of that. It would enrich his reference palette and improve him as a reviewer to watch some telly, if even the top quality stuff from America. He seems to think it beneath him or inferior. Shame that. The long form of something like Breaking Bad beats the pants off most films and there's a case for saying that American serials have taken over cinema as the premiere visual artform today. Kermode is missing out on pretty much all of that and that is a problem I think.

I will never watch a Kermode review before a film I intend to watch because he often spoils a film by saying "Story is..." and then giving away half the plot. He's terrible for that kind of thing, especially if he didn't like the film. I tend to not take any reviewer as gospel and at the start of the day, reviewers are a part of the entertainment industry and need to be entertaining with their reviews. I find Kermode very entertaining, in particular when he hates a film. They're the reviews I go for first because I love a good long hate filled rant/meltdown.

[graffic]

I'm not sure what you expect to happen in a film about the Mafia, if not money and molls, but I found their lifestyle incredibly un-glamorous.

Again, having seen the film, and being aware of what things I find to be glamorous, such as attractive women, nice clothes, money etc, I would disagree and kind of think the opposite of that.

They're not sitting around pools surrounded by Playboy Playmates or driving fast cars, they're generally just hanging out in smoke filled bars or diners, in between killing people and being arrested. Even the capo himself, Paulie, is seen cooking a fry up in a grubby restaurant.

They're sitting around the best tables in the restaurant getting waitered on with the best service and some of the most attractive women at their side.

The absolute very first thing that happens is they brutally stab to death Billy Batts, because they fucked up killing him earlier (itself a fuck up, because he was 'made'), and from then it's one slaying and fuck up after another.

Yes. That is correct. My point is that the inconvenience of these "fuck ups" does not put a wet flannel on the whole thing because a lot of the time they are shown to be having a great time and to be very much on top of the situation.

Henry is arrested no less than three times in the film, and jailed for 10 years mid-way, along with Jimmy. After being released, Jimmy slaughters most of his crew because he's paranoid and scared after Stacks fucks up the disposal of the van, and Tommy is whacked because he and Jimmy stupidly killed Batts. They even fuck up the burial of Batts and have to dig him up and bury him again.

Yeah he gets arrested which is celebrated by his friends when he comes out and then when he gets sent down they have a "special" prison place where they all stay together and eat dinners and drink wine together.

None of that is what I'd consider being effortlessly cool or on top of the situation.

Again, having seen the film, i.e having sat down and watched it from beginning to end, I kind of think the opposite of that.

[graffic]

Well, as you point out, everything goes wrong in the end... Henry becomes an "average nobody" and gets "to live the rest of (his) life like a schnook."

Thats another greasy thing about Goodfellas is the impoverished ending where they try and romanticise Henry Hill's attitude as if he is some sort of anarchist or punk with the lines about "live the rest of life like a schnook and average nobody."

That left a foul taste in my mouth, as if the preceding several hours of pointless violence, continual swearing and neanderthal behaviour wasn't bad enough.

[Famous Mortimer]

neanderthal behaviour

Is the flea-picking on the extended edition?

[checkoutgirl]

neanderthal behaviour wasn't bad enough.

If there's one thing Good Fellows thought me it's that neandarthal behaviour is indeed "bad enough". It's extremely bad enough. Too bad enough if anything.

Greasy too.

[checkoutgirl]

having seen the film, i.e having sat down and watched it from beginning to end

Thanks for defining what you meant by "having seen the film". Before you explained it I thought "having seen the film" meant spreading Nutella on your scrotum and getting the dog to lick it off.

[Famous Mortimer]

Having read this thread, i.e. filled the washing machine and made a cuppa, I have nothing more to say.

[checkoutgirl]

Having read your post Famous, i.e met the President of Russia on a small yacht on the Dead Sea, I concur with your concluding sentiment.

[kidsick5000]

my problem with him is he doesn't know anything other than film. I remember him coming out of a cinema to review Enter the Void, and all he could do was talk camera angles and budgets - the philosophical centrepiece of the whole thing completely eluded him.

I think you may have nailed the reason he infamously doesn't get comedies  (apart from the pre-approved greats like The Producers)

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Hasn't he recanted his absurd position on not watching TV? I remember reading an article a couple of years ago when he sat down and actually watched the likes of Mad Men, The Wire and Doctor Who, the quality of which made him realise he'd spent years missing out on a massively important part of culture. The big galoot.

[Bill]

IIRC Scorsese confirmed that the last shot was about Hill always having to worry about the mob catching up to him. I think it was in a documentary and interview with Mark Cousins in which Scorsese went over his filmography.

Thanks. Hadn't seen that but found it on Youtube, and with it some other interesting stuff. Pity it's from 1998, it would have been nice to hear him talk about his more recent films.

Yes. That is correct. My point is that the inconvenience of these "fuck ups" does not put a wet flannel on the whole thing because a lot of the time they are shown to be having a great time and to be very much on top of the situation.

So your objection is that Goodfellas does what basically every crime/action film does; the bad guys 'win' for a while before losing?

[Sony Walkman Prophecies]

Sony Walkman Prophecies, I wouldn't normally get my in-depth reviews of films from someone thirty seconds after they'd finished watching the film. Also, is it possible that your, er, somewhat left-field philosophical interests aren't shared by Kermode, and that's why you don't reckon much about him?

Could well be. I like Kermode too btw - I like listening to him if only for the fact he's utterly unrestrained by whatever medium he's working in. The Keromode/Mayo double act is also possibly the best thing since Smith & Jones as a piece of two-way cabaret.

Nonetheless, I do think he's a bit top-heavy when it comes to film history. I'm never sure he's able to do much with a film that has a difficult, not always philosophical point, to put across.

But at least he sniffed out Revolver for the psuedo-mystical bollocks it was. Would just have been nice if he'd been able to better express why.

[Sony Walkman Prophecies]

I honestly much prefer Kim Newman (and Nigel Floyd and others) on genre stuff to Kermode. I don't even think Kermode is much of a reviewer of geek/horror/exploitation/genre stuff, but he really isn't up to reviewing more heavyweight auterist cinema. He's essentially a horror/exploitation geek and he should stick to what he knows, but he's been cannily building his profile for years and now he's snared Phillip French's reviewing spot, one of the most prestigious ones. In fairness, he's more qualified for the job than Peter fucking Bradshaw who seemed to have no real qualifications when he took over from Derek Malcolm at The Guardian. Still, Phillip French is being replaced by someone who's favourite film of all time is The Exorcist.

My utterly limited and barely conscious time spent working on magazines has taught me these 'gigs' generally get thrown to whoever happens to be earshot when the job comes up. Still, it's as good a method as any. The alternative is to insist that everyone have an MA in Film Studies and thus every review becomes a virtually unreadable discourse in post-gender symbolism that only 5 people can understand.

[Sony Walkman Prophecies]

IIRC Scorsese confirmed that the last shot was about Hill always having to worry about the mob catching up to him. I think it was in a documentary and interview with Mark Cousins in which Scorsese went over his filmography.

But then, why the unrepentant My Way at the end? It introduces an element of rebellion and glamour that's at odds with the rest of the film.

[Glebe]

But then, why the unrepentant My Way at the end? It introduces an element of rebellion and glamour that's at odds with the rest of the film.

Apparently Scorsese wanted to use the original 'My Way', but they either couldn't get the rights or permission to use it. But I always felt that the use of the Sid Vicious version was a kind of cheeky 'It's all gone pear-shaped' send-off.

[graffic]

So your objection is that Goodfellas does what basically every crime/action film does; the bad guys 'win' for a while before losing?

Yes, as I already said there are a number of things to make a film about other than crime.

People that are already nasty who like these films I view with suspicion because they watch the film to re-affirm their negative mindset and justify their behavior because they've seen it in a film. There are also totally normal people who like Soprano's and Goodfella's for example, but then there's the contingent who watch it because deep down they think violence is ok and sympathise with the gangster mindset and the "art" value of these films is overplayed because they are mostly just thoroughly nasty films.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

There are also totally normal people who like Soprano's and Goodfella's for example, but then there's the contingent who watch it because deep down they think violence is ok and sympathise with the gangster mindset and the "art" value of these films is overplayed because they are mostly just thoroughly nasty films.

It's inevitable that maniacs and fools will always miss the point of certain pieces of art.

[Dusty Substance]

I'm constantly conflicted about my feelings towards Kermode. I was always aware of him from his appearences introducing horror films on Channel 4 but only started to listen to the Radio 5 about four years ago but now only watch/listen to the isolated reviews on You Tube as I have no interest in the sport and travel updates and there's only so much Simon Mayo I can take.

As for Kermode's hypocrisy, this is something I hear all the time. Take these following examples:

His glowing review of 'the Calibrian goat herding movie' La Quattro Volte (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc3PDXapDOs) in which he praises the director's choice to focus on the delicate aspects of nature, but when in Gus Van Sant's Last Days(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ4f5OS5Cow at 2 minutes) the camera lingers on a tree, it's mind numbingly boring and the worst film of the year.

Another example of his hypocrisy was the difference between the running, pointing and constant exposition of Angels And Demons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdKWoi0PMWg) and the very similar running, pointing and constant exposition of Inception (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTTBrci2_oE). Neither film I personally cared for for basically the same reasons, but with Kermode, one was 'intergalactically stupid' and the other became his favourite film of 2010 and he still uses it as a reference point for 'intelligent' cinema.

[Famous Mortimer]

To be fair, he probably didn't say the running, pointing and constant exposition was his favourite bit of "Inception" (and I probably liked it more than most, so feel free to take my opinion with a pinch of salt).

[Sony Walkman Prophecies]

Yet for all his faults, he absolutely nails time and again why Tarantino is such an awful director, and why he could be so much better.

[Famous Mortimer]

Not that it perhaps means much, but Kermode was a great deal more generous with his time at the Sheffield Documentary Festival than any of the other directors or panels - going for an hour with his Q&A, compared to 15-20 minutes for everyone else (and he'd have gone longer, but he needed to go across and introduce another film in another venue).