Stupendous examples of critics wanting to be "contrarians" and embarrassing themselves to no end

D'oh...

For example, here:

http://www.avclub.com/content/node/6851

All About Eve

Reviewed by Scott Tobias
January 31st, 2003
In the better of two commentary tracks on the new All About Eve DVD, biographer Kenneth Geist sees the film as a potent expression of writer-director Joseph L. Mankiewicz's rivalry with his brother Herman, an Algonquin wit who had won an Oscar for writing Citizen Kane nine years earlier. Though the film's acerbic dialogue has won it numerous accolades, from a record number of Oscar nominations (and wins for Picture, Director, Actor, and Screenplay) to a high-camp reputation as "the bitchiest film ever made," Mankiewicz's relentlessly stylized banter does have a faint undercoating of desperation. While the lines sound great coming from the forked tongues of actors like Bette Davis and George Sanders, much of the script has the ring of wit without quite approximating the real thing—it's anchored by a bilious cynicism that attempts to pass for wisdom about human nature and the theater world. For a script so routinely anointed as one of Hollywood's best, All About Eve remains a conspicuously shallow and bloodless piece of writing, short on insight and long on unalloyed bitterness, revealing Mankiewicz to be so in touch with creative vanity that he's in love with his own voice. The film might have been remembered differently were it not for Bette Davis, who nearly wasn't cast in the career-defining role of a fading Broadway star whose fortunes mirrored Davis' real-life crises to an uncanny degree. Her catty readings have made her a cult icon, but few actors have been capable of making misbehavior seem so soulful; the more she unravels, the more love she inspires. (As Sanders aptly puts it, "You're maudlin and full of self-pity. You're marvelous.") But Mankiewicz isn't nearly as generous with Anne Baxter, who's all ruthless, hollow ambition as a faux-naïve ingenue who slithers into Davis' theater circle and ruins their lives in order to advance her career. Introduced as Davis' biggest fan, Baxter ingratiates herself with false modesty and flattery, soon becoming the star's personal assistant, and gaining access to Davis' director husband (Gary Merrill) and the hottest playwright (Hugh Marlowe) in town. As the primary narrator and Mankiewicz's on-screen surrogate, theater critic Sanders gets the most cutting one-liners, but his way of presiding over everyone is indicative of the smug knowingness that poisons the film. Mankiewicz pins his characters like samples under a microscope, but his clinical eye doesn't allow for an ounce of humanity, and at worst, he has the audacity to create an empty shell like Baxter only to have Sanders punish her self-righteously for it. In the end, All About Eve is more Baxter than Davis: It's a smooth and technically proficient performer that has, to paraphrase the film, an award where its heart ought to be.

Seriously, WTF? That has to be the most mindless thing I've read

because you disagree with it?

Well do you agree with it?

no, but it's an opinion, argued intelligently... i don't see what's mindless about it, nor embarrassing really. it's not like it's even all in-your-face-challopsy either. criticizing sacred cows doesn't really bother me that much as a rule.

It just doesn't seem particularly-well argued to me - for one thing, it doesn't give good examples - and comes across as self-consciously contrarian with a certain glee for shooting this sacred cow. How is the script "bloodless," really? Why should Eve have been given more humanity if that would've diluted her deception? But perhaps I just disagree with him on what constitutes "depth" and what's effective as dark satire

I wonder if other universally-recognized "witty" scripts have been characterized as shallow

will the embarrassment ever stop

where is contrarians thread

I'm going to speak my peace at the risk of shocking a lot of people I respect, and maybe even pissing a lot of them off for good. His great films, like All About Eve or The Barefoot Contessa, were very striking within the parameters of contemporary American cinema at the time they were made, but now I have no desire whatsoever to see them again. I was astonished when Juliet Berto and I saw All About Eve again 25 years ago at the Cinémathèque. I wanted her to see it for a project we were going to do together before Céline and Julie Go Boating. Except for Marilyn Monroe, she hated every minute of it, and I had to admit that she was right: every intention was underlined in red, and it struck me as a film without a director! Mankiewicz was a great producer, a good scenarist and a masterful writer of dialogue, but for me he was never a director. His films are cut together any which way, the actors are always pushed towards caricature and they resist with only varying degrees of success. Here's a good definition of mise en scène -- it's what's lacking in the films of Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Whereas Preminger is a pure director. In his work, everything but the direction often disappears. It's a shame that Dragonwyck wasn't directed by Jacques Tourneur.

The AV Club can be a little sophomoric, and the review in question commits the obvious mistake of not talking so much about the movie but rather about how the author reacted to the movie's worldview.

But I think he's entitled to reject All About Eve (or any movie at all) on those grounds. The movie does have a certain annoying perezhiltonness: it's catty, bitter, affected, judgemental and confused about blind materialism, which it at once rejects and embraces. So that guy is not really off base.

The fact is that we don't like to see the stuff we value rejected by others, but that's how real life works. People who express shock when they meet an opinion they dislike should be prepared to defend their own POV instead of just appealing to some kind of group consensus.

very intention was underlined in red, and it struck me as a film without a director! Mankiewicz was a great producer, a good scenarist and a masterful writer of dialogue, but for me he was never a director. His films are cut together any which way, the actors are always pushed towards caricature and they resist with only varying degrees of success.

Pauline Kael otm re Eve: "Ersatz art of a very high grade, and one of the most enjoyable movies ever made."

I'd argue that Mankiewicz's weaknesses caught up with him post-AAE.

it's sort of a cliche to reply like this, but i think i agree with that piece about All About Eve. (like the thread title though :) )

no dr.morbius posts yet?

The AV Club is pretty consistently fantastic.

Tobias at his most OTM

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/NewAnswersControllerServlet?boardid=41

AV Club frequently comes off like Pitchfork's annoying younger brother who won't stfu about how he's just as smart and good-looking and funny as the big guy

i think i took issue less with the fact that i agreed with the article than the idea that it was "stupendous," "embarrassing" and "mindless"

Those adjectives are my opinion, yes, and in regards to Vision I don't think he's substantial at all in his criticism when dismissing the movie as being "shallow," by rejecting and objecting to its catty tone. The review is shallow. The movie is unmistakably "campy," but still successful in its irony and satire, and this review misses its point

"but that's how real life works. "

We're talking about artistic media & criticism on ilx, why are you bringing up "real life" ?

Here's the best defense of Mank I've ever read:

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/05/mankiewicz.html

I always think calling dudes out for challops reflects worse on you than the challoperative

i dont think the offending article has the cocksure swagger of the challoperative.

lol @ challoperative

I always think calling dudes out for challops reflects worse on you than the challoperative

― czn (cozwn), Sunday, November 2, 2008 5:52 PM (58 minutes ago)

That makes absolutely no sense.

you calling czn a challoperator?

No need to ask
He's a challoperator

vision, I mean take ppl at their word else it's all second guessing and no-fun for no-one

s1ocki, how can rightly denouncing something make you look worse than whatever it is you're denouncing? Not pointing out what you consider patently wrong could amount to tacit, cliquish backscratching between equally wrong people.

czn, I see what you mean, in this sense you're correct, but afterwards you're still entitled to express agreement or disagreement with what's being said. In order to be fruitful and engaging, exchange of ideas/opinions tend to be somewhat confrontational, otherwise it becomes a Larry King interview.

Ned, you don't know what you're talking about.

yeah, I agree; more often than not tho a 'thank you for your challops' response is used to shut down discussion, dismiss whoever's being 'contrary' and not engage w/their ideas - this is fair enough if their just one-line trolling but in the excerpt above I think the writer has put his pts across intelligently and thoughtfully and deserves the dignity of a real response

no-offense vic

A license to snark, star ratings to hold.
Melts all your Rotten Tomatoes into gold.
His eyes are like angels but his art is cold.

what does 'challops' mean?

it's a contraction of "challenging opinions"

I realize the term "challops" has been abused somewhat, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but the whole "challenging opinions" meme got started in reaction to two slightly different but overlapping related things: A. commonly-held-if-not-necessarily-popular opinions presented as if they're a shocking new truth that the poster just unloaded in your face, sucka! or B. Unoriginal, insincere attempts at tolling by being "provocative".

It has nothing to do with sincerely argued, well reasoned arguments for or against something.

criticizing sacred cows doesn't really bother me that much as a rule.

No, but it bothers me when it is the only rule.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51REB2KPMPL._SS500_.jpg

lovin latebloomer debunking the challoptical illusion

SHIT wrong image

http://contentcafe2.btol.com/ContentCafe/Jacket.aspx?UserID=buymusic&Password=bt0109&Value=1569802769&Type=M&Return=T

loving the term "challoptical illusion"

it's sort of a cliche to reply like this, but i think i agree with that piece about All About Eve.

I kinda do, too! But then again, Bette Davis.

I basically think of AV Club as the place where every movie gets a B+ unless it was either directed by David Fincher or, conversely, stars Paris Hilton.

Also, I can't see how calling out a movie like All About Eve in AV Club really counts as contrarianism. Treasure of the Sierra Madre maybe, but ...

I take issue with everything said on this thread...EVEN THIS POST.

Bold! :)

I GOT YR CHALLOPS RIGHT HERE.

You know you're a man when your challops descend

The AV Club is pretty consistently fantastic.

― Tape Store, Sunday, November 2, 2008 10:16 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark

please be serious

haha not that i wouldnt take a job there or something

Very much serious! I should clarify, though; I'm talking film reviews, not music.

lol deej watch ur back in case any of them are reading this thread!!!!!!

av club has the movie reviews i most consistently agree with, for better or for worse

their movie reviews are ok, but the reviewers always seem to want to qualify everything they say, as if they're afraid of their own opinions.

The Barefoot Contessa is amusing crap.