Klaus Eder talking film criticism with moderator Dilani Rabindran |
Obviously such generalities are flawed though, and that's demonstrated by my first real disappointment of the festival. Selfless is a film that’s equal parts documentary, sermon, and Terrence Malick movie as it examines modern technology and social media dependence, on which it blames most problems facing today’s teenagers. It doesn’t seem to understand the neutrality of technology and social media though, that they’re only symptoms of much larger social and cultural institutions that don’t go away when you turn off your phone. Nor can the film grasp the irony of decrying the artificiality of such things whilst filtering and manufacturing most of its content to better align with its preconceived point. It’s a real shame this doc refused to plume to the root issues with the internet age and social media, interrogating the information it yields rather than the means in which that information is received; instead dwelling on superficial concerns from a decade ago, wistfully idolizing a British family who live off the grid, indulging in hollow acclamations on life and beauty, and affording screen-time to one of the most obnoxiously condescending human beings as an expert.
My palette was thoroughly cleansed of this film though by attending Klaus Eder's master class "What Are Film Critics Good For?" It's always a delight to hear other critics discussing criticism, and especially when the man in question has served on the juries of Venice, TIFF, and Cannes, and came up in the profession during the height of the German New Wave (as he mentions a few times). He talked of the differences between European and North American critics, what the democratization of information and opinions has meant for art criticism, and defined real criticism as educating the public, encouraging them to think deeper about film and learn its history. Yet he was open to admitting to the subjective nature of criticism, that a films' merits can't be objectively determined; that a movies' resonance with the viewer is the most important thing. The greatest validation for a critic he explained is when someone goes to a movie and enjoys it because of his review. But of course, he seemed to have a dim view of much of modern cinema, which he expressed as much through his silence as otherwise, stating that he prefers old films as he gets older. I didn't agree with all of his points, but it was a wonderful, enlightening discussion nonetheless.
I watched another German film afterwards, Break Free -Two People, Two Years, One Dream about a couple embarking on a road trip through Africa intended as six months but becoming two years. It's a journey of self-discovery as they find themselves in various communities, forging relationships, and enduring harsh conditions and illnesses, while being blockaded by political and bureaucratic red tape. It's charming and interesting, vivid at times, but with the pacing of a nature documentary. It also doesn't so much end as just stop, which was a bit jarring.
Trevor Herriott, Jennifer Baichwal, Sue Deranger, and Jared Clarke |
Of all the presentations I attended yesterday, the Anthropocene showing and panel had the most legitimacy behind its condemnation of the modern world. And its implications will be on my mind through the rest of the festival and beyond.
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/jbosch/
Comments
Post a Comment