Tangler ...

So, Tangler, does that mean that your idea of a good film critic, a valid and intelligent film critic, a wise and interesting film critic whom we should all love to read is some fluffernutter on crustless white who happily sits there gushing all vainly goody-goody, "ooh, I just love Zuckerbabies!" because they too bought into the vanity and facelessness of social networks (or The....)?

/scratches head at the mysterious angers of some ill-informed peoples

Dorothy, always a pleasure to read your work, whether I agree with it or not.

Tangler is Perhaps Headless

"Maybe I just don't like rich folks and their white people problems."

And some of us love you for it Dorothy.

Take these two movies: Please Give and The Headless Woman.
Both relate the experience of *WHITE* middle class and/or upper middle class folks simply going about their business amidst the destruction and desolation all around them. Please Give lets these people be smart and its gist is in allowing its central character to become hyper-aware of the inequities in the society around them. The Headless Woman isn't even "there".

The difference between the films is that one of them is "resolved". An epiphany is reached, a resolution is achieved and hey, we're moving on a little sadder, a little wiser, with our insulating sense of irony attached and maybe, just maybe, with a sense of humour too. So the (aren't white teenage girls clever and so like, you know, "aware"?) kid can have her jeans, daddy's learned his lesson and there's nothing to be done. You can be resigned and deal with that resignation (even with money!) - but only after a tortuous, soul seeking journey.

Seen it a million fucking times before. And it's NPR, just cuz we got money don't mean we're bad, Whole Foods buying, yoga mom, we recycle, status anxiety bull-fucking-shit.
And it's meant for milquetoast, passionless, tenure loving, free-enterprise preaching motherfuckers too enriched to have to actually *do* the work.
"Yeh, lets vote NDP this year honey, I don't see anything about my Capital Gains exemption in the Green platform...."

Whereas The Headless Woman gives us nothing. Not a single thing.
Nothing except a furious desire to shake the blind, stupid, self absorbed asshole protagonist (hah!) until they wake up and see the horror of their narcissism as it *is*.

And that's why Please Give is a steaming piece of shit when compared to The Headless Woman. One confirsm the right to self-loathing as long as you have the means to smother it in *something*, the other, in a more devastating critique, doesn't even allow a level of awareness of *relations* at all - it's a brilliant and far more accurate film to me.

It's also why Tangler will just never get it. They just wanna feel good - and that's what it's all about; making them feel good and right and confirming the righteousness of being ignorant.
Nothing wrong with that. As Tangler will no doubt attest, Rob Schneider has a right to exist.

Keep up the great writing Ms. Woodend.
It's a big, big reason for me to keep visiting The Tyee (where I am only sometimes welcome anyways).

Good negative criticism

Firstly, I defend Tangler's comment. It's no less negative than the stuff dished up by Woodend in the article. He's merely giving her a taste of her own meds. While I'm not quite as dismissive as Tangler, I shared his sentiment after reading the article.

The left-progressive literati is notorious for a tendency over-think when discoursing on the arts. Things are too often said to be misogynist, racist, or [insert favourite ism here].

Woodend, in the above pre-Oscar rant, just comes off as a frustrated regional journalist with nothing better to do than shoot fish in a barrel. Problem is, the size of the barrel and number of fish is debatable. I believe the barrel to be a lot bigger; as such, I think Woodend's assessments of the mentioned films come off as petty and personalized -- almost as though she is offended the script didn't go her way, and that she has every right to claim this 'truth.'

Dismissing Winter's Bone as a "full-tilt poverty porn smack down" rings loudly and ironically of the worst kind of class ethnocentrism; I wonder if Woodend even watched the film, or did she just read some reviews and glance at the YouTube trailers before fulfilling her prejudgement.

It's also my humble view that Woodend completely missed the boat on The Social Network. Part of the point and beauty of the film's script was to not just give us another boring biopic, but to do so in an almost McLuhanesque way that forces the audience to question (especially the medium) Facebook Nation and the negative ways it is changing social interaction. Did it ever occur to Woodend that the misogyny and character pettiness were intentional, and served key artistic purposes?

Regarding The Kids Are All Right, Woodend's fixation on a 10-second scene near the end at the expense of an overall fantastically acted, directed series of character studies... well, this tells me more about the reviewer than the film.

I like Woodend's reviews for the most part, but when I want the real good negative criticism, I go to the heavyweights, like Roger Ebert, whose book, Your Movie Sucks, should be required reading for anyone learning or doing the craft of negative review writing.

and this year's annoying pre-oscar review goes to...

Usually, I appreciate Woodend's reviews. While I may not always agree with them, they are generally well-considered and informed/informative. But this piece reads as though she's just finished watching Ricky Gervais MC the Globes and has decided to take on his mean-spirited tone, deciding to rant without pause for reflection or editing. (Note, only Gervais should try Gervais at home or in public).

I knew when she wrote of Firth as 'every woman's dreamy English rose' that this was going to be poorly-considered post. Such generalizations are the stuff of amateur writers, the tone dripping in newbie critic cynicism.

Then to harp on about one tiny segment in The Kids Are Alright (and, um, way to give away an important plot-point; as though she went to the Ken Eisner school of film criticism) as the film's undoing is unfair and short-sighted. I for one took that plot-point to show that this family is not, actually, perfect. That they too are not quite 'all right.' (Sheesh. I assumed it was an obvious reading. Nevertheless, I certainly found that film one of the bright lights of this film season.) But then, to add insult to it, she writes " Maybe I just don't like rich folks and their white people problems" no more than two paragraphs from referring to Cassavetes, whose oeuvre is chock-a-block full of rich white-people films.

While I appreciate her points about The Social Network (admittedly because they reflect my own reservations about the film, and why I've not yet seen it, and now feel as though I could just skip it entirely), I find it incredible the complaint about female stereotypes applies to this film but not to, say, Black Swan (one of the year's most over-reaching, over-plotted, over-hyped films, in my opinion). In fact, there's no mention of BS at all. Is this another oversight, or is Woodend perfectly at peace with this film?

Woodend's reviews are usually much more complete than this post would imply. Everyone has bad days, and no one (or film) is perfect for everyone. But as one respondent pointed out, the contempt in this post feels privileged. A film review can be critical and informed (thank you, Mark Harris), or it can be small-minded and cynical (I won't name names here...).

I'm mostly disappointed that Woodend didn't take this opportunity to stray from the cynical anti-arse-kissing-pack of wolves descending on Oscar-Fever-wood at this time of year.

Wonderful review

And full measure of credit to Dorothy Woodend for, once again, tellin' it like it really is in Hollywood.

And for her masterful put down of Colin Firth and his tiresome 'Masterpiece' theatre /BBC persona, that alone would be worth the price of admission (if Tyee charged one).

Bloody barrel o' fish

Targeting Hollywood might be a bit on the easy side, I have to admit. And having watched Black Swan last night and discussed its misogyny afterwards (although its viscerality was fascinating to me, as always with Aronofsky), I would have enjoyed seeing that included in the article.

But part of the Oscars ritual for me is ragging on the appalling state of American mainstream cinema. There's something to be said for ritual, in my opinion, and a contrarian critic at this time of year is desperately called for.