Far from me the idea of taking sides in the whole realism mini-debate unwittingly initiated by Adrian Martin last month in De Filmkrant, but his new column, which comes back to that whole debate, strikes me as deeply flawed intellectually and methodologically, and slightly disingenuous, in at least two ways.
I'm referring especially to the last paragraph, in which Martin calls "symptomatic" both the making of those films, and their critical reception. Fine enough, but that's opening a (deceptively simple) can of worms which is simply not dealt with, and which really must be if his argument is to stand any ground: symptomatic of what? What is the "broader pattern of cultural-political correspondences that is necessarily beyond them"? If their common denominator is the illusion of realism, why is the illusion of realism reappearing now? What are the forces shaping this, to what extent do they originate outside or inside cinema? There's a difference between identifying the symptom and the cause, and unless that wider force-field is defined (in his defence, something too big to bite off in a Filmkrant column), I don't see how Martin can make his argument stand.
Secondly, what I find slightly dishonest about that paragraph is Martin's unwillingness to consider his own reaction as equally symptomatic, which would be a logical thing a gentleman-like intellectual sparring partner might do (I don't consider his assertion that he doesn't like being considered symptomatic either up to the task). Not only that, but identifying and questioning the dividing line between the two different "symptoms" would throw light on the whole problematic on a much deeper level: the flip-side to that "symptom" as an alternative? Or as a different form of the same problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I too would like to see a great deal more unpacking (about the films & their possible broader causes) from everyone engaged in this debate, which is potentially very rewarding. But I have to say I sympathize very much with Adrian on the point of many of his critics immediately assuming, and attributing, the worst sort of bad faith on his part. The column that started it off seemed quite free of vitriol and yet a lot of people reacted as though Adrian had explicitly and personally attacked them, the films, their taste & their cognitive abilities. To me that article seemed much more affectively flat - and speculative/descriptive - than it read to a lot of other people, who seemed to read it primarily or even solely as a pre-emptive polemic.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, had it happened around a beer or a coffee the same arguments and opinions would probably have been expressed without anyone taking offence. However, it has become a debate, even if it didn't start as one, and the January Filmkrant piece seems to me designed to make the debate non-personal (something which is rather welcome) and bring it to a rest (which is done very inconclusively). What I'm reacting to in it is the methodology of his arguments, regardless of his position or the way he intends to use them. They seem to shut off further inquiry rather than invite it (from either side).
ReplyDelete