Home > News > Political Scientists in Public Debate: Movie Criticism Edition
107 views 2 min 0 Comment

Political Scientists in Public Debate: Movie Criticism Edition

- March 15, 2012

“Jonathan Kirshner”:http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.2/jonathan_kirshner_pauline_kael_roger_ebert_film_criticism.php (Cornell) in the _Boston Review_, on the days when movies were real movies, and critics were real critics.

bq. The New Hollywood was a cinema of moral ambiguity. The notorious Production Code Authority, in ruins by the close of 1966, had insisted on movies about right and wrong, with right winning in the end. By contrast, in the world portrayed by the “’70s film” (and in tune with the tenor of the times) choices are not always easy and obvious (Klute, The King of Marvin Gardens), authorities and institutions are compromised (Medium Cool, The Friends of Eddie Coyle), and, finally, the “hero” rarely wins (Chinatown, Night Moves). Individually ’70s films offer character-driven explorations of troubled, imperfect protagonists and complex interpersonal relationships, with no obvious solutions or clean resolutions proffered (or expected). Collectively they reflect a thriving and identifiable film culture—movies that “don’t supply reassuring smiles or self-righteous messages,” but share “a new openminded interest in examining American experience,” as the critic Pauline Kael put it at the time. “Our filmmakers seem to be on a quest—looking to understand what has been shaping our lives.” These were movies to talk about, and fight about, and accordingly it was also the decade when the critics mattered. An ambitious cohort of film critics, shaped by new sensibilities, expectations, and experiences, led a tumultuous public debate about the movies, their meaning, and their relationship with society. Of these critics, the argumentative, bohemian Kael was the most influential.

Kirshner writes about 1970s film-makers’ willingness to embrace ambiguity – a good reading, perhaps, to assign for ‘Movies and Politics’ classes