To say that the wind that shakes the barley is an IRA propaganda film, is akin to saying A matter of life and death is a pro BNP film. You clearly have zero ideas of context, also hidden agenda was not made as a pro IRA film, it was basically saying, maybe, just maybe governments should be held to a slightly higher standard than terrorists.
As a Northern Ireland unionist, your assessment of the wind the shakes the barley hilariously stupid. The film is historically accurate. The British govenrmnet behaved appallingly. As they did in the 70s and 80s between shoot to kill, Bloody Sunday and ballymurphy, the British government extended the troubles by decades. Governments should always be held to higher standards than terrorists. You are a moron.
The "points". You made were laughable and beyond contempt, you have a blinkered knowledge of the era, and when you wrote that the "British Govenment behaved very well during the 70's & 80's" I nearly fell off my chair laughing. You are clearly an imbecile and/or a troll. Even an unionist like myself can see the flaws on my own side. Put simply, your an idiot.
Ruben james 1 second ago Oh, but the British were insistent that it was not a war. Hence their denial of prisoner of war status for terrorists on both sides. The British army slaughtered with impunity and DID operate a shoot to kill policy. They bullied, tortured and killed their own citizens. How is that good behaviour?
OK, this is going to be long-winded and most people probably won't make it to the halfway point, and I'm going to tiptoe between the raindrops a bit on certain issues, so if you do, bear with me. Part of what Loach is talking about here reminds me of things THE WIRE creator David Simon has said. Political art has a different dimension than regular art. It has another purpose. ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 is a fantastic action/exploitation film, but it isn't one with any kind of over political agenda. You can evaluate the film as entertainment value or in terms of craftsmanship, but it isn't likely you're going to see it and say "I disagree with this film's message." Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't. Loach (and I have little familiarity with Loach, so I'm trying to tread very softly here) has a particular political agenda he wants to explore with his films, by his own admission here and elsewhere. By no means is this a bad thing. But it opens things up to a different dimension. I'm not for one second saying this about Loach, but how many Lifetime/TV movies have we all seen that arguable come from a worthwhile place but are poorly made from the point of view of filmmaking? Like said, I remember an interview with Simon where he talked frankly about saying that whatever impressions people have of his work, it was unlikely to have an impact on the issues it depicted, and I think that if you're trying to use art to kick-start a discussion, as romantic as the idea is of art being able to change the world, it'll only go so far. At what point does the political content and the engagement of the viewer intersect? I've been watching some Eisenstein lately, how many of his and other historically important films-BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, BIRTH OF A NATION, TRIUMPH OF THE WILL-are hugely politically problematic? Part of what Loach appears to be saying is that he's depicting a particular lifestyle and point of view, and the film critics who come from different socioeconomic strata are watching the film from the point of view of film critics, interested in the technical aspects or the storytelling as opposed to the films' messages. Now, I'm NOT saying that Loach is falling back on the whole "if you dislike this film, you're against political idea X which is attempts to explore." Loach is much too mature, intelligent, and level-headed to be saying anything so foolish. Now, onto another of his points which is "critics look at this from the point of view of Film X which I haven't seen." I think that within the culture as a whole now, this actually leads to a much broader problem. You can't learn everything there is to know about the world from film, or comics, television, or books, or music, or anything else. Nothing exists in a vacuum. All artists digest and absorb, or at least they used to. I have no quarrel with simple entertainment, of course, but I think that so many artists today are more interested in being DJs who cut together pieces of their favorite films and put them back together with a new coat of paint. That's fine, there's room for that. But I think that-and Mark, bless him, is as guilty of this as anyone, he does it constantly-says when reviewing a film "some where in the background of all of this is/this film owes a debt to...." I understand why he does that: to some extent, he has to, that's part of what film criticism is. But I also think that while you obviously can't always have read the novel the film is based on or research the topic it's about (And Mark not only has a full-time job doing this, but also a real life around it), I think that you should at least attempt to know something. What Loach is at least partially talking about is a film which depicts something unfamiliar to viewers-a social class, a subculture,etc. and how their reaction to it comes from their unfamiliarity with it. This brings us around to the end of this novel no one will read, which is the viewer's end. I can't know what the filmmaker's intentions were, how much work went into a film, etc. all the time. Sometimes I can, of course, but I've seen films where the what the filmmakers say the film is about and what I see in the film are different. Other can cite something important or deep about the film which I simply don't see in the movie. I've often wondered if I'd be able to say something to a filmmaker's face (and hey, maybe I'm a jealous bastard because they're living my dream ;)), but all I can evaluate is what I see. I'm sure the behind-the-scenes crew worked their asses off to make the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET remake. I'm sure that many talented craftsman built the props, supplied the lights to light the film, coordinated logistics, etc. That's nice for them, and if they take pride in their work, more power to them. But all I can evaluate is the film I see, and unfortunately, I think it's terrible. PS Loach may argue that critics throw a fit about being criticized whereas filmmakers take it on the chin, and he's somewhat correct, but it heavily depends. Some filmmakers are pretty outspoken, now more than ever in the Twitter age. Some just as easily tell critics to stick it where the sun doesn't shine (to which they're entitled) or respond directly. Plus, critics have a job on the line, whereas I don't know if bad reviews have ever cost someone a career ;).
I must say I agree with Mr. Loach in that when I have watched something, I usually seek out articles to see other perspectives on what I had just watched. Sometimes it's very hard. Sometimes a review needs to be more than a viewing recommendation, but also a discussion.
Critics job is to give us a hint about whether we will enjoy watching the film or not. Thats why references to other films is relevant. Whether it is true to the history or not is wholly irrelevant in my opinion. Well I am a punter so, I should know.
Loach makes a wonderful point, and his vision for a different kind of criticism is something that I'd like to see. In my opinion though, it's a kind of criticism best suited to those who have already viewed the film, as opposed to those who are trying to decide which film to go and watch. I'd like to see criticism essentially being made up of two types then- analysis for the potential viewer and analysis for the viewer who has already experienced the film.
Isn't that more like analysis of the film rather than criticism? Like I said, I think part of it comes down to the depth of a film too. It's clear the Loach wants to provoke discussion with his films. There's lots to talk about, both in terms of the films themselves and their content. Let's face it, when you're reviewing TAKEN, it isn't like there's anything to say beyond whether or not you think it works as an action film. People have written essays about the meaning of 2001 or FIGHT CLUB. It depends on the depth if the film in question.
***** Um, thanks. How nice of you. What I meant was, lets say you have a criticism dictionary-type book which offers brief reviews of films. Under THE MALTESE FALCON, it might say "John Huston's adaptation of Dashiel Hammet's detective novel is a film noir classic. Rich cinematography, stylish shadows, wonderfully romantic fatalism, and brilliant performances help this masterpiece stand the test of time." That'd be a review. An an analysis would be, let us say, something which talks about it's place in the film noir canon, the way its fatalism might have grown out of post WWII attitudes, how iconic Bogart's antihero persona became, how it fits into John Huston's career, how the visual aesthic compliments the mood etc. That's what I meant.
This is how I use reviews. I'll usually watch or read a review after I have seen a film to see if my interpretation of it was in line with other people or to see if I missed something. I'll generally use ratings and a synopsis from websites to decide on whether or not to watch a film. This approach isn't flawless but it works pretty well and is preferable to doing it the other way around :)
Kermode should not be happy with this interview. Loach argues that film (or at least his films) must be considered not as artistic pieces, but instead on whether they are 'true'. Ie politically correct (I am sorry that is an unfortunate phrase, but is mean it the way we used to use it when I was a trot in the 1980s, that is that it confirms to the party line (( unfortunately I remained a trot for a lot longer than that))). In effect Loach is demanding a different benchmark for his films than would be expected for anyone else's. I like loach's films, and as a autodidactic Marxist worker I appreciate what he says about the condescension of the middle class liberal media toward working people, but before all else a film has to work as a film, as a piece of art, and if it doesn't then tHe message it seeks to convey cannot save it.
I don't think he is arguing for his films to be judged differently, I got the impression that he wants films in general to be looked at in a different light. Is it fair for an artist to set the framework on how their work is judged? Probably not, but yet he does raise some valid points about criticism and its often 1-dimensional approach.
Critics have only a finite space to say whether the average reader should pay money or not to view a product, namely a marketed film. They do not have time to get into the politics, philosophies, influences or simply trying to understand what equates to months of work by script researchers, producers and directors when putting a film together. One of the biggest let downs for all feature film and documentary directors is when they realise that the delusion of grandeur which propels them that their film might change the world is completely present. Can any film contain the undeniable truth told from all dimensions and perspectives? Of course not. Loach like all other filmmakers, has to take a subjective viewpoint in much the same way as critics. Therefore, in the same way filmmakers can't make six hour films explaining everything, critics can't and shouldn't need to write a encyclopedia in order to tell a largely disinterested audience everything about the film. Sorry Ken.
A few years late, but I was watching through a bunch of these. I think this is great and, more importantly, has even greater relevance when it comes to RUclips criticism. While obviously this wasn't how Loach intended, I can't be alone in thinking you could apply what he's talking about here, in the way 'critics' engage with art and evaluate its worth, to all the outrage grifters who complain about 'political agendas in art' and how dare have works of media have something to say or show and that a movie or TV show must be 'apolitical' (whatever that means according to them).
I agree with Ken , that alot of critics, Mark inluded, have a limited, largly cinematic frame of reference which can detract from being objective about a films world view.
Should critics advertise the fact they don't like certain genre's before reviewing a film?. We all know Mark loves horror "The Exorcist" being one of his fav movies etc. So I always welcome a horror review from him, But lets say he doesn't like Sci-Fi (Gravity excluded of course) Do critics have the responsibility to tell you before hand this isn't my fav genre so regardless of how professional I am I am going into this biased?.
Well, a critic just has to review everything and therefore there often is bias. I also think every critic has at least one genre whose films he or she often gets wrong (in a lot of cases due to the fact that the critic isn't a fan of it or not THAT knowledgeable compared to other genres). I for example don't particularly trust Kermode's opinion on comedy, because I think he's often too harsh (e.g. he doesn't like vulgar humour, so automatically he isn't gonna rate any of those films very highly). I think in some cases critics really should acknowledge their "shortcomings" if you can call it that. For example, if a critic reviews a superhero film (and doesn't care much for the genre) and also doesn't care at all about its source material (which is a whole different question whether critics need to know the book/comic/short story etc. before they watch the film, but still...), then I think that could definitely be mentioned. I think critics should be more personal/direct in that sense anyways. If Mark reviews a Judd Apatow film (which he probably doesn't like ;-)) and says that fans of that kind of humour would like it, but he doesn't, then the people who read that review and see themselves as a part of that target audience still might watch it despite a mediocre or negative rating in the review. Hope my incoherent, messy comment somewhat makes sense and didn't completely miss the points you made (which I think are very interesting).
I'm a fan of Mark. I wouldn't be here otherwise but let's remind ourselves what film critics are. Ideally we'd not need critics but watch all films ourselves and make up our own minds. Sadly our time on this earth is finite and we need to pick and choose. The next best thing would be to have trusted friends whose opinion we value recommend films to us (and this is the magical 'word-of-mouth' effect producers dream of harnessing). But our world is imperfect, and we do not have enough film-going friends or friends with tastes exactly like our own. Either way film critics fill the gap and we tend to follow a critic that seems to see most films similarly to the way we do. So a successful critic will be one who communicates well and has a broad taste; in other words a taste that aligns with the majority. It is a service after all. But a really good critic has another factor at work. Entertainment. That's certainly why I watch and listen to Mark. He's fun to follow. My point is, I think, that critics are by their nature parasitic. They don't exist except to ride on the back of the artists about which they write, and they survive purely by virtue of their own entertainment value. Quite ironic really.
Кино
It's pretty manful of Loach to actually sit down with Mark and discuss this stuff so openly. Props to him.
What an incredibly nice and down to earth man. Not an ounce of arrogance in him.
What a stunning stupid and simplistic comment. Moronic.
To say that the wind that shakes the barley is an IRA propaganda film, is akin to saying A matter of life and death is a pro BNP film. You clearly have zero ideas of context, also hidden agenda was not made as a pro IRA film, it was basically saying, maybe, just maybe governments should be held to a slightly higher standard than terrorists.
As a Northern Ireland unionist, your assessment of the wind the shakes the barley hilariously stupid. The film is historically accurate. The British govenrmnet behaved appallingly. As they did in the 70s and 80s between shoot to kill, Bloody Sunday and ballymurphy, the British government extended the troubles by decades.
Governments should always be held to higher standards than terrorists.
You are a moron.
The "points". You made were laughable and beyond contempt, you have a blinkered knowledge of the era, and when you wrote that the "British Govenment behaved very well during the 70's & 80's" I nearly fell off my chair laughing. You are clearly an imbecile and/or a troll. Even an unionist like myself can see the flaws on my own side. Put simply, your an idiot.
Ruben james
1 second ago
Oh, but the British were insistent that it was not a war. Hence their denial of prisoner of war status for terrorists on both sides. The British army slaughtered with impunity and DID operate a shoot to kill policy. They bullied, tortured and killed their own citizens. How is that good behaviour?
mark you should make a much longer video for this, in the words of the late great Christopher Hitchens "We've barely got our trousers off"
OK, this is going to be long-winded and most people probably won't make it to the halfway point, and I'm going to tiptoe between the raindrops a bit on certain issues, so if you do, bear with me.
Part of what Loach is talking about here reminds me of things THE WIRE creator David Simon has said. Political art has a different dimension than regular art. It has another purpose. ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 is a fantastic action/exploitation film, but it isn't one with any kind of over political agenda. You can evaluate the film as entertainment value or in terms of craftsmanship, but it isn't likely you're going to see it and say "I disagree with this film's message." Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't. Loach (and I have little familiarity with Loach, so I'm trying to tread very softly here) has a particular political agenda he wants to explore with his films, by his own admission here and elsewhere. By no means is this a bad thing. But it opens things up to a different dimension. I'm not for one second saying this about Loach, but how many Lifetime/TV movies have we all seen that arguable come from a worthwhile place but are poorly made from the point of view of filmmaking? Like said, I remember an interview with Simon where he talked frankly about saying that whatever impressions people have of his work, it was unlikely to have an impact on the issues it depicted, and I think that if you're trying to use art to kick-start a discussion, as romantic as the idea is of art being able to change the world, it'll only go so far.
At what point does the political content and the engagement of the viewer intersect? I've been watching some Eisenstein lately, how many of his and other historically important films-BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, BIRTH OF A NATION, TRIUMPH OF THE WILL-are hugely politically problematic? Part of what Loach appears to be saying is that he's depicting a particular lifestyle and point of view, and the film critics who come from different socioeconomic strata are watching the film from the point of view of film critics, interested in the technical aspects or the storytelling as opposed to the films' messages. Now, I'm NOT saying that Loach is falling back on the whole "if you dislike this film, you're against political idea X which is attempts to explore." Loach is much too mature, intelligent, and level-headed to be saying anything so foolish.
Now, onto another of his points which is "critics look at this from the point of view of Film X which I haven't seen." I think that within the culture as a whole now, this actually leads to a much broader problem. You can't learn everything there is to know about the world from film, or comics, television, or books, or music, or anything else. Nothing exists in a vacuum. All artists digest and absorb, or at least they used to. I have no quarrel with simple entertainment, of course, but I think that so many artists today are more interested in being DJs who cut together pieces of their favorite films and put them back together with a new coat of paint. That's fine, there's room for that. But I think that-and Mark, bless him, is as guilty of this as anyone, he does it constantly-says when reviewing a film "some where in the background of all of this is/this film owes a debt to...." I understand why he does that: to some extent, he has to, that's part of what film criticism is. But I also think that while you obviously can't always have read the novel the film is based on or research the topic it's about (And Mark not only has a full-time job doing this, but also a real life around it), I think that you should at least attempt to know something. What Loach is at least partially talking about is a film which depicts something unfamiliar to viewers-a social class, a subculture,etc. and how their reaction to it comes from their unfamiliarity with it.
This brings us around to the end of this novel no one will read, which is the viewer's end. I can't know what the filmmaker's intentions were, how much work went into a film, etc. all the time. Sometimes I can, of course, but I've seen films where the what the filmmakers say the film is about and what I see in the film are different. Other can cite something important or deep about the film which I simply don't see in the movie. I've often wondered if I'd be able to say something to a filmmaker's face (and hey, maybe I'm a jealous bastard because they're living my dream ;)), but all I can evaluate is what I see. I'm sure the behind-the-scenes crew worked their asses off to make the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET remake. I'm sure that many talented craftsman built the props, supplied the lights to light the film, coordinated logistics, etc. That's nice for them, and if they take pride in their work, more power to them. But all I can evaluate is the film I see, and unfortunately, I think it's terrible.
PS Loach may argue that critics throw a fit about being criticized whereas filmmakers take it on the chin, and he's somewhat correct, but it heavily depends. Some filmmakers are pretty outspoken, now more than ever in the Twitter age. Some just as easily tell critics to stick it where the sun doesn't shine (to which they're entitled) or respond directly. Plus, critics have a job on the line, whereas I don't know if bad reviews have ever cost someone a career ;).
I must say I agree with Mr. Loach in that when I have watched something, I usually seek out articles to see other perspectives on what I had just watched. Sometimes it's very hard.
Sometimes a review needs to be more than a viewing recommendation, but also a discussion.
Critics job is to give us a hint about whether we will enjoy watching the film or not. Thats why references to other films is relevant. Whether it is true to the history or not is wholly irrelevant in my opinion. Well I am a punter so, I should know.
Loach makes a wonderful point, and his vision for a different kind of criticism is something that I'd like to see. In my opinion though, it's a kind of criticism best suited to those who have already viewed the film, as opposed to those who are trying to decide which film to go and watch. I'd like to see criticism essentially being made up of two types then- analysis for the potential viewer and analysis for the viewer who has already experienced the film.
Isn't that more like analysis of the film rather than criticism? Like I said, I think part of it comes down to the depth of a film too. It's clear the Loach wants to provoke discussion with his films. There's lots to talk about, both in terms of the films themselves and their content. Let's face it, when you're reviewing TAKEN, it isn't like there's anything to say beyond whether or not you think it works as an action film. People have written essays about the meaning of 2001 or FIGHT CLUB. It depends on the depth if the film in question.
Thanks for your input.
*****
Um, thanks. How nice of you. What I meant was, lets say you have a criticism dictionary-type book which offers brief reviews of films. Under THE MALTESE FALCON, it might say "John Huston's adaptation of Dashiel Hammet's detective novel is a film noir classic. Rich cinematography, stylish shadows, wonderfully romantic fatalism, and brilliant performances help this masterpiece stand the test of time."
That'd be a review. An an analysis would be, let us say, something which talks about it's place in the film noir canon, the way its fatalism might have grown out of post WWII attitudes, how iconic Bogart's antihero persona became, how it fits into John Huston's career, how the visual aesthic compliments the mood etc. That's what I meant.
This is how I use reviews. I'll usually watch or read a review after I have seen a film to see if my interpretation of it was in line with other people or to see if I missed something. I'll generally use ratings and a synopsis from websites to decide on whether or not to watch a film. This approach isn't flawless but it works pretty well and is preferable to doing it the other way around :)
the biggest handshake in british cinema history
Mark is in his element - sitting down with the master.
I love Ken so much! And Mark!
"News" should be defined as "information taken out of context."
excellent! I loved this
Kermode should not be happy with this interview. Loach argues that film (or at least his films) must be considered not as artistic pieces, but instead on whether they are 'true'. Ie politically correct (I am sorry that is an unfortunate phrase, but is mean it the way we used to use it when I was a trot in the 1980s, that is that it confirms to the party line (( unfortunately I remained a trot for a lot longer than that))).
In effect Loach is demanding a different benchmark for his films than would be expected for anyone else's.
I like loach's films, and as a autodidactic Marxist worker I appreciate what he says about the condescension of the middle class liberal media toward working people, but before all else a film has to work as a film, as a piece of art, and if it doesn't then tHe message it seeks to convey cannot save it.
I don't think he is arguing for his films to be judged differently, I got the impression that he wants films in general to be looked at in a different light. Is it fair for an artist to set the framework on how their work is judged? Probably not, but yet he does raise some valid points about criticism and its often 1-dimensional approach.
Critics have only a finite space to say whether the average reader should pay money or not to view a product, namely a marketed film. They do not have time to get into the politics, philosophies, influences or simply trying to understand what equates to months of work by script researchers, producers and directors when putting a film together. One of the biggest let downs for all feature film and documentary directors is when they realise that the delusion of grandeur which propels them that their film might change the world is completely present. Can any film contain the undeniable truth told from all dimensions and perspectives? Of course not. Loach like all other filmmakers, has to take a subjective viewpoint in much the same way as critics. Therefore, in the same way filmmakers can't make six hour films explaining everything, critics can't and shouldn't need to write a encyclopedia in order to tell a largely disinterested audience everything about the film. Sorry Ken.
A few years late, but I was watching through a bunch of these. I think this is great and, more importantly, has even greater relevance when it comes to RUclips criticism. While obviously this wasn't how Loach intended, I can't be alone in thinking you could apply what he's talking about here, in the way 'critics' engage with art and evaluate its worth, to all the outrage grifters who complain about 'political agendas in art' and how dare have works of media have something to say or show and that a movie or TV show must be 'apolitical' (whatever that means according to them).
Brilliant Interview !
Very nice man.
Good on you Ken. Nice job.
Aaaand, look up Christy Lemire's review to perfectly contextualize Ken's opinion.
I agree with Ken , that alot of critics, Mark inluded, have a limited, largly cinematic frame of reference which can detract from being objective about a films world view.
For a director, he sure looks into the camera a lot..!
"What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?"
Should critics advertise the fact they don't like certain genre's before reviewing a film?. We all know Mark loves horror "The Exorcist" being one of his fav movies etc. So I always welcome a horror review from him, But lets say he doesn't like Sci-Fi (Gravity excluded of course) Do critics have the responsibility to tell you before hand this isn't my fav genre so regardless of how professional I am I am going into this biased?.
Well, a critic just has to review everything and therefore there often is bias. I also think every critic has at least one genre whose films he or she often gets wrong (in a lot of cases due to the fact that the critic isn't a fan of it or not THAT knowledgeable compared to other genres). I for example don't particularly trust Kermode's opinion on comedy, because I think he's often too harsh (e.g. he doesn't like vulgar humour, so automatically he isn't gonna rate any of those films very highly).
I think in some cases critics really should acknowledge their "shortcomings" if you can call it that. For example, if a critic reviews a superhero film (and doesn't care much for the genre) and also doesn't care at all about its source material (which is a whole different question whether critics need to know the book/comic/short story etc. before they watch the film, but still...), then I think that could definitely be mentioned. I think critics should be more personal/direct in that sense anyways. If Mark reviews a Judd Apatow film (which he probably doesn't like ;-)) and says that fans of that kind of humour would like it, but he doesn't, then the people who read that review and see themselves as a part of that target audience still might watch it despite a mediocre or negative rating in the review. Hope my incoherent, messy comment somewhat makes sense and didn't completely miss the points you made (which I think are very interesting).
I'm a fan of Mark. I wouldn't be here otherwise but let's remind ourselves what film critics are. Ideally we'd not need critics but watch all films ourselves and make up our own minds. Sadly our time on this earth is finite and we need to pick and choose. The next best thing would be to have trusted friends whose opinion we value recommend films to us (and this is the magical 'word-of-mouth' effect producers dream of harnessing). But our world is imperfect, and we do not have enough film-going friends or friends with tastes exactly like our own. Either way film critics fill the gap and we tend to follow a critic that seems to see most films similarly to the way we do. So a successful critic will be one who communicates well and has a broad taste; in other words a taste that aligns with the majority. It is a service after all. But a really good critic has another factor at work. Entertainment. That's certainly why I watch and listen to Mark. He's fun to follow. My point is, I think, that critics are by their nature parasitic. They don't exist except to ride on the back of the artists about which they write, and they survive purely by virtue of their own entertainment value. Quite ironic really.
Bloody well said
This is unexpected