Wednesday 24 July 2013

FANTASIA 2013: UZUMASA JACOPETTI / BIG ASS SPIDER / BLACK OUT

Uzumasa Jacopetti (Dir.: Morirô Miyamoto, Japan, 2013)—"Taking some elements from the bizarre, unpredictable worlds of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Michel Gondry by way of the blood-soaked, hyper-real, wholly subversive and violent video days of Takashi Miike," writes Ariel Esteban Cayer, Uzumasa Jacopetti chronicles a father's one-track-minded quest for his family's happiness as it warps into murderous, absurdist carnage; a uniquely mesmerizing, magical, magnetic mind-melt of a movie, heralding the return of true underground Japanese cinema. Cayer further characterizes Uzumasa Jacopetti as a "relentlessly strange downward spiral of equally surreal and unnerving family hysterics." Bemusedly scratching my head at the film's North American premiere at Fantasia, I finally allowed its playful viscerality to take hold.  This was an absolutely perfect film to begin this year's Fantasia experience as it is the kind of rare entry that only Fantasia can offer.  I just don't see how it would fit in any other film festival anywhere else, and underscores for me Fantasia's brave and exploratory curatorial strengths.  Official site [Japanese].

At Midnight Eye, Tom Mes stages the importance of an independent Japanese film like Uzumasa Jacopetti. He writes: "Odd but also oddly endearing, Uzumasa Jacopetti has loopy ideas to spare, yet its 83-minute running time means the film never overstays its welcome."  And that's true.  The movie hardly makes any sense, but why should it when its breakcore electronic sound score makes the hair go up on your neck, and every now and then a deft note of humor redeems the most absurd of scenarios? The little boy and his mother are shot at, the mother is hit several times, and the little boy turns abruptly and pouts, "Stop it!"  It's sweet and charming and funny for being so unexpected.  Does the mother die from her bullet wounds?  Of course not.  There's no pretense at reality here; only Miyamoto's singularly unique vision of an overtly aestheticized alterity, with one strange set piece after the other.

Big Ass Spider! (Dir: Mike Mendez, USA, 2013)—A volatile 50-foot spider wreaks havoc against the city of Los Angeles in this fast, funny and surprisingly smart arachno-coaster ride that's not afraid to enjoy itself but at the same time, never goes for the easy stupid. As Mitch Davis details in his program capsule: "A longstanding member of the Fantasia Family, Mendez first came to Montreal 13 years ago (!) with his delirious demon nun splatter epic The Convent, returning in 2006 with the intense Sundance hit The Gravedancers. Big Ass Spider is something Mendez has spent years working on, striving to deliver a big bug film that would make the subgenre proud—and redeem it from the current wave of awful SyFy channel quickies!" Official Selection: SXSW, Dead by Dawn, Boston Underground, Calgary Underground Film Festival 2013. The film's Quebec premiere was hosted by director Mike Mendez and producer Patrick Ewald. IMDb. Facebook.

Big Ass Spider! was everything I wanted it to be, with a creature designed to be a mix between a black widow and the queen mother from Aliens.  The comic comraderie between flubbish exterminator Alex Mathis (Greg GrunbergHeroes) and his Spanglish wisecracking sidekick Jose Ramos (the consistently-clever Lombardo Boyar) kept the eight-legged antics in an appropriate tongue-in-cheek perspective.  It's fascinating how Grunberg can take ridiculously banal lines and phrase them in such a way that they're given authenticity and weight.  But even director Mendez had to apologize to his Fantasia audience for not providing a clean digital presentation.  His Blu-ray sputtered, half the sound was gone, and the resolution was off.  For its appearance at Fantasia, you would have thought he would have taken a little bit more care than popping in what appeared to be a homemade disk.  But there's no holding Fantasia audiences back from their unbridled enthusiasm and appreciation of the film, despite its technical flub-ups, and you have to admire these mewing hordes for saving this cinematic experience.  Nothing gets in the way of fun at Fantasia, even a faulty projection.  The film will have a theatrical roll-out in October, but I look forward to watching it with friends on my SmartTV in high-def, with beer and boo to spare.

Black Out (Dir: Arne Toonen, Netherlands, 2012)—Crime may not pay, but it certainly entertains in Arne Toonen's Snatch riff Black Out, which is formulaic sure, but never derivative.  As Éric S. Boisvert lays out in his program capsule, "With the help of Mell Runderkamp's pen, Toonen delivers a production reminiscent of the early works of Guy Ritchie (Snatch) or Lasse Spang Olsen (In China They Eat Dogs), in which he mixes together several amusingly charismatic characters.... Arne Toonen compliments his colorful characters with a dynamic editing style and explosive art direction that weave together a suspenseful crime comedy brought to life by actors directed with unmatched dexterity." Official site [Dutch]IMDbFacebook [Dutch].

In the lead role of Jos, Raymond Thiry is particularly charismatic, with a touch of Pierce Brosnan and Sam Neill comingled to sophisticated effect. Political correctness has to be forfeited early on, however, as the script sadly relies on some wince-inducing stereotypes to shape certain characters, including lots of "negro" jokes and a sibilant gay villain whose death cues the audience to cheer. Really? Okay. In the wake of Trayvon Martin's unjust death, it's precisely such "wickedly funny" scenarios that throw up some red flags.

Wednesday 17 July 2013

SFSFF 2013—John Canemaker on Winsor McCay

To celebrate the centenary of Little Nemo, the boy dreamer whose fantastic adventures in Slumberland are chronicled in Winsor McCay's dazzling early-twentieth-century comic strip series, John Canemaker delivered a special presentation at Berkeley's Pacific Film Archives in August 2006 based on his critically acclaimed biography Winsor McCay: His Life and Art. Canemaker is bringing this remarkable lecture back to the Bay Area for this Summer's edition of the San Francisco Silent Film Festival, co-presented by the Cartoon Art Museum and the Walt Disney Family Museum.

His lecture will be illustrated with stunning images from the book, as well as screenings of four of McCay's greatest films: Little Nemo (1911), the first adaptation of a comic strip to a film format; the indelibly disturbing How a Mosquito Operates (1912); Gertie the Dinosaur (1914), the charming and infinitely influential animation McCay designed as part of a Vaudeville act; and The Sinking of the Lusitania (1918), a somber animated counterpart to McCay's editorial cartoons. All four films will be accompanied on piano by Stephen Horne.

What follows is my transcription of Canemaker's introduction to the PFA event and some of his commentary during the projection of McCay's animations.

* * *


Once upon a time, a little over 100 years ago, on Sunday, October 15, 1905 to be exact, a pleasant surprise awaited readers of The New York Herald newspaper. Among their favorite color comic strips was a new offering from the prolific Winsor McCay. Little Nemo in Slumberland was unlike any comic strip before or since for its creator the cartoonist Winsor McCay had represented a major creative leap far grander in scope, imagination, color, design and motion experimentation than any previous comic strip that he or his peers had ever attempted. For readers, Little Nemo in Slumberland became an exhilarating weekly fantasy adventure, a cartoon epic, a sustained drama both visually beautiful with a compelling cast of developing personalities, chief among them the boy dreamer Nemo. The model for Nemo—a juvenile everyman whose name is Latin for "no one"—was someone very important to Winsor McCay: his nine-year-old son Robert.


Each week, McCay would slowly reveal Slumberland bit by bit as it gradually became clearer to him. This dream-like unraveling of the story was how Lewis Carroll discovered Wonderland and how L. Frank Baum led us to magical Oz: two classical works of fantasy of which Little Nemo is the creative equal. Week after week, readers were enthralled by an extraordinary array of ravishing imagery that stays in the mind like remembered dreams. McCay's virtuoso draftsmanship is irresistible when butterflies seek shelter from the rain under an umbrella tree, or the open mouth of a giant dragon becomes the traveling coach, or a walking talking icicle escorts us up the cold staircase of Jack Frost's palace, or a walking bed—who likes to get out once in a while—goes for a jaunt down the streets and across the roofs of 1908 New York City.


Within a year of its debut, Little Nemo was translated into seven foreign languages and Victor Herbert composed music for a lavish operetta adaptation of the script that opened in the fall of 1908 on Broadway at the New Amsterdam Theater. The popularity of the strip led to numerous consumer products such as articles of clothing, sheet music, playing cards and other games.

Little Nemo in Slumberland, a child's version of the mythic theme of the quest set in a dreamworld, is quite simply the most beautiful and innovative comic strip ever drawn. It is ultimate eye candy. McCay's style combined a sensuous art nouveau line with subtle yet daring coloring. Architectural perspectives are stunningly rendered and sequential changes of characters and settings within the borders of the strip's flexible panels showcase the artist's natural gift for animation.


In his talent for vividly capturing motion in drawings, McCay may have been gifted similarly to Leonardo daVinci. Sir Kenneth Clark once described the extraordinary quickness of Leonardo's eye: "There is no doubt that the nerves of his eye and his brain were really supernormal and, in consequence, he was able to draw and describe the movements of a bird, which were not seen again until the invention of the slow motion camera." The same could be said of Winsor McCay.

Inevitably, McCay turned his artistic focus toward film animation and, once again, his work represents a quantum leap in the direction of that nascent art form. McCay distinguished his animation from his contemporaries by the sophistication of his drawing style, the application of narrative continuity, the fluid movement of characters, and his attempts to inject personality traits into those characters. He introduced a film version of Little Nemo into his vaudeville act. Yes, McCay was also a stage performer. He was a vaudeville headliner since he first "trod the boards" in 1906 and in his act he drew quick, "lightning sketches", as they were called, on a blackboard to a musical accompaniment and, yes, he did play the Palace.


McCay's first attempt at animation was based on his Little Nemo comic strip. Alone, he drew the nearly 4000 sequential drawings and the film played in movie theaters starting April 8, 1911. McCay also used it in his vaudeville act including a live action prologue at New York's Columbia Theater, which was located at 62nd Street and Broadway. Audiences at the time were amazed by the lifelike animation. A contemporary reviewer said: "One is almost ready to believe that he has been transported to Dreamland along with Nemo and is sharing his remarkable adventures and it is an admirable piece of work that should be popular everywhere."

Four years after McCay's death in 1934, Claude Bragdon wrote: "I shall never forget McCay's first animated picture. In pure line on a white background a plant grows up and a young man plucks it and hands it to the girl beside him. That's all there was to it but it excited me greatly and no wonder; I had witnessed the birth of a new art."

Little Nemo (1911)

Image courtesy of Mike Lynch
 Little Nemo begins with a live action prologue where Winsor McCay initiates a bet among his friends that he can make his drawings come to life. Said friends include John Bunny, one of the earliest screen comedians. McCay is then shown at his drafting board and the audience is provided a rare glimpse of how he drew his work. "He had the extraordinary ability to work with very little construction lines underneath," Canemaker advised. "He was actually able to start at the top of the drawing and work down and have it completed by the time he got to the bottom. When he made posters and billboards in the Midwest, he did the same thing. He would stand on a box—he was a rather diminutive man—and crowds would gather to watch this amazing thing happen in which figures would be drawn from the top of the image straight down to the bottom. Damon Runyon wrote about seeing McCay in the Midwest do this."

The main characters from the Little Nemo strip are introduced as McCay's hand on the screen draws them. On the left is the Imp, in the middle is Nemo himself in his full Slumberland regalia, and on the right is the bad boy, his nemesis, Flip.

"McCay wanted to make sure that you knew that he had drawn these characters, that he actually created them. This photographing of the hand of the artist is one the oldest visual motifs in animation. You've often seen it in many cartoons, including Chuck Jones' Duck Amok in which Daffy Duck is driven crazy by Bugs Bunny drawing him. Here he is making a big deal about bringing these drawings to life. His friends think he's crazy. Again he has to convince them—and you—that he is the god-like creator of these characters."

Watching McCay draw his characters also emphasized that they were not yet moving so that when they "come to life" with very fluid movement—which Disney emulated some 20 years later—the effect is quite stunning.

Though the film states the animations were completed a month after the bet, Canemaker cautions this, of course, is not accurate. It took much longer because McCay was a very busy man. "He was doing his vaudeville act, he was creating these elaborate comic strips—not just Little Nemo but Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend and several other strips, including advertisements. So it took him much longer than one month to do this. Now, again, to emphasize how difficult this task is going to be, he staged this scene where barrels of ink and tons of paper have got to be pushed into his studio."

Canemaker describes McCay as "a very natty dresser" who was "always dressed up in a vest and custom made shirts with cuffs. He always wore his hat when he worked and smoked his little cigars; cheroots he called them."

McCay is then shown surrounded by tall stacks of original art from the film. On his desk we're shown a device, which reveals "how he pencil tested his work before there were pencil tests, which animators use to see if the animation is working smoothly. It's based on the old things from the nickelodeons where you go into see a photograph moving, or cartoons. This is not his house. This is a set. It was filmed at the Vitagraph Studios on Avenue M in Brooklyn. The Vitagraph Studios still exist. In fact, The Bill Cosby Show was shot there for many years recently."

The film then provides a close-up look at the original drawings. "They were made originally on very delicate rice paper and they were attached by glue in six places on cardboards that had registration crosses in the corners so that McCay could register them so they wouldn't shift all over the place. He would make crosses on the rice paper as well. The rice paper allowed him to see through several sheets of paper at the same time. At that time there were no peg holes or peg bars that they could attach the drawings to over a light table. That came a couple of years after this."

This demonstration in the film "was characteristic of McCay in real life. He didn't mind telling everyone how he created animation. He loved the art form very much. He wanted to get the information across to people so when people would ask him questions or come backstage after his vaudeville act, he would tell them how it was done." Further, the film shows how the film drawings were held and how McCay hand-painted each frame. Canemaker focused attention on "the wonderful, fantastic perspective animation of the dragon as he moves out of frame. Amazing. McCay always contrasted the fantastic with the mundane."

Winsor McCay's Biography

Winsor McCay was born in 1867 in Canada and raised in Michigan. He was basically a self-taught artist who learned his craft through experiences on the open road and the exigencies of commercial deadlines. In Chicago, in 1889 at age 22, he was employed by a printing company that made circus posters. Two years later he moved to Cincinnati to work as a poster painter for the local dime museum, which was a popular combination of freak show, vaudeville and curio museum. In Cincinnati in 1891, he met and married Maude DuFour and the couple had two children: Robert and Mariam.

By 1898, McCay was an illustrator on the Cincinnati Commercial Tribune newspaper and he was a contributor of gag cartoons to national humor magazines such as Life. In 1900, he joined the Cincinnati Enquirer where three years later he created his first proto-comic page, Tales of the Jungle Imps, which ran from January to November, 1903. By November of 1903, however, he and his family were living in New York City. McCay had been hired by the New York Herald newspaper.

Fame quickly followed McCay due to the popularity of his numerous comic strips, including Little Sammy Sneeze, a boy whose violent nasal explosions wreak havoc resulting in punishment by rejection in the last panel, even though the subtitle said he never knew when it was coming. There's a wonderful one in which he destroys his own panel. Another strip starred Hungry Henrietta, a little girl with a voracious appetite, who adults ply with food instead of the love she really needs and wants.

Another strip—one of the greatest and most sophisticated and wittiest comic strips ever for adults is The Dream of the Rarebit Fiend. Each week a man or a woman experiences an intense and often horrific nightmare usually in a mundane setting. In the final panel the disturbing dream is blamed not on drugs or alcohol but on innocent Welsh rarebit, which is a concoction of melted cheese cooked in cream and ale and served on toast. These are wonderful nightmarish trips. Then in 1905 came McCay's masterpiece Little Nemo in Slumberland.

Gertie the Dinosaur (1914)

But, for the artist himself, he said it was his work in animated films that would always remain "the part of my life for which I am proudest." McCay's second animated film was How A Mosquito Operates, which was based on a Rarebit-themed comic strip. This film, along with Gertie the Dinosaur, demonstrate McCay's growing interest in telling stories and creating characters with distinctive personalities. McCay's tiny mosquito and gigantic dinosaur reveal personality traits that reveal their thought processes, and thinking cartoon characters, in turn, produce actions that affect audiences' emotions.

Looking at his original drawings for Gertie the Dinosaur close up, you can see that there is a delicate rice paper on which the characters are drawn and then that is placed over cardboard with printed x's that the animator McCay would trace over and that would hold the drawing in place for him. The backgrounds were done by a young man who lived in the neighborhood named John Fitzsimmons, he was 18 years old, and Canemaker had the privilege of meeting him, making him the subject of a documentary film. Fitzsimmons had the nerve wracking job of retracing the background seen on every drawing, on all the hundreds of drawings that McCay did.  McCay did the character; Fitzsimmons did the background.

Like Walt Disney years later, McCay wanted to convince you that his cartoons were real and he did so through precise representational draftsmanship, smooth naturalistic motion and believable timings and effects. His visual sophistication was 20 years ahead of Walt Disney. Gertie the Dinosaur, in fact, was the film that inspired numerous artists who later joined the Disney Studios.

Again, there's a prologue. Again, it's McCay betting his friends—including George McManus, the creator of Maggie and Jiggs—that he can make an animated film of a prehistoric animal come to life. In the scene where Gertie picks up a rock and flings it at Jumbo the mastodon, Canemaker commented, "I want to point out to you that in great animation the feeling of weight to that rock, having to drop it once and pick it up again, adds a great believability. For animators, to put weight into their characters is really quite extraordinary." Canemaker explained that McCay timed himself breathing in and out in order to get this sequence right where the dinosaur is breathing in and out. In the scene where Gertie drinks up the water in the lake, Canemaker once again drew attention to how the ground gives way beneath her, another indication of believable weight. Canemaker then explained that McCay by this time would have walked offstage right, returning onscreen as the cartoon version of himself where he takes a ride on the back of Gertie.
The Sinking of the Lusitania (1918)

The Sinking of the Lusitania was McCay's fourth film of the ten films that he made. "This one took him nearly three years to make with the help of two assistants, one being John Fitzsimmons and the other a man named Aptford "Apt" Adams, who was a buddy of McCay's from Cincinnnati. It is McCay's first production using cels—celluloid acetate—a money and timesaving technique in which the characters were inked and painted on transparent celluloid and placed over opaque painted backgrounds. Released in 1918, The Sinking of the Lusitania is a monumental work in the history of animation. While it did not revolutionize comic cartoons of its time, it is a milestone that demonstrates the possibilities that the medium offers to creative animation filmmakers. The film's dark, somber mood, the superb draftsmanship, the timing of the animation, the dramatic directorial choices for camera angles and editing: all these qualities would reappear years later in Disney's mature work in his feature-length cartoons and in WWII propaganda shorts. The ship Lusitania itself, sailing serenely in the beginning, and then attacked and reeling from a fatal wound, and finally in an achingly slow death throe, suggests an amazing sentience and an emotionalism without overt or crude anthropomorphism.

"The incident was the 9/11 of its time," said Canemaker. "There's an eerie correspondence between the World Trade Center attack and the sinking of this ship and its unexpectedness on a placid day, and the imagery of falling bodies, smoke and fire and the helplessness of the victims. The Sinking of the Lusitania was widely admired but McCay's magnificent achievement could inspire only awe from his peers. It was way ahead of its time in 1918 in content and technique and far beyond the sensibilities and capabilities of contemporary animators churning out simple gags in films starring clowns, kids, dogs and cats."

The Sinking of the Lusitania starts out with McCay conversing with a Mr. Beech who was a reporter for the Hearst papers. "There were no photographs taken of the disaster but Mr. Beech was the first reporter in Europe to get the details from the survivors. So he was telling McCay what he needed to know." Canemaker likewise draws notice to "a certain framing device around the image that's moving. Again, they still didn't have peg holes and peg bars so Fitzsimmons suggested that they cut out a book, cut out the center of a book cover and put it over the cels to hold them down, which is why you see this frame throughout."

SFSFF 2013—Michael Hawley Previews the Line-up

The San Francisco Silent Film Festival (SFSFF) celebrates its 18th edition this year with a line-up more international in scope than ever before. Ten of its 14 feature films originate from outside Hollywood, with movies postmarked Russia, Japan, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark, Bali and the UK. The festival, which is the largest and most prestigious silent fest outside of Pordenone, Italy opens this Thursday with Louise Brooks' last great film (Prix de Beauté) and closes on Sunday with Harold Lloyd's iconic Safety Last! In between there'll be such amazements as a tribute to animator Winsor McCay, a 150-minute reconstruction of G.W. Pabst's Garbo-starring The Joyless Street, a two-strip Technicolor Goona-goona epic from Gloria Swanson's ex-husband (Legong: Dance of the Virgins) and a long-considered extinct 1925 drama set our own San Francisco Chronicle (The Last Edition). Other marquee-worthy names include stars Douglas Fairbanks, Marion Davies and Charley Chase, as well as directors Yasujiro Ozu, King Vidor, Allan Dwan, Victor Sjöström, Jacques Feyder and the ubiquitous Keaton and Chaplin, who are represented with a pair of shorts. As always, each presentation will be accompanied by live music. Here's a closer program-by-program peek at what SFSFF has in store this weekend at the glorious Castro Theatre.

Thursday, July 18

7:00 PM Prix de Beauté (1930, France, dir. Augusto Genina, digital)—Proving that San Francisco can't get enough of Louise Brooks, this year's festival opens with what is considered the iconic actress' last important film. She stars here as a conflicted, Parisian typist whose jealous husband can't handle the attention she receives after winning a Miss Europe beauty pageant. It was shot after the release of Pabst's Diary of a Lost Girl and was the only film she'd make in France. Released in both silent and (entirely dubbed) sound versions, the fest screens a silent version recently restored by the Cineteca di Bologna, accompanied by pianist Stephen Horne. Knowing I couldn't attend opening night this year, I checked out the chatty, cacophonous sound version available on YouTube. What stood out was Brooks' soulfully luminous performance in a decidedly non-vampy role (but still decked out in Jean Patou couture), a fascinating gaze at Parisian street life of 1929 and a suspenseful, shocking proto-Noir final act. At the SFSFF's Opening Night Party at McRoskey Mattress Company, costumed revelers can compete in the festival's first-ever Mr. and Ms. Silent Film beauty pageant.

Friday, July 19

11:00 AM Amazing Tales from the ArchivesEach year this free-admission SFSFF presentation takes an insider's look at the current state of silent film restoration. First up, Céline Ruivo, Director of Film Collections at the Cinémathèque Française will speak on that organization's restoration of films from the Paris Exposition of 1900. Then preservationist and SFSFF board president Rob Byrne will elaborate on the collaborative effort between SFSFF and the Cinémathèque in restoring director Alla Dwan's once-lost The Half-Breed from 1916, starring Douglas Fairbanks (screening Saturday at noon).

2:00 PM The First Born (1928, UK, dir. Miles Mander, 35mm)—This melodrama reps the directorial debut of actor-writer-playwright-novelist Miles Mander and is based on his novel and play—with screenwriting assistance from Alma Reville, aka the future Mrs. Alfred Hitchcock. It stars Madeleine Carroll, an actress best known as the first of Hitch's icy blonde heroines (The 39 Steps), who would also enjoy a brief but lucrative Hollywood career (The Prisoner of Zenda). (One source I stumbled upon claims she was the world's highest paid actress in 1938). The First Born's plot revolves around a barren society matron who adopts her unmarried manicurist's newborn while her philandering husband (Mander) is off on an African adventure. Upon his return she claims the child is theirs, which of course leads to nothing good for all concerned. This film is known for its naturalistic acting and surprise ending, which I've spoiled for myself by reading the film's plot synopsis on Wikipedia. Stephen Horne accompanies this recently restored print from the BFI National Archive.

4:30 PM Tokyo Chorus (1931, Japan, dir. Yasujiro Ozu, 35mm)—Released one year before Ozu's I Was Born, But… (SFSFF 2011), this bittersweet portrait of the Great Depression in Japan centers on a how a family copes when its insurance salesman father is fired for protesting the dismissal of an older employee. The family's young daughter is played by Hideko Takamine, later known for her acclaimed work for Mikio Naruse. Accompanying the film—and making his SFSFF debut—is composer-conductor-keyboardist Günter Buchwald.

7:00 PM The Patsy (1928, USA, dir. King Vidor, 35mm)—Marion Davies starred in three silent comedies directed by King Vidor. Unlike husband William Randolph Hearst, he saw her as a comedic rather than dramatic actress—having witnessed her wild antics at many a Hollywood party. Davies is often credited with inventing the "screwball" style of comedic acting, and here she portrays the put-upon daughter of a social-climbing family who's in love with her younger sister's beau. The Patsy represented a comeback for Grande Dowager-Battleaxe Marie Dressler, who plays Davies' contentious mother. (Hollywood legend has it that a suicidal Dressler was eating her Last Supper at a restaurant, when director Allan Dwan, acting on behalf of Vidor, offered her this role). This is the festival's only revival for 2013, having screened previously in 2008. Clark Wilson accompanied on the Castro's Mighty Wurlitzer that evening and I remember it being riotously funny. There can be no doubt that the fabulous Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra will do The Patsy justice as well.

9:30 PM The Golden Clown (1926, Denmark, dir. A.W. Sandberg, 35mm)—A.W. Sandberg directed 42 films between 1914 and 1937, and this melodrama remakes his own 1917 picture of the same title, albeit with a much larger production budget. It was the biggest commercial success of the 1920's for Nordisk Studio, which is still operational and now considered the oldest continually operating film studio in the world. The Golden Clown stars Gösta Ekman—last seen in the title role of Faust at the 2013 SFSFF Winter Event—as a rural circus clown who loses the love of his life after becoming the toast of Paris. Ekman was already a cocaine addict when shooting this film, and he would die from the drug in 1938. Sweden's Matti Bye Ensemble will accompany this restoration from the Danish Film Institute.

Saturday, July 20

10:00 AM Winsor McCay: His Life and ArtGenerally acknowledged as the first master of both the comic strip and animated cartoon, Winsor McCay created ten films between 1911 and 1921, four of which will be screened at this presentation (Little Nemo, 1913, How a Mosquito Operates, 1912, Gertie the Dinosaur, 1914, and The Sinking of the Lusitania, 1918). John Canemaker, author of the definitive 1987 book on McCay, will present the films along with images from his book. McCay's longest running comic strip was "Dream of a Rarebit Fiend," which was adapted into a 1906 film by Edwin S. Porter and was screened at the festival in 2011. Stephen Horne will be on hand to accompany. If ten o'clock on a Saturday morning is too early for you to be inside a movie theater, all four films in this presentation are available to watch on Winsor McCay's voluminous Wikipedia page.

12:00 PM The Half-Breed (1916, USA, dir. Alan Dwan, 35mm)—The past two years have seen a bounty of Douglas Fairbanks films at SFSFF (Mr. Fix-It, The Mark of Zorro, The Thief of Bagdad). For 2013's fest they've reached back to 1916, a year when the actor shot 11 movies. In this outing Fairbanks plays a half-Native American societal outcast who lives in a hollowed-out redwood tree and ultimately finds acceptance from a medicine show dancing girl. Shot in Northern California near Boulder Creek (Santa Cruz County), the film has a number of interesting names attached to it. Victor Fleming was the cinematographer and Anita Loos wrote the screenplay (adapting Bret Harte's short story "In the Carquinez Woods"). There's a scene in which a nearly-nude Fairbanks bathes in a river, which was reputedly put in the film by director Dwan only because Fairbank's then-wife, a cotton industrialist's daughter named Ann Beth Sully, hated the idea of her husband playing a "dirty, unwashed" half-breed. Thank you, Ms. Sully! As mentioned previously, The Half-Breed is a co-restoration between SFSFF and the Cinémathèque Française, the details of which will be discussed at this year's "Amazing Tales from the Archives" presentation. Günter Buchwald will accompany on the Castro's (reportedly ailing) Mighty Wurlitzer, the only time the instrument will be used at this year's festival.

2:15 PM Legong: Dance of the Virgins (1935, Bali, dir. Henri de la Falaise, 35mm)—"Nudity Without Crudity" is how the adverts read when this Balinese docu-drama-cum-ethnographic travelogue opened in NYC in 1935. Tickets reportedly cost $5.00 or $84.20 adjusted for inflation. Financed by the director's wife, actress Constance Bennett (Henri de la Falaise was also the former Mr. Gloria Swanson), Legong applied Western plot contrivances to tell its tragic tale of a Balinese dancer who pines for a musician, but he's got eyes for her sister. Butchered by censors for bare breasts and cock-fighting, the film played American grindhouses for decades under various lurid titles. Today it's recognized as a significant document of Bali's traditional dances, funeral rites and marketplace scenes of 80 years ago. It's also one of the very last silent films produced in Hollywood and a near-final example of the two-strip Technicolor process. Although Legong is making its SFSFF debut, the film was exhibited at the Castro for an entire weekend in the spring of 1999, accompanied by the Club Foot Orchestra and Gamelan Sekar Jaya. Those same musicians will be performing again at this year's SFSFF screening.

4:00 PM Gribiche (1926, France, dir. Jacques Feyder, 35mm)—In addition to being a classic French sauce, Gribiche is the title of this silent from the director of 1935's Carnival in Flanders, a classic I recently saw for the first time and wholeheartedly adored. Shot both in the studio and authentic Paris locations, the film tells the story of a poor boy who gets adopted by a rich American woman, but soon becomes bored and rebellious. Gribiche was made by the notable Films Albatros, a studio founded by Russian émigrés in France that produced important works by Marcel L'Herbier (L'Argent, SFSFF Winter Event 2011) and René Clair. Acclaimed art director Lazare Meerson created an entire 17th century Flemish village for Carnival in Flanders, and his art deco sets for Gribiche are said to be no less spectacular. We'll be seeing a new restoration by the Cinémathèque Française, who will also receive this year's SFSFF Award at the screening. The Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra accompanies.

6:30 PM The House of Trubnaya Square (1928, USSR, dir. Boris Barnet, 35mm)—In this Russian comedy of manners from the director of The Girl with the Hat Box (SFSFF 2006), a young peasant woman and her duck travel to Moscow searching for an uncle and a new life. What she finds is romance and political consciousness after securing a servant's job with a barber and his bossy, lay-about wife who live in a crowded tenement. The film is said to use charm and cinematic invention to poke fun at bourgeois urban Soviet society, housing shortages and labor unions. Stephen Horne provides the accompaniment.

8:30 PM The Joyless Street (1925, Germany, dir. G.W. Pabst, 35mm)—SFSFF's 2013 Centerpiece Film was the third directorial effort of G.W. Pabst, who would go on to make such important films as Pandora's Box with Louise Brooks and The 3 Penny Opera. Set in post-WWI Vienna during a time of extreme economic duress and wealth disparity, the film stars Asta Nielsen and Greta Garbo as two women in dire straits, one of whom will turn to prostitution for survival. This was 19-year-old Garbo's second major role and her own personal favorite. She would depart for Hollywood later in the year. The Joyless Street, exhibited in the U.S. as The Street of Sorrow, served as a bridge between German Expressionism and a "new realism" style of European filmmaking. It is known to most film buffs via a butchered 61-minute version. The festival will show a reconstruction by Stefan Drössler that runs nearly 2½ times that length, with accompaniment by the Matti Bye Ensemble.

Sunday, July 21

10:00 AM Kings of (Silent) Comedy (Digital)—If you've never seen charismatic French preservationist Serge Bromberg in action, you owe it to yourself to catch this program of four silent comedy shorts he's chosen for digital preservation. The titles include a Felix the Cat cartoon (Felix Goes West, 1924, dir. Otto Messmer), Charles Chaplin's The Immigrant (1917) and Buster Keaton's The Love Nest (1923). The one I'm most excited about, however, is Hal Roach Studio's Mighty Like a Moose (1926), directed by Leo McCarey (The Awful Truth, Going My Way) and starring Charley Chase, a silent comedian I know only by name and reputation. The film was selected for the Library of Congress' National Film Registry in 2007, and it details the shenanigans which ensue when an equally homely husband and wife decide to have plastic surgery on the same day. Günter Buchwald will accompany the merriment. It's worth mentioning here that children under 10 are admitted free to all SFSFF screenings!

1:00 PM The Outlaw and His Wife (1918, Sweden, dir. Victor Sjöström, 35mm)—Filmmaker and actor Victor Sjöström directed over 40 films in Sweden before emigrating to Hollywood in 1924, adapting the name Victor Seastrom. While SFSFF has shown several of his American films over the years (He Who Gets Slapped, The Scarlett Letter, The Wind), I believe this is the first time they're screening one of his Swedish silents. (According to the festival archive, even his 1921 silent classic The Phantom Carriage has been M.I.A.). In this 1918 film based on a real 18th century Icelandic outlaw, an escaped convict (played by the director) takes up with a wealthy widow and the two escape to a life in the wilderness. Appropriately, musical accompaniment will be provided by Sweden's Matti Bye Ensemble.

3:30 PM The Last Edition (1925, USA, dir. Emory Johnson, 35mm)—Actor and San Francisco native Emory Johnson appeared in over 70 films before turning his hand to directing in 1922. He would make 13 features, most of them stories about blue collar professions adapted from stories written by his mother, Emilie Johnson. In The Last Edition, veteran actor Ralph Lewis (Birth of a Nation, Intolerance) plays a pressman for the San Francisco Chronicle who has a son that works for the D.A.'s office. When a gang of bootleggers frame the son on trumped-up bribery charges, the father literally tries to stop the presses, resulting in the printing plant blowing up. The film was shot in and around the Chronicle Building(s)—both the old one on Market Street and the then brand new one at 5th and Mission—and the film's nifty website contains a front-page Chronicle article about the film's preview for newspapermen at the St. Francis Theatre on Market Street. Until two years ago the film was considered lost, then SFSFF's Rob Byrne discovered that the EYE Film Institute Netherlands possessed an original nitrate print. This screening will be the world premiere of the restoration. Stephen Horne accompanies.

6:00 PM The Weavers (1927, Germany, dir. Friedrich Zelnik. digital)—This Soviet-influenced historical drama centers on a 1844 uprising of Silesian cotton weavers, who were concerned about the impact of steam-powered looms upon their livelihood (the event took place roughly 30 years after the Luddite revolt in Britain). The film stars Paul Wegener (best known for his silent film Golem portrayals) as the heartless mill owner and the inter-title art by renowned caricaturist / Dadaist George Grosz is said to be one of its many highlights. Günter Buchwald will accompany. As an added attraction at this screening, Ken Winokur of the Alloy Orchestra and Beth Custer of the Club Foot Orchestra will accompany a two-minute trailer for Dziga Vertov's The Eleventh Year, which was recently discovered in the Ukraine.

8:30 PM Safety Last! (1923, USA, dir. Sam Taylor, Fred Newmeyer, digital)—Is there a more iconic image from the silent film era than Harold Lloyd dangling from a clock face high above a busy city street? Hard to believe it's taken SFSFF 18 years to get around to showing it, but I for one am thrilled to finally be seeing this classic in its entirety. Lloyd, of course, was the "third genius" of silent film comedy, though at the time his films were more commercially successful than either Chaplin's or Keaton's. Safety Last! was his final film with Hal Roach Productions before striking out on his own. Lloyd stars here as an ambitious small town boy who departs for the Big City, leaving his girlfriend (played by the actor's wife Mildred Davis) behind. He secures a lowly sales clerk job and through a combination of circumstances finds himself ascending a 12-storey department store façade with a new peril—pigeons, a mad dog, a mouse running up his pant leg—awaiting him at each floor. The film joined the National Film Registry in 1994 and while most film scholars don't consider it his best—that honor seems to go to either The Freshman or The Kid Brother—it is certainly his best known and most beloved. The Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra will accompany this Closing Night presentation.

Cross-published on film-415.

Thursday 11 July 2013

WHEN MOVIES MATTERED—The Film International Interview With Dave Kehr

Photo courtesy of John Von Pamer
In his contribution to Project: New Cinephilia, Chris Fujiwara quoted Shigehiko Hasumi, film critic and president emeritus of Tokyo University: "At the beginning of the 21st century, the profession of film critic is quasi-fictional."

Without question, shifting from fact to fiction can wear on the most intrepid of film critics, but—equally without question—Dave Kehr has admirably weathered the evolving shifts in his profession over the past four decades, earning him the distinct privilege of looking back on a life intimately related to cinema. Starting off as a student member of Doc Films at the University of Chicago, Kehr moved on to become the resident reviewer at Chicago's alternative weekly The Reader, then The Tribune, and eventually the New York Times. With the University of Chicago publication of When Movies Mattered: Reviews From a Transformative Decade, it seemed the appropriate time to look back.

My thanks to Jacob Mertens for granting permission to reprint this piece—originally published in Film International (Vol. 9, No. 5)—to time with Dave Kehr's participation with Pacific Film Archive's ongoing retrospective "A Call to Action: The Films of Raoul Walsh." Kehr contributes to the series, first in a conversation with San Francisco film critic Michael Fox, preceding an archival print screening of Wild Girl (1932); next, in a booksigning and discussion preceding a new print screening of The Lawless Breed (1953); and, finally, by way of introduction to Walsh's "noir-Western" Pursued (1947).

* * *

Michael Guillén: In your conversation with Danny Kasman and David Phelps at MUBI you stressed that you didn't want to overemphasize the embedded polemic in the title of your recent collection of long form reviews originally written for the Chicago Reader: When Movies Mattered: Reviews From a Transformative Decade.

Dave Kehr: Well, yeah. That was something we came up with out of desperation.

Guillén: Yet the title works; it provokes questions. You explained that the title references a somewhat reactionary stance to the auteurist wars of the time, namely the mid-'70s to mid-'80s, a period which you later described to R. Emmett Sweeney as "a polemical moment." Auteurist wars aside—because I imagine you're tired of repeatedly talking about them—can you speak to how movies matter to you now? Because surely they still matter to you?

Kehr: Oh, of course. I never feel that I even scratch the surface of all I'm interested in. The real difference is that nobody wants to fight about it anymore. There was a time when there were enough good movies around that you could actually have a range of opinion. Now, there's so little of interest out there. Back then, you could choose between, say, Blake Edwards and Robert Altman whereas now people like Robert Altman just because there's so little competition.

Guillén: I'm curious about your assertion that movies are no longer "central to the cultural discourse" as they once were? Why do you believe that?

Kehr: Movies have succumbed to a process of normalization.

Guillén: Have they truly lost their "tumult and possibility"? Are you saying that the range of ways in which films can affect audiences has lessened?

Kehr: If we're talking about commercial films, marketing departments have taken over so much of how films are made. Films aren't made unless they have an advertising campaign in mind, unless they have the demographics figured out, unless focus groups and marketing studies tailor the movie to a certain set of expectations. That produces a useless product that has no personality and that tries to please as many people as possible. That's no way to make anything interesting.

Guillén: This has long struck me as the Faustian bargain inherent in filmmaking: the tension between art and commerce. It's hardwired into the practice of making movies. I'm fascinated that this tension has never been resolved and that, perhaps obviously, marketing has gained the advantage.

Kehr: That's certainly my feeling. It's always been a question of art and commerce and filmmakers making their work within a system. Most of the guys who did it best didn't think of themselves as artists at all. They were comfortable working within the system and the commercial requirements of the time. Whether they had to fly under the radar or not so that the front office didn't really notice what they were doing, or whether they didn't really care, now filmmakers have to submit their work to gain approval. There's so much negotiation and compromise required beforehand and it's harder to get your vision on the screen.

Guillén: Donald Brown has suggested in his New Haven Advocate review of When Movies Mattered that the polemic one is tempted to tease out of that title is a bit misleading. "When, exactly," Brown writes, "did films matter? It seems they mattered when what was said about them mattered." He suggests a better title might have been When Movie Reviews Mattered.

Kehr: [Chuckles.] Yeah! Well, I guess what mattered was that people were talking about movies. They were a cultural contact for a lot of different people. Movies were something everybody was sort of excited about whereas now I don't have that feeling at all. The weekend gross has replaced the movie review in terms of how the water cooler conversation goes. People seem more interested in talking about what Universal did wrong with marketing The Green Lantern rather than whatever quality the film does or does not have, what are its award chances, that kind of stuff. Everything except the movies themselves.

Guillén: It feels as if movies have been co-opted and taken hostage. Let alone the terminology. A while back I read a piece in Variety where the term "auteur" was being shamelessly applied to the filmmaker with the best box office.

Kehr: Which is not right. The term meant something specific once upon a time. It started becoming co-opted in the '70s when filmmakers like Scorsese, Altman and Coppola could make their own movies on their own terms. Everyone said they were auteurs. Yeah, they were, but not in the sense that directors working in the '40s were auteurs. Not so much in making individual masterpieces but in making a series of films that added up to a vision.

Guillén: An alternate title I might have suggested would be: The Movies That Mattered In My Youth. You're just a couple of years older than I am and I think we speak from a certain generational perspective of the '60s and '70s when we were both engaged by film in our youth at a culturally specific time. All these years later, we can't help but situate our understanding of film from that initial engagement and with a unique nostalgia. For me, the selections in this volume conjure the formative years of your creative practice, aligned as it was with America's evolving relation to film.

Kehr: It was a good time to be young.

Guillén: For me that's one of the prime values of When Movies Mattered. Alongside the volume's critical acumen, the book serves as a testimonial to the idea that becoming yourself as a young person is intricately linked to contributing to currents of culture.

Kehr: Yeah. At the point when we were young, what you said made a difference regarding why people should take interest in a film. It's not that there aren't plenty of good critics now, it's that the films are much less worth talking about.

Guillén: One of the aspects that most intrigued and entertained me about these long reviews is the underlying sense that you were making it up as you went along. You were creating yourself as a film critic within the newly-arrived opportunity of the alternative weekly. I commend that you culled out that symbiotic relationship between the so-called film culture of the time and the alternative press.

Kehr: That was a very important relationship. Certainly what I did wouldn't have been possible anywhere else. I mentioned quite a few people in my introduction whose important work was made possible by that phenomenon of the alternative weekly.

Guillén: Clearly, that relationship paid off because you have become widely acknowledged as one of film's most informed critics; but—bearing that privilege of perspective in mind—how are you now continuing to create yourself as a film critic?

Kehr: Hmmmmm. I guess these days I feel more like a historian than a critic really, in that I spend my time looking at older films trying to find auteurs who haven't been written about very much, if at all. I'm starting a column for Film Comment with their next issue entitled "Further Research", which is in reference to Andrew Sarris's category in The American Cinema. I've restricted it to Hollywood filmmakers with strong personalities in the American style that no one's paid much attention to. I go to very few first-run movies. Where I used to see five to six a week, now I'll see maybe three a month.

Guillén: Perhaps that comes with the territory? When you start out, you watch as many movies as possible but—after years of watching so much dross—you scale back? Myself, I pay to see what I usually don't want to write about. I've all but given up reviewing first-run theatrical and am focusing on film festival coverage, book reviews, and interviews. Though I grew tired of watching so many bad movies, I don't necessarily believe that there aren't good movies to watch. I suspect they're the ones that aren't trafficking in the commercial fast lane and I'm not even sure that they should or could be. Which leads me to ask about your critical practice: you don't attend film festivals?

Kehr: I used to go all the time but my job just changed at a certain point. It's not really making sense anymore and it's pretty hard to pay your own way to Cannes and Berlin and that sort of thing. Then you don't really have a job to do once you get there. But it was a big part of my life for a long time and then it all kind of went away about eight years ago.

Guillén: I appreciate your bringing up that you think of yourself as a historian more than a critic. At his site, Girish Shambu has stated: "Without announcing it as such, [Dave Kehr] performs an invaluable pedagogical activity in the New York Times DVD column each week." At your old haunt the Chicago Reader, J.R. Jones claims you have turned your weekly column into "an ongoing tutorial on film history." Did you ever imagine you would become such a beloved pedagogue and such a trusted historian?

Kehr: [Laughs.] That's very nice of you to say, but I don't know how beloved or trusted I am. I never thought I would be able to make a living doing this: paid to review DVDs. What a great development that there is a way to talk about older, foreign, independent and avant-garde films in a mainstream newspaper. Ordinarily that's very difficult to do with this material. I'm grateful for the opportunity.

Guillén: I find it interesting that seasoned critics such as yourself and Jonathan Rosenbaum have evolved into film historians, that there's a value (beyond nostalgia) in your preference for older films, and that—as you intriguingly suggested to Danny Kasman and David Phelps—the ironic truth is that the more you know about films, the less you know. I appreciate the concept that the more film is explored, the more it opens out into unexplored territory. A film writer can never grasp it all. The subject keeps expanding.

Kehr: Oh yeah! If there is one thing I have learned in more than 40 years of film criticism is that the corpus of movies is vaster and richer than any one writer could ever cover. Hollywood films alone are a huge, complex manmade body of work. A week doesn't go by that I don't find myself interested in some other aspect of American cinema. On the other hand, it's becoming more and more difficult because the major studios are withdrawing so many of their old films from circulation, making it hard to do research just at the moment when a lot of these films are in danger of being forgotten. Many films are now hard to access. Apart from maybe Warner Brothers, none of the studios are doing much of a good job at all in keeping films in a viewable format.

Guillén: Speaking of formats, one of your recent essays which impacted me was your study of how online and TV streaming was affecting DVD culture and your sober analysis of what gets lost each time we switch from one format to the other. I actually opened the first home video rental store in the San Joaquin Valley back in the mid-'80s. On one hand, that doesn't seem that long ago; but, on the other, it seems immeasurably distant.

Kehr: Yeah! And when you tell people that there was actually more out on VHS than on DVD, they look at you as if you're crazy. But there was so much more! In terms of the availability of older titles.

Guillén: When I first began reviewing and reading When Movies Mattered, I had a guarded reaction. I usually don't like to read about a film before I've seen it. So in my initial perusal of your table of contents, I gravitated to those films I'd seen and read those essays first. Then I had to negotiate with myself whether I was willing to read entries on films I hadn't yet seen. Which leads me to ask about how you've structured When Movies Mattered? In your Senses of Cinema interview with Steve Erickson, you stated: "Once I write something, I don't like to look at it again."

Kehr: That's very true. I really don't. Not at all.

Guillén: If that's the case, how did you go about selecting specific reviews for When Movies Mattered? What motivated the urge or gave you the requisite patience to anthologize this phase of your writing?

Kehr: I relied heavily on my editor at the University of Chicago Press, Rodney Powell, who instigated this project and was responsible for the final selection of reviews. I don't have much discrimination. I'm one of those people who's just never happy with what I do and every time I read an old review of mine there's just so many things I want to do over. So to tackle something like this, I really needed someone like Rodney to take charge and make me do it.

Guillén: I read a piece he wrote about your collaboration on this book and it surprised me when he said that you didn't even have copies of your old reviews.

Kehr: No, I don't. I never really save anything.

Guillén: So you made it particularly hard for him? He had to go hunting down these reviews?

Kehr: Yeah. They had to go hunting through my old volumes. Much of these long reviews have never been digitized. There was a vast amount of other things: there were 10 years worth of Chicago Tribune reviews; 10 years worth of not-very-interesting New York reviews. They were scattered all over the place.

Guillén: So you don't have Jonathan Rosenbaum's impulse to digitize all of your past work, as he's doing on his site?

Kehr: No, I really don't. I've been kind of the opposite of that way, though I admire Jonathan for doing that. It's certainly a great service to have all his work available. I wish I had that kind of patience.

Guillén: Which underscores the value of this necessary volume. Many of us are delighted to finally have at least a sampling of your long form reviews available in one volume. At this point, what with Facebook and Twitter, the format of the long form review is nearly quaint; but, without question, it's still important to read such long form think pieces.

Kehr: They certainly make you think about movies in a different way. It's better than writing criticism that's just blurbs for ads—"This was great. It was like a roller-coaster ride."—where you realize that such film critics aren't stupid, it's just that they haven't encountered reviews that do anything. What we used to call capsule reviews now look like gigantic feature-length pieces. What can you do with a one-sentence review from Twitter except toss it into a batch of films you like or didn't like? A bunch of Europeans have started a movement that they call "slow criticism." We need more of that, I think.

Guillén: I'm heartened that there's a growing awareness of these various lengths and tempos of film criticism: long and short, fast and slow, contingent upon how close you remain to the surface or how much depth you apply to the analysis of a film.

Kehr: So much of what we do depends on the format we do it in and the condition we write for.

Guillén: Perhaps the most oft-quoted comment from your introduction was: "American movie criticism seems divided (with some exceptions) between two poles: quick-hit, consumerist sloganeering on Internet review sites and television shows, and full-bore academia, with its dense, uninviting thickets of theoretical jargon." That bristled quite a few feathers as it bunted about the internet! Though I felt it was a fair critique of both sides, in his recent piece for Film Comment David Bordwell tagged you and Joseph McBride as "cinephile critics" who—as Chris Fujiwara synopsized in his response to Bordwell for the Project: New Cinephilia initiative—"hate academic film studies for rejecting auteurism and for using impenetrable jargon." First, any thoughts on whether or not you are a "cinephile critic"?

Kehr: I wasn't quite sure what Bordwell meant by that, but I certainly consider myself a cinephile in the sense that I've always loved movies as long as I can remember, beginning as a child. I still like movies on that level. I'm still a film buff, or whatever word you want to use. I didn't approach movies as an academic study; I approached movies because they were a part of my life. I was amazed that I could make a living writing about them. That had never been a goal of mine. When I was in college, I thought I was going to be an English graduate teaching Victorian novels someplace and then, amazingly, this opportunity came along to be a semi-professional critic and then a professional critic. It was movies that made me a writer.

Guillén: I like how you phrase that, distinguishing semi-professional from professional, because that references an argument Chris Fujiwara made in his response to Bordwell that it's the writing that makes a film critic a critic. And it's the way a critic writes that provides the accent that personalizes a critic's writing style. This has, in fact, been of recent interest to me: the way in which personality informs film criticism or, put another way, the applied persona of the film critic. Do you have any sense of consciously shaping your persona as a film critic?

Kehr: No, not really. I know there is one there. Early on I encountered Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. Everybody has, right? They have that wonderful line: "Just try to write as clearly as you can and style will take care of itself." I've always felt that way. I wanted to write as cleanly as possible and just try to say what I mean and not worry about phrasing or what kind of personality I'm projecting. I just wanted to be as accessible as possible. The rest happens by itself. The issue of personality is not to change it—like film critics who try to imitate Pauline Kael or Manny Farber or any of the big personalities in the business—you have to be yourself. There's no choice.

Guillén: When you're talking about wanting to write so that you're accessible, it sounds like you're positioning yourself between the film and the reader of your review.

Kehr: Yeah. For me, that's what a good critic does. He provides some information that the reader may not have, and provides a context that maybe wouldn't occur to the reader, or breaks things down in a way that the reader might not. The least interesting thing about journalistic criticism is the conclusion, really—"I didn't like it"—it's how you got there, or how you're going to account for your feelings in the first place, that's interesting. I think we all start with our feelings about films and then try to understand them, try to understand why we feel that way, and if that's a way we want other people to feel. It all comes back to subjectivity at one point or another. But then again, pure subjectivity is not interesting to me. You need to bring something else to the writing: a little bit of work or analysis or a little bit of perspective.

Guillén: Again at the Chicago Reader, J.R. Jones notes you disappear into your prose and that you prefer invisibility. He contrasts this to Jonathan Rosenbaum who has an outgoing (and very subjective) persona as a film critic.

Kehr: Jonathan makes subjectivity a big part of his work. That's something I've never done at all. I don't put myself into my film criticism in the same way Jonathan puts himself into his.

Guillén: I know many film critics who feel that if you do, you have failed as a critic. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand objectivity's argument. You mentioned you do have a sense of your own persona, that it's "out there", and some of the adjectives attached to you in reviews out on the net amused me for trying to define that persona. Let me a toss a few at you and you can tell me if you think they're accurate or not. At A.V. Club, Todd VanDerWerff describes you as "contrarian".

Kehr: I can understand that. But I don't think I willfully set out to have a different opinion than the majority. I got to that point logically over a series of years. I'm contrarian in the sense that I never liked going along with what most folks were writing about. I wanted to look elsewhere. There were other things going on that weren't being written about so much. People like Walter Hill, Albert Brooks and John Carpenter were filmmakers who weren't getting much attention and I wanted to write about them. So that's the contrarian spirit in my writing.

Guillén: I find that contrarian spirit evident in your somewhat notorious year-end lists. They were so different than most other critics' year-end lists and drew attention to what others considered minor vehicles or even minor auteurs. Which leads me to ask: what is the critic's responsibility to champion the smaller film or the unknown filmmaker?

Kehr: Well, one of the things I'm proudest of was my first term on the selection committee of the New York Film Festival, which would have been in the early '80s. I managed to get in the first films by Manoel de Oliveira, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Raúl Ruiz and a bunch of other people who are pretty much staple characters at this point. In those days, it was a hard sell. I'm glad I did that. It's not that I'm trying to get credit for discovering them, but at least I had my eyes open. As a journalist, one of the most valuable things you can do is to direct attention to where people aren't looking.

Guillén: Another adjective that's been frequently applied to you—and we've already touched a bit on this—is "nostalgic"; that you are nostalgic for and circumambulating around a particular period of movies that no longer exists. Do you think that's a fair assessment?

Kehr: I can't say it's something I feel. What I identify as the greatest stage of filmmaking happened well before I was born so I would find it hard to feel nostalgic about that. I think Adrian Martin and a lot of the self-styled cutting-edge hipsters are all very nostalgic about the 1970s in a way that I am not because I lived through the 1970s. I'm not just giving off the important films from the top, I saw them top to bottom, and there was breadth. There were filmmakers in the '70s that I never thought were going to get out of filmmaking, like Nagisa Oshima and others, yadda yadda yadda. I don't feel nostalgic for my experience of the 1970s. Maybe I feel nostalgic for somebody else's?

Guillén: The other term that amused me came from Randy Byers at an online site called Dreamland Cafe. Byers called you "crotchety." He wrote that your reviews evidence a "crotchety attitude even as a young man." Do you think you're crotchety?

 Kehr: [Laughs.] I don't feel crotchety. You mean like, "These damn kids! What are they up to?" If anything, I think the damn kids should be a little bit more crotchety themselves.

Guillén: There you go. A little less enthused and a little more crotchety. That quote I was citing earlier that drew the ire of the academics was, in my opinion, a fair quote because it was criticizing the extremes of both poles, including your critique of the internet. I'm especially intrigued by your assertion: "The luxury of printing long pieces without an obvious demographic appeal is something the weeklies can no longer afford—while, paradoxically, it is a privilege that the web has actively refused." Why doesn't the internet have the interest? What does this say about audiences who are reading the internet?

Kehr: I wish I knew, y'know? It's a big mystery to me. Personally, I have a hard time reading long pieces on the TV monitor. It makes my eyes hurt. I wonder how many other people have that feeling too? It's just not the way I want to absorb a long and thoughtful piece of criticism sitting in front of a television with lights flashing in my face. But there is something about the internet that just presses towards shorter and shorter commentary. Even though space is cheaper than it's ever been, people don't seem to want to read anything longer than 300-400 words.

Guillén: Stepping back a bit to your admitted cinephilia, you mentioned your love for films since childhood. I don't know whether it's our generation or what, but I enjoyed your comment about scouring the TV Guide to find when rare classic films would be broadcast, often shown late at night. You'd wait up for them. I used to do the same thing. I can vividly remember being a scrawny kid swallowed up by the huge armchair in our family's TV room watching some obscure title at low volume way after midnight when everyone else in my family was asleep. This childhood quality of cinephilia likewise informs Elliot Lavine's TV Guide pastiche: I Wake Up Dreaming. What this all brings up for me is the idea how at one time it was the inaccessibility of these films that fueled my fledgling cinephilia. I would stay up late to see them or go to great lengths to see them when they were projected in repertory theaters. Nowadays, that is sharply contrasted against the addictive allure of internet digital accessibility, which currently shapes and informs my cinephilia. However, as you and I have already discussed a bit through email, internet accessibility is something of an illusion.

Kehr: It's a tragic illusion. It's going to be very destructive in the long run. Many of these films that are not available digitally aren't even that old or that esoteric. I don't know what the answer is. I'm writing about a director named Alfred Santell for Film Comment who made close to 100 movies, many of them silent so I automatically assume that many of those are pretty much lost; there's only three or four that you can see. The remaining 50 sound films, which were made for major studios like Paramount and Columbia, are completely inaccessible. The films of his that you can get happen to be owned by Warners or MGM and few of those are available in any satisfying prints. This situation is very far from being any kind of paradise in which every movie ever made is instantly available on the internet, which are almost the exact words of Roger Ebert.

You learn about the existence of more films as you move along. One movie points you to another. Anyone with any curiosity will quickly discover that only a tiny percentage of Hollywood studio films, which should be available to all, are actually inaccessible to people who don't have the resources to work in an archive. Even in the archives there are negatives that the studios won't print—forget about the stuff that's been lost!—they don't want to spend $5,000 to strike a new print of a film from the early '30s. Those films will end up dropping out of consciousness. You can't miss what you've never heard of.

The biggest library that's being neglected right now is the Paramount-Universal library. Universal bought the pre-1914 Paramount library and merged it with their own. They have a bunch of other stuff they've acquired over the years. Next to the holdings that Warner Brothers now has, that's the most important cache of films out there. Paramount is owned by Viacom. First, Paramount has no interest in its own films and Viacom has even less interest. The Paramount films owned by Universal are still in the vaults. Universal occasionally puts out very oddly-chosen box sets of films. You end up scratching you head wondering why they've put out a box set of Ma and Pa Kettle rather than the Dietrich-von Sternberg films? What kind of sense does that make? The problem is they don't really know what they're sitting on. If I were a stockholder at Comcast, I would look at their incredible library and find a way to monetize it, but these guys aren't doing anything. It's just bad business and isn't good business what we're supposed to be about?

Guillén: You expressed earlier your pride in recommending certain titles to the New York Film Festival who introduced them to their audiences. Can you speak to the role of film critics coordinating their expertise with film programmers to help guide the festival fare offered to audiences?

Kehr: A good programmer is a good critic. Programming can be an interesting act of film criticism in and of itself with interesting angles and curation of subgenres that no one else is paying attention to. Eddie Muller is a good example of such programming. He's doing a great series at the Cinematheque Français right now. I just got a press release from them that he's programmed 10 rare obscure film noirs. None of the famous directors, even auteurs, of noir are represented in the series. That's a brilliant act. He's pulled together important eclectic work and just the fact that he's showing it brings it back to life.

Guillén: Eddie's a master showman and he also has a great sense of eliciting the participation of his audiences to support restoration and preservation of these classic films. His Noir City program that he started in the Bay Area—and which is now expanding to other cities—has an incredibly educated audience, which Eddie has had a large part in educating. He's instilled in us a sense of pride that the cost of our ticket is supporting the preservation and restoration of a film that is usually then programmed the following year, so that there's a palpable sense of cause and effect.

Kehr: And he seems to be right in the sense that—if we are going to preserve these films—it's the viewers who are going to have to do it because the studios have lost interest. Eddie also deals with orphan films that don't belong to any corporation and don't have anyone to protect their interests. He's been working on Cy Endfield's The Sound of Fury (1950), which was an independent production and whose chain of ownership has been hard and strange to follow. There's no way to protect it. It's in no one's corporate interest to save this movie. The only way it's going to get preserved is through private funding.

Guillén: I appreciate your admiration of programmers who introduce and promote genres and subgenres. In your conversation with R. Emmett Sweeney you proposed that cinema's true anarchic energy now lies in comedy and horror "where you can break the rules. You don't have people breathing down your neck because executives don't care about these genre things, they don't watch them half the time."

Kehr: Comedy and horror are the two categories where a filmmaker is less sat upon by management, largely because there's a built-in audience for both horror movies and comedies. As a critic, I try not to have impressions one way or the other about particular genres, which allowed me to see—let's say—Douglas Sirk a lot earlier than some people might have. I try not to be prejudiced against such pictures. Still, a lot of people of our generation dislike westerns because they associate them with Vietnam. I've never made that association prohibitive. I'm fascinated by westerns and I'm fascinated by melodramas, but I wouldn't say I'm any more of a westerns guy than a melodramas guy.

Guillén: Can you speak at all to the recent trend in genre mash-ups? This Summer's blockbuster, for example, is a blend between a western and an alien invasion story.

Kehr: I don't know if that's anything that new. Have you ever seen The Phantom Empire (1935) where Gene Autry finds a mountain full of Martians?

Guillén: I've never heard of it but I'll probably go hunting for it now.

Kehr: It's a Mascot Pictures serial, which I believe has survived. Behind Gene's ranch is a mountain occupied by bona-fide aliens. There were a bunch of horror westerns in the 1940s.

Guillén: I think the official genre term is "weird western."

Kehr: Right.

Guillén: Another comment you made to Emmett Sweeney that intrigued me was: "We seem to be living in this post-mise-en-scene world." What do you mean by that?

Kehr: Well, more and more I think the camera's just being used to record performances without much thought being given to where to put the camera and how to use it to express the composition, lighting, texture, and all those things that went into making a good shot a few years ago. Certainly that's not across the board but it's becoming more and more a predominant aesthetic, which (of course) comes right out of handheld home video. In home videos, home movies, it doesn't matter how they're shot. The more formal elements of mise-en-scene and design have slowly started to fall away since films from the 1970s-1980s. It doesn't mean that those films are of less interest, it just means that performance has become central. It's filmmaking that's more suited to television where the visual doesn't matter as much. Characterization and plot matter more.

Guillén: Let's approach one or two of the specific films you've written about in When Movies Mattered. Though my initial preference is to read essays about films I've seen, in this instance I decided to take a film I hadn't seen and watch it upon your recommendation. Last night I watched Jean-Pierre Melville's Bob Le Flambeur (1956), available on Netflix Instant Watch. What struck me was Eddie Barclay and Jo Moyer's thoroughly modern jazz score.

Kehr: The French were into a lot of American popular culture that Americans weren't paying any attention to. Gangster films being a good example and jazz, at that point, being a good example.

Guillén: I was likewise struck by Roger Duchesne's poker-face performance in the lead role. At film's end when his young sidekick is killed, he barely reacts. The melodrama is pared down to a droll, dry wit.

Kehr: I love underplaying as a rule.

Guillén: Can you recommend any other films of Melville's?

Kehr: Criterion has three or four others. Army of Shadows (1969) is an experience of the French resistance. Le Samouraï (1967), which is one of Melville's most personal films, is dry. It's basically Alain Delon walking around by himself.

Guillén: My current fave rave is Raúl Ruiz. My first Ruiz film was Mysteries of Lisbon, seen last Fall in Toronto, and again this year at the San Francisco International. Since then, I've watched his considerably less charming Klimt (2006) and the wonderful The Three Crowns of the Sailor (1983). I love that you characterize Ruiz as "the only real maker of fantasy films" in your piece on City of Pirates (1983) and how you link his destabilizing techniques to the playful inventiveness of his fantasies. One of those destabilizing techniques is his signature practice of grouping actors together in friezes that he then moves as a whole. It's a technique that elicits disquiet as you're watching the film because you know something's artificial and drawing attention to the artificiality of the film. Do you have a term for what he's doing when he does that?

Kehr: I suppose it's related to what we used to call the tableau style in early silent films where there wasn't so much cutting within the scene. He uses a master shot and then creates movement inside of it in order to draw attention to what links one action to another. Someone like Ruiz is very educated on the history of film and he's drawing on that pre-montage idea.

Guillén: Another theme of recent interest is cinematic citation, how movies are made up out of each other, and—in the case of film criticism—how movies are understood in reference to each other. You do this a lot in your reviews. You describe a film by referencing other films. This demands a certain literacy from your audience.

Kehr: I guess I'm also trying to encourage them to see these other films. I'm habitually a bit of a taxonomist. I'm a classifier. I want to place and arrange this object with similar objects. I guess it's my Aristotelian training from the University of Chicago.