http://parallax-view.org/2009/05/13/john-huston-withholding-judgment/ Smart Words About Cinema Sun, 20 May 2012 20:40:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://parallax-view.org/2009/05/13/john-huston-withholding-judgment/comment-page-1/#comment-1821 David Coursen Fri, 22 May 2009 21:16:03 +0000 http://parallax-view.org/?p=2254#comment-1821 Thanks for your thoughts. Sounds like I should take another look at Under the Volcano. Thanks for your thoughts. Sounds like I should take another look at Under the Volcano.

]]> http://parallax-view.org/2009/05/13/john-huston-withholding-judgment/comment-page-1/#comment-1787 Mike Krainak Fri, 15 May 2009 15:41:42 +0000 http://parallax-view.org/?p=2254#comment-1787 I would only add that the above should read "7 flawed masterpieces" rather than 15...my bad...Mike K. I would only add that the above should read “7 flawed masterpieces” rather than 15…my bad…Mike K.

]]> http://parallax-view.org/2009/05/13/john-huston-withholding-judgment/comment-page-1/#comment-1786 Mike Krainak Fri, 15 May 2009 15:36:03 +0000 http://parallax-view.org/?p=2254#comment-1786 David...I much appreciate your thoughtful essay on my favorite film director, John Huston. But, unless I missed something, you failed to mention anything on one of his best achievements, "Under the Volcano," an incomparable film, if for no other reason, because others "attempted" to film it and simply gave up. Adding that film to his oeuvre would surely launch the flawed filmmaker into the pantheon that Agee predicted despite the missteps of his career as you pointed out. Yes, Huston disappointed. Can you honestly think of a "great artist" who did not? I think it a huge mistake to ultimately judge an artist by his failures or losses along with his successes as if he were a sports team. Art is not a game or a competition whereby we judge greatness on a winning percentage. We must be grateful for the successes and judge them accordingly. Furthermore, popular art and culture are at a huge disadvantage under analysis and judgment because the missteps of a popular artist such as a filmmaker are seen by viewers and critics. Yet, the truly gifted and unique film artists are artists. Would we think any less of a Rembrandt or Picasso if we saw all the "crap" they hid or destroyed or do we judge them on what they succeeded at? Hopefully, artists will be judged on what they show, and if they fail occasionally, their failures will be put in proper context. As I mentioned, Huston made some inferior films....he knew that...play past them and recognize the quality and quantity of his successes. He had an amazing career, but there will always be those critics who denigrate him because he made films about flawed "heroes" many of whom failed at their endeavors...yet attempted them nonetheless, something that America can't seem to tolerate. Huston was a superior visual storyteller, something else some critics forget when writing him off as a good "casting director" which you also accurately point out with Sarris. As an example, I would point to the first reel of "Moby Dick" as one of the greatest examples of visual storytelling and continuity in film history, an incredible and beautiful example of film imagery in a narrative context. And this in a "flawed" film. Given the challenge the text presented, the film should be applauded and enjoyed for its achievement. Lastly, as a film instructor and historian at the local university, I would add only this. Huston's films, his good ones, age well, and are always watchable for their quality. How many filmmakers do you know who can boast 10 great or near great films, "Maltese Falcon," "Treasure of Sierra Madre," "Battle of San Pietro," "Let There Be Light," "Asphalt Jungle," "Fat City," "Man Who Would Be King," "Wise Blood,"Prizzi's Honor," and "The Dead," and 15 flawed masterpieces, "Moby Dick," Key Largo," "Reflections in a Golden Eye," "Red Badge of Courage ( A film, despite its history and Huston's culpability, I could watch once a month for its beauty and natural performances...if the original print of this film were ever found, it would forever cement Huston's caree), "The Misfits," "Moulin Rouge," and "Night of the Iguana." That is a total of 17 worthy films. If greatness were a quantitative issue, I wonder if Ford and Welles could boast the same much as I esteem both. But of course it is not, yet Huston's 17, individually and totally "speak" for themselves. He belongs in their company as Agee predicted, not for what he didn't accomplish, but for what he did. You and I could rattle off the names of any number of directors in the past 30 years who have been crowned by critics. How many made 17+ worthy films? How many will still be directing superior work in their 70s. Huston's career was as predictable as the stock market, something Agee understood. It's valued because of the averages, forgetting that it is achieved by a series of ups and downs, often severe. We revere the highs, forgetting and forgiving the inevitable lows, just as it should be. It can't be directed either...Mike Krainak David…I much appreciate your thoughtful essay on my favorite film director, John Huston. But, unless I missed something, you failed to mention anything on one of his best achievements, “Under the Volcano,” an incomparable film, if for no other reason, because others “attempted” to film it and simply gave up. Adding that film to his oeuvre would surely launch the flawed filmmaker into the pantheon that Agee predicted despite the missteps of his career as you pointed out. Yes, Huston disappointed. Can you honestly think of a “great artist” who did not? I think it a huge mistake to ultimately judge an artist by his failures or losses along with his successes as if he were a sports team. Art is not a game or a competition whereby we judge greatness on a winning percentage. We must be grateful for the successes and judge them accordingly. Furthermore, popular art and culture are at a huge disadvantage under analysis and judgment because the missteps of a popular artist such as a filmmaker are seen by viewers and critics. Yet, the truly gifted and unique film artists are artists. Would we think any less of a Rembrandt or Picasso if we saw all the “crap” they hid or destroyed or do we judge them on what they succeeded at? Hopefully, artists will be judged on what they show, and if they fail occasionally, their failures will be put in proper context. As I mentioned, Huston made some inferior films….he knew that…play past them and recognize the quality and quantity of his successes. He had an amazing career, but there will always be those critics who denigrate him because he made films about flawed “heroes” many of whom failed at their endeavors…yet attempted them nonetheless, something that America can’t seem to tolerate. Huston was a superior visual storyteller, something else some critics forget when writing him off as a good “casting director” which you also accurately point out with Sarris. As an example, I would point to the first reel of “Moby Dick” as one of the greatest examples of visual storytelling and continuity in film history, an incredible and beautiful example of film imagery in a narrative context. And this in a “flawed” film. Given the challenge the text presented, the film should be applauded and enjoyed for its achievement. Lastly, as a film instructor and historian at the local university, I would add only this. Huston’s films, his good ones, age well, and are always watchable for their quality. How many filmmakers do you know who can boast 10 great or near great films, “Maltese Falcon,” “Treasure of Sierra Madre,” “Battle of San Pietro,” “Let There Be Light,” “Asphalt Jungle,” “Fat City,” “Man Who Would Be King,” “Wise Blood,”Prizzi’s Honor,” and “The Dead,” and 15 flawed masterpieces, “Moby Dick,” Key Largo,” “Reflections in a Golden Eye,” “Red Badge of Courage ( A film, despite its history and Huston’s culpability, I could watch once a month for its beauty and natural performances…if the original print of this film were ever found, it would forever cement Huston’s caree), “The Misfits,” “Moulin Rouge,” and “Night of the Iguana.” That is a total of 17 worthy films. If greatness were a quantitative issue, I wonder if Ford and Welles could boast the same much as I esteem both. But of course it is not, yet Huston’s 17, individually and totally “speak” for themselves. He belongs in their company as Agee predicted, not for what he didn’t accomplish, but for what he did. You and I could rattle off the names of any number of directors in the past 30 years who have been crowned by critics. How many made 17+ worthy films? How many will still be directing superior work in their 70s. Huston’s career was as predictable as the stock market, something Agee understood. It’s valued because of the averages, forgetting that it is achieved by a series of ups and downs, often severe. We revere the highs, forgetting and forgiving the inevitable lows, just as it should be. It can’t be directed either…Mike Krainak

]]>