BY LEE PFEIFFER
Once upon a time, there was what is now considered to be
a Golden Age of film criticism. Serving in that capacity was a well-regarded
career and the standards were generally high. In the pre-internet age, when
newspapers and magazines were in their heyday, readers voraciously followed the
most influential film critics, whose endorsements of a film could elevate its
popularity. Conversely, of course, a negative review might spell death at the
boxoffice. Some of the more prominent critics were regarded as snooty and too
upper crust to connect with the average reader. The ascension of critics Roger
Ebert and Gene Siskel through their highly influential “At the Moviesâ€
syndicated TV series changed all of that. They were film scholars, to be sure,
but they reviewed movies in a populist manner, often defending films that most
critics chose to ignore or denounce. With the advent of the internet, today
anyone can proclaim themselves to be a film critic. You just need a blog and-
Presto!- you are a film critic. Of course, today’s definition of the profession
encompasses the good, the bad and the ugly. Simply having an enthusiasm for
movies doesn’t make one prolific in analyzing them.
One of the best of the “old world†film critics was
British writer Philip French, who began writing film reviews in the early 1950s
and went on to be a long-time contributor to The Times and The Observer. He
passed away in 2015, still practicing his profession. French’s family has
compiled a book of some of his most relevant and important reviews and
published them under the title of “Notes from the Dream House: Selected Film
Reviews 1963-2013â€. The book, published
by Carcanet Press, sets the right tone beginning with the cover, an illustration by
Charles Addams of the "Uncle Fester" character laughing at a movie that has everyone else in
the audience sobbing. Like most of the major critics who came of age when
French did, he displays an encyclopedic knowledge of the films and talents he
passes judgment on. He also falls into
the same trap as many of his peers by assuming the reader is well-versed in
sometimes obscure names and film titles. However, he never comes across as
pretentious and his prose is often wistful and amusing. It is interesting to
read his observations about films that became famous or infamous and French
also revisits certain movies for re-evaluation many years after their initial
release. We find he championed obscure titles such as “Two Land Blacktop†and
dared to defend such boxoffice disasters as Michael Cimino’s “Heaven’s Gate†and Hugh Hudson’s “Revolultionâ€
(good for him!). He appreciates
Attenborough’s “A Bridge Too Far†while most critics were immune to its many
qualities. He devotes a very long review to extolling the merits of the 1999
Bond adventure “The World is Not Enoughâ€. He also doesn’t have any sacred cows:
despite being an admirer of Kubrick, he rightly points out that “The Shiningâ€
is “a polished, low-key horror picture of a rather conventional kind… we never
became involved either intellectually or viscerally with the characters…Our
pants flutter occasionally, but the film comes nowhere near scaring them off
us.†In a 1982 re-evaluation of Leone’s “Once Upon a Time in the Westâ€, he
makes a mea culpa and admits that,
upon seeing the film in its initial release in 1969, he did not recognize its
greatness. He decried Robert Downey Jr.’s interpretation of Sherlock Holmes as
a contemporary action hero and was an early admirer of John Boorman’s “Point
Blankâ€, which some critics simply denounced because of its violent content.
Breezing through the book is a delight. You can randomly
drop in anywhere and read the reviews that appeal to you. But it should be
noted that French’s observations are worth reading even if they pertain to film
titles that don’t particularly interest you. His wry wit and poignant analysis
make this book a “must†for retro movie lovers.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER FROM AMAZON