Customer Reviews

Sexual Politics and Narrative Film

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As a long-term admirer of Robin Wood, I feel compelled to answer the neagtive review of his book here, and attempt to provide a contrasting (balancing) view.

Firstly, this book, and Wood's 'world of film criticism,' is described in the first paragraph as 'pessimistic and one-sided.' True, as the review notes, the introduction lays out Wood's personal view of the ills of contemporary capitalist society, and granted it is extreme in its despair at the state of the planet. However, given that the book comprises a series of essays on films and filmmakers very dear to Wood's heart - works that can highlight social ills and help point a path towards liberation - it is difficult, I think, to conclude that it is, as a whole, negative or pessimistic. He is dealing with many filmmakers, such as Mizoguchi, Ozu, Ophuls and Rivette, that themselves highlight oppresion and injustice in their work. It is this that Wood analyzes (very convincingly, in my view); and thus it seems that the problem the reviewer has with the book is its fundamental basis, its reason for being (as it were): not, as is implied in the review, Wood's particular treatment. In any case, there are several essays here - particularly of the wonderful Before Sunrise - of films that Wood clearly believes are life-affirming, so it's not the simplistic doom-mongering the reviewer makes it out to be.

Secondly: as to the charge that Wood is a 'snobbish elitist,' I can only say that he has always tended to aim his work (going back to his early books on Antonioni, Hitchcock and Arthur Penn) at an educated audience who are not newcomers to serious film criticism and academic close-analysis. This is not so much a dig at the reviewer. Rather, I am saying that, unless you are a serious and commited student of the cinema (in other words, studying to at least a degree level), Wood's detailed, rigorous analyses and sometimes dense prose can be heavy-going. OK, I concede that his references to older, more high-brow art forms in connection with and validation of certain films and directors (there is a piece in this book about Renoir and Mozart) can be a little OTT. In this, it is the case that Wood comes from a generation of critics (along with V.F. Perkins, Richard Dyer, Noel Burch, etc) who were writing at a time when film studies was in its infancy, and when films were not widely allowed the status of serious art. This is something he and others have always fought for, and I peronally find it stimulating and refreshing. I thus repeat, in the interest of objectivity, that only those seeking very passionate, challenging and detailed academic criticism should seek out this book.

Thirdly, if the chapter on the two Gaslights is imbalanced, it is because Wood is correcting a perceived imbalance himself - the myth (as he says) that Dickinson's version is better than Cukor's. Regardless of whether you agree with this or not, it is the case that the essay is about Cukor's film more than Dickinson's. Once again, the book is criticised here for not doing something that it never sets out to do and never claims to be doing.

Fourthly, and most importantly, i come to the curious assertion that Wood's writing 'only forces us to see his point until the very end.' I confess, I'm not sure what is being argued against here, or why this is a bad thing. Surely the point of film criticism is to explicate a personal position regarding a film. Why should a critic feel duty bound to add balance (by which I can only presume, as the reviewer doesn't make it clear, that what is meant by this is that all analyses should allow for good and bad points in a film)? This is what a tabloid reviewer of films should be concerned with; NOT a serious critic engaging in academic close-analysis. One should always read critics critically (a point Wood actually makes in this book, in the chapter on Ozu), and if one doesn't, that is not the critic's fault. If you don't agree with Wood's valuation of a film, fine: just know that it is not, nor should it be, his problem to allow for contradictory views in his work. That is your own responsibility, not the critic's!

In one sense, however, it is true what the review says: that if you are entirely new to serious film criticism, there are better places to start than with Robin Wood. However, this should not be a criticism of his work: he is unapologetically concerned with serious analysis, and for me that is something there is too little of today, as mags like Sight and Sound continually dumb down. He is a passionate, engaging and challenging critic, and this is a passionate, engaging and challenging book.