I was reading the obituary page of the Globe and Mail newspaper yesterday when the name of John Harkness caught my eye. (I had just finished reading a story on the passing of a veteran RCAF officer. A man who was active during the Avro Arrow days.)The story on Harkness was just a blurb in the right hand column. I thought he would have earned a larger obit than that.
Harkness was known primarily in Toronto as the long time resident film critic for Now Magazine. My impression is that he became more opinionated as the years went on; if Now readers' letters (to the editor) are any indication. Harkness appeared to upset or set off many readers with his 'unreasonable' reviews of motion pictures. He had his opinions and that was that: They were immovable.
Some called him "The Hark Ness Monster".
Like the famous American film critic, Pauline Kael, Harkness had an opinion or attitude that did not sit well with a lot of readers. Snobbery, I think it is interpreted as being. I call it being very well informed.
While I like reading Kael -- even though I disagree with a lot of what she said, film to film -- I can't say the same of John Harkness. I detected a bit of baggage in his reviews; although, this is not an uncommon commodity in critics. Theatre critics, anyone?!
However, like him or not, Harkness didn't appear to feel obligated to tell some what he thought they wanted to hear.
Maybe, some day soon, a publisher will release a book of Harkness' reviews. A compendium of film reviews, like what had been done for Canadian film critic, Jay Scott. Now there was a superlative reviewer; and one of a rare intelligence. Even though I did disagree with an awful lot of what he had to say... film to film.
6 comments:
You hit the nail right on the head. I seldom agree with my film favourite film writers.... Jay Scott, J. Hoberman, Pauline Kael, etc. If anything I more respond to their style and approach than their opinions.
While I can't say I put Harkness in the same mantle as those names above, I do concede that he wrote what people didn't want to hear about their sacred cows, and as a critic I don't think one has to pander to their audience, but ultimately, it comes down to whether their reaction against sacred cows is simply a knee-jerk pseudo-hip tendency or whether their reasons are justified.
There are some very informed and intelligent people who can serve as reliable consumer advocates without so much baggage, as you say, and without being snobbish.
The film industry would exist and thrive without critics, especially with so much word-of-mouth to sift through these days in blogs. . .
Good critics can make you see things in new ways. And they can bring neglected films to your attention.
Many so-called movie fans only see films that the studios throw in their faces.
I would say: Keep sifting!
Context, context, context. Are film "reviewers" and "critics" the same thing? As an informed consumer, do I want a neutral / objective review of a production; so I may make an informed choice? As an intellectual (pseudo-or-otherwise), do I want an incisive consideration of a work in its entire context? I can respect the opinions of intelligent people, regardless of whether or not they differ from mine. I don't half to like them, though. While the informed musings of some film critics are often thought-provoking and good fodder for coffee house debates, I sometimes don't have the time for that kind of approach when the wife wants to go catch a flick, and we have to make a purchase decision. Jay Scott, “Canada's most influential film critic,” used to drive me nuts. Sometimes, after reading one of his attacks, uh, I mean “review,” I would shout: “what the f*&k does that have to do with the film, Jay?” I could contextualize my dislike of him on a personal level, but that, I'm sure, would offend some people. Maybe I should, then – mwuhahaha! Never mind; I digress. Another topic for another day?: Are "movies" a product (see "Hollywood"), or are "films" art? If all films were art, would enough people fund an industry to finance any kind of non-mainstream projects (see “Johnny Depp”)?
Cannot say I agreed with Harkness, nor that I liked his writing style. I found his work reactionary and contradictory. In that sense, he lived like the rest of us. RIP.
The pope wrote: "The film industry would exist and thrive without critics, especially with so much word-of-mouth to sift through these days in blogs..."
Okay, you're lumping two entirely different things together: recognized film critics such as Pauline Kael, and the late, great Jay Scott, and a bunch of kids in their basement blogging that "Star Wars Epsiodes 1-3 suck" or "Deep Blue has Jessica Alba in bikini... Awesome!"
Informed criticism will always have a place. If, as I believe most would claim, cinema is Art (or approaches Art), why should it be exempt from intellectual scrutiny?
Post a Comment