Why I'm Glad I Didn't Write a Review of 'Up'
That Pixar’s marvelous, moving, and altogether astounding Up deserves every one of its accolades, and perhaps more, should be obvious just a few minutes into the film. But I feel a least a little bit sorry for the critics who had to sing the film’s praises. Yes, I love writing about film, and that love is rooted in a passion for sharing — some of my friends might call it pushing — great cinema with others. But every now and then, a movie comes along that’s so effortlessly delightful that I just want it to be mine, a treasure that I don’t have to share. It’s not that I don’t want others to see it — indeed, I’d encourage everyone to see Up now, and then again immediately afterwards if possible — but that I want to keep my personal experience of watching it to myself. That may not actually stop me from commenting on specific aspects of the film, what worked and why and how, or particular scenes and interpretations. But I’m glad I don’t have to write about it in a comprehensive or authoritative way, to summarize its plot or characters and make a careful case for its greatness. Doing so, even to rave, requires putting at least a bit of distance between oneself and one’s subject, and with a film as elegant and lovely and honestly heartfelt as Up, that’s not something I ever want to do.
Pixar makes some good movies. But the movies they make, I find, produce a lot of lousy criticism. So maybe it’s for the best.
— Freddie · Jun 4, 01:20 AM · #
Freddie, that’s true enough, but you have to ask: why? My answer is that they’re movies that are both really good but also designed in such a way to defeat interesting criticism. They’re smart films, but mostly they’re movies made with heart, so there’s not a lot to say except how much you loved the movie, which doesn’t make for terribly interesting criticism, and can easily bleed into mushy love-raves. And if you try to push it beyond that, into some sort of interpretive territory, it’s pretty easy to get in over your head pretty quickly with bad ideas. They’re all wonderful, to various degrees; maybe it’s better just to leave it at that.
— Peter Suderman · Jun 4, 01:28 AM · #
It’s certainly harder, and much less fun, to write a very positive review of anything than it is to write a very negative review. (I think that’s part of why Pitchfork is Pitchfork.)
— Freddie · Jun 4, 01:33 AM · #
I won’t drop my favorite Kenneth Tynan quote in here.
I will say that expressing unabashed enthusiasm and appreciation for a film (or anything else) is much riskier than being critical. I think this is part of why so many people enjoy going to church.
— Tony Comstock · Jun 4, 07:47 AM · #
As the only person on earth who attempted to write a mixed review of Wall*E I can attest that, yes, it’s easy to get in over one’s head with bad ideas, but, no, it isn’t easier or more fun to write negative things than positive things – at least about a Pixar film. Actually, in general, the two things that are fun to write are good criticism and bad reviews – that is to say: it’s fun to illuminate a work of art for an audience by explaining ways that it works that might not otherwise be obvious, and it’s fun ripping to shreds work you dislike and, more important, disrespect.
I haven’t yet seen Up, but with respect to Pixar films generally, what strikes me as consequential about them is that they have found a way to speak to adults and children simultaneously without spoiling the experience for either; that they are (generally) chock full of adult knowledge but are never archly knowing.
The best example for illustrating how they do this is their first movie, Toy Story, which operates on three simultaneous levels of emotional maturity. On the lowest level, it’s an adventure story about toys; inasmuch as there’s a moral object of this story, it’s Sid, the bad kid next door, who has to learn to play nice with his toys, and the toys learn something about standing up to thugs and bullies. On a more sophisticated level – the level at which most kids relate to the story – the moral object is Woody, who has to learn to adapt to the presence of a new cool kid and rival for Andy’s affections. And on the most sophisticated level, the level at which most adults relate to the film, it’s about Buzz’s existential crisis. The brilliance of the movie lies in part in the stunning technical artistry, in part in comic writing that never stops crackling but never seems to be trying at all, but in significant part in the way the movie moves smoothly between these three levels.
Not all the Pixar films get the balance so right. A Bug’s Life is really a movie for kids; grownups can enjoy it, but it’s not speaking to them in a serious way. By contrast, Ratatouille and Finding Nemo are really grownup movies, though sentimental ones. They are excellent films, and kids love them – little kids are fanatical about Nemo – but in neither film is the balance as consistently maintained as it is in the original Toy Story. None of which is to say that they are marred by this fact; it’s just what they are, and they are still great films.
I understand what Peter is talking about, though. Who was it said that when something is written it is already dead in your heart? Nietzsche? I forget, but there’s a truth in there. The challenge, though, is to go back and forth; to participate, then pull back and examine, and then dive in again and experience anew, with eyes both narrower and more widely open, not less or more attentive but differently so. And that’s probably as big a challenge after reading criticism as it is after writing it.
As for Up, as I say, I haven’t seen it yet. I was thinking, though, that somebody should write something comparing and contrasting it with Monster House.
— Noah Millman · Jun 4, 08:01 AM · #
“Who was it said that when something is written it is already dead in your heart? Nietzsche? I forget, but there’s a truth in there.”
This is why we have film and music!
— Tony Comstock · Jun 4, 08:13 AM · #
Mila Kunis in Forgetting Sarah Marshall had a great line about this beautiful emotion: “I can see your hoo-hoo!”
— tom · Jun 4, 09:33 AM · #
I just find that Pixar, like Apple, has a way of making its supporters try to enforce their tastes on other people. I find Pixars movies generally both very good, and rather overrated. But when reviewers fall all over themselves trying to out-gush their peers, I’m immediately set up to be disappointed.
— Freddie · Jun 4, 10:54 AM · #
I’m continually surprised that people were so impressed with “Up” – the first 20 minutes were transcendently good, but then it basically became a Dreamworks movie. Way too many talking animals (and the wrong KIND of talking animals), cheesy predictability, etc. The boy scout character just wasn’t developed enough (I think they were TRYING to say something profound about his family life, but it was very muddled), and the villain was probably the cheesiest villain of any Pixar film.
— paul h. · Jun 4, 10:58 AM · #
Peter, I sympathize with the desire sometimes simply to enjoy a film without reviewing it. I felt that way about Star Trek (although I still had to review it).
With Up, though, the review came bursting out of my enthusiasm for the film, especially relating to the thematic arc of Carl’s house and how it embodies his emotional journey. I had to write about it; my appreciation for the film wasn’t complete until I did.
FWIW, my review.
— SDG · Jun 4, 11:03 AM · #
This is for Noah Millman, who was asking about a comparison of “Up” and “Monster House.” Check Steven D. Greydanus’s review… and you’ll find comments on that very thing. http://decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/up.html
Peter, I haven’t reviewed the film yet either… for the very reasons you described. (And I think this is the first time I haven’t posted a Pixar-film review on opening weekend.)
And I’m already regretting a lot of what I’ve read about the film online. Sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but it amazes me that Jeffrey Wells’s first posts about the movie were about his disgruntlement over the idea of having a “fat” kid on the big screen, or others who seem to think that those of us who express enthusiasm for Pixar’s work are somehow blinded by love. Do Pixar’s films have weak points? Sure. But isn’t it presumptuous to assume that a film critic has lost his sense of discernment if he is enthusiastic about a film? I see weak points in just about all of Pixar’s films… but what they do well, they do so very well that I’m not going to let the film’s imperfections dampen my enthusiasm for their strengths.
That’s why I’m shaking my head at John Podhoretz’s review. He writes: “The fact is that you won’t hear anyone say Up is boring because it would be, well, improper to say it – just as you never heard anybody say its Pixar predecessor, Wall-E, completely ran out of steam in its disastrous second half, even though everybody knew it did. A cultural orthodoxy has been imposed on us, according to which it is impermissible to criticize a Pixar film.”
Okay… so, am I allowed to disagree with his assessment of WALL-E and Up without then being guilty of imposing a “cultural orthodoxy”? How about just having a different opinion?
I’ll read a film critic so long as he’s humble and uncompromising in considering a film. But I stop reading when the critic starts making presumptuous judgments about other critics, or pretending that there is such a thing as a “last word” on a movie.
— Jeffrey Overstreet · Jun 4, 12:37 PM · #
Consider people talking about lovers and ex-lovers. When people explain why the broke up, they may very well be able to articulate a list of rational reasons that they could not continue the relationship. But ask lovers who stay together why they stay together, and the reasons will sound trite; and especially if these sentiments are expressed in prose.
Podhoretz is very brave, isn’t he? Standing tall against the cultural orthodoxy. I hope some day to be able to muster such courage.
— Tony Comstock · Jun 4, 12:51 PM · #
Jeffrey — I think that’s a good point. This is what makes it so tough. I like JPod quite a bit, but his idea that there’s an orthodox strikes me as rather silly. Many Pixar films are widely loved, but none of them have gone without criticism, and films like A Bug’s Life and Cars were (rightly) given mixed reviews.
— Peter Suderman · Jun 4, 10:29 PM · #
I’ll read a film critic so long as he’s humble and uncompromising in considering a film. But I stop reading when the critic starts making presumptuous judgments about other critics, or pretending that there is such a thing as a “last word” on a movie.
And yet, that’s precisely how you are acting, in your comment. And you don’t seem to see the, well, presumption in thinking it’s presumptuous for someone to judge you based on your work, film reviews.
I find critics are capable, in any situation, of constructing some sort of strained philosophical justification for ignoring or undercutting people who disagree with them, when it fact they just don’t like being disagreed with.
— Freddie · Jun 5, 09:46 AM · #
“I find critics are capable, in any situation, of constructing some sort of strained philosophical justification for ignoring or undercutting people who disagree with them, when it fact they just don’t like being disagreed with.”
What a cynical point of view. I’m happy to say that doesn’t sound like the critics I know, including Jeffrey Overstreet.
Good critics are happy to engage different points of view on particular films. I cheerfully field emails from dissenting readers who hate movies I love and love movies I hate all the time, and anyone can read samples at my site. More than that, some of my favorite reviews by other critics I don’t even agree with.
I’m confident in saying that if Podhoretz had merely called Up boring, Overstreet would not have taken such exception to his review. What got his (and my) ire up is Podhoretz’s posturing as a heroic martyr-heretic against the oppressive pro-Pixar orthodoxy that “really knows” that WALL-E ran out of steam and Up is boring.
Essentially, Podhoretz makes out all critics who like WALL-E and Up to be agents or victims of the Pixar Police. Give me a break. If you don’t like WALL-E or Up, fine, say so. You’re in good company, and I don’t mind saying so, even though I liked them both. I’m in good company too. Why can’t we both be in good company?
“And yet, that’s precisely how you are acting, in your comment.”
Oh please. This is the sophomorphic objection that people who value tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance.
Overstreet believes that critics shouldn’t attack other critics for holding critical views of movies that they disagree with. Podhoretz did this, and Overstreet criticized him for that behavior, not for holding a critical view of a movie Overstreet disagrees with.
This isn’t hypocrisy — quite the contrary. Overstreet isn’t saying that critics shouldn’t criticize one another for anything ever.
— SDG · Jun 5, 11:07 AM · #
But Freddie, isn’t it presumptuous to talk about the presumption in pointing out another’s presumptuousness?
Will you allow me the presumption that anybody here gives a fuck about a pet-peeve of mine? Here it is:
This is the linchpin of his argument, and it’s demonstrably wrong.
Mike LaSalle at SFChronicle: “What we have with “WALL-E” is 45 minutes of a masterpiece and another 50-odd minutes of dithering – there as a concession that you can’t market a 45-minute movie.”
Stephanie Zacharek at Salon: “But “WALL-E” ultimately backs away from both its romanticism and its bitterness; its ending feels like a tacked-on remnant of manufactured hope and goodwill . . . Toward the end of “WALL-E,” Stanton tries to circle back and recapture some of the wistful magic of the movie’s early scenes, but the spell doesn’t take.”
Bob Mondello NPR: “Things turn more conventional in the last half hour, when pudgy, machine-dependent humans make an appearance, but the glow of that first part will carry you through.”
Sean Axmaker at SeattlePI: “It’s almost like two movies spliced together: a robot tale with extended wordless scenes of slapstick gags and delicate mechanical dances and the more conventional, less magical story of a fat and apathetic mankind nudged out of its complacency.”
Elise Nakhnikian at The House Next Door: “Take Wall-E—at least, up to what my husband calls the Titanic portion of the movie. Until the two little love-bots start running around the space station, calling out each other’s names for what feels like forever, the premise is ingenious, funny, and poignant all at once.”
Is it to much to expect that somebody would search through Rottentomatoes and Metacritic before publishing a claim like Podhoretz’s? This took me five minutes.
— Sargent · Jun 5, 11:09 AM · #
Noah: I’m not sure what Nietzsche said, but perhaps Eliot? From Four Quartets, East Coker IV:
“So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years—
Twenty years largely wasted, the years of l’entre deux guerres
Trying to use words, and every attempt
Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure
Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
One is no longer disposed to say it…”
— cth · Jun 5, 10:11 PM · #
Very belatedly, that is East Coker V, not IV. Oops.
— cth · Jun 8, 02:16 AM · #
I disagree. ticketslayer@gmail.com
— Tort King · Jun 10, 08:46 PM · #