Book Reviews

BOOK REVIEWS This Is Where We Came In hire the kind of film critics who can mour), maintain their reputations with by Martin Knelman, prod, provoke, stimulate, and help comparatively small effort. Gilmour, McClelland and Stewart, make Canadian movies a lively art like Canby, doesn't aspire to produce 176 pages, $5.95 paperback that is well appreciated. American a book about films, and doesn't be (ISBN 0-7710-4533-6). films, after all, are well covered by lieve that his daily reviews (which he such writers as Pauline Kael, Andrew has been doing now for over 25 years) Sarris, Rex Reed, Judith Crist, and are worth reprinting, having served many other critics and interviewers their purpose upon first publication. "The most influential film review of note, in publications ranging from Nowhere, it seems, is there a critic er in Canada right now is Clyde Gil- Time to The Village Voice, The New who takes Canadian films seriously mour," a Toronto distributor recently York Times to The New Yorker. But enough to write an invigorating analy told me. "A positive review in the Canadian movies are left, in the main, sis of the subject, comparable to what Toronto Star can make the difference to a handful of hacks who have no ideas Margaret Atwood's Survival, Dennis for us between fair business and no to speak of, let alone an interesting Lee's Savage Fields, or George Wood business. The Globe and Mail has no philosophy of criticism. cock's various studies, have done for effect at all - because serious film- Canadian literature. Robert Fulford's goers don't respect Robert Martin, The failure of editors to invest in anthology of reviews from Saturday and general filmgoers don't follow building major critics has, I believe, Night, Marshall Delaney at the Movies what reviewers say anyway. The contributed to the way many Cana (1974), devoted less than 70 pages to Globe used to matter - when Martin dians perceive their own movies - Canadian movies, none of which was Knelman wrote the reviews, but now as drab, second-rate, earnest rather new. Judged by the prevailing stan there's just Clyde and that's it." than exciting. We have lots of medio dards of Canadian journalism, Ful cre reviewers in this country, but Whatever the state of Canada's film ford is an entertaining gadfly; but they're of no help in interpreting, in industry, the state of Canadian film judged by the intellectuel standards a way that generates interest, the criticism appears to be worse. This set by such books as, say, Susan Son- work of our best (or worst) filmmak is due in part to the apparent indif tag's On Photography (a brilliant study ers. Nowhere in Canada is there a ference of newspaper and magazine - one grows by arguing with it) the magazine with the policy of The New editors in utilizing such talent as ideas and values that are Fulford's Yorker which allows Pauline Kael and there is available. Maclean's cur stock-in-trade seem wholly unre Penelope Gilliatt to alternate, in six- rently uses film reviews by the A- markable. month terms, the writing of weekly merican critic John Simon; Weekend criticism, and then to rest, read, and Canadian have, so far, resisted travel, and develop themselves the Martin Knelman's This Is Where the idea of publishing film criticism remaining months of the year. Nor is We Came In (subtitled: The career on the grounds that such writing would there a newspaper with the policy of and character of Canadian Film) ap compete with local reviewers in the The New York Times which allows peared to be a more promising ven various newspapers that distribute Vincent Canby, as its lead critic, to ture. It wasn't supposed to be a spin the weekly supplements; and even choose the movies he wants to write off from already-published and paid- prominent newspapers, such as The about, and leave those he feels no for journalism (the book was funded Globe and Mail, have shown a shock special affinity with to other film- by a Senior Arts grant from the Can ing lack of discernment in choosing writers (all are fulltime employees ada Council) but rather, an original, reviewers. It's as if they preferred and well paid). Canby once told me in-depth study. The result however, journalistic non-entities to possible that he doesn't consider himself to be three years later, is a curious book (and possibly troublesome) "stars." "a major critic" and would never that starts off with respectably-writ Chatelaine settles for "mini-reviews", allow a collection of his reviews, or ten chapters on John Grierson, the instead of finding - or helping to Sunday essays, to be published. "Noth National Film Board, and the forma create - a major feminist critic such ing is more embarrassing," he said, tion of the Canadian Film Develop as Molly Haskell. There is hardly a "than the vain attempt to preserve the ment Corporation. Then, in a changed publication in Canada that could not insubstantial." In the U.S., maga format and style, there follow a series significantly upgrade its standards of zines, newspapers, radio and televi of chapters ("Corpses and Snow", film criticism if editors had the vision, sion stations, want "star" critics, "Culture and Ketaine", "Politics and and the will, to do so. Instead, a lot of and a lot of thoughtful effort, and Quebec", and others) in which Knel lip-service is paid to the cause of money, goes into establishing such man combines review and interview Canadian film culture, but when it careers. And the critics themselves material written over a period of years comes to the crunch, these same edi are creatively ambitious and work (involving such directors as Claude tors and publishers pointedly do not hard to produce the most distinguished Jutra, Gilles Carle, Denys Arcand, articles and books they are capable Don Shebib) in a manner that ranges of doing. from elliptical to slapdash. Practical ly all of this material has been pub Toronto writer and film critic, John Hofsess In Canada, even the few critics that lished in some form before (the origi is the author of Inner Views: Ten Canadian are supposed to be "our best" (Robert nal articles were often more coherent Filmmakers. Fulford, Martin Knelman, Clyde Gil- than the pastiches published here). 36/ Cinema Canada BOOK REVIEWS The final chapters ("Hollywood North: of Michel Brault's father was?)but the Naturally the reader expects to be Notes Toward a Screen Mythology") entire paragraph is a verbal clutter told what transpired between the two consist of nothing except shortened moving gracelessly to an anti-climax. men on this occasion (otherwise, why versions of old reviews of such movies All we really learn is that Pour la bring the subject up?), but in his next as Only God Knows, Black Christmas, suite du monde didn't have a voice- line Knelman writes, "Nothing John Act of the Heart, Fortune and Men's over commentary (except that Knel Grierson told Sydney Newman on that Eyes, etc., ending with Knelman's re man adds a footnote pointing out that Saturday could have resolved New views of Outrageous and Who Has the English version, known as Moon- man's problems, because the prob Seen The Wind done for Toronto Life. trap, did have such a commentary!). lems were part of the Grierson lega I kept asking myself while reading cy." Either he doesn't know what was this book what there was in it that said, or nothing of any importance took three years to write? Did Knel was said; in any case his anecdotal man lose interest in the project? Was lead-in leads nowhere. At another he so busy doing other journalism that point in the same chapter he writes, the book only got small amounts of "Like Duddy Kravitz, Sydney New his time and that he finally just threw man is openly a Jewish hustler, and in 40 pages of mini-reviews to flesh like Duddy he has a knack for making out the text? Despite the assertion people with artistic or intellectual made throughout, that all of us should aspirations appear impossibly fake." take a greater interest in the film cul The word, I notice, is "aspirations", ture of Canada, I kept wondering, if not "pretensions" - so apparently he believes it, why didn't Knelman anyone who is intellectually ambitious devote himself - utterly, passionate (Freud? Sartre? Einstein?) is "im ly - to writing a better book? Is this possibly fake," in Knelman's cosy, his limit? smug, middlebrow view. Ironically, Consider the style. In Chapter Four, This Is Where We Came In could use ("From Documentaries to Features"), a massive infusion of "artistic or he writes about Pierre Perrault's intellectual aspirations", for as it Pour la suite du monde (1963), "one stands, it's an uninspired muddle. of the finest movies ever produced in Canada." The best chapter, in my view, is "Politics and Quebec", dealing with "(Perrault) chose for his collabo the films of Denys Arcand. Knelman's rators Michel Brault, the son of a analysis of Rejeanne Padovani runs Westmount stockbroker, who was al directly counter to my own percep ready earning recognition as the most tions, but he certainly makes an in gifted cinematographer in Quebec, and teresting case on behalf of the film. Marcel Carriere, a sound-man who One chapter, and parts of others, do had been at the NFB since 1956 and not make much of a book however, and who had just done some stunning work the conclusion is inescapable: if a in a marvelous NFB short called Lone book like this were produced in any ly Boy, about Paul Anka, the Ottawa It hardly seems worth the effort.

Load more