International Journal of Jungian Studies, 2013 Vol. 5, No. 2, 177Á180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19409052.2013.773631

SHORT ARTICLE Film criticism, film theory, and the middle range Andrew McWhirter*

University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK

What do we mean by film criticism, and what of its relevance here? As academics and individuals, we constantly think about other fields and a variety of spheres. These include, but are not exclusive to, the often encouraged cross-disciplinary approach, as well as the interactive dynamics between corporate, state, public and private interests that dominate our professional as well as domestic lives. In other words, we are not and should not be limited by one approach. Bringing film to the pages of the International Journal of Jungian Studies not only shows the relevance in juxtaposing cinema studies with the work of Carl Jung: the merging of these arenas also transpires in greater depth of analytical detail Á such as in the exposition work of Luke Hockley over the years. No, the most important sphere or discipline that it is hoped will become illuminated for the Jungian readership by this exercise is that of arts criticism Á both as a mode of address and specifically in relation to film. Is it possible to write film criticism and use film theory at the same time? Or, perhaps more importantly, is it possible to do this in an engaging, accessible and jargon-free way? Former film critic turned academic, Adrian Martin (2008) (he quit his newspaper job in 2006 when his articles were being slashed to make room for advertisements), argues that there are three levels of film criticism. Firstly, ‘mass media journalism’, which ‘takes place in newspapers and general non-film magazines, as well as on radio and on television’. In Britain, this would include even a quality broadsheet such as The Guardian.1 Secondly, the ‘middle range’, usually existing ‘in regular film magazines that can offer quite intellectual commentary, but in an accessible, fairly easily readable way’. For example, Sight and Sound in the UK, Film Comment in the USA, and El Amante in Argentina. Martin lists the third level of film criticism as ‘academic’, and defines it as ‘where film criticism becomes film history and film theory. Its home is the academic journal, and its readership is usually very small and specialised’. Another UK example here would be Screen, with a more than respectable circulation topping over 1200. Stressing no inherent hierarchies in these areas, because the lines between them are often blurred, Martin (2008) argues that concentration must reside with the middle range, proposing that ‘we must expand this middle range, and pull more into it from all directions’. But, if we concentrate on the middle range, aren’t we losing some colour from the mainstream or rigour from the academy?

Email: [email protected]

# 2013 Taylor & Francis 178 A. McWhirter

Some question whether academic film criticism exists at all. In The Language and Style of Film Criticism (2011), editors Alex Clayton and Andrew Klevan argue that any actual film criticism is relatively marginalised in this area, and that what does exist is often too formalised, or embedded in theory and insular language. For a universal medium, this is an immediate and detrimental problem. The writers they bring together in their collection, Martin among them, intend to show that film criticism can exist in the academy, with most contributors being or having been academics and film critics in some capacity.2 In his 2007 work, The Death of the Critic,Ro´na´n McDonald attests to two factors that gave birth to his book’s ominous title: the internet, and the rise of cultural studies. On the former point, one can assert that the proliferation of noise and marketing that drove Martin out has increased considerably online. And, on the latter, that a general suspicion of, or reluctance to evaluate, artwork exists due to the fear of being judged as having an ideological bias. Indeed, some academics argue that evaluation is lacking from all contemporary criticism, not just in the academy (Carroll, 2009). So, if this middle range is an area that is clear and accessible, intelligent and (quasi) independent of markets, and not afraid to evaluate, then perhaps Martin is correct. After all, this is how criticism has worked best in the past. Although coming from politically diametric spheres, literary critic Terry Eagleton (1984) and philosopher Noel Carroll (2009) Á when articulating the task of the critic and function of criticism Á at least agree that criticism is acknowledge at its most productive and vibrant when it closes the gap between Grub Street and Ivory Tower.3 However, though evaluation is a key concern, theory need not be abandoned. For example, on just one level, it would be revealing on its own terms to have someone with a Jungian background to evaluate a work. At the same time, it is important to realise that just because the writer is a Jungian does not mean that their judgement constitutes a Jungian analysis. On another level, it would be interesting to see if more than one Jungian reading is possible of the same film. This is what film criticism is for Á in the words of one of the greatest living film critics writing today (who perfectly straddles the boundaries of academic and journalistic writing), Jonathan Rosenbaum, ‘to facilitate a discussion’ (personal interview conducted by author at University of Glasgow, 2009). If there’s one thing Jungian analysis lends itself to, alongside an idealised critical sphere, it is that it rarely seeks to close down meaning. The elements that are inherent composites of criticism Á dialogues, oppositions, contrary readings, reactionary critiques Á are all easy to embrace with a Jungian inflection, but only if the work suggests so. And certainly not at the expense of the normal processes of reviewing a film: context, film history, evaluation. But analytical psychology can be particularly useful to film criticism. The constant tension between the processes and themes of cinema as an art form lend themselves to similar tensions that exist in Jungian studies between the self or the interior world and the exterior world or society, and in turn these lend themselves to a discussion of criticism itself. For instance, how should we talk about David Cronenberg’sADangerous Method (2011)? In the context of the director as an auteur and his styling (markedly different with this picture)? Or as a collaborative procedure (distilled from various source materials performed by Hollywood stars)? Film criticism, or at least coverage, now takes place in many academic journals that are not necessarily focused on film or even theory. Whether this extends the