Journal #1 sample

Don't forget: journal #1 (critique the critic) must be posted on your blog by class time Tuesday. Be sure to include a link to your review, a picture or other image, and some relevant excerpts from the review (use the block quote feature -- the quotation mark button). Here's something (600 words, to be exact) I wrote up on a review of the new Western, 3:10 to Yuma.

J. Hoberman of the Village Voice is one of the few critics I read regularly who seems to offer different takes on film than mainstream critics, yet manages to avoid being a contrarian (just taking the opposite view of the majority in order to be different and, therefore, smarter). He does that again in this review of the recently released 3:10 to Yuma -- his review still makes me excited to see the movie, but he ratchets down the expectations enough so I won't go in thinking I'll be watching the greatest Western since Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven.

Hoberman lets readers know they're in capable hands right away by establishing his knowledge of both the Western genre and the 1957 original upon which this film is based:

Based on a story by Elmore Leonard, 3:10 to Yuma had an obvious kinship to High Noon, which appeared five years earlier. In both, a lone citizen is pitted against an insouciant criminal (and his gang), as well as confounded by a social order too craven to defend itself: The various moral issues are subsumed in the 11th Commandment that a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

This breadth of knowledge is important to me, because a Western is never just a Western -- so many have been made throughout American cinematic history that each new one is, in a way, having a conversation with scores of other Westerns that came before. By placing the new 3:10 to Yuma in a historical context, Hoberman lets the reader know that this isn't a paint-by-numbers review. This especially comes across in sections of the review in which he compares this version, directed by James Mangold, with the original, directed by Delmer Daves. Although Hoberman thinks the story still works in the new Yuma, he clearly has an issue with the pacing and the scale, which he implies is too much like the typical Hollywood action flick. After a few references to the big battle scenes, he says:

What's lost in Mangold's rough-hewn exercise in barroom-brawl baroque is the original one-on-one ... The original's argument becomes purely situational here—per the dictates of contemporary ADD entertainment, moral judgment is always in the moment.

Another way in which Hoberman shows his knowledge of the Western is the fact that he acknowledges that there was more to them than just showdowns and whiskey drinking. They were made to help resolve conflicts that people could relate to:

Back in the day, America used the western to ponder certain things—among
them the nature of right and wrong and the basis of the social contract.

Hoberman goes on to say that Mangold's explorations of themes like this are "louder" than Daves', but it was heartening to hear that this film stays true to the nature of the Western by examining weighty issues -- so many people still think of the Western as mindless entertainment, when in actuality it tells us so much about how Americans view themselves and their history.

I like that Hoberman saves his comments about the acting until the last few paragraphs. Too many critics devote too much space to discussing the actors, basically playing into Hollywood's shallow celebrity culture. Yes, acting can sometimes make or break a movie, but so can every other element of film. I also have to admit that I like the potshot Hoberman took at Russell Crowe, who I think is kind of overrated, save for his performance in The Insider.

This review reinforced my earlier thoughts about seeing the film: rent the orignal first via Netflix, then watch the remake.