Join 707 other subscribers
Join 707 other subscribers
All material displayed is protected under copyright 2011 by Chandler Swain, Chandler Swain Reviews and parent companies therefore and whatnot. No material will be copied without the written permission of above parties unless the offender wishes to suffer a cruel fate worse than any experienced by a spouse of any reality program housewife, skank or pseudo-trash celebrity. Thou hast been warned. Just kidding.
What is it we seek from the Cinema? It all depends on your point of view.
For some, the movies are a source of seeking refuge from everyday existence, a release from daily tensions and anxieties. This is escapism and it has been the driving factor of the Populist attraction to the movies since the origin of the form. However, if one were to alter the view and regard film without merely the Populist limitations of escapist diversion but also as an Art Form, the perspective deepens and enters the realm of Critical Thought.
Though inconsistent in perspective, each side has validity, and is actually far more dependent on the existence of the other than would first seem possible. In a nutshell, it is a battleground between perceived verisimilitude against the aesthetic Ideal.
In formulating the foundations of The Critical Establishment,
it is necessary to understand the characteristics of each perspective, to note the seemingly contradictory similarities and disparities, and their often inextricable interconnections.
In examining both Populist thought and Critical Thinking in Film, it is useful to define the key players in the field: the reviewers and the critics. Though seemingly cut from the same cloth, there is a world of difference. Reviewers are the professional manifestation of the Populist front; reviewers have a primary focus on entertainment value while critics evaluate under an aesthetic criteria, reviewers reward immediate gratification whereas critics seek artistry.
With the burgeoning of internet filmspeak, there is a misconception that the old model of printed press criticism is being eroded by the emergence of an equal internet critical roster. This, however, is a fallacy. One thing is for certain, even with a cursory glance at popular internet movie sites: reviewers are plentiful and genuine criticism of merit is as scarce as water in the Mojave Desert.
The reviewer will generally spend the bulk of their time reprinting the plot synopsis of a film, often almost verbatim from the printed materials of the studio. While this assists handily in filling a column, it does little to illuminate the worth of a film. The reviewer will often spend an inordinate amount of time relaying such unessential data as background gossip, "best" lists and an alarming volume of space on film finances- usually relating to either the film's budget (as if the writer had a financial stake in the enterprise) or opening weekend receipts, neither of which has the slightest bearing on the film's aesthetic achievement.
-to be continued
Joseph Pevney’s “romantic” “adventure” starring a prematurely haggard Errol Flynn takes little time in revealing its immediate dramatic problems when an early cabaret scene featuring the dynamically engaging Nat King Cole is clearly going to be the highlight of the film. No where else within this cobbled together reconstruction of formula parts from “Casablanca” (it’s actually an unnecessary remake of 1947’s “Singapore”) and lesser intervening imitations, is there an equal sense of emotional fire or performance chemistry. Certainly the intended sparks between suspected jewel smuggler Flynn and the antiseptic studio import Hopeful-of-the-Month Cornell Borchers (who has to win the prize for the all-time worst name for an actress in the short history of cinema) produces nary a damp flint’s spark; an unsurprising result as Flynn eyes seem to light up only on those occasions when he is picking up a drink, while Borchers seems to be an unfortunate amalgam of a low-grade imitation of Ingrid Bergman combined with the chilled sexlessness of Julie Andrews.
CHANDLER SWAIN REVIEWS 
A very accurate appraisal of a best-forgotten film. I sometimes wonder why you bother with these Chandler, but I am glad that you do!
Best wishes from England, Pete.