SWR: Baffling prose

C

Christian Miller (CMM)

Christian Miller
Sometimes it takes reading enthusiasts of another medium to make me understand how we must sound to non wine geeks. Take this gem of a phrase, from a review of the Italian movie Police, Adjective in a recent New Yorker:
"Porumboiu's images, all nouns and verbs, withhold inflection in order to highlight the moral weight of creating and interpreting information..."

Nouns and verbs? Are there other images that are adverbs, pronouns, prepositions? And what would they look like? Even stretching the meaning of inflection - a matter of sound or grammar - to cover image creation, how could a movie director withhold inflection after choosing camera angles, depth and distance, editing and so on? And why would withholding inflection highlight moral issues?

How many people reading this review could possibly know what the reviewer is talking about?
 
All I can say is that it's a damn good thing we have Loesberg and Bowman in the house to interpret for us.
 
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
"Porumboiu's images, all nouns and verbs, withhold inflection in order to highlight the moral weight of creating and interpreting information..."
Click to expand...

The textual unpackers as sideshow freaks! Why do I feel like some crystal ballreading Madame in a brightly colored silk head scarf? It's coming to me...

No, I kind of like this description, on parsing, despite its obnoxiousness. (Obnoxiousness like the pinch of VA that makes, say, a Ren Mosse Anjou tasty (to me).)

But wow, OK, it's a bit blustery, innit? He's having the straightforward nature of the filmmaker's shots do a lot of legwork. I can see how stark imagery or action-driven (so: wordless?) takes would make for a streamlined and hard-edged film. But that that could highlight the moral weight of, etc., chapeau.

I would watch this film with a glass of Vouette & Sorbe Fidle, say. And some unsalted cashew nuts.
 
Not having seen the film or read the full review, I have no context. But why should that stop me? In defense of the writer, one must reach into the unknown to describe the new. She/he may not have succeeded in capturing the thought, but at least the attempt is there. Many don't even try, opting to dismiss the novel because it's too difficult to explain.
 
I would add that writing about wine often falls into the category of novel - successfully turning wine into words is to my mind far more miraculous than the turning water into wine. One of many reasons I miss Coad.
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I would add that writing about wine often falls into the category of novel - successfully turning wine into words is to my mind far more miraculous than the turning water into wine. One of many reasons I miss Coad.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
I object to the objection. Presumably, there exists an enthusiastic audience for movies that play as something other than "this happened, which we will show you; then this happened, which we will show you; then this happened, which we will show you." Why shouldn't criticism be allowed the same freedom?

Granted, this is merely an extension of an argument I've made at numbing length on my blog regarding wine writing, but I see no reason it wouldn't apply here. That everyone doesn't necessarily "get it" shouldn't matter, in movies or in criticism. If no one gets it, and the critic's interested in being understood, then there should probably be a period of self-evaluation.
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I would add that writing about wine often falls into the category of novel - successfully turning wine into words is to my mind far more miraculous than the turning water into wine. One of many reasons I miss Coad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever happened to him? Do he and his wife go have a baby and have the little bundle of joy take away our pleasure at his jeebus notes? Or was he mistakenly identified as a potential terroirist threat and whisked away to the Loire and made to plant new franc pied vines in sandy riverine soils? I sometiems hear rumors of his return, but these are obviously premature.
 
originally posted by MarkS:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I would add that writing about wine often falls into the category of novel - successfully turning wine into words is to my mind far more miraculous than the turning water into wine. One of many reasons I miss Coad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever happened to him? Do he and his wife go have a baby and have the little bundle of joy take away our pleasure at his jeebus notes? Or was he mistakenly identified as a potential terroirist threat and whisked away to the Loire and made to plant new franc pied vines in sandy riverine soils? I sometiems hear rumors of his return, but these are obviously premature.
Click to expand...

I'm the wrong person to ask. I fear we don't live up to his standards here. But I'm known for my paranoia.
 
originally posted by Thor:
I object to the objection...That everyone doesn't necessarily "get it" shouldn't matter, in movies or in criticism.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think "gettability" should be a requirement of all or even most criticism. (However, I imagine the editors and financiers of New Yorker might have a different take.)

I was mainly marveling at the total incomprehensibility of that sentence to someone like me: who would like to understand it, generally enjoys "reaching into the unknown to describe the new," and has at least a modicum of intelligence and education IMHO. This may have been a particularly egregious example. But I'm sure that when you and I have a conversation on wines and terroir, it probably is equally incomprehensible to most wine drinkers, even frequent and quite knowledgeable ones.
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
originally posted by MarkS:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I would add that writing about wine often falls into the category of novel - successfully turning wine into words is to my mind far more miraculous than the turning water into wine. One of many reasons I miss Coad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever happened to him? Do he and his wife go have a baby and have the little bundle of joy take away our pleasure at his jeebus notes? Or was he mistakenly identified as a potential terroirist threat and whisked away to the Loire and made to plant new franc pied vines in sandy riverine soils? I sometiems hear rumors of his return, but these are obviously premature.
Click to expand...

I'm the wrong person to ask. I fear we don't live up to his standards here. But I'm known for my paranoia.
Click to expand...

Has anyone seen him recently in what passes for real life?
 
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
The sentence makes perfect sense to me but I cut my teeth reading critical theory, which is the dumping ground for failed writers.
Click to expand...

I'll bite. What does an image that is nouns and verbs but not pronouns or adjectives look like? Or am I being to literal? Does the reviewer just mean that the way the film looks makes it clear that our choice and interpretation of information has moral implications? OK (maybe even duh); but now I'm back to wondering how does it do that? Is there any reason to believe it would do that to me if I had never seen that review?
 
My concern with the reviewer's quoted sentence is the phrase "in order to." He's assigning motive to the filmmaker's stylistic choices, which to me seems hopelessly speculative. A direct, unemotional filmmaking style "means" the filmmaker wants us to contemplate the moral significance of our choices? Really? Bravo telepathy! You'd think such a talent could be put to better use than to reveal the meta-ethical intentions of filmmakers.
 
What does an image that is nouns and verbs but not pronouns or adjectives look like? Or am I being to literal? Does the reviewer just mean that the way the film looks makes it clear that our choice and interpretation of information has moral implications? OK (maybe even duh); but now I'm back to wondering how does it do that? Is there any reason to believe it would do that to me if I had never seen that review?
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem that difficult to me, but I've been known to embrace this sort of writing in even less obvious contexts, so perhaps I'm unusually attuned to it.

Not having seen the movie and not knowing a thing about it, I'd interpret the line in question to mean that what we're seeing is presented as simply as possible, unadorned by complexing layers and visual or auditory "design"...much as a sentence can be laden with modifiers and clauses, but can also be as simple as "she ran." The movie, according to the writer, is of the second genre. That's the noun and verb portion of the quoted line.

The rest is suggesting that while a moviemaker can fill a scene with intent, subtext, and interpretative guidance, this one apparently does not. "Moral weight" implies that such exists in the interpretative act. I can't determine if this is actually suggested by the movie or is a belief of the critic, or both, without knowing something about either one of them. Which I don't. (I don't believe I need to take or express an opinion on the matter to understand that this is the intent of the phrase.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top