Ambiguous criticism
Thursday, 3. November 2005, 22:14:15
Today, Stephen Holden of the NEW YORK TIMES wrote about DERAILROADED: INSIDE THE MIND OF WILD MAN FISCHER, which we're opening tonight. Wild Man Fischer is the eccentric outsider artist / musician, who is, to say the least, quite a handful.
I'll take it. Thank you, Mr. Holden, and thank you NY TIMES. Thank you as well to V.A. Musetto in the POST, Raven Snook and Damon Smith in TIME OUT NY, Bilge Ebiri in NEW YORK MAGAZINE, Scott Tobias in THE ONION, and, I guess, also to Drew Tillman in the VOICE.
But I have to say Holden's review is a strange piece. It's not very evaluative; it's more descriptive. I can't find many adjectives to pull from it - yes, I did try - other than "this sad, disturbing film," which I think is sort of a mixed descriptor. I also can't find any particular slams of the movie, though Holden does mention that, in the film's portrait of Wild Man Fischer:
"The dreaded word 'genius' is trotted out. Be assured, there's no sign of that."
Perhaps Mr. Holden means that there's no sign of genius in either the film or its subject, which is certainly a defendable claim, though that doesn't mean you can't still find value in the movie and shouldn't come see it. Later, comparing the film to THE DEVIL AND DANIEL JOHNSTON, another "outsider" musician portrait, Holden says: "That film showed how easily pity can masquerade as adulation," suggesting but not explicitly claiming that the same could be said of DERAILROADED.
That claim has been trotted out before about DERAILROADED; the film's co-directors respond to it in the film section feature article in this week's TIME OUT NY. I buy their response, which is that they are trying to expose Fischer, his music, and his story to a larger audience. However, I suspect the decision to make the movie was also motivated by a desire to try to understand this howling, whirlwind persona who suddenly appeared in their lives. Sometimes it feels the filmmakers have a sort of numb awe for the Wild Man. Yet they clearly don't take seriously all his claims about being abused by the music industry. Nor do they always have some sort of condescending pity / adulation for him, as it becomes clear that at some points they got really tired of the Wild Man's endless phonecalls and acting out. Their relation to the Wild Man is complicated, it's not just pity, and in making this movie they have brought out the ambiguity of their relationship to this larger-than-life, stronger-than-death persona. Similarly, Holden's review suggests an ambiguous relationship to the film, valuing its merits and (to my eye) not damning it with faint praise, but still struggling to get a grip on the movie. Like the directors, and like many others over the years, it seems Holden is also trying to get a grip on the Wild Man.
Try to get a grip on the movie, and on the Wild Man, by clicking here.
I'll take it. Thank you, Mr. Holden, and thank you NY TIMES. Thank you as well to V.A. Musetto in the POST, Raven Snook and Damon Smith in TIME OUT NY, Bilge Ebiri in NEW YORK MAGAZINE, Scott Tobias in THE ONION, and, I guess, also to Drew Tillman in the VOICE.
But I have to say Holden's review is a strange piece. It's not very evaluative; it's more descriptive. I can't find many adjectives to pull from it - yes, I did try - other than "this sad, disturbing film," which I think is sort of a mixed descriptor. I also can't find any particular slams of the movie, though Holden does mention that, in the film's portrait of Wild Man Fischer:
"The dreaded word 'genius' is trotted out. Be assured, there's no sign of that."
Perhaps Mr. Holden means that there's no sign of genius in either the film or its subject, which is certainly a defendable claim, though that doesn't mean you can't still find value in the movie and shouldn't come see it. Later, comparing the film to THE DEVIL AND DANIEL JOHNSTON, another "outsider" musician portrait, Holden says: "That film showed how easily pity can masquerade as adulation," suggesting but not explicitly claiming that the same could be said of DERAILROADED.
That claim has been trotted out before about DERAILROADED; the film's co-directors respond to it in the film section feature article in this week's TIME OUT NY. I buy their response, which is that they are trying to expose Fischer, his music, and his story to a larger audience. However, I suspect the decision to make the movie was also motivated by a desire to try to understand this howling, whirlwind persona who suddenly appeared in their lives. Sometimes it feels the filmmakers have a sort of numb awe for the Wild Man. Yet they clearly don't take seriously all his claims about being abused by the music industry. Nor do they always have some sort of condescending pity / adulation for him, as it becomes clear that at some points they got really tired of the Wild Man's endless phonecalls and acting out. Their relation to the Wild Man is complicated, it's not just pity, and in making this movie they have brought out the ambiguity of their relationship to this larger-than-life, stronger-than-death persona. Similarly, Holden's review suggests an ambiguous relationship to the film, valuing its merits and (to my eye) not damning it with faint praise, but still struggling to get a grip on the movie. Like the directors, and like many others over the years, it seems Holden is also trying to get a grip on the Wild Man.
Try to get a grip on the movie, and on the Wild Man, by clicking here.
WIDGETIZE