NYC Day #4: Sweet Sexy Journalism

My last full day in New York City was spent pondering the state of arts journalism and then watching a few very artfully done films.

First up in the morning was a visit to the offices of The New York Times for a fourth floor tour led by Classical Music Editor James Oestreich. It was interesting to see how things work at what is essentially the largest, most prestigious newspaper in the country. During the tour, we passed the desk of film critic A.O. Scott, and it took all my will and determination not to run over and sit at it. Really mature, I know. We had the opportunity to sit in a brief meeting between the culture editors in which they quickly went over what they would be reporting on for the next issue. It was... efficient. It seems like once one has managed to work their way up to the Times, they're trusted to be pretty independent. The meeting was really just five minutes of, "What are you working on? Okay, that sounds good." Then everyone dispersed to go do their thing.

Oestreich seemed open to talking about about the Times and the future of arts journalism and criticism. He struck me as extremely old-fashioned and perhaps a bit naive. He said that in his opinion, the Times will be a print newspaper for at least twenty or thirty more years. I think that's a rather generous assessment, but on the other hand, if any newspaper can survive the transition to digital for that long, it would be them.

Afterwards, I had the privilege of having lunch with former Entertainment Weekly staff writer Steve Daly. We talked about film, 3D, social media, criticism and a plethora of other topics. It turns out he's listened to a few episodes of Film Geek Radio, and his advice to me was, "Never reveal your biases." He was commenting on our episode on Moneyball, in which I revealed that I typically don't like sports movies. I spent a lot of time thinking afterwards about whether or not it's possible to go into a film without some sort of bias or expectation, however slight, and if so whether or not critics have a responsibility to reveal them to their audience. I can see both sides. Revealing a bias might undermine one's credibility as a critic, and yet on the other hand, I think transparency is always a plus and can make the critic seem more relateable. What do you think?

That evening, I went to see Hugo 3D and Shame (two very different films, believe me). The former left me with mixed feelings. It starts as an intriguing story about an orphan who lives in a Paris railway station and then gradually turns into an introduction to early film history and, in particular, the work of Georges Melies. There are parts of it that I think work very well, but I also think it feels a bit uneven as a result. Also, while I've read certain reviews that feel Scorsese used 3D for a thematically appropriate purpose, I'm not so sure. It seems odd to me that a film that is so obviously about the need for film preservation (one of Scorsese's passions) would be shot in 3D. Does Scorsese hope that if he uses the new technology in an interesting way, he'll go down in history as a pioneer similar to Melies? Why use new technology for a film so immersed in nostalgia? Say what you will about Avatar, it can't be denied that Cameron was very much looking forward rather than behind him during its production. Even when Scorsese uses 3D in an interesting way, it feels burdened by the past. I was blown away by a shot near the end of the movie when a character is addressing an audience of onlookers, and Scorsese frames it in a closeup that makes it look as though his giant head is talking to everyone in the cinema. But even this shot was undoubtedly a homage to The Great Dictator... Hugo is a decent film, but is it really doing anything new? Not really.

As for Shame... I'm not quite sure what to say about it other than that it's exquisitely crafted, quite intense at times, and I found director McQueen's depiction of nudity fascinating. It's an NC-17 film about a sex addict, so I was expecting a great deal of penises and breasts and vaginas along with some graphic sex scenes, but I was also expecting the sex and nudity to go hand-in-hand, and that's often not the case. The opening montage sequence involves Fassbender's character of Brandon performing his daily routine around the house, including his implicit sexual encounters, and McQueen is careful to light his shots in such a way that his genitals are always covered in shadow save for the occasional glimpse of pubic hair. When the audience finally does get a full-on glimpse of Fassbender's manhood, it's during a shot of him walking to the bathroom, and yes, we are forced to sit and watch him urinate from behind. It's almost as though McQueen wanted to de-sexualize Brandon's body as much as possible before the sex-filled plot really gets going as a way of showing how Brandon doesn't view his penis as a sexual organ as much as just this thing he's constantly using so he can get some small amount of relief. It makes sense, since the object of one's addiction is both lovely and horrible at the same time, and it does the film no good if the audience is actually turned on by the life of an addict.

Anyways... those are just a few thoughts that have been tumbling around in my head. Tomorrow I'll be workshopping my review of Once Upon A Time in Anatolia with former New York Magazine critic and current GQ editor Logan Hill, so I'm looking forward to that. And then it's back to the snow-filled streets of Syracuse for a new semester of classes. It's been a great trip overall. Who knows? Maybe I'll work in this city one day.