Critiquing the Critic

Kenneth Turan is to be commended for his public wrestling over the duties of a film critic and especially for his rejection of joining a bandwagon simply for fear of being labeled this decade’s Bosley Crowther (‘Film Critic, Review Thyself,” April 22).

At the same time, Turan’s reticence about the standards of evaluation he employs is disconcerting. He seems to allow for little more than how a film strikes him as a particular person after, presumably, a single viewing. Unless one concedes to him an extraordinary depth of taste or philosophical insight, it’s hard to see how this method differs from that of subjectively selecting one flavor over another at Baskin-Robbins. And in any event, it is sure to tell us more about him than about the film being evaluated.

Turan, who is so informative on films that have “uplift” and “compassion,” tends to give short shrift to ones that envision modern people and modern life, freed from older codes, as, in the main, rampantly individualistic and horrible. Hence his reaction not only to “Amores Perros,” but to most of Neil LaBute’s film work as well.

The artistry in such is little discussed, whereas unacceptable worldviews are pilloried or pronounced “boring.” Yet surely it would be fairer, as Henry James advised, “to grant each artist his donee” and see what he makes of it with reference to standards of art.

STANLEY NEMETH

Garden Grove

*

Turan is not alone in his reaction of non-involvement and generalized irritation towards “Amores Perros,” a film that arrives with a delirious pedigree of rave critical reviews and myriad festival awards. In the head wind of this self-confessed “disconnect” with the opinions of so many of his colleagues, Turan chose to forgo (with minimal cheating) a direct critical review of the film in favor of a lucid, reasoned meditation on the vagaries of film criticism in general.

Given the alternative of a simple, critical “pan” (no matter how courageous) of the film’s relentless, turgid ennui, Turan made a more courageous, more enlightening choice. He rose above his material.

ANDREW STONE

Calabasas

*

Turan is definitely a “gang of one” when it comes to his irritating Perspective. “Amores Perros” is from from being “a tedious, irritating film.”

It appears to me that Turan is as foreign to Mexico as this wonderful Mexican film is to him. None of the three sets of characters are supposed to be connected in any way in the first place. It is the car crash that connects all of them by altering the outcome of what would have been, had there been no accident, but then again there would be no story if there had been no car crash.

Everything about “Amores Perros” is as Mexican as Mexican could possibly be.

CARLOS CHAVEZ-IVAR

Chino Hills

*

Turan rambled on for page after page explaining why he decided not to review “Amores Perros.” He went into great detail in telling us why he was unmoved by the movie. Perhaps I am missing something, but it sure read like a review to me. As usual, I chose to ignore him and found it to be one of the best movies I’ve seen in many years.

JIM ROBERSON

Los Angeles

*

Though I strongly disagree with Turan (I loved “Amores Perros”), I applaud the courage of his convictions. Too many critics these days are cowed sycophants lacking any sort of critical independence and are all too eager to join any fashionable cinematic bandwagon that comes their way. Too many contemporary critics forget that perhaps the greatest film reviewer of all, Pauline Kael, was a fiercely independent writer whose ‘60s and ‘70s pieces on films still resonate far stronger than the vast majority of so-called “film critics” today. She would champion films that the majority of critics would despise and revile those that the critical pack would fawn over.

I thought this brand of film criticism was gone until I read Turan’s piece, and I’m appreciative that he’s carrying on in her tradition.

STEVE FINKELSTEIN

Los Angeles

*

“Amores Perros” in Spanish translates into “Loves Dogs” and not “Love Is a Bitch” as the subtitles state. To capture the essence of this film, one must understand the relationships people have with their dogs and how these animals can drastically change lives. Rats? Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! What film did this man see?

If Turan does not own a dog, maybe he should go rescue one from the SPCA. This way, his “gang of one” will double and possibly not lead to “nothing at all.” TONY VENEGAS West Hollywood

‘Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something.’--Plato.

JESUS ALBERTO ALVARADO

Pasadena