1. I have some thoughts on that onanistic New Yorker review of The Incredibles 2, which makes more sense if you realize that Anthony Lane is a throwback to early days of the magazine.
-
-
5. Anthony Lane is a real anachronism is that he practise 1920s style criticism where the main goal is the well turned put down. He often sounds like he's wear spats & a monocle while turning his phrases.
Show this thread -
6. All of which is to say that Lane's review wasn't necessarily that of a dirty old man self-pleasuring watching a kid's cartoon but maybe a misfired joke: https://newrepublic.com/minutes/149209/new-yorker-offers-sex-drenched-incredibles-2-review …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Kael was the best movie reviewer because she hated everything
-
wrong. She loved lots of movies. Look up her reviews of Last Tango in Paris, Shoeshine, Bonnie & Clyde, Shampoo, etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Dorothy Parker was a serious critic pretty early on, her Winnie the Pooh piece is an outlier. Benchley was writing his media criticism column, "The Wayward Press," as early as 1927. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1927/12/24/the-wayward-press …
-
A friend once summed up Lane perfectly to me, "a book critic marooned on movie island." He's definitely a throwback to the magazine's "movies are stupid" take from the early days.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.