For those not in the know, tedg is an IMDb User who is just about the best thing film criticism has going write now. His User Comments for individual films on the site rival nearly all professional film writing at the moment in their intelligence, dynamism, and insight, and in the tradition of the great film criticism of years past (Kael, Kauffman, Simon) there is a distinctive voice at work with a thread of interest running through them all. His comments are never less than stimulating. Ted is simply fascinated by cinema, watching anything and everything with the same respect for the medium and what it has to offer. I was a surprised to see he'd seen fit to comment on Elegant Angel's 'Fashionistas'. but not much. Within it he finds evidence of his obsession with narrative folding and even perceives parallels with Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange': tedg on 'Fashionistas'
Oh dear lord,he's THAT good is he?And,and he doesn't even get paid for it!What an injustice!I heard about this genius(his words or yours?)from another website.Ted Fever is here!
And he had to mention "folding"again eh?Oh by the way,in case he doesn't mention it in every fucking review,Ted "invented"the term "folding".Yes,he's that brilliant.He could have used any number of terms that say the same thing,but oh no,he coined a new one!
Yes that review of Fashionistas was mindblowing,wow,he put alot of effort(perhaps 4 minutes?)into it!
Guys, Ted G. has 3 Math degrees from MIT. Now I know that doesn't bestow cinematic intellectual greatness on him but it proves that he's pretty damn smart. And while his reviews haven't been puslished yet, probably because most of them are very complex and slightly pretentious, but they are nonetheless chock full of terrific ideas. A lot of these reviews are more fascinating than the films they are about.
Also, I should tell you that as an English Lit major and as an amateur filmmaker Ted G. has changed my life. I'm serious. He has changed the way I look at film and literature (he's well read and injects literary references into many of his reviews). I've been getting nothing but A's and B's in my essays using the ideas that I first encountered in his work. You should check this guys stuff out:
Just checked out this "genius" -- no offense, but have a lot of you guys never read actual film criticism before, as opposed to Ebert, etc? He's fine, mind you, but his reviews are pretty much on the high-end of the "alternative-weekly" style -- & he's certainly not gonna knock Andrew Sarris, much less Roger Greenspun, off their perches.
His "Breathless" review is more about some childish "Oh, those irritating French, they think they're so culturally superior but we know better" attitude -- he's pained to acknowledge that it's one of the films that changed world cinema, though he finally does in a roundabout way. And his "Empire of the Senses" review is pretty directly regurgitated from some longer, more in-depths criticisms of this film I've had on my shelf for years ...
That assessment of ted's essay on 'Breathless' is as facile and surface-skirting as any film "review" Rex Reed ever wrote. Did you actually bother to read it?
I take back my mellowness -- he's a middle-brow aspiring higher through use of the borrowed language of the academy. He opens his IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE review thusly:
"Start with your typical Hong Kong Kung Fu movie. A normal director will simply film that. But not this guy."
Good lord. It happens to be a Chinese film. The main character is a newspaper writer who tries to break free from his boring job by writing pulp fiction -- decides to write a wuxia -- a martial arts novel. If he were American it would be a Conan rip-off. The detail of it being a martial arts novel has absolutely no relation to the big picture, which is a stunningly intimate romance set in Shangai in the early '60s.
This guy is painfully Caucasian, squaresville all the way. (that he needs to list foreign films by ONLY their original title is what you might call, ah, overcompensation). "It's all about space, blah blah ..." freshman year film studies, all the way. His FASHIONISTAS review is sooo off the mark -- CLOCKWORK ORANGE, please! -- that it almost makes me want to sit down & write a serious appreciation of the movie, like I used to do for a livin' ....
(having not made my fortune in genetic engineering yet at the time, tut-tut)
& his slight moue of disapproval over AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE points to an acute lack of a sense of humor ....
& regardez his ALPHAVILLE review -- it's "GODARD," not "GODDARD. "
Having said all of which, anybody who enjoys his reviews should continue doing so, but you might wanna broaden your range of reading OFF the internet in this case ... oh, and Frederic, it's not "Elegant Angel's "Fashionistas," it's Evil Angel's "Fashionistas." Or more properly, John Stagliano's "Fashionistas."
Yes, & I believe I came in under the Reader's Digest average reading time of 45.3 seconds.
Neitzche -- what's with all this dead Kraut worship, anyway? -- supplies an extraordinarily impressive resume for him OUTSIDE the world of film criticism -- hey, if this is how he blows off steam, & there's college freshmen cribbing his received & half-formed ideas to get good grades on their papers, more power to everybody! Everybody, I say!
(Where's my coffee, dammit? I've got money shots to edit ...)
I have to admit, I haven't read any of tedg's other reviews, but just I can't get behind the off the cuff comparison to Clockwork Orange --if for no other reason than he doesn't cite specifics as to why he feels that way...?
I mean, ultimately it's all just perceptions and opinions and it doesn't matter, but judging by just that one review, I don't see any particularly incisive comments or thoughts about the movie. It's more a review along the lines of throwing out a couple of generalized juxtapositions without much thought given to backing them up or exploring them. It's sort of a review that's left open to interpretation, which does not a good film critique make.
Like I said though, I'm not familiar with his entire body of work, so I could be speaking out of turn.
It's interesting that tedg is the apparant phenomenon he is though. I'd never heard of him before.
Edited by - MLyons on 3/25/2005 3:53:19 PM
[Link]
Frederic Chopin Deactivated User
16 Posts 3/05
Posted - Mar 25 2005 : 3:38PM
*deleted*
Edited by - Frederic Chopin on 3/25/2005 3:39:19 PM