For 2 1/2 years I’ve been doing a blog of “Instant film analysis” — primarily. As I approach the 25,000-viewer (as distinct from ‘reader,’ i know, i know) mark I thought I’d have a look at what it shows. To date my 295 posts have drawn 24,830 readers. OK, viewers. Before I started the blog I was skeptical about its usefulness. What’s the point of sending a film analysis into the ether? By the way, that's also my main intention: to write analysis, not the casual "review." A review says what I liked or didn't. Analysis tries to pin down what a film is saying, doing or signifies. Anyway, I’ve been surprised by how it’s gone.
You can find it at www.yacowar.blogspot.com. Right: here. It works this way: If I see a film that has prompted me to some thought I zip home and whip it off. I don’t do any research or redrafts or anything respectable or academic like that. It’s a lark — well, maybe a release. What would the ancient mariner do if he couldn’t find a Wedding Guest to unload upon?
Explode, probably. So my instant blog is a therapeutic release — for the primary benefit of my nearest and dearest who are thus spared the cleanup.
Correction: there is usually an in-house sober second thought. If we’ve seen the film together wife Anne Petrie usually shares in the analysis, contributes very good ideas and a smart edit. The piece is always better for her involvement. But from the outset I promised never to embarrass her with any credit.
That outset was the 2013 Palm Springs International Film Festival, which is always a rewarding delight. In the lineups for the next film I found I was always finding ways subtly to unload my insights on innocent strangers. Soon they were backing away when I approached. Clearly i needed another outlet. So I started this blog with the off-the-top-quickly standard I’ve maintained. You don’t wan to waste film festival time researching any of the films. Watch, think — then get it out.
The blog site consists of films I saw at the last three Palm Springs festivals, films that ran commercially in Calgary or wherever I was, the odd old DVD, and a few outriders. I downloaded some papers published elsewhere. Occasionally a theatre production inspired some reflection, e.g. the brilliant Stratford Merchant of Venice and the Met’s irresponsible Death of Klinghoffer (spoiler alert: Klinghoffer didn’t exactly die; he was murdered by Muslim terrorists. The evasive euphemism coheres with the libretto’s prejudice). The Klinghoffer piece drew another, analyzing the more responsible British film version. A film can win a second piece: Woody Allen’s Blue Jasmine cried out for an analysis of its use of — as opposed to “its ripping off” — A Streetcar Named Desire.
The blog stats throw up interesting info. United States has the most viewings (11,138), followed by Canada (4085), Ukraine (953), UK (678), France (628), Russia (518), Germany (466), China (366), Australia (180) and Turkey (159). After the top two, the next eight are surprising both in order and volume. I have no explanation why the last three countries register so high when I’ve done so few of their films.
Of even more interest are the most trafficked films. The No. One subject is the Palestinian film Omar, with 1209 viewings. It appeared January 2014 but still leads in new viewers every week. I think its interest lies in my political reading of the film. The Counsellor is a surprising second (464) because it’s not a major film, not an art film. On that I didn’t publish an essay but an introduction for discussion, for the Calgary Association for Life-Long Learners. The plot intro, specific questions, quotations, seem to provide a popular format, making for a do-it-yourself analysis rather than mine. That also raised Grand Budapest Hotel, Robot and Frank and Love is All You Need to the top 10. Third place is the very limited-run Blue Ruin, a placement I can’t explain. My Klinghoffer critique drew 118 viewings, which is satisfying, and the first Blue Jasmine 79, my Queens Quarterly survey of Michael Haneke 89 and the Israeli Eagles 81.
None of these numbers are impressive by Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert standards. But for me they’re enough. These quick responses are getting more readers than all my books and scholarly papers combined.
There’s another benefit. From time to time someone responds, usually with a (very welcome) correction, sometimes with a remark. I’d like more of those. But for now, having the opportunity to work out a critical position and get it out there within an hour of seeing the flick is a true luxury.
No comments:
Post a Comment