If you are reading this, you probably know us. Thanks for visiting Open City. The name of the site is an homage to Rossellini’s film, but also a statement about what we believe to be the dialectic nature of true criticism. A continuant dialogue stretching beyond the films themselves and beyond the discrete spheres of discussion they provoke; open-ended arguments concerning which, and within which, a multiplicity of views can be held. An open topography and taxonomy of the world(s) of film, created with care by many… an “open city”. We define criticism as the impossible effort to see the whole of cinema. There are many kinds of dishonest criticism, including that which uses a camera. There are films that hate themselves, that are indifferent to us, that believe nothing. Their universes are indistinct and their parameters arbitrary.
But what is vital to cinema? Addressing this question, it is explicitly useless to speak in terms of “good” and “bad” films; this distinction does not survive the most generous examination. Neither does the distinction between “honest” and “dishonest”, as some people are fond of saying. The preferred category excludes, for example, most Stalinist-era Russian films, as well as those films which simply have nothing to be honest or dishonest about, like Charlie Chaplin, or Cronenberg’s dream logic. This distinction only seems useful for partially vetting documentaries, and even then doesn’t begin to express the negative value of a documentary like Fahrenheit 911, or the true value of a document like Salesman or Gates of Heaven . Neither is “care”, nor the absence of it, straightforwardly, an absolute criterion. (for “care” can be interpreted in a number of ways.) Although “care” picks out what is ultimately important in the films of Jean Renoir or Wim Wenders or Jean Vigo, it fails to address what is important in - for example - films by Bertolucci, or by a different token, John Cassavetes' "improvised" feature-length film Shadows. Nevertheless, an ethic of care seems, at least to us, to purposefully gather the body of “great” films, but still hopelessly excludes a few that enjoy a distinct merit. I’m not sure what can be done to include things like The Last Boy Scout, Joe Don Baker’s cop flick Mitchell, Cobra, Repo Man, or a film of Tony Conrad eating a jelly doughnut naked. This site was created to figure out what’s important; what matters. It’s only an experiment, but as such, it can take any form we like. The message boards are not up yet, but in the meantime you can e-mail us and we’ll respond, posting the exchanges on the site if you don’t mind us doing so. None of us are web designers, so expect a few problems with the site now and then. We’ll be posting new content when it's ready, so be sure to check back frequently. We hope the message board function will be working soon. Also, if you would like to write for Open City, just e-mail us your review, essay or interview, and we'll find a place for it. Thanks for coming by. Theresa, Evan, and George
|