Criticism is an art. It is an art that manifests itself in words in different ways by different people. This is easily discernible from three reviews of Sean Penn’s latest directorial venture Into the Wild, by David Denby, Peter Travers and Cynthia Fuchs.
David Denby is unapologetically condescending of Penn’s work. His strategy is simple: he doesn’t like the film (or, for that matter, Jon Krakauer’s book on which the film is based), and he wants to make it clear why. To his credit, he does that very clearly, never mincing words - “it’s entirely too visual, to the point of being cheaply lyrical” is part of his lede. His amplitude is certainly high. It is also evident, however, that a large part of his disdain for the film arises from his contempt for the book (“Penn has adapted Jon Krakauer’s chastely written 1996 book”, “It’s possible to appreciate the implacability of this boy’s revolt without taking it as seriously as Krakauer and Penn do”), and this takes away some of his credibility as a film reviewer. For a reader who has not previously had the experience of going through Christopher Johnson McCandless’ journey as portrayed by Krakauer in his book, the question of whether Denby is being fair to the film does arise.
Denby is also unfair to the reader by disclosing the climax of the film in his very first paragraph – as a person who has not read the book, I can certainly say that if I had read Denby’s review and chosen not to see the film as a result, I would have missed something. He touches upon the cinematography of the film (rather, his negative view of it), but he has not mentioned a word about what cannot escape any person who watches Into the Wild with a reasonably decent set of speakers – the music. Heart-wrenching and incredibly strong as a mechanism for carrying forward McCandless’ story, it is without doubt one of the highlights of the film. Denby may be an authority - this is demonstrated by his reference to Tolstoy and Tolstoy’s hold over McCandless as he briefly notes why he does not believe in McCandless’ integrity, but as a reader, I was not entertained by his review, and after watching the film I feel he has done a disservice to it, notwithstanding his reasons for his negative opinion of Christopher McCandless, the person.
Peter Travers’ review of Into the Wild is, on the other hand, engaging reading. Travers is up front with the reader and simultaneously shows his expertise as a critic: he compares the film to the book and clearly says that a person who has read the book and feels no connection with Chris McCandless will not have much to say about the film. He also compares this work of Sean Penn’s to his previous directorial ventures. But even for the reader who has not been acquainted with Krakauer’s book, Travers’ review is lucid, yet lyrical. His amplitude is certainly high as well (“Sean Penn has molded one of the best movies of a bustling fall out of Jon Krakauer's best-selling Into the Wild”, “Hirsch gives an award-caliber performance of astonishing depth and humanity”, “Penn, in tandem with the superb cinematographer Eric Gautier (The Motorcycle Diaries), captures the majesty and terror of the wilderness in ways that make you catch your breath”) but he writes in a more believable tone than Denby. He also gives credit to three of the strongest features of the film – the cinematography, music and the performances, notably those of Emile Hirsch who plays McCandless, and Hal Holbrook as widower Ron Franz. Those are reasons enough why anyone would want to see this film, and Travers conveys that, as a responsible film critic should. His strategy is uncomplicated: to review the film as he knows best, and he discharges his duty commendably.
Cynthia Fuchs’ review of the film is markedly different from those of Denby and Travers in that she does not once mention the book. Her strategy is to write about the film, and write about the film she does – albeit in a way that sometimes seems too detailed. She takes the reader through Chris McCandless’ encounters with each and every character he meets before he heads to Alaska in a most painstaking way, going through almost every significant scene (“Chris mounts the stage to accept his diploma, a ritual that pretty much ends the young man’s affiliation what he considers corrupt civilization”, “An antennae specialist at NASA, Walt and Billie eventually started their own consulting company and grew wealthy”, “When Chris suggests patience in dealing with Jan’s grief, Rainey goes so far as to wonder aloud if he might be “Jesus””). This kind of detail is unnecessary, especially to a reader who has not watched the film. Fuchs’ amplitude is ambivalent, tending towards high in the first and last paragraphs, but since her review consists mostly of narrating scenes from the film, her opinion does not come into play much.
Fuchs’ is, however distinctly worldly. She mentions Chris’ underlying philosophical motivations behind his grand adventure as explanations for his behavior as he meets the other characters in the film, and this theme runs through her review. Her last two paragraphs are the most readable and engrossing. This piece is a case of taking too long to warm up to the job at hand, which is to write a review and not to narrate the film itself. The writing seems forced as a result, at points. Fuchs also does not mention the acting, though she does touch upon the other two key features, the music and cinematography.
Of the three reviews, Peter Travers wins hands down, in my opinion. In his review of Into The Wild, he has demonstrated his expertise as a critic with writing that is entertaining, vivid and fair to the film.
No comments:
Post a Comment