<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>NYPress.com - New York&#039;s essential guide to culture, arts, politics, news and more &#187; Singin&#8217; in the Rain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nypress.com/tag/singin-in-the-rain/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nypress.com</link>
	<description>New York&#039;s essential guide to culture, arts, politics, news and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 22:07:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>G.O.A.T Toppled: Armond White Takes On Classic Films</title>
		<link>http://nypress.com/g-o-a-t-toppled/</link>
		<comments>http://nypress.com/g-o-a-t-toppled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 06:05:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Armond White</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts & Film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arts our town]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arts our town downtown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arts west side spirit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Our Town]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Our Town Downtown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West Side Spirit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alfred Hitchcock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Armond White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battleship Potemkin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brian DePalma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizen kane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nick James]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orson Welles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sight & Sound]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Singin' in the Rain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vertigo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nypress.com/?p=53915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Citizen Kane or Vertigo, which is more fun? Now that Sight &#38; Sound’s decadal critics poll has given the #1 spot to Vertigo, toppling Citizen Kane (to #2), it confirms that film culture as we used to know it has toppled as well. Citizen Kane held sway as the “Greatest Film Of All Time” for so long that a lot of people ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><em>Citizen Kane</em> or <em>Vertigo</em>, which is more fun?</strong></p>
<div>
<p>Now that <em>Sight &amp; Sound</em>’s decadal critics poll has given the #1 spot to <em>Vertigo</em>, toppling <em>Citizen Kane</em> (to #2), it confirms that film culture as we used to know it has toppled as well.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><em><a href="http://nypress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/citizenkane4-300x1991.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-53916" title="citizenkane4-300x199" src="http://nypress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/citizenkane4-300x1991.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" /></a>Citizen Kane</em> held sway as the “Greatest Film Of All Time” for so long that a lot of people began to believe it (and some resent it). Orson Welles’ 1941 feature film debut had often crowned polls by the American Film Institute and others including the British Film Institute’s <em>Sight &amp; Sound</em> critics poll (the world’s oldest, first established in 1952) which just announced the aberrant new results.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><em>Kane</em> was never my favorite, yet it was a beautiful, dynamic choice. It had been a convenient winner due to historical pedigree. Generations of film-lovers (typified by Francois Truffaut’s homage to <em>Citizen Kane</em> in <em>Day for Night</em>) agreed that Kane was “the movie that made more filmmakers want to make movies.”</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>But <em>Vertigo</em>, Alfred Hitchcock’s 1958 romantic tragedy, has inspired few filmmakers to make movies. (Try finding its visual lushness and aural extravagance among Indies!) And it’s doubtful if <em>Vertigo</em> roused many film critics (camp-followers of said impoverished Indies and Hollywood blockbusters) to write more insightfully about cinema than did their dismissive 1958 predecessors. Most critics remain absolutely hostile to the sumptuous influence <em>Vertigo</em> had on Brian DePalma’s postmodern <em>Obsession, Body Double, Black Dahlia, Femme Fatale</em>.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>So <em>Vertigo</em> doesn’t herald a revolution in cinematic appreciation; rather, it represents warped consensus. Its choice merely replaces <em>Kane</em> to show a new era’s unoriginal taste and obsessive interest in pathology and soullessness that’s been building in certain film cliques at least since the film‘s 1996 reissue. The herd mentality rules. (A <em>Battleship Potemkin</em> victory might convince me that a critical renaissance was afoot.)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>If the past four political years has taught us anything, it’s that polls don’t assure excellence; they merely reflect spin. <em>Vertigo</em> congratulates today’s pollsters’ hindsight. <em>Sight &amp; Sound</em>’s editor Nick James analyzed: “The new cinephilia seems to be not so much about films that strive to be great art, such as <em>Citizen Kane</em>, and that use cinema‘s entire arsenal of effects to make a grand statement, but more about works that have personal meaning to the critic. <em>Vertigo</em> is the ultimate [millennial] critics’ film because it is a dreamlike film about people who are not sure who they are but who are busy reconstructing themselves and each other to fit a kind of cinema ideal of the ideal soul mate. In that sense it‘s a makeover film full of spellbinding moments of awful poignancy that show how foolish, tender and cruel we can be when we‘re in love.”</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>James inadvertently nails cinephilia’s deterioration–from idealizing cinema that spoke to and edified the general public to solipsistic criticism that coddles a nihilistic, class-based coterie. (Critics unsure of who they are?<em>Vertigo</em> greater than the culturally prescient <em>Psycho</em>? Or the numinous <em>The Birds</em>?)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a href="http://nypress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/vertigo-8-300x199.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-53917" title="vertigo-8-300x199" src="http://nypress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/vertigo-8-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" /></a>Perhaps <em>Vertigo’s</em> victory frees us from traditional authoritarianism (we should learn to develop our own taste, ignoring fashion) but it ushers in another tyranny. It is the triumph of “smartness” whereas the very nature of <em>Kane’s</em> prodigious exercise of cinema’s potential was actually a celebration–like the 1952<em>Singin’ in the Rain</em> (which also fell off <em>Sight &amp; Sound</em>’s top ten list).<a href="http://cityarts.info/2012/07/12/singin%E2%80%99-reigns/">http://cityarts.info/2012/07/12/singin%E2%80%99-reigns/</a>  Recognizing the art of cinema as popular pleasure is frowned upon in fashionable criticism. A movie that impacts the culture like <em>Kane</em> always did provides a foundation for wider experience; a film that doesn’t, doesn’t.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>For years, it’s been quietly accepted that Welles’ follow-up film <em>The Magnificent Ambersons</em> was richer, more complex than <em>Kane</em> (and <em>Ambersons</em>’ profundity makes <em>Vertigo</em> seem piddling). Yet <em>Ambersons</em>, which moves viewers utterly, never captured the top spot during film culture’s genuinely populist phase, unified toward social stability. <em>Vertigo</em> appeals to a fragmented culture that boasts of self-absorption (rather than <em>Ambersons</em>’ self-examination). <em>Vertigo</em> is a 21st century favorite–and perfectly titled for that.</p>
</div>
<div><strong>Armond White’s <em>Sight &amp; Sound</em> poll list will be published by BFI on August 15.</strong></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nypress.com/g-o-a-t-toppled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
