Do you think it's important for (or even a responsibility of) critics to be able to reintroduce art (music/film/etc) from the past into and allow it to have an impact? Is reintroduction into the culture important for a critic?

Steven Hyden said "I think celebrity is the new authenticity. I think that if you are famous and you have a certain following and you can prove how big of a cultural footprint you have then that is what makes your art authentic."

What are your thoughts on that idea?

Not necessarily. Different critics do different things and fill different roles. Personally, I think it's healthy and important for a culture, and especially its critics, to remember its artistic past. If you don't know what came before, how do you know if something is actually new? That's an important foundation to have when evaluating art. But that kind of thing is personal, and I don't know if it's the place of the critic to "reintroduce" works of art. That's not dissimilar from curation, which is a concept I don't love. Critics should just write about whatever inspires them, be that positively or negatively. They should foster understanding in whatever form that takes. Sometimes that means reintroducing or comparing. Sometimes that means deeply examining the pieces of a new work, and reintroduction isn't necessary. It all depends. Criticism is very fluid.

I don't really understand what he's saying here. Why would having a big cultural footprint mean your art is authentic?

That said, discussions about authenticity in art could not be less interesting to me. There's no way to gauge that in any meaningful way.

LV, what are some of your favorite film archetypes?

As Reid's question is more important, please answer him first. I don't want to steal his time in here.

With that being said, what are your thoughts on William Fichtner? I just love him.

Reid, I'm not sure what you mean? Can you give me an example of what you're looking for?

Ruddo, Fichtner is one of my favorite actors in the fucking world. That guy is pure electricity.

Not much to my question, really. It's a basic one but I probably should have clarified that I'm asking about archetypical characters. Do you have a favorite or favorites?

dear loafed,

I did my hair like yours yesterday.

loves,

knee

I've been thinking about this question a lot, and the best answer I can come up with is that it's hard for me answer because I don't really think in, or react to, archetypes. It's too broad. You could take the archetype of a flawed antihero seeking redemption and turn that into countless different characters of wildly varying interest. For me, idiosyncrasy and specificity are what move me. It's all in the details. I mean, Batman is an archetypal character, but I couldn't care less about him in Nolan's hands. However, put him Snyder's hands, and I'm riveted. It's all about the individual sensibility of the artist.

thank u knee

I've always thought Fichtner would made a good avatar here on RM

Pretty much the only way to answer that, I would think. I didn't expect you to flat out answer with "antihero" or "femme fatale" or anything, but I was hoping to gain some insight into what kind of characters, in broad strokes, you really like to see explored, homaged or otherwise turned-inside-out...

Does the addition of Milla Jovovich to the cast of the new Hellboy reboot change your level of anticipation at all?

No

Good

What's the best movie you watched in a high school class?

Mockingbird? If so, what's second?

I had a really awesome class called "Music in Film" where we just watched movies and studied the score. I'd seen most of the movies before, but still, there were lots of great ones. Gone with the Wind, Planet of the Apes, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Laura, The Adventures of Robin Hood. So probably Gone with the Wind? I also convinced one of my English teachers to show Dr. Strangelove to the class as an example of satire once.

Once on the last day of school, before I had kids or a mortgage, I showed Airplane!