'Do the Movies Have a Future?' May Be Snark-Free But It's Hardly Humorless

Molly O'Brien

David Denby delights in exploring, testing, and occasionally puncturing movies and movie culture with tasteful barbs.

Do the Movies Have a Future?

Publisher: Simon & Schuster
Length: 368 pages
Author: David Denby
Price: $27.00
Format: Hardcover
Publication date: 2012-10

Technology journalist Ian Betteridge has a theory of sensationalist headlines commonly referred to
 as “Betteridge’s law”: any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no. And while Betteridge’s law has held up for a vast number of alarmist headlines, it doesn’t apply to the title
of New Yorker critic David Denby’s latest writing collection, Do The Movies Have A Future? Over the course of 22 essays and reviews, Denby wants us to know that despite the proliferation of awful blockbusters, the inability of today’s movie stars to match their peers of yore, and the absurd willingness of consumers to watch big-screen movies on tiny-screened iDevices, the movies do, in fact, have a future.

They also happen to have a lot of obstacles to overcome, all of which Denby delights in exploring, testing, and occasionally puncturing with tasteful barbs. His exploration of the potential filmpocalypse works so well because he possesses three important traits: avidity, encyclopedic knowledge, and refinement.

The first two qualities are essential to Denby’s trade; a film critic must be passionate, and with such a comparatively short history of their chosen art (painting begins with cavemen, whereas movies begin with Louis Le Prince’s 1888 Roundhay Garden Scene and end with whatever’s playing at the cineplex this weekend), they had better provide plenty of context for the films they praise and loathe. Denby’s refinement sets him apart. You get the sense reading these pieces, all of which were written between 1999 and 2011, that he would rather be called a toothless critic than a crass one. After all, this is a man who once wrote a book called Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation.

So, a snark-free book of criticism. Is it as entertaining as the films it analyzes? He begins his collection with a statement of purpose that perhaps overdoes it on rhetorical moxie: “I want to make appalling statements, rend the air with terrible cries (i.e., deal with the actualities of the situation), indulge end-of-the-movies fears, celebrate good and great pictures, and herald Lazarus-like signs of hope, rebirth, and regeneration.”

I’m not sure if he ever reaches such a fever pitch, but he certainly wastes no time in offering occasionally contrary but always reasonable opinions on recent filmmaking, split into subcategories like Trends, Directors, and Independent Glories. Digital theatrics and CGI should be scorned for their “defoliated” results, but can occasionally produce “sequences of great loveliness and shivery terror.” Chick flicks are “too scared of tough girls, too shy of heroism” but, in the case of something like The Devil Wears Prada, can still be “magically entertaining.”

When he generalizes, Denby is mild, mellow, hesitant to rend the air with terrible cries. When he specifies, when he allows something to pierce his reasonable armor and get under his skin, the works he crafts can be jaw-dropping. In his piece on new home theater technologies, “Pirates on the iPod / The Soul of a New Screen,” Denby first addresses high-definition with caution: “I’m not used to it yet, and in truth, I admire it without really loving it.” But when he watches Taxi Driver on a 40-inch high def screen, he’s dismayed at the loss of the “encompassing lurid rawness” that he had so adored when he saw Scorsese’s masterpiece in the theater. High def fails him, and he feels it: “It wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t good at all; it was worse than a diminution, it was betrayal.”

The essays are carefully culled to cover the full spectrum of cinema—everything from Judd Apatow slacker comedies to Pedro Almodóvar indies to Tarantino’s “moral callousness”—and apart from
giving the reader a good picture of today’s film world (indie pictures have trouble getting funded, more explosions and less talking make movies palatable for international audiences, etc.), they also exhibit Denby’s idiosyncratic and compelling taste in movies, and in movie stars. He’s obsessed with Joan Crawford, referencing her in many essays and dedicating a biographical sketch to her alone. He’s a sucker for “story and character” over “sheer effects and sheer movement,” but makes room for modern popcorn-munchers like Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

The best nuggets of his insight sneak up on a reader when least expected. Like when he denotes the essential rule of all rom-coms, from the most classic to the cheesiest: “Romance becomes romantic comedy only when there is delay.” Or when he advocates for the typecasting of young starlets because “it makes an easy, involuntary communion with a star possible for the audience.” Denby is an emotionalist. This essay collection puts him forth as someone unabashedly interested in the emotional experience, in the easy communion of watching movies. It makes for a great read simply because it puts him on our side. He’s not a lofty intellectual, lobbing prescriptive reviews from on high; he’s sitting next to us in the theater, chuckling, wincing, and sniffling, too.

His penultimate essay is the most personal; in “Pauline Kael: A Great Critic and Her Circle”, he pays tribute to the legendary film critic before reflecting on his own role as a member of Kael’s circle in
the ‘70s: first as a pet, then as an outcast. Denby was her avid acolyte— a “Paulette”, according to certain snarky critics of the time—before being unceremoniously dumped by the mercurial Kael.

He has fully recovered: “If growing up is partly a matter of building strengths out of the bitterness of disappointment, I can’t blame Pauline for not giving me the praise I wanted.” The measured maturity of the essays in Do The Movies Have A Future?, along with those delicious moments of pure emotional reaction, should earn Denby plenty of praise. So yes, it is as entertaining as the films it analyzes.


The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.