Before Sunset & Armond White

Saw this film at the Ritz recently and was enchanted and moved by it. For the most part, critical reception has been quite positive. I did bump into Armond White's negative review in the New York Press and felt the need to jot down some responses to that review. Here are some excerpts:

Now comes Before Sunset, a so-called love story that encourages the selfish tendencies of modern movie-makers and audiences. Our cultural divide can be felt in the very concept of this movie about the mutual attraction of two navel-gazers: Ethan Hawke as an American novelist and Julie Delpy as a French environmentalist, the same pair that met nine years ago in Before Sunrise. Not just thirtysomethings, now they're smug thirtysomethings; other people and the outside world do not puncture their intellectual cocoon.

I do not think that Before Sunset "encourages the selfish tendencies of modern movie-makers and audiences," but, if it did, it is not clear whether this is a criticism of the aesthetic merit of the film or a scolding for not undertaking a noble sociological goal. It is true that there are plenty of art critics that include the social value of a work of art as part of the evaluation of the work's merit, but Armond White's review does not provide the necessary arguments to support that view.

When he mentions that Jesse and Celine are "smug thirtysomethings" and that "other people and the outside world do not puncture their intellectual cocoon," he is correct. However, he seems to treat this as premises in support for the bad quality of the film. The representation of smugness and solipsism is, in my view, part of the intended characterizations. The audience is intelligent enough to realize that they may be witnessing a pair of smug people carping on about love, memory and other philosophical topics and still find their characters appealing and valuable. A representation of smugness does not necessarily make a film smug. Granted, Linklater may be extremely sympathetic to his characters, but the audience is given the space to dislike aspects of Jesse and Celine's personas.

Everything wrong with today's movie culture can be found in Before Sunset. Not to exaggerate this pipsqueak movie, but its very "smallness" is symptomatic of the diminished expectations and paltry substance that have become standard. Linklater's screenplay collaboration with his performers enshrines the indie audience's solipsistic taste. Their nonvoluptuous love story reduces courtship rituals to talk—and unexciting talk at that. The woman is slyly aggressive, and the man is abashed about his desperation. Linklater, Hawke and Delpy are not rejecting the screwball comedy model so much as indulging their own lack of imagination. (Any episode of tv's Elimidate or Blind Date tell us as much about how men and women feign and risk.) It's a grim joke that anyone took this method seriously the first time around, and the sequel will feel superfluous to anyone except those viewers vain enough to see themselves in Hawke and Delpy. The sign of Linklater's facetiousness is that his couple comes off as over-sincere and pretentious rather than embarrassingly real.

"Not to exaggerate." Whenever a film critic resorts to dysphemisms and ridicule ("pipsqueak"), one should be immediately suspect of the critic unless the film is obvious garbage or the critic provides strong arguments supporting the ridicule. Neither is the case. The movie will not be superfluous, according to White, for "those viewers vain enough to see themselves in Hawke and Delpy." Jesse and Celine's self-absorption and vanity may resonate strongly with my particular generation (in their 30s), but I find it hard to believe that those qualities are not found across the spectrum. Eric Rohmer films, which Linklater is obviously riffing on, can be equally as vain and solipsistic. The ultimate point is that a representation of those features in characters, by themselves, does not constitute an aesthetic flaw. Viewing representations of character flaws and flawed choices have been an integral component of storytelling for a long, long time.

It's a Sundance fallacy that Linklater (and Kevin Smith's execrable Chasing Amy) gets the precise tone of modern lovers. Loving doesn't change, but how people fancy their attractiveness or intelligence is often a matter of fashion, and Linklater is practiced at hipster intellectuality. (Waking Life was a snooze.) A screenwriter as gifted as Whit Stillman can show how lovers avoid talking about themselves, but all Hawke and Delpy do is parade their obnoxiousness. When he says, "I'm designed to be dissatisfied with everything," and she boasts, "I'm a romantic," it's a meeting of non-minds. This couple and their enabler are really stuck on themselves. By rejecting traditional movie romanticism, they deprive the audience's romantic needs.

When White writes that "how people fancy their attractiveness or intelligence is often a matter of fashion," he gets close to what I believe to be a central theme of the film. I do not think that Linklater, Hawke, Delpy et al. want us to think that their characters represent some intelligent and charming lovers -- I believe they are trying to represent the struggles and temptations all people have to face when trying to take stock of their lives and their romantic emotions. Jesse and Celine often say silly, pretentious things, but to take that as evidence that the entire enterprise is silly and pretentious is a classic error.

"By rejecting traditional movie romanticism, they deprive the audience's romantic needs" -- I am not sure what the audience's romantic needs are but I am pretty sure that Armond White cannot be the repository of that knowledge.

Before Sunset's key insult is its pretense of realism. Starting with Linklater's long-take, dollying-camera scenes (a favored trope since Slackers [sic]), the eavesdropping technique can only fool the most naive spectators. Linklater's real-time fascination is not fascinating; he insists that audiences acquiesce to his refusal of wonder; he films Paris like Hoboken.

Frankly, relying on the long take as a showy sign of technical prowess is a common ploy used by many filmmakers. But when considering the merit of that technical choice, one should ask oneself: "Did the filmmakers have good reasons to rely on the long-take? Was the choice well motivated?" The answer is "yes" in Before Sunset. The essence of the film is the conversation (spoken and unspoken) and body language of two characters trying to determine the depth of their romantic attachment. If a filmmaker had chosen not to rely on long-takes but, instead, chosne to pepper the film with more cuts, the addition of these cuts would raise at least two issues: (1) The film could lose the ability to study, in a sustained fashion, a character's behavior and mannerisms over extended periods of time as the conversation develops and (2) the choice of an editing cut often adds psychological or interpretative meanings to what we are witnessing.

By relying on long, uninterrupted takes, the audience can choose who to focus on and can see a wider range of their physical behavior with each other and with their environment. The point is this: criticizing a long-take, dollying style by stating that it can "only fool the most naive spectators" is not criticism in the classic sense of the word. It is a rhetorical ploy appealing to peer-pressure: "Oh, I must be naive if I admire Linklater's long-takes." But he does not provide authentic reasons for rejecting this technical choice.

Back in my days as a philosophy teacher, many principles guiding intellectual evaluation and criticism were part of my daily life. Two in particular come to mind when I read many of Armond White's pieces: (1) Straw Man arguments and (2) The Principle of Charity.

Straw Man arguments occur when we distort our adversary's claims or works to such an extent that it becomes easier to reject or critique their views. The Principle of Charity suggests that when you are faced with a claim, argument or work, try to understand it as best as you can and identify the strongest features of it before beginning a critical assessment. I find Armond White having fun with straw men all the time but I rarely see him applying charity.

Comments

[cory]

Before Sun movies are two of the best movies ever made!!!! Dont look down just because you cant understand the greatness of the films

[Jberto]

Well the film is obviously garbage. If you think that Rohmer films are as equally vain and solipsistic as this one then you clearly do not understand cinema at all. I will point you to some correct examples of long take films, try "Offside" by Jafar Panahi, or any Robert Altman film.

[nadge frank]

good piece

[JESSE FARRELL]

I liked ur article and Im happy to see theres some people that just have one opinion on one Armond White review, as opposed to that awful ArmondDangerous blog. Youre clear on your opinion and you dont ridicule Armond directly, you only defined clearly why you disagree, and thats all too rare. Thanks.