I am not an auteurist

Clarification of the subject: I am a big fan of the auteur theory. That is not what this post is about.

Yesterday morning I was very belatedly listening to an episode of The Next Picture Show, the podcast hosted by staff of the former website The Dissolve, in which they were discussing a pair of Sofia Coppola films: Marie Antoinette and Priscilla. The structure of the show is to compare a new release to a classic that it echoes, one each week in a two-week pairing, and choosing two films from the same director's career is not uncommon. (A recent show I listened to was their 400th, so they've had to stray from the purity of the conceit on plenty of occasions, plus are rapidly using up their available pool of "classic" films. Though I do love Marie Antoinette so in this case I think it qualifies.)

As the discussion progressed to Priscilla, I found two things very unsurprising:

Hosts Scott Tobias and Keith Phipps basically loved the movie.

Host Tasha Robinson, long branded the show's contrarian, did not love it, though she respected it. 

(Fourth host Genevieve Koski, who produces the show and sometimes doesn't appear in the main episodes, was somewhere in between.)

I described the above reactions as unsurprising, but that is only a criticism in the case of Scott and Keith, because I agree with Tasha and have the same basic reservations about Priscilla that she does.

It can be hard to defend Tasha Robinson. Although she is undoubtedly a critic with immaculate film coverage and is easily the most well spoken of the four, in terms of having a voice and a delivery made for podcasts, she can sometimes dominate the discussion and occasionally comes off as a blowhard. Plus there are all those contrarian opinions, some of which are more defensible than others.

But you know what?

Give me a contrarian any day over a person who blindly rubber stamps the latest film from an acclaimed auteur.

Sofia Coppola certainly fits that description, perhaps more so than any other female working director. You know when you are watching a Sofia Coppola film. (Except, maybe, On the Rocks.) And I love Sofia Coppola, having named Lost in Translation my #1 film of 2003 and having felt very strongly about The Bling Ring, The Beguiled and the aforementioned Marie Antoinette.

But you know what? Coppola does not make a great film every time out, as evidenced by previous misfires Somewhere and the similarly aforementioned On the Rocks. Priscilla is better than those two, but it now joins that group, to some extent. (If you want my thoughts on the one feature film of hers I haven't mentioned, I want to like The Virgin Suicides more than I do, but I still respect it quite a lot.)

Scott and Keith appear to find Coppola incapable of misstepping. One of them also talked about how Somewhere, which had a decidedly middling reception at the time of its release, has lately been embraced as the classic that it is. Maybe I have to watch Somewhere again, but I doubt I would reach that conclusion.

Even On the Rocks was thrown some love. "It's her least essential film, but it's still pretty good." Um, no it isn't. 

Today I am interested in examining this compulsion.

If I were being truly cynical, I would say it stems from fear. If you think someone is going to call your critical bonafides into question if you don't like the latest movie from a respected auteur, you will find yourself emphasizing all the things you like about it, and dismissing anything that doesn't work for you.

But even in that case, you should be able to acknowledge the things that didn't work for you in a free-ranging, 30-minute discussion of the type they have on The Next Picture Show. Tasha was very reasonable in stating her concerns with the movie, which I won't rehash here (you can read my review if you want). It was like she was begging Scott and Keith to meet her halfway. Instead, they just kept doubling down, gainsaying anything that she said and coming across more like the contrarians themselves. Not in a disrespectful way, but more as a sign of their own recognition of the absurdity of their contrasting opinions, the other two were laughing in spite of themselves -- almost as though this were a snapshot of the podcast's core personality dynamic writ large. (I find it an interesting side note that the two men were the ones in favor of the movie directed by a woman, while the two women were critical of it.)

Or it could come from insecurity. If some people think a master made a masterpiece, and you did not see it that way, maybe the problem was with you and you didn't get something essential about it. I feel this sometimes especially about older classics that I am just seeing for the first time. But you have to have the confidence to state that something about a film doesn't work the way it should or as advertised, because I guarantee you there is someone else out there that feels the exact same way. 

Then it could just be a case of giving deference to a great artist. Even if they made a movie that was less than their best work, you don't want to denigrate their overall output in the way a mixed or negative review would do. It's almost like this awesome creative force doesn't have the power to withstand your pan. If anything, that person has a lot more power to withstand it than the fledgling newcomer would. 

I feel like none of these things are stumbling blocks for Tash. And this is why I will always defend Tasha. She may reach some conclusions I don't agree with, which is the nature of differing subjective viewpoints on films among the critical community. Worse, she may reach some conclusions where I can attack the logic of her reaching that conclusion, beyond the conclusion itself. But never do I think she has decided she likes a movie even before she has started watching it. I have exactly zero doubt that Tasha Robinson considers every movie on its own terms, and this is the sort of critic I fancy myself being, as well.

I'm sure Scott and Keith fancy themselves that sort of critic. What critic wouldn't. And in truth, I often admire them considerably more than I admire Tasha. They may not sound as professional in the podcast medium as she does, but their thoughts are always well researched and soundly argued.

The thing is, I can't get over the idea that on some level, they aren't being as critical as they should be about the work of a favorite director. They are not going to surprise us. They are going to provide us reactions that fall well within the critical mainstream.

Take their favorite films of 2023, for example. Scott went for The Zone of Interest. I believe Keith went for Killers of the Flower Moon. (Genevieve, who is being neglected in this post, was not on that show. Part of her problem is that she is a TV editor and has to watch a lot more TV than movies, so she might be selecting from 20 movies for her best of the year, and 15 of them would be films discussed on the podcast.)

Tasha? She anointed Saltburn as her #1.

Now, Saltburn is my least favorite of those three films, but it was still barely in my top 30 for 2023. (Oops, no, it was my #33.) And I find it to be a much more interesting choice, one that does not just elevate the most recent offering from one of the industry's undisputed greats.