He Lost It at the Movies
A.S. Hamrah, a film critic known for his distinctively negative and contrarian capsule reviews, is dissected in this essay that examines the strengths and significant weaknesses of his polemical style. The author argues Hamrah's relentless opposition to mainstream cinema often sacrifices accuracy and coherent judgment, despite his deep knowledge. For HN readers, it's a compelling look at the state and nature of criticism, exploring the intellectual rigor and the potential pitfalls of an uncompromising critical voice.
The Lowdown
This essay scrutinizes the influential film critic A.S. Hamrah, known for his unique, often confrontational, approach to film commentary, tracing his career from his early "knockabout" capsule reviews to his current status. It explores his critical philosophy, which rejects mainstream "consumer-guide" approaches in favor of a more vigorous, often negative, stance, while also critiquing the limitations and inconsistencies of this oppositional style.
- Hamrah rose to prominence in the late 2000s with concise, iconoclastic film reviews for n+1, inspired by earlier critics like Manny Farber, who championed a raw, direct assessment over conventional analysis.
- He aimed to counter the perceived "dumbing-down" of film criticism post-1990 by outlets like Entertainment Weekly, seeking inspiration from a more rigorous, film-culture-centric past embodied by figures like Pauline Kael.
- His critical methodology often eschews plot synopses or director/star facts, embracing an idiosyncratic, sometimes rambling tone, though he later slightly softened his strictures on conventional habits.
- Hamrah's perspective, shaped by punk rock and zine culture, is fiercely anti-commercial, extending to modern phenomena like streaming, Marvel, and Rotten Tomatoes, contrasting sharply with the more enthusiastic Richard Brody.
- He gravitates toward directors with "hardness" or "recalcitrance" (e.g., Akerman, Kubrick) and employs a political lens, critiquing corporate complicity in films or analyzing horror as a commentary on consumerism.
- The essay argues that Hamrah's relentless negativity, while providing rhetorical strength, often compromises his openness, descriptive accuracy, and the coherence of his judgments, sometimes reducing his work to a "portrait of a temperament."
- Specific examples of Hamrah's critical inconsistencies include strained reasoning on film titles, questionable putdowns, and accusations of misrepresentation against other critics (e.g., Sam Wasson, Richard Brody, Fredric Jameson, Phillip Lopate) that the essay refutes by providing counter-evidence.
- His historical ruminations are frequently undermined by this oppositional viewpoint, such as his analysis of Jaws ending the New Hollywood era or Jack Nicholson's career trajectory to Batman.
- The author highlights Hamrah's "cheats, shortcuts, and misrepresentations," such as an essay on AI where he misattributes a Hitchcock quote to dismiss a director, or misrepresenting Sam Wasson's scholarship.
Ultimately, the essay portrays A.S. Hamrah as a critic whose uncompromising, contrarian stance, while occasionally leading to brilliant insights, more often results in a rigid, often inaccurate, and ultimately self-limiting form of criticism, hindering genuine appreciation and fostering intellectual isolation. His "cooler mode" in earlier work, brief glimpses of which are presented, suggests a road less taken for his critical voice.