Tears and Flapdoodle; or neo-neo goes emo a go-go.

Recently in the NYT magazine, a 5,000 word feature by A.O. Scott appeared that tried to throw a lasso around a group of recent indie features, including CHOP SHOP, OLD JOY, WENDY AND LUCY, BALLAST and other powerful films that include poverty as a subject matter.   De Sica's BICYCLE THEIF is brought up quickly as the operative example of a previous influence, and the bulk of the article is given over to Rahmon Bahrani, director of CHOP SHOP and GOODBYE SOLO, which is welcome and well deserved.  

Almost immediately, the critic Richard Brody over at the New Yorker wrote a retort that tries to tear apart many of the assumptions and assertions of the article, and then A.O. Scott responded...  sadly, this is not on the level of Sarris vs Kael, but I'm glad to see some ink and pixels spilt in service of these fine films.  (It's more like a pissing contest between two pre-teens who can't seem to find their dicks quite yet. )

Some of the basic questions raised however are worth considering, and include thngs like "when did realism first appear in American Cinema, and what are it's roots," and "why do other nations cinema seem more preoccupied with reality while ours has always tended to fantasy," and "is film noir a form of realism or not?"  

But more interesting is the overwhelming internet response - a grassroots chorus of hundreds have dismissed BOTH critics as ludicrously ill-informed and pretentious in voicing their opinions.  To me this speaks more to the subject at hand, the desire to examine and champion some good cinema.  It's as though the audience is resisting being told what their tastes are, and what demographic or social pigeonhole they need to stay within, and why film critics know more than we do in an age where we all have netflix and can see just as many movies in a given year.  And that's a victory of sorts for the audience, but also a harbinger of the way we're all being fractured into separate academies-of-one.  Most comments I've seen on sites that link to these articles are better informed than the critics themselves.  Have we reached a new plateau, and is it time to kill the buddha on the road?