1) I do not like nor dislike New Wave films. I take any work of art on its merits. The fact is that most of the films were wildly overrated, for the reasons enumerated. Like has NOTHING to do with critical thought- which is intellectual. Like is an emotional response.

2) Clearly, though, you like Cahiers, because, like their reviews, it takes you a few paragraphs to make a simple point.

3)Auteur theory merely stated the obvious, which existed since the silents. Griffith, Murnau, Lang, Chaplin, etc. were all pretty much recognized as singular artists. Ho-hum.

4) You did not refute a single quote of mine, because they were on the money.

5) I always back up my critiques, and not based on emotionalism. You may disagree. So?

Ok, I have begin my comment by quoting your ridiculous review of The 400 Blows. I’ve now read three of your reviews of French New Wave films (400 Blows, Breathless, Contempt) and I don’t know where you get off with comments like the one quoted above. Ok…so you don’t like the French New Wave, we get it…why don’t you write about something else then. In all three of your reviews, you denigrate film critics while it seems fairly obvious to me that these articles would land you firmly within the confines of film criticism. You cannot discount the influence and importance of the critical and theoretical view put forward by ‘Cahiers du Cinema’. Two words sum it up: Auteur Theory. While there are definite flaws within this theoreticlal framework, i.e. the theory places all emphasis on the author (usually the director) of the film when in fact, making a film is one of the most collaborative forms of art. But, criticisms aside, the theory completely changed the way the Hollywood studios operated and gave tons more artistic control to the directors. Without this reorganising of the studio system we may not have had the pleasure of multiple films by great directors like Altman, Kubrick, Coppola, Lynch…I could go on. If nothing else, the French New Wave and the critics of ‘Cahiers du Cinema’ were crucial to restructuring of the film industry we know today.

Lets take a look at a few more of your quotes:

1.) “Of course, leave it to film critics to a) miss some of the obvious flaws in the film’s technical presentation and b) wildly rhapsodize about certain aspects of the film in the most trite of ways. In an online essay, a critic named John Conomos, not only ejaculates ridiculously about The 400 Blows, but he does so in a prose so gushing, so teenaged, that it seems as if it might be the writings young Doinel plagiarized (not from Balzac, however, but from some French romance writer).” (Review of ‘The 400 Blows’)

2.) “as for the Breathless DVD, it offers an inane film commentary by film critic David Sterritt that basically consists of him oohing and aahing over the film’s most meaningless dialogue or technical contrivances. As with most apologists, he does not defend what the film achieves, only what it intends to achieve.” (Review of ‘Breathless’)

3.) “bankrupt intellectualized aesthetics of film critic André Bazin.” (Review of ‘Contempt’)

4.) “Whenever one reads positive essays or reviews on Godard, all one gets are elaborate explanations for what was attempted, rather than an assessment of whether or not what is on-screen is successful. This is always the first sign of an inferior critic talking about a work of art that is not nearly as good as the critic claims.” (Review of ‘Contempt’)

5.) “usual critical fellatrics” (Review of ‘Contempt’)

6.) “That sort of artistic anomy may make many vapid critics drool, but it is not great art.” (Review of ‘Contempt’)

So, I’ve looked at Cosmoetica and Cinemension as well as your Wiki entry (which I assume was written by you) and I think I understand why you hate the French New Wave so much…you’re an instigator. You take a generally accepted maxim, i.e. ‘The french new wave was responsible for producing some good films and has been hugely influential within the film industry’, then you develop an argument that you may or may not have evidence to support. This argument will be designed to create controversy in order to further your career as a poet/critic/blah/blah/blah/blah. It seems to be working for you but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously if these are the kind of statements you’re going make.