The nice thing about a blog is that it allows you a nice little showcase for things you feel you absolutely must speak out about, yet have no particular room for on your main site. While building my page 'Exhibit A', I was forced to dredge through the masturbatory ramblings of John Simon, my opinion of whom has been well documented elsewhere in these pages. While slogging through the little slice of reading hell entitled 'Movies into Film' (Isn’t it funny how so many “intellectuals” in attempting to give their works both pith and brevity stumble upon absolutely the most banal and obvious tilting possible?) I came across a piteous little rant concerning Carlos Claren’s book 'An Illustrated History of the Horror Film'. Since unlike Simon I respect the time and intelligence of my readers, (I wonder who actually has more readers, a painfully obscure internet film reviewer, or a recently dismissed patrician snot who no one seemed to actually stomach) I’ll spare you long and laborious quotes illustrating Simon’s apocryphal wit, and try to keep things brief. A summary of his thesis:

• Horror films are lowbrow crap as has been proven “statistically”. (WTF? Statistics? Why not use algebraic equation to criticize French impressionism?)
• Therefore, any serious critical analysis of them is misguided.
• Especially this one, as Clarens is not a real critic, like me, only a “buff”.

True, “statistically” there is a lot of dross to be found in the genre, but anyone who actually takes time to think about it will realize that a large chunk of the comedies, romances, action films, melodramas, fantasy/sci-fi flicks, and good ol’ art films being turned out are just as crappy. Artistic value is not critiqued by calculating the arithmetic mean of any given group of work, anymore than the beauty of a painting is judged by weighing it. Seems that an intellectual might know that.

The third point, that only ‘real-live’ reviewers are fit to give their views on art, stirs pity in me rather than the contempt it rightfully deserves. Our lad starts out his “Critical Matters” section with the aside that critiquing other critics tends to say more about oneself than the subject. He damn right. Simon’s oddly petulant reaction to the idea of a mere amateur doing his job, is, and there’s no other word for it, pathetic. Is the man really so insecure that he thinks no one else should attempt to do what he does? (Or rather, did. Have I mentioned yet that he was fired recently? Oh, I did! Good.) To some extent he is correct, it takes a special talent to write an entertaining and informative movie review. I’m just starting to flex my muscles at writing reviews, and frankly, I don’t think I’m all that good at it yet. Unlike Simon, I’m more than willing to admit that there are a gaggle of reviewers who are better than me.

It is more than accurate to say than not everyone, regardless of how learned they are, can write a film review. For example, John Simon couldn’t. His writings were of concern only to himself and a few sad hangers-on. As reviews, they were a piss-poor basis on which to plan an outing. Obsessed with self-affected “art”, he wouldn’t be able to steer you towards an evening of actual entertainment if his life depended on it. As witty entertainment in and of themselves, they as were as insufferable as their creator. And if you were looking for a fair assessment of any film which dared to be horrific, you’d be better off consulting tea leaves or goat entrails.

Despite its rather banal reputation, horror, true horror, is a “deep" phenomenon, although not in the same way as most art films and oh-so-humorless dramas. Horror is primal. It resides in the reptilian hindbrain. It is true. It reveals us for what we really are, and it sure as hell requires more than a facile view to understand. Simon was simply never able to fathom its depths. And since he lacks any such ability, he seems unwilling to concede that anyone else might have it.