Dana says that Coen Brothers movies leave her "cold" because "The brothers make movies that can be good, even very good, without seeming essential." What Dana refuses to tell you is exactly what "essential" means. A good question might be whether she even knows what "essential". I mean, she wrote it and all so you would that that she might be inclined to define what she means. But never really tells us. She just dances around the subject. Maybe it's this; maybe it's that.

That's a weakness for a critic because the essence of a film review will explain why the critic likes or dislikes something. Failing to define essential terms is also a sign of bad writing -- a somewhat surprising trait for a woman with a Phd in comparative lit from Berkeley (Slate's website told me so).

So without Dana's guidance, I am forced to contemplate what "essential" means. Based upon her previous reviews, I suggest that "essential" means one of two things: either (a) the film is political (a la Lives of Other or Sicko, which Dana likes), or (b) the film is made by "important" people who make "important" films (a la Before the Devil Knows Your Dead with Phil Hoffman and Sidney Lumet or Children of Men with Clive Owen and Alfonso Cuarón, which Dana also likes).

But give Dana the Coen Brothers, Gore Verbinski's Pirates trilogy, or the Ridley Scott/Denzel Washington vehicle American Gangster, and Dana doesn't really go for it. Why? The following comment about No Country may be revealing:

They can pull off bravura camerawork (Raising Arizona), dark wit (Fargo), or chair-gripping suspense (Miller's Crossing and, now, No Country for Old Men.) What they can't seem to do, at least for me, is make movies that matter. The Coens' movies are effective—diabolically so—without being affecting. (emphasis added).

Allow me to extrapolate from this (and by all means feel free to disagree with me, but I've read a lot of her reviews and I think it's true) and suggest that Dana does not like movies that are made for the sake of moviemaking (i.e. the pure joy of storytelling itself)

To my mind, the greatest of filmmakers (and I include the Coen Bros. in that list) excel at escapism. Sure, anybody can make you cry if they throw enough sappy shit on the screen while the world's smallest violin is played by the London Philharmonic. Anyone can make an "important" Oscar wannabe if they tell you that some really depressing shit is "based on actual events". But the greatest of filmmakers make you feel the emotion and experience the event regardless of whether the subject matter is important. And whether that film is good is a question of storytelling, not a question of politics or whether the critic thinks that the subject matter itself is "important".

That's why Dana makes for a poor film critic. She just doesn't seem to enjoy watching a movie for the sake of itself. All of this leads me to my ultimate question, why would anyone who doesn't like storytelling want to be a film critic? And why would a journal, even an internet journal, care to employ a film critic who doesn't like films? I know Slate prides itself for being "contrarian", but this is just a bit ridiculous.

The obvious low blow ad hominem argument: "Why does robot-rock keep reading Dana's reviews if he thinks they're shit?" Answer: I'm bored shitless at work. Let's move on.