The Blog

I have been at spirited internal arms w/ Mr. Rosenbaum for the last little bit (was I dreaming when the wily one called Nashville a hateful sub-Emilio-Estevez-does-'68? (shudder, rising bile)). I want to thank the man right here and right now for this utterly a propos pistol-whipping of Catsoulis and her fiendish ilk. Now if you could get one of yr literary critic, debutante, Tom Wolfe skarv'd friends to please kneecap Michiko Kakutani over at that same Peckinpah Mexican-w/-a-knife-in-his-teeth paper perhaps Manhattan will gain some karma (if, alas, not market leverage).

"philistine roots"? I think you might be overreacting just a tad. She calls the movie a colorful and confounding test of fortitude that breaches cultural boundaries. How you read in the word "stinks," I cannot say.

I agree with most of what you said here, but I wonder why, if you're so eager to defend and share this film, why don't you write something original and substantive about it? Your writing, this blog entry included, is about 10% film criticism and 90% metacriticism. I know that some will counter with the truism (or the banality) that criticism is as much a part of the "film experience" as films themselves. But I suspect there's much more to be said about OPERA JAWA than about Janette Catsoulis--it's easy to find innumerable blog entries of critics taking (sometimes very intelligent) swipes at one another but there's so little actually attentive, sensitive, and patient film criticism by comparison. In this context, and given your evident talent for film criticism, you are remiss to toss some awed superlatives in the direction of OPERA JAWA (or whatever other recent film you complain will not receive a commercial release) and devote the bulk of your writing to the perceived condescension of the NYT's critics.

I mean, you're entitled to write about whatever you want to write about, especially so now that you're retired. But I can't help thinking this kind of metacriticial griping is the easy, lazy option compared to the sustained and careful criticism of a work of art, which you have proven yourself capable of.

There's a time and place for everything. It would be unwise for me to attempt serious criticism about a film I haven't seen in almost a year and a half. Maybe when the film comes to Chicago, or maybe when it comes out on DVD. Or maybe when I can see it again and find the time.

I have no use for Jeannette Catsoulis, but it's fairly unlikely that she has any say over the length or placement of the reviews she's assigned. And I'd very much like to see Mr. Rosenbaum demonstrate how one writes a considered, nuanced, non-xenophobic-seeming pan of a "mind-boggling" (by his own admission) foreign film in 200 words—bearing in mind that your job description as a daily newspaper critic entails providing some sort of basic plot summary, which is going to devour half your word count. If you're going to be bitter and depressed, be bitter and depressed that neither Tony Scott nor Manohla Dargis apparently found this film (which I haven't seen and personally have heard mixed reports about) worth tackling. Because the fact is that any review they pass up is going to get 200 words buried on page five, and even a critic as estimable as Matt Zoller Seitz can't do much with that.

md'a, The word count excuse is a cop out. A good writer could write well every sentence, and make astute choices to figure out what material is worth mentioning or not given the known length limitation. A good critic could infuse powerful insights about the film (be it a praise or a pan) in each sentence. Can't you see at the reading of a review if the author put some heart and inspiration in it? Can't you see when it's a filler with a collection of adjectives and punchlines? Even without knowing the film, you could tell the content is disgracefully superficial. And if you can't cope with 200 words, find another job instead of complaining afterwards.

C'mon Mr. Tuttle, that's crap. You can "infuse" all the "powerful insights" you want, but you still have to tell the kids what the movie's about, who's in it, who made it, and other things that, in a better world, you wouldn't have to summarize for the uninformed.

I've seen "Opera Jawa," and found it anything but an innocent expression of folk culture. It's a rather heavy-handed excercise in European avant-garde theater, pretty much exactly as practised by Peter Sellers, who produced this film as well as the rest of the "New Found Hope" series. I found the overlay of European Po-Mo on the traditional material actually rather offensive -- just another bit of cultural imperialism, this time extended from the left.

A longtime, and increasingly exasperated, Rosenbaum reader: This is a blog; it's not a review section. As such, JR's choice of topic, and his approach to it, is appropriate and entirely up to him. No?

I admire your work, JR, and am proud to have published an interview with you on my blog. But you're about as far off-based on this topic as you could possibly be. The review in question is not negative by a long shot; quite the contrary, it is designed to use 200 words to intrigue people who might not otherwise be inclined to seek out a film like this one. Brief as it is, the review makes the film sound like a challenge to adventurous moviegoers who feel like spending their money on something other than the Hollywood usual. Beyond that, I'm very sorry to say that this blog entry is written from a position of ignorance of how newspapers other than the Chicago Reader work. At the Times, as well as other dailies, the lead critics (in this case, A.O. Scott and Manohla) make first choice of what's out there, followed by Holden, then the freelancers -- me, then Catsoulis, then the rest of the pool. (I've been taking a couple of weeks off from the Times to work on a personal project, so I wasn't in the lineup the week this one was handed out -- otherwise I might have picked it, and been the object of your ire. Dodged that bullet!) At the Times, freelancers are rarely allowed to write longer than 200 words on a movie. If Catsoulis had included the information you chastised her for omitting from her capsule review, and explained it at a level of detail sufficient to satisfy you, she would have lost about half of her word count. I was going to say that this entry should have been a classic Jonathan Rosenbaum rant against the system that would relegate a movie like this to a non-mainstream thater in New York, and coverage of the movie to a daily newspaper's back pages -- but that would have required you to come at this subject from a position of knowledge that you apparently lack. You've traditionally been one of the few critics consistently hammering on Hollywood movies for adopting the "one bad apple" approach to drama, wherein larger systemic ills are pinned on a single bad guy. I'm sad to see you do that very thing here.

Dear Matt, I'm not at all in ignorance of how reviews get assigned at the Times. For all my frustration about taking the film more seriously than the Times review implies that we can or should, my real objection is the review's xenophobia, which you don't address--unless your implication is that the only way to "sell" an Indonesian film in the Times is to ridicule it. Maybe this is what's sometimes called "good-natured" ridicule, but I find it snotty none the less.

Matt, I'm a big fan of your writing and The House Next Door. But how can you claim "[the review in question] is designed to use 200 words to intrigue people who might not otherwise be inclined to seek out a film like this one" when Jeanette's lede is "OPERA JAWA is guaranteed to test the fortitude of all but the most adventurous viewer"?! That hardly sounds like an open invitation meant to "intrigue" the uninitiated, especially given how few NYT readers would even make the effort to read a page five review of a hybrid Indonesian musical. "Not negative by a long shot"? In such a Times-centered NY art-house filmgoing culture -- where, as you well know, Matt, reviews from the paper of record literally make or break small movies -- I'd say that first line all but destroys the film's chances of attracting any kind of audience, which in turn ruins its chances of playing in other markets across the country. And 200 words or 2000, the failure to contextualize OPERA JAWA as part of the "New Crowned Hope" series is just inexcusable; it's as important to understanding this movie as any plot synopsis. (But apparently not as important as the fact that Eko Supriyanto was on Madonna's Drowned World Tour.) 200 words aren't a lot, obviously, but you have to make them count.

I've been reading J. Rosenbaum's writings for quite a while, and find myself disagreeing with him as often as agreeing, but on this one I'm totally with him. Keeping in mind space restrictions, the original review is still snide and dismissive, while not really giving much of an idea of what the film (which I haven't seen) might be like. I don't mind the lack of context or references to New Crowned Hope (though "wells" is right - that'd be much more important than namedropping Madonna) but I do take exception to the condescending way the review treats the film, while not writing about it aesthetically in any way. There's an undercurrent of snickering throughout the review. On the plus side, this little controversy has made me really want to see the film. -Ed Only The Cinema

Ed, I was thinking the same thing. There was a piece in the NYT recently about a revival of "Last Year at Marienbad." I don't mean to be facetious when I say that describing a film as "guaranteed to test the fortitude of all but the most adventurous viewer" (or "audacious, undeniably challenging, in fact downright mind-boggling avant-garde" -- masterpiece or no) may appeal directly to potential viewers most likely to be interested (and receptive to) it: i.e., those who appreciate feeling adventurous and challenged. Surely there are enough of them in NY to fill up some seats at MOMA, which isn't exactly hard to get to. Those who already know about the New Crowned Hope series should already be up for it, so I hope the screening goes well. I also hope that the days when Bosley Crowther or Vincent Canby could kill the distribution prospects of a film with a negative review are over. To look on the bright side: For an avant-garde musical like this, Nathan Lee's rave in the Voice may be the best publicity possible.

Wells: Politically incorrect as it may be to admit such a thing, the fact that Eko Supriyanto was on Madonna's Drowned World Tour will put more butts in seats than any of the contextualization we're demanding here. Using the exact wording JR employs in his contextualization portion would reduce JC's word count from 200 words to 169. JR: I can't disagree that your own attitude toward the film in this blog entry reveals you as inclined to seek out a film such as "Opera Jawa," and JC's Times review does not. That said, you describe the movie as "audacious, undeniably challenging, in fact downright mind-boggling avant-garde masterpiece," and "a dazzling bolt from the blue." These may be words that prompt filmgoers with eclectic taste to rush to their laptops or phones and order their tickets in advance; but read through the eyes of moviegoers who consider "Juno" a daring independent film, they are no different in meaning from "guaranteed to test the fortitude of all but the most adventurous viewer" -- and I suspect that phrase would be counterbalanced in such a hypothetical viewer's mind while reading Catsoulis' capsule by her phrase, "A colorful and confounding head trip," which makes it sound like a midnight movie that's loads of fun. Furthermore, the descrption, "Dancing seductively on a tabletop, wearing a jaunty fedora and red cummerbund, he generates a magnetism breaching cultural boundaries" -- however "condescending" it may seem to JR and to commentors here -- is a pullquote that any advertiser would be happy to have. Am I being hypersensitive to an attack on a colleague because of the thought, "What if it had been me?" Almost certainly. But I do think there's an ignorance of how the system works (journalism and movie distribution) that comes through in this blog post. JR, I'll counter with another question: if you know full well how movies are assigned at the Times, why did you tar my colleague by extended, false comparisons to Bosley Crowther, the Times' lead film critic and uncontested cultural power for over a generation? Why did you not mention that she's a freelancer with no control over word count or placement in the paper's arts section? For an example of a somewhat similar controversy accusing a Times freelance film critic of being dismissive and not contextualizing a movie within a capsule review, see Caveh Zahedi's back-and-forth with Nathan Lee, here: http://blogs.indiewire.com/caveh/archive/007799.html

Sorry for the multiple posts -- the last one should be considered the version I meant to submit.

Jim, I do film publicity at an art-house movie theater in New York. Based on the box office grosses of our titles over the last few years, I'm sad to report that an indie film's commercial prospects in this city (and thus, the rest of the country) are still, by and large, predicated primarily on Times reviews and coverage. Obviously there are exceptions, but Jeannette's piece still unforunately wields a lot more power than whatever ecstatic and copious praise the Voice has to offer. It's a sad state of affairs when a review from anyone at "The New York Times" means more for box office revenue than one attributed to J. Hoberman. Matt, thanks for linking to that Zahedi/Lee discussion; it's an essential dialogue between a filmmaker and critic, something I'd like to see a lot more.

With all due respect, Matt, my original post was and is mainly about ideology and ideological bias--a place where you and I and Jeannette Catsoulis and Bosley Crowther can all be discussed in the same breath. It wasn't about the relative freedom and power of first stringers versus freelancers or word lengths or even criticism as promotion (though the welcome comment from "wells" about the Times does seem important. Having been lambasted by many for my Op Ed piece about Bergman a few months back, I'm sure that much of it had to do with its having appeared in the Times, and it would be churlish of me not to admit that I'm often susceptible to the same sort of kneejerk reaction.)

A critic judges a film on its ability to produce quality cinema, a reader judges a critic on its ability to write quality reviews. Why blame the "system" for being unable to write the best review given the circumpstances (which a professional critic is supposed to be trained to work with)? I don't understand the line of defense of critics here... Is it indifferent to the readership if a critic likes or not the film reviewed? Is the same to sell it as the Avant Garde piece it is or deceptively as a pop music video with suggestive dance moves? Is it ok to neglet an important film in the NYT if the Village Voice praises it already? Assuming the NYC audience is "adventurous", will they go see the movie whether the review is mixed, or if there are no review at all? If they already know about the context (where did they learn about it if not by journalists?) what is the purpose of a printed review in the first place???

sorry, somewhat off-topic, but I've been trying to access your article about pedro costa on the reader movie mainpage (i remember liking the article, AND it gave info on how to find some of his films) but the page consistantly crashes, and it's the only page to do so. Do you know if there's anything wrong with the server? Otherwise, more in topic, do you know what other results the New Crowned Hope project has given, and have you seen any others? If all films are as good as those you mention here...

Harry: Respectfully, it's possible to acknowledge the impact of "the system" on reviews of off-Hollywood movies (which is what I'm attempting to do here, however awkwardly) without "blaming the system," as you put it, for a review that one does not like, respect or agree with. Jonathan: Catsoulis' capsule was surely more that of an outsider looking in than what you might have written under similar circumstances (and similar length constraints). But it's also more open-minded and engaged than you're giving it credit for -- Jim Emerson's comment above summarizes this point nicely -- and in any case, I'd maintain that it's a far cry from your summary of it: "The Times says it stinks." As I bow out of this thread, I'll repeat myself and say that the very things you maintain your post was not "about" are the very things that it SHOULD have been about. They are the forces that conspire to place an assessment of what you describe as an aesthetically and culturally significant motion on the inside of the arts section, in the capsule anthology that editors refer to as "the roundup." Arguments about what Catsoulis should have written instead are not only insignificant in comparison, they are a distraction from the meat of the matter, and an invitation to cinephiles to congratulate one another (and themselves) on their worldly and discerning taste. It's fine to complain about unacceptable service by a particular employee at the local post office. But we should also talk about the post office.

Nathan: I know nothing about your server problem. When I try accessing the Costa article, there's no hassle. I haven't seen all the New Crowned Hope films by any means, and I haven't even liked all of those I've seen (I can't recall all the titles now), but I'm disappointed that the full package wasn't shown more widely as such, which I believe has happened in some festivals. My impression is that it was noticed more in Europe than it's been in the U.S.

It's the capsule of a fashion reviewer watching a music video.

With regards to the Madonna thing, she mentions in it a paragraph about the actor's "impressive contortions," which she says, admiringly, "deserve their own paycheck." I suppose one could read some exoticist subtext into a white woman swooning for an athletic third-worlder, but if his contortions are impressive as she says they are, I think anybody would be impressed (white or brown, we all have the same basic anatomy). I had to read the "breaching cultural boundaries" part a few times to figure out what she meant, but I think given the alleged strangeness of the film (which I haven't seen), she seems to be saying that Supriyanto has a magnetism that's anything but esoteric. In other words, star charisma is universal.

How pressed are you by the word count when both the critic and the editor believe the following fillers are must-read material for their readers and couldn't be edited out? "and probably the first to open with a song about pig livers", "whose excessive attachment to his mother would nevertheless give any girl pause", "whose résumé includes Madonna’s Drowned World Tour and whose hips deserve their own paycheck", "Dancing seductively on a tabletop, wearing a jaunty fedora and red cummerbund", "“My sperm sparkles in the heavens,” he warbles, by way of a come-on. Oh, well, I never said he was perfect." (71 wasted word opportunities to show off critical skills at forging a capsule review!) These humorous bits might be tolerated in a longer piece (if the ambition is to entertain more than to educate!), but I don't see how one could complain about constraints when such liberties are featured here.

I would have to agree with Mr. Rosenbaum. The Catsoulis piece is not only quite shallow but takes the position of being fascinated by a culture's quaintness. I found this remark particularly ignorant and potentially xenophobic: "Suffering from neither is Siti’s would-be lover, a besotted butcher named Ludiro (the Javanese dancer and choreographer Eko Supriyanto), whose excessive attachment to his mother would nevertheless give any girl pause." Hmm, so for Catsoulis close family relations in Indonesian culture is strange and emasculating? No one wants a mama's boy, right? Well, here in Southeast Asia, women prefer men who have a healthy relationship with their mothers, because they know these men know how to treat women. But oh no, this is just too... weird! This capsule is by far more interested in clever turns-of-phrase than in generating any sort of insight. All I get from Catsoulis's writing: those Indonesians [insert foreign cultural group here], they ARE inscrutable!

"Homo superior" wrote: "This is a blog; it's not a review section. As such, JR's choice of topic, and his approach to it, is appropriate and entirely up to him. No?" Of course, and I acknowledged as much. But this sort of metacriticism occupies most of his writing, in any form, these days. I was hoping he might devote his energies, instead, to writing about films.

Catsoulis's "guaranteed to test the fortitude of all but the most adventurous viewer" did seem to recall Crowther's (actually more favorable) 1958 review of PATHER PANCHALI: "one of those rare exotic items [...] that should offer some subtle compensations to anyone who has the patience to sit through its almost two hours." But then I even found the lead of Dargis' (otherwise great) rave review of STILL LIFE today slightly insulting ... "Jia Zhang-ke is among the most strikingly gifted filmmakers working today whom you have probably never heard of"!

Rosenbaum's hysterical alignment of Catsoulis's positive review with that of "insulting 235 million Indonesians" is why we can't wait for him to retire in Febraury. (it's a short month, YAY!) p.s. Who died and made Rosenbaum the spokesman of the third world?

Jess, do you seriously think most NEW YORK TIMES readers have heard of Jia Zhang Ke? She's writing for a daily paper, not FILM COMMENT or CINEMA SCOPE. What's soinsulting about acknowledging the relative obscurity in the U.S. of most of the best world cinema?

A response to Damon's p.s.: I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's the same jerk who died and made you the spokesman of the first world.

Just walking in on this and looking at the Times review, well, it does seem snotty. That said, I'd love to see the film--his Leaf on a Pillow I wasn't a big fan of, but I thought A Poet was tremendous filmmaking.

@Nathan, re: New Crowned Hope series I saw a couple from the series this year at the Karlovy Vary Festival in Czech Republic. I really liked Mahamat-Saleh Haroun Daratt (Chad 2006) and talk about it briefly here: http://homo-superior.blogspot.com/2007/07/film-respose-daratt.html Click through the Content Warning. I'm not safe for work, it seems.

The jerk you are talking about is too busy colonizing the land of Hiner Saleem and Siddiq Barmak, and prepares to bomb the people of Kiarostami, so he had to delegate his freedom-fighter duty to others... Dargis: "Jia Zhang-ke is among the most strikingly gifted filmmakers working today whom you have probably never heard of" Apparently someone at the NYT believes the readers don't know everything and need to be reminded of some capital facts. How ironic to expect a newspaper to give us informations... ;)

You know, it seems like a constant resentment of Rosenbaum's is about New York being the preceived capital of the U.S. intelligentsia and everything that goes with that - movies premiere there before they usually do in the "boondocks" as he sarcastically refers to Chicago - meaning that's how he thinks said "intelligentsia" considers a city like Chicago -, and not terribly fascinating critics like Lane and Denby are considered authorities without considering the middlebrow apolitical "cocktail party quips" kind of prose they usually churn out. I'm not saying simply that Rosenbaum is jealous per se and thus feels a constant need to gripe about the superiority complex of New York and how that can breed arrogance like the review in question - I actually basically agree with him about this - as would most Chicago cinephiles frustrated by all the attention showered on the coasts especially when we have one of the few truly important critics that I know of in Rosenbaum - sadly, not anymore. But I wonder if it would be such a big deal if that review had ran in an Ohio paper for instance. What I'm saying is - and maybe this has already been discussed in the 35 posts this topic has generated - but how much is this really about cultural sensitivity and how much is just simply about the smarmy condescension of New York critics and how we love to hate it to some extent.

In fairness, let it be added that A.O. Scott's appreciative reviews of "I Don't Want to Sleep Alone" and "Syndromes and a Century" didn't mention the New crowned Hope Festival either. The festival hasn't been ignored by the Times; maybe it's just not considered "news" anymore. Anne Midgette's coverage of it in 2006 specifically praised "Opera Jawa" -- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/theater/25sell.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=&oref=slogin

Dearest Jonathan, So there I was, curled up in bed with the ’flu and enjoying my umpteenth viewing of Team America: World Police, when the phone calls started coming. And while normally nothing could tear me away from this true-blue masterpiece, your outburst is just too delicious. It’s not every day one can savor the experience of upsetting Jonathan Rosenbaum, but to be compared to Bosley Crowther! I confess I’m quite giddy with the honor; and though darling Bosley is even now gazing down from his portrait above my bed with that cautionary glint in his eye, I am inclined to bask in the glow of your attention, however rude and contemptuous. And besides, it seems rather cowardly to allow my colleague Matt to do all the heavy lifting for me, however eloquently. Having watched this fracas unfold with no small amount of disbelief, I have to ask: dear Lord, man, are you serious? Are you so out of touch with average moviegoers that you can’t see that most of them would need to be marched at gunpoint into this film? Or that I’m twisting myself in knots to provoke their curiosity? I’m not posting here to unload a sob story about editing or word counts—I stand by every single word of that review—but your outrage is symptomatic of a critical orthodoxy that reviles the use of humor to talk about any filmmaker anointed as a sacred cow. In other words, make fun of Michael Bay all you want, but joke about Kiarostami and the Wrath of Rosenbaum will manifest. The stultifying humorlessness of much of our film discourse is not only stifling to criticism but insulting to readers. This is exactly the kind of thinking that labels reviews like my own “condescending” and “tossed off”—glibly dismissing them without addressing their possible utility in reaching audiences who lack the time or interest to wade through your own dense, erudite paragraphs. My aim with this review—which I believe I achieved—was to convey a) the film’s baffling narrative, b) its exoticism, and c) its unbridled sense of fun. The dialogue alone, while no doubt suffering in translation, is an absolute hoot. (Proving at least the director has a sense of humor, even if some of his champions do not.) Quoting one of the funniest lines, therefore, was not intended to be snide or snotty or insulting, but exemplary: I believe most viewers will find the singing about sperm and pig livers as riotous as I do. As for my admiration for Mr. Supriyanto, I apologize to no-one for noting the aesthetic and erotic pleasure given by a man—foreign or homegrown—who knows how to move his body. As a healthy, hetero woman (who may or may not be white, to address some not-so-veiled assumptions going on in this forum), I find him a delight to watch and his pop-culture credentials (as Matt points out) a possible access point for audiences who might otherwise feel disinclined to see the film. As a longtime reader and admirer of your work, I am less surprised by your attack than saddened by your knee-jerk bellicosity. My knowledge of Indonesian cinema may be rudimentary—that’s one of the reasons we all read you—but to accuse me of xenophobia on the grounds of a single, 200-word piece is quite a stretch. (My recent review of Bahman Ghobadi’s “Half Moon” is only one of many pieces of counter-evidence—and one in which, incidentally, I took care to mention the New Crowned Hope festival. Don’t I at least get a gold star for that?) If you knew me even slightly, you would know that while my defects of character are indeed many and varied, xenophobia is not among them. (And, while we’re addressing assumptions, I don’t live in New York City and I am not American). And if I might respond to the commenter named Dottie: any man who has “a healthy relationship” with his mother is indeed a wondrous specimen, but one who begs for permission to crawl back into her womb could be a problem. I’m just saying, Dottie, I’m just saying. What’s sad about all this is that I don’t think our opinions of the film are all that different. You just seem to think that there’s an ‘acceptable’ way to write about a movie like Opera Jawa while I constitutionally resist such orthodoxies. I set out to write a lively, cheeky review of a lively, cheeky film—no more, no less. That it should precipitate such a response says much more about you than it does about me. Peace, Jeannette

Dear Jeannette, If one of your reasons for reading me is to attain any knowledge of Indonesian cinema, I'm afraid you're wasting your time and that I'm the last person you should be reading for that purpose. But I'd be every bit as misguided if I presumed to review you or your personality or your nationality or your home base, none of which I know anything about. All I was commenting on was one review and the assumptions I rightly or wrongly found in it--that is to say, in your prose and your implied readership. I certainly wasn't claiming and wouldn't ever claim that there's any acceptable way to write about any film, including Opera Jawa. And we're all free to disagree about what we like and don't like. I thought I was implying only that there are objectionable and unobjectionable ways of writing about human beings. If I misled you or anyone else about this, my apologies. Peace, Jonathan

Dear Jonathan, I appreciate your response; we are all capable of making assumptions, and I would be a poor sort of writer if I did not use this exchange as an opportunity for self-examination as well as self-defense. I have been reading you -- and, despite your modesty, learning from you -- for more years than I care to count, and I look forward to many more. Peace, Jeannette

I'm admirative of your courage to face the criticism, in more than 200 words. ;) Though while you "stand by every single word", you apparently refuse to acknowledge how partial they were, and still want us to believe that your review was in fact "positive". If you want to teach Rosenbaum the most efficient ways to drag the indecise readers to the box office (low humor, sexual arousal, fun "unorthodoxy", bitesized digests for ADD readers, pop-culture credentials...), maybe we should reconsider what is a "positive review". That's the only sad issue here. "a lively, cheeky film" you say, I'm afraid we haven't seen the same film. To single out Supriyanto's hips and the sperm quote might be blast for you, as a healthy woman, but is it as a film critic? This equates to sell Mozart to the Techno kids by singling out the blast of his drum beats. Just like Rosenbaum prefers you not to read his articles, this film will be better off with a confidential audience knowing what they get, and without the deceived audience you appeal to. Would you prefer to run this film in a porn theatre if it meant a larger audience and more money for the distributor? You're just sending in theatres more "riotous" moviegoers that the audience complains about for their loud comments, whistle, misbehavior and walk-outs during the film! Way to go. The distributors will thank you, but I doubt the deceived readers, the deferent audience or the auteur will... And you dare say that Rosenbaum is out of touch with the average moviegoers? Did the studios totally brainwashed the film critics already so they now believe that all necesary populist means can tremple on critical (orthodox : boo!) ethics to dellude the readers into buying more tickets? Forget about engaging with the film on a pertinent level and to trust the intelligence and taste of your reader to be able to take decisions for her/himself about what to see or not from an accurate representation of the film content and form... P.S. the womb regression issue : you're so face value... This symbolic fantasy used to be great art back in the days of Del Toro's Pan Labyrinth, but I guess a little girl doesn't excite the jealousy of women as much as a sexy male dancer... You need to read more Freud and talk to your shrink about your issues with your mother-in-law. ;) (that's a cheeky joke! funny haha)

"The stultifying humorlessness of much of our film discourse is not only stifling to criticism but insulting to readers. This is exactly the kind of thinking that labels reviews like my own “condescending” and “tossed off”—glibly dismissing them without addressing their possible utility in reaching audiences who lack the time or interest to wade through your own dense, erudite paragraphs." Ms. Catsoulis' nails it there, and anyone who would take the side of the bitter, hateful Rosenbaum needs to check themselves. And my god... you slobbering fan boys really need to break off of R-baum's teet and get some opinions of your own. I think it would help with some of your pent up aggression.

So we'll make like Klondike bars and be all sweet and chocolatey instead? Awright, man.

It seems to me quite clear; Ms. Catsoulis is being factitious in her review and that is a way that 'smart' critics criticize films they either don't understand or films they don't take seriously. Jonathan called her on it. Matt Zoller Seitz, your colleague may be a freelancer with no control of word count but she very well has control over the use of the words she wrote. From my reading she is trying to be witty, which in this case is a way of not reviewing the movie but instead of showing readers how clever she is. Nothing wrong with that perhaps – but Jonathan would like the NY Times to be as serious about this type of movie as they are about all the Oscar contenders that already have the benefit of multi-million dollar ad campaigns.

JB--I blew 20 bucks on yr rave of The World. Don't see the fascination there.

When Goliath, with "the benefit of the multi-million dollar ad campaign," is a better film, I wish critics had the balls to herald it as so, find a perverse justice in its unsavory artistic success, rather than smugly dismissing it from a ten-best list or deeming it a lesser product because it happens to be an "Oscar contender." The art wins when a Goliath is given his critical due over that independant/undistributed/under-the-radar film that flourishes simply because of a critic's persecution complex-fueled, let's-champion-the-little-guy agenda. When the "little" film is worthy, by all means hoist it skyward (I am a fan of the Kiarostamis, Breillats, and Brakhages) but I find it disturbing, misguided, and wrong-headed when Goliath is downed simply because he is Big, and David is wrongly praised because he is comparatively smaller. I think this critic-susceptable, anti-establishment "little guy" agenda misrepresents (often-times dishearteningly disceitful) the best of the cinema. It's that attitude... so hurt.

DigitalTramp "I find ... wrong-headed when Goliath is downed simply because he is Big, and David is wrongly praised because he is comparatively smaller." Yes, of course. I agree. My point is that sometimes smaller films get dismissed because they are too difficult or - in Jeannette Catsoulis’ words - the kind that most "[audiences] would need to be marched at gunpoint into...." The question is: Is this film bad or merely difficult? If the latter, then I appreciate it when a reviewer takes the time to lead us through the difficulty rather than write it off glibly because [in their view] the audience would surely rather go see a mainstream movie.

For those who might be interested, a friend has alerted me to the fact that a PAL DVD of Opera Jawa is now available from English Amazon for about $24 + postage.

Am I the only one who finds it objectionable to call another writer "xenophobic" without so much as a quote to corroborate the claim? Which passages of the NYT review does Mr Rosenbaum find xenophobic and which passages suggest that the film "stinks"? Regarding the movie: Which aspects does Mr Rosenbaum find to be "avant-garde"? Even allowing for the somewhat fluffy meaning of this term (surely this is rather a challenging and well-made movie than a breakthrough in the history of cinema), I didn't see anything particularly cutting-edge about cinematic elements such as cinematography, editing, or, indeed, acting. The movie seemed to me (I saw it at the Natfilm Festival in Copenhagen last year) a rather successful meeting between Jean Cocteaus Orphée and West Side Story - combining the strange intensity of a myth come alive with the equilibrism of the scenography, choreography, and music. All this being said, I do think Ms Catsoulis (probably in keeping with NYT policy) opened herself up to criticism by being rather hard to decipher; a numerical rating would surely have provided the piece with a much needed context (more important, let's face it, than whether or not the New Crowned Hope-series is mentioned; the primary justification of this lies in its ensuring funding and distribution for talents of Third World Cinema. Sayingly, one of the major flaws of Tsai's I Don't Want to Sleep Alone was the totally unmotivated use of Mozart's music; a 'thank you for the money'-note by way of cinema, as it were).

I sincerely love Rosenbaum's faith in his "Opera Jawa" by (knowingly?) responding to Steve Mowrey's complaint with a recommendation to invest (blow) $24 + postage. That's faith! Matt: I agree with the critic's responsibility to "lead us through the difficulty," but am suspicious of the rightfully-so esteemed Mr. Rosenbaum who seems to often champion the underdog at the cost of correct, honest judgement, especially when it comes to his pantheonic lists. His remark in his 2002 Sight and Sound top-ten best ever list that he assumes "it's no longer necessary to mention Chaplin, Godard, Hitchcock, Ozu, Renoir or Welles," as well as his alternative list to the American Film Institute's Top 100 list, signals an agenda not wholly trustworthy; is it his been-in-the-biz-too-long boredom, or his persecution-complex fueled, anti-establishment stance: anti-New York, anti-AFI, anti-Oscar, hasn't-opened-in-Chicago-yet, etc... My dilemma with Rosenbaum is I don't know when I'm getting an honest judgement, or an agenda. Isn't there a giddy joy in placing "Citizen Kane" atop a list for the onehundredthmillionth time if you feel that it belongs there, or at least not dumping on a film despite a boredom with the obvious, the zeitgeist, the Oscar-nominated, the establishment-endorsed. Isn't there a joy in bucking A system (anti-establishment) that tries to buck THE system (establishment). It is a film critism question of accuracy (honest assessment) vs. agenda (anti-establishment).

and Matt: I'm sort of OK with Catsoulis' "[audiences] would need to be marched at gunpoint into....," because is there not room in a review for many perspectives? I can imagine, if I were lucky enough to be a published critic, lending WORDS to what I might deem honest responces/approaches to a film. I see nothing wrong with expressing other voices amidst my desire/responsibility to "lead us through the difficulty." As there may be no room for glibness, there is always room for Madonna.

DigitalTramp Sure, anyone can write anything they want but I prefer the introspective smart critics [Hoberman, Rosenbaum] to the extroverted snark critics [Anthony Lane]. That said, this segues right into what we expect and understand about critics. I read a critic a number of times to get their perspective - then I know [generally] where they are coming from. Yes, Rosenbaum is usually anti-Establishment. Therefore, I read his reviews with that understanding. Ultimately the viewer is the one who must judge a movie. A critic is usually just a guide whom gives us their opinion and a historical perspective. I read Rosenbaum to know about rare, smaller films - but his opinions [like most others] I take with a grain of salt. He does perhaps have an agenda – but since I know that then it is no big deal. However I feel – at least – he is honest about his views and is writing to educate us a bit and give us a larger perspective on the state of cinema. Perhaps he should not take issue with NY Times critics who ignore smaller [good] films - but I sort of appreciate it.

Yes, Matt, Rosenbaum is honest about his views ("He does perhaps have an agenda – but since I know that then it is no big deal"), and I agree that he and Hoberman are certainly two of the best. I was thinking of a challenge for Rosenbaum, to ask him to choose from the AFI list the films he feels WERE deserving. I feel it would challenge his renegade nature to start out in agreement with an establishment's choices. I would as well challenge him to pick the Oscar nominations (of any year!) he most agreed with. Rosenbaum seems the type that drops a gem once the masses/establishment/zeitgeist embrace it; its as if he must take the alternative view. Ultimately I feel his strength - of championing "the rare, smaller films" - is also his greatest weakness, clouding his view of what the bourgeoisie (or any establishing, popular force) embrace. An example is his preferance of "Black Book" over "Schindler's List." I cannot for the life of me see how Verhoeven's idea-heavy flatliner is better than Spielberg's crafty, nuanced Oscar-winner. Even though Rosenbaum did initially praise "Schindler," and you could tell it went against every fiber of his being, he later enjoyed putting it in its place in his "Black Book" review. If "Black Book" were Oscar nominated and loved by the masses, I doubt very much if it would top his ("commercial") best of the year list. I rant because I care. I may be wrong, but it just seems it's so. And for what its worth, I think Pat Graham is clearly the true replacement for wily Rosenbaum. Graham's got the chops, the taste, and the daredevil in him!

... and that is not to say I am a fan of Spielberg's (Schindler's and Jaws impress, yes), rather not a fan of "Black Book" (though loved "Starship Troopers!"). I just know Rosenbaum hates Spielberg, and, well, rightfully so, though his love affair with "A.I." was preposterous. Interesting, but preposterous - the movie was pretty damn bad.

In reply to Digital Tramp "thinking of a challenge for Rosenbaum, to ask him to choose from the AFI list the films he feels WERE deserving": Been there, done that. Look at page 93 of my book Movie Wars: "Let me hasten to add that if I were drawing up my own list of the hundred greatest movies from scratch, roughly a quarter of the AFI's list would be on it". This is followed by 25 titles from the AFI list, in a footnote on the same page. One basic disagreement, however. DigitalTramp thinks that some critics have agendas and some critics don't--and that those who don't have them value "accuracy" instead (which is not considered to be an agenda). I assume this means that he believes in an "objective" criticism, free of all biases. I don't, and I don't see how anyone could. I think that all critics (and all people with opinions, for that matter) have agendas--some of whom are accurate (i.e., honest) about what their agendas are, and some of whom aren't. But this doesn't mean that people always necessarily know, at least consciously, what their own agendas are. I wouldn't claim that I always do. But I also think that being totally oblivious to and in denial about one's own agendas basically means to be victimized by them.

Mr. Rosenbaum, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I'll be looking forward to "Movie Wars", and page 93's list. Yes, all critics have agendas (despite any attempt at objectivity and "accuracy"), and honestly, maybe it was just that an aspect of yours tended to rub me the wrong way. It's funny, my one friend's always saying something like, "Oh, there's Rosenbaum moralizing again," and maybe it is that angle to your perspective that is bothersome, and it is admittedly quite fascinating to watch you sometimes struggle in reviews... for movies such as "I Stand Alone" (a beautiful capsule that does praise the stunner). That film seems to especially present a challenge for you, and yet I don't know what that challenge is, and maybe that is what bugs/perplexes me about that "moralizing" aspect of your agenda. I'm not very thorough here, but you end your positive review of "Fargo" with, "This may be a masterpiece of sorts, but it left me feeling rotten." Maybe my question is: in your view, is there legitimate value in a misanthropic, cynical, etc., etc. film, especially if the film finds a bit of energy or joy or giddiness in its own unsavoriness. Is it incorrect (not objective enough/too personal) to respond negatively or dismiss a film that may very well be described as, say, anti-life. Rather, would you consider yourself, as a critic, a moralizer? Is it the job of the critic to guide the viewer in a particualr political direction? Or, as you sort of put it, is it all agenda and politics anyway (however "objective" one may want to call their self), so get over it, get in touch with it, claim it, and speak! You mention the Coen's "antihumanist vision". If I love something like "I Stand Alone," and don't feel "rotten" at "Fargo," am I anti-humanist, and is that wrong for, or even counter to, art, film?

I must say that it is a joy to watch you wrestle with your conscience (or taste!) in your reviews for such films as "Schindler's List," the two films mentioned above, and others I can't remember. There is a lovely weight added to your writing; it's as if you hate loving the thing, and must reconcile that ambiguity... with a little more vinegar, insight, craft, vulnerability. It's similar to when you love hating a thing, as in all your Woody Allen pieces, where your writing becomes hungrier, more spirited, desperate (sweetly so), and ambitious. Though venomous, it's brilliant writing.

I agree with DigitalTramp that some of Rosenbaum's best reviews are of films he feels attracted to yet doesn't he feel he can fully embrace. His review of BREAKING THE WAVES might be the best thing I've ever read on Lars von Trier. His CHICAGO READER piece on THE MOTHER AN D THE WHORE is similarly excellent. Lately, though, it seems like he automatically dismisses misanthropic but formally brilliant provocations like AUDITION and IRREVERSIBLE in order to heap praise on the wishy-washy liberal humanism of FAST FOOD NATION and BOBBY. One's priorities in art and life need not be the same, and cynicism can be a worthwhile aesthetic stance. At least it doesn't lead to John Sayles films.

Q:In your view, is there legitimate value in a misanthropic, cynical, etc., etc. film, especially if the film finds a bit of energy or joy or giddiness in its own unsavoriness? A: Yes. Example: Satantango.

Well put Mark! It's nice to see I am not alone in my dilemma with my favorite film critic. Mr. Rosenbaum, how about it? Do you tend to dismiss (or rather, struggle with) "misanthropic but formally brilliant provocations?" If so, why? I feel Mark's points (specifically, "cynicism can be a worthwhile aesthetic stance") are not only valid, and mirror my own exactly, but are an impenetrable wall through which I, for one, cannot break through and get at where you're coming from, or going! I'm sure we're not the only two who feel this way.

Mr. R., thanks for "Satantango." But what about Mark's points? Are their clues in any of your writings? Do you see our points?

DigitalTramp and Mark: You seem to think one can respond to form and content separately. Maybe you can, but I can't--and I doubt that you can either. I don't consider the forms of IRREVERSIBLE or MEMENTO brilliant in any way, and AUDITION strikes me as stupid on every level, even if it might be masterful in expressing and playing out its various forms iof stupidity. (A Japanese friend iof mine dismisses the film on the basis of its acting alone.) I personally think a very rich, interesting, and gratifying life of filmgoing can be spent without seeing or reseing these films, all of which I found unpleasant to watch and still find uninteresting to think about. If you disagree, you have every right to make your own cases for these films as interesting, brilliant, or just estimations of the human species. Maybe you'll convince me and maybe you won't, but I should add that Robin Wood's defenses of all three of those films haven't persuaded me in the slightest to return to those films, so I doubt that yours would either. I dont recall calling BOBBY or FAST FOOD NATION brilliant or "heaping" praise on them (if I did that I forgot, in which case I was probably wrong), and my liking certain aspects of them included certain aspects of their respective forms, not their content divorced from their forms. On the other hand, a good example of a film that I consider very well made but very unlikable as a human gestere, as you probably know, is NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Presumably you would think that a formally brilliant genocidal film deserves "heaps of praise" just because it's formally brilliant, and you're certainly entitled to (hypothetically) praise movies of this kind all you like. But why should I be obliged to do your work for you?

P.S. My apologies for all the typos in my last post. I'm responding on my laptop in the Atlanta airport and the lighting here is far from ideal.

Excuse the few typos I made; I wrote on my breaks while working at a cheerleading competition! Thanks for the Robin Wood recommendation (even if that wasn't what it was). You put it best, Mr. Rosenbaum, "estimations of the human species," and "a human gesture." The case I would make for any of these films we've been mentioning, good or bad, is that be it "Ordet" or "Triumph of the Will," a human being made it, and regardless of MY moral standing, or my definition of what a human being is or should be, a human condition is being expressed, and film art is its medium. Often, the thrill I get from judging/viewing a film is when I must accept not so much the logic of a film but rather the difficult/unique/questionable soul that inhabits it, especially in the light that I must accept it as an aspect of being human; it is, in a way, Me! Leni Riefenstahl, Gaspar Noe, and Carl Dreyer are human, spewing human ideas; we can disagree with the idea, even find them unpleasant, but I don't think we can judge their worthiness, or dismiss them (your quote: "I personally think a very rich, interesting, and gratifying life of filmgoing can be spent without seeing or reseeing these films") based on their soul. I think its less about seperating the content from the form, and more about judging the content based on its originality, richness, ripeness, potency, etc., etc., and not its goodness, decency, or virtue. You said: "Presumably you would think that a formally brilliant genocidal film deserves "heaps of praise" just because it's formally brilliant." I would say "no," but "yes" if the genocidal aspects had interesting ideas, rich characters mouthing their thoughts, dramatic situations enlivening the arguments, and so on. Maybe I am trying to convince you. But, no. Mr. R., you ultimately put it best, it is ours (Mark's, and mine, and whomever's) to make the case, and to do the work. That's what this blog thing is all about. I did want to understand where you were coming from (occasionally confounded by your perspectives and their source, and as a fan of yours, and cinema), and now I do have a bit more clarity (but I still have that sneaking suspicion that you haven't really come clean, so to speak; I still ask myself, what is Rosenbaum TRYING to do?!). Thanks.

Lastly, if what you say - "You seem to think one can respond to form and content separately. Maybe you can, but I can't--and I doubt that you can either" - is true, and an unavoidable empathetical/spiritual/innately moral goodness trumps our intellectual assessment, then I ask, not only should we disparage films based on their content - abortion, genocide, murder, sin, war, rape, democracy, etc. - but also openly state our mission to promote righteousness, decency, moral excellence? Is it the film art critic's responsibility to guide viewing or aesthetically judge cinema based upon a morality, and if so, should that particular ethical ambition, at least sometimes, aside from nuanced, crafty writing, be clearly stated? And I still think that Mr. Rosenbaum hasn't come clean. I think that he has an agenda, and it is on the side of moral decency, and that he slyly (and brilliantly; never forget I am a fan!) passes moral judgement in the guise of aesthetic (form and content, intellectual and emotional) judgement. It is that confusion - whether to judge a film's aesthetic value on its political or moral stance rather than its dramatic thoroughness, decibel and form. My eyes are those of a moral relativist - I think, despite the Pope's warning, it's the fairest view (thus my, and other's, desire - yes, maybe fruitless - for the objective perspective). Mr. Rosenbaum, are your's the eyes of a humanist, and if so, do you feel it is your responsibility to guide your readers morally? To judge a film based on its decency? Any suggested writings on these topics - agendas (especially Rosenbaum's) in criticism, their legitimacy - would be appreciated.

To DigitalTramp (signing off on this thread, in another country): When are you going to come clean about your cheerleading????

To wily Rosenbaum: "Save the cheerleader, save the world." (Pom poms raised) Wear the the "Я" with pride!!!

"I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love him once, not without cause: What cause withholds you then to mourn for him? O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, And I must pause till it come back to me." which, of course, is beside the point