<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Three idle questions about the Oscars
    
      by Jonathan Rosenbaum</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=942093&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Three idle questions about the Oscars
    
      by Jonathan Rosenbaum</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:15:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#964656]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#964656]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Cole]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Well, narratively- and literally-speaking, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima aren't inseparable. Their kinship is more visual and thematic. In that sense, I think they're inseparable.
    
    And, hey, if Eastwood doesn't work for you, then he doesn't work for you. I actually prefer his movies to Scorsese's.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Cole]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:28:36 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#948944]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#948944]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Soori]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Apart from the fact that "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters From Iwo Jima" aren't inseperable in the same way as Lang's Indian epic (which is one continuous story divided by a cliffhanger ending at the end of "The Tiger of Eschnapur"), I can't say I'm esspecially impressed with Eastwood for making two shitty movies in the same year. The latter may seem like a provocation for Americans who aren't used to seeing Japanese soldiers as people, but by deliberately attempting to avoid the usual heroic war movie cliches, Eastwood walks into a whole set of anti-heroic anti-war movie cliches: the everyman who just wants to make it home to his wife; the commanding officer who's lived with the enemy and doesn't feel any animosity towards them, etcetera, etcetera. That said, the walking cliches of "Iwo Jima" are infinitely preferable to the vacant mouthpieces of "Flags of Our Fathers." Could some one please recommend me an Eastwood film that feels informed more my real life than old Warner Brothers B movies?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Soori]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:07:59 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#967747]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#967747]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[David Ehrenstein]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I think Marty should have won for The Aviator. That year Clitn beat him with Million Dollar Baby. But it's not Clint's best. That would be Flags of Our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima (as inseparable as Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur/The Hindu Tomb)
    
    Casino and The King of Comedy are my personal Marty faves, but they're not Oscar type movies.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by David Ehrenstein]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:11:35 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#971278]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#971278]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jim Gerow]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[So Jonathan doesn't want to see "The Departed." That's fine with me. I'd much rather hear what he has to say about films that aren't being talked about by everyone else. Much ado about nothing. As David E. might say, Oh Prunella!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jim Gerow]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:54:31 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#948613]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#948613]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Paul]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[If there is one thing that The Departed should be seen for (forgive me any flaws in the details, it has been months and months since I sat in a theatre and watched it) it is that it is the extension of some concepts that Scorsese has been elaborating, bit by bit, since he started making films.  Essentially, the increasingly blurred lines between a particular &acirc;&#128;&#152;tribal&acirc;&#128;&#153; group (usually represented by some mob faction, as in The Departed) and what is normally viewed as "legitimate" authority--here the State Police, who send a mole to infiltrate the mob who has sent a mole to infiltrate them.
    
    The Departed has none of the gleeful, graceful storytelling of Goodfellas, but it has a separate idea at its heart, so there is no use complaining about that.  It also differs from that &acirc;&#128;&#156;gangster&acirc;&#128;&#157; picture in that it is far less of an anthropological study and more a movie propelled by a particular, central idea.  This seems to be a shift in Scorsese&acirc;&#128;&#153;s work as regards &acirc;&#128;&#156;gangster&acirc;&#128;&#157; movies, in as much as the entire movie is contingent on that central idea, instead of wooing you into a rousing narrative.  Indeed, it might be essential viewing in order to give appropriate consideration to what could be seen as the extended &acirc;&#128;&#156;essay&acirc;&#128;&#157; of Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Casino, and to a lesser extent, Gangs of New York.  The Departed may be a strong &acirc;&#128;&#147; or, if you hate it, a weak &acirc;&#128;&#147; conclusion to that essay.   
    
    One could easily call the movie contrived as a result of its seeming to construct a narrative to serve a &acirc;&#128;&#156;bigger&acirc;&#128;&#157; idea, but it seems to me more like Scorsese&acirc;&#128;&#153;s elaboration of one of the themes of Casino. Namely that what we perceive to be much more civilized institutions (the corporations that by the end of that film have bought up the Las Vegas casinos and turned the place &acirc;&#128;&#147; and, by implication, America &acirc;&#128;&#147; into Disneyland, not to mention the political representatives who pretend to be squeaky clean and are really covered in blood) are not nearly as &acirc;&#128;&#152;white&acirc;&#128;&#153; as we imagine the mobsters are &acirc;&#128;&#152;black&acirc;&#128;&#153;.   Worse, some of the mobster peculiarities &acirc;&#128;&#147; the &acirc;&#128;&#156;dealers who knew your name, what you drank&acirc;&#128;&brvbar;&acirc;&#128;&#157; and the fact that Rothstein pays attention to how many blueberries there are in the hotel&acirc;&#128;&#153;s muffins &acirc;&#128;&#147; have been replaced by cool corporate detachment, which makes staying at a Vegas hotel like &acirc;&#128;&#156;checking into an airport.&acirc;&#128;&#157;  And we&acirc;&#128;&#153;ve seen Tati&acirc;&#128;&#153;s Playtime, we know what checking into an airport is like.  
    
    Nevertheless the whole Departed thing, in my opinion, doesn&acirc;&#128;&#153;t quite come off; but then again, the same could be said about virtually every Oscars Ceremony. So why so much griping about Ellen Degeneres?  The main thing I would have lamented about the night was its sickeningly sentimental display of &acirc;&#128;&#156;concern&acirc;&#128;&#157; about global warming (see rousing applause for Gore, Leo DiCaprio&acirc;&#128;&#153;s wet eyes, every woman&acirc;&#128;&#153;s $50,000 worth of gown and jewels, and link it all back to Oprah&acirc;&#128;&#153;s telecast with Gore where the great Harpo, wet-eyed and dolled-up, expressed her deep emotional connection to the poor polar bear who couldn&acirc;&#128;&#153;t quite make it back to the ice floe).
    
    In any case, I&acirc;&#128;&#153;d go see The Departed.  Initially I had a problem with its rampant violence, though I&acirc;&#128;&#153;ve come to terms with that upon reflection.  Perhaps because I believe that Scorsese is toying with some clearer, more interesting ideas (philosophically, with personal identity & our perception of &acirc;&#128;&#152;morality&acirc;&#128;&#153;) than films like Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, and Gangs of New York, all of which had their own conflicting forces and flaws working against them.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Paul]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:56:57 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#972986]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#972986]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jane]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[>>Subject:  The Rest of the Story
    >>
    >>Do you know?
    >>
    >>  I didn't know!
    >>
    >>How could we?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their 
    >>embassies in  Iraq?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 
    >>million Iraqi people?
    >>
    >>
    >>  Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated,
    >>
    >>364 schools are under rehabilitation,
    >>
    >>263 new schools are now under construction
    >>
    >>and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 
    >>20 Universities,
    >>
    >>46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers,
    >>
    >>all currently operating?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United State 
    >>s in January 2005
    >>
    >>for the re-established Fulbright program?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?
    >>
    >>They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval 
    >>infantry regiment.
    >>
    >>  Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational 
    >>squadrons,
    >>
    >>which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft
    >>
    >>(under Iraqi operational control)
    >>
    >>which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters 
    >>and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a 
    >>Commando Battalion?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000
    >>
    >>fully trained and equipped police officers?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq
    >>
    >>that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
    >>
    >>  Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on 
    >>in  Iraq?
    >>
    >>They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 
    >>railroad stations,
    >>
    >>22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical 
    >>facilities.
    >>
    >>  Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5
    >>
    >>have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in 
    >>primary school by mid October?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in 
    >>Iraq
    >>
    >>and phone use has gone up 158%?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 
    >>75 radio stations,
    >>
    >>180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 
    >>2004?
    >>
    >>  Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election 
    >>had a televised debate recently?
    >>
    >>  OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!
    >>
    >>
    >>WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?
    >>
    >>OUR  MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!
    >>
    >>Instead of reflecting our love for our country,
    >>
    >>we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib
    >>
    >>and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
    >>
    >>  Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves 
    >>two purposes:
    >>
    >>  It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United 
    >>States
    >>
    >>thus minimizing consequent support,
    >>
    >>and it is intended to discourage American citizens.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jane]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:36:43 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#959042]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#959042]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Matt P]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Jonathan, 
    
    Given your stated preference for  "The King of Comedy" and "Kundun" over "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull" and "GoodFellas," there's precious little to recommend "The Departed" to you. To be honest I'm shocked at the amount of attention (both positive and negative) that this film has received, since I think at best it's middle grade among Scorsese's films. Yet somehow it's this film that has become emblematic of the director's entire body of work.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Matt P]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:46:11 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#961461]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#961461]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John S]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Jason G: You're right that compared to, say, "Half Nelson," this movie had all kinds of help, although 20-something percent drops in per-screen attendance over its first few weeks of release suggest either strong word of mouth or a perfect storm ... but all  this aside ...  
    
    Let's say that *hypothetically* there was more grassroots support for "The Departed" than "The Prestige" or "Babel" or Eastwood's Iwo Jima movies. Wouldn't that be reason alone to spend three hours with it? 
    
    All I'm really suggesting is that  the auteur theory might not be the the most useful way to approach this movie.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John S]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:18:52 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#972538]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#972538]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John S]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Jason G: You're right that compared to, say, "Half Nelson," this movie had all kinds of help, although 20-something percent drops in per-screen attendance over its first few weeks of release suggest either strong word of mouth or a perfect storm ... but all  this aside ...  
    
    Let's say that *hypothetically* there was more grassroots support for "The Departed" than "The Prestige" or "Babel" or Eastwood's Iwo Jima movies. Wouldn't that be reason alone to spend three hours with it? 
    
    All I'm really suggesting is that  the auteur theory might not be the the most useful way to approach this movie.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John S]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:18:51 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#965140]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#965140]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Cole]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Sorry for sounding like an apologist, but, well, I don't think any sort of legitimate criticism has actually been attempted on Mr. Rosenbaum's part. Shoddy journalism? Sure. But shoddy criticism? He hasn't even started writing any regarding The Departed.
    
    I take his statements about the movie to be more of assumptions or precautions than anything else. And I certainly won't fault him for that. It's akin to, say, my refusal to pay good money to watch any film by Soderbergh or with Julia Roberts in it. Does that invalidate my opinion of dismissing any possibility of seeing their films?
    
    If Mr. Rosenbaum had called The Departed a bad film outright, then that would have been shoddy criticism, and he would justifiably have been an ass. As of now, he's just saying that he "feels" it will be a film he would not like. No real harm done to The Departed, really.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Cole]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:57:27 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#953001]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#953001]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Matt]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I for one never meant to imply that I thought Rosenbaum needed to see the film. Only that, if we are to take his criticism seriously, he needs to see a movie before he announces his outright dismissal of it. 
    
    The fact that it has been confirmed that one of the principal objections he had to his publicized "resolve" to not seeing the film was the supposed involvement of a collaborator who, as it turns out, had nothing to do with the making of the Departed makes his views on this film he hasn't seen entirely moot - something to expect when you smugly criticise without knowing what you're talking about. Shoddy journalism, shoddy criticism.
    
    Mr. Rosenbaum, I'm glad you apologized for your error but this entire episode makes you look like an ass. 
    
    If anyone's curious about the original quote of dismissal made to his own colleagues about it here it is:
    
    I've resolved not
    to see the film -- and haven't felt in the least bit
    deprived as a result -- figuring that Scorsese and
    Harvey Weinstein and Jack Nicholson should be left
    free to do whatever they want with and to one another,
    just as long as I'm not obliged to pay attention to
    the results.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Matt]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:24:11 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#954185]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#954185]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Cole]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["Rosenbaum. PLEASE SEE THIS DAMN MOVIE AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK. As for all of you who write long-winded responses, get over it. We get it. You've seen a lot of independant and world cinema. SO HAVE I. But it still doesn't make me hate movies like the Departed, simply because it comes out of the Hollywood system. I for one, LOVE MOVIES. "
    
    Hmm, someone forgot to take his pills :) I don't think any of the comments have taken a condescending stance towards Hollywood movies. Most of them just did say that they did not like The Departed. I don't think that's equivalent to a sweeping dismissal of Hollywood.
    
    I think everyone on this thread loves movies just as much, Hollywood or not. It's just pretty clear that Mr. Rosenbaum simply DOES NOT want to see this film. And who says that he has to?
    
    Mr. Ehrenstein makes a good point. I don't think Mr. Rosenbaum has ever been a real admirer of Martin Scorsese. In his list of 1000 favorite movies, he names only My Voyage to Italy and The King of Comedy. He also does mention at least liking Gangs of New York and Kundun (check out his lists here hxxp://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/index.html), though his opinion on them might have changed over the years.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Cole]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 05:14:23 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#948064]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#948064]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Dale Wittig]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[While I can sympathize with Mr. Rosenbaum's frustration when faced with the critical haze of reverence surrounding the very inconsistent body of Scorcese's work, I can't help but be reminded of a similar mist that envelopes the sloppy, flashy, intellectual puerile, politically naive work of Jean-Luc Goddard.   Like Scorcese, Goddard is a moderately talented artist the quality of whose work greatly depends on the abilities of his collaborators.   However, if Mr. Rosenbaum is interested in reading a thoughtful apreciation of The Departed I would like to recommend Jean-Pierre Gorin's artical in the November 2006 issue of Film Comment.
            
    As for the Academy Awards ceremony and the silence regarding Bush II, given the way in which the government has been subsumed by the Entertainment Industry it is not difficult to understand.   The Academy Awards are a celebration of success and George W.'s current spectacular is not.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Dale Wittig]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:01:15 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#952422]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#952422]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[David Ehrenstein]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[What have you got against Jaaaaaack? I find him peerlessly funny <A HREF="http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_jacknicholson.shtml">(offscreen as well as on)</A>
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by David Ehrenstein]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:08:51 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#960748]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#960748]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[(To David E.): Not true. I adored Scorsese's MY VOYAGE TO ITALY, and even included it on my list of 1000 favorites.
    
    Sorry I was in error about Harvey Weinstein being in charge of THE DEPARTED; since he produced the previous two Scorsese films, I was beginning to think it was a semipermanent marriage. So if Scorsese doesn't include Jack Nicholson or Harvey Weinstein in the credits of his next movie, it's more likely I'll want to see it.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:17:03 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#957146]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#957146]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[David Ehrenstein]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I can't recall how many years its been since Jonathan has liked ANYTHING that Marty has directed. Suffice to say he wouldn't like The Departed, and would probably dismiss it in two sentences.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by David Ehrenstein]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:48:38 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#956261]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#956261]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[md'a]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Did Rosenbaum perchance notice that in addition to winning its (sure, meaningless) Oscar, The Departed also topped Film Comment's year-end poll for 2006&acirc;&#128;&#148;a survey of fellow critics whose collective taste clearly runs to the highbrow and adventurous?
    
    Crash this movie ain't.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by md'a]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:47:02 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#970798]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#970798]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Noel Vera]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I like The Departed; same time I'm cool with Jonathan not seeing it. It's not Scorsese's best, but I prefer it over the original (the original film, not the entire trilogy--that's apples and oranges) with reservations (DiCaprio, fine as he is is not Tony Leung). 
    
    The Oscars are over? Huh.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Noel Vera]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:31:56 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#960057]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#960057]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Joseph Campanella]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Rosenbaum. PLEASE SEE THIS DAMN MOVIE AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK. As for all of you who write long-winded responses, get over it. We get it. You've seen a lot of independant and world cinema. SO HAVE I. But it still doesn't make me hate movies like the Departed, simply because it comes out of the Hollywood system. I for one, LOVE MOVIES.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Joseph Campanella]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:10:47 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#949979]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#949979]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[somebody]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[ps "The Departed" also features some of matt & leo's finest work.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by somebody]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:12:43 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#962292]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#962292]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[somebody]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["Okay, to be fair: "The Departed" was a great a movie and well worth seeing when it was a Hong Kong movie called 'Infernal Affairs'"
    
    i think you've hit it on the head--if "The Departed" were a Hong Kong film, JR might not only have seen it, he might've liked it. in all seriousness it's a much better movie than "The Aviator," at least. (which i liked, but.)  and its absolute emptiness/formalism/moral centerlessness is crucial to what it's trying to do--i'd say stephen and rodrigo are on the right track,  and i'd add to their four cents (again) overtones of michael mann, recent korean and japanese stuff (as well as the obvious hong kong connection), and jean-pierre melville et al.
    
    (and as far as "Infernal Affairs" goes, what can i say, i like "A Fistful of Dollars" and "Yojimbo," wouldn't want to have missed either of 'em.)
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by somebody]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:06:49 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#964848]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#964848]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[judson]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Was your 2nd question meant as sarcasm or are you
    truly unable to think of a reason why Hollywood and ABC would
    want the movie-going world to labor under the 
    delusion that world cinema is a collection of bana
    cliched tearjerkers?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by judson]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:36:30 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#972816]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#972816]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[whetstone]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I think Colbert's performance at the national press club dinner is not unrelated to the silence about Bush. As much as the world clearly enjoyed it, I think it had something of a chilling effect; as a result, has-been Rich Little is hosting this year's dinner and has basically said he can't make fun of Bush.
    
    I think Colbert's roast reminded people that political humor can be dangerous, and I think people are a bit jumpy.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by whetstone]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:15:50 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#972855]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#972855]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["The Departed" is kind of like Oklahoma City.  So long as I am never required to, I know I will never visit Oklahoma City.  Why?  Because, there will always be somewhere else I would rather go.  Is this ignorance?  I would call it hedging my bets in a rather short life.  Rosenbaum could waste three hours watching "The Departed," or spend that time watching something of more mysterious interest, reading a book, or taking a walk outside.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:06:49 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Three idle questions about the Oscars]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#951449]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/02/27/three-idle-questions-about-oscars/#951449]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[David]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Never thought we would be talking about the Oscars here, I thought this is fodder for hacks that post when JR doesn't...
    
    Anyway, I didn't see the show so I can't comment on the lack of Bush jokes, but I enjoyed The Lives of Others...not as much as Pans Labyrinth though.
    
    As for The Departed, I admire Scorsese but this film is pretty lame and nowhere near as fun as The Aviator. 
    
    Not shocking that Mr. Agenda hasn't seen it..
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by David]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:04:26 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




