<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots
    
      by Jonathan Rosenbaum</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=946455&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots
    
      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 23:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#963945]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#963945]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[marc antony]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["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&acirc;&#128;&brvbar;. 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
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by marc antony]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:02:02 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#957170]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#957170]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[To wily Rosenbaum: "Save the cheerleader, save the world." 
    
    (Pom poms raised) Wear the the "&ETH;&macr;" with pride!!!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:52:01 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#962750]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#962750]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan R.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[To DigitalTramp (signing off on this thread, in another country): When are you going to come clean about your cheerleading????
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan R.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:12:40 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#964593]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#964593]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:20:09 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#948545]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#948545]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:36:39 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#965060]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#965060]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan R.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan R.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:31:33 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#970947]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#970947]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan R.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan R.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:21:17 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#968267]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#968267]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Mr. R., thanks for "Satantango."  But what about Mark's points?  Are their clues in any of your writings?  Do you see our points?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:07:03 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#962175]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#962175]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:00:42 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#948277]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#948277]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan R.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan R.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:49:05 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#962477]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#962477]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Mark]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Mark]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:04:42 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#963541]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#963541]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:45:42 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#955888]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#955888]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:20:07 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#965146]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#965146]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan R.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan R.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:14:44 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#949812]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#949812]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[... 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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:47:55 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#972599]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#972599]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Yes, Matt, Rosenbaum is honest about his views ("He does perhaps have an agenda &acirc;&#128;&#147; 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!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:38:18 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#965397]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#965397]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Matt]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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 &acirc;&#128;&#147; but since I know that then it is no big deal. However I feel &acirc;&#128;&#147; at least &acirc;&#128;&#147; 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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Matt]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:18:12 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#960727]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#960727]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:57:24 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#955916]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#955916]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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).
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:41:45 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#966462]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#966462]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Erik LK]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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 Orph&Atilde;&copy;e 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).
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Erik LK]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:32:39 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#954733]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#954733]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Jonathan R.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Jonathan R.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:45:24 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#966421]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#966421]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Matt]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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&acirc;&#128;&#153; 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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Matt]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:23:56 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#952509]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#952509]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[DigitalTramp]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by DigitalTramp]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:14 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#957025]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#957025]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[steve mowrey]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[JB--I blew 20 bucks on yr rave of The World. Don't see the fascination there.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by steve mowrey]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:06:43 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: The New York Times returns to its philistine roots]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#958793]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/01/16/new-york-times-returns-its-philistine-roots/#958793]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Matt]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[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 &acirc;&#128;&#147; 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.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Matt]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:06:23 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




