Registered User
Oscar, I would say your response to Michael Moore's film "...9/11" was more than sophmoric. Besides, no truly educated person takes extremes positions due to the fact they recognize fanaticism as a weakness and not a strength. Interesting how this thread has developed, eh, Howard?
Colige suspectos semper habitos
I suppose I am a bit "a la Kael" and not in the least ashamed to be so; however, my limited experience of Rosenbaum suggests he's just as capable of provocation, not to mention meanness. (As far as I can remember, Kael did not explicitly put down other critics -- by name -- to the extent that Rosenbaum has sometimes done.There's been an extensive discussion of this, and other aspects of Rosenbaum's criticism, on IMDb recently, on the Classic Film board to which Howard has directed me.) Provocation is quite different from meanness, as everybody knows -- though the distinction may sometimes be lost sight of in the heat of debate. Surely you know, Oscar, that I think very highly of you.
I really wan't trying to provoke you but just get an explanation of that quote from you a few steps above on this thread:I still don't understand this. Should you have said "Rules of the Game is perhaps my favorite film not made in Japan or America"? Though your reviews (if they are meant as reviews; I'm not sure) are rather cryptic and noncommital, perhaps assumed to be positive, I have never meant to imply, nor do I think, that your entries on this site are "dull."Rules of the Game is perhaps my favorite film not made in Japan.
There's a difference between "extreme" positions and strong ones. When I write reviews, they're not very extreme compared to many. I don't want to be accused of extremism, and I don't think I am guilty of it.
Whether or not it is true to the spirit of Renoir, I confess to admiring him more than Altman. Not a controversial position, to consider Renoir the greater director, nor an extreme one; in fact too obvious. To quote myselfBut what I mean is that Altman is not a filmmaker of ideas but of social observation, and not really as humanistic as Renoir; he lets his characters descend into brittleness sometimes.
Though this certainly reveals a preference for Renoir, assuming one likes humanism, but it's by no means a put-down. There's nothing wrong with social observation and occasonal brittleness of characters. It can be great fun, and Altman can be a delight.
To go from "strong position" to "extreme position" to "fanaticism" is to take imaginary leaps with no real provocation, or to overreact (if it's a reaction to something I said) to my really very mild provocations.
I don't know where the word "sophomoric" got in. I don't believe I've accused anyone of that.
What I meant was that if forced to pick one, it'd be between Renoir's and two from Mizoguchi (Sansho The Bailiff and Ugetsu).
Pick "one" what? Again this confuses the issue for me, as to where American films fit in.
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I suppose I am a bit "a la Kael" and not in the least ashamed to be so
Why should you be ashamed at all? I know you like(d) her style so I'm surprised you're talking about shame.
my limited experience of Rosenbaum suggests he's just as capable of provocation, not to mention meanness. (As far as I can remember, Kael did not explicitly put down other critics -- by name -- to the extent that Rosenbaum has sometimes done.
R wrote a book called "Movie Wars: How Hollywood and The Media Limit What Films We Can See" in '99. A portion of the book involves the state of Film criticism in America. He called attention to the renaming of The Chicago Art Institute's Film Center after Mr. Siskel. R writes that it was common knowledge amongst Chicago critic circles (they attend the same screenings) that Mr. Siskel: didn't seem interested in attending festivals, reading any film books (much less reviewing them), rewatching older films, discovering neglected movies, or even discussing films at lenght. In the 13 years preceding his death, Mr. Siskel reviewed the program at the Film Center once, the exact opposite of most Chicago critics like Kehr, Wilmington and Ebert who week after week championed the exciting, varied film programs at the Center. All because of the notoriety afforded to the former Real Estate beat writer by the TV show "S and E at the Movies". It's not done with vitriol or vindictiveness at all, but as a symptom or an indication of what's wrong with the critical establishment and its cozy relationship with Hollywood. Rosenbaum is interested in cinema, not in putting anybody down. He wants you and me and others who live in less populated areas to have access to more good films, not only the ones pushed by Hollywood with the media's complicity.
I don't want to be accused of extremism, and I don't think I am guilty of it.
Read my post again. The only thing I say about you is that you "try to spice it up". Which sounded to me like a compliment when I wrote it. Perhaps it's more clear to say your posts often ellicit responses and promote debate. The extreme position pertinent here is Atkinson's "all-bad" review of I'm Not Scared. It's a fun read, in contrast to what I would likely write, mostly because I seldom have opinions as one-sided and as strong as Atkinson's.
To go from "strong position" to "extreme position" to "fanaticism" is to take imaginary leaps with no real provocation, or to overreact (if it's a reaction to something I said) to my really very mild provocations.
I don't get how any word here relates to anything I've posted.
I don't know where the word "sophomoric" got in. I don't believe I've accused anyone of that.
Cinemabon is reminding me how recently I offered a strong opinion, regarding the timidity of distributors when it comes to picking up and promoting any film that has a smidgen of potential to be controversial. At the time, Fahrenheit 9/11 had no US distributor.
Other passages from Rosenbaum quoted on the IMDb "Classic Film" section of the Boards discussions of him bring out that he has been very critical at times of not only Siskel but Ebert, Denby, Kael, and some others -- particularly Denby. In response to questions put to him on the website he defends himself in general by saying. . .however, he insists that he and Ebert are friends, that he's "sometimes agreed in print with Kael and Denby...and even written about liking Denby's prose style." I got the sense that he can be acerbic about other critics and he doesn't entirely dispel this. Nor is he repentent:Aren't critics supposed to criticize? Or is the problem simply that I'm only supposed to criticize bad movies, not bad critics or bad criticism?The remarks about extremism referred to cinemabon, not to anything you had said. Often several different entries get mixed together and I try to answer all of them at once....what I have in mind by criticizing some of my colleagues is precisely what I say--nothing more and nothing less. If you think some of your colleagues are both wrong and influential and want to counter or challenge what they're saying, what's wrong with doing this?
"Trying to spice it up" is probably the phrase that led me to say I'm not ashamed. It comes naturally; I'm not "trying." "Trying to spice it up" sounds forced, and I'd be ashamed of that.
I didn't think "sophomoric" was directed at me. But I still don't know who said it and about exactly what. Did you say distributors were sophomoric, or did cinemabon, or what? Not important, however. Just a loose thread in the thread, for me anyway.
Well, I think Altman's films certainly present a way of seeing the world, they're films of ideas, even if they are also films of "social observation". Not mutually exclusive categories. In simply turning on the camera and observing characters, Altman presents ideas through the actions and dialogue of these characters. That's what's so fascinating about his films to me. We observe ourselves in such social observation.Originally posted by Chris Knipp
But what I mean is that Altman is not a filmmaker of ideas but of social observation, and not really as humanistic as Renoir; he lets his characters descend into brittleness sometimes.
Another way of putting it is that for Altman Rules of the Game is an organizational technique, not a way of seeing the world.
Reality TV is an example of "social observation" without any "ideas". It's pure voyeurism.
Of course, some of Altman's films are better than others. Still, I'm curious as to your statement that "his characters descend into brittleness sometimes". Example?
I'm committing heresy with this statement: I prefer Gosford Park to Rules of the Game. Rules was the original, it broke all sorts of taboos in 1939 France, it created a standard for filmmaking, similar to Citizen Kane. But, absent those considerations, I still prefer Altman's work. I found several of the characters in Rules to be borderline caricatures and rather two-dimensional, and the world they lived in seemed almost artificially insular. We don't feel much sympathy for anyone (except Renoir's character), even those who have been scorned by lovers. The heroic pilot and the groundskeeper are simply buffoons.
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I got the sense that he can be acerbic about other critics and he doesn't entirely dispel this. Nor is he repentent.
"Acerbic" implies bitter and there's none to be found in Rosenbaum's writing. He matter-of-factly dispels misconceptions, and points out the ways critics are compromised by their relationship with Hollywood ("Movie Wars"). Once in a while, as needed, Rosenbaum will call attention to a writer simply disseminating false information. I'll give you an example of what he does. There's a popular book I believe titled "Katz's Dictionary of Film". Rosenbaum wrote at lenght about errors therein such as the fallacy that director Carl Dreyer was raised a strict episcopalian and the his films (especially Ordet) reflect that. Rosenbaum provided evidence and references to support entirely different biographical details that impact the interpretation of Dreyer's masterpieces. This is the type of issues Rosenbaum addresses, in a logical, measured tone. No bitterness towards Katz.
"Trying to spice it up" is probably the phrase that led me to say I'm not ashamed. It comes naturally; I'm not "trying." "Trying to spice it up" sounds forced, and I'd be ashamed of that.
You're naturally spicy :-)
You are being too literal in thinking acrebic means 'bitter" and Rosenbaum is never bitter. He can be cold and dismissive; that's acerbic enough for me
I quite agree. I withdraw my previous comment. However, I still think it's fair enough to say that Renoir is more warm and humanistic; that's true of him in comparison to most other directors.Well, I think Altman's films certainly present a way of seeing the world, they're films of ideas, even if they are also films of "social observation". Not mutually exclusive categories.
I am naturally spicy (provocative, that is), just as Rosenbaum is naturally cold and acerbic. A good critic ought to be provocative, surely?
Originally posted by JustaFied
I'm committing heresy with this statement: I prefer Gosford Park to Rules of the Game.
These days, people are likely to encounter Renoir's work for the first time on tv or video rather than in the cinema. In these low information, small screen formats, the energetic ensemble acting characteristic of his films often seems merely busy. The humour and much of the richness of characterisation derive from interplay between dialogue and the visual image (which communicates gesture and movement). For an anglophone audience, even when the subtitles communicate the dialogue accurately, the pace of the interaction and the impeccable timing of the delivery of the lines are lost. Thus the wit is largely dissipated. In Renoir's art, every line of dialogue, every action, every detail of dress, gesture, posture and setting needs to be taken into account if story, theme and characterisation are not to be misunderstood.
James Leahy (Senses of Cinema)
Renoir's 30s films in particular grow in complexity both thematically and psychologically with repeat exposure. I'd dare to bet that a person of your sensitivity would achieve a deeper understanding of milieu and characters, perhaps even develop a more sympathetic and empathetic stance towards a few of them.
Thanks, I'll always approach art and cinema with an open mind. I know there's something about Renoir that I haven't quite latched onto yet, the passage you quote may highlight why. I know very little French, and I'm sure there is something lost in the translation. I'll seek out some of his other films.Originally posted by oscar jubis
I'd dare to bet that a person of your sensitivity would achieve a deeper understanding of milieu and characters, perhaps even develop a more sympathetic and empathetic stance towards a few of them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks