PDA

View Full Version : Jonathan Rosenbaum Announces His Retirement



oscar jubis
01-07-2008, 11:32 PM
I can't say It's a surprise. Rosenbaum has gradually been phasing out reviews of new commercial releases over the past few months. He is retiring, upon turning 65 in February, as a "staffer" for the Chicago Reader. He will continue to attend film festivals (and serve as juror at times), lecture, write books, and it looks like he'll continue to write essays for The Reader like his latest (about Pedro Costa's retrospective which yielded the three films he placed at #1 on his year end list included below). A list that draws from everything that premiered in Chicago during the calendar year 2007. Interesting points about what is "old" and "new", about the impossibility of watching the 800 or so movies that were commercially released in the US and the 1600 or so other movies that were shown in festivals in 2007. I couldn't agree more with his comments about the "planned obsolescence" of current movie culture.

Something to Talk About

Local premieres of a dozen masterpieces— almost none released in the past 12 months—made 2007 a good movie year.

By Jonathan Rosenbaum

January 3, 2008

If I were playing by the usual rules, the contenders for my best of 2007 list would be drawn from the titles only millionaires could afford to promote. In that case, I would say 2007 was the worst year for new movies I could remember. But I’d be fudging, because I didn’t come close to seeing all the contenders.

Who did? Film Comment recently put together a list of eligible titles for its own annual poll. It’s 105 pages long, with roughly 23 films per page—more than 2,400 titles. “Major studios” released 119 films, or about one-twentieth of the total (I saw 33 of them), and 49 more came from “specialty divisions” (I saw 22 of those). “Independent distributors” were behind nearly 500 (90 of which I saw). The remaining 1,600-plus titles came out of festivals (where I saw about 50 not included in the other lists).

At least 30 of the movies I saw were so forgettable that I had to look them up in the Reader’s movie database to remind myself what they were about. This is one of my profession’s occupational hazards: each film is supposed to be important when it comes out and is then forgotten soon afterward—if only to make room for more titles that are supposed to be momentarily important.

Even if you assume the only movies worth talking about are those that are accompanied by a barrage of publicity (the equivalent of saying the 1930s’ best-selling novel The Good Earth is more important than Light in August), then I’d have to say the quality of those films has been plummeting over the past two decades. Maybe this is because much of the relatively unhampered creativity left in the industry is going into the marketing.

Yet when it comes to the list of movies making their Chicago premieres, 2007 may be the best year I can remember. This is my 21st “best of” list for the Reader and it may be my last: I’ve decided to retire as a staffer when I turn 65 in late February and won’t be reviewing many more of those dumb movies that have been weekly staples since 1987. So it’s nice to be able to sign off on an up note.

For me, the two dozen movies most worth celebrating include a dozen masterpieces that finally showed in Chicago in 2007 even though they were made earlier, one as long ago as 1959. These movies are disparate on many levels, but at least half share one significant trait: they abolish most of the distinctions commonly made between fiction and nonfiction. This is a characteristic central to my idea of cutting-edge cinema, and there’s not much new studio fare that has it.

In fact, in a movie culture predicated in many ways on planned obsolescence, where most “new” stuff is already conceived as some sort of spin-off, it’s tempting to argue that newness has less to do with when a film is made as with its power to reach and change us. It’s also worth considering what we mean by “old”: as Jean-Luc Godard pointed out in the 1960s, we’re more apt to say, “I just saw an old Chaplin movie” than “I just read an old Dickens novel.” And at a time when reading books is on the wane and seeing films on DVD is on the rise, we need to rethink some of our adjectives and some of our priorities.

1. Casa de Lava (1994), Where Lies Your Hidden Smile? (2001), Colossal Youth (2006)
I’d only seen one of Pedro Costa’s six features before they came to the Gene Siskel Film Center this year. When I finally saw all of them, the impact of his work astounded me. I prefer Costa’s second film, Casa de Lava (dumbly called Down to Earth in English), maybe because it’s his only landscape film and contains so many other big-screen pleasures and mysteries. But choosing between these three is like trying to compare Carl Dreyer’s Day of Wrath, Ordet, and Gertrud: your preference will probably depend on which one you’ve seen last. All three of Costa’s films are about outsiders and improvised families, and I can’t think of another contemporary filmmaker who deals with these subjects more passionately. I’m still coming to terms with aspects of Colossal Youth (another dubious English title—the Portuguese original means “Youth on the March”), but these are plainly the kinds of works one comes to know like close friends over the span of years.

2. India Matri Bhumi (1959)
The newly formed Chicago Cinema Forum’s most exciting event was its screening of the best version of Roberto Rossellini’s masterpiece—perhaps the least shown of his major works. So many people had to be turned away from the second screening at the Chopin Theatre that a third show was added the same weekend.

3. Out 1 (1971)/Out 1: Spectre (1972)
Jacques Rivette’s 750-minute serial, the grandest of his experiments, is a comedy that ends tragically. His subsequent 255-minute reworking of the same improvised material is a tragedy that ends comically. Together they constitute the best films made anywhere about the 60s.

4. Bamako (2006)
Globalization is placed on trial in a shared backyard in a Mali slum in Abderrahmane Sissako’s bold, sometimes hilarious experiment. It’s so up-to-date it took six months to arrive at the Music Box—unlike, say, The Astronaut Farmer, which is so irrelevant that it reached us immediately.

5. The Silence Before Bach
Almost a year after the first U.S. retrospective of his work, the Catalan master Pere Portabella finally came to Chicago, presenting his feature to a packed house at the Siskel Film Center about a month after its world premiere in Venice. As a former senator of Spain who helped draft its new constitution, Portabella has a visionary grasp of Europe’s past, present, and future, and his flair for filming musical performance is often breathtaking.

6. A tie among the dozen best commercial releases:
The boldest of the lot, Paul Verhoeven’s Black Book, in subtitled Dutch, is an ethically complex reply to Schindler’s List. The Disney cartoon Ratatouille is the funniest of the bunch and John Sayles’s Honeydripper, shown at the Chicago International Film Festival, is the funkiest; Blade Runner: The Final Cut is the sexiest. I’m Not There is the most academically challenging—though I wish it took more political risks, as does the narratively flawed but politically nervy In the Valley of Elah (which offers better Roger Deakins cinematography and a better Tommy Lee Jones performance than the relatively gutless, Oscar-ready No Country for Old Men). The other six are The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, The Dead Girl, Inland Empire, Letters From Iwo Jima, Margot at the Wedding, and Starting Out in the Evening. (While acknowledging the mastery of both Eastern Promises and Sweeney Todd, I can’t say I found either one more interesting than these.)

7. Away From Her (2006)
Easily the year’s best first feature as well as its sweetest love story, Sarah Polley’s beautiful, devastating adaptation of an Alice Munro short story may also have the year’s best performances, by Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent. It was shown by the Landmark chain.

8. My Brother’s Wedding
A new and (for me) lesser cut of Charles Burnett’s morally nuanced 1983 feature quickly came and went at the Music Box. But you can see both cuts on a new, two-disc DVD package from Milestone that also includes Burnett’s Killer of Sheep and four of his shorts. One of them, When It Rains, is my favorite of all his films.

9. Private Fears in Public Places (2006)
Even when he’s using third-rate material (a standard-issue Alan Ayckbourn play) to bare his shriveled heart, 85-year-old Alain Resnais paradoxically remains, along with Paul Verhoeven, one of the last great Hollywood studio directors—and perhaps the most exquisite filmer of snow (real or artificial) since Orson Welles.

10. Offside (2006)
Like Verhoeven, Jafar Panahi offers an object lesson to today’s suits by showing how you can become more accessible, more populist, and more politically outspoken all at the same time. But if your characters speak Farsi, forget getting any kind of mainstream distribution (one reason, I assume, why the wonderful Iranian coming-of-age story Persepolis is coming out here in French). The suits decided that brain-dead, life-denying stuff like The Heartbreak Kid was more our speed than a life-enhancing comedy about girls in Tehran sneaking into a soccer match, and this turned up at the Music Box instead of the malls.

Johann
01-09-2008, 01:13 PM
This news is a tad distressing Oscar.
There is no critic I respect more than Jonathan.
Is he really 65?
His contribution to cinema lore is quite huge.
Even when I disagree with him he makes me think.

He's got his thumb on what's happening and I'm happy he's taking leave "on an up note".

I loved reading somehwere how he used to savor movie titles and travellled extensively (London, Paris, New York) to see all the cinema he could handle.

That's what being a cinephile is all about.

oscar jubis
01-10-2008, 08:48 AM
JR fell in love with movies before he entered grade school. It was easy to watch a movie a day for him since his family owned a chain of theaters in Alabama. It's been clear to me for a long time that many film critics would be just as happy writing book reviews_an honorable enterprise, no doubt, or interviewing Jessica Alba, or doing other kinds of writing. The main local critic, for instance, got a quick promotion from the state news desk when the passionate film critic died suddenly at age 43. There's no commitment or passion for cinema in him and many others. JR has been in love with movies for six decades. All that moviewatching and moviethinking is palpable in his writing.

JR's global view of cinema is admirable because it's still rare. It should be the norm in this 21st century but most North American reviewers still have a very provincial attitude. Living in London and Paris (where he befriended guys like Tati, Resnais, and Godard) for most of the 60s and 70s had a huge impact on JR.

It seems to me that he's only retiring from writing weekly reviews but will continue with all his other endeavors. I have no doubt he will still travel to those film festivals where the focus is on the art of filmmaking rather than commerce and marketing. I'm sure he will continue to go to Rotterdam, Mar de Plata and Torino yearly and report from there. I also wish to believe he will continue writing that essential and unique column on CinemaScope magazine called "Global Discoveries on dvd". There is nothing else remotely like it. I doubt his recent book on Welles will be his last. We should hear something more specific about his plans next month, when he leaves the Reader..

Johann
01-10-2008, 10:00 AM
Being well-travelled is a huge reason why his reviews have such depth, I think.

I haven't travelled all over the world but I've been to a few places, and I know that seeing films in different countries and contexts (film fests and such) give you a broader outlook on cinema and the culture.
He's more important to me than Pauline Kael, because I only admire her writing, whereas Jonathan gives a reader way more than just concise writing. He will be a giant loss when he goes, just like Roger Ebert will be.

Shouldn't a requirement for film reviews be passion? Do editors not care about that sort of thing anymore? Jonathan not only has passion, he's CONSCIOUS of the whole of cinema history- what directors are important, what films have resonance, where cinema has been and where it's going, the shit and the champagne...he knows.

bix171
01-10-2008, 09:51 PM
The problem I've always had with Rosenbaum, and it's really no fault of his, I guess, is that he was Dave Kehr's successor at The Reader.

Kehr's essays in The Reader were just as long as Rosenbaum's but they seemed leaner and more relevent. Oftentimes, I've felt Rosenbaum was writing just to write. There was a sense of grandiosity that overshadowed the movie he was reviewing. He consistently injected himself into his reviews and it was always "I think" or "I feel", as if his opinion, and not the film itself, was the most important part of his work. I recognize that this was his "style" and that's it's a matter of personal preference, but my preference would be a critic who tried to keep his/her personal likes or dislikes at a distance. Pauline Kael never used the pronoun "I"; it was always "you" and I think that in criticism that addresses and involves the reader more.

I had no idea he was as old as he is. That kinda shocked me. I always thought he was some University of Chicago kid like Kehr who hung out at Doc Films until he had to get a real job.

Johann
01-11-2008, 04:39 PM
Thanks Bix. I know exactly what you mean.

I think it's difficult to write reviews strictly critically.
How can you take yourself completely out of it?
You're writing a review based on how you felt, how you responded to the movie. It's damn near impossible to take yourself out of the equasion.
With most critics you get a "voice", a mentality, a certain way of looking at movies (and the world).
I love JR's personal stamp.
He has a way of presenting his views that I really respond to. His cinema knowledge is vast, he recognizes real cinema, and champions a lot of "alt" films that most people overlook.

He has a special way of looking at films and film history that really resonates with me and many others. He fills a huge void.
Godard himself said that Rosenbaum is like Andre Bazin- one of the best film critics ever.

oscar jubis
01-16-2008, 09:57 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johann
I think it's difficult to write reviews strictly critically.
How can you take yourself completely out of it?
It's impossible to write reviews strictly objectively and those who pretend otherwise lack honesty and/or self-awareness. I enjoy reading film reviews both because of the possibility of learning something about the film being discussed but also because of what they reveal about the writer. J. Hoberman has characterized these "top 10" lists we make about this time each year as a form of autobiography. I think that's exactly right. Regarding these popular lists in which critics claim to be revealing "the best" films of the year, Rosenbaum has most eloquently claimed (or implied) over the years that they amount to something like: "Top films I managed to watch that played near me or that my editor asked me to review which reflect my predilections, biases and values."

I love JR's personal stamp.
He has a way of presenting his views that I really respond to. His cinema knowledge is vast, he recognizes real cinema, and champions a lot of "alt" films that most people overlook.
Or that most people are almost forced to overlook by the alliance between "Hollywood" and the media. What gets reviewed and what is deemed "important" by the media is closely related to the size of advertisement budgets, among other things. Perhaps, JR's greatest contribution to film culture is his book: " Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media Limit What Movies We Can See."

Chris Knipp
01-16-2008, 01:22 PM
I also think Rosenbaum's greatest contribution is as an analyst of the politics and economics of (chiefly American) mainstream dominance in cinema and in his international vision. In this area he is truly significant and authoritative. His writing on those topics is essential.

In the area of film criticism he is more of a footnote. His pieces are of more use to film school folks than to the general reader and his end of year best lists seem a bit wacky. I'd agree with bix171 that his writing was less lean than Kehr's and annoyingly egocentric. There is a solemnity and self-importance about them that is unnecessary and off-putting--though anything that stimulates debate is valuable, and he has always seemed to display a wide-ranging taste in his short reviews. In this sense J. Hoberman is more genial and accessible, and the writer of more readable and graceful prose. Rosenbaum also has a tendency to contradict himself, belittling critical stands and then setting up a "canon" of a thousand irreplaceable films at his own edict. He needed to lighten up. But some folks like that kind of proclamation from on high, especially young people in search of a guru. And the self-contradiction isn't really damning; it's all part of the stimulation. He's certainly a very important film writer for us in recent decades. But his most consistent position isn't a critical one but a political/economic one, a bit out of the mainstream of film criticism, but important nonetheless.

oscar jubis
01-21-2008, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
His pieces are of more use to film school folks than to the general reader
Rosenbaum's stated aim in his Reader reviews is to bridge the gap between academic and mainstream criticism. He has managed to write with the type of authority and attention to research typical of academic criticism while serving the mostly disposable consumer advice characteristic of mainstream reviews.

his end of year best lists seem a bit wacky.
His best-lists for the Reader are Chicago-centric, in that anything that's a local premiere qualifies no matter when it was made or when it was released elsewhere. Otherwise, the lists of anyone whose taste differs from oneself seem "wacky". Andrew Sarris and Roger Ebert picking Juno as the best movie of 2007 could be construed as "wacky" too, no?

Rosenbaum also has a tendency to contradict himself, belittling critical stands
He has been very consistent in his points of view and always reveals how they've developed. I've always been appreciative of his practice of providing opposing arguments to erroneous, questionable or inaccurate writings by others. He lavishes praise on others (notably Kehr, Farber, Kent Jones) as often as he criticizes. When Kael wrote her grossly inaccurate, practically unresearched "Raising Kane" essay, Rosenbaum pointed it out. He didn't let Denby get away with "One of the extraordinary advantages of growing up French is that you can be absurd without ever quite knowing it" without a protest. He provided ample evidence against a slew of close-minded, nostalgia-tinged pieces proclaiming the death of cinema written in the late 90s (Susan Sontag's "The Decay of Cinema" in the New York Times, David Denby's "Mourning the Movies" in the New Yorker, David Tomson's essay in Esquire, etc.). God bless him.

setting up a "canon" of a thousand irreplaceable films at his own edict.
Canons never really left us, he claims. Problem is the ones that get the publicity are the narrow ones that are subservient to the studios and the status quo (those American Film Institute lists, for instance). I aimed to provide an alternative canon for the decade of the 90s in the "Favorite Films" section of this website, including a listing of films unreleased in the US despite critical acclaim and success at festivals elsewhere. And I'm just another amateur film nut, not a film critic and researcher who's dedicated his life to cinema. His personal canon is titled "1000 Favorites". He humbly explains he hasn't seen a lot of great movies (including for example Begman's Fanny and Alexander) and admits he's probably forgotten many titles over the decades. These are simply movies that gave him "pleasure and edification", films he'd take to a desert island because he'd like to watch them again. He explain he didn't factor in any sense of historical importance. He's just listing what he likes and what taught him something and makes no claims to anything other than that.

Chris Knipp
01-21-2008, 01:00 PM
Welcome back and thanks for your somewhat delayed response. I thought I'd get a rise out of you. Whatever you say, I think Rosenbaum is more important as an advocate for more "globalization" (in a good sense) and less Hollywood dominance of world cinema than as a day to day or even month to month film critic.
Otherwise, the lists of anyone whose taste differs from oneself seem "wacky". No, that would be very extreme. But by "wacky" you can simply interpret me as meaning "way far from the mainstream." And so June is a very bad example to claim as "wacky," since it is certainly a conventional, popular, mainstream choice and not at all surprsing or unfamiliar. The cute if somewhat unwise gesture of choosing Juno as #1 on the part of Sarris and Ebert is easily explained by its loveability. This year what Rosenbaum gives is the following annual list (http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/moviereviews/080103/rosenbaum/) of films:


1. Casa de Lava (1994), Where Lies Your Hidden Smile? (2001), Colossal Youth (2006)
2. India Matri Bhumi (1959)
3. Out 1 (1971)/Out 1: Spectre (1972)
4. Bamako (2006)
5. The Silence Before Bach
6. Blade Runner: The Final Cut, I'm Not There, In the Valley of Elah, The Assassination off Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford The Dead Girl, Inland Empire, Letters of Iwo Jima, Margot at the Wedding, Starting Out in the Evening
7. Away from Her
8. My Brother's Wedding
9. Private Fears in Public Places
10. Offside

I leave it to others to judge whether this list is "wacky" or not, in the sense of far from the mainstream--or the degree of condescension and/or fudging involved in grouping together 13 choices (some from last year) as item #6. Like some others, but not the majority, Rosenbaum goes out of his way to make his own rules about how to make his annual list. Can anybody claim picking Juno as #1 is far from the mainstream compared to picking Casa de Lava (1994), Where Lies Your Hidden Smile? (2001), Colossal Youth (2006)? I don't think so.

As for inconsistency, there's nothing so terrible about inconsistency, indeed in somebody so dogmatic and preachy it's downright welcome--but the main inconsistency in Rosenbaum is his rejection of canons and then setting up his own rather large one. Please don't insult us by trotting out his 'humility.' He could use a whole lot more of that, my friend, and so could we all, I'm sure. Nothing wrong with pointing out the errors of others, but it does help shore up his reputation as a guru, which you so strongly support. I don't see exactly how those efforts to point out the errors of others are a sign of his own consistency as a critic. Certainly he was right to counter claims that cinema was dead and point out the misinformation in Pauline Kael's Citizen Kane piece. And yet as a day to day film critic, Kael was more stimulating.

This said, I'm sure that Rosenbaum will be missed, and not just by you. But maybe not for the things you seem to value most in him. I still do not see how you have refuted my assertion that
"In the area of film criticism he is more of a footnote."

oscar jubis
01-21-2008, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I thought I'd get a rise out of you.
No rise. I finally decided I can't let some of the stuff you write go unchallenged.

But by "wacky" you can simply interpret me as meaning "way far from the mainstream."
Oh, so that is what you meant.

the main inconsistency in Rosenbaum is his rejection of canons and then setting up his own rather large one.
Rosenbaum has never been against canons. His penultimate book is titled: "Essential Cinema: On the Necessity of Film Canons" for a reason. He basically believes it's good to have canons that provide an alternative to the "official" ones like the AFI's.

I'm sure that Rosenbaum will be missed, and not just by you.
He will apparently continue all his activities except review films he doesn't care to watch or doesn't wish to waste time reviewing.

I still do not see how you have refuted my assertion that "In the area of film criticism he is more of a footnote."
He is no guru. He is widely recognized worldwide as our best film critic. You can go on believing whatever you wish.

Chris Knipp
01-21-2008, 03:42 PM
Challenging what I say is "getting a rise." I know you hate to reveal that any emotion has been aroused in you, Mr. Cool. You like to pretend that you are above such things as annoyance or irritation. I know that is not the case.

Obviously I meant "wacky" in the sense of offbeat, not crazy. He's not that. I can think of one or two movie writers who seem a little crazy, but he isn't among them.

If Rosenbaum will not be missed because he won't be away from most of his activities, why did you start this thread, just to promote him? You seem to be trying to have it both ways, saying he is essential as a critic, and denying that his writing of reviews mattered (which of course once again follows him, since he has deprecated day-to-day review-writing and the movies it's about).

It seems to be you in fact do take him as a guru. A writer whose critical opinions are made watchwords for you necessarily becomes that, to some extent. And claiming he is the best film critic in the whole country is going even further than that. It is insisting he ought to be the guru of all of us. But I do not accept his canonical status.

Please offer some proof of your last statement. Who says so? Besides you, that is. You too can "go on believing whatever you wish," but if you want to assert it as fact and not opinion, please offer some proof.

Johann
01-21-2008, 04:53 PM
I'm a little crazy.
Can't you tell?

oscar jubis
01-21-2008, 05:12 PM
Sure can!
I'm cool but maybe a little wacky ;-)