I saw him introduce and lecture about "Zazie dans le metro" at the Gene Siskel Film Center this past wednesday, and had no idea that was his birth, and retirement day, until yesterday.

Some of his writing has irked me a bit too, but, like he said about "Zazie," it's always interesting. I look forward to taking umbrage with his writing in the future, whatever form it make take.

Thanks for these two clips. I was pretty upset when I read his dismissal of "No Country For Old Men" and then Ingmar Bergman. But when I read his glowing praise of "Inland Empire" I thought, maybe he's not so bad.

This video is helpful in that it humanizes him beyond his words. It's easy to violently retaliate against a faceless piece of writing that you disagree with, but when you see the man actually talking, he seems like a sweet and friendly enough guy. I am dismayed by the conclusions he reached about "There Will Be Blood" but then again, I'm only 21, so what do I know?

I agree, some of his opinions I can't agree with, yet he was always interesting to read.

And his book MOVIE WARS (which he has a poster of behind him) is one of the best film books in quite some time. If anyone hasn't read it, be sure to pick it up.

Jim, do you think Rosenbaum's total dissing of No Country for Old Men was due to the film having a psychopathic killer wearing the same haircut as Jonathan's. I think he may have taken umbrage at the uncanny resemblance of Chirguh's haircut to his own. Also, having Javier Bardem calling it the worst haircut in the history of cinema would not have helped either!

Rosenbaum, though sometimes frustrating, is always interesting. As one commentator already mentioned, his book "Movie Wars" is really great, and has caused me to love at the Hollywood production machine differently. He also always had respect for the audience (which comes through in "Movie Wars" very well), which I always thought was a great thing.

Mixed feelings about the man.

The Hawk and the Sparrows over Gospel According to St. Matthew and Salo? Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as one of the 100 greatest films of all time? Cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Besides he is of the "constantly change my mind about a movie" camp, which to me makes all his opinions immediately suspicious. Presumably, for every film he had seen that made his 1000 Essential Films collection, he had see at least nine others that didn't. Fair assumption? So there would be 9000 films that didn't make his list that he might be primed to re-evaluate.

Just seems to me that saying you were right the first time is a necessary premise to adopt if you are ever to move an inch.

(I'm not a huge Rosenbaum follower, so I do have to wonder when was the last time he saw all that Warhol he has on his Top 1000 list. I'm presuming that if there is any director that really needs to be viewed in a movie theater with an audience instead of on video it would be Warhol).

Of course, we can complain about how much the film's he recommended were physically inaccessible, (not unwatchable, unrentable!), but in truth his taste is broad enough that a layman with a Netflix subscription can generally ascertain if the old man is full of beans.

And one more thing I want to bitch about. Using your retirement to enjoy "the freedom to not have to see movies [you have] no interest in seeing" is a little like saying you want to use your retirement to masturbate to bukkake porn. It's not something a critic should ever admit to in public.

Ideally, one should exhibit no discretion in what to watch at all. There are things you can learn from bad and mediocre movies that you can't from good ones. And of course there are some films, (like Fanny and Alexander, non?), we naturally expect educated film buffs to have seen.

Then again, I say that from the privledged position of not being a full-time film critic.

Rosenbaum's informed and provocative writings on film for the Chicago Reader will certainly be missed.

However, I've been troubled by Jim's constant need to find (often underhanded) ways to criticize "There Will Be Blood," and in this post that is masquerading as a pleasant and respectful send-off to Rosenbaum, he sees yet another opportunity to do so by way of directly quoting, out of the many topics Rosenbaum discusses in these two videos, Rosenbaum's words about TWBB in order to help him support his own feelings about it. Why not also quote Rosenbaum on "Charlie Bartlett" or the other topics you include in the list above? Or why not let your readers find out what he has to say about TWBB instead of quoting JR directly, as you do for those other topics? (Since Rosenbaum doesn't really say much else about TWBB except to contextualize it in an American cinematic tradition, directly quoting Rosenbaum's criticisms seems even more suspicious.) Rosenbaum's perspective on the much-maligned "Ishtar" is far more interesting and detailed than his discussion of TWBB, but I won't spoil it for those who haven't watched the videos yet.

This is my first comment on this blog, and I'm afraid I'm coming across as confrontational, and, given the original post was about Jonathan Rosenbaum, perhaps that's only fitting. Having read this blog more closely over the last few months, I have become well aware of Jim's opinions on TWBB in relation to, say, "No Country for Old Men" or other films he appreciates more. Yet I'm wondering why TWBB has become the go-to whipping boy in many of Jim's discussions of film and acting over the last couple months, when it both seems unfair that one particular film should bear the brunt of all this, and that there are many other films that surely deserve such "critical" attention. When do "critical" discussions and observations turn into all-out attacks? I understand that certain films just get under your skin (and perhaps it's also how the films are being received critically), but after a while it just seems gratuitous.

Dave M: No offense intended. And, for the record, I posted this after watching only the first part of the interview, and added the second part later. I have disagreed so strongly with Rosenbaum's readings of "I'm Not There," "Letters From Iwo Jima," Ingmar Bergman, "NCFOM," and other subjects, I was surprised to discover that we had similar takes on "TWBB." I was hoping those teaser quotes would get more people to watch the interview clips (because "Charlie Bartlett" isn't going to draw all that much attention here).

When I feel a film has been overpraised as a masterpiece (as "Crash" and "Life is Beautiful" once were), I do feel inclined to re-state my dissenting opinions. But I've hardly "attacked" "TWBB," since (as I've said again and again) I admire so much of it. (If you want to see the difference, see what I wrote about "Southland Tales" or "Sweeney Todd." Those probably qualifies as attacks. The movies are just not as interesting to think or write about as "TWBB.") I've also explained, in detail, why I think it adds up to less than the sum of its parts. One reason I keep returning to it is because it generates discussion -- people want to read and talk about this movie -- and Roger Ebert's review of "TWBB" remains one of the most popular on RogerEbert.com even two months after it was published.

Did you read the debate Kathleen Murphy and I had about "TWBB" and Daniel Day-Lewis? Rather than impugn my motives (I thought my comments were quite above-board, not "underhanded"), why not offer your own view of the movie? Many others have...

Alex Jackson wrote: "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as one of the 100 greatest films of all time? Cuckoo for cocoa puffs."

"Gentlemen" is in J-Ro's "Alternate 100" to the AFI's "Top 100" list -- both lists being not of the "greatest films", but of the greatest *American* films.
Mr. Jackson's mistake points to one of Mr. Rosenbaum's greatest assets as a critic: his astute observations about the ways in which American Exceptionalism/Supremacy infects our cultural-political discourse, discouraging our willingness and/or ability to see beyond our selves.

Apologies to Mr. Jackson -- a bit of Googling reveals that, in addition to being on the "Alternative 100", "Gentlemen" is indeed among Rosenbaum's Top 100 of *all* films, regardless of national origin. My mistake.

Jim,

It's funny that you ask me to provide my thoughts on "There Will Be Blood," because I can't, since I haven't seen it. I would be happy to do so otherwise. Yet I’ll still reply to your comment in order to clarify: It was not my intention (not that what I understand my intention being really matters, but only how you and others interpret my words) to “impugn” your motives (and by accusing me of doing so, all we’ve really done—or can be understood to be doing—has been to engage in simple and circular impugnment activities), but rather to “interrogate” your motives (or methods, to be more accurate, perhaps) concerning criticism and writing about film generally. When I utilize the term “interrogate” I mean to question formally or critically examine.

I especially find it interesting that, in describing and discussing “There Will Be Blood” as “less than the sum of its parts,” the methods you have adopted to write about it do, indeed, reflect as much. I don’t recall you posting a “proper” or “complete” review of the film, but only seem to discuss it in a fragmented way, often including your thoughts about the film in posts about other topics such as violence, acting style preferences, the Academy Awards, etc. While this method may be dictated by the blog medium, I would also posit that it in many ways reflects your views about a film that doesn’t quite cohere or add up for you, and, due to the medium you’re utilizing, you’re able to work through the opinions you hold on the film through these related yet separate posts. This makes me wonder about your views (or Rosenbaum’s, or other film reviewers, or other film bloggers, for that matter) concerning the different values and uses of singular film reviews (such as the ones Roger Ebert composes, or that you compose for his website) and the hypertextual disjunction that film blogs allow one to engage in.

For me, both writing and film (and writing about film) involve the practice of revision, both in terms of the alterations of words, ideas, and opinions about a subject made in subsequent writings and, more literally, a re-seeing of that subject that results in those alterations. As much as many reviewers (I can only assume) love to re-watch (or re-see) movies, particularly those films they find to be “good,” rarely are they provided the opportunity to do so in their respective columns. Movie blogs have the capacity to revise the practices and methods utilized to review, discuss, and debate films, obviously, but, as one replier on this post states, some are “immediately suspicious” of those film reviewers who do change their minds (or revise their opinions) about films they’ve seen. Is such a statement just an indication of what we’ve come to expect from film reviewers who engage in traditional singular reviews (that what they said initially goes, and their opinions should be static henceforth)? Is it a resistance (which can be very valuable in itself) to the outlets that allow one to express their thoughts about films in disjunct and/or revisionist forms? As a practitioner of both forms, I am interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

My original reply was also concerned with how film reviewers discuss films they find to be “bad” (particularly through a style and tone of dismissiveness and degradation) differently than how they discuss films they consider “good.” Usually, I find it difficult to locate much critical nuance since there only exists two extremes (I know this is not universal, and one of the reasons I appreciate Rosenbaum’s reviews is because of his avoidance of these overly-critical/non-critical extremes). Perhaps it’s the formal constraints of the singular review that’s to blame (disregarding the capitalist marketplace and other forces all this is situated in for the time being). For example, Roger Ebert’s infamous review of “North” (“I hated, hated, hated, hated this movie” ad nauseum) and his (equally problematic) review of “No Country for Old Men” (“a perfect film,” “a miracle”) come to mind. Practices such as these (and Ebert certainly is not alone in this) don’t seem useful in terms of discussing either film (or any film) “critically,” in the non-pejorative sense of the word. From what I remember of the “No Country for Old Men” roundtable discussion you participated in, there wasn’t much critical discussion (I’m not denying, however, that there was an absence of analysis) as many of the participants seemed especially taken with the film. You’ve stated for the record that you find much to admire about “There Will Be Blood,” yet it seems in many of your posts that I’ve come across you discuss in detail more the aspects of the film that don’t work for you (you cited your discussion with Kathleen Murphy, in which you often take the side of criticizing Day-Lewis’s performance—I do admire your confession of prejudice against Day-Lewis in general, although it’s not one I especially understand).

P.S. Was your statement about “Charlie Bartlett” simply flippant, an assumption about a certain ideal readership you believe you have, or a reflection of its poor box-office performance (nobody’s seeing it so nobody wants to talk about it)?

Thanks for that well-reasoned response, Dave M.

You're right: I didn't review "TWBB," but web site traffic showed that Roger Ebert's review was one of the most popular (along with "NCFOM" and "Juno") of the last few months. My comment about "Charlie Bartlett" (which I did review on assignment for the Sun-Times) was simply based on the amount of reader response. (None.) I don't care (or even know, in many cases) how a film has performed at the box-office, because that doesn't have anything to do with my interest in the movie itself.

I know I have emphasized what doesn't work for me in "TWBB" -- mainly because so many others have praised it so highly. (Manohla Dargis's review is magnificent.) So, I've been writing in that context, as a dissenting voice.

I was fortunate to see the movie last November, more than a month before it was released, so I got to see it without knowing anything about it -- certainly not how critics or audiences would respond to it. When the LA Film Critics named it their best movie of the year, I was... surprised. That made me want to see it again before I wrote in any detail about it (which I did when the movie opened in Seattle in January).

You've pointed out something I don't think I was aware of, though: While my enthusiasm for "NCFOM" springs from the many ways in which it works from moment to moment, the things I find most interesting in "TWBB" are the moments or strategies that don't work for me, and that's what I've felt compelled to write about. (Reminds me of writing about "Into the Wild" from Toronto -- I felt they'd pulled it off beautifully. But then when I sat down to write about it I found myself going over all the stuff that I didn't like about it, for about five paragraphs. I had to go back and focus on what I did like. Again, this was before the film was released, so I didn't know what anyone else's response would be.)

Because I've only addressed "TWBB" in bits and pieces, I proposed a few weeks ago the idea of doing a "thought experiment" and trying to write about some aspect of the film in a relatively neutral, analytical (or even appreciative!) way. I've started that piece but haven't had a chance to finish it.

For me, both writing and film (and writing about film) involve the practice of revision, both in terms of the alterations of words, ideas, and opinions about a subject made in subsequent writings and, more literally, a re-seeing of that subject that results in those alterations. As much as many reviewers (I can only assume) love to re-watch (or re-see) movies, particularly those films they find to be “good,” rarely are they provided the opportunity to do so in their respective columns. Movie blogs have the capacity to revise the practices and methods utilized to review, discuss, and debate films, obviously, but, as one replier on this post states, some are “immediately suspicious” of those film reviewers who do change their minds (or revise their opinions) about films they’ve seen. Is such a statement just an indication of what we’ve come to expect from film reviewers who engage in traditional singular reviews (that what they said initially goes, and their opinions should be static henceforth)? Is it a resistance (which can be very valuable in itself) to the outlets that allow one to express their thoughts about films in disjunct and/or revisionist forms? As a practitioner of both forms, I am interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

Maybe it's just me, but there's something a little Orwellian about the phrase "alteration of words" and talk of expressing thoughts and opinions in a "revisionist form".

I can tell you that I get very embarrassed about stuff that I wrote in the past; but only because in the process of writing I have become a better writer and can now articulate my thoughts more lucidly. I see that as different from changing your opinion.

There are several problems with this idea that opinions, that language, is impermanent. Chief among them for me is that I don't know how to communicate with anything other than absolutes. If you hold the opinion that opinions can be changed then the opinion that opinions can be changed can itself be changed. This is like trying to determine the veracity of the sentence: "This statement is false". If it's true it's false and if it's false it's true.

A little less important to me, but still significant, there is also the danger that one's revisions will be informed by external influences. When revising one's opinion, the revision is inevitably more about the idea of the film than the film itself.