Vincent Gallo.... C/D?

I think the distinction I make that puts critics like Rosenbaum and White (I mention these two particularly because of their tone, which many people insist is condescending and vengeful) above Ebert is that film criticism... or, at least, film criticism that aims to mean something other than to tell you whether or not you should see a movie (as a film prof once said to me: "every film is worth watching at least once") is usually more about the person reflecting and writing about the film in question as it is about that film. Purely objective "checklist criticism" (good cinematography, a stunning performance, clever jokes) means nothing to me. I'm not saying Ebert is a checklist critic, but he does more often than not seem to be striving for a very objective tone.

Different strokes, obviously, but I prefer reading a very personal opinion that I happen to disagree strongly with (most of A. White) than merely nodding along at a basic description of a given film's socio-cultural-zeitgeist position at the moment it opens (which is what I think Ebert excels at).

At least we both love Gertrud... am I right?

It's pretty difficult for me to trust anyone who decides that a film is or is not important -- and not even important for me, for the writer, but just for everyone. First and foremost, any standards of what is considered "good" in film need to be held in suspect if not outright contempt. Take the films of Brian De Palma, for example. Nothing he does could be considered in "good taste," as far as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences' definition of "good" has developed. Is he important to me? Hell yes. Is he important to others? Not for me to say. The best I can do is suggest how perhaps the cultural barriers between good and bad films might be interfering with one's reading of his films....

But I suppose I could just as easily stop now, since you hate reading blog entries on movies. ;)

By the by, I can't help but feel it's a bit ironic having this discussion in the first place, as I'm much more into movies than music in general, and have been posting at cinephile's message boards a lot longer before I stumbled onto this neat place. Like with you (only opposite), I sort of operated under the assumption that music was very much a totally subjective thing and the best any blog writer could do was to merely suggest the music was worth my time. I've certainly been disabused of that notion since reading some of the insights here.

(Also, though I'm biased because I've engaged in conversations with them, I have to say that Zach Campbell, Ed Gonzales, Damien Bona, Jaime Christley, and a great number more have done as much as anyone to shape my understanding and appreciation of film at the moment.)

(regarding film critics, Ebert & Charles Taylor rock)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! XD

it wasn't a process, he shot it on reversal film

More rock critics impress me than film critics do. They're livlier. Maybe it's because the commerce/art dichotomy isn't quite as vexing, and maybe it's 'cause rock critics don't have to bother with narrative and can talk about OTHER THINGS like Beyonce Knowles' hair. Which doesn't mean they do, just that they can. Oh, I suppose film critics can too, just that they don't, or at least not often enough. Actually, rock critics don't talk about Beyonce Knowles' hair all that often either. But in rock criticism it wouldn't be weird to talk about her hair. Usually. Umm...

That several French critics liked it was, Gallo said, "almost like salt in the wound."

All that said I do think he is a fine critic and his perspective is a good one to have. He is certainly as good a critic as Ebert, and it's perhaps my taking for granted his many attributes that allows me to criticize his faults. It's a relative thing. People I know tend to look down their noses and Ebert so I feel obliged to defend him, because I think he's good. When push comes to shove absolutely I'd trust Rosenbaum's taste more than Ebert's, but being a critic should be about more than defining/refining/challenging taste. Rosenbaum makes stabs every week at doing something more but it's always laughably half-assed. His long-promised book Movie Wars, rather than deepen, organize, and nuance his analysis, just turned up the invective.

I can't remember who (might have been Charles Taylor, actually) that said something like "expertise in a field in which everyone assumes they are an expert is often dismissed as snobbery." Words of wisdom in my opinion.

Rosenbaum's Small Soldiers/Ryan review was CLASSIC, just for its sheer insane chutzpah, although I agree that it was somewhat unfair. I think he's generally a good writer, and I appreciate his uniquely non-condescending attitude toward Orson Welles (which D. Thomson could take a lesson from), but his elitism grates, and his willingness to blame George Lucas for all the problems of the world is a bit stupid.

Thank you Justyn for remembering that criticism can and often should be, among many other things, interesting-cum-fun.

But if I'm going to read a film critic (or a philosopher or a critic or a historian), I'm not interested in mere "expertise" in a field, however expert that expertise might be.

Ha! I've always been a fan of pioneering smart-asses. Kael, too.

yancey, we must hang out more often...i am overdue for a gallo sighting...

I dig him because he turned me on to "Heart of the Sunrise" by Yes on the Buffalo 66 soundtrack, and the fast parts of that song are the only Yes suff that have ever interested me and that song is pretty good, at least until the guy starts singing.