On Jonathan Rosenbaum and Looney Tunes

Many years ago, when Filmbrain was still Filmteen, he was fortunate enough to study under esteemed film critic and author Jonathan Rosenbaum. While the rest of the university was at the beach enjoying the always-eighty-degree southern California weather, Filmteen was in a dark room getting an incredible education in film and film history from JR. Essential avant-garde cinema, the British classics, early Polanski, Bunuel, Fassbinder -- just a few examples of the kind of films Rosenbaum exposed Filmteen to. For those who aren't familiar with him, Jonathan Rosenbaum has been a film critic for decades, and is considered by many (including Jean-Luc Godard) to be one of America's greatest film critics. He is the author of several books, including the must-reads Moving Places, Placing Movies, Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media Limit What Movies We Can See, and the recently published Essential Cinema. Without a doubt he is certainly the most passionate film critic working today -- and it's no wonder -- he spent a good portion of his first sixteen years in his family-owned movie theaters. He is currently the lead film critic for The Chicago Reader. Though he owes a lot to JR, the past few years have found Filmbrain too often scratching his head in confusion at some of his reviews. It all began in 2001 when he assigned Masterpiece status to Spielberg's A.I., a film that Filmbrain despised on all counts. From that point forward, it seemed that nearly everything Filmbrain disliked, Rosenbaum loved, and vice-versa. There are several directors that Rosenbaum is an unabashed champion of, with the top two being Richard Linklater and Joe Dante. Linklater is a fine director, but comparing him to Wong Kar-Wai just isn't going to fly with Filmbrain. As for Dante -- Filmbrain simply doesn't get it. In 1998 Rosenbaum declared Small Soldiers as the fourth best film of the year. Filmbrain watched it, trying to find the brilliant satire that Rosenbaum spoke of, but all he saw was a boisterous kid's action film with some choice Phil Hartman moments. Dante's 2003 film Looney Tunes: Back in Action was given Must See status, and received special mention on his top ten for 2003 list. (Full review is available in Google's cache.) This is a film that Warner Brothers described as the "worst film they ever made" and holds the record as the fourth biggest money loser of all time. How could Filmbrain not watch it? The good news is that Looney Tunes: Back in Action is not the worst film Warner Brothers ever made (far from it), yet Filmbrain cannot second the Must See recommendation. Dante is clearly playing to those that grew up on the classic WB cartoons -- Chuck Jones, Tex Avery, Friz Freleng, et. al. -- and the film is chock full of references to just about every great WB cartoon of the period ("I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque"). Come to think of it, practically the entire film is made up of various in-jokes that will be lost on the kiddies. Some are genuinely funny, and Dante does poke fun at the paint-by-numbers approach of many contemporary films. Even product placement (in the form of a massive Wal-Mart in the middle of the desert) is handled rather cynically -- Kate (Jenna Elfman) reacts to it with "the audience expects this kind of thing. They don't even notice it anymore." B-list leads Brendan Fraser and Jenna Elfman do their best to hold their own against Bugs, Daffy, and just about every other animated WB character, but they're not always successful. Steve Martin completely hams it up as the evil Mr. Chairman, and Timothy Dalton gets the chance to be James Bond-ish again. There is a plot, but it's mostly irrelevant -- the real fun comes from spotting the little things hidden throughout the film -- the posters of forgotten Jerry Lewis films scattered throughout Paris; the who's-who of classic science-fiction movie monsters in the Area 52 sequence -- these are the bits that make the film worthwhile. Try as he might though, Filmbrain did not see the brilliance in it that Rosenbaum did. It certainly didn't deserve the critical skewering it received, nor should it have failed as miserably as it did, but it's hardly a film to get excited about. Filmbrain sees about one film of this type each year -- and he's not sorry he saw this one. This is exactly what Netflix, a Sunday afternoon, and a sofa are all about. As for Rosenbaum -- is Filmbrain alone in thinking that he's gotten a bit "soft" is his criticism? Cold Mountain, School of Rock (well, that's his boy Linklater), and 25th Hour all made his top ten list last year -- compared to his exceptional top ten list of the 90's, these choices seem terribly lacking. Even so, week for week he's still the most fascinating film critic in the country.

Comments

[girish]

I tried to watch "Looney Tunes" a few weeks ago and had to bail after twenty minutes. Maybe I should go back sometime and watch the whole thing before I say anything about it.
Rosenbaum can be a bit of a conundrum sometimes though, as you say, he is always interesting to follow and I agree with many if not most films on his list of "recommended films". There are always exceptions ("Down With Love" at #2 spot for best films of 2003? Come on...)
In his defense (a little bit anyway), "A.I." was by a long shot (for me) the most interesting film Spielberg has ever made. A weird, fascinating, nauseating, but most of all interesting, mess of a film, thanks to its schizoid melding with Kubrick.
Linklater I like quite a lot ("Dazed And Confused" is my favorite teen film of the 90s, and his talkfests "Slacker", "Before Sunrise" and "Waking Life" I found thoroughly enjoyable & stimulating, though I can see how some may find them grating). But comparing him to Wong is definitely a huge stretch.
There's also the ever-present "auteurist bias" working here. Linklater is a director whose movies I tend to enjoy, just like I tend to dislike most Coen brothers movies.
Given his admirable commitment to world cinema, Rosenbaum can sometimes be unexpectedly open-minded about "commercial" Hollywood fare. His serious & lengthy review of De Palma's "Femme Fatale" was a pleasure to read because I enjoyed the film so much. Again, I'm guilty of auteurist bias here--I find all of De Palma's films rewarding, though some more than others of course.
Are there other critics you like to read regularly?
Or, enjoy reading but don't usually agree with?
Or, dislike reading AND don't agree with?

[girish]

On his Best Of 2003 List, while JR found it fit to include "25th Hour", "Cold Mountain" and "Looney Tunes", what baffled me was that he consciously left out a number of worthy-to-excellent films, e.g. "The Son"(!), Cronenberg's "Spider", "Triplets of Belleville", "Elephant", "Demonlover" and "Raising Victor Vargas". Then again, I guess it's all a matter of personal taste.

[Filmbrain]

What is interesting about Rosenbaum of late is that he praises films that ten years ago he wouldn't even give consideration to.

(I am in complete agreement with you about Femme Fatale -- a real enjoyment -- if only DePalma had worked with a real actress it would have been even better.)

I read most of the NY critics regularly. I like Hoberman a lot, even when I disagree with him. I love reading Armond White, even though I think he is an utter dolt. I cannot, and will not read Rex Reed. Stephen Holden makes me seethe with anger. There are bunch of critics in Sight & Sound that I enjoy, but I'm at a loss for their names.

[girish]

speaking of seething, i practically flung the newspaper across the room when i saw holden's moronic trashing of claire denis's "friday night".
hoberman's probably my favorite critic, though i may not always agree with him on every film. when he really likes a film, i almost always find i like it a lot as well. his year-end top 10 lists have led me to many a neglected gem.
david denby can be as lame-ass a philistine as anybody, which is too bad because he is a good writer. his uncomprehending take on "dogville", and on kiarostami in general is enough to rile the calmest cinephile.
and then there are people i sometimes or even frequently agree with, and enjoy reading, like the "film comment" crowd (kent jones, gavin smith, amy taubin).
the most entertaining writer on film (for me) has got to be guy maddin. his collection "from the atelier tovar" is priceless. his writing is like his films--forever playful, and madly in love with movies.

[Filmbrain]

Ha - I felt the same way when Holden trashed Eureka.

I agree with you about the Film Comment crowd -- though I really don't care for Amy Taubin -- though she's certainly better than she used to be. When she was at the Voice in the early 90's her blatant hatred-of-anything-male approach was tiresome. Many of her reviews resulted in paper throwing.

And yes -- Maddin is so much fun to read.

[Marleigh]

A few weeks back Elvis Mitchell interviewed Madden on NPR. It was an interesting interview, especially in light of the pack of rabid Maddin fans I'm surrounded by in my daily life. It was nice to hear from a director that was at least as concerned with the brilliance of others as with his own.

A.I. was a big, stinky pile. The underwater city creeped me out but that's because I'm terrified of dark water, rather than being a reflection on Spielberg's talent.

And Filmbrain, I can't believe you didn't have School of Rock in your top 10. It wasn't great cinema, but it was the movie I enjoyed most last year. Speaking as a music gee--fan, that movie reminded me of what's great about rock 'n' roll. Which, considering that it's a movie, is a pretty big feat.

Then again, you also watch more films than I do so your list would be longer. But still! It's Mike White! He's funny!

[Alexis]

what is on filmbrain's top 10, both of this 1/2 year and last year?

[Visitor]

The film critic I respect the most is Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic.

[Filmbrain]

Top film of 2003? Dogville.

Top of 2004, so far -- hard to say -- either Last Life in the Universe, Oldboy, or A Good Lawyer's Wife.

[Matt]

"Top film of 2003? Dogville."

Nicely put.

[IA]

Lest Filmbrain forget, critical reaction to A.I. was and remains polarized. I salute Rosenbaum for standing up for that haunting, messy, rich film--that required a lot more guts than announcing how completely one despised it.
I agree that Rosenbaum tends to be comically over-loyal to pets like Dante (rather akin to Kael's DePalma crush), but--in the case of A.I--to suggest that he's going soft because he likes films Filmbrain hates strikes me as a flimsy basis for judgment. That's Filmbrain-drain.

[girish]

As for "over-loyalty" to pets (like Kael for De Palma), I think we can all be guilty of it sometimes. Speaking for myself, I cannot CONCEIVE of a bad film by Hou Hsiao-Hsien, or Kiarostami, or Claire Denis (even "Trouble Every Day"!), or Wong Kar-Wai.
Auteur cinema is intensely personal in nature, and these are directors whose personal visions/preoccupations I will always find worthwhile and good, no matter what the vehicle (movie) of expression.
Like Andrew Sarris said (controversially)--the worst film by a great auteur-director is more interesting than the best film by a competently good non-auteur director.

[FIlmbrain]

Why does standing up for A.I. require more guts than attacking it? Was A.I. the film everybody loved to hate? Hardly. Just because there wasn't the universal outpouring of praise that had become de rigueur for Spielberg films hardly makes it an underdog.

Also, I did not mean to imply that JR's softness was simply due to his liking films that I didn't. That would be ridiculous. After seeing A.I., I read his review and went back to see it two more times -- trying to find anything that resembled "masterpiece" -- it didn't happen.

Nor do I think his dislike of some of my favorite directors (Lars von Trier) contributes to his softness.

I don't think I'm alone in my confusion. Comparing the essays on films and filmmakers in Placing Movies with his review of A.I. makes one wonder if this is indeed the same person.

If you'd like to start a discussion on the merits/faults of A.I., you are more than welcome to. It's been years since I've discussed that film.

[IA]

Next to Spielberg's other films, A.I. certainly was an underdog, and probably the most hated film Spielberg ever made, (its defenders were never large in number) and it's always easier to simply dismiss a film that is widely dismissed and reviled in plenty of corners--like Eyes Wide Shut, whose critical/popular reception was not that hugely removed from A.I's--rather than stick one's neck out and not only call it worthwhile but also a masterpiece.
That said, I'll wait to re-view the film, and buy the DVD, before beginning a pitched battle on its behalf.
From what your article implied, you seemed to think that Rosenbaum's tastes were shifting perilously away from any common ground with yours. I think you're right in arguing that his taste is changing, though I don't agree that the change is for the worse.

Girish's comment: I always thought Sarris' comment was pernicious bs, and I'm glad that Kael snorted at it. (To her credit, she didn't always find her pets' personal visions "worthwhile and good," as she made clear in her review of Straw Dogs.)
The idea that an auteur's worst film has a certain worth above the best of a non-auteur's is blind hero-worship that doesn't recognize the possibility of a great director drying up or fouling up, as most of us mere mortals do within our lifetimes.
By auteurist standards, junk like "Topaze" would be of higher value than the "Manchurian Candidate," though considering how eager auteurist criticism is for new deities, I wouldn't be surprised to see Frankenheimer elevated into the ranks.