Jonathan Rosenbaum retires

[lissener]

[ETA: this is in response to ArchiveGuy’s post above.]

I agree that I keep harping on this, but that’s because people keep doing it. The point is, that if you really do believe some is being pretentious–that they’re pretending, naked-emperor-like, to hold an opinion that they do not, in fact, hold, there’s not a word you can use: the word “pretentious,” which is exactly the correct word for that usage, has been stripped of its meaning here because so many people use it to mean “elitist” or “esoteric,” when those also are perfectly good words.

So, when someone uses the word in a discussion here, because the *actual *definition, as defined by all the dictionaries cited above, means a willful misrepresentation of one’s opinion, I have to decide how to interpret it. It strikes me as FAR more condescending to simply assume that the poster is using it incorrectly, and doesn’t actually mean to communicate the word’s actual meaning, and for me to presume to “translate” it to mean esoteric or elitist. That strikes me as monstrously presumptuous and condescending; to presume to know what they *really *mean when they say something else.

Add to that, of course, the fact that that word has often been tossed in my direction, in which case of course I have every right to understand exactly what I’m being accused of: elitism, which, in discussions of art, is not always a bad word–it’s OK to have an opinion that one work of art is better than another, if that’s elitism–or dishonesty, which is *not *OK, because, contrarian as I may sometimes be in this forum, I always–always–start from the baseline of expressing an honest opinion.

So, yeah, if you’re going to use a word, in this forum and not the Pit, that has implications of dishonesty, I will continue to require clarification of its meaning when that meaning is relevant to the context. I’m sorry if this makes it a dead horse, but I’d rather ask for clarification than *presume *to read a different meaning into what someone has written here.

[lissener]

@HelloNinja

Wow… all this from one little word. To clarify… I did not mean to suggest that Rosenbaum pretends to enjoy or not enjoy whatever films he writes about. I believe that he is sincere in his writing. Apologies to anyone that I may have offended through my ignorance of the English language.

What I was trying to say, using your words in your last post, is that he is “esoteric,” “elitist,” and even “condescending.”

Thanks for clarifying. Not that you need my imprimatur, but those are totally legitimate criticisms of his writing. I agree that he writes for a very narrow audience.

@HelloNinja

Also, I have nothing against Iranian films in general. I enjoy all sorts of cinema from art house indies to foreign films to big summer blockbusters. It just seem to me that he tends to trash on mainstream stuff and puts the obscure “not for everybody” stuff on a pedestal more than most. Different strokes to rule the world.

Doesn’t it say something about his writing that this thread has basically just become a hair splitting discussion about a single word, and not of the merit’s of Rosenbaum’s work?

All due respect, HN, no; it says something about the merits of *your *writing; the question arose as the meaning of a word that *you *used.

@HelloNinja

He obviously hasn’t made as big as an impression on the world of film as some may think.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Moderator interjects: OK, any further discussions on the meaning of the word “pretentious” are to be held in a different thread. This thread is about Jonathan Rosenbaum.

I’m tired of insults and near-insults being flung about over something that is essentially definitional. “When I use a word,” said Humpty Dumpty, “it means precisely what I want it to mean, neither more nor less.”

Another mention of definitions of “pretentious” and this thread is closed.

[lissener]

OK. Anyway, I agree that Rbaum can often write about extremely esoteric subjects in a way that can’t help but come off as condescending to someone who’s not in his intended demographic; I rarely recommend his stuff to any but the hardest-core filmgeek. But speaking selfishly, I’m sad he’s retiring, and hope he guests frequently. Barring that, I hope he steps up his book writing: his collaboration with J. Hoberman, Midnight Movies, is an essential reference, plus being more mainstream-readable.