Why is Stanley Kauffman given a movie crit forum on TNR?

The BBQ Pit
1

Movies are interesting. I like the movie criticism on Salon, whether I agree with it or not. I like Ebert. Stanley Kauffman, who is the god of movie crit at The New Republic, just blows. I don’t give a shit what his creds are or how long he’s been at it. You can’t find a more artsy-fartsy, boring critic. No, I DON’T give a fuck about some Iranian movie about such and such a problem with such and such a no-name cast. One reason I don’t give a fuck is that, even if it’s any good, Stan just makes it sound like boring, arty shit. And it’s pretty much beneath this fucker to review any movie that’s actually in the theaters and being seen by people. WTF?

Here is his most recent films worth seeing (subscrition required, but here is the link):

At least here ol’ Stan reviews Sideways, which I actually saw on a theater marquee. Maybe Kinsey counts too. But what’s fun about movie criticism, whether it’s positive or negative, is the look it takes at what’s out there in popular culture. Stan seems to think film is some type of art to be guarded against barbarian attack. Far be it from him to review some stupid chick flick or something like that! That would be pandering!

I’m not a philistine: I like obscure classical music and decent art. But to me, film is entertainment first, art a very distant second. When movies are really good, they can transcend their origins in pleasing the masses and be something more. But first they have to please. I’d consider Office Space, a movie that seeks to entertain but nevertheless says quite an intelligent bit about modern society, better art than some pretentious Euro flick that sets out to be art in the first place but never entertains.

Any disagreement with any of this?!

2

C’mon, surely someone has an opinion. No TNR readers?

3

There are, like, one hundred million critics doing reviews of The Polar Express. Maybe Stanley wants to be the one who writes about arthous flicks for the people who don’t give a shit about The Polar Express, and don’t need to read yet another review of it, but are really curious to read about the Iranian film. Don’t like, don’t read.

4

Yah, but then he even sucks at doing the arthouse shit–like, BORING and POMPOUS!

5

It is easy enough for the general culture and word of mouth to give me a sense of whether I want to see National Treasure. I don’t really need critics for that (and I say this as someone who has a small gig reviewing mainstream movies). Besides, such movies tend to be critic proof anyway. No matter what, if I give some mainstream popular movie a bad review someone is telling me that I just have to turn off my brain and let myself enjoy something.

Anyway, I do need someone giving me a sense of whether it is worth a $3 toll fee, $8 in parking and then a $10 ticket to go see movie X from Iran or some independent film that is traveling the country one theater at a time.

So he isn’t reviewing the movies you want to see (though if Kinsey isn’t mainstream enough* you will have difficulty finding a critic that doesn’t waste at least some of your time) then don’t read them.

Also, if he is reviewing movies as art when you want reviews of movies as entertainment, then don’t read him.

6

It’s a pity they passed that law requiring you to read it week after week.

7

If you had to list the five greatest film critics this country has ever had, Stanley Kauffman would be one of them, plain and simple.

He’s been reviewing films at TNR for freaking-ever (late 50s?), and you will not find a film critic out there who’s better read in literature, better versed in theater, and more articulate about history.

Gee, some of us think film criticism should be informative more than “fun”. Some of us prefer to have our constantly-evolving understanding of film to be challenged and provoked, which is what a good critic can and should do. Not every critic can (or should) be like Roger Ebert, who reviews everything (rather dubiously, I might add), because some movies are worth considering more than others, and I’ll give up a review of Ocean’s 12 (which might be perfectly fun) if means an extra 300 words (good or bad) on Kinsey or Finding Neverland.

Because he’s at TNR, he gets to review films he wants to, and very often writes-off films he sees as spurious or irrelevant with a single, withering sentence (if that). And that’s his right. But he’s championed all types of films, and has shown that he can be consistent and yet quite surprising. Sure he has his biases, as do all critics, but he doesn’t pander to be popular, and refuses to waterdown his standards to be more acceptable by the mainstream. Many “arthouse” films he’s particularly critical of, and he has some very generous praise towards movies you might not expect.

I’m still not sure what the OP is bitching about anyway. Almodovar and Jeunet are two of the more famous foreign-language directors in this country, and their films are worth noting more than, say, Blade: Trinity or Seed of Chucky.

Yeah, I disagree. This doesn’t mean I enjoy sitting through bad movies that are “high-falutin’ artsy-fartsy” because they’re “good” for me somehow. But film is, and always will be, an artistic medium first to these eyes, and I can enjoy a movie that’s fun but forgettable, but would rather enjoy one that’s enriching and worth remembering. Seems like Mr. Kauffman probably thinks the same way. YMOV.

8

Although you probably don’t care, Kauffman must be around 80 by now. He’s one (if not the last) member of an influential school of film critics like Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael who were characterized by taking a very exhaustive and in-depth approach to the movies they reviewed. (Kauffman, by the way, has nothing on Kael who, toward the end of her tenure at the New Yorker, was notorious the seemingly endless length of her film reviews. Kauffman, at least, is fairly concise and to the point.)

You should take into account that TNR is not the same type of publication as your daily newspaper or Entertainment Weekly. If you want to get an instant opinion on a big movie that’s just opened, you go there first. The New Republic, on the other hand, is an opinion journal and takes a more in-depth and thoughtful approach to their subjects. Kauffman’s reviews are good for finding out about “small” arthouse films that are winding there way across the country (which, incidentally, was the common practice for releasing all films until the mid 70’s) as opposed to those that open on thousands of screens at once. These movies would fall through the cracks without having a critic like Kauffman call attention to them. Also, Kauffman’s reviews (for “big” and “small” movies alike) are more useful after you’ve seen the movie and can compare and contrast your viewpoint with his.

As for my opinion, I haven’t read Kauffman’s reviews recently. I used to when I took TNR and generally found his reviews interesting and knowledgeable (even if I didn’t agree with them). However, I did notice he seemed a bit out of touch at times.

9

:smack: BTW, that should read:

“… films that are winding their way across the country…”

10

I want to see A Very Long Engagement. I’ve seen most of Jeunet’s other movies. Even though they are most definitely artistically beautiful films, I wouldn’t class them as high-brow. They’re usually very much character-based dark comedies.

I think this guy has a niche that he sticks to because that’s what he likes, that’s what he knows, and that’s what TNR wants.