DeRogatis as Derogatory

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

hey, what's the deal here anyway?
isn't it a little ham-fisted to think of me as DeRogatis? And what if I was him? In many many ways, he IS the Ebert of rock-crit, he connects with J. Q. Public.
Whereas, y'all connect with y'all.

btw, I ain't him, and he ain't me

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 04:40 (twenty-three years ago)

ebert's taste has a much more truly populist slant than jim "i are an individualist" derogatis

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 04:42 (twenty-three years ago)

I am sorry for starting this, for what it's worth. It could be worse, people could be accusing you of being Anthony DeCurtis.

― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 04:43 (twenty-three years ago)

the ebert of rock-crit is that guy at the la times (ned knows who I'm talking about)

― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 04:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Just as long as it isn't Jon Tiven I think I'll manage.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 04:45 (twenty-three years ago)

people accuse me of really being Michael Vick!

― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 04:46 (twenty-three years ago)

or they should at least

― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 04:47 (twenty-three years ago)

i thought you were apollonia

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 05:14 (twenty-three years ago)

You need to apologize to Ebert quick.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 05:15 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah ebert's cool, don't rag on him

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 05:17 (twenty-three years ago)

he wrote Up!, third best movie of the 70s

― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 05:19 (twenty-three years ago)

jess: I'm actually Vanity, but people confuse me with Apollonia all the time.

JESUS SAVES! (Vanity stalkers will get that)

― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 05:20 (twenty-three years ago)

I like Ebert. DeRogatis and DeCurtis both have their good points; I just haven't figured out what they are yet.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 06:37 (twenty-three years ago)

perhaps it is their aristocratic french roots: they are MEROVINGIANS

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 12:36 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd still take Jimbo over DeCurtis, since at least he has a personalty, even if it's such an obnoxious, pompous, he-manny one. DeCurtis is so...dull, have you read his reviews? I don't know how he stays awake long enough to wite this. i already started a thread on Jimbo but I am too lazy to look for it, it's from December

Horace, where were you accused of being him?

― Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 12:42 (twenty-three years ago)

where wasn't I accused of being him!

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 14:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Better to be the Ebert of rock than the Roeper of rock.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 14:58 (twenty-three years ago)

In the limited reading I've done of DeRo (don't live in Chicago, don't read 'Stone, have read Let It Blurt and some of the stuff on his web page), I find him to be a reliable critic. He's consistent, he lets you know where he's coming from, and for the most part his prose is clean. I don't agree with a lot of his opinions, but he's got them at least and he's got ideas as well.
He's no Lester Bangs (and why would anyone want to be), but his Third Eye Blind piece in the 2001 DaCapo Reader was pretty damn enjoyable.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 15:05 (twenty-three years ago)

>>his Third Eye Blind piece in the 2001 DaCapo Reader was pretty damn enjoyable.<<

actually, it was the easily the most cliche'd piece of hackery that's ever RUN in one of those daCapo readers, a complete embarrassment --just derogatis swiping at another hootie-style easy target, whose best moments ("losing a whole year," "graduate," "never let you go," "london") are a hell of a lot more interesting than HIS best moments, and not taking a second to attempt to understand their music.

― olga, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 16:36 (twenty-three years ago)

it's only TRULY derogatory if someone who's spent any good amount of time in Chicago refers to you as being "Derogatis-like." ;)

― janni (janni), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:14 (twenty-three years ago)

olga's otm.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I love how even those ILXers who occasionally pass for DeRogatis defenders can't say much more than, "Well, one of his pieces wasn't completely awful. I think."

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:28 (twenty-three years ago)

If he started posting here regularly we'd all be much nicer to him.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:31 (twenty-three years ago)

I might have to jump ship.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:32 (twenty-three years ago)

He wouldn't post here. He doesn't love music, he loves authenticity.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:33 (twenty-three years ago)

ILM is not called that because the posters love music, silly.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:37 (twenty-three years ago)

as is often proven

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm sure many ILXers would be capable of writing articles that are just as tedious and/or inconsequential as DeRogatis, but he has the bad taste to actually publish them nearly every day, in a major-market newspaper.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:39 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not so sure.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Make that "a few ILXers" then.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:42 (twenty-three years ago)

some of us will do almost anything for money

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:42 (twenty-three years ago)

...he has the bad taste to actually publish them nearly every day, in a major-market newspaper.

Have you read the Chicago Sun-Times? As bad as DeRotGut is, he's not nearly as bad as Roeper or Bob Novak or hey any of their Sports columnists! And he doesn't self-publish the S-T, that would be Hollinger International, formerly owned by Sir Conrad Black.

So I s'pose we've got the ~~Canadians~~British to blame for it.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:54 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree, hstencil, that the Sun-Times is a cesspool. But that doesn't make DeRogatis any good journalist. Besides, the aforementioned Roger Ebert (a very good critic) also publishes in the S-T, so DeRogatis cannot hope to be even "the best of a bad lot."

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:01 (twenty-three years ago)

let's not forget his excreble excuse for a radio call-in show, Sound Opinions...it's not just a Chicagoland thing, is it? i'm pretty certain it's not...

*belches loudly*

― janni (janni), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Far be it for me to defend DeRogatis (esp. as I've savaged him here before, mercilessly), but I do think that he's definitely a lesser evil when compared with other Sun-Times writers. And I do think that counts for something. As bad as he is, at least if I disagree with his opinions, at least they're comprehensible (unlike Roeper) or not-so-cynical-as-to-be-disingenious (a la Novak).

That said, on another tangent: as smart and as good a critic (and writer) as Ebert is, I sometimes dislike how easy he is on mainstream Hollywood movies.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Do you mean "easy" in terms of his star ratings or his actual columns? As I mentioned on another thread, his star ratings have bee floating upward for years, but I think his actual criticism is pretty even-handed more often than not. He has an occasional weakness for "right-minded" films, though I see him as the flipside of his colleague Jonathan Rosenbaum (not an insult): where Rosenbaum is pretty politically acute but occasionally succumbs to a knee-jerk anti-"right minded" opinion, Ebert is typically acute but occasionally falls for a bit of "right-minded" mediocrity.

*"right minded" = for example, Saving Private Ryan, an unexceptional film that probably shouldn't have engendered such strong opinions pro and con.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:10 (twenty-three years ago)

i wonder how much of his "star ratings" actually comes from him anyway

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:13 (twenty-three years ago)

One thing you can't fault DeRo for: he doesn't PRETEND to like things. He might like things for bad reasons, but he genuinely feels one way or the other. And, really, he's not writing for ILMers, he's writing for Joe Blow (though I'm sure all daily music writers like to think they're down with the hipsters).

and as for Ebert's stars, those are constantly changing and they do come from him. He constantly retools his wire copy. When you think about how many movies that guy must see, you wonder where he gets the time to do ANYTHING else, least of all jog.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:18 (twenty-three years ago)

But saying he writes for "Joe Blow" (?) isn't an excuse for bad writing (viz., again, Ebert).

I'm hardly comfortable with that "pretend" notion; DeRogatis seems like he hardly tries to imagine why people might like something outside of his narrow parameters of good music, hence his own tastes don't seem to grow or change. That to me is a worse sin than the (theoretical) sin of "pretending to like something."

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:22 (twenty-three years ago)

(If I wrote an essay on Cecil Taylor and it came off like I was "pretending" to like his music, it would likely be because my arguments were poor, that I didn't have a grasp of the right vocabulary, so I simply aped--badly-- the writing of many that had gone before. Not because I didn't really like the music.)

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:24 (twenty-three years ago)

You did write a bad essay on CT, dinja?

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:26 (twenty-three years ago)

least of all jog.

Obv. neither DeRogatis nor Ebert goes jogging.

I meant Ebert's "easy" in that like a lot of mainstream critics, he's not very critical of current Hollywood films even as compared with the Hollywood of, say, 30 or 50 years ago, much less as compared with non-Hollywood films. That is, the idea that we should expect complexity and depth from, say, Iranian film but not from Hollywood is something that I find just completely mind-boggling (but then again it's pretty clear I have a problem with most mainstream anything, so maybe that discounts my opinions automatically).

DeRogatis seems to be writing from the position where he thinks he's writing for Joe Blow, but from a "Hey Joe lemme tell you why the stuff you like is beneath you" POV (which isn't really so different from what I find myself thinking most of the time, too). It kinda rubs me the wrong way, even though I'm definitely guilty of it, too.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:29 (twenty-three years ago)

That is, the idea that we should expect complexity and depth from, say, Iranian film but not from Hollywood is something that I find just completely mind-boggling.

agreeing with hstencil shockah!

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Especially given this notable diss.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:38 (twenty-three years ago)

"It kinda rubs me the wrong way, even though I'm definitely guilty of it, too."

I think maybe that's why so many people here have such a neg. reaction to him. They see themselves in his writing, they see how transparently over-educated, white and middle-class he comes across as, and they worry that other people can just as clearly see through their own writing.
None of us are as hip as we'd like to be, and DeRo illustrates how easily the trappings of cool can be subverted against us. I mean, writing about music QUA writing about music is just about the lamest hook to hang your hat on. Really.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:39 (twenty-three years ago)

(What's amusing about all this is I believe the majority of Sun-Times readers are black, so DeRogatis's fawnings over the Zwan record are not exactly the result of careful market research.)

But Hollywood films and the sort of Iranian films we get over here (naturally there are Iranian films that have little to do with Kiarostami, Mahkmalbaf, Panahi, etc.) have different virtues. One goes to a Hollywood film with different expectations, and rightly so. And I don't know that "complexity and depth" (whatever that might mean) are necessarily the virtues of Kiarostami's cinema anyhow. Or rather, what kind of complexity are you talking about?

(Kiarostami, who Ebert thinks is something of a charlatan; although one of Ebert's virtues is his ability to publicly revise his opinions, so I hold out hope that he will do so in this case).

And although I think Ebert would acknowledge, along with the rest of the human race outside of Culver City, that Hollywood films are at present worse than they were in the 30s-50s, there's nothing wrong with judging those contemporary films against the proper background: other contemporary films.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:42 (twenty-three years ago)

we really need an "i love films" board, dont we?

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:45 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree, hstencil, that the Sun-Times is a cesspool.

Paige Wiser (nee Smoron) to thread!

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:45 (twenty-three years ago)

That's two times I've mentioned cesspools on ILX today: one literal, one figurative.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:46 (twenty-three years ago)

i think another important note is that ebert seems to genuinely like "trash"...and he's obv much more up front about it than derogatis

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:48 (twenty-three years ago)

One goes to a Hollywood film with different expectations, and rightly so.

But why is that? Why are those expectations in place? Who made 'em that way? Why can't the expectations change? Should they, even?

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:50 (twenty-three years ago)

i mean he gave that horrible computer animated final fantasy movie a glowing review as i remember

but he's also lovingly trashed such nadir's of western culture as "joe dirt" and the tom green movie

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:50 (twenty-three years ago)

I think DeRogatis genuinely likes trash, except that the trash he likes he elevates to art, and the trash he doesn't like he degrades as trash.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:51 (twenty-three years ago)

i think another important note is that ebert seems to genuinely like "trash"...

trash

― gygax!, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:52 (twenty-three years ago)

he did write Beyond the Valley of the Dolls

one of my fave moments on the E & R show was whilst reviewing that movie with J. Tambour, Ebert commented on the gratuitous profanity. R defends it, and E counters with "Oh yeah, well how many X-Rated movies have YOU written?"

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:52 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah that's pretty much what i meant. it's the lester bangs disease, obv

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:52 (twenty-three years ago)

hmm, then why do I find Bangs readable and believable, and not DeRogatis?

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:54 (twenty-three years ago)

But doesn't Kiarostami's work stand out partly because it deviates so strongly from other dominant styles? What would a cinema that was all-Kiarostami look like? I'm in favor of a plurality of styles.

And I guess I take it as a given that Hollywood films, as a whole, have virtues that Iranian art cinema doesn't, and vice-versa.

trash

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Bangs is a better writer. But I find many of the same faults with his writing as I do with JDR's.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:54 (twenty-three years ago)

(there should have been a comma between "other" and "dominant")

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Bangs was funnier, and would give autobiographical info that made his opinions make more sense.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:56 (twenty-three years ago)

heh, hstencil, lou gerhig had lou gerhig's disease but that doesn't make everyone who has it after him a great ballplayer

bangs is a better writer, yes, but he also confronted his contraditions head on, in print, often to the point of insanity/inanity.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:57 (twenty-three years ago)

i spelled gehrig wrong, dammit

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:57 (twenty-three years ago)

gerhig comes off the tongue nicer

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Amateurist, when I brought up Iranian film, I just could have written [any other country's] film instead. I don't know much about it, or Kiarostami in particular.

And I guess I take it as a given that Hollywood films, as a whole, have virtues that Iranian art cinema doesn't, and vice-versa.

Yeah, I usually take it as a given that Hollywood films, as a whole, have no virtues whatsoever. This is probably a pretty wrong-headed approach.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:00 (twenty-three years ago)

but does the audience (meaning sun-times readers) take that as a given?

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:02 (twenty-three years ago)

(about the differences between foreign and domestic, etc. not that american films are dunderheaded)

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:03 (twenty-three years ago)

I wouldn't venture to know how the Sun-Times readers respond to what's in there.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:04 (twenty-three years ago)

i think it's pretty important to what we're trying to get at tho (if anything.)

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Why should I as a reader be forced to discern when Ebert is applying varying standards to movies of differing provenance? It's irresponsible writing. part of the problem then is with the stupid-ass star rating system. Taste of Cherry is only a one-star film, and xXx is three-and-a-half orders of magnitude better?

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:07 (twenty-three years ago)

jess, well I think given the Sun-Times circulation, the actual audience he's writing to/for (as opposed to the audience he thinks he's writing to/for) is so huge and varied that any number of responses to his writing could be possible. I mean, I know for sure that there are people in Chicago that respond to his writing the way we are now (hey, I was one of 'em), and that is only just a small portion of people who have access to what he writes, and those are probably the people he thinks he's writing to/for, so...

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Nothwithstanding his dismissal of Kiarostami (which is stupefyingly wrongheaded), Ebert is very good on clueing his readership into other national cinemas and movements, and at clearly explaining the differences between their approaches and Hollywood. In fact many of his reviews are rather explicit in this way: "A Hollywood version of this same subject would be like...."

I don't want to become the defender of all things Ebert, however, as he's not my favorite critic. Just one I respect.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:32 (twenty-three years ago)

heh i've just read that other thread about north korea's nuclear devices being able to reach the west coast and suddenly i've lost all interest in this

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:32 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah, I just saw that on Yahoo! too, jess. This world is pretty fucked.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 February 2003 19:41 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.