Dave Kehr

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
i think he's my favorite film critic: his film capsules for the chicago reader are pithy, funny and genuinely educational. i often come away from them feeling like i've actually learned something new about the film, which is impressive considering most of them aren't more than 200 words long. many of these little essays rank among my favorite pieces of writing, period.

here he is on "rear window":

The most densely allegorical of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpieces (1954), moving from psychology to morality to formal concerns and finally to the theological. It is also Hitchcock's most innovative film in terms of narrative technique, discarding a linear story line in favor of thematically related incidents, linked only by the powerful sense of real time created by the lighting effects and the revolutionary ambient sound track. James Stewart is the news photographer who, immobilized by a broken leg, dreams stories about the neighbors in his courtyard and demands that they come true.

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 31 December 2003 11:15 (twenty-one years ago)

even better, on "bringing up baby":

Though it's almost impossible, try to sit back sometime and enjoy this 1938 Howard Hawks masterpiece not only for its gags, but for the grace of its construction, the assurance of its style, and the richness of its themes. Cary Grant's adventures with Katharine Hepburn lead from day into night, tameness into wildness, order into chaos; needless to say, it's a deeply pessimistic film, though it draws its grim conclusions in a searingly bright and chipper way. Amazingly, the film was a failure when first released (during Hepburn's "box-office poison" period), but time has revealed its brilliance, as well as the apparent impossibility of its like ever being seen again (What's Up, Doc? notwithstanding).

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 31 December 2003 11:16 (twenty-one years ago)

you can look up these reviews here, though you have to put up with rosenbaum on most of the post-1985 stuff: http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/search/briefs

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 31 December 2003 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

i really like him too, and those Reader capsules had a lot to do with why i came to love film so much. i love how hyperbolic his praise can be--an enthusiasm for movies that insists that its an art.

ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 31 December 2003 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

He's a very valuable critic, I prefer Rosenbaum, though.

Anthony (Anthony F), Wednesday, 31 December 2003 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

i like him

rosenbaum, whatever his past virtues, has become an unreadably dreary pedant

amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 3 January 2004 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah i agree, it's been a steep decline tho because only a few years ago he was one of my favorite critics.

ryan (ryan), Saturday, 3 January 2004 04:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I suspect the decline started a good deal earlier for you, amateur!st, but I actually do agree that reading Ro lately has been a bit of a chore. This is something I'd never dream I'd be saying even as recently as this time last year. (Maybe he should just be a genaric political columnist until Dubya is out of office and then he can go back to being a film critic.)

At least I'm having a good time with Movie Mutations, though it sort of makes me feel excluded as a cinephile rather than included (that's probably more my problem than the authors').

Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 3 January 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)

all of rosenbaum's articles for teh chicago reader read the same. he either goes off about the nefarious conspiracy between publicists and critics etc., or something about hollywood capitalism and us global cultural domination, or something about bush and the war in iraq and only perfunctorily tries to relate these things to the film he's supposed to be reviewing. most times the transition between his polemic and his review is really insulting in its baldness and inanity. he makes me mad actually.

amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 3 January 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

when critics reach this point they should just retire, really...when they have little to say about films and end up writing about other stuff and pretending to write about film.

amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 3 January 2004 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

rosenbaum's review of "stuck on you" is funnier than the movie itself!

The denial at the heart of this comedy gives it unusual potency because the current political discourse in this country has been shaped by denial. In order to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the Bush administration is in denial about, among other things, this country's support for and arming of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, intelligence showing that Iraq had destroyed most if not all of its programs to build weapons of mass destruction, and high-level warnings that Iraq could turn chaotic once the Iraqi army was defeated. Whatever one thinks of the Bush administration, we're all affected by this kind of denial.

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 3 January 2004 21:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, this sort of rhetoric made a bit more sense when it was about Harvey's oligarchy instead of the Bush administration's. Then it was less ridiculous and a lot more awesome to behold and I'm giving up no ground on this point am.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 3 January 2004 22:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, he's always been something of a mud slinger. Same as Armond White. Both are (or were, at any rate) totally exciting reads. I had to read Rosenbaum to truly understand/realize/love Tati's Playtime and Akerman's Jeanne Dielman.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 3 January 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

what i hate about Rosenbaum (who is sometimes interesting and useful) is his unwillingness to read certain films for ANYTHING besides their supposed political subtext, and his willingness to completely ignore the subtext in other films. his insistence that "Star Wars" somehow directly led to the gulf war by promoting the idea of "bloodless violence" is a potentially interesting idea, but Rosenbaum's argument is so reductive and one-dimensional (stupid sheeplike masses watch "Star Wars" when young, same stupid sheeplike masses go on to cheer for bush I and bush II in iraq) that he comes out sounding like a well-spoken conspiracy freak. when the AFI top 100 list came out a few years ago i remember he even claimed that "Taxi Driver," "Pulp Fiction" and "Birth of a Nation" shouldn't be on it because they promoted racism.

then there's his review of "Aladdin," which produced the brilliant observation: "I'm inclined to take a parrot named Iago, dubbed by Gilbert Gottfried, as a stand-in for Israel."

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 4 January 2004 02:46 (twenty-one years ago)

when the AFI top 100 list came out a few years ago i remember he even claimed that "Taxi Driver," "Pulp Fiction" and "Birth of a Nation" shouldn't be on it because they promoted racism.

I don't think that was Rosenbaum. Though I wouldn't have put it past him to have suggested, at the time, that maybe it would've been nice to have a film about racism on the list that was directed by, y'know, an African-American... and Rosenbaum was hardly the only one making that assertation, either.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 4 January 2004 05:44 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, i looked it up and his comments were less extreme than i remembered: http://www.chireader.com/movies/100best.html

don't get me wrong, the AFI list was utterly appalling, for many more reasons than i could name. shall we have a thread about it?

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 4 January 2004 05:46 (twenty-one years ago)

even his columns against miramax (which continue to this day) were poorly organized and researched--in other words, little more than tirades. his book is hardly much better.

no, i've long since written him off.

amateur!st (amateurist), Sunday, 4 January 2004 20:49 (twenty-one years ago)

and yeah that PP from the "stuck on you" review is now the classical example of rosenbaum nonsense. his manner of moving from the movie to politics is so clumsy and arbitrary it's like a slap in his audience's face.

amateur!st (amateurist), Sunday, 4 January 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

it's actually funny because i know where he gets it from...the front pages of cahiers, which are usually if not always a little polemic that's frequently extremely heavy-handed in its tying in of certain (perceived) trends in the cinema to larger political trends. at least cahiers has about 100 pages of often good stuff afterwards, whereas rosenbaum has made this BS his metier.

amateur!st (amateurist), Sunday, 4 January 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I consider my face unslapped.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 4 January 2004 23:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously, I'm not saying he's anywhere near the best. But I'm hardly on the same wavelength as you are. Jesus, did he partial-birth abort your baby with a plasic saw or something?

Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 4 January 2004 23:49 (twenty-one years ago)

And before you even ask: YES, Ebert did partial-birth abort my baby with a plastic saw!!!

Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 4 January 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

if you lived in chicago for 20 years, where he has been the house critic at the reader, and had to suffer through his increasingly vacuous and poorly-written columns for many of those years, you'd be annoyed too.

amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 5 January 2004 13:04 (twenty-one years ago)

(no, see, I wouldn't be annoyed because I like him, and of all the charges one could level at him, "poorly-written" seems extraordinarly off the mark, especially coming from a relative Ebert fan... alright, I'll stop taking agressive cheap shots now.)

I see your Chicago critics and raise you St. Paul's Chris Hewitt and Minneapolis's Jeff Strickler.

(of course, in my book, gushy and worthless embrace of Landmark international-boutique product and Medved-like slavery to espousal of family values -- respectively -- will always be worse than having a fixation on the political implications of cinephilia.)

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 5 January 2004 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)

(never mind that in endorsing a) "indie" product and b) God films, both Hewitt and Strickler are just as guilty of the same types of sins as Rosenbaum.)

Wasn't this thread about Dave Kehr?

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 5 January 2004 18:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and there isn't apparently a decent "local" critic here (though David Thomson does live in the city).

@d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 5 January 2004 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I probably painted things a bit bleak. The Star Tribune's other, non-Medved critic (... I mean, seriously, one of Strickler's top ten movies this year was Secondhand Lions!!!)... is Colin Covert, and he's pretty solid. Also, I wasn't counting the local alt-press, mostly on account that I write for them every now and again, but Rob Nelson is always a great read.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 5 January 2004 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

i think ebert is a much much much better prose stylist, which is to say writer, than rosenbaum

ebert is endlessly frustrating because his tastes and ideas sometimes lag behind his writing ability

amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 12 January 2004 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

You'll have to excuse me for taking that second line as the ultimate slam on Ebert.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 12 January 2004 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Rosenbaum is a great guy -- he taught at my university, and I owe a tremendous amount to him. The films I was exposed to as a result of his courses is staggering.

That said, I think that in the past couple of years his tastes have become fairly unexplainable. I went to see "Small Soldiers" based on his rave, and I just don't get it. This seems to happen more and more. He loved AI? Loony Toons: Back in Action? This, from the man who taught me how to appreciate Brakhage?

BabyBuddha, Tuesday, 13 January 2004 19:01 (twenty-one years ago)

First person to say he pretended to be totally impressed with Small Soldiers in order to slap Spielberg in the face gets a scoffing-at from me.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 19:24 (twenty-one years ago)

The problem with something like Small Soldiers is I can totally understand how Rosenbaum can like the idea of it, be attracted to this subversive subtext he sees in Dante's films, but that doesn't make it much fun to actually sit through.

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 21:51 (twenty-one years ago)

(A.I. was good, though.)

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

If Steven Spielberg's mother had just hugged him a bit more none of us would have to suffer through his films cum analysis sessions.

AI would have been a great film had Kubrick made it. (Have you seen the original treatment? MUCH darker than the Oedipal fantasy Spielberg left us.)

You are spot on about Small Soldiers though. Well said.

BabyBuddha, Tuesday, 13 January 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I would have been a great film had Kubrick made it.

Zzzzzzzz...... next!

Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

MUCH darker than the Oedipal fantasy Spielberg left us.

What, please, is so fucking light and cheery about Oedipal fantasies?! That much-maligned final scene was more "disturbing" than anything Kubrick's ever thrown out there. Don't get me wrong, Kubrick as a formalist wipes the floor with Spielberg; but with A.I., whether intended or not, Spielberg stumbled onto something nasty and selfish about humanity. Even Kubrick would probably have the David character express maybe even the slightest shred of guilt about consigniing his mother's soul to oblivion.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 22:05 (twenty-one years ago)

jaymc... I think you're right about Small Soldiers. I respect it, but no way is it in the same league as Matinee or either Gremlins film.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

i hope someday in the future these fights over A.I. won't be necessary, but i fear the Kubrick-Spielberg conflation will always prevent rational criticism. (needless to say i think it's one the greatest movies ever made--but that's in some part hyperbolic praise meant to deflect the lazy criticisms of it.)

ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

i just wish we could leave issues of intentionality, especially with regard to Spielberg, out of discussions of a movie's worth. (and maybe even recognize that a filmmaker with Spielberg's approach often creates more dissonances and ambiguities than a think-it-through type like Kubrick-but then i am committing the sin i was lamenting.)

ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

In the original treatment, the AI boy, in an effort to win the love of his alcoholic mother, brings her drinks. That's an image SS wouldn't dare touch.

But this may prove to be a pointless argument. I loathe SS. (Well, ever since Jaws.) His constant use of kids in trouble/danger is nauseating. "Mommy/Daddy didn't love me enough" and "mommy/daddy wasn't around" has played itself out. Enough already.

Only Spielberg could take a brilliant tale on ethics and turn it into a "daddy let me get abducted" movie.

BabyBuddha, Tuesday, 13 January 2004 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I should have mentioned that my final line was referring to Minority Report.

BabyBuddha, Tuesday, 13 January 2004 22:55 (twenty-one years ago)

fair enough. but as i said elsewhere on this board i think Speilberg's almost crippling obsession with his childhood is fascinating (and very much a reflection of his generation)

ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 13 January 2004 22:59 (twenty-one years ago)


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