Roman Polanski’s return to the headlines garnered quite a bit of diverse reaction. It also got me and a friend thinking—“Just how bad is that weird thing he made at Carlo Ponti’s villa in 1972?” The Foreign Region DVD Report was made for just such questions, and coincidentally enough, an excellent British disc of What?—which might be more fun to refer to as Che?, now that I think of it—has just come out. Among many other things, it is not the first item I’d put in a box of evidence to prove what a nice guy the director is. A look at the film and a gratuitous slap at The Onion’s Nathan Rabin await you at The Auteurs’.
By the way—try as I might, I can’t quite place the actor above. A little help?
There’s no such thing as a gratuitous swipe at Nathan Rabin. All swipes aimed his way are entirely tuitous.
Isn’t that Guido Alberti?
(swipe)
I dunno, I’ve never really had a problem with Rabin or the A.V. Club– in my opinion (which can and often is wrong) they’re an astute bunch of passionate, funny, intelligent, and well-versed critics of film, television, and music. While there are some sections of the site that are more snark-oriented (“The Hater” gets particularly tiring), there are a host of features that I find informative, entertaining, and thought-provoking, including Mr. Rabin’s My Year(s) of Flops*, which will just-as-often celebrate the films he dubs as Secret Successes– his appraisal of Walk Hard has prompted me to take a second look at it. (In my opinion, he’s also an absolutely crackerjack interviewer– as is his AV Club cohort Sam Adams.)
(*– Other features I enjoy include Scenic Routes, Gateways to Geekery, the Inventory, the New Cult Canon, and the admittedly somewhat snarkier Commentary Tracks of the Damned and I Watched This on Purpose.)
… But that’s me, and your mileage may vary.
Okay, and this is why I shouldn’t post comments when I’m barely awake. My first line there should read “(shrug)”.
I’ll second Tom’s comment. While there is a lot of stuff in the A.V. Club that is pretty awful there are some great writers doing good work over there. Scott Tobias and Noël Murray are very fine critics and I like the fact that they have provided Mike D’Angelo with a space to do his thing. I’ll agree that Rabin is more of a pop culture guy than a critic but I don’t think we can say that his style is representative of the site as a whole.
Sorry, but I’ve been reading that page for years, and I’ve watched it spiral downwards pretty steadily. I don’t think anyone on that staff is half the writer they think they are, or as insightful. They have pretensions towards intellectual weight, yet spend at least half their time reviewing sitcoms and reality shows. When they try to be funny, they simply quote THE SIMPSONS or dredge up thirty year old pop culture jokes, like slapping the words “Electric Boogaloo” after SCHINDLER’S LIST 2, or something.
If they just wanted to be snarky, I’d be cool with that, or if they were any good at snark, I’d be cool with that. But merging lame jokes to thoughtful reviews of HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER makes me want to grind my teeth into dust.
I finally caught WHAT? earlier this year, and agree with your assessment, Glenn. One would think the film would engage on at least a prurient level, especially with the beautiful Sydne Rome (who looks like a Manara character come to life) spending some of the movie in the buff. But it is nowhere near as entertaining as say, CANDY (1968), which at least benefits from (ill-advised) cameos by Brando, Coburn, Matthau, and Ringo.
Had there been more gratuitous shots of ass, one could easily mistake Polanski’s film for one directed by Tinto Brass.
@ Jaime: Thanks!
I really don’t have anything against the AV Club; I think Tobias and Murray are solid writers and Adams and D’Angelo definitely spruce up the place. The biggest problem with “The Hater” is that it’s just not funny enough. And the whole thing is put together at a level of professionalism that’s evaporating from like-minded papers, and never existed at certain websites. As for Rabin, well, his jottings on “What?” really were pretty dilettante-ish. And one of his friends should take him aside and tell him that his current “I’m Chuck Klosterman without hair” schtick is just kind of sad.
Some sitcoms are worth reviewing, but, yes, I do see your point, Bill.
As far as The Hater– I do enjoy it when the target is something truly worthy of that Hater-ing, such as her take-down of the Superfreakanomics chapter that wonders why more women shouldn’t become prostitutes. Righteous snark is always more entertaining than taking pot-shots at celebrities and rednecks.
Which kinda reminds me of BRUNO, which the wife and I almost walked out of. The one part I did enjoy involved showbusiness parents willing to endanger their infants and put them through liposuction if it meant their kids got the job/they got the money. It’s the only kind of situation where I can see that particular brand of prank-comedy as being completely justified.
“The Hater” is in no way representative of what the AV Club does–she works out of a separate office and was brought in in a conscious effort to represent the more “pop” side of pop culture. I’m not particularly a fan, but it’s not really fair to use her column to slander the site itself.
As for Rabin, you guys have got him wrong, I think. If you actually read his film reviews, you’ll see he’s a knowledgeable, thoughtful writer who, yes, does sometimes strain too hard to be funny, but just as often *is* quite funny as well as passionate.
And Bill, your lame “they review sitcoms!” comment only reveals your ignorance about contemporary television, which is currently undergoing a remarkable renaissance. The fact that the AV Club is equally thoughtful about all areas of culture, from the putatively highbrow to the putatively lowbrow, is what I love about them.
Sorry for being so ignorant, Earthworm. I will try to do better next time.
Hey, man, I don’t give a hoot if you watch TV or not, just don’t talk down to a publication that takes it seriously. Because as it happens, TV (at least narrative TV of the past 10 years) is very much worth taking seriously.
Hey, man. I do watch TV. I never said I didn’t. I just think it’s ridiculous for the AV Club to be reviewing GOSSIP GIRL and SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE and etc. Quit being so defensive.
Besides, my main point is that I think the AV Club is bad at what they do. You can tell me they’re not, and you can say I’m lame for thinking so, and this damn war will NEVER end.
Woah—a swipe at imaginary “hipsters” for not disliking a movie in the proper fashion, combined with a closing paragraph that confuses “meaning” with “visual competence”—your transformation into Armond proceeds apace.
Ok, Bill, truce–I was being defensive because it pains me to see one of my favorite sites being browbeaten at one of my OTHER favorite sites. It’s all fun and games when we’re making fun of Jonathan Safran Foer, but it hurts to be aligned with the object of Glenn’s fury.
I understand, Jim, no hard feelings.
I dunno. I quite like the AV Club as this gateway to all sorts of stuff I never would have gotten hip to here in Deutschland, like Arrested Development or Mr. Show. And without going all Kermit on you, it’s not that easy bein’ a secular young yekke, and it seems to be one of the things that helps me with that, for some reason.
Having said that, I don’t like to see them write about things I REALLY care about, like DFW or the Coens. There are other places for that.
@ Fuzzy: I’ll reproduce the response I left to a couple of comments, one by yourself, over at the Auteurs’ post:
“Gee, I had no idea Rabin’s claque was so tender-hearted. I don’t suppose it’ll help my case any to say that I was just picking up the ball he dropped with ‘hopeless square’ and that my ripostes of ‘Daddy‑O’ and ‘hipster’ were merely responses in kind, and meant to be, you know, funny. I do think that for him to assess the film from a bootleg he watched on a computer is a real punk move, and I mean ‘punk’ in the post-Shakespeare/pre-Ramones sense.”
As for my supposed ongoing transformation into Armond White, the mind reels (anybody wanna guess what late actor/comedian pops into my head?), and, I’ll have to ask my wife how SHE feels about the whole thing.
Nathan Rabin is a hipster.
Response over there—Criterion needs the comment thread more.
(shrugs again)
I thought the beatnik speak was funny.
THE FUTURIST! wants to bitch slap Nathan Rabin
I don’t think it’s fair to say that Rabin’s piece is “dilettante-ish” because My Year of Flops isn’t really meant to be a work of rigorous criticism; it’s a personal blog project, of the sort that is often featured at this very blog, for the purpose of investigating cinema’s castaways in a fun and funny manner. To read a piece like that and bemoan its failure to meet critical standards seems to be missing the point and, given your own attempts at comedy, rather self-defeatingly joyless.
But I love you both, of course, Kenny and Rabin, and I know that Nathan had nothing but nice things to say about your turn in Girlfriend Experience. Can’t we all just etc etc.
I love you too, E. J. So let me be clear: I didn’t call for Rabin’s head on a stick. I gave him a some shit on account of a rhetorical device I took exception to, and for what I consider dubious critical practice. And, yeah, I went on to make sport of his literary ambitions. I stand by the first two exceptions, and grant that the third bit of snark might have constituted undue piling on. But as I said, I didn’t call for a fatwa on the guy. I imagine we have serious differences concerning criticism in both theory and practice, but our work generally doesn’t correspond to the extent that such differences would be worth addressing. In this case it did. I doubt it’ll happen again.
I’m going to post this both here and at the Auteurs. It applies more to what’s going on at the Auteurs, but I think it bears repeating here (with some mild alterations, for the sake of anyone not reading both comment threads):
———————
Okay, well, here’s the thing about all this. Despite not realizing that had been my first comment, I do remember saying it. And yet, over the years, as the topic of your putative(!) over-snarkiness(!!) has periodically come up, I’ve tended to steer clear, because I realized something, which is that I’m a hypocrite. You allude to this yourself, Glenn, but basically our reactions – I’m talking about all of us here – to Glenn’s, or anyone’s, well-turned snark depends on how we feel about the object of that snark. If we either like, or are even indifferent, to the person, our reaction is most likely going to be “Oh now hey. Was that necessary?” If, on the other hand, we share some of Glenn’s (or anyone’s) disdain for the person, we might well react with a “Aw yeah!” and a “High five!”
We seem to be awfully picky about who we choose to swoop in and defend. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone, when complaining to Glenn about this sort of thing, by saying “Listen, I hate that son of a bitch too, but…”. Not to mention the fact there seems to me to be a very blatant disconnect between what we consider fair, or hilarious, negative comments made by a critic at the expense of a filmmaker, actor, etc., and what we consider fair criticism between two critics.
Glenn’s Ella Taylor comments in his A SERIOUS MAN review have been mentioned. Though having now seen that film, and discovering that her review really burns my ass, too, I’m inclined to agree that Glenn’s words seemed a bit much. But let’s look at some of the words Taylor directs towards the Coen brothers:
“As usual, though, the Coens have more venal satisfactions in mind.”
“…just about every character the Coens create is meant to affirm their own superiority.”
“… they crow in the notes for this loathsome movie…”
Some might say that “loathsome” is directed towards the film, not at the Coens, but I believe that’s a complete rationalization, and implies that artists don’t have the slightest personal connection to their work. And what about that “superiority” crack? Elsewhere in her review, Taylor says that the comments she’s heard comparing A SERIOUS MAN to Philip Roth are misguided because Roth is “one of the world’s least self-hating Jews if you read him right…”, a comment which instantly sets her up as superior to anyone who disagrees with her interpretation of Roth.
As for Rabin…well, how can NO ONE ELSE find his “complete square” comment as obnoxious as I do? Talk about setting yourself up as superior. Anyone who tries to find something in WHAT? beyond a “freak-out”, whether or not they like it, is a “complete square” (a put-down that would only be used, by the way, by a non-imaginary hipster). You guys know that’s an insult, right? Maybe not to you specifically, but it’s sure as hell meant to insult somebody. So why does Rabin get off the hook? Why does Taylor? Why are critics so protected all the time?
Anyway. I know what everybody’s saying, and I’ve had similar thoughts, but lately I think all this hand-wringing about critics’ feelings being hurt displays a wildly inconsistent attitude towards internet snark.
PS – Not altered enough. This:
“Despite not realizing that had been my first comment, I do remember saying it.”
…will make no sense to anyone not reading the Auteurs thread. Sigh. And sorry.
The actors name is Henning Schlüter. He did a lot of TV work in Germany.
Thomas
Thanks, Thomas. Although there seems to be a difference of opinion on the identity of the actor. I’ve now got sufficient evidence to nail it on my own, after I do the million other things I’ve got going on today.
So today I read Jonathan Rosenbaum’s post: http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=17667 where he reprints his ten best lists from 1972–1976. His list for SIGHT AND SOUND, 1974 in (alphabetical order):
AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD (Werner Herzog)
AMARCORD (Federico Fellini)
COCKFIGHTER (Monte Hellman)
THE CONVERSATION (Francis Ford Coppola)
THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE (Jean Eustache)
PENTHESILEA: QUEEN OF THE AMAZONS (Laura Mulvey/Peter Wollen)
LE PETIT THÉÂTRE DE JEAN RENOIR (Jean Renoir)
SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (Ingmar Bergman)
TONI (Jean Renoir)
and…
WHAT? (Roman Polanski)
I’d like to think I’m missing something which prevents me from fully appreciating this film.
Wow. I wouldn’t be so vulgar as to suggest that the estimable Mr. Rosenbaum was making what one might call a ‘crotch vote” in this case, and given Sydne Rome’s charms I wouldn’t blame him if he was…still, I’d rather look at it as an example of taking advantage of the new freedoms, ya know what I mean?…