Essential Cinema: On the Necessity of Film Canons

I couldn't say that I've always agreed with Rosenbaum - his raising of the sleek Rear Window above Vertigo, his preference for the tedious Spider's Stratagem instead of the traumwelt of Il Conformista, much on Hou Hsiao-Hsien, who I love, but precious little about Tsai Ming-Liang, his excessive praise for Maddin, are all probable points of contentious banter. But having also sat through the seven plus hours of Tarr's Satantango, and found myself very much on the same page as Rosenbaum, I've come to think that these are mere quibbles and noticed that, more often than not, I've been cheering his opinions from the aisles. And, of course, he's right about the vast majority of film reviewers being star-struck lickspittles, not to say paid lackeys. What we have in Jonathan Rosenbaum is a writer who, like Gilberto Perez, seems incapable of NOT furnishing his readers with fresh thoughts and new insights about works that they thought, incorrectly, they knew sufficiently well. This is what a critic, in any field, must seek to accomplish, and something which most fail at miserably. I cannot think of higher praise for this collection. But read his Altman chapter: it goes to the very core of the whys of Bob's sustained influence. Essential cinema and essential reading then, and, what's best, at a moment when, more than ever, a larger share of the films he mentions can now be viewed by anyone with a DVD player. Better times.

Rosenbaum proves himself once again to be among the most knowledgeable and eloquent film critics in print today. Unlike some of his other volumes such as "Movie Wars," Rosenbaum doesn't discuss the grim realities of corporate Hollywood so much (although he does comment on filmmakers who have been treated unfairly by the system), as he evaluates directors and films which he believes are of historical and artistic importance, such as Orson Welles, Fritz Lang, Eric Von Stroheim, Yasujiro Ozu, and Sam Fuller. Rosenbaum writes with clarity and insight on a number of film-related topics, such as screenwriting and mise en scene. He's remarkably intelligent and has a keen eye for film aesthetics; he's passionate about the French director Jacques Tati which is slightly problematic because Rosenbaum worked as an assistant for Tati for a time which may slant his opinions of the auteur. Never the less, Essential Cinema is one of the best collections of film criticism I've read in a while, and his personal favorite 1,000 movies list is a valuable resource, though I disagree with a number of selections. The book is a worthwhile purchase for any cinephile.

A inexhaustible book, that truly deserves its title. Jonathan Rosenbaum is a sparkling writer, an absolute master in film criticism and analysis, and his brilliant fight in favor of the diversity and quality of cinema is historical.

Jonathan Rosenbaum's new volume of film criticism is somewhat different from his earlier collections. Long critical of the hegemony of Hollywood and the way commerical hype has overshadowed criticism, Rosenbaum's new book pays strikingly little attention to movies the average American is likely to have heard of, let alone seen. Whereas past volumes contained notable polemics against Woody Allen, "Mississipi Burning," and "Forrest Gump," Hollywood pictures are rather rare here. There are Rosenbaum's vigorous defences of "Eyes Wide Shut," and "A.I.", as well as a unsurpringly contemptuous article on "Pretty Woman." There is a cold dissection of the evasions of "Taxi Driver" that is especially acute about how Travis Bickle's racism is whitewashed, so to speak. "Fargo" is compared to Krzysztof Kieslowski's "Decalogue" and does not come off well in the bargain. There are unsurprisingly respectful articles in praise of "Greed", "M", "Rear Window," and Orson Welles. Somewhat on the edge of the average American moviegoer's consciousness, there are articles in praise of "Ghost Dog," and "Waking Life." But overall this is a book that is decidedly internationalist and highbrow in its choice, although Rosenbaum's reasoning can lead to the most surprising choices. One should look at the appendix where Rosenbaum lists his one thousand favorite movies, with his favorite one hundred starred with an asterix. Rather strikingly, only six Oscar winners for best picture make the list, and only one, "The Best Years of Our Lives," makes his top one hundred. Only one nominee for Best Picture since 1988, 1998's "The Thin Red Line," makes the list. Yet almost every major film-maker appears on this list at least once. Although James Cameron is one of the few exceptions, Blake Edwards appears with "The Party," while Brian de Palma appears twice, including 2002's underrated "Femme Fatale." This is a list where Steven Spielberg is represented by his two biggest commercial disappointments. This is a list where "Bram Stoker's Dracula," trumps "The Godfather" movies, where "Bitter Moon" outraces "Chinatown" and "Tess," where "King of Comedy," beats "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," and "Goodfellas," and where "The Young Girls of Rochefort" and "Guys and Dolls," are Rosenbaum's favorite musicals. At the same time "Ishtar" is one of Rosenbaum's favorite Hollywood films from the eighties. Meanwhile Chaplin, Welles, Hitchcock, Godard, Bresson, and Kiarostami take pride of place. Looking from this list back to the book proper we see many articles which help explain the many movies on the list that American readers are unlikely to have heard of. The choices are almost defiantly internationalist, highbrow and experimental, and with the exception of J. Hoberman, it is hard to think of any comparable critic sharing the same values and willing to ignore the middlebrow consensus. Who would have thought, before looking at this book, that the most important filmakers in the wo