My apologies, I didn't proofreed the comment upon entering it into this here box and failed to see that the paragraph breaks were lost. At the risk of redundancy I will attempt to post the comment again as intended. I am sorry for the double post (though i fear they were in there originally and there is something I am missing. If this is published again without paragraph breaks let me further apologise for wasting everyone's time.) I am honestly surprised by not only the content of this article but the tone. As the editor of the paper one would think that while you would come to the defense of your writer you would refrain from mud-slinging and the belittling language of a slighted adolescent, not to mention the blind assertions tossed around which fall far below one who should have a better idea of the press and public discourse. From beginning your post with the dismissive suggestion of “J. Hoberman…unleashing his minions”, while seemingly dismissing the actual research conducted by writing “remember that?” (which is it? To chastise a critic for going to a library or to belittle it?), through your dismissal of Baumbach’s film on the grounds that it was “little-watched”, to your insinuations that Vadim Rizov was “getting background from Hoberman” you strike the same sanctimonious tenor that seems to have gotten Mr. White into this entire brouhaha. While I will leave the semantic debates of the Mr. Jealousy review aside, though your rephrasing of White’s closing lines as “we’d be better off if this person had never been born” hardly soften the accusatory nature of the original review (and this is not to mention the fact that in a later interview Mr. White labeled Mr. Baumbach an asshole), I fail to understand the leap towards Mr. White’s oft defense of the Catholic Church as a valid means of clarifying your point (let alone the fact that contradiction of ideas has been a hallmark of Mr. White’s reviews). This is tantamount to the old stand-by of “how can I hate group X, some of my best friends are X!” Further, your assertions comparing Mr. White as a “Paulette” and Mr. Hoberman as having his own “protégé’s due to his tutelage as a professor of film criticism at NYU”, first, is comparing someone being slandered for the tradition in which they write and finding an equivalency in another having followers. How does this work as an apt comparison? Second, the description of Mr. Hoberman as “a professor of film criticism at NYU” is hardly telling of the truth. Mr. Hoberman is not a full-time faculty member at NYU’s Department of Cinema Studies. He often teaches one undergraduate level course during the summer semester, a time in which most students in the department are not even taking classes. This would also not fall under the guise of film criticism but, as the department describes on their webpage they are “devoted to the history, theory and aesthetics of the moving image.” Mr. Hoberman, has taught far more at Cooper Union, also teaching film history, not criticism. But the fact that a spare course here or there at NYU does more to prove your false assertion that he has “minions” doing his dirty work for him, in this case Mr. Rivoz, who has denied your allegations, when simple research shows he has a far more substantial teaching position at Cooper Union only furthers the fact that you would rather toss out assertions, allegations and connections that, while are certainly bombastic, have very little grounding in reality. That you are the editor of a respected weekly paper only makes your rhetoric and journalistic standards all the worse.

 

I am honestly surprised by not only the content of this article but the tone. As the editor of the paper one would think that while you would come to the defense of your writer you would refrain from mud-slinging and the belittling language of a slighted adolescent, not to mention the blind assertions tossed around which fall far below one who should have a better idea of the press and public discourse. From beginning your post with the dismissive suggestion of “J. Hoberman…unleashing his minions”, while seemingly dismissing the actual research conducted by writing “remember that?” (which is it? To chastise a critic for going to a library or to belittle it?), through your dismissal of Baumbach’s film on the grounds that it was “little-watched”, to your insinuations that Vadim Rizov was “getting background from Hoberman” you strike the same sanctimonious tenor that seems to have gotten Mr. White into this entire brouhaha. While I will leave the semantic debates of the Mr. Jealousy review aside, though your rephrasing of White’s closing lines as “we’d be better off if this person had never been born” hardly soften the accusatory nature of the original review (and this is not to mention the fact that in a later interview Mr. White labeled Mr. Baumbach an asshole), I fail to understand the leap towards Mr. White’s oft defense of the Catholic Church as a valid means of clarifying your point (let alone the fact that contradiction of ideas has been a hallmark of Mr. White’s reviews). This is tantamount to the old stand-by of “how can I hate group X, some of my best friends are X!” Further, your assertions comparing Mr. White as a “Paulette” and Mr. Hoberman as having his own “protégé’s due to his tutelage as a professor of film criticism at NYU”, first, is comparing someone being slandered for the tradition in which they write and finding an equivalency in another having followers. How does this work as an apt comparison? Second, the description of Mr. Hoberman as “a professor of film criticism at NYU” is hardly telling of the truth. Mr. Hoberman is not a full-time faculty member at NYU’s Department of Cinema Studies. He often teaches one undergraduate level course during the summer semester, a time in which most students in the department are not even taking classes. This would also not fall under the guise of film criticism but, as the department describes on their webpage they are “devoted to the history, theory and aesthetics of the moving image.” Mr. Hoberman, has taught far more at Cooper Union, also teaching film history, not criticism. But the fact that a spare course here or there at NYU does more to prove your false assertion that he has “minions” doing his dirty work for him, in this case Mr. Rivoz, who has denied your allegations, when simple research shows he has a far more substantial teaching position at Cooper Union only furthers the fact that you would rather toss out assertions, allegations and connections that, while are certainly bombastic, have very little grounding in reality. That you are the editor of a respected weekly paper only makes your rhetoric and journalistic standards all the worse.

 

Yeah, I'll back up Vadim here. The guy just did his homework. And if he's a Hoberman minion, well, hell, I'm one, too. Some allegiances never die.

 

While I appreciate being called a "minion," I have to say I got zero background from Hoberman. Everything I linked to was Google-able when I wrote the post; I'm actually capable of doing internet research. I'll just leave it at that.