Critics at Large Live: The Right to Get It Wrong

Summary

Critics at Large Live: The Right to Get It Wrong – A Comprehensive Summary

Release Date: March 20, 2025

Introduction: Celebrating a Century of The New Yorker

In this special live episode of Critics at Large, hosted by The New Yorker, Vincent Cunningham, Nomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz come together at the Bell House in Brooklyn to commemorate the magazine's 100th anniversary. The hosts reflect on a century of New Yorker criticism, exploring how critics have evolved and, notably, how they've occasionally missed the mark.

A Nostalgic Look Back: The Game Show Segment

To kick off the celebration, the hosts engage the live audience with an interactive game centered around historical New Yorker reviews. They present excerpts from past reviews and challenge the audience to identify the films or books being critiqued. This segment not only serves as entertainment but also underscores the theme of the episode: the fallibility of critics.

Example Highlight:

• Vincent Cunningham [06:06]: "In 1989, Terrence Rafferty called this classic rom-com 'helplessly false...'"

The audience successfully identifies the review as pertaining to When Harry Met Sally, showcasing both the depth of archival knowledge and the changing perceptions of beloved classics.

When Critics Miss the Mark: Notable Missteps in New Yorker Reviews

The heart of the episode delves into instances where New Yorker's critics didn't quite hit the mark, emphasizing that being wrong is an inherent part of the critical process. The discussion highlights how criticism often mirrors its era's sentiments and societal norms, which can lead to misjudgments as tastes and contexts evolve.

Key Examples Discussed:

1. The Wizard of Oz (1939) – Russell Maloney's Review:

   • Nomi Fry [13:07]: Criticizes Walt Disney's The Wizard of Oz for lacking imagination and technical ingenuity.
   • Deborah Treisman [14:47]: Reflects on how this negative review contrasts sharply with the film's enduring legacy, reminding listeners that even iconic films faced skepticism upon release.

2. Scarface (1983) – Pauline Kael's Critique:

   • Nomi Fry [19:24]: Discusses Kael's disdain for Al Pacino's portrayal of Tony Montana, labeling him a "lump at the center of the movie."
   • Alex Schwartz [20:08]: Explores the complexity of Kael's analysis, acknowledging both agreement and disagreement with her points.

3. Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce:

   • Deborah Treisman [08:38]: Highlights the skepticism surrounding Joyce's complex novel, with critics questioning its accessibility and lasting impact.

Personal Reflections: Changing Perspectives

The hosts share personal anecdotes about instances where their initial critical stances evolved over time, underscoring the dynamic nature of taste and understanding.

• Nomi Fry [34:34]: Recounts her transformation from criticizing Todd Haynes' Carol to appreciating its nuances after viewing it again.
• Deborah Treisman [31:00]: Admits to revisiting Lost in Translation and finding new layers of appreciation despite initial reservations.

These stories illustrate the fluidity of criticism and the importance of remaining open to reevaluating one's opinions.

The Essence of Criticism: Passion and Honesty

A recurring theme is the necessity for critics to remain passionate and honest in their assessments. The hosts argue that true criticism isn't just about consensus but involves a deep engagement with the material, even if it means dissenting from popular opinion.

Notable Quote:

• Alex Schwartz [26:45]: "The note of passion is the mark of truth in criticism."

They emphasize that criticism thrives on diverse perspectives and that disagreements are vital for the evolution of cultural discourse.

Honoring Influential Critics: Richard Brody's Unique Perspective

The episode pays homage to Richard Brody, a revered New Yorker critic known for his unconventional takes. His positive review of Norbit, often viewed as a subpar film, is lauded for its nuanced appreciation of Eddie Murphy's talent, demonstrating how critics can find value in unexpected places.

Highlighted Quote:

• Alex Schwartz [38:40]: "Richard's ability to locate the spark in Norbit that resonates with fans showcases the depth and potential of thoughtful criticism."

Conclusion: Embracing the Right to Be Wrong

Wrapping up the celebration, the hosts affirm the importance of embracing the possibility of being wrong as a cornerstone of meaningful criticism. They advocate for a reflective approach that appreciates both successes and missteps in the critical landscape.

Final Insight:

• Nomi Fry [40:49]: "If you take nothing else from tonight, it really is great to care."

This sentiment encapsulates the episode's essence: that passion and honesty in criticism not only enrich cultural conversations but also foster personal growth among critics.

Closing Remarks: Looking Forward

While the episode concludes with acknowledgments and promotional content, the discussions leave listeners with a deeper appreciation for the complexities of criticism and the value of historical context in shaping contemporary viewpoints.

---

This comprehensive summary captures the key discussions, insights, and reflections from the live episode of Critics at Large, providing a nuanced understanding of the role and evolution of criticism within The New Yorker's storied legacy.

Transcript

[Vincent Cunningham]

One of the hardest parts about B2B marketing is reaching the right audience. We've all seen things pushed into our feeds that clearly weren't right for us. For instance, I keep getting ads for hiking and camping equipment, despite being a person who very much prefers her outdoor experience to involve sidewalks. Those ad dollars are wasted on me. And the stakes for B2B ads are even higher. So when you want to reach the right professionals, use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, and that's where it stands apart from other ad buys. You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority, skills, company revenue, all the professionals you need to reach in one place. Stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right ProfessionalsOnly on LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign. So you can try it yourself. Just go to LinkedIn.com New Yorker that's LinkedIn.com New Yorker terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads.

[Nomi Fry]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[Alex Schwartz]

Hey.

[Deborah Treisman]

All right, Brooklyn.

[Nomi Fry]

Hi, guys.

[Alex Schwartz]

Welcome to Critics at Large, a podcast from the New Yorker. I'm Vincent Cunningham.

[Nomi Fry]

I'm Nomi Fry.

[Deborah Treisman]

And I'm Alex Schwartz. Each week on this show, we make sense of what's happening in the culture right now and how we got here. Today's show is a special one.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah.

[Deborah Treisman]

A few weeks back, Critics at Large did a live show at the Bell House in Brooklyn. Maybe some of you listeners were even there.

[Nomi Fry]

Oh, my God. It's a full house.

[Deborah Treisman]

It's a full house in Brooklyn, New York.

[Nomi Fry]

Oh, my God, what a night already.

[Deborah Treisman]

And we did this event to celebrate the New Yorker's centenary. That's right. There have been 100 years of the New Yorker magazine. And that also means 100 years of new Yorker criticism. That's what you're hearing today in front of a live audience. We went through the archive and criticized the criticism. Enjoy.

[Nomi Fry]

I was. I have to say, I have to admit, I was a little bit afraid that no one would come. Like a classic birthday party.

[Deborah Treisman]

Sixteen candles.

[Nomi Fry]

Sixteen candles, yeah. Carrie Bradshaw celebrating her 35th birthday at Il Cantonori.

[Deborah Treisman]

But you know what? You were wrong.

[Nomi Fry]

I was wrong. Yay. Anyway, Hi, everyone. This is a big year. For the New Yorker, you guys, it's the centenary. 100 years old.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah.

[Nomi Fry]

I mean, that's a long time advanced. It's advanced, yeah. It's mature. And you know, we were trying to think about how we would take stock of this history and we thought that because we're critics, it would make sense for us to take a look back at at least a small portion of the criticism that the New Yorker has published over the past century. One thing that came to mind was how often critics of the past got things wrong. It's sort of, it's somehow just because I revere some of like the iconic New Yorker writers of the past so much, I was like, they must be always right, which is stupid, I know. But like, as you look back, you're like, oh, yeah. I mean, criticism is like a reflection of its time or if it's like of its moment.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yeah. We're not here to dunk on anyone.

[Nomi Fry]

No, not at all.

[Deborah Treisman]

Actually, we kind of are a little bit on some people, but we'll find out about that in a second. No, it was, I think, you know, we were thinking about New Yorker criticism and I certainly did not want us to be up here just patting ourselves on the back going, you know, happy hundred to us. Woo hoo.

[Alex Schwartz]

Although we will do.

[Nomi Fry]

Although we will be doing some of that.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yes. But I do think, and this is something I want, this is a case that's developing in my mind right now that I actually would like to discuss with you guys tonight, please. There's value to getting things wrong.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah, 100% just.

[Alex Schwartz]

It's like, what's wrong though, man?

[Nomi Fry]

What's wrong?

[Alex Schwartz]

It's like swimming upstream. Being an individual is the real thing. Being wrong according to the pressures of the time, the pressures of posterity, many ways to be, quote, unquote, wrong and still be a wonderful critic.

[Nomi Fry]

So, you know, we're going to be talking out some of these things and we're going to be doing it by looking at some of the critical takes that, you know, we've kind of like been returning to over the last couple of weeks in preparation for this evening. We thought to start things out on a bit of a lighter note, we're going to start with a game and. Yeah. Alex, will you take this iPad?

[Deborah Treisman]

Oh, it would be my honor. Okay, here's the deal. We need audience participation. We're breaking the fourth wall. We are going there. Here's what we're going to do. We are going to read some excerpts. I'm going to read some excerpts from New Yorker reviews of famous cultural offerings. And then you, our beloved audience, are going to guess what is being critiqued. There will be three options. I'm going to give them all to you, and then we're going to do a quick run through A, B or C. And I want to hear applause for your letter, what you think the review is about. So, please, generous tech people, can you fire up? Okay, our first review. Here we go. In 1989, Terrence Rafferty called this classic rom com helplessly false writing that the director seems determined now to touch the audience rather than merely tickle it.

[Nomi Fry]

That's a little scary.

[Alex Schwartz]

I think I would rather be touched than merely tickled.

[Nomi Fry]

I mean, I don't know.

[Alex Schwartz]

Just touch. Go ahead and touch.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah.

[Deborah Treisman]

Was this criminal film A, When Harry Met Sally, B, say anything. Or C, working Girl? All right, can I hear it for A who thinks it's A? Okay.

[Alex Schwartz]

That is, I would characterize that as lusty upon.

[Deborah Treisman]

That's lusty. Do I have any takers for B? Thank you for being bold.

[Nomi Fry]

Plurality.

[Deborah Treisman]

And C, anyone? Wow.

[Nomi Fry]

Okay.

[Deborah Treisman]

You are one smart audience. The answer is indeed A, When Harry Met Sally.

[Nomi Fry]

What an audience.

[Deborah Treisman]

Lies, lies and more.

[Alex Schwartz]

The clapper is for C, Admirably willing to be wrong. Admirably willing to swim.

[Nomi Fry]

And this was paired, by the way, with a review of Soderbergh Sex Lies in Videotape.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yeah, which he liked. Which he liked.

[Nomi Fry]

But I just noticed in all lowercase, the title of Sudden.

[Deborah Treisman]

That's how it's styled.

[Nomi Fry]

No, no, no. I believe it, but I just never. I never clocked it.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yeah, well, we will be coming back to this review because we all need an excuse to think more about this sweater and how anyone could speak ill of it. But for now, we will be moving on to our next question. In 2003, John Lahr declared that this musical had, quote, all the suspense of an algebraic equation and that of the show's 22 songs, again, quote, not one of them is memorable. Could it be A Hairspray, B, B, Wicked or C, Roadshow? Let's hear it for A, who thinks this is Hairspray. All right, let's hear it for B.

[Nomi Fry]

O, N.

[Deborah Treisman]

And C. The famous Roadshow. We don't even remember what it is. It was B, Wicked. The best title that the New Yorker ever ran.

[Nomi Fry]

Bitches and Witches.

[Alex Schwartz]

That's not nice.

[Deborah Treisman]

Bitches and Witches. This was a double review of a production of. Of Cat on a Hot and Roof and Wicked. And the title is beautiful.

[Alex Schwartz]

Amazing.

[Deborah Treisman]

It's amazing.

[Alex Schwartz]

Anything that runs in 2003. I just blame on the Iraq war. How about you? It's like they were. It was a weird time.

[Deborah Treisman]

Moving along to our next entry. In 1939, Clifton Fadiman suggested that this novel was either a work of art, a work of artifice, or a work of psychosis.

[Nomi Fry]

Spicy. So spicy.

[Deborah Treisman]

It's really good. Could it be A, the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, famously artificial and psychotic. Could it be B, Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce? Or could it be C, and then there were none by a little known writer called Agatha Christie? Okay, let's hear it for A. Grapes of Wrath, haters in the house. Let's hear it for B. C. It's B.

[Alex Schwartz]

This audience got his finger on the pulse. I got his own.

[Nomi Fry]

Don't shoot the book reviewer. He's doing the best he can.

[Deborah Treisman]

Well, I actually think having to review Finnegan's Wake is pretty. Pretty admirable this. So I. I have here that this review also includes the line, one doubts that Finnegan's wake will be grasped, at least in our time, except by a few conscientious philologists and a small lunatic fringe of auto hypnotic Joyceians.

[Alex Schwartz]

Jeez.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yeah, that sounds right.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah. Ross Perot voters.

[Deborah Treisman]

There's an overlap.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah.

[Deborah Treisman]

Okay, we have one more for the brilliant audience in the house which so far has not led us astray. Pauline Kael called this 1980s erotic thriller just about the worst dating movie imaginable, declaring it a gross out slasher movie in a glossy format. Was it A, dress to Kill, B, Body Heat, or C, Fatal Attraction? Let me hear it for A, B, C. It was indeed Fatal Attraction. I think this is a great review. I don't know if you guys reread it.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah, I did reread it.

[Deborah Treisman]

What do you think?

[Nomi Fry]

I thought it was amazing. Yeah, yeah, she's just. I mean, we'll be talking about Pauline Kael. What a genius, honestly.

[Alex Schwartz]

The people's critic, really.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah, but also. But also. Not like also. Just like so beyond what anyone else could do.

[Alex Schwartz]

Right, right, right, right.

[Nomi Fry]

You know, Anyway, a round of applause to our audience.

[Deborah Treisman]

Thank you.

[Nomi Fry]

We can pull the wool over your eyes.

[Deborah Treisman]

No, you are. You are at least two steps ahead.

[Nomi Fry]

In a minute we look at reviews from the New Yorker archives, some of which have not aged particularly well. Critics at large from the New Yorker will be right back. Hi, I'm Deborah Treisman, fiction editor of the New Yorker. Each week on the Writer's Voice podcast, New Yorker fiction writers read their newly published stories from the magazine. You can hear from authors like Colson Whitehead.

[Alex Schwartz]

Turner nudged Elwood, who had a look of horror on his face. They saw it. Griff wasn't going down. He was going to go for it. No matter what happened after.

[Nomi Fry]

Or Joy Williams, her father was silent.

[Vincent Cunningham]

Slowly, he passed his hand over his hair.

[Nomi Fry]

This usually meant that he was traveling to a place immune to her presence.

[Vincent Cunningham]

A place that indeed contradicted her presence. She might as well go to lunch.

[Nomi Fry]

Listen to news stories, or dive into our archive of great fiction. You can find the work of your favorite fiction writers and discover new ones. Listen and follow the writer's voice wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, let's think about this notion of kind of things that haven't held up. Can we maybe just start with the New Yorker's famous review of the wizard of Oz, the movie from 1939 by Russell Maloney? Yeah, I.

[Deborah Treisman]

Poor Russell.

[Nomi Fry]

Poor.

[Deborah Treisman]

Well, yeah, well, he's just like, there to be trotted out at occasions like this.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah, yeah. I'm gonna. I'm just gonna. I'm just gonna read a few. A few choice lines. Fantasy is still Walt Disney's undisputed domain. Nobody else can tell a fairy tale with his clarity of imagination. It's so funny to me when I read this, I'm like, oh, Walt Disney is a person. Like, this is still when, like, Walt Disney was with us and he was a person actually producing these movies rather than a company and also a company. But yeah, his simple good taste or his technical ingenuity, this was forcibly borne in on me and as I said, cringing before MGM's Technicolor production of the wizard of Oz, which displays no trace of imagination, good taste, or ingenuity. Okay, a few lines down, the good witch interrupts them, warning Dorothy not to give up the slippers, whereupon the Wicked Witch snarls, you keep out of this. Well, there it is. Either you believe witches talk like that or you don't. I don' since the wizard of Oz is full of stuff as bad as that or worse, I say it's a stinkeroo.

[Alex Schwartz]

I have all this trouble filing. I wish I could end my reviews with It's a stinkeroo.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah, it's.

[Alex Schwartz]

That never even occurred to me.

[Nomi Fry]

As simple as that. So, okay, you guys. Like, how did this review get it wrong?

[Deborah Treisman]

Okay, well, I have a few things to say about this review because I feel a bit fondly toward it. We like to think about the past. We like to think about a movie like the wizard of Oz as if it's always been on this plinth. And especially with all the business around Wicked. Now, love Wicked. Or maybe not love it so much. Like me and John Lahr. There are, of course, all these comparisons to the wizard of Oz and how amazing it is and unimpeachably wonderful and the imagination. And so you sort of think, okay, back in 1939, people must have been sitting before this thing. The second she goes from Sepia, Kansas, into Oz, everyone's jaw's on the floor, they're gasping, they're clutching their chests. They've never seen anything like this. It's Technicolor. My God. And actually, we have this review to remind us. No, that was not a universal reaction. We do not get to go back to the past and just say this consensus has always been established. Because there is this idea now that it is such a great, wonderful, bedrock film, which I think it is. Yeah. And so I just love that out here, flapping around in the breeze is this guy who's like, turn down the Technicolor. Some of us don't find it very funny. Yeah, okay. You know, all right. There was not this kind of bedrock consensus that we think there was. And I think that's good to remember and to know.

[Nomi Fry]

Always historicize.

[Alex Schwartz]

Always. Yeah.

[Nomi Fry]

Always historic.

[Deborah Treisman]

I do love to historicize.

[Alex Schwartz]

Yeah. Like, the fact that things that are come down to us as if, like, on tablets or whatever were, like, goofy. And it's like, to remind ourselves that, oh, there's a goofiness in here that I have sort of skipped over on my way to, like, you know, the dead thing, which is appreciation.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah.

[Alex Schwartz]

To sort of revivify it through, like, oh, this is a weird fucking movie. Is a. Is a service.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Does it. Does it not, as critics also kind of free you up a little bit maybe, to think of this goofiness. Like, it's. It's fine. It's like it's a living thing. It's not necessarily, like. Not everything is set. Needs to be set in stone for forever. We have a couple of examples here. Each of us selected a passage from a review to kind of engage with briefly. And I believe Alex's will be first.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yes. We've already seen a little bit of it.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah. So this is from the Rafferty When Harry Met Sally review from 1987. Alex, take. Take it away. What. What did the review get wrong? What's your own response to this take? Like, what are you feeling when you look at it?

[Deborah Treisman]

Well, this review brought up a lot of feelings for me when I was reading it before. And that's why I was like, we cannot just leave it to the game. Because one thing that I actually want and want to know from the audience also and from you guys is. And when you're reading a review, if someone is really going at something you love and just shredding it, like a cat with the claws out, just tearing a little ribbon into bits, you feel a little hurt, I think, and you feel maybe a bit wounded. Maybe you feel angry, maybe you feel indignant. And so I felt all these feelings while reading Mr. Rafferty tearing to shreds When Harry Met Sally. And I also sort of thought, like, okay, I see what you're saying. I get it. You know, he's talking here about. He's comparing it to the great screwball comedies from the past, and he finds this movie lacking by comparison. He doesn't think that the leads have chemistry. I beg to differ. He doesn't think that anything that happens in this movie is fun or exciting. I totally beg to differ. He doesn't even mention Carrie Fisher, which I find shocking. I find absolutely shocking. He thinks that the orgasm scene in Cats is out of character. It goes on and on and on. But what I do like about this, like, can we say that he got it wrong? I'm gonna guess that most people who are sitting here tonight agree with me that he did. Eh, yeah. Okay. Yeah, we have. Does anyone think he got it right? I saw hands.

[Nomi Fry]

A brave hand rises in the darkness.

[Deborah Treisman]

So this is what I like. I think it again comes back to the same thing I was thinking about the wizard of Oz. I do take it a bit for granted that there's a cultural consensus behind this movie, but it made the movie come alive for me again to have to dispute it with the critic.

[Nomi Fry]

Let us move to my selection, which is Pauline Kael writing about Scarface. And this is a review from 1983, the year of De Palma's Scarface, the year it came out.

[Deborah Treisman]

There are gasps in the audience as the audience reads what's on the screen.

[Nomi Fry]

And so. And so, you know, Scarface is a movie I like very much. It's nearly three hours of unstoppable, you know, like, violence, like Pacino overacting cocaine guns, like chainsaws. But Kale didn't like this movie very much. Okay. And her main kind of beef with it, I guess, is that the movie, especially towards its end, wants to be an epic that suggests, like, a tragedy or kind of character development. But in fact, it hasn't built up to that in Tony Montana's Al Pacino's character because he is a lump at the center of the movie. Okay? So, first of all, I just love that. A lump. I kind of agree with it, but I don't think it's a bad thing. Like, I don't think. I think he is a static character, but I think that's kind of part of the point the movie is trying to make. So she. So here's a case where, for me, she's getting it wrong in the sense that she doesn't like something that I like, but she's not getting it wrong, diagnostically, if you will. But then also, one of the things I love about her criticism is she. Criticism is all about close reading, you know, and paying attention to moments. And, you know, this moment where you guys, probably many of you remember this, where he's trying to get, like, Michelle Pfeiffer's attention and he's dancing next to her, and he is like a horny country bumpkin, which I think is. So he's all right. He's all eyes for Elvira Bobs around her on the dance floor. And so she's Even as. She's kind of, like, dissing him or dissing the characterization of this. Of this protagonist, she can give it to him. She's like, oh, but look at this moment where he's dancing. This is a moment where he comes alive. And her reviews, this review in particular, and her reviews in general, are full of these kind of asides, full of these small, careful attentions to moments side by side with a kind of more sweeping structural analysis. And it's so respectful. It's loose, but it's respectful.

[Deborah Treisman]

I don't know. I don't know how Al Pacino got up the next day having been called a lump.

[Nomi Fry]

No, it's not a good review. No.

[Deborah Treisman]

It's like, I know what you're. I know what you're saying. I know what you're saying. Of course.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah.

[Deborah Treisman]

Because she's considering it seriously.

[Nomi Fry]

She's considering it seriously. She's giving it the time. Yeah. Let's move along to Vincent's selection.

[Alex Schwartz]

This is from one of my favorite critics, Rest in peace, Peter Schjeldahl, recently departed, art critic of the New Yorker. And he takes on one of my favorite painters, Renoir. This is controversial. A lot of people do not like Renoir. They think that the figures are kind of cheesy and gauzy. There is this, like, taint of perhaps, like, misogynistic objectification that sort of is, I think, the too easily fashionable view of Renoir. He says. And the first sentence is really the part that I love about this review, even while he lands in a measured place, actually. But like many of Schjel Dahl's best reviews, he takes things paragraph by paragraph, stating the negative case, stating the positive case, filling it with all these lovely sort of like blooming trains of thought. Renoir's women, he says, strum, no erotic nerves in me. Okay, so, like, why should they? Peter, that's not why we go to the museum. Boy.

[Nomi Fry]

I myself like to jack off in the museum.

[Alex Schwartz]

You and me both. And then he indulges the argument from misogyny, right? Their faces nearly always look, not to put too fine a a point on it. Dumb, rough. That is too fine a point.

[Nomi Fry]

He's saying the same thing that Pauline Kael is saying about Tony Montana said, they're lumps.

[Alex Schwartz]

They're lumps. Indifference to women as individuals with inner lives. Our next slide is one of these famous nudes. I don't think this lady looks dumb.

[Deborah Treisman]

Wow, what a defense. Nor does she's thrilled to have you on her side.

[Alex Schwartz]

And nor does she not strum an erotic note or whatever the fuck he said, you know? But what I will say though is that the first sentence, for me, even a review that you disagree with reminds you of the history of the utility of an art. When I read this, it reminded me that there are like, erotics to painterly portraits that, like, one of the reasons for them is to regard them and to look at people with respect to your own tastes and sensibilities. What I like about all of these reviews, actually is this, like, taking on of a history like that. The critic stands at a crossroads. Someone saying, okay, the romantic comedy is going to be something new today. It used to be this, here's the screwball. It's going to be this new thing where they do a bunch of jokes, a bunch of stick, right? Or you know the history of Pacino, right? He used this thing that he did in Godfather II. Cruz'Yeah. Here's this new thing he's doing each time. They sort of like corral a history to say, so what now? Like, there's this kind of crisis in each of the pieces. And so Sheldahl's like, and can painting yet get me horny? And that's something that I want to know too.

[Deborah Treisman]

Well, there is another thing about that line, I think, which is as a critic, you are just reacting and trying to figure out what your reaction is like. Hopefully you have a feeling and Then you can put some words to it and your brain can come in and do something. I do kind of like that Peter Schjeldahl is just out there being like, didn't get the feeling? No, it's true.

[Nomi Fry]

I mean, like you're sitting in a.

[Deborah Treisman]

Musical, you're not tapping your feet, you didn't get the feeling. And then you have to figure out what went wrong.

[Nomi Fry]

That's absolutely true. I mean, I think when he said, I don't. I can't pretend to know what he meant exactly by erotics, you know, But I do think that there's something about criticism. It's like, there's a real difference for me at least. And I imagine that for you guys as well, when you approach writing about something. I know when I want to write about something, I know that it excites me. And it's not necessarily erotic, but I know that it's like it's getting the juices flowing. Oh, this is gonna be fun. Like, this is gonna be funny. This is gonna be interesting. Whereas sometimes you're like, assign something or. I mean, usually the New Yorker is actually kind of amazing about letting you write about what you want to write about and not forcing you to write about things you aren't excited about. But every so often it happens that you write about something that's, you know, not that exciting to you and there's a real difference. And it doesn't strum the erotic, you know, whatever it is in your body. And criticism is about getting excited about art.

[Alex Schwartz]

I think it's. Teddy Pendergrass is an R and B song that says, if loving to you is wrong and maybe hating too, I don't want to be right. That like, the note of passion is the. Is the mark of truth in criticism, not.

[Deborah Treisman]

Can I tell you something so embarrassing about that? I have to expose myself on stage right now. I once began a review myself with that line. It was not for the New Yorker, it was for my college newspaper. And it was about the Kings of Leon.

[Nomi Fry]

What? Oh my God.

[Alex Schwartz]

I've been begging around that, digging on, and you were just like, wow.

[Nomi Fry]

The Followell Brothers. Sex on fire.

[Deborah Treisman]

I was an 18 year old new York City kid and I had never encountered anything like it.

[Nomi Fry]

Quite simply, listen, they had long hair. They came from the South. South. They were a traveling ragtag band of masculine, you know, wild men.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yeah. That's really nice of you to say. I sounded prepared.

[Alex Schwartz]

Did you have a Kings of Leon thing?

[Nomi Fry]

I mean, briefly.

[Deborah Treisman]

So I guess we can all say that we've gotten it wrong.

[Nomi Fry]

Listen, listen. We were just girls once.

[Deborah Treisman]

That's true.

[Nomi Fry]

So when we talk about getting it wrong, what do we actually mean? Critics at large for the New Yorker will be right back. You come to the New Yorker Radio Hour for conversations that go deeper with people you really want to hear from, whether it's Bruce Springsteen or Questlove or Olivia Rodrigo, Liz Cheney, or the godfather of artificial intelligence, Geoffrey Hinton, or some of my extraordinarily well informed colleagues at the New Yorker. So join us every week on the New Yorker Radio Hour wherever you listen to podcasts. So many of these things that we've been going through are kind of pans, Right. What we would call pans. Like, have you written pans? Pans. Like, what's your feeling when you approach something and, you know, you really don't like the thing that you've. You're set to review? Does it, like, does your heart stop? Are you raring to go?

[Alex Schwartz]

My very first piece for the New Yorker was a pan. It was a negative review of the photographer and sort of interviewer Brandon Stanton's book of humans of New York.

[Nomi Fry]

Oh, yes, yes.

[Alex Schwartz]

Somebody here is Kings of Leon pilled for Brandon. I could feel the passion. No. But I took exception to it. And I do think that there is a particular thrill of moments when you know that a lot of people are gonna hear your opinion and you know that it's one that might not, like, run in parallel. The sort of part of that, like, quickening that you describe.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah.

[Alex Schwartz]

It's not unlike what we all do. Right. Like you leave the theater. I had this recently, like, I was hanging out with some friends who had recently seen Anora, and I was like, let's talk about. Because I just, like, wanted, like, jump into the Thunderdome with them, you know, so that moment when you know your opinion is gonna meet the rest of the world, however broadly construed, like, there's something there, you never lose the.

[Nomi Fry]

It's interesting that it. That you're saying it happened early on in your New Yorker tenure. And I think it happened to me as well. Not so much. I mean, I can't call it criticism, but I famously. Or not famously, whatever. I mean, some people remember this. Famously wrote about Ben Affleck, like, analyzed this picture of him standing on the beach, you know, looking. Looking pensive. It wasn't exactly criticism, but it was, you know, I kind of criticized. It was. I mean, it wasn't a work of art, but looking pensive.

[Deborah Treisman]

With a significant back tattoo.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah. With a huge back Tattoo of a phoenix. And it was one of the first thing I wrote after becoming a staff writer in 2018. And it wasn't even a pan. It was just like a consideration that didn't. No, that didn't take into account. I didn't understand so many people would be reading it. Okay, I think that's something that.

[Alex Schwartz]

Which sounds seriously like you have to kind of forget that to write it.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yeah.

[Nomi Fry]

And you have to forget it. And I still forget. It's not like now I'm just like giving accolades all over the place, you know, because I realized there's a. I still, I'm still honest with myself. But I think there is this sense when you're writing criticism nowadays which, like, you know, Pauline Kael didn't have to deal with or Rafferty or, you know, whoever else that people are going to react to it. It's like a two way street in a way it wasn't before. Like, it used to be that maybe you would run into whatever director at Sardis or something and they would like throw a glass of martini in your face. But now it's like people are like, you know, like, dming you like Die Bitch. You know, and it's like, it's a little bit different and you have to go. And you have to.

[Deborah Treisman]

It's just a little bit different.

[Nomi Fry]

You have to go private. I know you had similar experiences too, Alex. I mean, it's crazy out there.

[Deborah Treisman]

Well, it's a really interesting, it's an interesting point about the pan. Are you stuck on the martinis?

[Alex Schwartz]

I was stuck on Die Bitch. They were both working at the same time.

[Deborah Treisman]

It was very good. It was very good. Well, I think the pan has an interesting place in this discussion of getting it wrong. Because sometimes you write a pan and you are. And you know, you're summing up the consensus opinion. When I reviewed Diana the Musical, I.

[Alex Schwartz]

Didn'T think, what a great piece.

[Deborah Treisman]

Thank you. I think it was about, you know, 150 words long. It came at the tail end of another review of something else, you know, but, but when, when I'm reviewing Diana the Musical, I'm not sitting there thinking, ooh, I'm really sticking my neck out on this one.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah, yeah.

[Deborah Treisman]

Like for instance, John Lahr at the end of his review of Wicked, kind of said there was a standing ovation in this audience. They're all a bunch of idiots. You know, he uses essentially. Yeah, he uses a line. He uses a song from the musical to say, when people are brainless, living is painless. And points it at the audience. Okay, Those are actually fighting words. So sometimes a pan does not mean sticking your neck out. It means, oh, okay, yeah, no good. And let's have a little bit of fun with this. But I do think often a pan is written in the spirit of, you all got it wrong. And that is actually a very powerful place to be. But it can cut in a number of different directions. Like, sometimes I think to myself, and I don't think this is totally true, but sometimes I think a pan is a young person's game, you know? Cause you're there. You're like, oh, I'm gonna tell you, Jeffrey Eugenides, who I wrote a pan of when I was, you know, quite a number of years ago, you have no idea who I am, but here I am to tell you. I think it's a way of sharpening your sensibility and sharpening yourself. And you have your armor on. You have your, you know, your bristles up because you know that you're going. Often that you're going at something or something. Someone who people value or that they enjoy. And I think this question of getting it wrong, it asks the obvious question to whom? I have a kind of weird question I want to ask you guys. Please, do you ever like getting it wrong?

[Nomi Fry]

It has happened to me. I'm trying to think. You know, when Carol came out, the Todd Haynes movie, I was the one person in the world who didn't like it. And I wrote. I think it was for the New Republic. I wrote a review. It wasn't a pan, but I was critical. And then I took my daughter to see it last Christmas at Metrograph, and I was like, this is a pretty good movie. And that happened to me, too, with Lost in Translation, which I didn't write about, but I watched, and I was like, what is this, like, hipster garbage? Like, I hate this. I was like, in grad school, I hated everything. I was like, this is disgusting. And then I watch it on a plane a couple years ago, and I was moved by it.

[Deborah Treisman]

We all know we can't fully account for what happens on planes because of the oxygen and the pressure.

[Nomi Fry]

You're right. But I really enjoyed. And I was like, oh, this is especially, you know, it's kind of an early movie for Sofia Coppola. I was like, oh, this is actually quite good.

[Alex Schwartz]

The plain thing is why I plan never to watch House of Gucci again. Because in my mind, 10 out of 10.

[Nomi Fry]

Wow.

[Deborah Treisman]

Actually, it's an amazing plane movie.

[Alex Schwartz]

Fucking love it.

[Deborah Treisman]

I enjoyed all three hours and 100 minutes of it on a plane.

[Alex Schwartz]

Lady Gaga is the real Daniel Day Lewis.

[Deborah Treisman]

You know, I'm thinking about someone like Dorothy Parker.

[Nomi Fry]

Yes.

[Deborah Treisman]

Who. Because we're talking about negative and willing to go against the grain. Do you know about her Winnie the Pooh review? Do you know about her Winnie the Pooh review?

[Alex Schwartz]

Put on some pants, man. I don't think that's what she said.

[Nomi Fry]

Which surprised me. Not far off, because I think. Wasn't she, like, saying something to the effect of, like, this book is so babyish kind of. And I'm like, yeah, it's, like, for babies. Like, it's. Yeah, but go ahead.

[Deborah Treisman]

Well, she. So she was known as the constant reader. And she basically, in this review of one out of the Pooh of. It's just a long, extended quote of Pooh humming and sort of walking around and saying, Tweedle Dee. I'm humming along. And she just quotes this thing. And then at the end she said. And that, you know, is when the constant reader thwote up. She does a whole. It's. You have to really see it in print. But do I think she got it wrong? Yeah.

[Nomi Fry]

Yes, absolutely.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yeah. I think the charm of Winnie.

[Nomi Fry]

Oh, my God.

[Deborah Treisman]

Lost.

[Nomi Fry]

It's one of.

[Deborah Treisman]

Was lost on her After Five Martiniques.

[Nomi Fry]

One of the best children's books. And the plural characters.

[Alex Schwartz]

I think there is a thing, though, and I think we have to acknowledge this, that, you know, sometimes criticism is just about using. Using something as an occasion to have some fun. You know, either make some funny jokes about or, you know, you have to be. I think there is a fairness thing of, like, I need to represent what it is. I need to describe it truthfully. But sometimes rightness isn't the point. It's like, you know, some of my favorite, you know, Dorothy Parker, Robert Benchley, I guess the sort of pat history of the New Yorker is that before World War II. And it's like, it's a looser, funnier thing. It's really understands itself as a humor magazine.

[Nomi Fry]

Yeah.

[Alex Schwartz]

And so those writers are just like, very ostentatiously having their own fun.

[Nomi Fry]

I think it's such an important thing when you're writing to remember that it's kind of a performance and get the fire of that out on the page. And I think. Yeah, it's. Speaking of fun, I want to, you know, we've talked about so many things that are like, you know, got it wrong. Not that they weren't amazing in their own right, but, like, what are. Like, what's like, your favorite Thing that you feel like. Got it right. Like, favorite piece of criticism from the New Yorker. There's so much. This is a tall order.

[Alex Schwartz]

I have a favorite opinion of a New Yorker writer who. And he's like. He has repeated this opinion over and over in a way that just gives me joy every time. One of my favorite critics of all time. Also, one of my favorite individuals of all time, Richard Brody, his love. Yeah, give it up for Richard Brody.

[Nomi Fry]

Give it up for Richard Brody.

[Alex Schwartz]

His love for the movie Norbit. Eddie Murphy, and it's like a very.

[Nomi Fry]

Is Norbit the one where he's, like, really fat?

[Alex Schwartz]

No, it's the one where he's really nerdy.

[Nomi Fry]

That's the Nutty Professor.

[Alex Schwartz]

That's the Nutty Professor. It's the one where he's really nerdy. This kid was. I mean, it's a crazy movie. It's a guy who's got sort of an Urkel vibe to it, is like he was abandoned as a child at a. At a half Chinese restaurant, half orphanage. It was a weird. It's a weird movie, okay? And it's a very nuanced take. It's poor directing. It's not the best use or apprehension of Eddie Murphy's talent, but if you just look at this performance, it will tell you everything you need to know about the explosive power of Eddie Murphy.

[Nomi Fry]

I like that as a lover of.

[Alex Schwartz]

Eddie Murphy, like, I would have said Beverly Hills Cop, I would have said Coming to America. But the fact that Richard can locate the spark that I see elsewhere in Norbit, that is the sort of the power of. Of location and description that I want to see in a critic.

[Nomi Fry]

That's the power of criticism right there.

[Deborah Treisman]

You know, Richard is not here, I believe, and I don't want to speak on his behalf, but I will say that I think he would say in response to who are you writing for? He would say, I'm writing for the cinema itself. My responsibilities for the cinema itself. And I have heard with my own ears, fights break out in the office. Fights between Richard Brody and other critics. When your own colleagues think you're getting it wrong to such a degree, it can be very intense, and you must stand your ground.

[Nomi Fry]

Me and Richard have disagreed a couple times in quick succession quite recently. Nathan Fielder is one pretty recent example. Richard hates him. I love him. You know, it's interesting when. When these things happen.

[Alex Schwartz]

It's great to care that much, by the way.

[Nomi Fry]

It really is. It's great to care. It really is great to care, guys.

[Alex Schwartz]

If you take nothing else from tonight.

[Nomi Fry]

If you take nothing else from tonight, it really is great to care. And you know what else is great? That you guys all came here and sat with us as we discussed this and that you listened to the podcast and thank you so much for doing that and thank you for the bell to the Bell House and every. Yeah, I'm just. I'm overwhelmed with love for our listeners.

[Deborah Treisman]

She's a hater no more.

[Nomi Fry]

I'm a hater no more. Thanks, you guys.

[Alex Schwartz]

Stay and hang out. Stay and hang out.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yeah, we'll be at the bar.

[Nomi Fry]

This has been a special live show of Critics at large. A huge thank you to everyone at the Bell House and at the New Yorker who helped support us in this. Our senior producer is Rhiannon Corby and Alex Barish is our consulting editor. Our executive producer is Stephen Valentino. Conde Nast's head of global audio is Chris Bannon. Alexis Quadrato composed our theme music and we had engineering help today from Jake Loomis with mixing by Mike Kutchman. You can find every episode of Critics at [e-mail] Critics Chloe, you know what I think the world really needs? What? More fashion.

[Deborah Treisman]

The people want it.

[Nomi Fry]

The people have asked for it. The people are getting it.

[Deborah Treisman]

Yes. Everyone's in luck. I'm Nicole Phelps, the director of Vogue Runway, and I'm excited to announce that the run through is coming to Tuesdays. The run through is now going to be twice a week, every Tuesday. Join me and the Vogue Runway team as we dig into the latest fashion news.

[Nomi Fry]

Thursdays will still be Chloe and Shoma talking about the latest in fashion and culture per usual. And Tuesdays, more fashion, fashion, fashion.

[Deborah Treisman]

The run through with Vogue is available wherever you get your podcasts.

[Nomi Fry]

From prx.