After Janet

Who's next at the Times?

I've consulted with friends and family before going the Dan Quayle way: I'm pulling my name from the list of candidates to be the next New York Times first-string film critic. Sorry, guys, but I'm happy as a clam at the Phoenix, settled cozily in Cambridge, and devoted to the Sox and the Celtics. You'll have to look elsewhere.

Has Boston got the news that, along with the Brooklyn Museum, is truly the buzz of the Big Apple? Janet Maslin has announced her retirement at the end of 1999, after 22 years as a Times reviewer. She backed Vincent Canby from 1977 through 1993 and has been in charge the last six years. "I just turned 50," she told the New York Observer. "That may have had something to do with it. Ever heard of the phrase `midlife crisis'?"

So who will take Maslin's place at this most coveted and powerful of positions? Let's hope the Times resists the urge to promote from within. It should keep Maslin's pal, Stephen Holden, where he is now, as a back-up critic (he can be a very clumsy writer), and it shouldn't get super-clever by drafting a non-movie person (i.e., book reviewer Michiko Kakutani).

My choice for the job is certainly that of many others: Dave Kehr, who was fired last year by the New York Daily News for being too erudite and since has been freelancing superb articles for the Times' "Arts and Leisure" section. A wry-humored, personable Oklahoman, Kehr spent years paying dues as the film critic for the Chicago Reader and then the Chicago Tribune. He is a splendid writer, clear and cogent, with an extraordinary grasp of film history. Unlike stultefied veteran critics who bemoan the death of the 1960s "New Wave" forever, he remains an enthusiastic, and up-to-date internationalist who knows much about current-day European and Asian cinema. Most important, Kehr possesses excellent "sliding" taste, being as comfortable with popular movies (he's a partisan of goofy comedy) as he is with high-modernist classics.

For what it's worth, Kehr has Roger Ebert in his corner. Ebert talked him up to New York Magazine: "He's got a national reputation, a lot of newspaper experience, and the kind of stature the Times needs."

We can assume that some of America's best critics are too idiosyncratic and/or too political in their opinions for the "family newspaper" Times. I would include in this category such writers as J. Hoberman and Amy Taubin of the Voice, Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader, Armond White of the New York Press, the Phoenix's very own Peter Keough, MPR's John Powers, and the Nation's Stuart Klawans.

According to New York Magazine, the chief critic of Variety, Todd McCarthy, is also a serious candidate, and he's another sensible choice. After that? It's wide open. If the Times wants to pluck someone from New York, it could be Peter Rainer of New York Magazine or John Anderson of Newsday, both excellent writers. If the Times wishes to replace Maslin with another female (a worthy aspiration), here are three articulate, highly qualified critics: Lisa Schwartzbaum of Entertainment Weekly and Ella Taylor and Manohla Dargis of the LA Weekly.

And if the Times decides to replace Maslin with her equivalent in other cities, then the candidates become the Globe's Jay Carr or the Herald's Jim Verniere, the LA Times' Kenneth Turan, the Chicago Tribune's Michael Wilmington, and the Washington Post's Stephen Hunter. Or, for several million dollars a year, the Chicago Sun Times' jolly Roger himself.

---

It's a hot time for the Orson Welles-starring The Third Man, which was recently voted the Best British film of All Time in a poll by the British Film Institute of 1000 people in the film industry. The rest of the top five: (2) Brief Encounter; (3) Lawrence of Arabia; (4) The 39 Steps; (5) Great Expectations. The Third Man was also picked as the Best Foreign Film of All Time in a new poll of Japanese filmmakers. Next were (2) 2001: A Space Odyssey and (3) Roman Holiday.

---

The tackiest double bill of the year (and I mean that in the nicest way) stumbles into the Brattle this Sunday, straight from Joan Crawford's homicidal November years: Strait-Jacket (1964) and Berserk! (1967), desperate attempts to repeat the boffo loony-old-lady box office of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962).

It's easy to step on Strait-Jacket, as did the late Joan Crawford expert Stephen Harvey, who wrote, "It is embarrassing to watch her expend her efforts on blatant tripe like this." But I think Joan is actually pretty amazing in this one, huffing so hard to make sense of an impossibly confused character: an former ax murderer who after 20 years in a mental institution has about seven different personalities (and multiple hairdos) in her first weeks of freedom.

Oh, the ax offings come back, and any dimwit can figure out who the surprise killer is. I knew halfway through.

In Berserk!, Crawford plays a cold bitch of a circus owner who's delighted when her performers start getting killed -- she knows that will bring in the crowds. But does this odious attitude make her the assassin? Joan says things like, "There's nothing certain in show business. We've eaten caviar and we've eaten sawdust." However, the best thing in this doggy movie is, I kid you not, a dazzling poodle act.