"Satantango" Versus "Raymond"

I love Bela Tarr -- at least I loved his "Wreckmeister Harmonies," which I watched in a stupor at Cannes, alternately pummelled and amazed by the movie's utter disregard for film convention and love of very, very long takes. (If someone is walking eight blocks from their house to a neighbor's house, you quickly realize the camera is going to follow them every step of the way without any visual flair to break the monotony.) So I'm all for promoting a rare screening of his 7 hour masterpiece "Satantango" at MoMa.

So why does the NYT have to spoil it by throwing in a gratuitous dig at "Everybody Loves Raymond?" The preview says you could always find other ways to spend seven hours. "You could, for instance, commit slow spiritual suicide by watching 14 back-to-back episodes of "Everybody Loves Raymond.""

Now, I'm not a massive fan of "Raymond," but it's a funny solid show. And many critics consider it a classic. The NYT can certainly slam it if they want. But they need to make their case. Either the writer is showing a tin ear for TV -- and not realizing that it actually has a very positive reputation among critics and viewers. Or the writer just doesn't care, because they want to make a snooty "movies are inherently more important than TV" argument and they can't imagine anyone disagreeing with them.

They could have easily chosen an obviously awful show like "Growing Up Gotti" or "America's Funniest Home Videos" if they wanted to imagine seven hours of soul-sucking hell. But "Raymond?" Frankly, Tarr is great but he isn't exactly every day fare. On most days if I had to choose between Tarr and seven hours of "Raymond," I'd probably choose "Raymond."