As you mention the 60s (I've been reading him since then), perhaps we've changed too. I still read him, although the rightward tilt of the New Republic has me doing it on-line and not via subscription. His analysis seems less energetic (he's older too), but his taste, to my mind, remains impeccable. As a filmmaker myself (documentaries) I'm always impressed with his awareness of the many crafts that go into making a fine film. Few critics mention editing and/or cinematography with such sympathy, sensitivity and insight. While his reviews may seem somehow less these days, he almost always zeros in on keys elements of a film. If not to totally evaluate, at least to raise essential questions. His luke-warm response to Pulp Fiction was such a (shared) case with me. You asked why we don't have young Stanleys these days. I can only quess that it might be a factor of time, critic and reader. The time (the 60s and early 70s) when we discovered Kauffmann was one of the most creative in film history. Exciting films were being made and formulas were being ignored. These were films that deserved thoughtful comment. Add to this, the fact that Kauffmann is a literary man (he wrote a novel that I actually read) with broad knowledge beyond film, including his short stint as theater critic with the NY Times. His perceptions almost always go beyond surface issues of "good' and "bad." I know few widely read critics with similar qualifications. Lastly, I think readers have changed. I don't follow the academic film world, even though I teach a once-a-year class at USC, but the general reader seems more more than ever interested in the thumbs up or down school of criticism, and more "serious" viewers are tangled in obscure theoretical fantasies. In both cases, Stanley's more traditional humanist approach to criticism probably seems either too much or too little. Many films these days also seem to be driven more by technology these days, limiting opportunties for Stanley's kind of commentary. If not, style over substance too often rules. Lastly, there's us. Who do you read? Why not Kauffmann? I agree that he may not always seem exactly "up to date," but like fine wine that's not always a negative. So many critics make me impatient with their simplistic ratings, or self-conscious hipness. And few have much depth in their understanding of artistic tradition, let alone the world. And in the end, could your enthusiasm for leisurely critical analysis cooled with age? I hasten to add that I raise this question as a probably contemporary! ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]