Rosenberg Out of Step With Critics

Howard Rosenberg’s petulant diatribe against Jaclyn Smith (Calendar, Jan. 8) reminded me of nothing more than a guy standing on the top of a mountain yelling, “You’re all wrong . . . chocolate does not taste good! Trust me. I alone know.”

In so viciously condemning one of our medium’s most popular actresses for being “cool and composed,” Rosenberg seems to be out of touch not only with how the public and the entertainment industry perceive her work but also with the reality of how she has been reviewed in his own paper.

In his review of “In the Arms of a Killer” (the show that ignited this abiding grudge that Rosenberg seems to have contained for so long), Times contributor Ray Loynd stated that “Smith’s shimmering looks are modified by a determined, no-nonsense character,” and acknowledged her work as a credible performance.

Her previous motion picture for television, “The Rape of Dr. Willis,” the story of a woman victimized by sexual assault, prompted The Times’ reviewer Lynne Heffley to observe that “Smith hits home showing Willis’ wrenching helplessness.”

Howard Rosenberg obviously is at odds with his own fellow reviewers on The Times.

What is suggested by his article is that popularity itself is an open invitation to attack. A slashing of such esteemed figures as Michael Jackson, Madonna, Jaclyn Smith, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis is certain to get attention. It establishes in capital letters the superiority of the critic’s judgment to that of the masses and of the entertainment community he presumes to educate. The greater the popularity, the greater the submission demanded and obtained.

But why should our film and television stars be penalized if they project some particular quality that appeals to the public?

Rosenberg stated an even dozen times that he is disturbed by Smith’s ability to appear “cool and composed.” This repeated condemnation suggested that it is impermissible for an actress to show that women can respond to crisis with dignity and composure rather than the hysterical emotional collapse that some men demand of the “weaker” sex.

Can Rosenberg recall when John Wayne was ever uncool or uncomposed? Or a time when Spencer Tracy’s dignity was sacrificed, even when he was taking a pratfall? Our most popular performers often convey qualities that become almost a signature. They frequently are cast to the quality of character that the audience admires in them. That audiences, female or male, are attracted to Smith’s ability to portray a woman who does not dissolve in crisis reflects the spirit we aspire to in ourselves.

It is particularly perplexing that Rosenberg attacks Smith’s portrayal in “Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy” for having been “seamlessly cool and composed.” No woman of our century inspired greater admiration and gratitude for staying dignified and composed in the face of tragedy than did Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. That this miniseries remains one of the most highly watched television events ever is a tribute to those qualities in the subject and to Smith’s ability to portray that dignity as the inspiration it was to a grieving nation.

Is it possible that it is Howard Rosenberg who is out of step, and not everyone else?