Going strictly on looks (yes, I know that’s like judging a book by it’s cover, but that is one of the reasons they HAVE covers on books), Shalit reminds me of some kind of demented clown who forgot where he left he makeup case, and Reed reminds me of someone I might expect to see in Suddenly Last Summer (or someone similarly creepy in the Tennessee Williams ouevre).
Worth quoting in its entirety, even if I AM only commenting on the last paragraph (comment follows).
Well said (even if he DID miss a trick by not proclaiming Rustler’s Rhapsody the greatest Western ever made).
That there is some good writin’ and undermines your thesis quite handily.
Absolute nonsense. Criticism is an art form of its own. It’s, dare I say, critical to the art community. Criticism exists for the same reason that editors exist: creators often need a guiding hand and an outside look to rein in their apotheosis of their egos.
Since criticism is an art form, that means that some critics are great and some critics are hacks. To rate Ebert as a film critic would require as much knowledge of film critics as Ebert had of movies. I’m not at that level. It’s clear that nobody else in this thread is at that level either. All we’re getting is personal taste. That’s absolutely a fair way for people to treat critics; most critics do write for the public and not for other critics. It’s equally fair for the rest of us to shrug away other people’s personal tastes as the uninformed ramblings they are.
Go back and read the “your movie sucks” quote in context.
That you disagree with a review does not mean that the reviewer is an idiot. I saw My Dinner with Andre based on their recommendation, and found it fascinating for the very reasons they liked it. Anyone who only likes movies with car chases would not like it, but would know that from the review.
And if you want to diss a really nasty critic, I offer John Simon. You wouldn’t get as much pushback there.
I loved watching “Sneak Previews” when I was growing up. Movies are (or should be, anyway) about entertainment. Siskel and Ebert capitalized on the notion that reviewing movies could be entertaining in its own right. That was a fairly groundbreaking idea at the time, and they deserved the acclaim they got for making the show work. Future iterations of the format with other critics never quite lived up to the original.
So, while I don’t know about “reverence,” a lot of people – including me – really liked Roger Ebert. If you didn’t, that’s cool. But you do seem a bit angrier than you need to be about it.
Regarding the art community I agree 100%- the average person DOES need guidance on how to interpret Mapplethorpe, or Piss Christ:)
Difference here is most respected art critics have degrees in art history, art theory, etc.- Ebert was apparently an English and journalism major? So then, what makes his opinion on a film more important or valid than yours, mine or any other adult capable of watching a film, understanding it and being able to write a review of it? I can say that there have been times in my life I probably watched more movies a week than he did, what does that mean? Is a morbidly obese persons’ restaurant review more valid than a thin ones?
I can understand taste based reviews, just let us know you dont like musicals before you review one, and maybe just tell what you did and didnt like about it and why you think it did or didnt work or resonate with you, without the attention grabbing insults?
It is as I said- I find it offensive a man could take pleasure in having even a small part in ruining careers and lives and not really care about it.
He said the art community needed the guidance, not the audience.
What do you think an English degree is? It’s a degree in criticism.
Nothing makes his opinion more important than yours. I don’t believe anyone here has claimed otherwise - pretty sure Ebert would not have made that claim, either. What Ebert did have was a talent for sharing his opinions in a way that was relatable and entertaining, which he was able to parlay into a very successful career.
What films do you think Ebert gave unfavorable reviews to because he didn’t appreciate their genre? My memory of his work was that he was very genre-friendly, usually understood their conventions, and would take those conventions into account when writing his reviews.
I’m with those in this thread who have said he never had the power to ruin anybody’s career. But let’s say he did. What evidence do you have that he ever took pleasure in it?
I dont recall critiquing anything as an English major, but even if so, are you saying all criticism is identical, that one good at food reviews would automatically be good at Broadway reviews?
None off hand, I was just pointing out I would always mention that during any review, if I have a bias, so readers would know and take with a grain a salt for example a sci-fi review from a guy who hates sci-fi. Everyone has genres they dont love.
So he published a book titled “Your Movie Sucks”, listing all the movies that “suck” and going into glorious detail as to why they “suck” out of a sense of moral obligation? Clearly he relished knocking down those who dared make films that did not entertain him.
Really? That’s literally all I did as an English major. What did your classes consist of? Did you not read books and then write papers about those books?
And no, not all criticism is the same, but a strong grounding in literary criticism gives you most of the tools you need to talk about narrative art forms. It (should) teach you how to identify themes and subtext, recognize and dissect symbols, discuss plot and character arcs, and generally give you the skill to discuss how and why a particular story works or does not work.
With apologize to Dorothy Parker:
And it is that word “esteem,” my darlings, that marks the first place in this thread at which Tweeming Masshole Fwowed up.
Mostly creative writing, but sorry yes of course reading works and discussing themes and the like, but not necessarily rating their worth as works of art.
There’s a standard rule of thumb. Critics have no influence on how well a blockbuster film does at the box office. Those movies will be well advertised. Lots of people who never read or care about reviews will come to them. They will do well or poorly at the box office depending on how much average film viewers like them. On the other hand, critics can improve the chances that a movie that isn’t advertised well and isn’t shown in a lot of theaters will get noticed. (That sort of movies are basically either American independent films or foreign films.) Critics can see that such films get seen by a lot of viewers and make a reasonable amount of money. That’s the job of critics - to make sure that good films not backed by movie distributors with lots of money can still be seen by a reasonable number of people.
Roger Ebert was the person who explained to Oprah how she could make more money if she syndicated her show than if she took any of the offers the networks were dangling at her. I consider Oprah to have been an overall net positive for America, so that’s one for Ebert.
Plus, he told a hilarious story about his early days at the Sun-Times that proved Ann Landers actually had a sense of humor, so that’s two for him.
Yeah. If you think this is the kind of thing he was always saying, you may have him confused with Jay Sherman.
A journalist who concentrates on a particular subject matter, takes it seriously, seeks information and a broad experience of the subject matter, talks to others (including technical experts and scholars) can very well become one of the premier experts in a field, including film criticism. You can’t tell me Ebert want as good as someone with a formal film criticism degree. He spent his life doing exactly what one would do.
And the idea that Ebert ushered in an era of critics as Stars is nonsense. He was preceded by Pauline Kael, for example, and by an entire tradition of powerful critics whose single word could shit down a show. That era was over by the time Ebert arrived in the scene.
What Ebert did was be the prime example of someone making thoughtful criticism entertaining and accessible to the general public, and on the terms that the general public experiences film.
The claim that he was not reliable on details is valid. A friend witnessed him at a screening at Chicago’s Music Box Theater duck out to the snack bar after the feature had started. If something vitally important happened in the first ten minutes, he missed it.