I hate Roger Ebert. This may not be the most tactful time to say so, what with his genuinely brave fight against cancer, his inspiring display of spirit and endurance, and the endless adulation all this has encouraged in the press (most notably this moving piece by Chris Jones in the March 2010 issue of Esquire, reverently entitled “The Essential Man”). But I’m highly skeptical of revisionism, and the fact is that Ebert has always been more durable than insightful as a critic, and more prolific than eloquent as a writer. More to the point, Ebert represents most of what’s wrong with American film criticism, and I won’t pretend otherwise, no matter how much of his face they have to remove or how many adorable cookbooks he writes.
At one end of the spectrum, there are critics who approach movies as art — works to be studied, analyzed, debated and (most importantly) enjoyed, but ultimately to be judged the only way they can be: subjectively, with meanings and values unique to each individual viewer. These kinds of critics are easy to identify because they’re so few: Anthony Lane in the New Yorker, Stanley Kauffman in the New Republic, apparently the entire staff of Sight and Sound, and a debatable handful of others.
Ebert is, at heart, the other kind of critic, the kind that sees movies as products, like cell phones or refrigerators or spatulas. These critics consider it their responsibility not to inspire debate or thought, not to use their cinematic expertise to give the reader insight. Rather, they want to judge a film’s fitness for purchase, recommend that a moviegoer either should or should not spend his or her money on the product. These critics are easy to spot. Every newspaper has at least one. They use a lot of puns when they dislike a film. They usually employ a grading system — a letter grade if they want to seem really nuanced, a ten-star scale if they want to make only a passing nod to intelligence, four stars if they’re especially simple-minded. They’re the Rex Reeds, the Leonard Maltins, the (why, God, why?) Gene Shalits. But this end of the critical spectrum is owned by the man who more or less created it: Roger Ebert.
It may not be fair to blame Ebert completely for the dumbing down of American film criticism, but there’s really no better choice. Ebert gained national fame, of course, as one half of the iconic “Siskel and Ebert” tandem. His show with Gene Siskel (and a rotating lineup of critics following Siskel’s 1999 death from complications from surgery to treat a brain tumor) was first called Opening Soon at a Theater Near You, then Sneak Previews, then At the Movies, and over the years by various other names. It also station- and network-hopped, beginning on Chicago PBS affiliate WTTW and later becoming nationally syndicated, but always keeping its guiding light burning: the simplified, binary system of judgment that told the viewer, in plain terms, whether a given film was good or bad. Each film they reviewed was briefly discussed, its merits and faults tallied up along the lines of verisimilitude, emotional impact, and production values, and a final judgment was rendered: thumbs up or thumbs down. If you’re really interested in film analysis, the Siskel and Ebert approach, adopted by most mainstream critics, is about as interesting as a Consumer Reports dot chart.
The first incarnation of the show premiered in 1975, and it shares its birth year with another watershed event in American film history: the release of Jaws. Fairly or not, Jaws is often cited as the film that launched the age of the modern Hollywood blockbuster. Most of this has to do with the way in which the film was released and promoted, but its significance was greater than that: it marked the beginning of the end of New Hollywood, that golden, bizarre, wondrous period in Hollywood history when the artists actually ran the place and American film produced some its richest and most challenging works. Because no matter how much Jaws owes to its promotional innovations, it would never have succeeded to such a degree if it had been, say, Raging Bull or The Conversation. (From BoxOfficeMojo.com: lifetime gross of Raging Bull: about $23M; lifetime gross of Jaws: around $470M.) In other words, Jaws was a smash hit largely because eschewed the core principles of New Hollywood: challenging subject matter, a personal approach, a willingness to embrace the unhappy ending, the unlikable protagonist, the ambiguous meaning. New Hollywood films were still made after Jaws, of course; Raging Bull itself came along a full five years later, in 1980. But Raging Bull pretty much marked the end of the maverick period. By 1982, Heaven’s Gate had destroyed both Michael Cimino and United Artists, Francis Ford Coppola had destroyed himself with One From the Heart, Dennis Hopper was nearing the bottom of his seemingly bottomless personal and professional plunge, and E. T. the Extra Terrestrial topped the box office with $359.2M on its initial run. As it happens, 1982 was the same year that Siskel and Ebert walked away from their increasingly popular and now-syndicated show over a contract dispute with WTTW, leaving the backwater of the Chicago station and relaunching the show with mainstream media titan Tribune Entertainment. When it came to movies, commercialism and mass consumption were the business, and business was good.
***
I couldn’t help but think of Ebert and his ilk recently when watching Paul Verhoeven’s generally despised 2000 sci-fi thriller Hollow Man. In the likely case you’ve forgotten about, or never even noticed the film, it’s another take on H. G. Wells’ The Invisible Man. In this version, Dr. Sebastion Caine (Kevin Bacon) is the brilliant scientist, leading a military-funded team in their research to discover the means to make people invisible. He succeeds on a gorilla, and it isn’t long, of course, before he makes himself the first human test subject, goes mad with power, and tries to kill everyone who wants to stop him, including Linda McKay (Elisabeth Shue), his assistant and former girlfriend, Matthew Kensington (Josh Brolin), another team member and McKay’s current lover, and damn near every other character.
Let’s be clear: Hollow Man is not a good film. Ebert and Richard Roeper, reviewing it on At the Movies, gave it the dreaded two thumbs down. They both complained that it wasted its intriguing premise and excellent visual effects by reverting to slasher film predictability, and Ebert mocked it for being, I kid you not, unrealistic. Roeper, meanwhile, condescendingly called it a “B-movie.”
“It’s just a B-movie.” This is a put-down commonly used by pop movie critics, and it reveals most of what you need to know about them. After all, the same could be said not only of every movie Verhoeven has ever made, but of some of the greatest films in Hollywood history. Gun Crazy was a B-movie. Scarlet Street was a B-movie. Johnny Guitar, Psycho, Touch of Evil — all B-movies. The other thing those movies all have in common is that they’re brilliant, complex and thrillingly unique. The term B-movie relates more to a film’s budget and cast than anything else, and by criticizing a film because it’s a B-movie there’s a nonsensical implication that big budgets and all-star casts somehow guarantee quality. We can all think of several hundred contradictions to this idea without breaking a sweat. B-movies are often interesting and even great because the stakes are so low. Free from the scrutiny and micromagement that often comes with large budgets, the makers of B-movies sometimes create great things, because their movies can afford to be daring.
Back to Hollow Man: I have to agree with all Ebert’s and Roeper’s criticisms of the movie, and of course I’m not suggesting that critics ought not to have opinions; reviews would be pretty dull without a point of view. But what we lose with critics like Ebert is the opportunity to appreciate bad art, or found art, or more importantly, art that actually tries something, but simply fails. To put it another way, by beginning with the basic assumption that there’s a universal standard of quality in films, we lose the opportunity to discover surprising, rewarding, unique and even life-changing films — films that may not pass the thumb test, but hold small pleasures and significant moments of clarity, meaning and insight. We lose, for example, the dark undercurrents in Hollow Man, the question of whether people behave well because they’re moral creatures or simply because they don’t want to face the consequences of indulging their ids (“it’s amazing what you can do when you don’t have to look at yourself in the mirror,” Caine says at one point). We lose its beguiling examination of the male gaze, its idea that what cannot be seen has no meaning. None of these ideas are brought to any conclusion, which is why I would call the film a failure. But there’s value and pleasure to be found in what the film tries to do.
There will always be critics like Ebert, of course, because there will always be moviegoers for whom movies really are like cell phones or refrigerators or spatulas. These moviegoers just want to know, should they choose to see a certain movie, if they’ll be entertained. My mother-in-law is such a person. Assigned to watch Taxi Driver for a movie group she belongs to, she seemed flabbergasted that the movie even exists. What purpose could there be in making such a thing? she seemed wonder. Fair enough. If you don’t like to be uncomfortable at the movies, there are some movies you simply shouldn’t see.
It could be, too, that I overestimate what I think of as the Golden Age of American film criticism, the early-1960s-to-late-1970s — it’s no coincidence that this coincides roughly with the New Hollywood era — when people like Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris led what I (probably romantically) imagine as a sort of national conversation about film. Their work was as challenging as the films themselves, rich and informed and intellectually alive. Ebert has outlasted them all, and seems like one of those figures who gains respect not because he’s the most talented or accomplished, but by virtue of having stuck around the longest, like LL Cool J or Lou Piniella. There’s a lot to be said for longevity. And lest you think Ebert might use his position to elevate the collective critical approach, you should know that he recently announced his intentions to relaunch his movie reviewing show early next year on WTTW, now to be called Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies and hosted by Christy Lemire and the increasingly Ebertian Elvis Mitchell. What will the show be like? Ebert, who’s co-producing it with his wife, will of course retain the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down format (which his blog says is copyright; of course it’s copyrighted), which all but ensures that it won’t be able to tell you much about the movies it reviews, besides whether they’re good or bad. Which, all in all, seems like about the least important thing to know.
116 responses
Dear Larry,
I take issue with your uninformed perception of a star-based rating system. Otherwise I fully enjoyed this piece.
Your Friend,
Ted
Larry, this piece doesn’t really read like you’ve actually read a lot of Ebert’s criticism. Indeed, if you wanted to mount some kind of reasoned critique of his writing style or the analysis in his reviews, I probably wouldn’t agree with you, but I’d be interested to read it. This piece, though, pretty much just assumes that Ebert’s reviews have no analysis, and doesn’t discuss his style after a passing criticism early going. You revive a lot of worked-over explanations about how — wow! — film criticism can’t be reduced to a binary. But if you read an Ebert review, especially of a movie he’s mixed on (of course, to find one would involve seeking out a movie he gave, say, two or two and a half stars, the idea of which repulses you, apparently), you’ll find exactly that kind of consideration. I mean, he writes hundreds of 500+ word reviews per year. Take it from someone who reads most of them: they don’t consist of checking off acting, good; special effects, bad; directing, medium; equals: two and a half stars. The AP movie critics, including Christy Lemire, basically do this. Ebert does not; his reviews are, by turns, personal, analytical, emotional, intellectual… in short, he responds to a movie not as products, as you seem to think, but within their aims: is this comedy funny? Is this thriller exciting and engaging? And so forth. He’s said time and again, and his reviews reiterate, that, as you say, there is not a universal standard by which all movies are judged. He looks at movies within their genre and aims, as well as his own inescapable perfect taste. Ebert would never say “it’s a B-movie” and mean that as any kind of criticism, and it’s telling that your most damning point in a condemnation of Ebert is… something someone he knows once said.
Sometimes the reviews feel thin, especially if he’s looking at a particularly uninspiring movie. Sometimes they go above and beyond what is necessary. That’s what’s enjoyable about reading Ebert; his criticism doesn’t follow a formula. It displays none of the superficial, TV-friendly, Gene Shalit-ish qualities you describe. (And really, criticizing a mainstream television review show for not having the depth of a Kael essay? Are you serious? Not to mention: if you can see no difference between discussions on Siskel & Ebert or even the newer At the Movies, the recently departed Scott/Philips version, and the movie reviews that appear on The Today Show, then you’re the one applying a universal standard of judgment.)
I’d also question the judgment of anyone who holds up Anthony Lane as one of the few critics who approaches movies as art. Maybe in his earlier work, but for years, his New Yorker reviews have been collections of pithy, self-satisfied quips. Lane no longer sounds like someone who actually loves movies. He doesn’t appreciate them as art; he condescends to them as art, which is worse in some ways than not considering them art at all.
There’s also the easy rejoinder to all of your babbling about the intricacies of Hollow Man: a movie can have all of those fascinating aspects and still not be good, and there’s nothing wrong with couching a review in those terms — which you yourself do, actually, when you note that “Hollow Man is not a good film.” If this isn’t important, why do you go out of your way to point it out?
And yet I can’t wait for Ebert’s assessment of this.
I like a lot of the things you’ve written for the Rumpus, but I disagree with this essay almost entirely. For starters–it seems a big part of your argument is that Ebert’s review of Hollow Man fails to wank all over its audience with overanalysis of what is, we agree, a pretty shitty movie. So let’s take a look at Ebert’s review of “Hollow Man.”
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000804/REVIEWS/8040304/1023
Ebert seems to do his best to level with the “Hollow Man” and explore it on its own merits–and he finds them lacking. He doesn’t deride it for being a “B movie” (the phrase appears nowhere in his review), but says:
“Does Paul Verhoeven, who directed “Hollow Man,” have such a low opinion of his audience that he thinks all we want is to see (or not see) the invisible man go berserk? Although the movie will be compared with the 1933 Claude Rains classic “The Invisible Man,” a better parallel is with “The Fly,” David Cronenberg’s 1986 film about a scientist who tests his theories on himself and becomes trapped in the nature of the creature he becomes. That film was charged with curiosity. “Hollow Man” uses the change simply as a stunt: Scientist becomes invisible, becomes sex fiend, goes berserk, attacks everyone.”
It seems that his criticism of the movie and yours match up pretty well. There’s room for disagreement about subjective work like this, and I’m not going to opine about whether or not Ebert should have written about this theme or that because–well, there are other writers who do these things, and you’ve mentioned some of them. But to compare him to Rex Reed?
Ebert’s job is to be a mass-market movie critic and crank out reviews for every film–from blockbusters to tiny indie flicks. He’s been a tremendous supporter of low-budget independent film and regularly goes out of his way to throw a bone to works he finds especially meritorious.
And his blog [http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/] is one of the best things on the Internet. I have a hard time finding other blogs which are as informative, entertaining, well-considered, and generally full of heart. Perhaps I’m a bit of a Ebert lionizer, but I embrace that label.
I wish I could write more but my boss is curious what I’m doing.
@Larry
Wrong. So wrong.
Eh, I agree with your point about the Ebert show sort of leading the charge on commercialized film criticism, but the show really isn’t representative of Ebert’s written film criticism. Yeah, they did drive-by reviews on the show, but that was just the show’s format. If you read Ebert’s writing, he is actually a really nuanced and perceptive critic of film. I’d be willing to be he likes a lot of the same movies you do.
He routinely picks out-of-the-way and obscure movies as his favorites. He picked “My Winnipeg” as one of his favorite movies of 2008. Your thesis only works if Ebert is consistently receptive to blockbuster Hollywood pics and dismissive of arthouse films. But that is not how he reviews at all.
Even so, I understand your larger point about the baseness of the “Consumer Reports” approach to movie reviews and I think the Siskel and Ebert show contributed to it. I just think you picked the wrong guy to pin it on. With the rise of the super-commercial Hollywood blockbuster, super-commercial Hollywood criticism was probably inevitable.
Larry, I kinda see what you’re getting at, but I’m not sure I agree with how you’re getting there. The state of modern “It’s a Four Kernel Flick The Whole Family Will Enjoy!!!” movie reviewing is ripe for deflating, but using Roger Ebert as your vehicle is not working.
You seem to be implying long form movie criticism devolved into movie reviewing/ranking, but I’d argue they’re quite distinct, and have coexisted far longer than Roger Ebert’s been working. And while the thumbs up/thumbs down schtick entered the pop culture landscape (and was hence both widely and poorly copied) it had almost nothing to do with why Siskel and Ebert became so popular. Their genius was having *two* people review (and hence argue over) movies. It’s that dynamic that brought viewers back, week after week, the movie itself almost didn’t matter. Now of course, we could say the movie “not mattering” backs your assertion, but for me that’s more along the lines of why I consider “criticism” distinct from “reviewing”
And finally, your most potent point (lazily dismissing something as a “B” movie) is of course fatally undermined by being attributed to *Roeper*. I find it hard to believe a man who co-wrote a movie with Russ Meyer could ever be considered contemptuous of a “B” movie.
I once read a description of Ebert’s colonoscopy and it was more interesting and insightful than this piece.
This feels like a hipster attack at the establishment. Everyone loves Roger Ebert, so he must actually suck? Right? Actually, wrong. Picking one review out of thousands is a shot in the dark and ignores the fact that Roger Ebert simply loves movies. Good ones. Bad ones. He just loves them. And the line , “…no matter how much of his face they cut off…”, does not fit with the otherwise academic tone of your article. Plus it sounds mean and is a weak attempt at being off-color and racy.
Man, you guys really like Ebert.
I suppose film critics are a lot like films: What you like from, and how you respond to, a critic is a personal matter. It may be (is) as unfair to blame Ebert entirely for the decline/commercialization of film criticism, but if I’m too general, then giving him a pass because, as you say, Aaron, the commercialization of criticism was “inevitable,” slices the onion much too thin. Many things are or seem inevitable–it’s inevitable that advertising will continue to creep into social media, for instance. That doesn’t mean you have to look kindly on the people trying to sell you a Soloflex or car wax on the margins of your Wall.
There’s no doubt that Ebert’s written criticism is different from what he’s presented in his various shows, and in general much deeper and yes, more nuanced. His review of Hollow Man is included in this of course. (I also feel that he’s a poor writer, but I’m not about to bring up yet another criticism of the man at this point.) But again, you can’t separate the one from the other. Just like anyone else, his entire body of work has to be considered, and my essay is concerned not with the best work Ebert can do, but the most significant work he has done–and to me his most lasting contribution is moving film criticism generally toward the shallow and commercial. I compare Ebert to people like Rex Reed not because they’re the same to me, but because Ebert made people like Reed possible.
You are, of course, absolutely right that the “two thumbs” system, conceived as a sort of rubber stamp of (dis)approval which simplified hundreds of words of criticism into two small but judgmental bits of flesh, led to a serious simplification and devaluation of the criticism and the critic’s job. I do not believe that everyone in the 1950s read serious essays about every movie they saw (unless Theodor Adorno was covering “Plan 9 from Outer Space” for Harper’s), but I am willing to concede to you that the thumbs system made everything just a little simpler, just a little less engaging, just a little easier to ignore in pursuit of The Convenient.
But: if you take time to read Ebert’s actual essays, and in particular his essays “The Great Movies,” you see the man on his home territory, doing what he does best: writing hugely insightful appreciations of why we love the films we love.
Side note: I am a critic as well, not a film critic but a music critic, with about 70 reviews published in the last year and a half. I can tell you that it is very easy to explain why you dislike something, and very easy to make fun of a bad album. I recently got a real stinker of a disc, a piano recital by some pompous turd who thought he knew better than Schubert, so I lit into him. On the other hand, it is very hard – shockingly hard – to describe, with eloquence, insight, detail and cohesive structure, things that you LOVE. Try it sometime. “What’s your favorite movie?” “_____.” “Why?” “Uh…it’s f’ckin’ amazing, that’s why. It’s so… funny, and there’s great acting and stuff.”
Part of the reason I admire Ebert as much as I do is that nobody, nobody, is as precise and intelligent about explaining why he loves something. I can’t count the number of times I’ve thought, “That’s a really powerful scene,” read Roger’s review, and then thought, “So THAT’s why it’s a powerful scene.” So I merrily point you to “The Great Movies,” in my opinion his greatest collective achievement.
I will pick three movies at random from the “Great Movies” collection. 12 Angry Men. Roger: “The movie plays like a textbook for directors interested in how lens choices affect mood. By gradually lowering his camera, Lumet illustrates [that]… A higher camera tends to dominate, a lower camera tends to be dominated. As the film begins we look down on the characters, and the angle suggests they can be comprehended and mastered. By the end, they loom over us, and we feel overwhelmed by the force of their passion. Lumet uses closeups rarely, but effectively: One man in particular–Juror No. 9 (Joseph Sweeney, the oldest man on the jury)–is often seen in full-frame, because he has a way of stating the obvious after it has eluded the others.”
Adaptation.: “Nicholas Cage alway seems so earnest. However improbable his character, he never winks at the audience. He is committed to the character with every atom and plays him as if he were him…. the real reason we can tell the twins apart, even when they’re in the same trick shot, comes from within: Nic Cage can tell them apart.”
Amadeus: “[The requiem] scene is moving not because Mozart is dying, but because Salieri, his lifelong rival, is striving to extract from the dying man yet another masterpiece that will illuminate how shabby Salieri’s work is. Salieri hates Mozart but loves music more, and cannot live without yet one more work that he can resent for its perfection….watch his face again at Mozart’s deathbed, as he takes the final dictation. He knows how good it is. And he knows at that moment there is only one thing he loves more than himself, and that is Mozart’s music.”
I didn’t even get past the letter A. But I think I’ve established that, beyond the thumbs, beyond the star ratings which even Ebert loathes, beyond the TV gigs, lies a film critic of unusual insight and wisdom with a unique – totally unique – gift for understanding and unfolding greatness. If you don’t believe me, move on to the letter B. On the other hand, if you really think Ebert is not “insightful as a critic,” fails to “approach movies as art,” and tries “not to use his cinematic expertise to give readers insight,” maybe I am wasting my time here.
You posted your reply to us at the same time I posted my reply to you, so I will add as a P.S. that, in the long run and the grand scheme of things, I do believe that Ebert’s essays, blog (when it inevitably gets published as a book), and “Great Movies” series are much more important to his output than his TV shows. Simple reason: DVD reviews of what movies played in October 1983 will be a whole lot less relevant than essays about the things that make movies great.
Just piping back in to say:
“(unless Theodor Adorno was covering “Plan 9 from Outer Space†for Harper’s)”
Hahahahahaha! Thanks – I’ll be imaging that all evening.
Rex Reed’s career as a critic predates Roger Ebert’s.
Roger Ebert’s Pulitzer for criticism (the first for a film critic and the only one for nearly 4 decades) predates his first TV appearances.
That about cover things, yeah.
Half this essay is Larry’s take on “what’s wrong with the last four decades of Hollywood”, most of the other half trashes either Ebert’s TV show, or the TV show’s opinion of a single movie that all parties agree was bad to begin with.
I don’t fucking get it. Just last week I read his reviews of The Road and No Country for Old Men, and his Great Movies essays on Ikiru, Rashomon, Sunset Boulevard, and Chinatown, and although I didn’t agree with everything he said, it was quality criticism.
If the only things you could bother to link to were the Hollow Man review and his cookbook…I don’t know, man, this doesn’t read so much as criticism as it does just a personal slam against the guy himself.
I compare Ebert to people like Rex Reed not because they’re the same to me, but because Ebert made people like Reed possible.
Well, yeah, Bill Clinton made George W. possible too when it comes right down to it.
I don’t think Roger Ebert will respond to this piece, but if he does, not only will he write rings around you, but he will also bother to offer direct evidence from your writing about what he does and doesn’t like about it, which is a courtesy you haven’t extended him.
If you want to do a brief piece of effusive praise — consumer advocacy by enthusiasm, let’s say — then, okay, you can be a little lazy. But the take-down is heavy lifting, and if you’re not going to bother to do the work, then you’ve neither justified nor completed the take-down.
This is my least favorite Rumpus piece of all time.
Yikes. The guy loves movies. I don’t think he’s claimed to be an arbiter of what’s art and what’s not. He just loves movies. Loves watching them, loves writing about them.
I guess some people just love the taste of bile.
This:
Stone Says
October 20th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I once read a description of Ebert’s colonoscopy it was more interesting and insightful than this piece.
Made me laugh to the point of snorting.
Gracias.
And personally, I think Ebert is just great, but there’s no accounting for taste (despite lengthy essays claiming the contrary).
Either the author is naive, unread or simply envious. But Roger Ebert has created an impressive body of work in film criticism over the years. It’s hard to believe Fahey has read Ebert’s work to any large degree.
As for films needing existential, ambiguous endings to be considered art-worthy…Joseph Campbell spells it out in Hero with A Thousand Faces – what humans yearn for in a story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
“Larry Fahey is a writer living in Boston with his wife and two kids. Johnny Depp gives him hives.”
Johnny Depp could give me the clap, but I’d still think he was great in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? And Dead Man, and almost anything else he’s ever done. Come to think of it, forget his movies, Johnny Depp is welcome to just give me the clap.
Please join me next week, everyone, for my essay on your grandmother, and also puppies.
I think the opening line is harsh, but not reflective of an actual hatred for Roger Ebert the person, more for his negative contributions to film criticism, which I would agree outweigh any good he’s done. While he may have written some insightful and nuanced reviews (I’ve never read them, but readers here claim to have seen them) the average person on the street knows nothing of Ebert other than what his thumb thinks of a film. And I think that’s the point of this essay, which few people seem to understand.
I think there’s a place today, maybe a need even, for Ebert and critics like him who evaluate films, as you say, as “products.” A Hollywood film is a product of a series of decisions made as a business (“show business”) venture, so I don’t see harm in judging, solely and subjectively, its worth to a consumer, a movie-goer. To treat an art or independent film this way may be doing it a disservice, but I’m not sure if using a binary system of value judgments is as corrosive as you’re making it out to be.
Such a system isn’t particularly good, in the same way that movies that features binary character types (good guys vs. bad, etc.) aren’t particularly good, because to oversimplify, as the “thumbs up/thumbs down” system does, disregards any complexity or depth a film may have. But I don’t go to see movies primarily for their depth or complexity. I don’t think the average movie-goer does, either.
The most interesting, if confused, section of this article, to me, is:
“To put it another way, by beginning with the basic assumption that there’s a universal standard of quality in films, we lose the opportunity to discover surprising, rewarding, unique and even life-changing films — films that may not pass the thumb test, but hold small pleasures and significant moments of clarity, meaning and insight.”
I like this because it’s a nice defense I could use when I admit to liking this or that Lifetime Movie, but I don’t like it because it’s quite frankly a very simple observation. What movie gets made WITHOUT a single meaning or insight? Movies are so damn expensive to make and you need so many people to give their consent before even pre-production. Surely we accept that “bad” movies aren’t entirely bad.
Is that a misconception that you fear will be a result of an oversimplification of film criticism? Because I’m not sure if that’s worth being concerned about; we already operate that way. It’s pretty generally accepted that when someone says, “That movie was bad,” they mean, “I didn’t like that movie.” It’s just a narcissistic corruption of rhetoric.
Let’s all chip in and get this Larry guy a subscription to Cahiers du Cinema.
Here, I’ll throw in the first centime.
I think this piece really wants to attack the concept of the critic-as-celebrity, who functions primarily to drive commerce towards or away from chosen art products. When the critic herself becomes the focus of attention rather than the art products she is criticizing, something weird happens. And when that dynamic is used to sell products, it feels like some kind of abuse of the art product rather than a sincere reaction to it.
I get that, and I also get the point about Ebert begat Rex Reed. But this is not entirely fair. Yes, Ebert is probably the first critic-as-celebrity of the modern movie era, but we have to judge the man on his own merits, not on the imitators that followed. If you truly want to argue that Ebert is a poor writer or does not understand movies, you are going to have to dig deeper into his actual work and hold it up for scrutiny, as so many commenters have pointed out.
It’s like saying you hate Led Zeppelin because they made Van Halen possible. There is some logic to the premise but not the conclusion. You still have to explain why you hate Led Zeppelin’s work.
I agree with the points above (you aren’t specific about his reviews; your argument is repetitive; you don’t address his blog or his writing, which is great).
Mainly I’m disappointed that the Rumpus published this. Pretty cheap. And mean. Beneath contempt, really.
Scattershots at an easy target.
“If you truly want to argue that Ebert is a poor writer or does not understand movies, you are going to have to dig deeper into his actual work and hold it up for scrutiny, as so many commenters have pointed out.”
This. Your thesis is fine, but your evidence is sorely lacking. Gotta walk the walk to talk the talk, Larry.
@Jon
“While [Ebert] may have written some insightful and nuanced reviews (I’ve never read them, but readers here claim to have seen them) the average person on the street knows nothing of Ebert other than what his thumb thinks of a film. And I think that’s the point of this essay, which few people seem to understand.”
And you think that, in a world without Ebert, this “average person on the street” would be able to tell you about the subtleties and nuances of modern cinema? Hell no. It’s not Ebert and Siskel’s thumbs which oversimplified film criticism. It’s the “average person on the street”–us included–who oversimplifies everything.
Also, @Larry
“Ebert represents most of what’s wrong with American film criticism, and I won’t pretend otherwise, no matter how much of his face they have to remove or how many adorable cookbooks he writes.”
Unforgivable, man. You remind me of a fifth grader trying to jeerlead against the kid who dresses funny ’cause he comes from a trailer park. ‘Cept you know better.
Your reply “Man you guys really like Ebert” is telling in that it suggests that people are blindly defending Ebert just because they are fans, rather than pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument. This piece reads like you just watched a YouTube clip of a movie review from 10 years ago and decided to use it as the basis for a takedown of someone you find annoying.
Maybe you could have illustrated your point more effectively if you’d chosen to cite so much as one sentence the man has ever written. Lord knows there is a lot of questionable Ebert content to draw from, especially in the last 10 years or so. You don’t do yourself any favors by building a huge chunk of your argument from a quote that is attributed to someone else entirely (a point you failed to address in your response).
Just know that people disagreeing with you does not necessarily make them Ebert partisans. The second response by Jesse basically sums up the major problems with the piece. This is coming from someone who is largely ambivalent about Ebert’s reviews, but it irked me to see you responding like some truth-teller being shouted down by sycophantic Ebert followers; people are responding negatively because your argument was muddled and used no evidence to support it.
“Made me laugh to the point of snorting.”
Really? I’m not sure who still finds colonoscopy jokes edgy, I guess baby boomers?
You know, I doubt that even Pauline Kael would have been able to pull off a movie-review TV show that was just brimming with nuance and thoughtfulness. The medium is not exactly well-suited for that kind of thing. I don’t think it’s fair to trash a man for his criticism in a medium that is all about the shallow, superficial treatment of subjects, while ignoring the criticism he does in a field that practically demands nuance and depth.
I read a lot of movie reviewers and Ebert has consistently been one of my favorites. I generally feel like I come away from his reviews knowing more about the craft and art of movie-making than I did before I started reading. Maybe I’m just not that smart or sophisticated when it comes to film? Probably. Even so, Ebert has helped me learn way more than I would have had I just been left to figure things out on my own.
Larry, convenient that you use this essay criticizing Ebert for thoughts, actions, and points of view that are not strictly his, and then, when pressed, offer that of course you also think he’s a poor writer, but you won’t get into it now because people are already so annoyed. Just so you know, saying someone is a poor writer but refusing to offer any evidence is actually *more* irritating, and it’s also poor writing itself.
Oh my gosh! Someone is ranting on teh internetz!
http://xkcd.com/386/
I’d also point out that Ebert’s criticism invites lots of people, not just film scholars, to read and enjoy. I know the idea here is to bemoan the popularization and dumbing-down of film criticism, but what Larry describes isn’t great film criticism — it’s academic twaddle for a select few. I imagine this is why he responds so positively to the cocktail-party bon mots of Anthony Lane. But Ebert does something far, far trickier. You can actually learn about film by reading his reviews, which is not something I can say for many other film critics.
The problem isn’t that Ebert is one kind of review or other. A film has to be appraised based on its genre and how successful the filmmakers are in carrying out whatever approach they take to the material. It’s why for me THE AVIATOR is a failure while DIE HARD is one of the best films ever made; why CABIN FEVER is a FX driven mess while THE SEVEN SAMURAI compels me to watch its entire 3 1/2 hour masterpiece of cinema whenever I’m stupid enough to put it in the player. It’s just silly and a complete intellectual jerkoff to apply the same standards to all films.
Ebert’s problem is that he too easily gives a free pass to studio genre films for the most part. Some folks I’ve talked to say it’s because he obviously has given up on trying to hold them to a higher standard, that bemoaning failings of such crap as most Michael Bay movies is just pissing in the wind – droves are still going whether he trashes it or not.
He’s also guilty of the “gold star for effort” mentality that is becoming all too frequent in recent years. That anything that attempts to be original or daring, (ie not mainstream pap) gets a free pass on it’s failings. My own theory is that this is because critics are suffering from a cinematic Stockholm Syndrome and the toll of having to sit through dozens of LAND OF THE LOSTs or PRINCE OF PERSIAs has them as grateful for just simply competent movies as a hostage is for food that what should be grilled cheese tastes like a (insert favorite Jewish deli) Reuben to them.
But I do admire Larry for risking looking like an asshole for criticizing a man with cancer. If Ebert’s going to keep writing, his supporter’s can’t use his removed jaw bone to beat off detractors.
I originally took the first sentence to be a witty allusion to Ebert’s famous putdown of the “North.” Based on that, I thought what would follow would be a more insightful engagement with . . . something. But I gotta pile on with the other disrespecters. I am still willing to give the writer some credit for maybe good intentions gone awry (happens to the best of us, which is why it’s a good idea to sit on pieces like this for awhile to give yourself a chance to see if you really meant what you wrote), but the piece winds up being a not terribly persuasive or attractive attack on Ebert (about whom I have little opinion except that I stumbled into being one of his Twitter followers and find the guy pretty insufferable–he posts about two dozen times an hour, much of it self-serving) mixed with some trite and outdated sociology about Jaws and the Golden Age of Hollywood and what happened to art, man? I won’t hold this one against anybody–I’ll chalk it up to a general misfire.
Insert Boxxy “Trollin: You is doin’ it” image here… o_O
Larry, did you really expect to start your essay “I hate Roger Ebert” and then play the put-upon victim when people took issue with the fact that you haven’t offered any actual reasons? “Next week, I’ll write about your grandma and puppies.” Riiiight. Because anyone who doesn’t dish out the “you go, Larry, you keep it real” reaction you were obviously expecting just wants sunshine blown up his or her skirt, correct?
Here’s the thing: there is a middle ground between puppies and hate. You know who would know that and has demonstrated for many, many years that he knows that?
Thaaat’s right, Larry. You got it on the first guess.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I feel sorry that you don’t see the genius in his reviews. I’ve very seldom ever disagreed with an Ebert review. If I did it was very slightly and only because of personal taste in film.
Larry, you seem to have confused his TV show for his written reviews. They are nothing at all alike. Roger Ebert recognizes that television and print media are different animals. I saw the TV shows long before I started reading and editing his copy for newspapers, and saw that the TV Ebert and the written word Ebert are similar in name only. He’s a damn fine writer. Believe me, I have suffered through a lot of crappy, vacuous movie reviews as a copy editor, but not one of them had a Roger Ebert byline. I could name names, but that would be impolite.
To Buck: By all means, please read some of Ebert’s published film criticism, and don’t judge him just by his Twitter feed. Twitter feeds have a tendency to bring out the worst in a lot of people. It’s his criticism that’s important, and by focusing so squarely on his television “criticism,” the author of this piece has—to put it lightly—not given his subject the full, nuanced consideration he deserves.
An hour or so ago I wrote, “is very easy to explain why you dislike something… but very hard – shockingly hard – to describe, with eloquence, insight, detail and cohesive structure, things that you love.” Now I’ve been thinking about this for the last hour, and it has occurred to me that – besides the fact that there’s a whole essay to be written about this – there is really no better example than your post.
As you’ve found, it’s very easy to bang out a blog post explaining why “I hate Roger Ebert.” But you could have written, “I love Anthony Lane,” and turned that into an essay, and maybe that would have been interesting. Maybe you could have discussed, with examples, all the things that make Anthony Lane your critic par excellence. Maybe you could have used that as a frame to set up your ideals for the world of criticism.
But I think – I’m saying this not as a personal attack, but purely from my own experience with my own faults in my own work as a classical music critic – I think there would have been a temptation to say “I love Anthony Lane… in contrast to Roger Ebert” and then just trash Ebert like you did here. It is just that much easier to criticize, to tear down, to insult, to offend.
Now, if Roger really is prone to being torn down, you’re as good as anybody to do the job. But in the meantime, I will step back and suggest to you this: Ebert has written 300+ essays entitled “The Great Movies” which are appreciations, essays analyzing and praising films which are admired and beloved. You have, here, eschewed praise or serious analysis in favor of the kind of writing Ebert does when he reviews “License to Wed.” Which of these genres – appreciation or destruction – is difficult? Which is art? Which is lasting?
No offense, of course. Just some things you’ve made me think about.
“I suppose film critics are a lot like films: What you like from, and how you respond to, a critic is a personal matter.”
And you call Roger Ebert a bad writer? Sheesh.
To Buck: By all means, please read some of Ebert’s published film criticism, and don’t judge him just by his Twitter feed. (Twitter feeds have a tendency to bring out the worst in a lot of people, it seems.) It’s his criticism that’s important, and by focusing so squarely on his television “criticism,” the author of this piece has—to put it lightly—not given his subject the full, nuanced consideration he deserves.
Wow, what an unjustifiable, scathing review. You mentioned that you feel Roger is a poor writer. Tell me, how many Pulitzer Prizes have you won for YOUR writing?
You know, this article reminds me of this response from Roger to Will Lietch, a critic who once wrote a missive entitled “I am Sick of Roger Ebert’s Fat F****** Face,” after having amicably corresponded with Roger for years. Roger wrote to him (in part):
“I am not sure what you were trying to do with your piece — if you object to me being on television, there is a dial to the right that will take care of that problem for you — what issues you might be dealing with, but I am certain you will grow to regret writing it someday. If you were trying to make a point, I fear you are not in control of your instrument.”
Somehow I feel that Roger’s email to Will could apply here as well.
Note: Will writes about his interactions with with Roger Ebert here: (http://deadspin.com/5482198/my-roger-ebert-story) Check it out, it’s a good read.
“My mother-in-law is such a person. Assigned to watch Taxi Driver for a movie group she belongs to, she seemed flabbergasted that the movie even exists. What purpose could there be in making such a thing? she seemed wonder. Fair enough. If you don’t like to be uncomfortable at the movies, there are some movies you simply shouldn’t see.”
‘Taxi Driver’ rendered the writer’s mother-in-law uncomfortable? Well, kudos to any film that makes mother-in-laws uncomfortable!
Hatchet job fail.
The following is copied directly from Twitter:
@ebertchicago I don’t know when I’ve enjoyed the comments under someone else’s blog entry more. http://j.mp/9j2Jzr
Where is all this coming from?! It’s like all of Rogert Ebert’s friends and family are commenting on this piece. Aside from the “no matter how much of his face they have to remove” comment, there’s nothing wrong or offensive about any of it. This is just one guy’s perfectly reasoned opinion, and I think he made some good points, if a little light on concrete examples.
At least when Roger Ebert criticizes something, he actually writes about the thing he’s criticizing (instead of, say, blaming “Star Wars” for making “Ice Pirates” possible), engages with it in the depth it deserves and makes his points engagingly and directly — something this essay entirely fails to do.
Others have pointed out various highlights of Roger’s work, but I’ll cite one other thing about his reviewing I’ve always valued: Whether he likes or dislikes a movie, he writes his review in a way that lets me sense whether or not I’d agree with him. There have been movies he’s reviewed badly that I nonetheless knew I would enjoy, because I could tell that the elements he found problematic either would not bother me or would be interesting to me; there have been movies he’s reviewed well that I could nonetheless tell would not engage me. He writes so incisively that I not only get his point of view but also am still invited to make up my own mind.
And as others in this thread have said, he is one of the best critics in handling the single hardest job in criticism: Praising something lavishly and yet intelligently and articulately.
Finally, the author’s whiny responses in the comment thread are much more off-putting than anything in the original flawed article.
Dude, you fail miserably at grasping the concept of good film making. What a waste of cyber space this post is.
Ebert has about 265,000 followers on Twitter, and his columns/blog is widely read. He’s been around the business since before I was born and has a huge following. Yeah, I’m sure its just his mom and a few of his friends defending him.
Run along, Elliot.
As brutal as the response to this article is so far, I imagine it will pale in comparison to your mother-in-law’s reaction when she discovers you’ve written that she sees no more nuance in films than in spatulas.
I stopped watching Roger Ebert when Siskel and Ebert left PBS and started the “station- and network-hopping” mentioned in the article, so I might not have accurate, up-to-date memories, but the memories I do have are not kind to Mr. Ebert. Leaving aside his condition – and, like Julie Andrews’ loss of voice, it was not kind to him – I do not have fond memories of his reviews or his ability to help ME decide if I wanted to see the movie or not. I recall at times that he seemed arrogant and condescending to me, pretty much an average, no-knowledge-of-film-science kind of guy. When he did make sense, it seemed to be shallow and cursory. On the other hand, my memory of Mr. Siskel is very different. I remember feeling somehow “comfortable” with his reviews, whatever that means.
So, while I am sorry that Mr. Ebert’s condition has left him without the ability to eat, drink, or speak, I do not miss his reviews. I wonder if the writers of these posts would say the same about him if he did not suffer the condition he does.
Larry…the comments in this section are well thought out and loaded with examples to back up opinions. Please don’t reduce them to “these people must really like Ebert.” That comment, followed by the Grandmother thing, make it seem MORE like you intended a personal attack on Ebert, which I don’t think you did, and take these comments as personal attacks toward you, which I don’t think you should.
Most people aren’t disagreed with as civilly and informedly as you are being disagreed with here. I hope you appreciate that and don’t overlook the substance of these comments, which may be worth taking to heart.
The internet sucks.
RT @ebertchicago: I don’t know when I’ve enjoyed the comments under someone else’s blog entry more. http://j.mp/9j2Jzr
🙂
Kenji, my post was half-assed (should take my own advice.) I have read Ebert’s criticism and have enjoyed it. I’m not invested enough in it to come to a full defense, not in a chatboard comment anyway, but I generally agree with the general consensus shaping up here: He likes movies and does a fine job of sharing his enthusiasms and educating readers at the same time. The aside about the Twitter feed was not relevant, just something that I’ve been generally bitching about in other contexts and failed to restrain myself from bitching about here.
What I was trying to say about Larry’s piece was that it looks like something that started in one place, then the writer lost control of where he was going, and due to the nature of internet publishing, he pushed SEND (or PUBLISH or POST or whatever you push) too fast. I’m hypothesizing and empathizing based on my own experience in how stuff like this happens. I think he was probably intending to use Ebert metaphorically in the same way Jaws (a pretty good movie) is used metaphorically or synechdocheically or whatever figure of speech applies to stand for “WHERE HOLLYWOOD WENT WRONG.” These are all comments I would have written in the margin of the piece if it had been given to me to edit. I also would have pointed out that if his real point was to show the paths of handbaskets to hell vis a vis Hollywood then it’s not really timely or original. Grannies and puppies are always due for another spin, though.
@Larry
I’d be interested to hear why you dislike his writing…
This post reminds me of Wiley E. Coyote hastily painting a train tunnel on the side of a mountain in hopes of tricking the road runner, and is hilariously shocked when a train comes out of the tunnel and flattens him.
This is one of the most discouraging things that I’ve read in a while. I generally respect the Rumpus, but this is sloppy bile published solely to jack up page views (I can’t think of any other reason a would publish an undeserved hatchet job).
What’s most depressing is that the author probably believes that he’s being clever or standing for something, and the dozens of thoughtful comments suggesting otherwise simply reinforce his sense of being a noble contrarian. Hate is a bad reason to write. An even worse reason to read.
But as the Rumpus tagline says, “Inconsistency is human. Try to be nice.”
This piece is symbolic of most of what goes on in blogs these days, and quite frankly I thought The Rumpus was above. The fact that an editor blurbed to this on the side with concerns about publishing it in the first place really calls to question why it was done. If garnering reactions is the goal then good job, but this would hardly qualify as reasoned discourse, especially since this was a topic which was approached so poorly from the onset.
Perhaps if the author legitimately had a focused point, and was willing to enter so much in to the discussion when his theory was reasonably refuted, instead of just standing from the sideline shouting “fuck you!” there would be some validity to his rant.
I’ll give The Rumpus crew a pass on this one, since I see it as a rarity amongst what they usually post, but this piece has really just amounted to drivel.
Nonsense. I’m with Ebert.
Weakly argued, juvenile, and unnecessarily unkind. Larry, you’ve lost a reader and his respect with this childish screed. “No matter how much of his face they cut off”? Come on, man. We’re all human beings here.
First, to measure Ebert’s ouvre by sampling his television work is like eating microwave lasagna for dinner and then denouncing Italian cuisine. To then craft what seems intended to be a thoughtful, well-informed essay on such a judgment not only undermines your credibility, it makes you out to be precisely the kind of critic you seem to be adolescently railing against.
What I respect most about Ebert’s writing is his ability to both measure a movie in terms of its artistic and aesthetic merit, as well as how successfully it does what it sets out to do. That he is able to so acutely discern the finer points of both is a testament to his enduring capability. Add to this is his deftness and skill at writing both long- and short-form reviews, and his stature as a critic to be reckoned with is pretty easy to understand. To be able to so prolifically do what he does with grace, humor, and general good-heartedness seems to me to be what is very much right with Ebert’s film criticism. He’s not just smart, he’s fun to read because he writes so well.
I laughed when I read, “I also feel that he’s a poor writer, but I’m not about to bring up yet another criticism of the man at this point.” Your telling de-negation aside, you may indeed feel that way, but the legions of both educated and popular readers who disagree with seem to invalidate your feelings. (I also feel that the Pulitzer committee thinks he’s a damn good writer, but I’m not about to bring up yet another counterargument to your essay at this point.)
I’m reminded of Ebert’s tiffs with the likes of Vincent Gallo and Rob Schneider in this piece. He tends to apologize when he has been wrong, or when he feels he has been unnecessarily unkind. While you may want to distance yourself with his brand of criticism, I hope you might follow his example of how to be a decent human being when you have misstepped.
“Ebert is, at heart, the other kind of critic, the kind that sees movies as products, like cell phones or refrigerators or spatulas.”
Couldn’t disagree more. There are, in fact, critics who do that. Roger Ebert isn’t one of them. Plus he’s a great writer … and by that I mean he has a artful and poetic way of stringing words together.
The “Hollow Man”/unrealistic discussion: Ebert has always said he doesn’t mind unrealistic movies as long as the movie follows its own internal logic. That alone sets him apart from other critics.
To each his own, dude. Interesting discussion, though.
The “thumbs” system was a way to inform the public whether or not they should pay to go see this movie. Is this movie worth seeing? I don’t see this as “dumbing down” criticism. If a person asks you if they should see a movie you’ve seen, you’re telling me you’re going to sit them down and espouse a 500 word essay to them? No, you’re going to say, “yes” or, “no”. Or perhaps
Further, Ebert has repeatedly written and said how much he hates the star system, but that the newspaper forced him to use it. He’s consistently encouraged the reading of the entire review as being paramount.
“…no matter how much of his face they have to remove…”
Anyone possessed of such a callous heart to find a statement like that meriting inclusion in a public forum clearly lacks the sensitivity of soul to appreciate any art form, and certainly does not deserve consideration of aesthetic opinion. I wore purple today to protest bullying wherever it is found in our society; you have provided us with a perversely eloquent example. May you hemorrhage followers.
It seems to me that this essay is an excellent way to drive traffic to a site, and to make a name for oneself. It’s not a well written essay, as there are no actual references to any of the work of the person being criticized, but I clicked through from Roger Ebert’s twitter feed, so I guess I took the bait.
This is the kind of writing that good professors failed me for writing.
Now that that gut-punch is done, I’ll say something substantial.
Ebert’s review of Hollow Man is exactly what you accuse him of not writing: an opinion that’s devoid of “mainstream” influence. The argument that Ebert is a “dumbed down” or “public-pleasing” critic is so unfounded that I don’t know where to start. Ebert is just as idiosyncratic and snobby as any critic. His strength is a strength that Larry lacks- his opinions are so consistent and clear that you can usually tell what a movie’s going to be like by reading what he says.
A movie critic’s job is to give the public an idea of what they’re in for, whether they like the movie or not. I don’t know a single person who has avoided a movie because they think Ebert has a supreme voice. I, however, can name people who say, “Ebert didn’t like it, but I can tell by his review that it’s probably good.”
Ebert achieves something awesome. He communicates his personal tastes effectively without hitting you over the head with them and making you feel the insecurity that lies behind most strong opinions. At the same time, he also tends to give an accurate representation of the movies he reviews. He’s an idealist and a realist. That’s not to say he’s a Great American Writer. It’s just that what he sets out to do is a challenge, and he succeeds.
“Man, you guys really like Ebert.”
Man, you really reek of condescension.
Sorry, no sale.
I just wanted to point out that I stumbled upon this based on Ebert’s bemused tweet. While I don’t agree with Ebert all the time, and find his current film writings FAR less poignant than his work from the 70’s-early 90’s (when he, you know, won a Pulitzer), his literary contribution is still valid. He’s respected due to his long career, and if you consider his weekly TV show the epitome of his output you sir have missed the vast majority of his writing. Kind of like if I based your entire career (which I admittedly know nothing of) based on this half-rambling blog that bounces all over the spectrum and is barely coherent other than the very elementary, “I don’t like Ebert’s non-literary challenging writing” argument: I would be reminded that online bloggers are a dime a dozen, rarely have anything meaningful to add to film discussion, and there’s probably a reason I’ve never heard of you before.
Did Ebert steal your spot at the Steak N’ Shake? You seem to hate him with the passion of a thousand burning suns. His reviews are entertaining, always injected through his Midwestern, liberal lens (the whole point of reading someone else’s review, I thought- getting an opinion that maybe you don’t agree with or haven’t considered). They are thoughtful, and firmly Ebert – seems to me that is just what you think a good critic should have (” At one end of the spectrum, there are critics who approach movies as art — works to be studied, analyzed, debated and (most importantly) enjoyed, but ultimately to be judged the only way they can be: subjectively, with meanings and values unique to each individual viewer”).
Plus his blog has awesome nostalgic stories of bygone times, and while some of his tweets are a little in-your-face, I’m a convert at this point.
Some of my friends don’t care for Ebert’s reviews if they happen to harsh a fanboy favorite with his ‘morals’. But that is why I read his – what did Ebert think of this, not what is a fine, dry academic assessment of this film as a piece of art. Ebert and Armond White are the must reads. Ebert for a warm, human view with thoughtful analysis, and Armond for a hilarious reminder of what happens when a douchebag gets a little too much schooling and it goes to his head – aka a barrel full of larfs.
In conclusion, maybe don’t be so mean in your sweet online essays. Perhaps the biting comments about Ebert’s face being cut off are just the product of something shitty having happened to you recently- dog ran away, wife left you, some damn kid stole your wall street journal FOR THE LAST TIME, what have you. That would make more sense, but still probably uncool.
Congratulations! Ebert has linked his 265,000 Twitter followers to your silly article. Success!
Funny that so many views will hit this page due to your most hated foe mentioning the link.
@Buck
“Ebert (about whom I have little opinion except that I stumbled into being one of his Twitter followers and find the guy pretty insufferable–he posts about two dozen times an hour, much of it self-serving)”
As a follower of Ebert on Twitter, I have to ask you to elaborate on these 16+ self-serving tweets an hour because I’m only noticing about 2 an hour (when he posts). I always feel I learn something from his tweets, as well.
Of course, this begs the question of why you are following him if you don’t want to read about things that are happening to him (aka things that would be self-serving).
Physician, heal thyself. This pathetic excuse for criticism fails on almost every level you accuse Ebert of failing on. It’s trite, heavy-handed, and lacking in detail.
Worse, it’s clear you haven’t read anything Ebert has ever written. You watched his various shows and concluded that was him. That’s like watching some author’s interview on Larry King and assuming you’ve read the book.
Roger Ebert is one of the best film critics working today. I seldom decide whether to view a new release until I have checked his website, because I invariably agree with his assessment. Plus his work is entertaining, which is more than I can say for this peculiar attack on Ebert.
Now a quarter-million people know how big a douche you were.
Double takes while reading this article. The writer identifies a manner of popular criticism which is nauseating and infantilizing, and then identifies as its champion and symbol the film critic who has for decades published the most cogent and educational film reviews. As if he’s deliberately being deeply provocative to attract page vie… oh. count me suckered then.
I hope you’re not an authority figure at this site, much of it seems worthwhile.
Your thing made me sleepy, Larry. Ebert’s stuff doesn’t.
Ebert aside, I’d just like to say…
LL COOL J IS HARD AS HELL! BATTLE ANYBODY, I DON’T CARE WHO YOU TELL!
Well, until Larry said in the comments that he thought Ebert was a bad writer, I was just going to not comment on the absurdness of his article – which shows he’s either never read Ebert or it was over his head.
Say what you might, Roger Ebert is a terrific writer and that is true of his film criticism or anything else he puts his pen (computer) to.
My 2-cents.
I don’t know enough about the history of film criticism to tell you whether or not Ebert contributed to the dumbing down of the medium, but I can see the comparison you’re drawing between that and the way Jaws certainly ushered in a blockbuster mentality in Hollywood.
The flaw in your argument is that, despite these unintended consequences, Jaws is still an excellent movie, and Ebert is still an excellent film critic. This essay is akin to saying that Arch-Duke Ferdinand was a terrible duke because of what he accidentally inspired post-mortem. Ridiculous.
I genuinely feel for you, Larry. I’ve posted a number of things over the years that I later wished I hadn’t, either ill-considered, wrought while drunk, or just too strident. And so I bet you’re feeling kinda crappy right now. But, you know, everyone will forget about this in a few days. In the meantime, you just have to take your medicine. Take the wife out for a nice dinner and two bottles of Merlot.
In the meantime, you want some advice? No? Well, here it is anyhow:
1. Don’t call someone a lousy writer in the middle of an article without a genuine point to make, filled with demonstrably clumsy chops, and which clearly needed a half-dozen more drafts.
2. I’m all for snide comments about every subject-absolutely nothing is off the table. Race? Holocaust? Special Olympics? Have at it. We’re all too sensitive in the end. The thing, though, is if you dig your nails into one of those things, it HAS to be funny. Ebert’s health woes, and your snotty mention of them, was decidedly unfunny.
3. Never publish something the editor feels compelled to immediately disavow in a sidebar (but goes ahead and publishes anyway).
4. Take a few minutes and get in on this comment stream and write something sincere about your piece and what you were trying to do with it. Continued silence, or further puerile “puppy” comments are not your friends.
Wow, I wonder how much traffic this story and Ebert’s tweet are driving to the Rumpus. Is it true there is no such thing as bad press?
Larry– maybe you should drop the hammer on Gene Shalit next. Wait… does he have a twitter following?
With all due respect, Mr. Fahey: I’ve seen failed attempted take-downs before. But this one barely breaks the skin on Ebert’s kneecaps.
Your central thesis seems to be that Ebert “more or less created” the media bite-friendly blurbhack review. This assertion seems innocent of the career of Rex Reed, or Hedda Hopper for that matter. In 1969, when Ebert wrote is very first review, Leonard Maltin was publishing the first edition of his film guide. Gene Shalit’s been on the Today Show since 1973, two years before Ebert did his first TV review. So, nonstarter that.
Moving on.
“But what we lose with critics like Ebert is the opportunity to appreciate bad art, or found art, or more importantly, art that actually tries something, but simply fails.”
Um…you are aware that Ebert WROTE the screenplay to Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, right? Not a man on a high horse. Aside from the fact that any critic, period, could be accused of denying us “the opportunity to appreciate bad art”, I don’t know a critic in the national media who tries harder to examine a movie on its own terms.
This isn’t a critique of a critic; it seems to be an expression of annoyance by Mr. Fahey, vaguely (and unsupportedly) aimed at Roger Ebert, those who used to sit next to him on TV, and anyone who reminds Mr. Fahey of Mr. Ebert.
Taking a long break from clicking any Rumpus links.
Thank you for writing this. I’m currently working on a piece commenting on how the blogging medium has been irrevocably damaged by writers who express condescending opinions without bothering to back up their viewpoints with relevant examples. I was wanting to find a piece to share with my readers that would prove my point. This post will work perfectly! Thanks Lar!
worst…article critiquing a critic…ever.
Don’t give up your day job, Larry (unless it’s writing).
Well, I guess we covered just about everyhting that needed to be said to demonstrate how much of a failure this piece is. But just one more thing that makes Ebert a good writer and a better than average reviewer: he has a great sense of humor and derision.
Mean begets mean.
This guy, Larry, is a twat.
I think the only problem with the piece is the jerky reference to Ebert’s medical problems. It’s fine to mention them in the second sentence of the opening paragraph as a reason why criticism of Ebert is fraught, but the reference in the last sentence of the first paragraph is mean and not funny. I think good editing would be removal of that part, rather than rejecting the piece outright. I mean, otherwise this is just a critique of a very successful celebrity which, although controversial, is not wrong or bad.
The opening line about hating Roger Ebert isn’t bad either. I think everyone understands Larry doesn’t hate Mr. Ebert personally, and this is just a shorthand and somewhat glib way of saying he hates Mr. Ebert’s work (which is a valid opinion). Like if I were to say I hate Michael Bay, people wouldn’t necessarily think I have a personal vendetta against Michael Bay. Public figures are like that. A little hyperbole isn’t so offensive. Especially in the first line of an article, which is intended to grab the reader.
Wow dude, you’re taking a beating! You even have the editor saying you’re mean! Let me comment on two comments made above, you’re no hipster and Steak ‘n Shake mmmmm. I suppose this is the most feedback you’ve ever gotten but I know that’s not why you wrote this. After reading it twice I can’t really figure out WHY you wrote this. Maybe the Steak ‘n Shake guy had a point. You do sound angry,(even for you)with just a touch of douche thrown in. I’d prescribe a fist full of king sized Kit Kats and a 24 hour loop of Point Break to numb the pain your going through.
I have gotten into the habit of, as soon as I finish watching a movie, pulling up Ebert’s review.
Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t. But it’s always like hearing the opinion of a friend.
What I like about Ebert’s reviews is that I never know what to expect. One cannot credibly claim that there is a “typical” Ebert review. Sometimes they’re nuts and bolts. Sometimes they reveal things I didn’t see. Sometimes, they’re deeply personal, poetic and inspiring, so much so that his stories become fused with the story I just saw. Sometimes, he changes my mind.
While I enjoy Anthony Lane’s wit, I do not get from him — nor do I look to him — for the same feeling I get from Roger.
I do not think when Ebert sits down to write that he sets out to perform this service for me. I think it’s much simpler. He writes what he feels. There is no facade, there is no performance. And, while he has a mastery of the language, it is his heart — his willingness to share his humanity, his conceits and his insecurities — that I appreciate the most.
If you do not get this from reading Ebert, so much the worse for you.
The problem with the piece isn’t that it’s mean, it’s that it’s lazy. And it’s not all Larry’s fault; an editor would have helped.
i think that the comments here are a lot more painful to read than the article. not to defend the article. but roger ebert is fine; i’m not worried about him. i understand why people are taking Larry to task for his claims, but some of these comments are lacking in empathy and understanding–and isn’t that, ultimately, the complaint about the article?
Roger Ebert is seriously the ONLY film reviewer that I have ever known who will give you his review based on what the film tries to accomplish. While every other reviewer grades a simply, nice, “take your date to the movies” movie against “Citizen Kane” or “The Third Man”, Ebert has always made the distinction and graded a film based on who its target audience is and whether it delivers on that level. That’s what separates him from the rest. You go to HIM to get an honest review. If Martin Scorsese directs a film and it stinks, he’ll tell you. If a Pixar release is bad, he’ll tell you. If Miley Cyrus directs a masterpiece, he’ll tell you and no one else will. That’s why for decades I’ve always respected Roger Ebert and I ALWAYS consult his reviews. In his recent years, he’s let his left-leaning hang out a bit more, but he can defend it better than just about anybody I’ve ever read.
Signed,
Lifelong Republican, 😉
Dallas
You had me until you held up Anthony Lane – the increasingly glib, disdainful, pun-orientated Anthony Lane – as a rare example of where movie criticism gets it right.
That was the second paragraph.
Do they have “Sweeps Week” on the t’internet?
Gad, please please please. First Salon, then HuffPo, now The Rumpus? Caving in to “It’s the page hits, stupid!” ???
If you’ve ever been to Roger’s B-movie fest in Shampoo-Banana, you’d never judge him this way.
@Heyo, your point about my snide Twitter aside is spot-on (I backtracked on it in my second post, but maybe not enough: I hereby retract and apologize for the hyperbolic and irrelevant and inaccurate characterization of Ebert’s Twitter feed), and the reason I am inclined to empathize with Larry in this mess he has gotten himself into is that I am susceptible to the careless and sometimes ass-holish tendencies the internet elicts from anonymous assholes like me (Rick Perry, if you must know. Not really).
Granted, his piece is more pre-meditated and presumably more subject to editorial oversight and second thoughts than a post on a comment board, but still, I’m birds of a feather, and like Sean, above, I feel for the guy. Elliot’s comment above is bewildering. Isn’t he the editor, or doesn’t he have some say in what goes on this site? If this were Larry’s blog, he should take the heat alone, but if this were a blog it would probably be subject to different standards–we’d just ignore the guy like we ignore most of the other crap like that–and probably wouldn’t generate this kind of response because it wouldn’t attract this many people.
None of this is to be an apologist for the article, which was sloppy and trite and generally ill-considered, but he’s kind of getting hung out to dry by his editors, I think. This particular kind of forum–not quite blog, not quite Harper’s–presents an uncomfortable nether-region as far as journalistic standards and tone. The personal comments about Ebert would have been repulsive to most readers, I think, in any context. That they appear in what otherwise seemingly aspires to be a serious argument about bigger topics makes them even moreso. That’s an editorial failing as much as an authorial failing in this case. As I said in my earlier post, this is a big misfire from a guy I’m inclined to believe is not the ogre he is shaping up in the comments to be. I think this was an early draft that got out of control and the better angels didn’t get a chance to excise the offensive lines or tighten the argument the piece is looking for. I’ve been there. Hell, I am there. I read The Rumpus pretty regularly and am disappointed in this article and in the editorial decisions pre- and post-publication. I have every confidence that in the future the site will continue doing what it does best, which is reporting about quirky mom-and-pop strip clubs in San Francisco.
I found this article to be tedious and your writing ponderous.
After getting past your juvenile and sensationalistic first line, you failed utterly in putting forward anything resembling a compelling analysis or substantive critique and, in fact, reminded me how good a writer Ebert is, by comparison to yours.
I understand, Larry. I have the same blistering hatred for cutesy author bios.
Is this some kind of Joachin Phoenix / whatshisname Affleck performance art thing now? the rumpus seems to be going through some choppy waters these days. (on a bumpy road?)
Personally, I found Pauline Kael’s reviews to be insufferable. I felt like she went out of her way to criticize every movie, like a gymnastic judge deducting points, and yet I often felt that I never knew if she actually liked or recommended the movie. And even when I did, I was no closer to a decision of whether to see it.
But when I watched Siskel and Ebert, there were plenty of “two thumbs down” occasions when their review made me want to see the movies, and “two thumbs up” instances where I knew I would pass. It wasn’t all thumbs, you see.
Ebert’s not perfect (4 stars for John Mellencamp’s “Falling From Grace”?!) and he has some clear biases (Clint Eastwood can do little wrong), but there’s a reason his Movie Yearbook was referred to as “The Bible” in my house.
Was there anything in Larry’s article to make me want to read more of his work? Not really.
I guess this horse has already died and been buried, but–I don’t even /watch/ movies (seriously; I see like two or three a year) and I read Ebert’s reviews. I feel like I learn something from ’em.
All the moral outrage at criticism of Ebert is getting tedious. The discussion was sort of interesting at first but then it became a bunch of cheap shots at the writer. I like Ebert and I was critical of the piece earlier but now I just want to give the bird to the Ebert fan club and buy Larry a beer.
You can really tell a lot of these commenters just linked in from Ebert’s tweet. Something in the voice of the comments is different from your typical Rumpus comment. Like, I don’t think Frank, above, is a regular reader.
Why on earth would the you ding Ebert and Roeper for not mentioning the subtleties of “Hollow Man”, such as “its beguiling examination of the male gaze, its idea that what cannot be seen has no meaning,” when you admit that the movie fails to address these issues itself? Even beginning to discuss these questions in the context of an entirely miserable film like “Hollow Man” is a waste of everyone’s time, because that stuff isn’t really in the movie. The attempts “Hollow Man” makes at thematic value or meaning are shallow and perfunctory — lip service, at best. Can you really criticize any reviewer for not bothering to pretend that “Hollow Man” has something worth saying? Any review or discussion of “Hollow Man” that indulges the movie’s childish attempts at subtext as a serious topic worthy of comment simply demeans the fine films that actually do have meaning and insight, or that at least sincerely attempt it.
After all the drama dies down, I’m looking forward to some quality introspection from Elliot and friends on what it all means, what The Rumpus is and what it isn’t, etc.
So what you’re saying is, the thumbs up/thumbs down system lacks the brilliantly precise and nuanced critical thinking of a statement saying that Johnny Depp makes you “break out in hives”?
I wouldn’t have thought this review was a big deal, just a critic doing his job (which, in case you weren’t forgot, is to express an opinion). I have to think that the fact this review inspired 109 people (and counting) to respond with such vehemence (and at times, vitriol) is a sign that Mr. Fahey touched on the sore spot of a rather insecure readership. Why are so many commenters so aggressively defensive of Mr. Ebert’s work? If it’s so inciteful and unique, it will stand the test of time.
Mr. Ebert is probably a great guy but that has nothing to do with whether he remains a great critic. And, more importantly, he’s not a great critic just because you agree with him.
The best columnists form a relationship with their readers. Film critics are columnists – they share their opinions, viewpoints and knowledge. This is why people are so upset. This post is picking on their friend. Also, that it takes cheap shots at him does not help matters.
@Itchy said it quite well, when he gets home from a movie he reads Roger Ebert’s review because it’s like talking to a friend. I do this too. I’d add that Roger’s a more knowledgeable friend than many of my real-life friends!
There is room here for a healthy debate but the cruelty, mostly anonymous, of these comments has shut down turning this into a thoughtful discussion.
I realize this is mostly because it’s Ebert’s fans who are coming here, directed by his Twitter stream. But Ebert’s a good guy, and Larry’s a good guy and a good writer. Discussion doesn’t have to devolve this way just because it’s anonymous and it’s the internet.
I’m sorry so many people (everyone?) didn’t like the piece. To Peter’s point, there really are a great many thoughtful, worthwhile comments in here, and many intelligent, articulate Ebert defenders. All of this is, of course, opinion, most of all my piece, which begins with the personal pronoun, after all. It was never intended to be formal or “academic†(to use one commenter’s word).
There are also great many responses that are far more personal, mean, petty, and emotional than anything I ever thought of saying about Roger Ebert, but I suppose that’s the internet. Aside from one or two regrettably insensitive lines, I frankly don’t think my piece is particularly mean. As Aaron points out, most adults understand that saying you hate a public figure usually means you hate his work or his persona. I’m sure Roger Ebert is a lovely gentleman, and he certainly took the high road in tweeting about the post (and why wouldn’t he? This has amounted to a compendium of his skills and accomplishments. Mr. Ebert, I’m available whenever you need me.)
At the risk of seeming dismissive, it’s obviously impossible—and, to mwschmeer’s point, useless—to respond even just to the worthwhile posts. As Timothy Faust points out, this horse is long dead. I thank my handful of grudging defenders, as well as those who hated my piece but took the time to respond intelligently. I will now retire to craft my next lead balloon.
@ Linda Skirt? I’m more of a culotte guy.
@ Etchasketchist YES, LL COOL J IS INDEED HARD AS HELL. IT’S GOOD TO SEE YOUR GOOGLE ALERT FOR DEROGATORY LL COOL J POSTS, AS WELL AS YOUR CAP LOCK, ARE IN WORKING ORDER.
@Dave Mmmm, Steak ‘n’ Shake
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.