Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:57 pm
It is this print corpus that will sustain Mr. Ebert’s reputation as one of the few authentic giants in a field in which self-importance frequently overshadows accomplishment. His writing may lack the polemical dazzle and theoretical muscle of Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris, whose names must dutifully be invoked in any consideration of American film criticism. In their heyday those two were warriors, system-builders and intellectual adventurers on a grand scale. But the plain-spoken Midwestern clarity of Mr. Ebert’s prose and his genial, conversational presence on the page may, in the end, make him a more useful and reliable companion for the dedicated moviegoer.
His criticism shows a nearly unequaled grasp of film history and technique, and formidable intellectual range, but he rarely seems to be showing off. He’s just trying to tell you what he thinks, and to provoke some thought on your part about how movies work and what they can do.
He is rarely a scold, and more frequently (perhaps too frequently) an enthusiast, and nearly always enlightening, in particular when he has brought calm good sense and moral conviction to overwrought debates about hot-button movies like Oliver Stone’s “JFK†and Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing.†Other critics (Ms. Kael and Mr. Sarris most famously) have spawned schools, or at least collected bands of acolytes and imitators. Mr. Ebert — do you mind if I just call him Roger from now on? — has no disciples, only friends.
Walter Chaw employs Alex Jackson, his credibility has been irreparably shot a long time agoFletch F. Fletch wrote:An interesting debate raging over at the Film Freak Central Blog
The process of clear and sustained thought is always a full-time job. The above quote is a silly, biased claim, really.Fletch F. Fletch wrote:An article about critic Michael Atkinson claiming that "[T]he existence of full-time staff film reviewers is a nutty aberration in the history of periodical publishing…I’d love to see every magazine employ an army of full-time culture reviewers, and pay them millions, but it doesn’t make very much sense, for the simple reason that it’s not truly a full-time job." which has set Glenn Kenny off.
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Jonathan Rosenbaum's blog is online.
An article about critic Michael Atkinson claiming that "[T]he existence of full-time staff film reviewers is a nutty aberration in the history of periodical publishing…I’d love to see every magazine employ an army of full-time culture reviewers, and pay them millions, but it doesn’t make very much sense, for the simple reason that it’s not truly a full-time job." which has set Glenn Kenny off.
Siskel was a fireball, but he wasn't all that intelligent about movies. I wouldn't place him too much higher than Roeper.Antoine Doinel wrote:...the show was never really the same after Siskel passed away.
Yeah, that's pretty spot on. I liked Siskel, a lot more than Roeper, but it had little to do with his insights in cinema.Svevan wrote:Siskel was a fireball, but he wasn't all that intelligent about movies.Antoine Doinel wrote:...the show was never really the same after Siskel passed away.
Yeah check out all of that Truffaut, Rohmer, Kubrick, Bergman, Altman, and Scorsese in his yearly top ten lists. Clearly Gene Siskel just plain didn't get it.Svevan wrote:Siskel was a fireball, but he wasn't all that intelligent about movies. I wouldn't place him too much higher than Roeper.Antoine Doinel wrote:...the show was never really the same after Siskel passed away.
The criticism was misogyny, not racism, first off. Secondly, Ebert has only stopped broadcasting on television, he has not stopped writing, so you'll have many more childish reviews to enjoy in the years to come.moviscop wrote:I wont be losing any sleep over them going off air.
I was tired of Ebert calling Lynch's work racist and writing childish reviews on his films.
He's criticized Lynch for both, I believe it was for Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me that he said having a black serial killer in the film was racist, or something along those lines.Mr_sausage wrote:The criticism was misogyny, not racism
You are incorrect Sausage.Murdoch wrote:He's criticized Lynch for both, I believe it was for Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me that he said having a black serial killer in the film was racist, or something along those lines.Mr_sausage wrote:The criticism was misogyny, not racism
The misogyny was referring to Blue Velvet.Some people laugh when they see this scene. They like the way the look is overplayed: Cage looks like a villain in a silent movie. I didn't laugh. I saw the payoff as Lynch's attempt to defuse the violence - to excuse a racially charged scene of unapologetic malevolence
Rossellini is asked to do things in this film that require real nerve. In one scene, she's publicly embarrassed by being dumped naked on the lawn of the police detective. In others, she is asked to portray emotions that I imagine most actresses would rather not touch. She is degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important film.
That's what Bernardo Bertolucci delivered when he put Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider through the ordeal of "Last Tango in Paris." In "Blue Velvet," Rossellini goes the whole distance, but Lynch distances himself from her ordeal with his clever asides and witty little in-jokes. In a way, his behavior is more sadistic than the Hopper character.