criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:His charges of misogyny are pretty well-argued though. What makes his accusations "childish," other than that you disagree with them?

He continued to write reviews on Lynch's work that continued to mirror his bitterness toward the man, long after Blue Velvet. He has just recently began to recover from a long string of Lynch-bashing.

To put it simply, he held his bitterness for a long time and let it get in the way of his examination of Lynch's work.

I wont argue misogyny in Lynch's Blue Velvet, but I feel like we would have to know the man to see if he is truly a misogamist. He is such a strange guy it isn't easy to pin anything on him.

PS, congrats on 4000 posts

Why is it a conspiracy against Lynch? How about Ebert didn't think Lynch's earlier films were any good, but kept an open mind and was thus able to recognize the quality in, and award four stars to, two of his recent films? You jump to conclusions and make grandiose claims so easily.

I think I was mistaken in that post about Fire Walk with Me, from what I've read there was no black serial killer in the film, just a serial killer from the Black Lodge.

domino harvey wrote:Why is it a conspiracy against Lynch? How about Ebert didn't think Lynch's earlier films were any good, but kept an open mind and was thus able to recognize the quality in, and award four stars to, two of his recent films? You jump to conclusions and make grandiose claims so easily.

Domino, I won't argue with someone who refuses to reason. Read every Ebert review on Lynch, and you will know. Until then, please don't make sweeping statements against my claims.

swo17 wrote:Does this mean Roeper's last televised thought will be a recommendation of 21 against Michael Philips' rec of High and Low?

"Oh man, you had to pull the Kurosawa card."

He sure did like movies about poker.

21 was a movie about... um... blackjack.

I think we can both be honest and agree that my reputation is so tarnished on these forums that none of my statements will be accepted for discussion, no matter how valid or researched they may be.

Lets agree to disagree.

To put it simply, he held his bitterness for a long time and let it get in the way of his examination of Lynch's work.

I don't think that's it. He didn't like The Elephant Man, either, nor did he care for Eraserhead and he hated Dune. Quite simply, Ebert wasn't hot on Lynch from the very beginning.

neal wrote:

swo17 wrote:Does this mean Roeper's last televised thought will be a recommendation of 21 against Michael Philips' rec of High and Low?

"Oh man, you had to pull the Kurosawa card."

He sure did like movies about poker.

21 was a movie about... um... blackjack.

Quite right. I must have been thinking of his raves of Casino Royale and Lucky You.

Also, some choice thoughts on 21: "I was recently at a tournament with one of the guys the movie was based on, and he said he thought it was pretty good, so, you know, if he thinks they got it right..."

moviscop wrote:

Murdoch wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:The criticism was misogyny, not racism

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.

You are incorrect Sausage.

And at the beginning of Wild at Heart, there is a scene between Sailor and a black assassin that Ebert commented on and made a big deal about. The scene can be found here

Full reviewhere

Ebert

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

You know even a cursory bit of reading shows Ebert did not accuse Lynch of racism. His problem is with the "unapologetic malevolence," and how in his opinion Lynch attempts to excuse it and joke his way out of it. The epithet "racially-charged" is not in itself negative, nor a criticism, but a further description of the moment that helps highlight his problem with Lynch's attempt at diffusion.

On the other hand, the charge, or near charge, of misogyny, echoes in a number of Ebert's Lynch reviews.

As a side note, anyone else tried going back through moviscop's posts and replacing Lynch's name with Ebert's? It's fun:

"he held his bitterness for a long time and let it get in the way of his examination of Ebert's work."

"He continued to write reviews on Ebert's work that continued to mirror his bitterness toward the man"

Reads like a self-confession written in the third person.

In the worst case scenario, you decide to poison the well.

very nice.

Dylan wrote:

To put it simply, he held his bitterness for a long time and let it get in the way of his examination of Lynch's work.

I don't think that's it. He didn't like The Elephant Man, either, nor did he care for Eraserhead and he hated Dune. Quite simply, Ebert wasn't hot on Lynch from the very beginning.

Re: Eraserhead - not entirely true according to this, which lists most of Ebert's reviews of Lynch's film.

Here is a pretty detailed look at Ebert's life. Very interesting.

Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz have been recruited to take over "At the Movies."

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

I'd prefer Gene Shalit & Rex Reed.

Why couldn't they go with some of the guest hosts Ebert & Roeper has had over the last year? I would love to tune in every week for At the Movies with Fred Willard & John Mellencamp.

swo17 wrote:Why couldn't they go with some of the guest hosts Ebert & Roeper has had over the last year? I would love to tune in every week for At the Movies with Fred Willard & John Mellencamp.

What about Kevin Smith & Jay Leno?

We should also spare a thought for Michael Phillips who seems to have been abandoned by both sides in this tussle - Roeper couldn't even single him out for comment from the other guest reviewers despite him having taken a more full time role for the last few months.

MichaelB wrote:In the event, I was very happy indeed with how the interview turned out, and on the back of it I was asked to give a talk on Wajda to coincide with its eventual publication in May

Was just looking back through the thread and thought I'd ask how your talk went - will we maybe be able to read it on your blog in the future?

Speaking of the blog, no pressure but I'm looking forward to taking A Trip To The Moon!

colinr0380 wrote:We should also spare a thought for Michael Phillips who seems to have been abandoned by both sides in this tussle - Roeper couldn't even single him out for comment from the other guest reviewers despite him having taken a more full time role for the last few months.

Well, obviously if the show wanted to retain any credibility picking from the pool of guest hosts, they would have gone with Phillips and A.O. Scott. I'm not that familiar with their print reviews, and I don't always agree with either of them, but from what I could tell, they seemed to know the most what they were talking about.

Ben Mankiewicz tells the worst dad jokes I've ever heard, and something about Ben Lyons's face makes me want to punch my fist through my computer screen, but who knows, it could be, um, not completely terrible? On the upside, does this mean Rose McGowan will take over introducing movies on the weekends on TCM?

It'll be awful because of the format, not necessarily because of the participants involved.

I have a feeling that Phillips might be quiet about all this because he's going to become Roeper's permanent co-host on whatever show he has cooked up [though I'd prefer A.O. Scott], which'll probably be just a continuation of the traditional Siskel & Ebert format elsewhere.

swo17 wrote:Why couldn't they go with some of the guest hosts Ebert & Roeper has had over the last year?

Would you like to be known as the person who took over Ebert and Roeper's show after they were squeezed out? I'm sure there is some loyalty to the two of them among those who guest hosted the show. The Bens are probably the only two people in Hollywood who had no qualms about this, as they are both complete idiots.

You are probably right about all that, but you should know my original post was mostly facetious. Willard and Mellencamp were hilariously awful reviewers, readily admitting they didn't go out to see movies all that often, and defending most of the films they saw with a hardy "I don't know, I just liked it--it was a good time at the movies!" Some other choice quotes (paraphrased from memory):

Mellencamp on Fracture: "That kid in the movie--who was that kid? [It was Ryan Gosling, at that time, up for an Oscar for Half Nelson.] Yeah, I liked him, he should be in more movies."

Willard on For Your Consideration: "You know what, I liked it! And not just because all my friends are in it!" [Note: All Fred Willard quotations must end with an exclamation point.]

"At the Movies with Willard and Mellencamp" would be a much better show than the one in the works. Actually, it would probably be better than any other "tag team film critics" show since Siskel died. Is that awful "Hot Ticket" with Maltin and some woman still on?

Matt wrote: Is that awful "Hot Ticket" with Maltin and some woman still on?

I was actually just checking that up, since I figured Roeper would have liked to join up and make it a threesome. Turns out it ended a few years ago.

Too bad they didn't poach Rose McGowan from TCM and bring back guest-host Kim Morgan. Now those, er, thumbs I would've tuned in for.

That was a wonderful piece! I hadn't checked out Ebert's Journal yet. It looks pretty good.