criterionforum.org

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.

Which makes it all the odder that he has given Lynch's last three movies all four-star reviews!

I think it was actually Jim Emerson who reviewed Inland Empire. Point taken all the same!

It could just be that he's finally warmed to him, and might even see those earlier films now in a different light. Mulholland Drive (arguably Lynch's most accessible film) was the first one that I really "got," and it's helped me rewatch his earlier works now in a different light. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Ebert now must love all things Lynch, but I will say that I used to side with him (to an extent) on Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart, while now I admire them quite a bit more.

Or we could use Occam's razor and deduce that Ebert simply liked these films and disliked Lynch's other films, no "warming" or revisionism of past opinions needed. I don't have a problem with Lynch but I also don't like any of his films other than Mulholland Dr, so it's not like it's impossible or uncommon for someone to take this position.

Yes, in all likelihood, Ebert still dislikes the older Lynch films. He has certainly had a chance to say if he has changed his mind on them during his positive reviews, and to my knowledge, he has not done this. In any case, it is not important for me to agree with Ebert on David Lynch (and I would consider myself only a moderate fan) in order for the world to make sense to me. Though I do often wonder to what extent he (or other critics) drastically change their minds on a film (not necessarily Lynch's) after some time has passed. Perhaps a point for further discussion... For example, Roeper recently gave a positive review to Hellboy 2 and said that he was wrong to dismiss the first film when it came out. (Of course, that's just Roeper.)

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.

A.O. Scott's 'The Simpsons' fixation is way too much. I can't read/look at him without thinking he's just running everything through a filter that involves Homer being unintentionally (and evidently charmingly) "postmodern" about something.

I think Ebert's recent warming to Lynch has more to do with his general and growing dissatisfaction with "the system". From his recent review of Step Brothers:

Sometimes I think I am living in a nightmare. All about me, standards are collapsing, manners are evaporating, people show no respect for themselves. I am not a moralistic nut. I'm proud of the X-rated movie I once wrote. I like vulgarity if it's funny or serves a purpose. But what is going on here?

Branching-and-not-extremely-relevant-prediction: When Lynch dies, Blue Velvet will be called - and not just once - "the greatest American film of all time". But only after he dies.

sonofkinski wrote: But only after he dies.

He will never die. He will just inexplicably morph into Bill Pullman.

sonofkinski wrote:Branching-and-not-extremely-relevant-prediction: When Lynch dies, Blue Velvet will be called - and not just once - "the greatest American film of all time". But only after he dies.

It's okay to like a movie, but don't get ridiculous

I said nothing about personally liking/loving/hating the movie. Film critics will say it. Book it.

edit: An even larger number of them will say Goodfellas when Scorcese kicks it. Predictability.

That's the kind of shit you hear anytime a name film director (or novelist or musician or actor or whatever) dies. Then the hype passes with time. Big deal.

Lazy, hyperbolic, and predictable journalism should be a big deal.

If Lynch dies I will be inconsolable.

Mr_sausage wrote:If Lynch dies I will be inconsolable.

Me too. I think I've mentioned somewhere here that if there is one director whose death would destroy me completely, that director is David Lynch.

Mr_sausage wrote:If Lynch dies...

Um, you guys do realize that David Lynch is only human, right?

That being said (and in the spirit of making outlandish predictions), I predict that Mr. Lynch will live to make many more films, and will even one day, many years from now, be approached to helm a new series of even more hyper-real Batman movies than the two following Chris Nolan's interpretations. Ironically, Lynch will attempt to make this his first straightforward film since, let's say, The Straight Story, but he will shoot the thing all out of order, and will die in the middle of filming, thus leaving the entire production a mess. However, in the interest of making money, the studios will release it anyway, and that film will eventually be widely considered the greatest American film of all time. Or at least the greatest since Godfather IV.

swo17 wrote:Um, you guys do realize that David Lynch is only human, right?

Well, of course. That's a silly question.

Michael wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:If Lynch dies I will be inconsolable.

Me too. I think I've mentioned somewhere here that if there is one director whose death would destroy me completely, that director is David Lynch.

I feel the same way about Godfrey Ho.

When I think about how up there all the French directing greats are getting, I try to convince myself that they can all make it to 100 no problem

sonofkinski wrote:edit: An even larger number of them will say Goodfellas when Scorcese kicks it. Predictability.

Not Raging Bull?

Not his champagne commercial?

Andre Jurieu wrote:Not Raging Bull?

Not enough Gangsters

domino harvey wrote:Not his champagne commercial?

Too European

Cold Bishop wrote:

Andre Jurieu wrote:Not Raging Bull?

Not enough Gangsters

domino harvey wrote:Not his champagne commercial?

Too European

Hil-LARE-ity aside, when Scorsese eventually croaks, wouldn't they likely acknowledge Raging Bull as the pinnacle of his career and the best contender within his body of work for the title of "Greatest Best American Movie Ever Made in the History of Time"? I'm not saying that I agree with that conclusion, since I am apparently one of those "predictable" dolts that thinks Goodfellas is his best movie (actually, I might be "lazy" and "hyperbolic" as well). However, isn't the general consensus within conventional film criticism that Raging Bull is the apex within his career?

It seems like critical opinion has swayed to Goodfellas over the past decade or so...be it from genuine reassessment, 'Sopranos' romance, or that younger writers seem to know and like the direction and tone of a mafia story over a "black and white drama with a boxer in it".

Oh, and I wouldn't think there's anything doltish about preferring Goodfellas -- it's the presumed laziness of journalists (you know, people PAID for such things) to all lock-step together in the interest of a deadline and/or not appearing out of touch to their peers that annoys me. Basically, a respected writer like Amy Taubin can do the work for the majority of the community by voicing her opinion. The bandwagon takes care of the rest.

Of course, I'm still reading the damn things, so...

Um, Taxi Driver, anyone?

sonofkinski wrote:It seems like critical opinion has swayed to Goodfellas over the past decade or so... be it from genuine reassessment, 'Sopranos' romance, or that younger writers seem to know and like the direction and tone of a mafia story over a "black and white drama with a boxer in it".

Other than the influence of The Sopranos, I honestly haven't noticed this trend in terms of mainstream critics. Perhaps on websites with younger writers, but I thought within "respected" critic-circles (ex. the Film Comment contributors) that Raging Bull was still held in higher regard, perhaps in part due to the fact that it's a difficult black & white boxing drama which conventional audiences would never fully appreciate. I'm not saying that's a correct perception or that it's even a common one among critics, but I think this type of superficial assessment balances out the one alluded to above. Basically, if one group dismisses it for superficial reasons, another probably embraces it for superficial reasons. Of course, the numbers within each group may have fluctuated considerably in recent years, which would lend additional weight to your argument.

-- it's the presumed laziness of journalists (you know, people PAID for such things) to all lock-step together in the interest of a deadline and/or not appearing out of touch to their peers that annoys me... The bandwagon takes care of the rest.

I really can't argue with that statement since I share a similar (though not exactly the same) viewpoint. Of course, there still are some great critics out there (some of them are actually under 35 as well) who I still admire greatly.

swo17 wrote:Um, Taxi Driver, anyone?

Again, I wouldn't really disparage anyone who claims this to be Scorsese's masterpiece (again, I'm a big fan), but I'm speaking about general critical consensus and I would have to say based on my own perceptions of mainstream media that Taxi Driver has always played 2nd fiddle to Raging Bull when critics evaluate Scorsese's overall career.

I think They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? is pretty good as far as gauging overall critical consensus. They rank Scorsese's films as follows (on their top 1000 films of all time) in their 2007 update:

018 Raging Bull
038 Taxi Driver
115 Goodfellas
149 Mean Streets
370 The King of Comedy
423 The Age of Innocence
623 The Last Temptation of Christ
700 Casino
814 The Last Waltz
835 New York, New York