Posted on 03/25/2010 6:48:06 AM PDT by Borges
What I’ve always liked about Ebert as a reviewer is that he likes both art movies and fun movies. There aren’t many big time movie critics out there that would even admit to having watched a Russ Meyer movie, much less WRITTEN one.
Up to the nineties I used to see about fifteen to twenty au courant flicks at the cinema. Around the mid-nineties, I noticed that the films didn’t seem nearly as interesting as they once were. In short, the movie experience had become very boring. I’ve gone to a movie theater now only once or twice in the last ten years. I do get a bunch of premium movie channels like HBO and Showtime. My opinion is that this is absolutely the worst period in the history of movie-making. With a few exceptions dull, utterly pc flicks for the most part.
Up to the nineties I used to see about fifteen to twenty au courant flicks at the cinema. Around the mid-nineties, I noticed that the films didn’t seem nearly as interesting as they once were. In short, the movie experience had become very boring. I’ve gone to a movie theater now only once or twice in the last ten years. I do get a bunch of premium movie channels like HBO and Showtime. My opinion is that this is absolutely the worst period in the history of movie-making. With a few exceptions dull, utterly pc flicks for the most part.
There is a distinction between art and fun. And there’s nothing wrong with having that distinction. Godfather isn’t really at the level of art film I’m thinking of. It’s really those oddball foreign movies and ones similar. Stuff that winds up on the second “page” at Rotten Tomatoes, Sundance favorites and such, critics tend to LOVE those movies while the majority of the general populace doesn’t even know where to find the theaters that show them. Meanwhile most critics, except Ebert, won’t even watch Russ Meyer or Roger Corman movies, movies that can be a hell of a lot of fun, but no one will ever mistake them for art.
To a lot of people something like Antonioni IS fun and the latest mass produced comic book sequel is difficult to sit though. Meyer and Corman have their defenders amonst serious critics. ‘The Immoral Mister Tease’ is something of a classic as are Corman’s best Poe adaptations.
Yes there are outliers among people, no statement applies to all, but they don’t change the simple truth of what I’m saying. There are arthouse movies, and there are fun popcorn flicks, and most critics love the former and hate the later and one of the things that set Ebert apart was willingness to love the later very publicly. He understood what made a good popcorn flick and was willing to stand up and say “yeah it’s kind of dumb, but I had a really good time”.
If something is truly enjoyable and fun then it has some de facto artistic merit.
No it doesn’t. As a guy that straddles a similar line as Ebert (though I’m not patient with the SERIOUS arthouse movies) I know that many of the great fun films simply have no artistic merit. I love me some Toxic Avenger but there is no art in those movies, there was no art within line of site while they were making those movies, they’re fun, but they’re retarded. And that’s how it is with a lot of the low budget silly movies, and truthfully that’s part of the fun, a lot of those movies are deliberately non-artful. They come from a time before VCRs, they were disposable movies, to be watched once at your local grindhouse and forgotten.
You could say that about a lot of films made by the Hollywood studios in the 1930s and 1940s. Povery Row made films like Detour which are now revered. In the Postmodern age everything has a highbrow defender.
Most highbrow defenders don’t get it. They’re either blowing the movie out of proportion and forgetting what it’s supposed to be, or they’re trying to make a name for themselves by going against the grain. Most of these movies should only be defended with the low brow, the plots have huge wholes, the cinematographer barely knew what end of the camera to point at the actions, the actors kind of suck, but the movies (well some of them) wind up fun anyway, don’t over think it or you might not be paying attention when Pam Grier takes her shirt off.
By that argument a sincere movie version of “Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp With Eva and Adolf at Berchtesgaden” would be a critical success.
Precisely.
ping
You probably remember it as a local show when it was called, Opening Soon at a Theater Near You. :)
Thanks for ping ES,,
It has been decades since I watched it.. while the original duo were on. Now there are a lot of decent review sites & I normally just go with directors & stars I like & usually am happy with choices.
Most reviewers dont have my mentality. Rotten Tomatoes is a site where you find what ALL the reviewers think. IMDb is what we the people think.
Understand Ebert is pretty bad with his cancer. From the last pix I saw of him it appeared part of his jaw was removed.. often the case with mouth/facial cancer.. often tongue also.
I now primarily watch TV for Cav’s games.. 24 & V (starting Tuesday).. my mom however has the TV on all the time.. mostly watches network stuff even though we have Direct TV
It it had artistic value yes.
So you’re a fan of Lili Riefenstahl films then?
Yes, a part of his jaw bone was removed. He cannot speak at all. He can’t eat or drink either. He has to be fed through a tube.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.