Posted on 07/27/2010 11:38:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When you love a given film and the guy next to you doesn’t, what do you think? Who cares, right? After all, taste is subjective. Newsreal Blog managing editor David Swindle and I often discuss and debate films we’ve seen. Now, I’ve studied film formally for years. Does this make my opinion more important? Perhaps for some academics, but does this make Swindle’s opinion useless? Most certainly not.
My view of film is often based in academia and film history while Swindle’s is based in the comparison to other contemporary films. Both views are justified and have their place. We represent two different possible approaches to film criticism. There can be scholarly/historical criticism as well as journalistic/populist criticism. The latter is a much more useful approach when it comes to mainstream film criticism. The fact is anyone who takes their film viewing experience seriously is capable of having a voice as a critic. However, for some people like New York film critic Armond White, it is not that simple. For White, if a critic disagrees with him (especially if they don’t have a PhD in film studies) they are likely not very smart and should not continue writing criticism. White’s elitism has provoked him to attack fellow critic Roger Ebert, mostly because he doesn’t have a PhD in film studies. What White fails to recognize is that Ebert is writing film criticism for a newspaper, not submitting to a film journal. Ebert’s audience is not looking for the ideas presented in a doctoral thesis.
White attacks Ebert :
"I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. Because of the wide and far reach of television, he became an example of what a film critic does for too many people. And what he did simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all…I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think he does NOT have the training. I’VE got the training. And frankly, I don’t care how that sounds."
White feels that due to his academic studies in film that he is a pedigreed film critic. This is wrong, he is a pedigreed film scholar, and there is a difference. While I spend a lot of time writing essays for graduate classes, I try to change my tone and focus when writing a film review. People reading film reviews aren’t looking for a journal entry and Ebert knows this. Inside Movies responded to the statements from White and broke down the differences between types of critics:
"The critics may quibble over those labels, but for this discussion, an elitist is a critic who believes his primary responsibility is to educate readers so they may better understand the film medium while a populist, using his knowledge and tastes, sets out to explain his responses to films. One assumes the voice of authority; the other assumes the voice of a confidant."
When we think of the pioneers of today’s film criticism who comes to mind? Certainly Pauline Kael (not a scholar) who was a major inspiration for both Ebert and White. Going further we can find a more scholarly approach to modern film criticism such as the work of Andrew Sarris and Robin Wood, but for most people reading film reviews they prefer the confidant over the elitist academic. Unfortunately, White has neglected the useful purpose of critics like Ebert.
It does not take a PhD to watch or understand a movie. Therefore, why can’t someone passionate about the art comment on it formally? White’s animosity to a less scholarly approach are ironic because many film scholars actually do appreciate the work Ebert has done. It is good to have useful non-academic film writing to balance out all of the dense articles that frequent film journals. For example David Bordwell, Professor Emeritus from the University of Wisconsin who has many influential books in the field of film studies, wrote a forward to Ebert’s 2006 book Awake in the Dark. Bordwell writes:
"Roger Ebert has blended prodigious energy, keen judgment, wide knowledge, probing insights, and a sharp sense of humor into some of the most perceptive commentary on cinema published in our time. In the tradition of George Bernard Shaw and Robert Hughes, he practices graceful and deeply informed art journalism. Some pieces he writes are ephemeral, but nothing he writes is trivial."
This is quite a complement coming from a scholar like Bordwell. One can also look at the blurbs on the back of this book from filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg and Robert Atlman to see that Ebert has certainly earned his platform as a film critic (whether you like him or not). Sure, in recent years his politics have become more of a threat to his credibility as a journalist, but not as a film critic. However, those movie buffs that don’t align with Ebert’s politics still have one thing in common – a deep love of film (it is this shared love that has allowed me to get along with even the most Leftist of film professors).
Just like I don’t attack Swindle’s outlook on certain films because he lacks a film degree, White shouldn’t discredit Ebert either. If someone is a good writer and serious film lover, they deserve a seat at the table. What can it hurt? Film critics are not tenured professors, who still have their journals and graduate seminars where the semantic debates rage on. If all reviews were written by snobby academics, no one would read them except other snobby academics. People like Ebert have helped bring film discussions into the mainstream for everyone to enjoy, we should at least be grateful for that.
Sorry but I’ve seen them all, most more than once and that’s exactly what they are and what they do.
Nope you’re wrong, again. Most of his characters are ill defined because who and what they are is the primary question of the piece. And most of the time his philosophical questions aren’t answered at all.
Memento is a lot bigger than a Seinfeld episode. The central question of Memento is whether Leonard is who he thinks he is or if he’s actually Sammy. And there’s no answer within the movie, which makes it fun and interesting, because if Leonard is actually Sammy it’s a vastly different movie than if Leonard is actually Leonard.
Interestingly, Ebert liked Passion of the Christ.
I didn’t say they weren’t of cultural importance. I was pointing out that whenever you see somebody throwing around the phrase “cultural elite” you’ll always find them to be an elitist trying to establish their own kind of culture.
That's not what the film projects.
I think the key moment is when the Joker equips the civilian ferry and the prison ferry with reciprocal detonators. The civilians (i.e. the law-abiding citizens, the man in the street, the American public) decide to cold-bloodedly murder the prisoners to save themselves and a prisoner throws the detonator away to save the civilians.
Please, illuminate us poor benighted movie goers. What films of the last year or so have reached your high standards and pleased the discerning critical palate of Darkwolf?
I own it, and you're wrong. She said (didn't imply) he had little to do with the SCREENPLAY.
The opening of her concise review: "The Orson Welles film generally considered the greatest American film of the sound period"--she's claiming he had nothing to do with it, yet uses his name in proprietary fashion?
I started copying passages where Kael praises Welles's contributions and it was too much work. I'll just quote this: "Orson Welles brought forth a miracle."
Tell me again how that's saying he had nothing or little to do with Citizen Kane?
I particularly like his pointing out the Good Night and Good Luck was crap but that lib critics jumped on its bandwagon because they liked its politics. Maybe that is the reason he denigrates Ebert for not being properly trained in criticism. If he were truly a critic, he could admire a movie with which he disagrees and pan one which is a bad movie (even if it makes him warm and fuzzy inside).
I remember Kael's review of Peckinpah's Straw Dogs. Kael disagreed with the premise of the film entirely but called it a "fascist masterpiece". I do not think Ebert can review films in that way.
Why the attitude?
If it couldn’t have been done any better than I assume it’s the very idea of doing film criticismn on TV was what you object to? When offered the chance he should have said “I can’t do that! It will ruin standards!”
I still read Ebert’s reviews because if the film has nothing to do with politics, he writes a decent review, in fact an excellent one.
If Roger Ebert gives anything 4 stars, I avoid it. It is always because it has some liberal bent or is directed or starring one of his favorite libs.
Isn’t that the great thing about movies (and books and music)? People can watch them and take away dramatically different things from them.
Read his review.
I wouldn't say that he liked it. It's the most detached, stand-offish 4 star review of his career. It's a weird piece.
I guess Ebert didn’t hate the thumbs thing too much as he still features it on his website.
You missed the part of the movie where the civilians don’t push the button. They vote to push the button but they don’t go through with it. They make what would be the right game theory choice by vote (in a mutual assured destruction scenario game theory says push the button now), but when it comes time to do it they don’t go through with it. So both groups make the morally correct decision, so while it is a key moment it doesn’t have the hopeless message some folks (who carefully ignore that the civilians didn’t push the button) say.
But the WOT commentary in the movie comes in different scenes. Mostly when Alfred is talking about his experiences in Africa.
His commentary tracks for Citizen Kane and Casablanca were wonderfully engaging.
You have to admit it’s kinda funny to see one pretentious snob attacking another.
I don't agree that it couldn't have been done any better, so your question is meaningless to me.
,i> When offered the chance he should have said “I can’t do that! It will ruin standards!”
Your need to defend Ebert has brought you to silly comments, but this one takes the cake. Your ultimate bottom line seems to be that if you were offered money and a TV show you'd take them, so therefore whatever Ebert does is awesome. That's ridiculous.
Ebert's "non-true work" has contributed to the wearing-down of standards. I never said he was sitting in a corner cackling, rubbing his hands together as he contemplates our doom--you know that, and like Ebert you take these silly, fake-populist nothing comments instead of addressing the issue.
Ebert is just one in a parade of thousands who over the years have contributed to the decline of standards in all areas in this country. Taken as individual cases, no one of them it "to blame". That doesn't mean they haven't contributed to the larger problem.
If you want to discuss the actual points I bring up, feel free to comment. If you just want to be silly, please don't address comments to my mailbox.
I still run into people who have read the essay and who know I am a Welles fan who like to say to me "you know Welles really didn't have much to do with Citizen Kane, right? She may not have said that in so many words, but many people believe it because of the essay.
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.