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.
How is Ebert a ‘pretentious snob’? On his blog he openly engages with people who post comments. He’s pretty down to earth.
Because you've repeatedly railed against Ebert's and the general public's boring, bland taste in films. This makes me curious to hear what films you find interesting, since your taste is clearly more elevated than that of Ebert or the public.
There are two Sammys postulated in the film. One is an insurance claimant with a diabetic wife (the one Leonard reminisces about) and another who is an unmarried con artist (the one Teddy tells Leonard about).
One can admit that the Clooney film was a vanity project of sorts (in the sense that any film by an actor-director is) but also see that it was a well crafted tribute to the ‘live television’ cinema of Sidney Lumet and John Frankenheimer.
Actually that wasn’t my point. I don’t care about his TV show at all. I read him much more often than I watched him. At his best he was a very good writer, funny and insightful.
I did read it. Here's the money line: " What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of." And here's the conclusion:
"It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it."That's anything but a stand-offish reaction.
No, there’s only one Sammy, the guy Leonard keeps telling the story about. Teddy tells Leonard that Sammy was a con-artist, but Teddy is just interpreting Leonard’s story when he talks about Sammy.
My head's spinning from your dodging and avoiding. Whatever, man, take it easy.
Or is this?
"Is the film 'good' or 'great?' I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ."
Thanks, Roger.
Like I said, I know you love her but I believe that Pauline Kael, for all her intelligence and wit, was damaging to film culture. You take it easy as well! :-)
Did you like it yourself? I thought Gibson engaged in a somewhat primitive realism...just reenacing events without illuminating them. And the style owed far more to gory Italian horror films than a lot of people were willing to admit.
My whole point, if you've read why I read film critics above, is that I don't give a damn what someone likes--I read a critic to see what he or she is thinking, and what that makes me think. A top ten list I'd probably enjoy each year would be one of unusual films I didn't care for--it would show the writer has an interesting, independent mindset.
My listing my favorites would be meaningless, as my reasons wouldn't be there. I find the whole "Top Ten of 2010" and such lists as part of this larger problem. People just grab Entertainment Weekly and read what's hip but not TOO hip.
You don't care what I like--whatever it is, you're just wanting to see it so you can do the fake "How elitist snobbish you are!" silliness which is overtaking this site. I don't care what you think of my tastes or what anyone else thinks--I just don't care for the garbage Ebert and the general public like. I think for myself and neither care about nor want the good thoughts of others about what I like.
That's sort of the point. If Ebert were Gene Shalit and just raved about the movies that would be the most popular with his audience you wouldn't have this kind of discussion about him. It's because he was or appeared to be something more than that once and declined into a parody of himself that people feel compelled to criticize him. I'm sorry Roger's in poor health, but he should have retired 10 or 15 years ago.
He’s at his best these days writing about Classic films. He’s really gone off the rails in contemporary stuff.
He was the film critic for the New York Press. I liked his reviews, but to judge from his wikipedia entry he can be a real jerk. Very much a film snob. But he is the sort of person you need if you want something more than just praising whatever Hollywood wants people to like.
One becomes and expert judge with superior taste by
1) having abundant exposure to the objects in question
2) having patient, attentive, and sustained experience of them
3) having knowledge about the elements that enter into the production of such objects
4) having perhaps some degree of skill in producing them
There has always been a lot of problems with Ebert’s criticism, even before he went totally wacko on politics. Not having a PhD is not one of them.
It is not either an evolution or a devolution. Despite what the author states, Ebert’s political prism is not at all new.
I was 2 years behind Roger at the UofI-Champaign. Thanx to an idiot friend who had a crush on him (!), I was dragged to Thursday lunch meetings of Americans for Democratic Action, which he headed. He was a full-blown leftist who talked incessantly, even in 1961-1962.
I have a lot of sympathy for Ebert these days, as he is suffering from the ravages of a nasty cancer. I will acknowledge his spirit, which appears indomitable, as he still manages to write and publish. But I will not accept that he is just a film enthusiast who has lately inserted his politics into his criticism. He was qualified for nothing else and likely got the job by virtue of who he knew and the purity of his ideology.
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.