Rip Roger Ebert

Ebert is popular because he serves a utilitarian purpose for a couple of million film goers.

yes, a consumer guide. cinema = peanut butter

organic peanut butter?

'reviews' the movie instead of analyzing it

try to be coherent

Consumer guide? (shrugs) It's a living.

I much prefer his blogging to his film criticism. (That said, I'm one of the few Shame defenders so I won't assail him on that score.)

for shame

I wish him long life but he sees cinema from inside a certain box and falls for heavily promoted middlebrow pap.

His audience does likewise.

I was kind of surprised to see a long interview w/ John Waters on his blog as he famously believes Waters' early, trademark films are not "real movies."

can't believe robert christgau died

His reviews of Lost Highway and Blue Velvet are unacceptable, but he mostly means well. Certainly not a hack as a critic, maybe a bit hacky as a writer. Considering how outrageous many film critics are it's not worth one's time to bother hating Ebert.

yeah idk trolling the ebert thread on big ilx was always fruitful, in the sandbox apparently not

i mean no one even thought he was actually dead!

disappointed in u guys

Certainly not a hack as a critic, maybe a bit hacky as a writer.

What's the difference?

I was kind of surprised to see a long interview w/ John Waters on his blog as he famously believes Waters' early, trademark films are not "real movies."

― Dr Morbius, Friday, December 16, 2011 7:50 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Permalink

i imagine Waters would prob agree with him?

i mean no one even thought he was actually dead!

― Cooper Chucklebutt, Friday, December 16, 2011 7:55 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Permalink

if it makes you feel any better i started to open a google news window before i saw who started the thread

haha thank you

What's the difference?

― Lord Sotosyn, Friday, December 16, 2011 7:45 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

i.e. his criticism and thoughts weren't hacky but perhaps his writing technique was.

OMG ROBERT EGERT IS DEAD ;_; RIP HE WAS MY FAVE MOVIE CRITIC HE KNEW SOOO MUCH ABT MOVIES TWO THUMBS UP TO HEAVEN DAWG

Hm. He wrote this about TOL, which I quoted above: "A film of vast ambition and deep humility, attempting no less than to encompass all of existence and view it through the prism of a few infinitesimal lives..."

That's not criticism -- it's description, with a couple of bloated nouns and adjectives appended as an introductory clause. He writes for a newspaper; he should know better than to state the obvious, especially when it sounds like the movie's PR blather.

Imagine if he studied Van Gogh's "Starry Night" and wrote: "A painting of vast ambition, attempting no less than to encompass all of existence with the light of well-placed stars across an endless canvas."

::imagines::

tearing apart year-end listicle blurbs for not being deep crit is kinda dumb

No it's not. Excellent year-end blurbs persuade me to check out what I missed.

sorry OP i dun really wanna rip roger ebert not my kinda fetish

he was not glowing with admiration when he said early Waters was weird; he was irritated. As with Film Socialisme.

wait does jsho have taste in movies?

some people write great year-end list blurbs but writing-wise it's rarely where anyone's at their best, just seems silly to highlight a 100 word 'best of the year' piece for being surface-level and PR-y -- if you can point out similar problems with his longform reviews then that's something else.

Fair enough.

he sees cinema from inside a certain box and falls for heavily promoted middlebrow pap.

He engages with the mass public that exists almost wholly untouched by most of what you would regard as "serious" cinema (talk about existing inside a box). While the more mass you get, arguably, the more you merely reflect culture, Roger Ebert has probably had a greater influence on the world, or at least America, than Jean-Luc Godard or any number of equivalents. The less "middlebrow" he gets, the more of a receptive audience he loses. Doesn't mean you or I have to like him or find him useful (and honestly everything is utility), but that doesn't mean he isn't useful to the culture at large. He occupies the same space as Lady Gaga, say.

I don't see why people are getting butthurt over Ebert's Godard pan: IIRC he hasn't liked a new Godard film since Weekend, and he's also gone all revisionist re:the 60s color films.

wait does jsho have taste in movies?

― mookieproof, Friday, December 16, 2011 9:20 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Permalink

i have the best taste in everything come on

And another alias uncovered.

telling ppl they must check out Shame is not useful to any culture or your Aunt Millie.

it's a verb, kev

― Dr Morbius, Friday, December 16, 2011 12:15 PM (Yesterday)

ha i was just joshing fwiw

just jhoshing

Rip into Roger Ebert

i saw tinker tailor soldier spy last night and came home and lolled at the review where he said he didn't understand it

dude, I loved the '79 miniseries, and I really didn't understand the film either. Most of that was due to the short-shrifting of character, as I didn't care to care about the plot.

really? i mean i guess it moved pretty fast in its own way but i did not find anything about it hard to follow

plot is such a middlebrow conceit

Art should always be an exact transcription of reality, without the horrific artifice that is introduced by editing, condensation of time, or compression of meaning. amirite?

is that a metaphor because ugh

Art transcribed directly from reality:
http://www.wiredforbooks.org/images/ArtGarfunkel.jpg

I liked his choice of presenters for the Ebert Presents show.

Ignatiy's Top 10

and Christy Lemire as the Philistine

It's a good match!

Did The Three Musketeers even open here? I saw a bunch of posters for it in Buenos Aires.

It did, but Summit didn't promote it very much. Milla was pissed.

the whole time?

gotta numb the shame somehow i guess

His reviews of Lost Highway and Blue Velvet are unacceptable, but he mostly means well.

yeah, god forbid someone challenge the critical party line on st. lynch. this is like when ppl pretend that the only important thing about pauline kael is that she 'didn't get' kubrick.

best thing about being middlebrow is being allowed to disregard any & all of lynch, tbph

I need to rewatch my TTSS dvd before I see the movie (whose premiere I saw disappointing stage actor Sam Waterston duck out of, one block away from where I saw David Lynch, as it happens). I'll probably never actually see the movie in the theatre, though.

i don't know that you'll miss much vs screening at home, tbh

"Serious" questions:
1. Is Shame the most heterosexual movie of the year?
2. Is it socially acceptable (pick your milieu) for homosexuals to express disgust at expressions of heterosexuality? Should it be?

I don't usually get much out of Anthony Lane, but I loved his writing about TTSS. A British thing, probably.

1. Is Shame the most heterosexual movie of the year?

No -- Beginners is.

2. Is it socially acceptable (pick your milieu) for homosexuals to express disgust at expressions of heterosexuality? Should it be?

It has been for three thousand years but you people never learn.

lol isnt shame supposed to be disgusting tho

yes, esp when MF lets a man kiss him before a BJ

omg the horror

It has been for three thousand years but you people never learn

LOL

A lot of things were acceptable 3000 years ago. Didn't Plato write about this Sandusky fellow?

he wrote about OWS

dude, I loved the '79 miniseries, and I really didn't understand the film either.

I had to watch it twice to fully grasp the competing interests/motivations/schemes, which I actually found refreshing.

complex requiring effort to follow no-exposition style plotted movies are like drugs to me

like it didnt matter that it was basically presented in shopping list form

it was v beautiful too!

and gary oldman fucking ran shit

it looked fantastic, y