about as clueless as usual, tho I got a chuckle out of his rant on my #1 for the year by Godard; “no instinct for how ppl watch movies” etc

What exactly is he “clueless” about?

He is CLUELESS about ART! and talking—LOL

the 4 stinkers in his top 10 will do for a start. 2 would be excusable.

So you don’t like the movies he likes: how does that make him “clueless”?

I’m not going to say that those aren’t in fact Ebert’s favorite films, but I think he feels compelled in his position to reference ones that register in the popular consciousness. As the best-recognized critic in the country, I’d imagine he feels his role is to shape public taste at the margin. Chicken or egg, perhaps.

I think he feels compelled in his position to reference ones that register in the popular consciousness.

I agree: he’s not a serious critic. He does certain kinds of writing better than I ever will, but I’m better at this.

Hmmm, well he does say this:

My best guess is that between six and ten of these movies won’t be familiar. Those are the most useful titles for you, instead of an ordering of movies you already know all about.

What constitutes a “serious critic,” btw?

ebert is basically the only remaining credible cultural commentator. honest to god, when he does die, what the fuck will we have left, and why will it be worth getting out of bed in the morning?

you were a hack writer w/horrible taste in movies

pro-tip: complain about it

Serious critic is serious. I might suggest that the more popular, the more significant.

That said, while he remains a public figure, I don’t know how much his criticism actually registers these days.

Armond is right, I think, that Ebert has done more to retard film criticism than anyone else since he got his little TV show.

wow can’t believe morbs called the dude who can’t talk a “retard”

At least two of his blurbs sound like he quoted press releases verbatim.

Michael Fassbender’s brave, uncompromising performance

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.

it’s a verb, kev

it seems to me that whatever serious criticism is, it is definitely not calling another critic “unserious” and engaging in glib character assassination.

no, thats what it is

no, it’s sanctimony mixed with tepid disagreement

and the wholesome use of “we” as subject

Film criticism serves two very distinct and wholly incommensurate purposes.

What might be called ‘serious’ criticism serves to identify the elements of film as an art form, and tries to place films into a larger context than commercialism. A good serious film critic may see things in a film that were not visible to any of the makers of that film, or that the film’s makers could not have articulated.

Then there is what I would call utilitarian film criticism. A utilitarian critic interprets a film to its prospective audience in terms of whether they will get their money’s worth out of it. Such a critic might incorporate a certain amount of praise for a film’s artistic content, but only in the context of letting you know why a film is worth watching. He’ll concentrate on telling you what you need to know in order to decide to watch it or skip it.

The vast majority of people who read or listen to film criticism are looking for this utilitarian take on a film. Serious criticism is a specialty niche and outside of academic institutions, even serious critics have to give their work a utilitarian slant.

Ebert is popular because he serves a utilitarian purpose for a couple of million film goers. It seems silly to say that because of this fact he “retards film criticism”. Serious critics have a totally different, much tinier audience having nothing to do with what Ebert does. imo.

Well said.

the art/commerce binary never made any sense to me. i think ebert’s a great writer with his own sensibility who has lots of totally-checked-out days and a few good ones here and there. i find his sensibility kind of boring in general but i enjoy his writing, which means i mostly read him on movies i never see and skip his reviews of movies i do see and/or like.

is this thread actually about the midwest?

lol at serious music criticism not being utilitarian, ie being literally useless

Serious critics have a totally different, much tinier audience having nothing to do with what Ebert does. imo.

― Aimless, Friday, December 16, 2011 12:05 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

who are these people?

besides dr morbius

Certainly there are plenty of scholarly essays on film? I’m doing some research on Manoel de Oliveira for work and have come across a couple of useful pieces in Sight & Sound (including one from Jonathan Rosenbaum).

A variation on Aimless’s differentiation on the two kinds of film writers, something I’ve posted before (and took from Stanley Kauffmann or Dwight Macdonald or somebody): film criticsm assumes you’ve seen the film in question, film reviewing assumes you haven’t.

ive read some of morbius’ reviews and he appears to do the same thing as ebert—writes for a weekly deadline, ‘reviews’ the movie instead of analyzing it, gives a star rating and lets people know if the newest release is worth checking out. i have no idea what makes him a serious critic and not ebert, except that he has more of a taste for artsy fartsy foreign crap. if that’s the only difference, then there aint no difference at all

Posts like the opening one here are what SB was created for. Asshole.

finally

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:

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