 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.81.84.149
In Reply to: Re: The most noteworthy film critic in film criticism? posted by Gee LP on July 17, 2005 at 00:51:50:
Ebert is the most noteworthy because he's the only film critic to win the Pulitzer. He teaches film school and he knows film as well as anyone.This does not mean I agree with every thing he says -- But Pauline Kael had some bizzarre views on a lot of films. A film critic has to like all genres of film -- not all films but genres. Ebert cares not about what the film is about but how well the film achieved the goal it set out to achieve and THAT is the mark of a good film critic.
The best film critics are subjectively the ones we agree with the most and objectively the one's who can make their case and people can say well I disagree with you Roger on the Cronenberg Movie Crash but I can at least see WHY you liked it.
Ebert does not view himself as the best film critic but I suspect he will be viewed that way by both his peers the film industry and the public. What a few forumers, myself included, have to say is irrelevant. He's got his Star on the Walk of Fame, he's the critic chosen for the running commentary of film's like Citizen Kane not James Agee.
Again I'm not saying he is the best film critic in any objective way since that is silly. But what ebert is is not a Hack -- he is "in League" with the very best film critics and he writes in a realtively direct easy entertaining style (some may go further and call it formula style) but that does not or should not detract from "WHAT" he is saying.
I have read Janet Maslin and Kenneth Turan and many others even the self made wonder boy of the internet James Beradinelli. They all write differently some are a little more in depth than the others. Some of the art-house critics however often stick their foot in their mouth when trying to be "deep" shovelling absolute non-sensical kaka in their negative views of a hollywood film. To me it is easy to spot -- skeptics are always given more weight and more credibility because they are being skeptical (not that they are being more truthful) All tube amps suck , LP's suck, all amps sound the same because of some test. No different than eveyr hollywood movie sucks and only the no name box office failures which are forgotten in three years (except by 12 film critics)
Ebert is not viewed as an elite film critic for the simple reason that he isn't a big enough elitest snob. And he needs to live in New York.
Follow Ups:
I think instead of responding to my post you are just rephrasing your earlier comments about Ebert. It makes me wonder if you read what I wrote. But just in case..."Ebert is the most noteworthy because he's the only film critic to win the Pulitzer. He teaches film school and he knows film as well as anyone....He's got his Star on the Walk of Fame."
The Pulitzer can only be won by those who work for newspapers in the United States. This eliminates film critics who work for magazines or publish books or who live in other countries. For what its worth, Kael won the National Book Award. Other film critics teach or lecture at film schools, universities, and colleges and know film very well. And it isn't that hard to get a Star on the Walk of Fame. Do you know the criteria?
"A film critic has to like all genres of film -- not all films but genres."
Why? Would you ask a music critic to like all kinds of music or a book critic to like every kind of book (I remember the "greenback" paperbacks with some small fondness myself :^), but that's another story!)? Isn't it occasionally interesting to read someone grappling with a work in a genre they don't like?
"...he's the critic chosen for the running commentary of film's like Citizen Kane not James Agee."
But is Ebert chosen to do this not because he has done the most research on "Kane," but because he is well known and can convey what he knows about the film with passion? I'm sure you'll agree with me that perhaps scheduling plays a small part in Agee not being asked to do any DVD commentaries.
"But what ebert is is not a Hack -- he is "in League" with the very best film critics and he writes in a realtively direct easy entertaining style (some may go further and call it formula style) but that does not or should not detract from "WHAT" he is saying."
I don't think Ebert is a hack. Quite the contrary. See what I wrote in my previous post.
"Some of the art-house critics however often stick their foot in their mouth when trying to be "deep" shovelling absolute non-sensical kaka in their negative views of a hollywood film. To me it is easy to spot -- skeptics are always given more weight and more credibility because they are being skeptical (not that they are being more truthful)"
This doesn't discuss the critics I've suggested you take a look at, many of whom (Bazin, Sarris, Kael, Godard, Truffaut) had strong positive feelings about the "hollywood" film (indeed, Kael, who seems to be the other critic of this list you are familiar with, bluntly stated that Europe had only given us a handful of great films after 1972, whereas Hollywood was in a golden age in the Seventies).
"All tube amps suck , LP's suck, all amps sound the same because of some test. No different than eveyr hollywood movie sucks and only the no name box office failures which are forgotten in three years (except by 12 film critics)"
You did not arrive at your opinions about audio gear without listening, did you? Then take a look and read some of the critics I have suggested. There is a strong Anglo-Franco flavor to my list, but as I stated to Donald T., while there are many German, Russian, Japanese, Hong Kong, etc., critics that I do not know or do not know well, this will at least give you a start.
And if you hate no name box office failures that are forgotten in three years (except by 12 film critics) then I urge you to forego seeing "Greed," "The Wild Bunch", "The Wizard of Oz", "Citizen Kane", "Fear and Desire," (good luck just seeing that one!) and "The Sugarland Express," as they were all commerical failures on their release (at least bookkeeping said they were!) starring either has-beens or second-choicers or nobodies no one had ever heard of.
"Ebert is not viewed as an elite film critic for the simple reason that he isn't a big enough elitest snob. And he needs to live in New York."
You may be right about the first sentence here, LOL! But again, look at the writings of many on the list I posted, and you may be surprised by what cranks their motors! And Kael wrote in San Francisco for almost twenty years. The other film critics I name are/were been located in L.A., London, Paris, and Berlin. I know what you are trying to say there ("New York elitest snob critic") but one of the critics on my list came from Hungary! Location alone does not determine reputation.
Go back and re-read my previous post. Then try to find out one or two things about the people I name and read something by them. Try to understand why I might have them on a list to give someone who may be unfamiliar with the history of film criticism.
There is nothing wrong with you liking Ebert or thinking he is the best film critic you have ever read. But you wrote that he was the most notable film critic in the history of film criticism, and your reasons seem to be based more on the fact that he is well known and popular. Well, there are more film critics than the ones you see in rottentomatoes.com, and the views of the critics I wrote about have had a small impact here and there on what you see. I think you would be surprised at some of what they wrote (or in several happy instances, are writing).
Give them a chance, and see what you think.
And enjoy the journey! I remember the first time I read Kael and Sarris, and oh Lord, Bosley Crowther! You won't like all of them...but they may help you see film in different ways.
BTW, if you think Kael is bizarre, you may enjoy Renata Adler.
Take care and have more fun reading film criticism than you seem to have had up to this point!
I just double-checked the requirements for the Pulitzer, and while I am right about the country involved and magazine writers, I am slightly wrong about authors of books. It IS possible for the Pulitzer to be won by a reviewer whom has published a book, because it is awarded to one "general nonfiction book" per year.Perhaps you can tell me when a book that is a work of criticism or a work that is a collection of criticism won the Pulitzer. I can find nothing since at least 1993. That was the last year back that I looked.
Ebert won his 1975 Pulitzer for his newspaper criticism published during 1974.
Just clarifying a small point!
Maybe I should not say the most noteworthy - basically should have said most popular and recognized. The only one to win the Pulitzer.He said his favorite critic was Pauline Kael.
I don't even agree with him most of the time and he's not my favorite -- though he is the one who's writing style I typically remember or "go to" first if I'm debating on whether to see a suspect film.
My degree is in English literature, which you'd never guess by my grammar. One thing I learned about getting my degree in English is that the subject reduces one's own thinking to series of he said she said papers. I much preferred Philosophy and psychology buthad to select teachable subjects for the teaching degree.
I am a movie-goer not a film student or film art house person who particularly wants to analyze a film to death. I sure don't want to sit in a class to watch Ebert break down every frame of Citizen Kane.
I want my movie to work on movie going intent level. Dawn of the Dead is a gory horror movie that works on that level and movies MUST work on this level for me to enjoy it. For me music is similar. bob Dylan may have the best lyrics in the hostory of Rock musci but until he learns to eununciate I will never know what it is he is trying to say. I refuse to read liner notes -- learn to sing if you're a singer or give the song to someone who can.
I have read so many articles on Citizen Kane and have went back and seen it two more times. It's a solid film -- best ever -- well it's not in my top 100 and 1the made for TV 1985's Death of a Salesman IS. I think I have made my case for why -- but film criticism is obviously going to allude me because I refuse to fall all over myself for this film.
I will read some of the names you suggest assuming I don;t have to pay anything to read them. And hey no one has mentioned Leonard Maltin :-) At least his books get to the point :-)
Re: books by the critics, you should be able to find them in the musty shelves of your university or local library. Heck, even Bossier City has Kecrauer's "From Caligari to Hitler" and Haskell's "From Reverance to Rape"! Start with Bazin and Sarris (but you can never read too much Kael: "I Lost It at the Movies," "Reeling," and "When the Lights Go Down"). Good hunting!While I enjoy analyzing films frame by frame and sequence by sequence, I also enjoy just sitting down and watching a movie. You might be surprised at how sheerly enjoyable "Kane" is when you are a little older. Odd how a 25-year-old man's first film is basically a memory piece (the Mankiewicz script, I suppose), but like Proust, the viewer's age adds a little resonance to the work.
BTW, you're all wrong on Dylan :^). No liner notes needed to understand what he is saying in "Ballad of a Thin Man." Now, what it MEANS may be another thing....! I don't think he has a serious problem with enunciation until after the Christian phase (what was the album with "Jokerman" on it?). Too much touring and too many cigarettes? For a more relaxed Dylan singing style, check out "Basement Tapes", "John Wesley Harding" and "Nashville Skyline"; although every word of "Blood on the Tracks" is burned in my heart...no lyric sheet needed here!
An English lit major, eh? You know I am a middle-aged Secondary Education/English and Social Studies student in Louisiana! Long term goal is to be an English or Social Studies professor, but teaching high school kids about "Romeo and Juliet" and "A Separate Peace" for four or so years should not be too bad.
And if you are looking for a Leonard Maltin recommendation, I gotcha one right here! "The Great Comedy Teams" was published in 1970 or 71 in paperback by Maltin when he was just 17 or 18...his first book. Great essays on the great film comedy teams of the 20s through 50s. Best writing is on Laurel and Hardy, and Martin and Lewis, but wait til you read about (was it Clark and Johnson's, or Johnson and Clark's:) "Hellzapoppin'"! Long out of print, but if you can score a copy, I highly recommend it!
Enjoy the search! And if the reading gets a little too academic or long-winded (it won't with Bazin or Truffaut, I promise!), my advice is: See another movie!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
