 
|
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
Q. It seems that in past year most of your reviews end up awarding three stars or more. I had confidence in your three-star ratings until I realized that so many of them are mediocre films. For example, "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith," which is composed of bad acting and unimpressive dialogue. Please be more critical of average films.Bud Schauerte, Austin, Texas
A. I often hear I am "getting soft." A correspondent helpfully writes: "My friend says that since you had cancer, you give every movie three or four stars." A New York weekly critic says I "like everything," and he must be right, because I even liked the film he cited as an example of how much more discerning he is than critics like me.
I did some math, and found that my average rating for a feature film in 2005 came to about 2.7 stars. On a bell curve, the average should be 2.0, but consider that I reviewed 284 movies in the last year, and the extra titles were independent and foreign films that tended to skew higher. I am content with my 2.7 average.
The problem is with the use of stars as a rating system. Star ratings go back to that simpler time when film critics stood on far hillsides and signaled to the grateful peasantry with torches and brightly colored flags.
Indignant readers write me: "How could you give Film A three stars and Film B only 2-1/2 stars? I will never read your reviews again." I reply: "A wise decision! My reviews are for those who are stronger in literature than math."
Follow Ups:
critic who has written eloquently about a number of high-quality films, then gives both 'Anaconda' and 'Last House On The Left'
3&1/2 stars out a possible 4? That would mean he would consider
them almost on par with 'Citizen Kane' and 'Casablana', two films
he has constantly railed about over the years. Or is it possible
he somehow manages to separate critical value from entertainment
value in his reviews? If so, would it be appropriate that he inform
his audience about that putative separation? ~AH
He understands that there is hamburger and steak, champagne and beer,
exotic cuisine and pizza and he rates each film on its own merits within its genre and what it is trying to do.
And nowhere does he put Anaconda up with Citizen Kane -- as he continuinely says -- the star rating is there but it doesn;t really mean anything.He has given several movies 3 and 1/2 stars that year later he re reviewed and has them on his great movies list ahead of many 4 star films. The Shawshank Redemption and Planes, Trains and Automobiles are two off the top of my head.
Anaconda was garbage but he still backed up his case and views it more as camp. I like Doctor Who as a Science Fiction series but I view it as camp cult material and that is very tough to defend.
the inept star rating system should be put out to pasture? If so,
what replacement guidelines would you suggest? ~AH
Well I think Roger Ebert has explained the star rating system in that one should be reading the review and not just looking at the star rating. I used to be an amateur critic just for the fun of it and I used a 4 star system -- but what I simply did was rate by genre. If I gave 4 stars to Halloween that does not mean it would be equally as good as a 4 star drama. What the four stars meant was that it was one of the best films of the genre.Later I went to 5 stars --- which was to differentiate between all the 4 star movies. A 5 star system also worked better to convert to a Letter grade set-up. Then for each star category there would be a paragraph or two outlining what a film has to ewntail to achieve that grade (similar to what a teacher in English Literature gave us as a letter grade guide -- an A paper is blah blah blah and a b paper has some elements of the A paper but is weaker here or less insightful etc.
***** = A++ or A+
****1/2 = A
**** = A-
***1/2 = B+ or B
*** = B- (Recommended)
**1/2 = C+ (Recommended rental)
** = C or C-
*1/2 = D
* = F
1/2* = F-
No Stars= F-- (filmakers should be drug out into the street and shot)The other major problem with star ratings is many critics just have
**** excellent
*** Good
** Fair
* PoorI find this fine but for the creation of top 100 lists the letter grade set-up provides more searchable criteria.
I can give Halloween 4 stars which I have done but Halloween for a long time was on my top 100 list. I can do an Exel search listing films that got 5 down. I have seen say 1300 films 17 films I have given 5 to (1 film got an A++) so it's just easier to top down the films.
I even though of a system out of 10 to one decimal place. So my number 8 film all time might get 9.7, one film gets a 10 etc. But it's meaningless if I'm the only person doing it.
Lastly If I ever was a critic and I decided to do what all the main critics do and go to a four star system then I would round all my 4.5 and 5 star films down to 4 but I clearly like some 4 star films far better than others.
I don't think Roger Ebert's 3.5 star rating is anywhere close to what he gives 4 stars from more serious genres. And sometimes the guy is seeing something in movies I just don;t get especially drivel like Anaconda.
I mean he gave Splash and the Usual Suspects *1/2 and Anaconda ***1/2 and if anything this should be reversed IMO. Even if you don;t like any of them -- I think the Usual Suspects deserves some filmmaking credit and performance quality marks. Anaconda is a monster movie that Ebert must have felt was doing camp to pay homage to films of that genre -- personally I thought they were going for a straight up monster movie and it stunk.
Splash had Daryl Hanah and her great hair walking the streets nude -- how is that alone not worth 2 stars? C'mon Roger.
some genres are intrinsicly superior to others, so a relative
hierarchy would not be that difficult for you to formulate. But
do you think films can be so neatly categorized, without overlap of
any sort? Would you think a film drama rated 1&1/2stars would be
superior to a western rated 4stars, by let's say, Ebert. If not, might this imply genres
are not necessarily superior per se? Keeping in mind, however,
the best dramas might be considered superior to the best westerns.
~AH
Well Unforgiven is a drama and a western so that line gets hard.Ebert's thumsbs up or recommendation is 3 stars regardless of genre. So if a horrior film gets three stars and a drama gets 2.5 then the horror movie he believes is better.
So do I. 3/5 from me means I recommend you see the film. 2.5 I do not.
I do not believe a drama is inherently superior to comedy. I think that drama is more equal to great literature (or can be) than a horror movie. Arthur Miller versus Stephen King. It is conceivable that King wirtes a better story but if both write ont her subject matters to the best of their abilities then it is like Pet Cemetary versus Death of Salesman -- and the latter is IMO vastly superior.
Great drama can be re-viewed and is a cathartic experience -- Comedy or Horror generally is not. Though IMO there are exceptions which is why Dawn of the Dead is very high on my list of the best films.
For Dawn of the Dead I rate it as a horro film where within the genre it gets top marks -- but it is far more ambitious than that and what it is is a social commentary of the best kind - and the value it has supercedes the horror film aspect. The reason it and night of the Living dead resonate is hardly the special effects or zombies -- there are tons of movies that have that -- maybe some that are 'scarier.'
A film Like Halloween is scarier than Dawn of the Dead but there is nothing underneath the visceral with halloween so while both would get a top 4 star rating for me it is "Dawn" that goes a step beyond and is comparable to some of the best dramatic films.
Obviously this is subjective because I know many would laugh Dawn of the Dead off as a quant(Sp?) little horror film.
I can certainly argue the case for Dawn of the Dead in a critical paper far easier than I can say for Young Frankenstein (which is very high on my all time top 100). Every actor and director and writer will tell you death is easy comedy is hard. But comedy is highly subjective. Young Frankenstein's Mel Brook's brand of humour may fall completely flat for one viewer and makes me bust a gut.
Why should I hold it to be lesser than great drama when everyone in the industry knows comedy is harder. Of course my leaning towards comeduy is a little different because I like Shakespeare's comedies more than his drama - largely because I believe Twelfth Night holds up better than Hamlet.
Still I think that my top 100 list would still be drama heavy because I can find more faults with comedies in general. I like Plains, Trains, and Automobiles very much buit it does have technical foibles and consistency errors so I can find faults on a technical level --- being generous to horror and comedy I am willing to forgive such issues in those genres because generally budgets are small and after all they're not attempting grandious historic documentary resonances.
Pulp Fiction which I view as a darkish comedy is a film about Redemtpion viewed from several characters -- technically it is very sound and it is to me utterly hilarious and hilarious when it ought not to be hilarious which makes me question the depths of me. That to me is a powerful comedy and is why it places highly in my top 100. It's deeper than it looks and that is its power and probably why it has become a cult favorite.
I dislike rating genres lower than others -- I put a hefty bias on the Subjective "GUT" reaction. If it can make me laugh or cry it's really doing something. it can be the smartest thing with great ideas but if that's all it's got it ain;t getting top marks from me. Emotion versus intellect -- Emotion is first intellect is second and if it's got both then it's gonna be in my top 100 - regardless of genre.
Your thoughts are generally resonant, but I find one of your
statements problematic. You said, "Great drama can be re-viewed
and is a cathartic experience -- comedy or horror generally is not."I believe this is semantic due to phrasing. Statement seems to imply
drama does not follow general distributions similar to other genres,
i.e., excellent,good,fair,poor,etc. However, if you believe that
great comedy or horror is non-existent or cannot evoke catharsis, then I'd have to disagree. I think comedy, horror also
have excellent representatives, though likely less in number than
drama for reasons you have stated.My assertion here is that excellent films, regardless of genre, have
capacities to evoke deep catharsis, with lesser quality films providing varying reduced degrees of cathartic release.Consider what I believe a good representative of the oft lowly-
thought-of sci-fi genre, E.T. The Extraterrestrial. That film ,
especially when first viewed, but also upon subsequent viewings,
evoked a number of deep emotions in me: wonder,awe,laughter,sadness,
empathy,anger,etc. IOW, the film genuinely moved me and I found
those viewing experiences extremely enjoyable, cathartic and of
generally high value.As you said, emotion first, intellect second. And as a corollary,
quality before categorization. ~AH
I think we're in agreement. And catharsis a bit of an open term for me it is a term for profound lasting life changing art. Certainly horror and Comedy and certainly science ficition can have this - though interestingly it can often be in dramatic sequences.E.T. to use your example is first and foremost a human dramatic story -- IMV all great films tend to place the human drama at the forefront no matter what the genre. We care about Elliot, Girty(sp?) and the rest of the family and that is why that film resonates. It is Spielberg's Casablanca (and I like it better than Casblanca) because it is also darn well sweet.
The Exorcist? We can identify with the mother's frustration and her plight. I'm not religious in the least bit and it resonated with me as one of the most powerful films I've seen - even if much of the power is through sensory shock.
Some films like 2001: A Space Odyssy is less human drama -- so there are exceptions -- though one could argue that that movie was human race human drama.
2001: A Space Odyssey. I had been thinking about that film in relation
to grandiose themes - omniversal, (how much bigger can one get?)
Yet on that cosmic scale, human significance diminishes drama-tically as we put
humanity into perspective. (Just from our own galactic scale perspective,
earth is small as an electron, one would need a microscope to see it!) So
bigger one gets, things tend to get rather impersonal. For an
interesting take on relative impersonal coldness of 2001 vis-a-vis
Tarkovsky's warmer,more personal Solaris, go to Underman's Review
at www.underview.com/2001/Solaris.html. ~AH
... the changes they wanted to make to the ...ummm "rule of thumb." ;^)AuPh
I watch Ebert's program often. I enjoy it, but its not about film critique; its entertainment. In his 30 years as a "film critic", he's done absolutely nothing to expand the public's understanding of the film media. I suspect he's knowledgeable about filmcraft, but you'd certainly never know it from watching his show or reading his column. The downward spiral of the quality of movies offered to the American public during his reign as the No.1 "critic" is no coincidence. Ebert's been one of the chief dumber-downers.
He's done very knowledgable commentary on a number of DVD's and written many books on films including two books reviewing great movies.
Listening to his track for Citizen Kane was torture. The man possesses no insight and is a bloated receptacle of received opinion. A consummate middle-brow.
nt
His commentary eas incisive and FAR better than Bogdanovitch's. I have seen Kane many times and still I learned things about it from Ebert.
he runs film festival, in which many of the artists attend, a film cruise, he is a college lecturer. I am not sure what else he is supposed to do.
How about devoting two or three minutes per week to educating his millions of viewers on the art and craft of cinema? Imagine the impact he could have had over the years if he'd put just a little energy into helping Americans develop and refine their film tastes. Instead, he's simply been a shill for corporate Hollywood, and helped them foist off adolescent junk as quality cinema. His "Thumbs up" is probably the most highly valued influence in the industry, and look where it's lead Amercian film.
Umm maybe he gives credit to his audience -- I have a literature background a theater background at an A level at University - I can appreciate an art film and I am usually far harder on films trying to be "art" than I am on something like Raiders of the Lost Ark. And Raiders in in my top 100 and 81/2 sure is not. (Ebert has both)I have a BS detecter for wannabe art films and self indulgent tripe that passes itself off as being deep. What exactly does Ebert need to do to educate his audience -- what would you have him tell them SPECIFICALLY in three minutes that will change his audinece from liking Titanic as their favorite movie to liking some foreign classic.
His show is about reviewing what is in theaters he does that. He often has a section of little known films on DVD that people should "check out" usually some very off the beaten track films.
To suggest he should be "develop[ing] and refin[ing] their film tastes" is NOT a critic's job. You want an education then go to University -- and what do you know Ebert teaches at several Universities so he is doing EXACTLY what you want him to do -- educate people on film. If his TV show ONLY catered to film snobs then there would be no tv show -- because Film snobs don't pay for cable after all because *shudder* tv is for morons.
Critics should not dictate to people how or what to think -- it is FAR better to tell people what to see let them formulate an opinion on their own -- it will resonate with them as learners than being told what to conclude about a film or anything else for that matter.
I have read every major US film critic and every one that is linked on Rottentomatoes. Every single one of them at one time or another has recommended a Hollywood mainstream film. How many does it take to be considered a shill?
You entirely miss the issue and are confusing "quality" with "serious". I rarely see "art" films because they're usually too pretentious for me. I like quality films. Quality can be apparent in a pop suspense flick as readily some eclectic statement film. Stars Wars was quality. The Sting was quality. Jurassic Park was quality. Cuckoo's Nest was quality. Quality has been replaced with tech-laden gimmicks and raunch. And Mr. E. has been corporate Hollywood's Pied Piper leading the parade of movie goers into accepting it.I'm talking about plain old movie-making craft where skill with camera technique and manipulation of the media through editing, photography, music score, and script linkage is as important as who's starring. I'm talking about directors who could be gritty without a now mandatory urination scene. You'll rarely if ever hear a peep from Ebert on elements of a good film. All he does is go on about the stars' chemistry and the plot, and there's a whole lot more to a good movie. He's either oblivious to or purposely avoids acknowledging how rampant Hollywood nepotism has lowered the talent bar so radically.
Ebert's squandered his influencial position. We've gone from Lean and Copola and Forman to what? ...Quentin Tarantino and Rob Reiner? From "The Godfather" to "Pulp Fiction"? From DeNiro to Sandler? From Audrey Hepburn to Angelina Jolie? And it happened on Ebert's watch as our national movie guru.
You obviously do not read Ebert. If your sole impression of Ebert is from his television show, then you have limited knowledge. If you want to learn the art of film making, then you should learn that from an expert in that discipline. Read some books. Ebert is not a film maker, not does he profess to be. So I do not believe that he has any responsibility to provide his audience this knowledge. And that is a problem with our society: they expect to learn about the law, medicine, and heaven knows what else from talking heads on television. Go to the source.If you have read more than a few Ebert reviews, he constantly assails Hollywood's affection for urination, fart jokes, vulgarity, etc. Read his review of See Spot Run for his opinions on the subject. And guess what? The film was produced by a major studio.
In his review of The Thing, way back in 1982, he criticized that film for being more about special effects and techonology than characters, and certainly implied that effects without heart was empty. Ten years before special effects became the be all and end all for some film makers.
Ebert is not a film maker any more than George Clooney is a doctor. If I need some medicine, I'll go to my doctor, not the video store. If I want to learn the craft of film making, I'll go to my library, not Ebert.
The TV program is his principal platform. Readership and influence of his written work is insignificant in comparison. True, his written reviews aren't quite so superficial, but he rarely delves into film craft. Again, my argument is that in his role as a major national TV figure he hasn't even attempted to increase or improve the public's understanding of the form.His reviews on TV are shallow and superficial, and are so devoid of discussion of film technique that if they were read from transcriptions could often be taken as reviews of stage plays. Over the years, his opinions have become based more and more on his ideologic attitudes than quality of content. (Roeper is, IMO, far more objective.) If you edited out Eberts discussion of the actors and storyline, there would often be little left.
I'm not saying acting and subject matter shouldn't be part of his critiques, but that he ignores the process that allows the director and performers to mold the script to their desired effects. He may praise a director, but rarely explains how that director uses the medium to direct and manipulate the audience's perceptions.
Sure, it would be easy to overdue the movie-making stuff on TV. I don't expect a weekly TV clinic on film-making. But as I said earlier, I think a short segment each week of just two or three minutes showing how these things work by example would, over the years, have made a big difference in the way Americans watch and judge movies. And maybe we'd be looking forward to more than American Pie VI.
There are three types of critical print reviews.1) A film criticism or University structured 7,000 - 10,000 word essay completely analyzing a film from virtually every conceivable angle
2) A film review which is about 750-2000 words which is set up in an "I liked it and here is why" and is often persuasive -- Here is a good movie and these are the two to three main reasons you should go see it.
3) The 1 minute one paragraph review (like Leonard Maltin's books) if you as the reader trust Leonard Maltin then you trust if he gives it 3 stars it's worth seeing)
Ebert does all three. The TV program is essentially number 3. There are TWO critic and roughly 19 minuites to discuss 5 movies, and about 2 dvd releases and both have to get their words in with argument and showing the clips.
Even then on a film where camera work cinematography was essential to the film or a driving force they will talk about it and how it influenced positively on the movie.
His paper reviews are number 2 and some of his great movies would be number 1 (or in some of his books) - at the back under essays.
For TV it is not possible to do "explains how that director uses the medium to direct and manipulate the audience's perceptions." Nor do I think 98% of the audsience really cares.
I love movies and have about 220 DVD's but to tell you the truth I don't sit and listen to director commentaries or the making of -- because I don't care. I care about the end result. I don;t care how the mechanic fixes my car or the plumber fixes my toilet -- i care that after they do their JOB that it works. This is the same for the writing process direction and actor inspiration. Occassionally if something really stands out or I really love the movie I will check out some of these aspects. I recently watched the effects make-up section of the movie Land of the Dead. Neat.
But really I don't care because I don't intend to make films. I might even talk to a mechanic about how something works -- but my eyes are going to glaze over I suspect. Yeah but does it go?
Plot and character are the singular most important aspects of the vast majority of films. That is what Ebert focuses on primarily and I think in a 19 minute net after ads tv show where he speaks for 8-10 minutes or 2 minutes per miovie if that -- is about all you can expect. He's been on for 30 years and I'd make the case it works pretty well.
Besides with DVD all the making of techno stuff art direction set design what a grip does is on the DVD's and you can do a google search if you want to know about Cinematography.
and remember the Academy Awards usually has the segment of some aspect -- what does a sound editor do for example. This is usually the time 90% of viewers flip to another channel or take a leak. Because who cares? Tell me a good story - make me think or entertain me or make me feel something or do all of these. Why you used a wide angle lens or a close-up or a dolly-shot etc is to most irrelevant.
"He may praise a director, but rarely explains how that director uses the medium to direct and manipulate the audience's perceptions."In two to three minutes? Remember that a thirty minute television show is not thirty minutes of content. Take out commercials and credits, and you are left with approximately twenty minutes of content. For typically five to six films?
People watch his show to get a quick glimpse of a segment of the film, and then to briefly hear his opinion about the film which hopefully allows them to decide whether they want to pay good money to see the film. Most persons who are worth educating are not going to seek elucidation about how they are being manipulated, or about the art of film, in a half hour show designed to be not much more than a reader's digest or consumer reports for movies.
And what makes you think that he is qualified to tell anyone about "film craft?" You apparently have little respect for his film reviews, so I am not sure why you want to hear him wax eloquent on the art of film making. Except to maybe tell him he is full of hot air.
If I am going into a room to ask about film -- do I trust some hack on a forum making pot shots who likely have no degree in anything - or Roger?"Roger Ebert has had a long and distinguished career, resulting in numerous awards and honors for his contributions to the worlds of cinema, journalism, broadcasting and publishing. Ebert was the first movie critic to receive the Pulitzer Prize for arts criticism in 1975. Ebert has received an Honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts from the American Film Institute, the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and the University of Colorado. He is also a member of the Chicago Journalism Hall of Fame, and three time recipient of the Peter Lisagor Award for Best Feature Column from the Chicago Headline Club.
Ebert began his career as a sports writer for the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette at the age of 15. He was editor of The Daily Illini at the University of Illinois from 1963-64, was hired by the Sun-Times in 1966, and appointed film critic six months later. Currently, his film reviews for the Chicago Sun Times are syndicated in more than 200 papers in the U.S., Canada, England, Japan and Greece. Ebert is also the author of 17 books. He most recently released The Great Movies II, a second compilation of reviews of 100 great movies, and Movie Yearbook 2005. His best-selling works include The Great Movies, I Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie, Roger Ebert's Book of Film and Ebert's Bigger Little Movie Glossary.
Ebert is currently celebrating his 30th anniversary as a television film critic in 2005, having hosted "Siskel & Ebert" with the late Gene Siskel for 23 years before co-hosting "Ebert & Roeper" with fellow Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper. "Ebert & Roeper" airs weekends on more than 200 stations across the U.S. On television, Roger Ebert is also co-host of the Independent Film Channel's live coverage of the Cannes Film Festival, critic for WLS-TV (ABC) in Chicago, and co-host of syndicated pre- and post-Academy Awards broadcasts for KABC.
Ebert has been a lecturer on film since 1970 at the University of Chicago Fine Arts program, and is an adjunct professor of cinema and media studies at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is known for sessions conducting shot-by-shot analysis of films at the Universities of Colorado, Virginia and Chicago, the Smithsonian Institution and the Canadian Center for the Advanced Study of Film. Ebert is a jury member of the Sundance, Montreal, Chicago, Hawaii, Karlovy Vary and Venice Film Festivals. He has attended Cannes for more than 25 years and has written a book about it (Two Weeks in the Midday Sun) illustrated with his own sketches. In 1999, Ebert launched his annual "Overlooked Film Festival" showcasing forgotten or ignored movies and genres, which is being held in Urbana-Champaign from April 20-24, 2005."
...his critiques on TV with Roeper, I often find myself agreeing more with Reoper these days for the films I've seen.I'd say he has gone soft - 'Thumbs Up' for "Beauty Shop", "Sahara" and "Into The Blue", IIRC.
But that also cuts both ways: 2 1/2 stars for The Coen's "O Brother, Where Art Thou"? A film I love, and can watch over and over again. 2 1/2 stars for the French film "The Closet", a film that both Victor and I love. Or the Life Aquatic? Softness seems code for "I disagree." Am I soft because I like The Closet? Is Victor?Does this mean that he is more critical because he liked them and I did not? Or that Vic and I are amused by childish humor, as we were in the Closet, and that Ebert saw something we did not?
Hardly. And here is the crux. Some people are so arrogant that they consider themselves the arbiter of taste, art, etc. If someone like Ebert likes something they did not, it because Ebert is "middle brow", or mass market. If Ebert does not like something they did, then he is stupid.
I often disagree with Ebert. But I consider myself above calling him names, or denigrating him. I call that being civilized. Some people simply resort to calling him names. Those are usually people who have nothing intelligent to contribute to the discourse. Note among those who refer to him as "middle brow", "mass market", etc., they provide no analysis, no facts in support, and no examples.
The value of a critic is not in the reader's agreeing with the critic, but it is the ability of that critic to communicate to the reader why he or she did or did not like the film, and whether the reader would or would not like the film. I am not familiar with a critic who is a better writer than Ebert. And certainly those who complain about him do not supply another critic which has the writing ability he possesses.
It is said that the cream rises to the top. I suspect that some (cough, cough, Donald, cough) are jealous that Ebert makes a very good living watching films, has earned much respect among persons in the industry, has risen to a position where he is a jury member of some prestigious film festivals, provide D.V.D. commentary for such middle brown films like Citizen Kane and Casablanca, gets to travel the world, and people actually care about what he has to say and write about films. Perhaps some are jealous that Ebert's cream has risen, while theirs is serving as a culture for some scientist.
...the fact of the matter is that much in these sorts of exchanges is ultimately onanistic. No argument is more effective than just a matter-of-fact expression of opinion, and I happen to think that Ebert has more to offer than most popular critics, even as I often disagree with him.I think it's utterly rare if not unknown for a mind to be changed though an argument in one of these up or down threads. Really these posts are all conclusions in search of arguments and evidence, even when someone loudly proclaims their "argument" as if in some pure sense it was an objective route to a necessary endpoint.
It's best to focus on our own primary discussion of films and to generate as much back and forth as possible. It's infinitely more interesting to hear nuanced statements about what someone thinks *about* something than just how good or bad they think it is. If you tell me you hate something what are you really saying? Not much.
And, rating the critics is a weird sort of double-back game. In the end it adds precious little to our conversations about movies and music.
I must admit that I find a few of the most frequent posters (who I will not name) to be pretty limp both in their "conclusions" and their arguments. I find it funny when people who seem to me findamentally weak-minded speak with a kind of overbearing self-certainty.
And now I've made myself sound like an incredibly supercilious snob! Oh, well...
Elliot Berlin
"The value of a critic is not in the reader's agreeing with the critic, but it is the ability of that critic to communicate to the reader why he or she did or did not like the film"I have disagreed with Ebert a great deal of the time. For instance he will like a film for being what is designed to be "brain candy entertainment" then he gives a movie like Splash *1/2 stars. Granted Splash is no great movie but to me it should be in line with many other movies of "this type" which he has given *** to. Indeed for what it is Splash was better than most. But It's an opinion and he usually defends it.
There is an art house movie called Blue Velvet which many crtics RAVE about and I thought it was pure drivel -- guess what Ebert gave it ONE star. Then there is A Clockwork Orange which he gave ** to and a thumbs down. Soft? C'mon this is a Kubrick masterpiece in many quarters his best or second best film.
Then there are movies like Crash (the Cronenberg Crash) where he raves and I gave it no stars - i consider the movie to be aimpless and pure shock porn for shock sake -- I just can't agree with Ebert on this film. I could go on and on and on about how often i disagree with the man -- yet he defends his position well and that's all I can ask for. Genererally when it counts I agree with him - when he gives something Zero stars chances are he's right and when he gives it 4 stars it's usually at least a good movie.
...is to critique and judge on artistic merits, not on "entertainment value".Otherwise Neil Diamond and Britney Spears, audience favorites, would be the darlings of the pop/rock music critics.
"...is to critique and judge on artistic merits, not on "entertainment value"."Which artistic merit -- the "I think this is great art therefore it is" or the "I think there is no artistic value in Jurassic park therefore Ebert's not a real critic"
In fact Jurassic Park has an incredible amount of artisitic merit - visuals, sound effects, set design. All artistic merits. The visual impressiveness of this film is better than any non Hollywood film in existence. One could easily make the case that it is "artistically superior" to anything before 1980. Or umm Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.
None of these are on my top 100 list though because I, like Aristotle, do no put a major importance - or any importance - on a spectacle - Aristotle was primarily about Plot and secondly Character study. He was referring to the play but film is the closest thing - a much inferiror thing but close.
People go to movies to be entertained -- I go to an art film and a documentary and I still want to be entertained -- if a film does not entertain me then it gets a thumbs down because it failed to do what a film is suppose to do - entertain.
is to critique and judge on artistic merits, not on "entertainment value".So a food critic should not discuss the taste of the dish? Only the presentation? I would think that taste is closer to entertainment, the presentation closer to art. How about the video game critic? How about a automobile reviewer? Damned if the thing did not drive smoothly, was fun, but, man, the looks. Who designed these features? Not recommended."
A critic should not review films and music designed to simply entertain an audience? I lauged, but, I cannot recommend this mindless piece of you know what to anyone. "I tapped my toes, but, by golly, it is too simple, heck, only three chords, obviously has no artistic value, so, thumbs down?
"Britney Spears, audience favorites, would be the darlings of the pop/rock music critics."
Britney Spears lack of critical acclaim has less to do with the music, and more to do with the fact that the critics who review her are not within her demographic. The critics blasted Elvis when he plopped on the scene in 1954-1955. They were out of the demographic. Critics praised his "comeback special" in 1969. Ironically, with much of the same material. They were now in the demographic.
I guess I need to stop watching Animal House.
Seems to me presentation and taste can both be artistic and entertaining; they shouldn't necessarily be exclusive to one another.
For example, in food, presentation can be aesthetically pleasing to
the eye via symmetric-asymmetic arrangements etc., while taste can be similarly pleasing to the palate via various combinations of culinary items, seasonings, etc. In these ways, both art and entertainment
can merge together in complimentary fashion. ~AH
Whether you like a dish or not is ultimately taste. Have you ever eaten a meal, anywhere, and concluded that you loved the look, but the taste was subpar, but boy, did you get your monies worth, and would recommend the restaurant to a friend? Doubtful. While the presentation may be important, is it a replacement for the taste? No.I am not sure how you can pigeonhole taste into art. There are times that a Big Mac tastes good to me, but calling it art is a stretch. Depends upon the mood. Taste is more equivalent to entertainment. And the argument that a critic only judges "art" would seem to imply that a food critic cannot rate the taste of the dish, only the presentation.
Some films are designed to do nothing more than to entertain. What is wrong with that? Some food is designed to taste good, and provide no nutritional value, or no presentation value. As Rico wrote, sometimes I want steak, sometimes I want ice cream. Here in Cincy, we were fortunate to have the country's preeminent five star restaurant, plus a healthy does of cheap chili parlors. Guess what? I enjoyed 'em both, for different reasons. Why should films be any different?
I think we are not in large disagreement. My comments were meant as
a sidepoint. I surely wouldn't think taste could be reducible to
art. Complimentarity is not reductionism or sameness-equivalence,etc.
I have questions about your dividing presentation as art and
taste as entertainment in food as analogous to film. (Of course, I referred to taste as a sense,
and not in the more general semantic of 'preference'.) If we agree
art in film as craft(wo)manship, hence, degrees of quality, viz
how well something is executed-performed,e.g., direction,acting,photography,writing,etc., then I take it that individuals judge ultimately for themselves those degrees(the art)and interrelate that to their entertainment. I expect critics to give me both
artistic and entertainment values as tentative guidlines, then I make
my decisions after viewing as to artistic-entertainment values.
Getting back to your division: I'm not sure presentation would be the
most appropriate term in film vis-a-vis food; maybe performance would be better,
e.g., 'I believe direction was excellent', 's-he acted superb', and so on.
If this view is feasible, then art, IMO, would affect,to some degrees,
entertainment-enjoyment or lack of. Those degrees, however, would be not be
predictable-reducible-readily quantifible via objective correlates.
This due to many variables, including moods of viewer-consumer, as you
said. For instance, evaluation of acting performances from individual to individual, can be very variable and subjective, VK
thought Audrey Hepburn's perfomance in 'After Dark' was atrocious,
I thought it was great. Who's right? Who's wrong? Can't say. Only that he disliked her performance and I liked it. He didn't enjoy it,
I did. IMO, art and entertainment are predominately subjective, though art aspects may be more arguable in objective terms. Moreover, I
think science-technicals can add to artistic executions in some aspects of filmmaking, hence, can, at times, add to my enjoyment.
~AH
Again this is what i said about Jurassic Park -- until they get a handle on what artistic merit is it is just a bunch of people who want to feel they're always right and they hold the one and only answer to what artistic merit is.As I said on visuals most films today are superior to anything before 1970 or 1980. So if we're placing value on visuals then they're argument falls flat. If we're talking about acting -- well if you talk to ANY of the major stage directors the major acting philosophies by those performers up to the 1970s was considered junk. So all those "classics" are in a lot of trouble.
Barbara Streisand has a much better voice than Madonna - I can objectively argue the merits of their vocal quality and Streisand is miles better --- I'd far rather buy a Madonna Album - and I would far rather play her music because I don't want to be put into a Coma.
So if compare them as artists then I am going to be put into a difficult spot...though I could point to record sales -- well to the self appointed art house the best movie or artist is the one who closes opening night.
I think they would (and probably for their success, should) all play it safe so as not to offend too many directors/writers/manufacturers/consumers.... If he gave Star Wars a 1 star rating he would lose a following with some. 3 is safe, no? Take every (including professional) review with a grain of salt and trust your own ears and likings most.
Actually I think Audio magazines are very different because they take advertising money -- conflict of interest (some movie reviewers do as well) but generally that is not the case. Where it gets dicey with magazine audio reviews is when a reviewer absolutely BLASTS a speaker like a TAS reviewer did with the Wilson Watt is that the magazin editor never published it and instead hired a lacky to say great stuff about it. I don;t have a problem with the magazine getting a second opinion -- they should have published both.UHF magazine reamed a few products from Arcam and Bryston -- have not seen them get sent another product since. Yet Linn has taken some on the chin from UHF but they still send products.
Ebert has given less than 2 stars to hugely popular films and OR critically acclaimed films like Splash, Priest, The Usual Suspects
Complete list of zero to *1/2 star films
> Actually I think Audio magazines are very different because they take advertising money -- conflict of interest>Ebert and Roeper appear on ABC TV and have advertisers, don't they? Sometimes there are ads for movies.
And let's see - ABC is owned by Disney and Disney makes movies. See any conflict or conspiracies here?
Actually point well taken -- Ebert and Roeper often advertise DVD's.The difference is though that they give thumbs down to Disney Films and some of the DVD's they're holding up. Why doesn;t Steroephile say The paradigm 100V3 is 30% more money than the old one has less bass and is more coloured -- anyone who is not tone deaf can hear it. Nah we get 3,000 words with a few read between the lines comments that may or may not be what there viewer really wants to say. It also helps that Roger Ebert was considered the best of the field when his show started out and that he is already a Multi-Millionaire from his books -- harder to buy off the rich.
Me -- I am way easier to buy off -- Please someone buy me off.
Those who read him will continue to do so, those who don't, will not start.He is the product and the epitome of mass culture. If that's your thing, he is your man, if not, look elsewhere.
It only matters to Ebert himself, who would like to go down into history as a serous critic, not a mass-production guru. So he is trying to white wash his image.
I would say - to little, to late. He should have been smarter all along. As he can write well, and has written well on serious films. Too bad those few good things have been lost in the sea of consumer culture pruducts.
Mass market? Roger Ebert is a jury member of the Sundance, Montreal, Chicago, Hawaii, Karlovy Vary and Venice Film Festivals. Home of the mass market. Or are those film festivals trying to appeal to the mass market? Vic, how about naming another film critic who reviews more foreign and independent films than Ebert? Or is that a cover for his mass market tendencies? Why let facts get in the way of your opinions?
What is vic -- a nobody -- so who cares.Ebert understand that there are two vary different KINDS of movie making -- one is film as "Art" and two is film as "entertainment" some rare times you even get a film that does both but that is indeed rare. If you read Enert's review of Jurassic Park which i posted somewhere down the page you get a very good idea why Ebert gave JP a *** or thumbs up rating. I see nothing wrong with recommending that film -- I recommended that film -- despite the fact that I had mroe problems with it than Ebert does. I know the target audience and the intention of the film and on those two it works. It is not going to find a place in my DVD collection.
Broccoli is better for my body than empty calorie ice-cream -- but sometimes I would much rather Ice-Cream -- doubt the self appointed snopbs will get the analogy -- they are not too bright.
Nothing new here.
as
.
Jonathan Rosenbaum - According to Rotten Tomatoes, he agrees with the Tomator Meter 75% of the time. The Rotten Tomatoes critics are generally mass market critics. Of Ebert's top ten, Rosenbaum gave:
(1) Crash 3/4 (by way of comparison, he gave 4/4 for that historical epic Small Soldiers, largely because the audience liked it as much as he. No mass market there - film critism by poll, very reliable.)
(2) Syriana - did not review. Probably not enough people in the audience for him to arrive at his own conclusions
(3) Munich - See number 2
(4) Junebug - see number 2
(5) Brokeback Mountain - See number 2
(6) Me and You... - 3/4
(7) Nine Lives - See number 2
(8) King Kong - See number 2
(9) Yes - 4/4
(10) Millions - See number 2Conclusion: Of the three films that your illustrious Rosenbaum which appeared on Ebert's top ten list, Rosenbaum recommended all three, and on one, gave his highest rating. By your standards, Rosenbaum is mass market (that is, when he actually sees a film).
Robin Wood, James Quandt - Which obscure publication do they write for?
Toni Raynes - I can find fourteen reviews she has authored. She is one of your favorites? How long does it take you to read fourteen reviews? And finally, must a professional film critic actually watch films and then commit finger to keyboard to actually be a critic?Donald Ritchie - Mr. Obvious says that this must be you, because you like to read your own verbiage. Clue - writing perfunctory one-liners does not make you a film critic.
Sarris agrees with the Tomato Meter 72% of the time. (1) Crash - did not like, (2) Syriana - did not like (3) Munich - did not like (4) Junebug - called it one of the best films of the year (5)Brokeback Mountain - did not like, but wrote that he had no quarrels with the heaps of critical praise (6) Me and You... - Did not see (but I noted that he like the Matrix, and loved Spielberg's A.I.: no mass market there) (7) Nine Lives - Recommended (8) King Kong - no review (9) Yes - Recommended (10) Millions - No review.
His reviewing gem: In recommended the 2005 Bad News Bears: "There are many lingerings over communal feelings other directors might pass through more quickly to get to the next giggle or guffaw more efficiently." I never realized that the Bad News Bears was so deep. Thanks, Donald, for naming a critic that avoids mass market tripe.
What can we take from this little exercise? That Donald, the emperor, has no clothes. Most of the critics you cited, if they are even published, generally agree with Ebert, some very strongly. But then, facts were never your strong suit.
I am still waiting for those six films from Ebert's top 2005 list that you saw and were not deserving of the accolades which your list of critics generally recommended. Idiot.
My reviews of Ebert's 2005 -- well one's he raved about which either made his ten list or were runners up
I rate on letter grade B- is 3 stars(and recommended) A- is four stars - an A is on my top 100 all time list, An A+ is in my top 20here are films that I have seen that Ebert gave 4 stars to:
Batman Returns
RGA B+The Constant Gardener
RGA A-Crash
RGA A-Munich
RGA ASyriana
RGA BSideways
RGA BDr Strangelove (he reviewed it again)
RGA AThe Aviator
RGA BKill Bill Vol 2
RGA A-Kinsey
RGA BMillion Dollar Baby
RGA A-Monster
RGA B+Spider Man 2
RGA A-Seems ok to me - and it would seem most mainstream critics agree on these films for the most part.
So EVERY movie on his greatest movies list is mediocre? Can't have it both ways.
a very robust culture!Compare Sy Gitin's excavations at Ashkelon.
townsend
Giving a thumbs-up to a genuinely deserving film once in a blue moon scores him few bonus points. He's a hopeless middle-brow, respected only by others with similarly undemanding sensibilities and questionable critical faculties.
nt
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 ]
