 
|
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 |
207.200.116.68
In Reply to: Roger Ebert defends himslef against being accused as soft on movies... posted by RGA on January 4, 2006 at 19:35:14:
...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.
Follow Ups:
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.
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 ]
