 
|
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 |
207.178.211.68
In Reply to: Plus.... posted by jamesgarvin on January 6, 2006 at 10:49:26:
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
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 ]
