In Reply to: Re: "I am not sure what else he is supposed to do" posted by RGA on January 6, 2006 at 12:40:39:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Why relegate quality to art houses - DWPC 13:50:53 01/06/06 (4)
- Re: Why relegate quality to art houses - jamesgarvin 14:41:34 01/06/06 (3)
- He's not the top movie guru because of his written reviews - DWPC 16:14:17 01/06/06 (2)
- I understand your points... - RGA 13:23:25 01/07/06 (0)
- Re: He's not the top movie guru because of his written reviews - jamesgarvin 16:54:30 01/06/06 (0)