In Reply to: Why relegate quality to art houses posted by DWPC on January 6, 2006 at 13:50:53:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)