In Reply to: Re: Why relegate quality to art houses posted by jamesgarvin on January 6, 2006 at 14:41:34:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)