Roger Ebert sounds the death knell for film criticism

[Lzcutter]

I had the luxury of growing up in an era when film criticism was considered important. Every major newspaper (and even many of the smaller markets) had a film critic on staff.

I devoured Pauline Kael's prose, Eberts words and read Charles Champlin of the LA Times long before I moved to the City of Angels.

I found this latest article by Roger Ebert, perhaps our best-known and best-loved still working film critic. What he writes is true and what it means for those of us who love the movies is very sad indeed.

I am not a fan of the CelebCult and could live a long life not knowing who is "being seen" with whom and who is "being spotted" with whom.

But, it seems, the majority of Americans cannot get enough of that and so the newspapers and the media of the day will continue to spiral down to give us what the majority wants.

In the meantime, those of us that love thoughtful contemplation about the movies will be the losers.

Read about it here (and cry):

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11 ... g_liv.html

[MissGoddess]

Hi Lynn!

Thanks for posting that. It's very interesting and brings up a mixed response from me. I'm rather surprised by his surprised tone. This trend has been happening for decades and it was supposed to have been decried when it started, not as it culminates. Maybe it was, but maybe it was ignored by critics like Ebert.

I've never been a critic reader or follower and am generally suspicious of their real value, though I have read some intriguing points of view on occasion. I tend to always follow my own ideas but putting myself in Eberts shoes right now, I can understand his feelings. I have only to walk into the breakroom at work and see what people on their lunch hour not only choose to watch on the TV, but get almost rabidly excited over. It is so scary that I generally do my best to avoid that room during midday. These are the folks that the newspapers are interested in---the folks that aren't interested in reading any newspaper. Except maybe for the coupons.

Of course, I just have to add that in my opinion there haven't been many movies made in the last twenty years that merit deep critical thinking.

Thanks again for posting this.

[mrsl]

Miss Goddess:

Once again you have beaten me to it. About 99% of what you posted could have come from me, including the 20 year stipulation about movies that need a review.

Unfortunately, Movie reviewers are just one of many who are being sacrificed to 'the majority'. As someone said people no longer read the newspaper, they get their news on the internet or news magazines. I admit mine comes from CNN and the internet. My complaint is that news is now just one sentence describing an event, and you never hear of it again. You hear a 2 year old fell from a 2nd story on Tuesday, but on Wednesday they don't bother to tell you if he lived or died, in fact he totally disappears from the news. Once again I can only compare anyone over 40 as sheep being lead to the pastures while the young lambs take over. Several years ago Dolly Parton said in interview, 'when you hit 39 you're no longer played on radio, you have to find another way to get your songs heard, in clubs, in movies, or hype your own CDs. She was so right. Tony Bennett's amazing revival to me is not so hard to understand. Today's young people rarely hear a man singing a song with just a piano and violin as background, and the ability to understand the words, so when youngsters give granny a Bennett CD and are well reared enough to listen to a couple of cuts, they kind of like the sound. The problem is, they can't admit it to their friends. My grandson admitted he liked the smell of Old Spice and the way his friends reacted, you would have thought he said he was going to borrow his moms makeup and wear it.

As for movie reviews, obviously nobody has really read them or paid attention to them for years, which is why we get such junk being hailed as funny, or good family fare. People seem to think that because kids are in a movie, or that it is animated it must be okay for kids to see. WRONG. A Bug's Life was definitely NOT for children and some parts of both Yours, Mine and Ours, and Cheaper by the Dozen should have had age appropriate ratings. I'm talking about the remakes of course.

Anne

[Mr. Arkadin]

While I certainly agree with Ebert’s sentiment, I also agree with Miss G that this should have been an issue years ago—not when it finally threatened his job. Anne also makes very good points about the shallow mainstream media today. We are becoming a society that knows a little bit about everything, but lacks understanding of anything.

I still think (and have always thought) there is a place for serious film criticism, but that audience, much like those who read the printed word, is narrowing considerably. In a world fascinated with dross like Rock of Love Charm School, there will always be those who desire something of higher caliber. For him who has ears to hear, let him hear.

P.S. I can think of many films made in the last 20 years that are very worthy of critical study:

Downfall (2004)
Naked (1993)
Sexy Beast (2000)
A Taste of Cherry (1997)
Mother Night (1996)
Blind Spot (2002)
Unforgiven (1992)
My Left Foot (1989)
Short Cuts (1993)
Fallen Angels (1995)
Delicatessen (1993)
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Memento (2000)
Dominick and Eugene (1988)
The Remains of the Day (1993)
Red (1994)
White (1994)
Blue (1994)
Crash (1996)
Uprising (2001)
Grave of the Fireflies (1988)
Audition (2001)
The Double Life of Veronique (1991)
Last Orders (2001)
Jackie Brown (1997)
Time Regained (1988)
The Killer (1992)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)
Ju Dou (1990)
The Decalogue (1988)
The Willow Tree (2005)
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Red Sorghum (1988)
Raise The Red Lantern (1991)
Farewell My Concubine (1993)
32 Short films of Glenn Gould (1993)
Man Bites Dog (1992)
To Live (1994)

…and lots more!

[srowley75]

While I agree with some of his sentiments, I also detect some sour grapes. Film criticism as a profession isn't dying only because the public is dumbing down, even though Ebert would probably love to think that his job is at risk solely because he and his ilk are so high above the rabble. As with newspaper journalism, the profession is dying out because anyone with an internet connection can publish a review of anything on a blog or message board, and it's free for anyone else to read. And you really don't have to search online for very long to find intelligent, insightful commentary and discussion of both classic and contemporary film. Hell, we have some pretty insightful reviewers working this message board. Yes, there's plenty of dross on the internet, but there are some gifted writers out there as well, especially when it comes to grindhouse cinema, which Ebert and his chums generally shun anyway.

But I do see some irony that the co-creator of "thumbs up/thumbs down" has written this op-ed. I can't help but wonder how often that phrase has made seasoned critics cringe over the past twenty years.

[MikeBSG]

I was glad to see that "Downfall" was mentioned as a fine film from the last 20 years.

Also, I feel it is a bit ironic that the guy who did "Thumbs up/Thumbs down" is complaining that the standards of film criticism/reviewing are under attack. I remember one person who complained about Ebert and Siskel: "Thumbs, thumbs, thumbs!! Did they see 'Quo Vadis' too many times when they were kids?"

[Mr. Arkadin]

I was glad to see that "Downfall" was mentioned as a fine film from the last 20 years.

Also, I feel it is a bit ironic that the guy who did "Thumbs up/Thumbs down" is complaining that the standards of film criticism/reviewing are under attack. I remember one person who complained about Ebert and Siskel: "Thumbs, thumbs, thumbs!! Did they see 'Quo Vadis' too many times when they were kids?"

Hi Mike, I love Downfall. There were a lot of other great films I did not mention (one could also make the case for Ganz's Wings of Desire [1987], although it barely misses the 20 year mark), but it was just off the top of my head. I could probably think of 20 completely different ones on another day. My point is there are many wonderful films being made today and yes, they deserve critical examination.

I would agree with the sour grapes/complaining bit from Ebert. While he is a talented writer, his view of film isn't very deep which is rather amusing when he complains of lack of depth in others. I remember Robin Wood taking him to task more than once not only for poor comprehension, but actually getting events in films totally wrong and describing things that never happened! However, I've always viewed Ebert as a gateway for film novices (which we all were at one time). I can’t tell you how many people I know who started out watching his show or reading his columns. His work is short and accessible, which is great for newbies who would be bored stiff trying to read the more clinical overviews and analysis of other writers. While I would hope that most growing film fans would seek out the more in-depth critics, Ebert is a fine starting point and I think many of the converted owe him a debt of thanks.

[bryce]

Leave it to Mr. Arkadin to properly, politely articulate my less than socially acceptable responses to the views in this thread.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to articulate them, and at length, to boot. So let's do this, by the numbers:

I had the luxury of growing up in an era when film criticism was considered important. Every major newspaper (and even many of the smaller markets) had a film critic on staff.

And just how many of those critics were qualified journalists - let alone connoisseurs de cinéma? Look, for every Ebert there are ten Joel Siegels and - God rest his soul - that man couldn't critique a home movie, let alone grand art.

"Luxury of growing up in an era when film criticism was considered important" my ass. I'll address this more later.

I devoured Pauline Kael's prose, Eberts words and read Charles Champlin of the LA Times long before I moved to the City of Angels.

I detest Pauline Kael and the New Yorker on the whole. They are both throwbacks to the aristocracy and practice - to no end! - self-promotion, self-congratulation and the fine art of cronyism. My kind of people, actually!

I found this latest article by Roger Ebert, perhaps our best-known and best-loved still working film critic. What he writes is true and what it means for those of us who love the movies is very sad indeed.

I will address this below. You're ON NOTICE, lady! (srowley will get this; it's a joke, in case you don't)

I am not a fan of the CelebCult and could live a long life not knowing who is "being seen" with whom and who is "being spotted" with whom.

Then turn off your tv and stop reading the National Enquirer. Part of the American obsession with fame and fortune is that even though we may be disgusted, we'd often rather lament the fact that we're disgusted than, you know, stop the practices which lead to said disgustion. You know. Like not reading trash or watching Entertainment Tonight. Or talking to people who do.

But, it seems, the majority of Americans cannot get enough of that and so the newspapers and the media of the day will continue to spiral down to give us what the majority wants.

Romans had Gladiators. Americans have Celebrities. As much as I would enjoy dressing in leather and wielding a pole-axe in a battle to the death against trained foes - all for the amusement of the hungry masses, staged at the hands of those looking to distract the public from the fact that they're, you know, dying of plague - I'll take celebrity obsession. You know. Being the lesser of two evils.

In the meantime, those of us that love thoughtful contemplation about the movies will be the losers.

If you believe so. I'll say that we're in an era in which every facet of the film-making spectacle - from Hollywood to the consumer and all those caught between - favors independent film-making and less-mainstream, more radical in nature productions. Look at many of the Oscar winners and nominees over the years - especially in the last three. Even the Academy is favoring inducting lesser known or more independently spirited members into its ranks - members who will then go on and nominate and award artists who work outside the mainstream.

Hi Lynn!

Hey! But my name's not Lynn.

Thanks for posting that. It's very interesting and brings up a mixed response from me. I'm rather surprised by his surprised tone. This trend has been happening for decades and it was supposed to have been decried when it started, not as it culminates. Maybe it was, but maybe it was ignored by critics like Ebert.

This "trend" is an affliction of humanity. The very act of laughing is a kneejerk reaction we developed as primates to situations our brains weren't capable of handling, and yet you expect us all to have evolved to the level of comprehending high art? Madam, you give our race too much credit. We're not even halfway through the triathlon - we're still in the special olympics, if you get my drift.

Ebert is surprised for one reason and one reason alone - he's old, he's ill of health, he's realized the legacy he'll be leaving behind is that of "The guy who wrote scripts for Russ Meyer and retooled film criticism for the unwashed masses." What I'm saying is that he's become an elder statesmen, and we all know how dangerous they are. Oh, sure, they tinker and they fret and they negotiate and they do a lot of posturing, but they never get anywhere. When they do, their good work is bastardized or misunderstood.

Ebert's sell-by date is long passed, as is his relevancy, and as so many folks do when they've suddenly come to terms with their own mortality or the fact that their entire existence has been rendered moot (or both) - in most cases right under their own noses - he's pissed. Can you blame him?

There's truth to his ramblings, but as this thread proves, most folks' bias will permeate their interpretations.

I've never been a critic reader or follower and am generally suspicious of their real value, though I have read some intriguing points of view on occasion. I tend to always follow my own ideas but putting myself in Eberts shoes right now, I can understand his feelings.

Good critics are there for one reason and one reason only: to cham-peen the cause. Look, no one agrees a hundred percent with a critic, but they're the middlemen between the artist and the consumer. They appreciate for us and, should they be especially good at their jobs, put themselves in our shoes and take an educated guess - based on their own interactions with the public, based on historics, based on numerous factors - as to what we'd like. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. Other times it's their job to educate us - the unwashed masses. Without them, there would be no Mona Lisa, no Sonny Sharrock, no Peter Weir, no Citizen Kane, and that's not a world I'm prepared to live in. They justify the underappreciated artists' existence. On the flip side, sometimes they miss, and the public educates them - just as we did with Led Zeppelin.

I have only to walk into the breakroom at work and see what people on their lunch hour not only choose to watch on the TV, but get almost rabidly excited over. It is so scary that I generally do my best to avoid that room during midday. These are the folks that the newspapers are interested in---the folks that aren't interested in reading any newspaper. Except maybe for the coupons.

One of the first television shows people discussed in the workplace was The Twilight Zone. What was the twist? What were people's interpretations? Of the last five years, Lost, a series of similar unpredictability and critical acclaim, has captured that segment of daily workplace conversation. Who cares if folks get rabidly excited over television? Better than them getting excited over some two-bit politician - at least television is fairly innocuous. It's attitudes like that which people over the last ten years have been rebelling against - it's the reason anti-intellectualism reached its zenith this decade.

Why not engage them sometime? Most of these people would love to watch something fresh. It's the reason The Sopranos captivated audiences for years. It's the reason Showtime is one of the most watched networks in America. People don't only want to watch Friends, but it's free and it's on during primetime.

Look, these are the people everyone is interested in. I don't want to get into the discussion about the internet and how everyone is free to have an opinion and how that competes with newspapers just yet, but we will. Instead, I'll just paraphrase Andy Warhol: what makes this country great is that everyone is the same - the President drinks Coca-Cola just like you do. Likewise, he watches the same television you do. We're all a part of the target demographic, and to believe otherwise is frankly naive and must be a mentality that belongs to some long-dead class-war I couldn't care less about.

Of course, I just have to add that in my opinion there haven't been many movies made in the last twenty years that merit deep critical thinking.

More than from 1934 to 1954. Zing! But, really, though, I'll add to Arkadin's as-usual excellent list (apologies if I double any from his list, it's a tad big!):

Fight Club
Trainspotting
Dead Alive
Withnail & I
Brazil
sex, lives and videotape
The Usual Suspects
Glengarry Glen Ross
There Will Be Blood
Clerks

and... you know what, why am I trying to convince you otherwise? If you haven't sought these films out yourself, you haven't relied on their critical acclaim or haven't believed the word of mouth, there's no reason for me to think you will enjoy them.

The one benefit of the internet over print media is that you have more access to great entertainment and art than ever before.

Once again you have beaten me to it. About 99% of what you posted could have come from me, including the 20 year stipulation about movies that need a review.

There's an acronym for this: Great minds think alike. Either that or folks from similar generations and upbringings do. That is not a slam, but you'll see my point below.

Unfortunately, Movie reviewers are just one of many who are being sacrificed to 'the majority'. As someone said people no longer read the newspaper, they get their news on the internet or news magazines.

Hogwash. The public haven't abandoned the print media because they can get the news cheaper or for free elsewhere - they've abandoned the print media because it has become increasingly inbred and insular. When your entire industry exists in a government-sanctioned near-monopolistic state and you stretch your talent pool so thin that every magazine barely cobbles together a single recognizable talent from its entire staff - freelancers included - it's no wonder you can't churn out the quality that folks can find indexed amongst Google's nearly trillion pages. How can you compete with that? Again, it has nothing to do with cost, and everything to do with management.

I admit mine comes from CNN and the internet.

Yes, and as the "Enough" thread has proven, many users here, overseas and otherwise, would prefer to get their news from unproven, untrusted, unreliable second-and-third hand accounts, most often poorly regurgitated from crap news outlets to begin with.

My complaint is that news is now just one sentence describing an event, and you never hear of it again. You hear a 2 year old fell from a 2nd story on Tuesday, but on Wednesday they don't bother to tell you if he lived or died, in fact he totally disappears from the news.

Whaaaat? You can't really mean this. I'm not even sure I can respond to this. Anne, read news.google.com. You can search for any news story you choose and find the conclusion from a million different sources.

Doing so also offers up a fine comparison between the larger, respected newspapers versus regional and local outlets. The fact is that the quality difference is apparent between podunk nobodies and the New York Times, but compare one large regional outlet versus another and you start to blur. The problem is, once again, that even larger outlets, with larger wallets and more draw, don't have the same talent base they once did. It's spread too thin and, sadly, good newsmen can make better money in other fields now. Fields without so much stress and politics.

Once again I can only compare anyone over 40 as sheep being lead to the pastures while the young lambs take over.

What is your hangup with people younger than you? My entire generation, and the one before it, and the one before it have done everything possible to cater to The Great Generation's needs - legislators, entertainers and advertisers especially. I don't mean that sarcastically, and I mean it with the utmost respect. The MPAA and advertisers especially have gone to great lengths to prohibit nudity, profanity, smoking and nearly every other enjoyable act in this world, all to cater to one specific age-group and mentality (the religious right). Jesus Christ. What more can we do?

Several years ago Dolly Parton said in interview, 'when you hit 39 you're no longer played on radio, you have to find another way to get your songs heard, in clubs, in movies, or hype your own CDs. She was so right. Tony Bennett's amazing revival to me is not so hard to understand. Today's young people rarely hear a man singing a song with just a piano and violin as background, and the ability to understand the words, so when youngsters give granny a Bennett CD and are well reared enough to listen to a couple of cuts, they kind of like the sound.

Do you have any idea what this comes off as? "Well reared enough"? One of the most popular acts amongst "young people" today is Richard Cheese, a comedian that performs satirical lounge covers of popular songs today. "Youngsters" in this day and age are practically begging for the next Monty Python to come along and sweep them up - the time is right. Yet, where are they? I'll tell you where: not being given a chance. People your age are preventing them from coming out full force. People a generation older are eschewing them for the safe and the tried and true.

The problem is, they can't admit it to their friends. My grandson admitted he liked the smell of Old Spice and the way his friends reacted, you would have thought he said he was going to borrow his moms makeup and wear it.

He needs better friends.

As for movie reviews, obviously nobody has really read them or paid attention to them for years, which is why we get such junk being hailed as funny, or good family fare.

Come now. Just because you don't like them - for whatever reason - or find them offensive - again, for whatever reason - doesn't make them either junk or offensive. I hate to break it to you, but as time passes the obscene becomes less so, and tastes change. South Park was taboo ten years ago. Now kids are reared on it. For the better, I say. The sooner we undo the damage the backwards 50s did to our country and its populace the better off we'll be.

People seem to think that because kids are in a movie, or that it is animated it must be okay for kids to see. WRONG. A Bug's Life was definitely NOT for children and some parts of both Yours, Mine and Ours, and Cheaper by the Dozen should have had age appropriate ratings. I'm talking about the remakes of course.

A Bug's Life is one of the most highly regarded children's films of the last ten years. I've not met a single child of any age that didn't enjoy it and my wife was a pre-school teacher until October of this year. What about it didn't you enjoy?

I can't even begin to tackle this paragraph aside from saying that tastes change with generations. What you might find offensive might not offend the most timid of religious right-wingers. I don't know. Nor do I really care. Neither do most children. What you and I recognize a child won't. The consumption of booze and the smoking of cigarettes is merely a vehicle for the character to do something silly. Likewise, so is language. But I know you won't budge on this subject, so I'm dropping it.

--

(rant time)

Now I'm going to address the internet and a few other loose ends. I've been writing up a rather length essay on this subject in response to a question Senor Klondike asked nearly a year ago regarding Orson Welles and how he would view/manipulate media/the internet in their current incarnations.

Mr. Arkadin touched on a subject which is deep to my heart. My one, single, solitary hate in this world is pretension, a trait all too common today. A society of experts that know nothing of substance about their supposed expertise. Is this because of the internet? Is it because of our stressed lifestyles? Nah, it's simply the pendulum swinging as it so often does. What is better - the 50s mentality which paid very little regard to anything outside of the mainstream - cars, beer, work, women, John Wayne, the Beach Boys, those "damnable" cossacks - or today's mentality, which engages every topic with unabated enthusiasm, but lacks the energy to follow through? I'm not sure. I'd argue they both reach the same conclusion, the same outcome. To wit, they both give way to something beautiful, a renaissance of the arts and sciences. We can't go on willfully being ignorant, and we won't. There will always be pockets of resistance against progress - even amongst the intellectuals! - but we will move on.

The issue has never been the world going to hell in a handbasket, or the arts being all but abandoned by the public and its government. The issue has always been how we - the supposedly discerning snobs and the artists - will react. Ebert, as an old man, is out of touch. I'd argue he always has been, but even more so now. The media and popular culture don't know what's coming next, and that's why they're in a panic. When it hits, they'll still be in a panic, and they'll be left behind by the those who were ready. It happened with jazz, it happened with blues, it happened with New Hollywood and the French New Wave and rock and roll and the 60s and Nirvana and oh so much more. Through the ashes of the dead and dying will be born a new generation of entertainers, artists, and those who can interpret and distill their messages into snippets and soundbytes apt for mass consumption, guiding them to the new and helping them to understand its beauty.

The internet's place in this is varied. Literacy rates might be stable, but I'd say it's not hurting. How could any tool in which reading is a requirement to operate not be a plus? Regarding the availability of opinions for free: an opinion is like an elbow, everyone has one. (Not my favorite version of that quote, but it'll do). Just because people are giving away their trashy, awful, uneducated and poorly written thoughts for free does not make them worth reading. Nearly every hit writer (worth reading) on the internet has been offered a paying gig, or a book deal, or the likes. Those who don't just toil away in the blogosphere, offering crap products up for a great price that go on completely unread.

Lastly, and boy I should have gotten here awhile ago because I've lost momentum, I have to point out that I'm perfectly happy being one of those who desire something of higher caliber. Not everyone has the capability or desire to want something better, grander. In fact, I worry when the general public gets too ambitious, as then we end up electing people like Barack Obama or make a famous director out of uncultured, classless, talentless philistines like M. Night Shyamalan.

We'll get what's coming to us - a revolution of mind, body, spirit and soul - and soon. The sad part is that we don't really deserve it. What have we done in the first decade of the second millennium to warrant being thrown yet another bone? We've thoroughly destroyed everything good the 1900s ever gave us through selfishness, malice, greed, sloth and political correctness. The blame goes all around. If I drift from the topic at hand a little here, my apologies, but I hate what people have done to my country and the sacrifices made by great men and women of all walks of life. I'm not talking just fighting in wars overseas, I'm talking about the people who fight wars in the streets, on underpass walls and in amateur zines. The people who truly brought down the Iron Curtain, not just those who pretended to. The greatest reporter in the history of the United States is now just a passing memory, as is the greatest film critic. Both could stand shoulder to shoulder -if not higher than - with the best the world over.

For now, Ebert and his ilk, and all those who misinterpret his ravings for their own gain, and all those who decry living in the greatest period of humanity to date, and all those who decry the outpouring of soul from the creative and the artistic, and all those who decry the efforts of good men to combat the entrenchment of evil into our world, can continue on like blind musicians writing songs for the deaf.

That's such a great line, it's not mine, but it's one of my favorites, that I wish I could have closed this asinine, angry, sure-to-be-deleted rant with it. I can't in good conscious close with something so malicious. Instead, here's something that sums up my feelings on the entire subject and, if Ebert were a tenth of the f-cking critic he wishes he were, he'd know by heart:

"Our works in stone, in paint, in print, are spared, some of them, for a few decades or a millennium or two, but everything must finally fall in war, or wear away into the ultimate and universal ash - the triumphs, the frauds, the treasures and the fakes. A fact of life: we're going to die. "Be of good heart," cry the dead artists out of the living past. "Our songs will all be silenced, but what of it? Go on singing."

Maybe a man's name doesn't matter all that much."

[ChiO]

Bryce said:

My one, single, solitary hate in this world is pretension, a trait all too common today. A society of experts that know nothing of substance about their supposed expertise.

Did you just call me a dilettante? I'd be offended if you weren't correct.

Somewhere on the internet someone (could of sworn it was Gary Tooze at DVD Beaver, but I can't find it now -- damn internet) divided "critics" into three groups. At one end are those who seem to write (or speak) as if hoping to find a phrase repeated on the movie poster, the "hypesters", the Rex Reeds, Gene Shalits and Peter Travers, perhaps. At the other end are the true "critics", writers who make one think about the film and film in general; Andrew Sarris, Manny Farber (our grindhouse guru), Jonathan Rosenbaum, Pauline Kael, for example. Then there is the rush to the middle, "reviewers" who can, on occasion, make one think, but usually are just reviewing the movie with opinion thrown in. Roger Ebert strikes me as the ideal-type of that group.

I have no proof, but it has seemed to me that the "critics" have been found in the "serious" magazines and alternative press, not in the major dailies (Michael Wilmington and David Kehr being -- at one time -- two notable exceptions). So, for one to claim that film criticism is dying in the major dailies strikes me as inaccurate -- there may have been some criticism there, but it probably wasn't such a fixture that suddenly its demise is lamentable. Blah, blah, blah. Yes, the world is coming to an end...and we're one day closer today than we were yesterday.

Did anyone mention...

BIRD (1988)
WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT (1988)
DO THE RIGHT THING (1989)
TO SLEEP WITH ANGER (1990)
EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990)
MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO (1991)
GROUNDHOG DAY (1993)
ED WOOD (1994)
DEAD MAN (1995)
WHEN IT RAINS (1995)
THE ICE STORM (1997)
BUFFALO 66 (1998)
AFTER LIFE (1998)
EYES WIDE SHUT (1999)
THE WIND WILL CARRY US (1999)
CROUPIER (1999)
THE HOLE (2000)
A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (2001)
MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001)

[Lzcutter]

Then turn off your tv and stop reading the National Enquirer. Part of the American obsession with fame and fortune is that even though we may be disgusted, we'd often rather lament the fact that we're disgusted than, you know, stop the practices which lead to said disgustion. You know. Like not reading trash or watching Entertainment Tonight. Or talking to people who do.

For the record, Bryce, I was quoting Ebert about the "seen and being seen".

You don't know me or what my tastes are and you just presume to guess what I like and what I watch (and give me crap for it), I don't read the National Enquirer or watch CelebCult television. I am watching my beloved LA Times destroy itself in chasing that Cult. I happen to live in the City of the Angels where you pick up the CelebCult gossip just by picking up the paper or turning on the computer.

You may not agree with Ebert or me, you may not like Pauline Kael or Charles Champlin (one of the best film critics for my money, which according to you isn't worth much).

But because they were accessible back in the 1960s and the 1970s when I fell in love with movies, reading them gave me a better appreciation of the history of film.

I was in my late 20's by the time Ebert and Siskel came along with At the Movies and I had little patience for their thumbs up/thumbs down approach. I always appreciated Siskel's thinking and writing more.

Mr Arkadian is right, they were the gateway for people who wanted to know more about the movies.

I could give back to you just as you dumped on me but that would be doing just what you did and not getting to know the person behind the writing.

I do not need lectures about how we are all going to die. I'm quite familiar with the concept having buried my dad barely a year ago.

Maybe a man's name doesn't matter all that much."

Maybe it doesn't after all.

[jdb1]

Criticism of any kind is a sore point for some, because it is by definition a matter of opinion, and some people simply can't bear to have their perceptions of anything challenged by anyone else.

I personally often found it the situation that whenever Siskel & Ebert gave a movie a "thumbs down," I usually liked it, and vice versa. However, I just as often agreed with them, and I watched their TV program as a starting point in making decisions as to which movies I might like to see. I don't think anyone at the show, or watching, expected S&E's pronouncements to be infallible and/or final.

IMO, what is killing film criticism is the lack of scholarship that's so glaring in most of what I read these days. I can think of an instance only recently (naturally I can't remember the film in question) where a NY Times reviewer was obviously unaware that the film he was reviewing was a remake of, or based on, an earlier film. I would have thought that critics should be depended on by their readers to know such things, and to point them out to us. It's all part of that "whatever came before I was on this Earth is irrelevant" mentality I see all around me. What we are getting is reportage, not criticism.

It's not just film criticism, but journalism in general, that we should be relying on to dig up facts, tell us the true and entire story, and give us informed opinions on it. That's what I feel is lacking. There is too much broadcast air time and Internet space to fill, and too many of those free "newspapers" circulating. They have to be filled up, and in a hurry, so what's the harm in leaving out the important, needs-to-be-verified-or- researched, or well thought-out stuff?

I agree that everyone thinks he is a critic and commentator now, because anyone can set himself up as an "opinionator" online. And because current educational practices teach that cutting corners and making mistakes is acceptable, we aren't getting much that's either readable or reliable. And the general public doesn't seem to care whether it is or not, probably because they themselves don't know any better.

However, once you have enough experience behind you, you understand that everything is ultimately cyclical, and a swing back to the substantive and away from the superficial is inevitable. I'll wait it out.

And Lynn, I wouldn't get too worked up about our friend Bryce's broadsides. He seems to see the glass of existence as perpetually half-empty or worse. It's one way of looking at things. When I read his fulminations against Life, the Universe and Everything, it actually makes me feel gratified: I'm glad I don't waste my time in a such a negative universe, and I hope I have a better sense of proportion than that as well.

"Ultimate and universal ash" -- sheesh, sonny, we're talking about Roger Ebert here, not the Demiurge. Pretentious?? Moi???

[srowley75]

While he is a talented writer, his view of film isn't very deep which is rather amusing when he complains of lack of depth in others.

While I would hope that most growing film fans would seek out the more in-depth critics, Ebert is a fine starting point and I think many of the converted owe him a debt of thanks.

I should have mentioned somewhere in my earlier post that I find Ebert unengaging reading as well. I've seen better film writing in newsgroups. His Great Movies book was overall dull and uninspired, and I stopped reading before I was halfway through - as I remember, he harped on trivia and other details that I already knew about the various films and devoted very little space to honest analysis. Again, nothing your average intelligent cinephile blogger or message board devotee couldn't cough up with ease, given a few minutes.

My introduction to real film analysis was Danny Peary, and I'm sure I've mentioned him before elsewhere. Peary evaluated films for what they were and on the basis of what the filmmakers sought to accomplish, made connections to the world of film as well as other disciplines, and didn't waste words trying to deliver clever snark. He discussed themes, performances, cinematography, and everything in between. His books went out of print likely because he never incorporated stars, bones, thumbs, or letter grades to boil everything down for those with little patience to read through even a paragraph-length piece or tolerate a writer who didn't tell them to "see this, don't see that." And in a world where what's today considered a masterpiece of cinematic art can tomorrow be sneered upon as pretentious and irrelevant, I prefer the more analytical approach because it will always be more worthwhile to me. And if that makes me one of the Philistines (as I was called more than once while in grad school because of my less than refined critical eye) then so be it.

All that babbling aside, back to Ebert's op-ed, I can't broadbrush people with the same sweeping hand. For what it's worth, my few acquaintances giggle about celebrity gossip but also watch TV and read film reviews from a variety of sources (though all mainly via the internet). They read newsgroup reviews and TMZ, browse Facets and Ain't it Cool News. They view Kurosawa, Ed Wood, Pixar films and YouTube videos. And from my experience and what I've seen of Generation Whatever, they're much the same - they're openminded and they devour everything, likely because (as Bryce said) we have more available to us than ever before when it comes to media. They read and respond, they seek to learn and view much of what they hear and read with healthy skepticism, and they discuss what they read and see and don't assume that they're "experts" about anything but rather hope to gain insight - in short, they're very much like the best of any other generation. If any of the masses won't read or view anything outside their own box, it's the older ones, not the younger folks. So all that to say - if Ebert is peeved about critics losing their jobs, maybe he and others like him (in the broader sense, other journalists) need to reexamine their product instead of blaming it on the new-fangled ignorant public. After all, there was a day (or so I'm told) when Louella Parsons and Hedda Hopper were periodically referred to as "critics."

-Stephen

[jdb1]

Stephen, I am in agreement with the first part of what you've said above: I enjoy reading well-written, incisive film criticism not only to find about the basic of a particular film, but because I enjoy reading in-depth commentary about film, something in which I have an interest. I read film and theater criticism the same way I'd read a biography or a history book, or even a novel -- that is, as literature.

However, we differ in opinion regarding your last paragraph where you say in speaking of the younger, media-saturated generation: And from my experience and what I've seen of Generation Whatever, they're much the same - they're openminded and they devour everything . . . . They read and respond, they seek to learn and view much of what they hear and read with healthy skepticism, and they discuss what they read and see and don't assume that they're "experts" about anything but rather hope to gain insight . . . .

My experience of Gen WhoCares is just the opposite. I am surrounded by supposedly literate and well-educated youngsters at work, and from what I observe, they don't care to go any deeper than what's on the surface. Any discussions they have on what they read tends to be of the which trendsetter got there first, and not substantive, variety. They don't seek to learn anything more than what they are spoon-fed. The idea of doing any further research on anything in their free time that isn't connected with making money or getting sex is not just foreign to them, it's an outlandish thought.

And one thing is really for sure with this bunch: they are convinced that because they read a book once in school, watch TV, and read the hip magazines of the moment regularly, they know everything there is to know about everything that counts in the world.

I wish I knew more of those younger people you have described. I am very happy to have one at home, but she doesn't think there are many around like her. Her contemporaries bore her for the most part. It's not that she's the world's greatest genius -- but to me, she seems years older, smarter and far less trivial than most of the other young people around us. Perhaps it's just that NYC attracts the world's 8X10 glossies, and the people of depth (and that doesn't mean only "intellectuals") are so overshadowed.

[mrsl]

Unfortunately, I'm not as well bred as lzcutter or some of the others here. I would take umbrage at your attack line by line, but my computer was down so I had to cool down so now I will just do a short outline.

To begin with, Ebert's mournful tirade sounds like something most of us over 60 have experienced in the last 25 years - that is, remorse over loss of a job or being passed up for a promotion because of a younger, more highly educated co-worker. We all have to go through the stages of grievance due to our own job extinction. It's odd how we handled jobs for 20 years on a High School diploma, then suddenly the position needs a college degree. so the job is given to someone who has had no proving ground.

As for well reared teens, I meant no disrespect, simply that if you give a teenager a choice of listening to a Tony Bennett rendition of I Left My Heart in San Francisco and a copy of Beyonce's latest hit (I have no idea what it might be, I only know her name), they will choose Beyonce and I'm sure there are enough parents and grandparents on this board who would back me up. The same goes for Old Spice and Usher cologne.

Mr L and I went through plenty of cans of whipped cream and chocolate syrup in the privacy of our bedroom, but it certainly didn't belong in social conversation or on the internet. I see no evidence of advertisers and MPAA in movies where nudity, violence and foul language are more prevalent than ever before. Also the only thing the Sopranos is good for is Mario Puzo's continuation of the defamation of Italian people.

I doubt that Bryce and I will ever be on a parallel road until he has experienced a lot more life than he has up to now, but I'll be gone by then and he will be the senior member and as we always say, this would be a very boring board if we did not have differences to discuss at will.

Anne

[movieman1957]

Ebert's comments lie somewhere between sour grapes, nostalgia and the truth.

He and Siskel helped create the two minute review. Lots of people only wanted to know if they liked and if we should spend our money. People did have the papers if they wanted a real review.

For the life of me I don't understand why anybody is THAT interested in Pitt and Cruise and Clooney, etc. An interest is one thing but having to know what they had for breakfast is quite another. It's about the media trying to out-do each other. To get the audience the next story has to be bigger, bawdier and seemingly more important when it is anything but. They keep going until it becomes the train wreck that people can't stop watching. At times the stars just help it along. Who can blame them when some magazine offers them $10 million for a spread on their baby. Someday someone will just say "No" and will bring down the whole process. People might find out they can get along without knowing what the next celebrity baby looks like. Who cares?

With the internet you can probably find more reviews than you ever could. Find the person who will give you what you want. In 15 years you may not get a newspaper on your door step. (The current Baltimore Sun is but a shadow of itself even two years ago.) I can find my favorite critic at the Washington Post website.

Gee, if only there were a way to access all those great critics to read before we watch the next TCM movie.

As far as the kids go who know what will happen. In their "got to have it yesterday" world it is a wonder they can sit in a theater for two hours. (I say that knowing what the etiquette in theaters has become.) They can't learn to love it and they can't find it. Old movies, old music are hard for those of us who love it to find I don't know how the kids will. I guess that is our job.