Film Criticism
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
A Philip French retrospective.
-
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:43 pm
- Contact:
NY Times article: A.O. Scott on Mr. Ebert's farewell to television and his return to written criticism, and, his legacy (see quote below).
It is this print corpus that will sustain Mr. Ebert’s reputation as one of the few authentic giants in a field in which self-importance frequently overshadows accomplishment. His writing may lack the polemical dazzle and theoretical muscle of Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris, whose names must dutifully be invoked in any consideration of American film criticism. In their heyday those two were warriors, system-builders and intellectual adventurers on a grand scale. But the plain-spoken Midwestern clarity of Mr. Ebert’s prose and his genial, conversational presence on the page may, in the end, make him a more useful and reliable companion for the dedicated moviegoer.
His criticism shows a nearly unequaled grasp of film history and technique, and formidable intellectual range, but he rarely seems to be showing off. He’s just trying to tell you what he thinks, and to provoke some thought on your part about how movies work and what they can do.
He is rarely a scold, and more frequently (perhaps too frequently) an enthusiast, and nearly always enlightening, in particular when he has brought calm good sense and moral conviction to overwrought debates about hot-button movies like Oliver Stone’s “JFK†and Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing.†Other critics (Ms. Kael and Mr. Sarris most famously) have spawned schools, or at least collected bands of acolytes and imitators. Mr. Ebert — do you mind if I just call him Roger from now on? — has no disciples, only friends.
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
An interesting debate raging over at the Film Freak Central Blog
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Walter Chaw employs Alex Jackson, his credibility has been irreparably shot a long time agoFletch F. Fletch wrote:An interesting debate raging over at the Film Freak Central Blog
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Jonathan Rosenbaum's blog is online.
An article about critic Michael Atkinson claiming that "[T]he existence of full-time staff film reviewers is a nutty aberration in the history of periodical publishing…I’d love to see every magazine employ an army of full-time culture reviewers, and pay them millions, but it doesn’t make very much sense, for the simple reason that it’s not truly a full-time job." which has set Glenn Kenny off.
An article about critic Michael Atkinson claiming that "[T]he existence of full-time staff film reviewers is a nutty aberration in the history of periodical publishing…I’d love to see every magazine employ an army of full-time culture reviewers, and pay them millions, but it doesn’t make very much sense, for the simple reason that it’s not truly a full-time job." which has set Glenn Kenny off.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
The process of clear and sustained thought is always a full-time job. The above quote is a silly, biased claim, really.Fletch F. Fletch wrote:An article about critic Michael Atkinson claiming that "[T]he existence of full-time staff film reviewers is a nutty aberration in the history of periodical publishing…I’d love to see every magazine employ an army of full-time culture reviewers, and pay them millions, but it doesn’t make very much sense, for the simple reason that it’s not truly a full-time job." which has set Glenn Kenny off.
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Jonathan Rosenbaum's blog is online.
An article about critic Michael Atkinson claiming that "[T]he existence of full-time staff film reviewers is a nutty aberration in the history of periodical publishing…I’d love to see every magazine employ an army of full-time culture reviewers, and pay them millions, but it doesn’t make very much sense, for the simple reason that it’s not truly a full-time job." which has set Glenn Kenny off.
God bless Atkinson, I could send him a dozen roses for saying what I've been saying for years. Filmfandom is not a science (and 'serious cinema studies' rarely appear in your average rag and are more appropriate for topic-dedicated Arts / Culture Articles and trade publishing), and the more spread out and rotating the job, the less opportunity for studio-co-opting, the less the critic becomes blearily hi-winded, the more "My opinion about this film is," the less "This film is,". But the world is too self-serious for the painful truth about its academic institutions, and blind to the poisonously homogenizing impact of its presence.
But the fact is this is more about the rampaging effects of the web on "corporate" culture (the way record co's have been decimated by the web & digital in general) rather than a total rejection of Opinion Lockdown by the owners of these periodicals. The owners of these conglomorates are of course going to be scrambling for acquireable resources in the blogosphere suitable for plants.. that is, places that are user friendly to operations within the film studio/investments within the portfolio of the controlling corporation. Like Rupe running great reviews for a Fox film in the NYPost-- you think he'd be happy to let go his review staff? Of course not.
- Tom Hagen
- Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
- Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
I picked up a copy of Pauline Kael's For Keeps for $9 at my local used book store yesterday. What a great book! It anthologizes her most important reviews, as well as a good number of essays including the complete "Raising Kane." I really cannot believe that this thing is out of print. Her criticism has a large hit or miss ratio for me (I just finished her pan of Raging Bull), but her writing is absolutely essential for understanding film criticism since 1960. With her influence over the profession, its really surprising to me that her work isn't more widely available.
- Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
- Tom Hagen
- Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
- Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Yeah check out all of that Truffaut, Rohmer, Kubrick, Bergman, Altman, and Scorsese in his yearly top ten lists. Clearly Gene Siskel just plain didn't get it.Svevan wrote:Siskel was a fireball, but he wasn't all that intelligent about movies. I wouldn't place him too much higher than Roeper.Antoine Doinel wrote:...the show was never really the same after Siskel passed away.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Siskel was an industry joke. Google a bit and you'll come up with some great stories about how many mistakes his editors had to correct in his reviews because he just didn't know anything. I'm sure he liked a lot of films we like on the board, but unlike say Ebert, he was a personality first. I don't hate the guy though, he had his share of good picks nonetheless.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
The criticism was misogyny, not racism, first off. Secondly, Ebert has only stopped broadcasting on television, he has not stopped writing, so you'll have many more childish reviews to enjoy in the years to come.moviscop wrote:I wont be losing any sleep over them going off air.
I was tired of Ebert calling Lynch's work racist and writing childish reviews on his films.
- Murdoch
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
- Location: Upstate NY
-
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
- Location: California
You are incorrect Sausage.Murdoch wrote:He's criticized Lynch for both, I believe it was for Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me that he said having a black serial killer in the film was racist, or something along those lines.Mr_sausage wrote:The criticism was misogyny, not racism
And at the beginning of Wild at Heart, there is a scene between Sailor and a black assassin that Ebert commented on and made a big deal about. The scene can be found here
Full reviewhere
Ebert
The misogyny was referring to Blue Velvet.Some people laugh when they see this scene. They like the way the look is overplayed: Cage looks like a villain in a silent movie. I didn't laugh. I saw the payoff as Lynch's attempt to defuse the violence - to excuse a racially charged scene of unapologetic malevolence
Ebert on Blue Velvet
Rossellini is asked to do things in this film that require real nerve. In one scene, she's publicly embarrassed by being dumped naked on the lawn of the police detective. In others, she is asked to portray emotions that I imagine most actresses would rather not touch. She is degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important film.
That's what Bernardo Bertolucci delivered when he put Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider through the ordeal of "Last Tango in Paris." In "Blue Velvet," Rossellini goes the whole distance, but Lynch distances himself from her ordeal with his clever asides and witty little in-jokes. In a way, his behavior is more sadistic than the Hopper character.
Last edited by moviscop on Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm