One thing I admired about Roger Ebert was his ability to demonstrate wit without rancor, something very few writers seem able to do.
When I read his letter to Jay Mariotti--in response to Mariotti's less-than-dignified departure from the Sun-Times--I couldn't help but be impressed by Ebert's thoughtfulness. I found myself going back to the letter, sensing that I had overlooked something. I finally realized what it was: the tone of the letter. It was ultimately hopeful!
The conclusion of that letter made it clear that Ebert was no fan of Mariotti's, but it acted as more of a rebuke than an indication of deep disdain.
What can you say about a film reviewer that gives Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 3.5 out of 4 stars? Useless. I don't get all this praise I'm reading here. Despite being witty, a national treasure, and whatever, he had one core job to do, and he was terrible at it.
> What can you say about a film reviewer that gives Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 3.5 out of 4 stars? That he enjoyed it and you didn't? Some people really love that film, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that you don't. You should be just as willing to accept that others do. Your comment sucks.
> That he enjoyed it and you didn't?
This is what a film reviewer does? He liked it watching it, so it gets a high score? How about whether the readers of his review would like it?
What can you say about a film reviewer that gives Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 3.5 out of 4 stars? Useless. I don't get all this praise I'm reading here. Despite being witty, a national treasure, and whatever, he had one core job to do, and he was terrible at it.
Ebert rated movies by how well they succeeded at what was trying to be accomplished - by that measure, isn't his rating accurate? That movie did almost everything its makers were trying to accomplish.
> That movie did almost everything its makers were trying to accomplish.
No, its widely regarded as a disaster of a movie.
See this review, which I believe Ebert said that he enjoyed watching.
Ebert was a great film critic, but oddly, no one here seems to be talking about his one gigantic blind spot, which is his enduring and impenetrable belief that video games are not art, could never be art, and have no artistic merit whatsoever. His half-hearted apology - "I still believe this, but I should never have said so." - is in no way a retraction or backdown from that belief. This is totally wrong. Movies are…
Who cares? He didn't even play them. He's right, he has every right to believe what he wants, but he shouldn't have said anything about it because he's not qualified to comment.
He actually did play the infamous NES Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game quite a bit.
Why? Because he chose to primarily comment about movies in public? And you don't consider movies worthy of intellectual commentary?
There's nothing wrong with film criticism. Ebert's 4-star ratings are even a good heuristic for picking something to watch. All of his "great movies" are generally recognized as such. And he certainly knew a lot more details about film than probably anyone else. The problem with Ebert's reviews is that they offer very little in the way of insight, analysis, or depth. Instead, they are generally straightforward exposi…
If you think Ebert only wrote starred reviews and had TV shows, then you are very wrong, and you have missed out. That's what he is most known for, but his extensive writings and lectures on film go as deep as anyone else in the field.
There's nothing wrong with film criticism. Ebert's 4-star ratings are even a good heuristic for picking something to watch. All of his "great movies" are generally recognized as such. And he certainly knew a lot more details about film than probably anyone else. The problem with Ebert's reviews is that they offer very little in the way of insight, analysis, or depth. Instead, they are generally straightforward exposi…
It's an unfortunate oversimplification to reduce Ebert to his Sun-Times reviews. They were well-written and erudite, but they weren't meant to be extended meditations on the art of cinema. His review-writing had customers, and he gave the customers what they needed and wanted. Ebert had other venues for deeper kinds of writing, and was prolific in them. Ebertfest, for instance, was well-known for frame-by-frame analy…
Yeah, I basically agree. His mainstream work is what he's known for, and it's probably why self-avowed intellectuals (academics in film studies or film theory) don't consider him an intellectual. For me it's that even with his online work, he's much more of an everyman than an ivory tower guy, which is why the label of "intellectual" doesn't quite fit. This isn't bad or good, this is just how I see it, and it says nothing about his own intelligence. Finally, I think it's quite possible for depth within a review format. I like the ones in Variety: they're deeper, yet they don't give it away. Then again, they don't have as much mass-market appeal.
the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function This is the same guy who said "video games cannot be art, and I will not consider debate about it ". The second part in particular was what I found disturbing.
I admired him for that. He's not a technophobe. It was a quirky, provocative position to take, and not the easy one. I don't think games had any reason to feel threatened by him.
While holding that unpopular view may be admirable, I agree with your parent that closing one's mind to the opposing view on any topic is not admirable. Perhaps he meant that he had already considered the debate and found all the arguments wanting.