The Wonder of it All
Sep 16th, 2008 | By Rick | Category: People
Roger Ebert’s blog is quickly becoming one of my favorite stops on the ol’ Internet Highway. There’s an humanism about his writing, and a sense of wonder about the movies that all his years as a film critic have yet to blunt. I think he’s softened a bit since his health problems became so serious — perhaps it’s been a brush with mortality, perhaps something else. For me, it has increased his appeal.
He has never been the most trenchant of critics, and that’s become more pronounced over the years too. Oh, sometimes he’s spoken about things outside of his expertise, and this causes folks to get mad. But really: who hasn’t from time to time, especially here on the World Wide Web? He is a critic, after all.
Periodically, he comes under fire for being too soft, for, as he puts it, giving out too many stars. In a this post to his blog, he cops to the charge. “Let’s not mince words,” he writes, “On average, I do grade higher than other critics.” He goes on to explain why:
1. I like movies too much. I walk into the theater not in an adversarial attitude, but with hope and optimism (except for some movies, of course). I know that to get a movie made is a small miracle, that the reputations, careers and finances of the participants are on the line, and that hardly anybody sets out to make a bad movie. I do not feel comfortable posing as impossible to please. Film lovers attend different movies for different reasons, all of them valid; did I enjoy “Joe vs. the Volcano” more than some Oscar winners? Certainly.
2. Directors. There are some who make films I simply find myself vibrating with. I will have difficulty in not admiring a work by Bergman, Altman, Fellini, Herzog, Morris, Scorsese, Cox, Leigh, Ozu, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Keaton…and to borrow an observation from my previous entry, I haven’t even reached directors under 60.
3. I feel strongly about actors I admire, watching their ups and downs and struggles to work in a system that often sees them only as meat. Example. I opened my review of “The Women” this way: “What a pleasure this movie is, showcasing actresses I’ve admired for a long time, all at the top of their form. Yes, they’re older now, as are we all, but they look great, and know what they’re doing.” Yes, I really believe that. I interviewed Candice Bergen for the first time in 1971. God, she was wonderful. I mean as a person. She was one of the most beautiful women in the world, and she married Louis Malle, and was happy. Louis Malle was beautiful too, if you know what I mean, and a great filmmaker. She fell in love with both her head and her heart. I felt a particular pleasure in seeing her and that whole cast together.
He gives four more possibilities — that’s what he calls them, “possibilities” — and I urge you to go over there and read them.
I think there’s a certain badge of honor that some critics wear. I think they feel that unless they’re really tough, really hard to please, they somehow aren’t doing their job, that they’ll have to turn in their junior critic badge or something. It seems to b especially prevalent in the blogosphere, but you can find examples aplenty in the print media too. Fair enough: whatever floats their boats.
But as for me, I want critics to have a sense of awe, to be still in love with the movies even after long and illustrious careers. I’ll read the ones who can let themselves go, who can appreciate being had, who don’t resent it so much when they are being manipulated. Because that means they are in some ways like me (only better writers) and that I can identify with them. We all covet the opinions of our peers.
That’s why I value Ebert so much, silly digressions and all.
RSS 2.0
Rick. I had the pleasure of being an intern at EBERT & ROEPER for a few months and all I can say about the man is that he’s one of the nicest most down to Earth people in the world.
And boy oh boy does he know his films. When in college, I would tell my fellow young cinema enthusiasts that I was working at the show, and they would always reply that they never agree with him on anything, and they prefer a more sophisticated cinema rather than something like TOMB RAIDER (which he liked). What those morons didn’t realize is that Mr. Ebert had not only seen and reviewed almost every picture by every director they could possibly think of, but he would tell you everything about each picture down to who had the duties as the BEST BOY GRIP!
Well, maybe not that detailed, but nevertheless. A great man and film critic still going strong!
Joe, that’s a great story. And what a thing to have on your resume, huh?
Maybe the current backlash against him is simply a reaction to his overwhelming success. Sort of like the backlash vs Starbucks or something.
Rick -
Love this piece. I’ve come to appreciate Ebert much more over the years, and I always enjoy reading his reviews. Although I grew up reading Gene Siskel in the rival Tribune, I watched both Ebert and Siskel on the locally-produced “At the Movies” even before the show went national. I used to think Siskel was the smarter of the two men, but in retropsect, I’ve come to realize that Ebert’s enthusiasm and optimism are better evidence of true cinephilila. I think Siskel was more in love with his own often-acerbic wit than with the movies themselves. (I met Siskel once, briefly, at a movie memorabilia collector’s sale. He was rude and pompous, and the memorabilia vendors told us that he made a lot of insulting comments about their merchandise. That experience definitely colors my recollections of the man and his work.)
Thanks, Pat. I think a love of cinema would be a prerequisite to doing the job critics do, day in and day out, but we’ve all read the ones for whom that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Siskel might have gotten higher scores on an IQ test, I don’t know, but that’s not a prerequisite for writing with heart and intelligence about the movies, either.
Thanks for the personal story!
Pat - Jonathan Rosenbaum has written a few times about how Siskel knew next to nothing about movies. He was a lover of modern art who reviewed films because that’s what he fell into. It didn’t mean he didn’t have decent insight into the films he saw, and he and Roger agreed far more often than they disagreed, but that he wasn’t a movie fanatic whereas Ebert was and is a true cinephile to the core. I watched Siskel and Ebert from Sneak Previews on (and that PBS show and At the Movies were syndicated nationally, they were never just local) and noticed early on (you can see it if you watch enough of the clips on YouTube) that Ebert’s occasional references to earlier works in film history would more often than not fall flat with a blank faced Siskel.
Also, to back up your story, my wife worked for years at the gift shop in the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago where Siskel was a frequent visitor and customer. No one was a very big fan of his there although he didn’t sound as bad from my wife’s stories as he does from your story at the sale.
Jonathan -
Interesting. I somehow remembered the original Sneak Previews as being just a local, Channel 11 show when it was first broadcast, but it’s been so long ago, my memory may well be a bit hazy. As for meeting him at that sale - who knows, maybe he was just having an exceptionally bad day. But he sure didn’t make any friends there.
I remember reading somewhere a bitchy comment from Ebert himself, something about a major critic not knowing shit about movies, and that he was just assigned to the film review desk. It wasn’t Siskel, I think it was A.O. Scott.
And, Pat … I think that happens, sometimes, with folks. Having a bad day happens to us all, sometimes. Reading Ebert’s reminiscences about his time with Siskel, he recalls him with great fondness.
Nice post Rick.
I tend to disagree with Ebert more than agree, but then those are the writers that make things interesting for me to kick around my own thoughts. I’ve always enjoyed the guy.
Did you hear about the latest thing about Lou Lumenick of the New York Post “hitting” Ebert at the TIFF? Ebert said it’s silly and has been blown out of proportion, but still… kinda funny.
Thanks, Fox. As you say, that’s what makes life interesting. you can disagree with folks and still respect them and enjoy their writing.
And I did hear about the guy whacking Ebert. It’s hilarious … and Ebert was just trying to read the subtitles.
That assault on Ebert by Lumenick was indeed all ove rthe net a few days ago, even at LIC. Lumenick is an ass.
Ebert is indeed a humanist and a man of great passion. As an intellect critic though, he likes 99% of what he sees, declares about 50 movies a year as “masterpiece” and seems more concerned about making directors and movie companies happy. But we still love him.
Indeed, Lumenick is an ass, Sam.
At metacritic, they’ve actually quantified how much more often he gives a favorable review; it’s 8.9% more (this is from his blog post).
I’m not sure I’d go quite so far as to say he seems more concerned with keeping directors and movie companies happy, though … but indeed we still love him!
Hi! Rick,
Ah!…Chicago my kind of town!… and a couple of the “Pulitzer prize winning” Roger Eberts’ books that I must add to the Amazon.com shopping cart.
“Awake in the Dark”
Roger Eberts’ Guide I The Great Movies
Roger Eberts’ Guide II The Great Movies
Roger Eberts’ Your Movie Sucks!
I must admit, that one of his (Ebert) book that alway “end up in my hands” (annually,..well really since 2002) are his Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbook(s)…I think his Movie Yearbook for (2009) will soon be available!
dcd
Cool. I’ve never read one … maybe I’ll check it out.