Scott Sings a Song of Ebert
By Craig Kennedy - April 12th, 2008; 8:31 am
Roger Ebert with Russ Meyer (Left)
I’ve tried at least 4 times to explain to skeptics who only see his plain style and his over-enthusiasm for some mediocre movies what it is I like about Roger Ebert. Leave it to A.O. Scott to do it better and more efficiently:
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.
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - Ebert’s Latest Sneak Preview
- Thank You Roger Ebert
- In Ebert’s Own Words
- Ebert on the State of Film Criticism
- Desperately Seeking Indie
He’s a gifted writer who often proves successful at navigating the divide between high artistic expression and the plebian civic responsibility of newspaper work. He’s terrific when he boils down a complex idea to a digestible level. That’s when he is at his best.
Having spent so little time in the US, I’ve only ever sampled the odd Ebert review and television show. He seemed a straightforward communicator whose taste and takes didn’t naturally gel with my own. I was left wondering what all the fuss was about.
His more recent tendency to offer near blanket enthusiasm for the films he reviews has inevitably reduced the standing of his opinions.
That said, when so many thoughtful and discerning people praise the quality of his books and DVD film commentaries, neither of which I’ve encountered, I have no trouble accepting that he has earned his status in the field.
No matter how dazzling a turn of phrase or incisive someone’s analysis what makes their writing more or less appealing is the core personal style and values behind it. As Scott so tellingly observes “other critics (Ms. Kael and Mr. Sarris most famously) have spawned schools, or at least collected bands of acolytes and imitators. Mr. Ebert… has no disciples, only friends.”
Ebert has clearly shown a personal facility for more nuanced critical erudition than I’ve yet encountered. But what surely underpins his appeal as a film critic is how this quality is coupled with both the absence of pretension and immense likeability.
I love Roger Ebert, even when he seems to totally miss the boat and endorse a stinker or vice versa. As you folks are already saying, Ebert’s writing is spare, intelligent, and inclusive. He doesn’t lord his experience over newcomers like certain other prominent critics, and, very important, he also likes movies. Many critics play the contrarian game (Armond White, brilliant writer that he is, is laughable in this regard) but Ebert’s defense of certain films many critics probably don’t even bother with is braver. It takes balls to give Tomb Raider 3 stars.
I only read Ebert’s site about everyday, okay almost everyday. I have never seen the show. He is great though. So often I feel nauseous when I read film reviews but he has never once made me feel nauseous. He is not pretentious, he is not afraid of his opinion or of being honest and he never writes anything that is not of the best quality, even for films like Tomb Raider, lol.
A.O. Scott really did express it beautifully.
sartre, in addition to Ebert’s excellent writing, enthusiasm for films and grasp of the history, he was also, in the early years of his television show, one of the champions of the more independent, less mainstream films that no one would have otherwise paid attention to.
I agree Alison….I wish I could’ve seen his show back in the days, I think it would have been awesome.
I’ll cut and paste my thoughts from our other thread that touched on this a couple weeks ago:
“On the other hand, he was one of the guys that introduced me to the idea that a movie could be more than just an evening’s entertainment…that a movie could be art, and for that he’ll always have a place at my dinner table.”
Yes, Craig. As both you and Sam point out, he’s not someone whose “stars” mean as much anymore, but the fact that he kind of knows that is why I like him. In other words, he doesn’t make you feel like an idiot if you like a movie he doesn’t, or vice versa. Like most of us writing reviews, he throws out an opinion and tries to point out some interesting observations from a film.
He can really reach the non-academic crowd, too, and I think he probably opened a few of our eyes to the art of cinema early on, Craig. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t use big words; reading a review of his is like reading USA Today. Anyway, I appreciate that he’s faithfully provided widely accessible commentary for so many years.”
Though he may not be the “best” critic, he’s probably been the most influential in shaping my appreciation of film in my earlier years.
“Though he may not be the “best” critic, he’s probably been the most influential in shaping my appreciation of film in my earlier years.”
Same here, wonderfully said Danny.
THe thing I love about Ebert is that he’s a passionate cinephile, a true intellectual about the entire movie-making/going process, and an expert on film history, but he doesn’t intimidate me or seen unapproachable. In fact, I can easily see sitting down with Ebert for a beer on some random occasion. He’s a personable critic, something the vast majority of critics fail miserably at.
I’ve sent random comments to his Answer Man column and actually gotten a personal reply from him. Granted, they were short and not every email i sent received a reply, but that’s more than I would expect from someone of Ebert’s stature.
There are a number of critics I really respect and appreciate, but Ebert (and Craig) are the only two I’d feel comfortable sitting down to dinner with.
And I love Ebert’s Overlooked Film Festival. What a great idea, trumpeting movies the establishment and audiences ignored or missed the first time around.
I love Ebert’s enthusiasm and much prefer watching him in the good ol PBS days with Siskel. But his written reviews are half synopsis, which is rarely interesting to read unless opines are thread within. And I find his summations more glib than detailed, and I often disagree with him. I won’t forget his pans of EVIL DEAD, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, BLUE VELVET. But he gave a great review for DAWN OF THE DEAD.
And he wrote one of the greatest lines in film history.
One day when I was 11 years old I was flipping channels and on PBS found a clip of the then-new “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” This was way before our current state of pop culture saturation, and as such I stayed tuned to the channel and wound up becoming a lifelong fan of Siskel and Ebert.
He may not be the best or most scholarly critic, but he’s the first one I read, and he was the first one to make me really think about films I loved and he didn’t — “Blade Runner” and “Blue Velvet” instantly come to mind. He also caused me to experience movies I might otherwise never have discovered — “Koyaanisqatsi” and “The Tin Drum” are the first ones that come to mind. As such, he was a great gateway to film criticism.
Two of the most rewarding things I’ve ever done have been attending Ebert’s three-day shot-by-shot lectures (on “The Birds” and “Chinatown”). It was great to gather each day and shoot the shit for a while and then delve into classic films. He was a wise, easygoing, observant “professor” who never put on airs or got defensive.
I’ve heard Ebert talk about those shot-by-shot deals Harvey…I think he talks about one on the Citizen Kane commentary. That’s so cool that you participated in a couple of them.
Christian. Are you going to leave us hanging like that? What’s the line?
Ebert is sort of the Howard Cosell of film criticism in the sense that he may not be the deepest analyst but for so many people, including me, he was the gateway of which Harvey so aptly writes.
I shouldn’t have to tell you this Craig, but remember…
It’s my happening and it freaks me out!
I was hoping it was “You will drink the black sperm of my vengeance!”
It’s a fine line between scholarly and pretentious. I think if you read Ebert’s Greatest Movie Reviews, you’ll see more of the scholarly criticism come to the surface of his writing. But like Chuck, I discovered Ebert back on the old PBS show when film critics were something most people didn’t pay attention to and films themselves were more entertainment than anything else. I don’t always agree with the man, but I respect his opinion more than I do most critics I typically disagree with.
Ebert isn’t the same without Gene to argue with though.
“… rich aunt Susan.”
“Bitch aunt Susan!”
He’s never pretentious. ’nuff said.