The New York Times' A.O. Scott gives tribute to Roger Ebert
April 16th 2008 23:15
The above picture is of Roger Ebert, a newly minted critic, after the release of "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", which he wrote with Russ Meyer.
If you've been reading 20/20 Filmsight for any length of time, you'll have probably noticed that I'm a huge fan of Ebert's work, often citing him when I write my own reviews.
Ebert has recently recovered from salivary gland cancer; the operation to remove it left him unable to speak. He used to co-host a famous television review show, but he's stepping away from that, picking up the pen and writing reviews again.
Lately, people have complained that Ebert has been too complimentary in his reviews, giving glowing praise to movies that have generally been accepted as lacklustre.... I dunno - the man's just recovered from cancer. Certainly the world must seem a little brighter.
Today, the New York Times' film critic, A.O. Scott, wrote a glowing piece on Ebert, a hefty tribute to a man that's been around for a huge part of film history. He's been in the trenches, seen the action from the depths and, somehow, has managed to stay on top of the wreck.
From the article:
"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."
One reason that I've always gravitate towards Ebert is that, in addition to his incredible knowledge of film, he's, fundamentally, a lover of the cinema. He can easily watch a movie for its entertainment value, then critique an arthouse film and cast scorn on it for being pretentious.
He's a reviewer that make you want to see movies, and he describes them in a way that'll ignite your senses. Ebert has been instrumental in my own appreciation of cinema... my father used to watch his show when I was a kid, a Canadian comedy troupe used to imitate him on TV, and, in the past few years, I've enjoyed watching movies then immediately looking up Ebert's opinion.
I've disagreed with him on some movies, but, in general, we share an uncanny similarity of opinion. When I was younger, I might have said that one of my favourite films was "A Clockwork Orange", but it's been heartily displaced since then. After reading Ebert's review, I had to come around to the idea that Kubrick's hugely influential film is beautifully stylish, but monstrous in tone.
The end of A.O. Scott's article uses the most insightful comment about film criticism that I've heard, spoken by his young daughter:
"One recent afternoon I was sitting at my computer studying old clips of Gene and Roger. After a while my daughter sat down next to me. We watched in silence for a while, and then she said: “These guys are always fighting. Even when they both like a movie, they have to fight about why it’s good.” That may not be an exhaustive definition of criticism as a discipline or a mode of thought, but it strikes me as a pretty good summary."
| 55 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Miswanderlust
Killer Beats
Ramble On
Hipnotherapy
I really enjoy Ebert's work. Thanks for the link and post.
Mis