The Hot Blog

Picking an intellectual light-weight like Richard Roeper (someone with absolutely no film-reviewing experience prior to his becoming the "annointed one") to succeed Gene Siskel still remains an unforgivable act in my eyes.
I love Roger, too, but why-oh-why did he have to foist an idiot like Roeper on us? Isn't one Jeffrey Lyons in the world enough?

I'm not really sure what the point of this letter is. The boomer PBS audience isn't oblivious as to where Roger went and certainly with his website he's made it pretty much idiot proof to find out what he likes or dislikes. The bottom line is arthouse and independent cinema as a whole is suffering and Ebert's waning "influence" is a small part of a larger problem. With the rise of DVD, cable TV and affordable home cinemas the moneyed boomers of yore are choosing to stay home with their NetFlix choices so they can keep an eye on their kids and not have to deal with parking, prices, talkers, bad projection, bad seats, etc etc etc.

Roger moving back to PBS isn't going to change the state of independent and arthouse cinema all that much and to put that responsibility on his shoulders is wildly naive.

Lumet intro'd him.

Montrealkid, I think you nailed it. Most of the audiences for the indie films heard about the good buzz films from festival reports in the media. But, unless they lived in L.A. or N.Y.C., the films wouldn't open in their city until months or even years later (and for anyone not living in a city, they might never get these films). Thanks to Netflix, they can just add them to their queue, and since they already have to wait, what's waiting just a little bit longer to see the films in their own home? And it's not like most of these films have gigantic production values that demand they be seen in the theaters.

That said, Ebert's critical judgement has been slipping quite a bit, and with his health problems, he's not out hustling for his pet small films the way he used to. But to suggest that a return to PBS would make any difference is quite a stretch.

Movieman; an unforgiveable sin? Does this sin rank as highly as your unmitigated yapping in paragraph after paragraph? Roeper actually does have a brain in his head, and has some idea about movie critquing. If all of these fat heads on the net can review film after film and Rotten tomatoes gives them love. A brother with a normal size head should be able to do the same, but keep on hating. I look forward to how you wrap up another blog post with some random question. Which has become the hot blog equivalent of a blow pop for me!

"At that Cannes luncheon I challenged Roger to return to PBS to reclaim the mantle of influence, potency, and authority which he once held."

But PBS is in an even worse position when it comes to the influence, potency, and authority it once held. The world's changed a dozen times over since both of their heydays; and going back there would be like Alex Rodriguez leaving the big leagues to play community college ball. Not to mention the fact that the contribution of Gene Siskel in those days is totally being left out of the equation here.

Roger's doing all he can right now, and he's done more than his share overall. Isn't it somebody else's turn to rise up and be this era's Siskel & Ebert anyway? Where's the backup?

Oh, number man you are so so funny!
Anyone who actually thinks that Richard Roeper has anything instructive or informed to say about cinema is clearly a lifetime member of the Jeffrey Lyons fan club.
Being a "columnist" for the Chicago Sun Times hardly qualifies someone to go on nat'l television blabbing their uninformed opinions.
That's the problem with so many so-called "critics" these days (the internet has spawned a whole legion of them). None of them have any background, education, training, etc. in the art form they're maligning with their nonsensical gibberish.
Roeper is just one of the most visible examples.
I'm pretty sure that Roger picked a light-weight like Roeper to replace Gene because (a) he was a S-T newspaper buddy; and (b) there was never any risk of being outshone by a buffoon like RR.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but wasn't Roeper Disney's choice?

Anyway, I'm digging all the Roger love lately. The man is a national treasure and I'm thrilled that abundant appreciation is being shown. All too often we wait until a person has passed to reflect on their achievements and contributions.

Also, it pleases me to no end that Roger has been so active in print lately. His letter to Werner Herzog was wonderful.

I agree that Roger Ebert is perhaps a bit too generous nowadays and not as critically relevant in the age of the internet, but to blame that on Disney is far too simplistic.

I wacthed Ebert and Siskel back when I was a small child and they were on the Buffalo affiliate of PBS. We loved them because of their insight and their entertainment value. Those insights and values did not change when the two went to Disney in the 80's.

Instead, if Ebert seems more generous now or less insightful, there are a whole host of reasons that would conspire to make this the case.

Fist off; age. As one generation gets older and a newer one takes hold, it is only natural that the influence of the older will give way to new views. I love Rog but I rarely read him anymore and even more rarely do I take his advice. I haven't asked for one of his books at Christmas time for a decade. Not because I disrespect him...but because I and the culture have changed. Other critics (like Dave P here or Armond White or Kyle Smith) are more interesting to me now.

Also, Ebert is softer because he is a celeb now and perhaps is too chummy with people in the entertainment field.

Do I infer he is on the dreaded "take". Of course not. But when Siskel was alive, Ebert was always "The Fat One". He sat on the far chair on chat shows and got little respect from the entertainment community. Comedians like Letterman always held him up as an object of scorn and ridicule. After Siskel died, he became the new god-critic and as such became more beloved in the film industry. How could that not, on a long enough time line, affect his views or make him softer. To be loved after all those years of ridicule. And good for him. I do not begrudge him that.

Also, art films are more mainstream now. They do not need Ebert to recommend them. Films like Juno or a foreign film like The Black Book will find an audience because entertainment culture is everywhere now, unlike when Ebert started.

To be clear...I love Ebert and respect the man to death. But blaming Disney on his softness or lack of current influence is far too easy. He left PBS to have more influence not less. Blaming Disney feels like anti-corporate sour grapes.

It's not so much Ebert's opinion about a movie that makes his reviews interesting. It's how he presents everything. He really paints a picture of what to expect when you see the movie, without being insulting to the movie or the reader. I rarely get that from other critics.

Brack, that is a great point. I love (by which I mean I kind of hate) all of the internet movie nerds who will talk about how Ebert "isn't trustworthy" and has "impaired judgment" as if there is some kind of statistical minimum a critic has to meet in order to be considered wortwhile. I TRUST Ebert to write an interesting, well-reasoned review -- not for him, or any other critic, to like or dislike a certain number of films (or certain specific films!) in order to gain my respect! To imply that Ebert is a lesser critic because he might've given positive reviews to movies "everyone knows" are bad is to indulge in absolutist idiocy.

Nicol, your taste in critics is interestingly nutty. Let's see:

-Armond White, who would be interesting if he weren't so self-intoxicated by his contrarian shtick (and if he didn't use each and every review as an opportunity to mention some other recent movie that he considers VASTLY overrated or underrated by the critical establishment -- I used to think he just did this to "review" a bunch of movies he wasn't assigned to originally, but he's become so compulsive about doing this that he sounds beyond defensive).

-Our man DP, who I don't think really self-identifies as a critic. I mean, isn't he really more of a pundit? I read Dave every day and I like hearing his take on stuff but I don't really consider him a full-time critic.

-Kyle Smith, who seems to have been hired by the Post to make up for the disappointment of their main critic *not* being as much of a cartoon jackass as the rest of their staff. (And, as with White, my beef is with his writing and his arguments, not really his tastes. I find that even with the most contrarian or seemingly oppositional critic, I probably agree with him or her at least 25 or 30% of the time, if not more, purely in terms of yay or nay.)

Are you a big fan of Scott Holleran, too?

Let me stand up for Armond a little here - yes, he's obnoxiously contrarian, and too often he uses his reviews as soapboxes to make other, unrelated points, and too often he's reviewing the concept of a movie rather than the actual film itself.

But, he's smarter and more stimulating than just about any critic out there. Even when you don't agree with him, you can learn something from what he writes.

Speaking of contrarians:

What's the deal with Salon's Stephanie Zachorek?

I rarely if ever read her stuff or that site, but I can't help notice that in EW's weekly critic's rankings chart, she gives a C- or D to eeeeeverything. And I mean EVERYTHING.

Does she bring any sort of interesting perspective to this venom, or is she just kind of batshit crazy?

For one, I've never ever understand why people who hate 90% of everything even want to be professional movie critics. Zacharek, Ed Gonzalez, etc. It'd be like me hating soccer and choosing a career writing about, then writing about every game by mentioning how stupid the ball is and how the nets are a bad idea.

Jesse,

If you do not like my taste in critics...that is fine. But defending the ones I like is not the point. The point is many people feel that Ebert has lost some sort of relvence and are moving onto other critics for various reasons.

I love Smith because he is witty and 'calls it like it is' in a funny, zingy way.

Dave P might not be a 'critic' but actually can defend his views better than most crix and has a wealth of film history knowledge even when I disagree.

As for White; he is probably the critic who most represents where I am coming from nowadays. When you read White, you know he has an academic's sense of film history and can smell pretentiousness and poseurs from a mile away. He does not suffer fools gladly and always provides the views that I perhaps most often agree with. His review of I'm Not Here was exactly what I was thinking as I watched.

Ebert's taste was hugely influencial on me in my teens and early twenties, but he seems too generous now in a way that even a well written review can't justify for me. It used to be if Ebert gave a film 4 stars I gave it a chance. Now he just gives those 3 and four star reviews out too easily and it has caught up with him.

Armond White may not be a household name but I like that. He can use words like a lance and spear junk with a single sentence. With Ebert, I sense he has gone to too many Hollywood parties and his dagger has been dulled.

I just assumed Ebert had a stroke when he called My Dinner With Andre best pic of the year. Only Rocky V has made me feel more suicidal impulses.

He's a critic - with personal tastes - ymmv - like every other critic on the planet.

"Ebert's taste was hugely influential on me in my teens and early twenties, but he seems too generous now in a way that even a well written review can't justify for me. It used to be if Ebert gave a film 4 stars I gave it a chance. Now he just gives those 3 and four star reviews out too easily and it has caught up with him."

You know he's not seeing nearly as many movies as he used to, and in his Movie Answer Man section a reader asked a question similar to your observation, and he even said he thinks it's been a very good year for movies.

The problem is, in my time line I am referring to the last half a decade or more. I actually think Rog started to go easier sometime around the mid nineties and it continued in a more obvious form after Gene died.

Again, and I cannot repeat this enough. I have huge respect for Roger Ebert and what he has accomplished. I have a slew of his books on my shelf and I spent my teen years in book stores reading them before I started purchasing them. He is a deserved icon. But he is not impentrable. I just think the quality slid a bit and I believed this before his unfortunate illness.

Nicol, I guess my point is that I see no reason to "move on" to other critics, since it doesn't seem like an either/or situation to me -- there's no reason to stop reading Ebert just because you prefer Armond White or whoever else. Granted, there's only so much time most people will devote to reading movie reviews, but it would seem to me that Ebert's POV would be even more valuable considering the other viewpoints you mentioned that don't match up with his style or taste.

The odd central argument you and many others seem to be making here is about that taste thing -- whose taste to trust and who writes stuff you agree with; you say you like White because he's "coming from" the same place as you -- which I do totally understand. I feel Ebert coming from "my" place, too -- but not in terms of matching my tastes (comedy, in particular, is something I've long realized he and I disagree on -- witness 1.5-star (or less!) ratings from him on Wet Hot American Summer, Napoleon Dynamite, and Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy, some of my favorite recent comedies!), but in terms of how to approach movies. LexG mentions critics who seem to hate everything; what I like about Ebert is that after all these years he still seems to *want* to like a given movie -- to approach it fairly -- which gives his writing a more thoughtful, open, film-fan quality (while still being backed up by vast knowledge of film history).

Movie; the above folks have pretty much ripped apart every critic who has all the training that you need because they do not like movies. Seriously dude... he loves film. He never claims to be a critic. Yet you think he's a wretched hive of scum and villiany? Please.

"I feel Ebert coming from "my" place, too -- but not in terms of matching my tastes (comedy, in particular, is something I've long realized he and I disagree on -- witness 1.5-star (or less!) ratings from him on Wet Hot American Summer, Napoleon Dynamite, and Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy, some of my favorite recent comedies!), but in terms of how to approach movies. LexG mentions critics who seem to hate everything; what I like about Ebert is that after all these years he still seems to *want* to like a given movie -- to approach it fairly -- which gives his writing a more thoughtful, open, film-fan quality (while still being backed up by vast knowledge of film history)."

Quoted for truth.

I tend to not read actual critics anymore. I read Ebert frequently and whenever Dave posts a review on here I'll read it and I read the reviews of a local critic in the newspaper every Thursday, but other than that I tend to listen more to what my blogging pals have to say. Generally because they're not being paid to see the movies they see and they haven't actually seen every single movie that there is to see. It's more interesting and because I am closer to the actual person doing the writing (1000 word critiques or just mere 100-word capsule reviews) I actually enjoy reading it, whereas with critics I feel like I could look at their star rating and be done with it because there is no connection.

I was at the Gothams and found the entire tribute moving and much deserved. Roger and his beloved wife Chaz were obviously pleased and the entire audience, on our feet, couldn't help share that joy. People may not understand what a miracle it is that he is alive...much less writing some of the best stuff in his career. It was stated last night that Roger goes into every movie wanting to like it. What a refreshing attitude...going in with an open mind and putting the baggage aside in hopes that a discovery will be made. Too many raves? A matter of opinion. Have any of us ever agreed with everything a given critic has written? Unlikely. Hell, I don;t always agree with my own opinions when I look back. But to understand what a perceptive writer Roger can be, do read his letter about Werner Herzog, any of his essays, and the reviews of "Great Movies." And especially the brave and powerful discussion of his illness. When Julian Schnabel explains that the real life main character in his THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, Bauby, thought his stroke induced paralization was an opportunity to live an entire new life. Roger is living his life but in some ways differently. But he isn't asking for sympathy. Rather he wants to movie forward and do what he loves. As to PBS vs. ABC..... Disney can;t be blamed. There are too many other factors. PBS was a great place for the original show. There were no TV review shows and there was a need for discussions about cinema. I watched tapings f several of those shows. The entire tone was different than today. There is more blurring of the lines today. The studios make high profile art films and acquire ones with less profile but some studio muscle. And then the independent and foreign films that get more modest distribution and those trying for self-distribution. What does t add up too? Too many movies in the marketplace. The audiences can;t keep up. And shows like "At The Movies" try to cover more films resulting in shortened discussion. On PBS, "Sneak Previews" was shown in prime time and "At The Movies" tends to be at off hours when most people I know aren't home. So fewer people might see it. But Jeff tells the story correctly. We were playing MY DINNER WITH ANDRE in several Landmark Theaters, planning to pull the movie. That show appeared early Sunday evening and the 9pm shows were mobbed....probably more people than we had seen in the full previous week.

I was at the Gothams and found the entire tribute moving and much deserved. Roger and his beloved wife Chazz were obviously pleased and the entire audience, on our feet, couldn't help share that joy. People may not understand what a miracle it is that he is alive...much less writing some of the best stuff in his career. It was stated last night that Roger goes into every movie wanting to like it. What a refreshing attitude...seeing each film with an open mind and putting the baggage aside in hopes that a discovery will be made on this new journey. Too many raves? A matter of opinion. Have any of us ever agreed with everything a given critic has written? Unlikely. Hell, I don;t always agree with my own opinions when I look back.

But to understand what a perceptive writer Roger can be, do read his letter about Werner Herzog, any of his essays, and the reviews of "Great Movies." And especially the brave and powerful discussion of his illness. When Julian Schnabel explains that the real life main character in his THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, Bauby, thought his stroke-induced paralysis was an opportunity to live an entire new life. Roger is living his life but in some ways differently. He isn't asking for sympathy. Rather he wants to move forward and do what he loves. An inspiration.

As to PBS vs. ABC..... Disney can't be blamed. There are too many other factors. PBS was a great place for the original show. There were no TV review shows(nor the internet) and there was a need for discussions about cinema.

There is more blurring of the lines today of what is an "specialized film.". The studios make high profile art films and acquire ones with less profile but provide some studio muscle. And then the true independent and foreign films that get more modest distribution and those trying for self-distribution. What does it add up too? Too many movies in the marketplace. The audiences can't keep up. And shows like "At The Movies" try to cover more films resulting in shortened discussion. On PBS, "Sneak Previews" was shown in prime time and "At The Movies" tends to be at off hours when most people I know aren't home. So fewer people interested in the small films might see it.

Jeff tells the story correctly. We were playing MY DINNER WITH ANDRE in several Landmark Theaters, planning to pull the movie. That "Sneak Previews" review appeared Sunday evening and the 9pm shows were mobbed....probably more people than we had in the full previous week put together.

Ebert has been a shell of his former critical self for years. But the show without him is so terrible that I no longer TiVo it. Roeper as second banana to Roger I could stomach - but without Roger, it's unwatchable.

Jeff Lipsky's FLANNEL PAJAMAS is a very slept on little gem, and Roger's review hit it rigth on. More adults looking for real drama should check that out. For my money, anything teh wonderful Justin Kirk is in is worth watching (see Weeds), and Pajamas is no exception.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: