The Criterion Collection

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

It was thanks to Ebert's clear mastery at shining light on the artistic merits of a film (especially plot construction and narrative strategy as well as acting minutiae) that his writings became the foremost source of film knowledge to me, and it was thanks to his essays that I delved into the likes of Ozu, Resnais, Melville, Buñuel, Fassbinder, Jodorowsky and Herzog - just to limit myself to his thoughts on non-American masterpieces. Frankly, some of the attacks leveled against him in this regard are so factually nonsensical that I can't help but think the person hasn't read more than just a couple of his reviews (or just saw him giving thumbs up or thumbs down on that show) and got mad like a petulant child for disagreeing with them.

Suggesting that a critic is only worth his salt when he champions unknown or under-appreciated artists doesn't make any sense, either - but even if such a criteria were valid, Ebert would fill it. As others have mentioned, he was among those who first recognized the greatness of Scorsese and of milestones like Bonnie & Clyde and McCabe & Mrs. Miller. He was also pretty much the only mainstream reviewer to champion then-unknown indie filmmakers like Ramin Bahrani or unsuspected pop artists like Alex Proyas and Tarsem, not to mention documentaries. He still valued old enfant terribles such as Brian De Palma when most of his peers barely remembered his existence.

Ebert was neither a bad writer, a sell-out who only recommended previously canonized works nor an Anglophone nut who didn't value artistic contributions from overseas. As for havig blind-spots, I see no one disparaging Rosenbaum for hating on the Coens or Spielberg, or Kael for her crusade against Kubrick.

What's this all about then? I say it's about a flagrant lack of knowledge about Ebert's work.

Agreed. Seems the poster has a severe lack of knowledge about Ebert’s work as a whole.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Bringing up that specific review for a critic to single out their incompetency is lazy and doesn't say a damn thing about why they're a supposed bad critic. If you really want to go by that logic, where it wasn't in hindsight, then just look at his review Who's that Knocking at My Door, where he deemed the then unknown Scorsese as a huge talent. There's also Do the Right Thing, Dark City, My Dinner with Andre (him and Siskel were the key figures to its current status), the array of Herzogs, and, most importantly, Hoop Dreams. To say that he was a wholly ignorant film critic is, well, ignorant. He had his blind spots, like all critics (you could just as quickly point on Kael's wildly off the mark assessment on Kubrick), but that doesn't diminish the body of work, which is monumentally vast. Cultural status doesn't negate quality.

And his commentary track for Citizen Kane is vital for anyone into film.

Well put. The ignorance and unnecessary generalization by the poster is staggering.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

He disapproved more on ideological grounds. The claim that he didn't like graphically violent pictures doesn't hold with Natural Born Killers, Taxi Driver, Irreversible, etc.

It seemed like he felt those films used violence to make a point. His objections around "A Clockwork Orange" centered around what he felt was the glorification of Alex DeLarge. However, "Natural Born Killers" glorifies violent killers far more than "A Clockwork Orange". He claimed that the style of "A Clockwork Orange" glorifies violence, but that claim could certainly be made about "Natural Born Killers". The criticisms he makes about "A Clockwork Orange" could be made against "Natural Born Killers" tenfold. I don't know how Ebert felt later in life, but perhaps he wanted the review of "A Clockwork Orange" back. His facetious review of "The Devils" seems to indicate that he felt there was no point to the depravity on screen, when in fact it's probably the greatest condemnation of religious hypocrisy in the history of cinema.

I like Roger Ebert a lot, was a fan of reading his reviews growing up, but there was inconsistency when he reviewed films that displayed violence or depravity. It's one of my few gripes I have with him as a critic.

[nitin]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Interesting. I like Diary a lot, but to me it's almost transitional and still carries over elements of 'psychological realism' that were lacking from later works.

I don't disagree with this but I think I personally responded better to this transitional mix of styles rather than what is considered our Bresson.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by mja345

It seemed like he felt those films used violence to make a point. His objections around "A Clockwork Orange" centered around what he felt was the glorification of Alex DeLarge. However, "Natural Born Killers" glorifies violent killers far more than "A Clockwork Orange". He claimed that the style of "A Clockwork Orange" glorifies violence, but that claim could certainly be made about "Natural Born Killers". The criticisms he makes about "A Clockwork Orange" could be made against "Natural Born Killers" tenfold. I don't know how Ebert felt later in life, but perhaps he wanted the review of "A Clockwork Orange" back. His facetious review of "The Devils" seems to indicate that he felt there was no point to the depravity on screen, when in fact it's probably the greatest condemnation of religious hypocrisy in the history of cinema.

I like Roger Ebert a lot, was a fan of reading his reviews growing up, but there was inconsistency when he reviewed films that displayed violence or depravity. It's one of my few gripes I have with him as a critic.

Opening of A Clockwork Orange review:

Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is an ideological mess, a paranoid right-wing fantasy masquerading As an Orwellian warning.

I don't agree with him (it's my favorite Kubrick), but it's not the violence he had a problem with. And no, he went on talk shows decades later to be called out by Siskel and still didn't budge. The purpose of violence is entirely subjective here, so I don't really see the point debating on that regard. I just don't think asserting him as a critic that hated violent films to be accurate.

[mja345]

His assertion that the film is a "paranoid right-wing fantasy" is so far off, I don't even know where to begin. Next sentence, he says the film "celebrates the nastiness of Alex". But, then in his review of "Natural Born Killers", he says basically says it's a brilliant commentary on the glorification of violence. But Oliver Stone was completely unable to balance doing intelligent commentary on violence with his need to stylize it. So, "Natural Born Killers", while being a very entertaining film, is essentially the ultimate example of what Ebert criticizes "Clockwork" for. When you finish "NBK", you really have to stretch to conclude that it's a condemnation of violence in society.

I've always felt that Ebert ran into some inconsistencies when he reviewed violent films, particularly in the horror genre. Obviously, there were violent films he reviewed positively. But it was his weakest spot as a critic IMO. Again, just my opinion. I'm not shitting on him as a critic overall.

[theater dreamer]

I will proudly go on record as stating that Roger Ebert, more than any other individual or company, is responsible for my passion for film. This intense desire to learn about film history, and share the knowledge I've gleaned with others, is in large part due to him.

And I will say one thing about Roger Ebert's style. While it's possible to agree or disagree with his conclusions as a critic, I never once saw him talk down to the viewer or reader. For all his vast knowledge, he never came across as a snob. If you watch Awake in the Dark, his enthusiasm for the art form endured to the very last day of his life. That unbridled joy is something that is sorely lacking since his passing.

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Agreed. Seems the poster has a severe lack of knowledge about Ebert’s work as a whole.

[modernlove101]

This seems like the best place to ask: is the Criterion Collection through with announcements for the year? If not, when will they announce the next batch?

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by modernlove101

This seems like the best place to ask: is the Criterion Collection through with announcements for the year? If not, when will they announce the next batch?

Probably Monday.

[modernlove101]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Probably Monday.

Fingers crossed! Thanks! Even though there is no basis for my optimism, I'm really hoping we get 'The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover' next year. You wanna talk about a violent movie Roger Ebert LOVED...

[jw007]

I wanted to weigh in on the Ebert discussion.

For many people, Roger Ebert is the sole reason they discovered cinema.

He was my "go-to" critic in times when I didn't have time to research a movie extensively. I always wanted to see what Roger Ebert wrote and often times, his criticism was justified. I miss the man.

The legendary TV show Siskel and Ebert: At the Movies was unlike anything of its nature. A movie critic, much less two movie critics, having their own TV show in Primetime? And it ran for 20 years straight? Unheard of!

Also, Criterion did a fine job releasing Ebert's one and only screenwriting credit to the collection: Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

Roger Ebert was distinctly an American legend. Those that grew up in the USA in the 80's, 90's and 00's will never forget tuning into ABC and catching the guy arguing/debating over a film on a Saturday night with his buddy Gene.

Two thumbs up!

Siskel & Ebert Intro (1986-1999) - YouTube

[javy]

It would be great to see Bergman's Winter Light and Scorsese's After Hours in the announcements tomorrow. I wouldn't ask anything from Santa for Christmas or anything from the Great Pumpkin on Halloween.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by mja345

His assertion that the film is a "paranoid right-wing fantasy" is so far off, I don't even know where to begin. Next sentence, he says the film "celebrates the nastiness of Alex". But, then in his review of "Natural Born Killers", he says basically says it's a brilliant commentary on the glorification of violence. But Oliver Stone was completely unable to balance doing intelligent commentary on violence with his need to stylize it. So, "Natural Born Killers", while being a very entertaining film, is essentially the ultimate example of what Ebert criticizes "Clockwork" for. When you finish "NBK", you really have to stretch to conclude that it's a condemnation of violence in society.

I've always felt that Ebert ran into some inconsistencies when he reviewed violent films, particularly in the horror genre. Obviously, there were violent films he reviewed positively. But it was his weakest spot as a critic IMO. Again, just my opinion. I'm not shitting on him as a critic overall.

I have to disagree with this assessment.

I think the only conclusion any reasonable viewer can have is that NBK is a pretty strong condemnation of our society's collective glorification of violence and violent people as entertainment for the masses.

This is difficult for me mja345.

...normally I can feel our two demented hearts beating as one.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I have to disagree with this assessment.

I think the only conclusion any reasonable viewer can have is that NBK is a pretty strong condemnation of our society's collective glorification of violence and violent people as entertainment for the masses.

This is difficult for me mja345.

...normally I can feel our two demented hearts beating as one.

I like "NBK" as a piece of entertainment, don't get me wrong. But it's so stylized that it doesn't really make me feel like it's an effective condemnation of violence. A film that has elements of "Natural Born Killers" that is more effective in showing how we make entertainment out of violence is "Man Bites Dog" IMO. I often think of "NBK" as similar to "W." for Stone. He clearly despised George W. Bush, but made a film where W is somewhat sympathetic. Stone clearly dislikes violence, but, like I said, "NBK" is so stylized that it isn't all that effective as a condemnation of it from my perspective.

[malakaheso]

They are similar films insofar as they view the violence from the 'outside' (i.e the media in NBK and the state apparatus in Clockwork) as arguably being worse than the actual violence committed by the protagonists.

The main difference I see is that NBK is just a flat out confrontational piece of agitprop whereas I think Kubrick thought he was doing more, and he managed to convince audiences he was too.

[nitin]

Re Ebert, I always admired his enthusiasm for film, but never really cared much for him as a critic personally.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by nitin

I don't disagree with this but I think I personally responded better to this transitional mix of styles rather than what is considered our Bresson.

Fair enough. Perhaps I'm a bit of an 'ascetic' at heart. I also prefer Gertrud to The Passion of Joan of Arc.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I will proudly go on record as stating that Roger Ebert, more than any other individual or company, is responsible for my passion for film. This intense desire to learn about film history, and share the knowledge I've gleaned with others, is in large part due to him.

And I will say one thing about Roger Ebert's style. While it's possible to agree or disagree with his conclusions as a critic, I never once saw him talk down to the viewer or reader. For all his vast knowledge, he never came across as a snob. If you watch Awake in the Dark, his enthusiasm for the art form endured to the very last day of his life. That unbridled joy is something that is sorely lacking since his passing.

I agree with almost all of that (and even mostly agree with the part I disagree with).

While I don't think he was a snob he could a little snobby when talking about what does and doesn't constitute art. He could be the biggest cheerleader for popcorn movies he loved but every now and again a little bit a sneer could creep into his tone when he was talking about a popular movie he didn't like.

And maybe the most notable instance of (again, I agree, relatively rare) snootiness had to do with whether or not video games could be considered an art form.

Man oh man did he have his nose in the air on that one

But to be fair, when people called him on it he responded very reasonably to their criticisms and admitted that yeah, maybe they had a point and maybe he was just being a cranky douche that day.

[Snicket]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmnY...ature=youtu.be

[DaBargainHunta]

As great as Siskel & Ebert were on TV, Ebert was on another level entirely with his writing. When I read his reviews for the first time, I was blown away by how much better he was in writing - and his TV persona, like I said, was pretty damn good too.

Newsflash: Disagreeing with Ebert's reviews doesn't make him wrong or a bad critic - it just means you have a different opinion. Even when I didn't agree with Ebert, what I always admired about his reviews was that I could see exactly where he was coming from.

I also find it baffling that people think he missed the boat on "art films" when he championed so many weird, experimental movies over the years.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I don't think his writing will last as long as Kael, Rosenbaum, Kehr, etc.

The masses have no clue who Rosenbaum and Kehr are. Kael is more well known, but Ebert is a major reason why - he wrote about her glowingly. It also helps that her reviews are back in print, now on Kindle, etc. - not everything but enough of them.

But as good as Kael was, I considered Roger Ebert the greatest film critic of all time.