Upcoming
November 14
A Christmas Tale
B.O.H.I.C.A.
House of the Sleeping Beauties
How About You
November 21
The Betrayal
November 30
Downswirl
The old Siskel and Ebert movie-review show was the first to teach hoi polloi film lovers that "the argument was the thing -- that art itself was arguable, and that was okay," Chicago Tribune guy Christopher Borelli said today.
"Ebert still writes dazzling reviews for the Sun-Times that make complicated points in approachable language, as does [Michael] Phillips, for the Tribune. Richard Roeper continues as a Sun-Times columnist. And there are more than a few thoughtful voices left in criticism, of course -- outside Chicago, even.
"But it's hard to overstate the importance of a nationally syndicated TV show that speaks up for small fine movies without marketing budgets and reinforces names such as Werner Herzog, Robert Altman and Spike Lee and, oh, say, a David Gordon Green. Indeed, it wouldn't be an overstatement to say that for a generation or two of moviegoers, it was Siskel and Ebert who introduced the idea that good criticism is not about finality or consensus or putting your thumb up or down.
"It's about argument itself.
"The irony, of course, is that it wasn't so long ago that Ebert and Siskel themselves and those opposing critical digits were often raised as the primary catalyst in the dumbing down of film criticism. But I bet for the average everyday moviegoers who rarely think beyond 'I liked it' or 'I hated it' and who rarely consider aesthetics or polemics or politics when they go to a multiplex, the end of the original incarnation of At the Movies will feel like the finale of film criticism itself.
"The argument has ended. The informed movie review can be placed officially on the endangered species list. On TV, let's just declare it extinct."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 17, 2008 at 4:47 PM
comment #1
C-PhreekII says ...
You want to know why some of us bemoan the parade of TMZ and Huffington Post items? It's the same thing.
Being able to read about films made with some intelligence that avoids become an academic thesis paper is becoming harder and harder. When it comes to film, you are often the right kind of elitist. You champion film as art in a way that still remains populist.
Posted by C-PhreekII at August 17, 2008 5:43 PM
comment #2
Balthazar says ...
Another note: Before the Internet and before I had daily access to material from the Chicago newspapers, Ebert's annual Movie Guide, with full-length review, was a true joy. ... Smart, funny reviews that started me on the path to tracking down more movies than I can count. Popular films, obscure films, documentaries and everything in between. Ebert introduced me to everyone from Kurosawa to Errol Morris (he is a huge champion of Gates of Heavens)
Posted by Balthazar at August 17, 2008 5:59 PM
comment #3
filmsofdust says ...
I have know idea who this reviewer is, but I was pretty impressed with this review and it almost made me want to see the movie. It is at least head and shoulders above many of the reviews for Tropic Thunder that I have read.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080816/ENTERTAIN/80816011/-1/LIFE
Posted by filmsofdust at August 17, 2008 6:08 PM
comment #4
filmsofdust says ...
[know = no]
Posted by filmsofdust at August 17, 2008 6:09 PM
comment #5
Stephe96 says ...
You know, I don't think I've ever actually READ a Gene Siskel review; I only was aware of him through the show. Do his written reviews exist anywhere?
Posted by Stephe96 at August 17, 2008 8:35 PM
comment #6
PerfectTommy says ...
The great thing about watching the Ebersisk in its day was they really argued. It wasn't faked, they really got angry at each other and at times seemed to genuinely dislike each other. And their love for movies was just as real.
Posted by PerfectTommy at August 17, 2008 8:50 PM
comment #7
Terry McCarty says ...
My favorite passage of the Sun-Times article:
Ben and Ben could well prove their critics wrong. I hope they do. But what chills the blood is that film criticism has been so diminished in recent years that Disney-ABC didn't even attempt to replace reputation with reputation, or continue what Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert started. It's like replacing Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw with Star Jones and Ryan Seacrest.
Film criticism as conversation/argument has moved onto blogs such as this. People aren't into sustained thought and examination of the movies they watch and the lives they live. So it's inevitable that AT THE MOVIES turns into a "let's talk about the latest blockbusters with buzz" fest.
Too bad the show isn't returning until September 6th; I'd like to see Ben Lyons ejaculating over the DEATH RACE remake opening this Friday.
Posted by Terry McCarty at August 17, 2008 10:38 PM
comment #8
Yves says ...
If Siskel and Ebert's At The Movies is considered the pinacle of film criticism, then my old professors at Emerson must be turning in their yet-to-be-dug graves for all the Lacanian critical analysis and Fassbinder biographies they foisted upon me in my film theory classes.
Posted by Yves at August 18, 2008 12:16 PM
comment #9
Terry McCarty says ...
Stephe96 wrote:
You know, I don't think I've ever actually READ a Gene Siskel review; I only was aware of him through the show. Do his written reviews exist anywhere?
I remember leafing through some Siskel writings in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE when going to the library to study during college years.
Gene's writing style was like his delivery on the show--unpretentious, meat-and-potatoes. He wasn't trying for a Pulitzer.
Posted by Terry McCarty at August 19, 2008 1:12 AM
Post a comment