Sunday, January 10, 2016
Critic
Un6il Pauline Kael came along, no one took movie criticism seriously.
I was certainly a fan of hers but her writing was dense and her ideas a bit difficult to handle.
I struggled.
The movies were supposed to defy criticism. Of course there was the word of mouth that said this is great or that stunk.
I worked in a movie theater from the age of 14 and saw everything. More or less.
Then college where my lunch money went for films and MIT had the film society which I attended regularly.
Yet, I never much took film criticism seriously beyond the plot outline which, actually, I didn't read anyway. Too many spoilers.
So when it came to criticism it was mostly past tense. What I should have liked and why. Interesting. But academic.
Then along came Roger Ebert. His reviews spoke to me. Is this because he was an alcoholic closeted gay man?
I doubt it, but maybe.
I would like to think that his criticism hit the right note. And I could depend on him.
Later Siskel, an actual enemy from another paper, joined him on a popular PBS television show and film criticism becomes fun.
According to today's movie, the two critics hated each other. Maybe a fun hatred but I do not think so.
I think that this is from the old saying that the joy of living was life itself. In this case, it certainly seems as though Ebert was a happy warrior.
Unhappily he contracted cancer of the jaw. Horrific.
There is way too much of this in the two hour film. I had enough. It clouded my view. A bid for pity? I think not. More outright exploitation of illness to underline a tragedy.
It basically ruins the film. Too much morbidity.
Ebert's tragedy was no different than anyone else's. He had a good life. He was a good guy. He married late and was happy. A woman with kids. He was as entertaining as a writer as any of the films he talked about. And he changed everyone's perspective when they saw a movie whether in a theater or teevee.
So, I liked it. The doc. But I would not want to see it again. A 3 out of Netflix5.
