esrosedotblog

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.

Life Itself (2014)

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.

Labels: biography, films

I am a long time wanna-be magician. Or illusionist. Or charlatan.

That last one is the preferred title of a magic guy I have watched since, well it seems like, infancy. Now here he is full blown and glowing in the New York Times Magazine today.

The Unbelievable Skepticism of The Amazing Randi

Randi was a favorite of Johnny Carson so he frequently appeared on that night-time show. Also a frequent repeater on Ed Sullivan.

He began with a magic act but became "disillusioned" when no matter how hard he tried to show people that the magic was actually explainable he quit that act and became a mentalist. Someone who can read minds and tell the future. Still fake but somehow more palatable in the doing.

Randi turned to being a scientific investigator of the magical and spiritual when he set up a foundation to prove that there was no such thing. He took it upon himself to begin unmasking other mind readers who unlike Randi still tried to manipulate and con people with their stuff.

He is still at it.

The interesting thing is that he still hopes to find someone who is truly psychic or able to read minds or do spiritual communicating. He still has not. And the pot has grown and grown over the years.

One of the best surprises in this article is to discover that Randi was/is gay! He had a partner for many years who was also his stage assistant. A younger man who got into some trouble because he was an illegal alien and no amount of magic would get him off. They eventually married which broke the hold the immigration people had over him. Happy endings.

Labels: biography, magic