Here is a link to a fascinating article that longtime critic Rogert Ebert released yesterday. He addresses the contention that many people apparently have against him, namely that he gives too many stars. Many have speculated that his bout with throat cancer led to his wave of optimism, but Ebert himself gives a whole different round of defenses. Here are a few standout quotes from the article, which you really must read in it’s entirety.
“I do not feel comfortable posing as impossible to please. Film lovers attend different movies for different reasons, all of them valid; did I enjoy “Joe vs. the Volcano” more than some Oscar winners? Certainly.”
“If my admiration for a movie is inspired by populism, politics, personal experience, generic conventions or even lust, I must say so. I cannot walk out of a movie that engaged me and deny that it did.”
“Once the scent of blood is in the water, the sharks arrive. I like to write as if I’m on an empty sea. I don’t much care what others think.”
Now, for quite some time I have admitted to my friends (my highly critical film geek friends) that Ebert is my favorite critic precisely for this reason. I like a critic that tends towards optimism. Why? Well, I appreciate the quality that allows a man to say, “that may not have been good, but I still enjoyed it.”
I will admit this quality in myself. I actually enjoyed 27 dresses. As a writer I can say that the story was cliche, characters were shallow, their actions unjustified, and the end lect me wanting. But the performances were strong enough that I still enjoyed it. If a critic cannot admit to that same sentiment from time to time, I say that he simply is not doing his a job. For, as the food critic Ego in Ratatouille wisely informs us, “There are times when a critic truly risks something… and that is in the discovery and defense of the new.”
Notice the important premise inherent in this argument, the new is also often unpopular. If the critic can’t defend the unpopular choice and justify his reasons, even at the risk of his popularity, he simply is not doing his job. He is truncating his job, fulfilling only it’s partial duty, and can then only be called a critic in part.
All of this, of course, falls shortly on the news that Ebert’s long running show of 33 years will be soon taken in a new direction and neither Ebert or Roeper will be involved. Here’s to a long career in front of the camera, Roger, and I give you a solid two thumb’s up.
