Roger Ebert writes about nourishment without eating and making out without having sex. (Briefly: the former he endures; the latter he adores.)
In the hands of a writer sick with ambition, these subjects might have become the occasion for a meditation on the virtues of discipline; for a writer poisoned by sentiment, they might have become treacly elegy. But Ebert seems these days just to be writing because he really wants to tell you how it is, and it’s very good writing indeed.1
1Which is not to say that I’ve never felt misled by his movie criticism. Not to go too deeply into things, but I would leap to play the dour Siskel to his thumbs up for Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull and Synecdoche, New York.
25 comments
January 13, 2010 at 8:09 pm
G.D.
It is good writing. The food/eating post was moving; I’ll check out the latter.
Oh, and I’d like to cosign the issues you take with his criticism. He tends to overrate big pop spectacles and blockbusters. And he loved Crash, a craptacular movie that made me want to set myself on fire.
Pushback!
January 13, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Ben Alpers
For some reason I rarely read Ebert’s blog, but every time I do I find wonderful writing. Thanks for sending me there, Eric.
That first Ebert piece made me think of Tony Judt’s recent essay about making it through the night with ALS. (h/t Lauren Kientz and Andrew Hartman).
January 13, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Robin Marie
I’ve always liked the Roger Ebert. His recent scorching of Ben Stein’s intelligent design movie was quite good as well.
January 13, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Josh
If you haven’t read his post coming out as an alcoholic, you really should. (He was willing to break anonymity because, as he says in the first link in the OP, he’ll never drink anything ever again.)
January 14, 2010 at 4:08 am
Tom
Sure, Ebert’s critcism is often sympathetic to big-budget spectaculars/typical Hollywood garbage, but he was the first critic of any stripe I regularly read and thus somewhat instrumental in developing my understanding how criticism can work. And his “Great Movies” column was really helpful for a teenager trying to find something good to watch. So despite the hard time people sometimes give Ebert for being the epitome of mainstream movie criticism, I have a bit of a soft spot for him. (I’ve probably never seen a full episode of his TV show, though, so I can’t speak to that.)
January 14, 2010 at 6:14 am
Sybil Vane
He’s written what I think is a truly great pan of The Lovely Bones. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100113/REVIEWS/100119992
January 14, 2010 at 7:32 am
Robin Marie
Also, he’s really funny. Daniel and I have purposefully been watching awful movies lately for the fun of it and then we usually go read Ebert’s reviews afterward. They are consistently the most hilarious.
January 14, 2010 at 8:01 am
politicalfootball
Crash and American Beauty represent the kind of smug liberal bullshit that gives smug liberal bullshitters a bad name.
I used to find Siskel and Ebert unfailingly reliable when they agreed that a movie was good. That ended even before Siskel’s illness, though. Watching them, I had the feeling sometimes that they felt compelled to recommend movies even if they couldn’t actually think of much good to say about them.
January 14, 2010 at 8:38 am
mr earl
That is indeed good writing. I can almost hear the voice of Andrei Codrescu reading it aloud. That’s a compliment.
January 14, 2010 at 8:48 am
kid bitzer
mr. earl–whoa–how strange.
i like the ebert article. but codrescu i find one of the most loathesome, repellent blights on god’s green earth. whenever he comes on npr, i turn off npr and send my donation to fox news corp. honestly, that guy gives me deep insight into why many people hate liberals.
hmm. it’s almost as though tastes differ here.
by the way: is it true that your real name is speedo?
January 14, 2010 at 8:51 am
eric
No, they often call him that, though.
January 14, 2010 at 10:39 am
Charlieford
Love Ebert the man, but you could only fully trust his thumbs down on movies. As for Andrei Codrescu, see his movie, “Road Scholar.” It’s fantastic.
January 14, 2010 at 10:53 am
mr earl
And some may call me Moe, and some may call me Joe . . .
With Codrescu, I don’t know if tastes differ, because I hardly ever listen to the content. It’s the voice, the eccentric pronunciation, the cadence, that I enjoy. And I suppose I’m a bit biased because he had the fine discernment to move to the Ozark foothills post-Katrina.
January 14, 2010 at 1:02 pm
ben
Having never really paid him any attention before it became possible to read his reviews online, and only occasionally doing so after that, I’ve been kind of surprised (perhaps baselessly) at what a good essayist Ebert turns out to be. Odd, maybe, that blogging has given him a regular outlet for longer writing than his reviewing gig does, but welcome nonetheless.
January 14, 2010 at 1:07 pm
ben
& the “Lovely Bones” review really is good. The movie apparently does not improve on the book.
January 14, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Darren
For years Roger Ebert has been by far the most credible and thorough film critic in the field, and now that he seemingly spends all his time reviewing, blogging and tweeting, he may be one of the most prolific and enjoyable writers today.
Also, Synecdoche, New York is indeed one of the best films of the decade. I challenge someone to name a more high-minded film from the past ten years.
January 14, 2010 at 2:20 pm
ari
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever and White Chicks. Happy to help.
January 14, 2010 at 3:50 pm
ben
While it may not be in my best interest to admit this, being high minded does not itself indicate quality. There is plenty of high-minded crap in the world.
January 14, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Vance
“High-minded”? As with Ari’s blurb, I have to ask whether that’s intended as praise.
January 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Vance
Damn you, ben.
January 14, 2010 at 3:54 pm
ben
Really high-minded people form the comparative “higher-minded”.
January 14, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Vance
Policing the diction of commenters on one’s blog is less high-minded than -handed.
January 14, 2010 at 3:58 pm
ben
I’m happy to be EOTAW’s shabbos goy in that regard.
January 15, 2010 at 6:47 am
jhm
Haven’t seen nor heard from Mr. Ebert since the TV show ‘Siskel[?] & Ebert’ was on, many moons ago (perhaps closer to a dog’s age).
I highly recommend Mr. Herzog’s “Encounters at the End of the World,” and if you watch it, make sure to stick around for the credits because the movie is “For Roger Ebert.” Is there some kind of inside joke here? some history betwixt the two, or is this a generalized remark (I can’t think whether it is positive or negative)?
January 15, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Ray Davis
Ebert’s openness towards lowbrow genres (most hilariously evidenced by his screenplays for Russ Meyer) used to be a genuine rarity among mainstream reviewers (this was back when Maltin was more of a animation scholar), and I’ve always respected him for that.