"Critic" is a four-letter word

I enjoyed the article a lot.

I think you're missing part of the ratatoille quote from a cut-paste instead of a copy-paste. This is what it says.

"But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, and the new needs friends. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."

I am constantly amazed that you can write not only very well, but so much. I would love to read something about your writing process; as a film student, sometimes I struggle getting my thoughts onto paper.

I love movies so much that I often wanted to be a critic, problem is I can't write well at all. A good critic does have skill and talent, they can write well, they can observe things in films a non-critic may not see, and they can inform you. I have seen films I never heard of because a critic recommended it. The problem now is everyone thinks they're a critic, check out the millions of movie blogs out in cyberspace. A critic starts a movie discussion that can get you excited about good films but also excited about talking about poor ones. But like every profession there are very good ones(Siskel, Ebert, Roeper, Jay Carr, Owen Gleiberman) and many self serving, uninformative bad ones(no need to mention names). I want a critic to tell me more about a movie and movie history but not give the plot away. It's ok to have different opinions about a movie as long as you can provide evidence to support your opinion and that is what a good critic can do.

The reviews I enjoy the best are the ones which reach slightly beyond the obvious subject matter and make some observation, however small, about the world. Your reviews do this on a consistent basis, which is why I'll read a review you write even if it's a movie I have no interest in seeing.

Any idea which movie Gene Siskel's daughter didn't like?

It is not important to be "right" or "wrong." It is important to know why you hold an opinion, understand how it emerged from the universe of all your opinions, and help others to form their own opinions. There is no correct answer.

That sums up exactly why I love your reviews, and it's the sentiment I have expressed to many over the years whenever I have come across one of yours I particularly appreciate because it differs from my take on a movie while perfectly articulating why. I don't always agree with every opinion, but I always find your pieces interesting, the explanation behind your opinion clear, and I respect them. It's not a matching opinion I seek--it's the analysis. Even a simple movie like, say, Napoleon Dynamite, which I found very funny, made me love your review because it was so revealing about why you had a visceral dislike of the movie. It never would have occurred to me to view the movie through a lens of someone who ridicules different children, but I love how you explained how personal experiences informed your world view, which of course colored how you interpreted the whole thing.

You talk about expressing the idea to kids that it's okay to have an opinion and that being able to explain and defend it is vital. Your show was definitely that to me as a kid. I remember being fascinated by it. Watching the passionate arguments about movies was fairly eye opening. And since I grew up in the sticks where there weren't too many movie choices, the wide variety of films discussed on your show was enlightening. About ten years ago I stumbled backwards into a position as a semi-pro film critic myself and when asked about that odd move, I generally blamed you.

Over the years I've absorbed plenty of email abuse for my negative reviews of movies. Generally I'm accused of hating movies in general and being out of touch. This always made me laugh, because without a great passion for film, I'd never bother to write about movies at all. I certainly wasn't getting rich doing it, so love is really the only reason to continue.

Recently I decided I'd much rather try to make movies than simply write about them. Last year I was at the FilmColumbia film fest, where they had an event where screenwriters could bring in a scene and it would be performed live by professional actors. I did just this and was asked by the moderator what led me to writing. I mentioned being a critic and received a loud grumble from the actors. It wasn't for me specifically but critics in general. The critic is unfortunately in the no win position of often having to deliver negative feedback on something that others may love dearly or have labored very hard to make. The passion of that critic is of little comfort to someone who takes personally that critic's bad review.

That speech from Anton Ego that you highlight definitely caught my ear. When he talks of discovering a new talent and supporting and defending it, that highlights the part of being a critic I took most to heart. Sure, it is fun to lash into a bad movie, but it is also easy to do so. The real challenge is in searching out greatness and trying to get the rest of the world to discover it as well. When that happens, the job is truly satisfying.

A friend of mine is currently in his second year of law school. Curious, I asked him what sort of material his professors expected him to memorize. He struggled at first with his answer, reciting a few key texts before concluding with a smile and a shrug, "It's not the facts or the history that really matters. What they are really doing is teaching me to think."
I believe that the power of a critic is much the same. I enjoy learning that someone smarter than me agreed that a certain film was either great or absymal, but the real joy comes in reading a glowing review for a film I absolutely hated and thinking, "Well gosh...now I have to go watch it again."
Critics have the ability to give us new eyes with which to experience the world. They can expand our horizons, challenge our perceptions, and, on a good day, teach us to think in a whole new way.

In India,though detailed perusal of film reviews and also the release of english and foreign films is not as widespread as in the U.S,,there are a sufficient number of competent and informed film critics who can be counted upon to give the reader a good idea of worthwhile movies.Of course,just as in any other country,you have to glean your own circle of advisors from the riff-raff,keep an eye out for new enlightened voices, and collate at least a couple of reviews to get the "better picture"!..However sincere one's intentions might be,,the context and cultural background through the filter of which a movie is watched, can yield very diverse results--Roger Ebert is venerated by so many grateful supporters,including me, but his very kind review of "taal", a hindi movie,will not generate similarly effusive praise from the majority of aficionados of quality Indian cinema..Even giants can fall,,but what the heck,it ,at least, makes them more human!

Pierre has donned a t-shirt advertising a Korean film that came out back in 2002. Looks interesting.. http://www.chihwaseon.com/

"Too many simply absorb. They are depositories for input." - I especially like to think of this in regard to the beliefs that we uphold and strictly adhere to. I think a lot of us are inclined to hold opinions without having put forth much thought as to why they are valid. This is the main problem I have with some people's opinions about faith matters. It's not their assertions, but the lack of reasons to support their assertions that concern me the most. Thanks for your insight.

You say that you're only trying to define what you aspire to, but I think you should give yourself a little more credit. You honestly don't think that you've taught others to notice things in movies? To explain them and place them in a number of contexts? To urge others to explore older movies? The very existence of the Great Movies list proves it; without it, I never would have bothered to see Inherit the Wind, which I now feel is one of the most important films of the last 50 years.

You write, "There is no correct answer."

Perhaps that is true. However, there are incorrect ones.

It may not be possible to claim that "Casablanca" is factually and undeniably the greatest film of all time. However, it is not possible for some to legitimately defend the claim that "Casablanca" is one of the worst examples of cinema ever made.

Good critics may not be able to pinpoint a film's quality for all readers, but I believe that they can certainly define what a film is not.

Criticism, to me, is all about nudges and hints, suggestions and inspirations. Great criticism inspires readers to better themselves as moviegoers. I think that is your greatest strength as a writer -- you invite us to want to learn.

There's something to be said for quiet absorption as well. Our appreciation of something isn't any less meaningful because we can't -- or won't -- explicate it to the satisfaction of others. Acknowledging that some things can't easily be conveyed by words doesn't make you a mindless automaton with no discriminating intelligence. The temptation to over-intellectualize something is often a great way to distort or marginalize what it actually is.

As a student and lover of films, I strive to understand how films and in turn I work, if I am ever to become a teacher and hopefully a maker of films in the future. In my spare time, I exercise my writing by reviewing movies. Yes, there are a great many movie bloggers who pollute the cyberspace with shallow insights. I am astonished how many people I have encountered who consider a film made in the 1990s as "really old" and not worth visiting. It is a sad commentary that the art of film criticism is disappearing from print while the film forums are being hijacked by a rise of non-professionals. I try to maintain myself as an exception. I am encouraged by the precious few who go up and beyond with their own blogs.

http://www.screenhead.net/tag/beaubien/

I think I'm getting better at it.

Most critics are Cubs fans when it is a winning season. Able to cite with incredible detail exact historical and empirical evidence, as to why they are a Cubs fan this year and why it has been a long time coming for this franchise they are so fond of. They don the appropriate apparel, attend the games, bring their mitts, and maybe even catch a foul ball to keep as a souvenir.

But the instant that winning season is over, they are on to a new team. Once again, with the uncanny ability to regale us with pinpoint accuracy the tiny minutia, that life-long fans of this new team may have long forgotten.

Critical acclaim used to stand for something. Now, even the biggest bombs adorn "The #1 THRILLER in America!" "The BEST comedy this year!" -- even though it is January 12th and there is no competition.

There comes a point, when it all becomes meaningless. When a fan has to go see the Cubs play, to know why they like the Cubs.

You argue that you criticize to educate. To give people a choice.

When it becomes a business of telling people what to think, in a manner that actually impacts whether or not a person may go see a film they would otherwise see -- haven't you taken that choice away?

It's nice to see the Cubs having a winning season. But I am not a fan.

Roger, that was a very eloquent defense of a true critic. And yes, Roger, you ARE that critic. You've taught so many people out there how to appreciate movies more clearly. Your reviews and essays have taught me so much, and enhanced my own abilities to articulate exactly why I like or dislike a movie. It's hard to read one of your essays in your Great Movies series and not want to immediately run out and track down a copy of the movie and watch it immediately. You've contributed so much to cinema buffs, and those working or aspiring to work in the industry. In my opinion, many of your reviews for some of the really bad movies are far more meaningful than the actual movies you're reviewing! You are a true teacher, and your reviews are oftentimes works of art themselves. Thank you for all you've contributed to the world of cinema!

I agree with you Roger. Berardinelli wrote something similar recently, stating that his ultimate goal in his review is that its clear why he has the opinion he has. He writes:
"I have always viewed the value in a review not to be whether the reader agrees with me or not, but whether I get my points across. Whether I like or dislike a movie a secondary to representing why I feel that way. I also like to give a sense of what might be interesting about a film from a thematic or artistic standpoint."

Maybe one day we'll get you and Berardinelli arguing over movies with each other in some medium or another. I'd love to hear you guys discuss In Bruges and Lakeview Terrace. Two movies that you gave 4 stars to, and that Berardinelli couldn't stand their endings.

Go Cubs!

What an insightful article about a well lived, thoroughly examined life. I am an Astronomy professor, and one of the hardest things that I have to do is convince my students that they don't have to believe me, they can come to their own conclusions about the natural world themselves. There are myriad simple observations with the naked eye they can do to see the conclusions of the giants that Newton stood on to get to understand the heavens and the universe in general. But it’s such an obtuse starting point that many students just won't take that leap of self-discovery to have the confidence to observe the world themselves and make conclusions. They don't know 'why' they are made to think the way they are 'supposed' to about the physical world. But, in the guise of film criticism (and baseball fandom) you have very well summarized what, for want of a better term, is the scientific method. You make an observation, come to a hypothesis, observe some more (gather data), and see if that hypothesis stands up to criticism. I would like your permission to reproduce this article to hand out to my class, I am not sure if this is the proper forum to make such a request, but there it is.

Many thanks,

Miles Blanton
Bowling Green State University
Department of Physics & Astronomy

This blog entry mirrors so much of what I often tell people who devalue critics. It really burns me up when people say something to the effect "Critics didn't like this popular movie that I liked, therefore they are useless." Well, if you are so defensive about your tastes, did their negative comments at least get you to think about why you liked the movie? If so, then they aren't useless. Critics deal with WHY you should like or dislike a movie, not IF you should like or dislike a movie — and their thoughts should be an opening paragraph to a larger discussion, not the final word in a discussion.

It is a mistake for people to think that critics are snobs who believe their opinion is "better" than the average moviegoer. Even if it is true that somebody who has seen 1000 movies has a more valid opinion on cinema than somebody who has seen 100, that's still not the point. A critic's job is to phrase their opinions in such a way that it creates an internal dialogue with the reader — and if it makes them smile, or sends them to a film they'd otherwise avoid, so much the better.

I hate the notion that a critic's job is to tear down. Some critics may get a particular joy out of that, but I don't. A critic's job is to build up. Ideally, it should build a better understanding of cinema simply by getting people to think more about it, and a welcome forum where cinema can be discussed. If it is done successfully, then we can collectively (critics, artists, and readers) raise the bar on what we ask of movies, and to a certain extent, what we ask of ourselves and of life.

“With the Web, ANYONE can be a critic!”

A colleague recently made this stupid declaration as a rejoinder to my invocation of a witty, negative book review in The New Yorker. His point, I think, was that paid critics have no value anymore since everyone can now write posted reviews.

By this logic, my screwing in a light bulb entitles me to an union card from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Sadly, in our new digital age, any Middle Earth inhabitant with a computer is a self-proclaimed, and often accepted, writer/critic. But it is worth remembering that true arts critics – you, Roger, David Denby, Michiko Kakutani, Anthony Lane among them – care far more about the crafting of their own prose and the whys behind opinions than serving up puerile “like it, don’t like it” proclamations. In fact, fine critical writing is best enjoyed after seeing or reading that which is reviewed, because its greatness lies in the ability to crystallize what makes a performance brilliant (or execrable) or to vividly describe an author’s unique narrative structure.

Contrast that with any of the “reviews” “written” by the cognitively challenged mammals on IMDB or Amazon.com or RottenTomatoes:

* From Paula’s review of Sex and the City: “I still prefer Hitchcock, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying what isn't.”

Forget the flailing sentence structure. The real touch of genius is, of course, the summoning of Hitchcock. Yes, like Sir Alfred, Michael Patrick King has directed a movie. Any other comparison is bizarre and cheap. It makes all the sense of stating a preference of Tolstoy versus James Patterson.

* Speaking of that literary titan, here’s some trenchant commentary by “SamRocks”: “So, I'm addicted to James Patterson. There are many mystery writers who are better, and some who are a lot worse. With Patterson, at least you know that you'll get a fast-paced, action-filled book without a lot of descriptions.”

For one named with such confidence and self-regard, Mr. “Rocks’” defense of his hero is decidedly weak-willed in three ways: 1) the petulant adverb “so” that kicks off his thick diatribe; 2) the admission that “many” are better but only “some” are a lot worse; 3) his pride in Patterson’s dismissal of something as unimportant as, ahem, descriptions. James Michener, eat your heart out.

* “Fubar’s” dramatic pre-review of The Incredible Hulk from a few months ago: “I don’t like to put the car before the horse but I think it will be really cool. Can’t wait!”

I’m guessing that the problem here is not a faulty “t” on the keyboard of Monsieur Fubar’s Commodore 64, nor is it an ironic commentary about the entire industrial/electronic age devouring the soul of our country. No, my hunch would be that this son of an idiot mother thinks that the phrase is as he has written. Meaning that he doesn’t read. Meaning that he also says things like “Don’t count your chickens before they’re cash” and “I did it in one felt tip swoop.”

One more aspect of this post that bears ridicule: the “Can’t wait!” exclamation. I have seen thousands of examples of this breathless nonsense. Your excitement about something yet to be seen is of absolutely no interest to me, and even less to the written-word archives. Please save your future movie salivations for your friends at the Auntie Anne’s stand.

* Finally, enjoy these two posts about The Godfather; one positive, one negative, each stunning in its illiteracy and surrealist logic:

Positive: “I've seen more than my fair share of Marlon Brando films, and in my opinion the character of Don Vito Corleone is this actor's signature role. Truly Oscar-worthy.”

In two short sentences, this “review” contains three unpardonable sins: 1) “In my opinion” is arguably the most unnecessary of all phrases. We know it’s your opinion. It’s certainly not that of James Joyce; 2) The contention that Corleone is Brando’s signature role is laughably obvious -- the world waits for your next bold assertion, sir; 3) Calling a performance “Oscar-worthy” is the equivalent of calling a book “good.” Writing about performance is difficult. That’s why hacks resort to the lazy shorthand of “Oscar-worthy.”

Compare that with David Denby’s description of Robert Downey Jr’s performance in Iron Man: “Downey, muttering to himself, ignores everyone else in the movie for as long as he can. Fixing his eyes, at last, on another character, he seems faintly annoyed that his privacy has been violated. Yet he delivers—to the camera, and to us. He can make offhandedness mesmerizing, even soulful; he passes through the key moments in this cloddish story as if he were ad-libbing his inner life.”

In just a few lines, Denby gets at the compelling smugness of this actor. No empty blather about Oscars. And since Oscar-winners include the likes of the hideous, caterwauling Jennifer Hudson, this would be faint praise anyway.

Negative: “When an ethnic group creates an underground crime organization we laud it in films and books, but when real gangs break out they are feared on Channel 5 news. Double standard, right?”

Wrong. Bad behavior is bad behavior. What we “laud” is the craft of the filmmaking, the finely nuanced screenplay, Gordon Willis’s Rembrantesque photography, the operatic but controlled performances, the lush yet unobtrusive score, the juxtaposition of family values and business means.

Then again, what did you expect from someone writing as “Monkey Stick”?

Go back to the first half of this blog, as far as to the quote from RATOTOUILLE and substitute the term "Fox News Commentator" for critic. Make sense?

I agree with everything that Mr. Ebert has said, but I would like to emphasize that what separates a great critic from a good critic is the ability to draw comparisons between the films being reviewed and literature, philosophy, music, art, and of course other films. I would imagine that films and the techniques used in them are seldom truly new; more often than not they are inspired by something else. It takes a critic with an inquisitive mind and vast knowledge to draw those connections and share them with the readers. I believe Mr. Ebert excels in that, and I thank him for pointing me back to some great movies I otherwise would never have seen.

As far as baseball goes, I am a Nationals fan, and I am having a really hard time figuring out why.

Criticising critics is fairly easy and occurs throughout the internet. Some critics perhaps deserve the hard time; one feels there often isn't the same passion for modern cinema that critics like Pauline Kael had in the '70s, although perhaps that speaks for the movies as much as the critics. What bothers me is that when people criticise movie critics it's invariably along the lines of 'Ebert's insane. He gave Die Hard a worse review than Garfield!' There seems less effort to understand the point of view of a good critic, or at the very least simply enjoy their prose style.

I absolutely do not require that I agree with everything a critic says (I've read reviews by bad critics that I agree with completely); what I expect is someone who can write in an entertaining, insightful way, and someone who really knows their stuff. Without critics like yourself and Kael my knowledge of film would be roughly halved. When I was a young teenager I devoured Ebert's reviews (and later Kael's) because I found it to be educational. Critics can place films in context, and know more than most readers about the filmakers' body of work and the devices the movie uses. Why should we deny that critics should know more about movies than we do?

I have always thought that the primary task of the critic is to illuminate. A competent and conscientious critic shines a bright light on art in an attempt to uncover very real but obscure cracks in the work; cracks that are eventually damaging to the work's artistic integrity. This same bright light shows the underlying structure that supports the work we see.

Critics do not judge ... they provide the tools with which we can form our own judgments.

I used to love watching you with Gene Siskel primarily for when you would disagree with each other. Sometimes you both would get so irritated, certain in your opinions and your right to have them, and it was incredibly eye-opening to watch two friends argue vehemently with each other and enjoy doing so. Now that is true friendship and I felt so fortunate to learn that lesson early from you both. I'm so glad you've recovered to be able to continue to write reviews for totally selfish reasons-I really see your writing as social commentary and as such is always such a refreshing relief from the knee-jerk sneering propoganda one almost can't escape without swearing off all media. Keep up the great work!

I agree with the above and have wondered if the dawning realization that "everybody is a critic" has actually come true, or thinks it has, on the web. There is one more thing a critic needs, though: eloquence. Good writing is essential to good film criticism and perhaps that is what I miss lately as critics get quieter and the blogs get louder.

"So I took up those poems with which they seemed to have taken most trouble and asked them what they meant, in order that I might at the same time learn something from them. I am ashamed to tell you the truth, gentlemen, but I must. Almost all the bystanders might have explained the poems better than their authors could. I soon realized that poets do not compose their poems with knowledge, but by some inborn talent and by inspiration, like seers and prophets who also say many fine things without understanding what they say." (Plato's "Apology" (22 b/c)

The job of the poet is to compose, the job of a good critic it to explain. This is the highest calling of philosophy. Socrates was an awfully good critic.

I am a sophomore in college and my major is English. Pretty soon, my minor will be cinema studies. It has become important for me recently to write of films in a way a critic would. And possibly write about them the second time I see them. Or even the tenth. Writing down your thoughts on film is extremely vital to knowing your reactions, likes, dislikes, and overall impression of the film you have just seen. Not to sound snobbish myself, but casual moviegoers don't know exactly what that is like, and those are the people who log onto IMDb all the time in order to bash people that thought "The Dark Knight" or "There Will Be Blood" were junk. They're using criticism in the wrong way- but let them be.

Film critics have the extraordinary privilege of helping people with their decision of what new movie to see. Some do it in order to get the freebies from the film's studio, and others do it for the love of film. You, of course, belong in the latter category. People will of course see a movie based on their own judgement, but often I will find that a site like Rotten Tomatoes will encourage my decision. Sometimes it doesn't but hey, what can you do.

You've definitely encouraged me to do new things to strengthen my love for the cinema that I probably would not have done have I not read your work. If I hadn't read your Great Movies books, I would not have seen great films like The Decalogue or Aguirre: The Wrath of God. Had I not read Awake In The Dark, some of my opinions on film viewing may have been different. I think there's a certain truth and unpretentiousness to your work that makes me so attracted to it. You seem to be the voice of most film buffs who don't have the advantages you have.

Professional film critics are often misunderstood. Many think critics shouldn't be paid for their mere opinion and that they are pigs. It's like that common image we see of your conscience being represented by an angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other. Critics are somewhat like the angel, if you trust that critic. They help your conscience about seeing a film, and it is your decision to see the film or not. Critics are not there to impose their decision on you, but rather to help your own decision.

With all the press surrounding the movie, critics, commentary tracks and articles about them, which as devour just as much as movies, I sometimes wonder if it don't kill the magic. Just like when you learn how a magic trick is done, it’s not the same thing once you see it back. I think it can be as fascinating, only on a different level.
So when I like a movie, or even one I didn't particularly like, I want to know more, to think around it, to explore further, to use the movie as a way to learn about other movies, peoples, countries, history, martial arts, cavemen, whatever! And well, critics sure come handy to do so…

"It is not important to be "right" or "wrong." It is important to know why you hold an opinion, understand how it emerged from the universe of all your opinions, and help others to form their own opinions. There is no correct answer."

This is very close to what I tell my students at the beginning of each semester. I believe this is the definition of being a teacher. A teacher is a catalyst who can only show you the way to your own thoughts, teach you how to analyze and find the foundations of your opinion, show the way to reach an opinion not the particular opinion itself. It is sometimes difficult for students to grasp this idea, especially in political science courses. But as they do, rarely, you witness something beautiful: a student with a different opinion with means to explain it, defend it, and advocate it, and hopefully try to change others' opinions. That's the gratifying moment.

I mostly feel like a curious student in your classroom, Mr. Ebert. I read your reviews mostly after I watch the movies. I do my homework and go down the list of your Great Movies. I hope to be able to explain my own opinions about these movies one day, and even disagree with the teacher along the way. The only difference is that I get to see that rare moment of gratification before me, and you on a computer screen.

To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
Elbert Hubbard US author (1856 - 1915)

I believe a good critic is a teacher. He doesn't have the answers, but he can be an example of the process of finding your own answers. He can notice things, explain them, place them in any number of contexts, ponder why some "work" and others never could. He can urge you toward older movies to expand your context for newer ones. He can examine how movies touch upon individual lives, and can be healing, or damaging. He can defend them, and regard them as important in the face of those who are "just looking for a good time." He can argue that you will have a better time at a better movie. We are all allotted an unknown but finite number of hours of consciousness. Maybe a critic can help you spend them more meaningfully

The above paragraph of yours perfectly suits for your review for Qunetin Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs' where you wrote that....
As for the movie, I liked what I saw, but I wanted more. I know the story behind the movie - Tarantino promoted the project from scratch, on talent and nerve - and I think it's quite an achievement for a first-timer. It was made on a low budget. But the part that needs work didn't cost money. It's the screenplay. Having created the characters and fashioned the outline, Tarantino doesn't do much with his characters except to let them talk too much, especially when they should be unconscious from shock and loss of blood.

It is important to know why you hold an opinion, understand how it emerged from the universe of all your opinions, and help others to form their own opinions.

Movies is the least of our problems here. With the upcoming election, I wish people were more self-aware of their political positions, and held them because they believe social policy matters, and not because they think a candidate looks like Tina Fey.

I reviewed movies for most of college for the daily paper (The Daily of the University of Washington) and then a couple for the daily metro papers in Seattle, but only a handful. One of my journalism teachers used to be the film critic for the Seattle P-I a few decades ago, and he fiercely defended the role of critics.

"Art cannot exist without discussion," he told me. And he's correct: the moment we stop talking about art, about what it does to us and what it doesn't, what it inspires (may that be joy, sadness, exhilaration or anger), is the moment art dies and becomes meaningless.

Another character in "Ratatouille" has a great line: "Anyone can cook!" Well, in a sense, anyone can be a critic, and that's not an insult to the profession. Thanks to the internet, people can dive into their creativity and post it for the world (or their parents) to read in blogs, on websites, you name it. Friends of mine who never before read critics or took them seriously --- and made fun of my reviews, no less --- now go to RottenTomatoes with increasing frequency.

In an email I traded with you years ago (probably for your Answer Man section), I think you summed it up succinctly:

"The role of the critic is to be an ideal member of the audience."

Enough said!

I think that all you say is true, and more. What has always appealed to me about your criticism isn't that I agree with you (though I often do), but rather that by reading you and knowing what I know about you I can then predict what my reaction will be. And I often will discover new or unknown (to me) movies that I would not have found otherwise, case in point In Bruges.

But what makes a good critic is not in their opinions, everyone has one. A good critic will make me care what his opinion is.

Being a graduate student in a Film Studies program, I am amazed at how many people give me condescending responses when I explain that I want to use my degree to get into film criticism. Critic is a dirty word indeed. Why, oh why, wouldn’t I want to get my doctorate so I can get into the scholarly debates and do real work on film? For me the answer is simple: while I read dozens of “scholarly articles” written by men and women who seem lost in petty arguments, it’s the critical reviews - particularly yours - I read that remind me that there are still people out there who write about film because they love it. I’m sure film scholars do deep down, but usually it’s almost impossible to see in their writing. That’s why I have the utmost respect for critics who remain focused on expanding the love of cinema and don’t get weighed down by agendas.

True, critics are somewhat limited in what they can do but they also can be defenders of films that give the artist a second chance. Without the influential work by critics like Andre Bazin, movies like Rosselini‘s “My Voyage To Italy” likely would have never survived. Instead of drowning in harsh Italian criticism, “Voyage” flourished and became a favorite of one of America’s greatest directors, Martin Scorsese, who was so affected that he borrowed the film’s title for a documentary about his own life as a filmmaker. This is interesting when you consider the film’s theme of interconnectivity.

I also share your belief that critics should attempt to be teachers of film - and not ones with all the answers - who help to bring great films from the present and the past to the surface. For enhancing the love of cinema, what could be more important? From your Great Movies list, I’ve discovered movies like “Stroszek” and the easily overlooked Woody Allen masterpiece “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Recently I also picked up “Ali: Fear Eats the Soul,” which is so simple and powerful it could speak volumes about any taboo relationship of today, not merely ones involving age and racial discrimination. Now I can’t imagine not having seen these movies. And in the era of blockbusters that often tell you what to think and when, encouraging real opinions couldn’t be more important to the vitality of cinema itself. Hopefully, someday the all too often heard dismissal “I don’t know, it was boring” will no longer be the norm for describing a disappointing movie.

One necessary aspect of a good critic is consistency. To me, it is a fundamental way to develop a relationship with the reader over time. There are some critics that read that I hardly ever agree with, however, they are consistent in their application, which often provides both learning moments as well as a guide, over time, to the point of the whole exercise - whether or not I'm going to see the movie. In addition to the education, history, and entertainment, your reviews provide me with a consistent attitude toward movies that have and continue to serve me very well.

Roger- To your article and the comments above, I agree 100%. One of my favorite activities after seeing a movie is going back and reading or re-reading your review. I always gain new perspective to appreciate what I've seen this way, and that means a lot to me. It's enriching.

But to this I'd add that the one thing I've always appreciated is that even in reviews of films you don't like it's always 100% clear that you love and live for movies, and that you wished s badly for it to be good! Or Great! Too many "critics" come off as jealous, failed filmmakers dying to savage someone else's work.

So, perhaps my praise is this: I've always considered you a lover of film who shares his opinions and insights with his audience. Thank you for that!

Certainly, you're familiar with the scene in Mel Brooks' "History of the World, Part I" explaining the birth of art. After the caveman has finished a wall painting, we're told, "With the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth - the critic." The critic studies the painting for about five seconds and then...well, let's just say he treats it the way the average bulldog treats a fire hydrant.

Great commentary! I especially appreciated your observation that "Maybe a critic can help you spend [your hours] more meaningfully." This is the true essence of what film criticism means to me: It leads to discovery. By "discovery" I don't necessarily mean "enjoyment." To explain: had it not been for Mr. Ebert's review of "Millions" a few years back, I likely would have never come across this wonderful film on my own. Subsequently, it was such a life-affirming gem of a movie that I truly felt it enriched my life. Similarly, I watched "Bad Lieutenant" after reading Mr. Ebert's 4-star review. I did not enjoy the film; I found the story depressing and Harvey Keitel's performance irritating. Yet, watching both films comprised moments of discovery for me, opportunities to approach art critically. Uncovering an opinion and taking it to heart is one of the most meaningful ways to feed one's soul.

This is a great post because it touches on why I read your reviews and reviews in general. I always used to watch films or listen to music and wonder, Why do I like this movie so much? Why do I think two movies are great, but still like one more than the other? I often find myself having seen a film, unable to analazye all my feelings about it, and having your review touch on the exact thing that made the film what it is.

Jeremy, you've touched on the issue. Sophistication is a minority exercise (to quote Isaac Asimov). Too many people drift through life on autopilot, and aren't comfortable atually having to think. If there was ever an Adam Sandler movie I was tempted to see, it would have been "Click" simply because I thought this was what he was talking about.

James, I don't think Roger tells us what to think. I think he tells us what he thinks, and we're free to disagree or agree. I've read many comments of his reviews (particularly of some of Michael Moore's works, or "An Inconvenient Truth", or the column Roger wrote defending...um...memory failing...the middle eastern gentleman that Roger knows who was deported (I think?) because of a supposed terrorist affiliation approximately 20 years ago. These comments have called him leftist, bleeding heart, liberal, unpatriotic, etc., etc. Who is telling whom what to think?

I know that I've sometimes read reviews of movies that Roger has praised, and because I've read so many of his reviews was able to tell that I wouldn't like it. Our tastes are different, and by communicating his tastes to me, and his thoughts about particular movies, I can generally get a good idea of whether I'd enjoy a particular film or not. He doesn't tell me what to think.

Does Roger take the choice of what to think away? Only if you give him the ability to. I haven't - I'm informed by what he says, and make up my own mind. I'd hope that others would do the same, but then too many are drifting through life not wanting to think, and happy to have someone tell them what to believe and feel.

Anyone can write "I liked it" or "I didn't like it," or even "there wasn't enough/too much action" or "the images were too dark." To me, that would be trying to tell someone what to think. But to write, "This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating", and "But when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?", this (in context) can explain why someone doesn't like a movie, and give you a basis for discussion and determining whether you might like that film (if you haven't already made up your mind to see or not see it). In the case of that particular movie, I can agree with Roger's observations, but disagree as to the quality of the film - to me, the joylessness and hopelessness is the actual point.

Anton Ego was the caricature of the critic - snobbish, superior, disdainful, judgemental. One of the most heart-warming moments in Ratatouille for me was the speech Roger quotes. It is not that Anton thinks everything is worthless swill - rather, it is that everything is the same. It all comes out of some cookie-cutter of food assembly, the only difference is how well it is done. And even if someone does something that is a relative departure of what everyone else is doing now, they are only copying what was done by someone in the past.

But to find something that is truly new - no, not new, that's not the word. Fresh. A combination of elements that brings together passion, creativity and care - that is what the real critic looks for and treasures, I think. And, when he/she finds it, rejoices with a pleasure beyond the comprehension of passive depositories of experience.

If "Siskel & Ebert & Roeper" had any utility at all, it was in exposing viewers, many of them still children, to the notion that it was permitted to have opinions, and expected that you should explain them.

I was a kid when my local PBS station started airing "Sneak Previews" - and it did inform me that it was alright to have a difference of opinion if you were able to articulate what you liked about a film and why. In many ways this program (and to a lesser extent the later incarnations) helped make me a better lover of film (even the trashy Troma films) because I could actually defend my tastes with a common language. It wasn't just enough to like a film, but to have a reason and understand that within myself. In this regard, the show was a major success.

A fascinating perspective on the role of critics. I've been meaning to comment on your delightful blog for some time, so I figure this would be a good time.

What I admire about your reviews is the eloquent reasoning behind your ratings that provide deeper insight into the film. A comment above noted that law school teaches its students to think like lawyers. As a recent law school grad I can attest to the truth of that statement. Through your reviews, you as a critic have taught me to think like a more critical moviegoer.

A recent example comes to mind: the first time I saw the film Little Miss Sunshine I fell in love with it. I read your review and took note of your comments about the shot when the family sees the hotel where the beauty pageant is taking place in the distance but can't find the proper turn. You said it shows how our dreams are often just out of reach. I didn't think of this on my first viewing. Upon subsequent viewings I noticed how every character's dreams are just out of reach in some regard. I empathized with the characters and loved the film even more. Your review allowed me to attain a deeper appreciation of the film. Your reviews in general have deepened my appreciation of film. That's what a good critic will do, deepen the public's appreciation of a certain medium.

What I also like about your reviews, and other good critics acheive this as well is that you contain your review within the work itself. You say what works and what doesn't within the film itself rather than saying what you would have preferred.

Finally, I like how you remind us all of more relatively obscure works well worth seeing, such as the documentary on Pierre Rissient listed above.

So thank you for performing the work of a critic properly and bringing the world of cinema into greater focus for us all. Cheers.

Of course you are that critic.

I disagree that the enterprise of criticism is fundamentally about parsing good and bad, like and dislike. Like and dislike are judgments rendered quickly; they don't even really need justification.

I would say that a critic's task is to be the first to intuit the structure of the work of art, and in this sense he or she is essential, not supplemental. This is perhaps clearer in fine art, where abstract painting, for example, might lead one to search for an explanation. But even with film, the critic's job is the same.

A critic should be bored with the films he or she dislikes, and eager to dig for structure in the films he or she wishes to champion. This is why Anthony Lane's writing is depressing for me. He only comes alive when cutting the throat of Hollywood schlock, the easiest of targets; here his wit and verbosity are on display. This is a critic who does, for all his intelligence, envy art. He doesn't want to get on its side, understand it, share in the life of works.

The Great Movies series is, for me, an exemplary critical gesture. The critic's cards are put on the table-- these are the standards that he has for evaluating new films. One is opened far more to risk in defending or analyzing works that one admires, than by lambasting junk.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

Your readers have a high respect for film criticism as a rigorous discipline similar to literary criticism. Both are fascinating and elevate the art form they study. Certainly your practice of it exceeds all standards. Without the best critics, the basic purpose of film, to edify people's psyche and spirit, could go permanently astray.

I have a suggestion of a no response policy to those who denigrate your profession with stereotype. Stereotype is deaf and blind. It can only be eliminated by experience, not words.

When I happen to meet new people here in Switzerland, I am perennially subjected to the comment, as I'm a North American, that Americans don't know what friendship is. You can imagine the style of party conversation it is. My old European friends know better. But this is one of the many european stereotypes for North Americans based on a misunderstanding of semantics, languages, and cultures. Because my husband is Swiss, I am allowed an insider's view. Suffice it to say that the American definition of friendship is wide-ranging, diplomatic, and inclusive, covering many forms while the European definition is specific, exclusive, with only one form, the others being less than friends but more than acquaintances, perhaps colleagues that you like and spend time with, etc.

But Americans do know what deep, abiding friendship is as well as love... as do Europeans. However, I always forego a response to this perennial comment because I consider the source which is stereotype. My words cannot penetrate that. Anyway, the next comment from them is usually about Bush at which point I can think of nothing to say that might make sense.

Mr. Ebert wrote, "....... They use foreign words to show off. They're terrified of being exposed as the empty poseurs they are."

By all means, Mr. Ebert, please keep the foreign words coming. These are gold nuggets to those who look for them.

Talking of which, I believe Mr. Brad Bird had omitted one important detail to the credit of critics, and that is: their invaluable contribution to the evolution of filmmaking. Critics may be a boon to the avant-garde, but their 'gold-nugget' influence is indispensable to the current work as well. Of course, Anton Ego will be loathe to admit this, even dismissing my words as cheap platitude; but, if he is indeed too hard on his own kind, then he also underestimates his own professional worth (which may explain why he feels his criticism to be less meaningful than the junk he designates it to be).

Now back to the subject of foreign words, I wondered the whole of last week where your 'uber alles' went to? I thought it to be ironically fitting for "I Served the King of England," and its etymology did remind me of your ancestry.

It's an unfortunate evolution in language that so many people think that a "critic" engages in "criticism". I suppose many of these same people think that a person who makes "allegations" is an "allegator"....

I heartily agree with your views on the subject but, like others, would offer that certainly you have been "that critic" for me over the years.

I've been taught things to look for in a film and different ways to think about them. I've gone out of my way to watch films that I would never have known about otherwise and feel my life is richer for doing it. I've looked back in time at older films I would never have bothered with and oh, the pleasure. (Keaton! My Lord, have I ever felt such delight at a body of work?) My children know now not to shun a film because it's black and white, or silent, or foreign, or sub-titled, or just strange. Thank you for giving these things to me and mine.

About the critic who only writes negative reviews I wonder: Is that any way to live life? It may serve a purpose after a fashion, but if we consider work as a metaphor for life, is it helpful that it's markedly one-sided? I think not.

I log onto your site and I know I'll find 1) informed opinions about something I'm fond of, 2) a taste that I'm familiar enough with to know that it is a reliable guide for me to find what I am looking for, and 3) excellent expression of that opinion.

And on that last point: If writing is art—and it certainly is—then there can be art in writing an opinion about movies. I can't tell you how many times I've read one of your reviews and thought: You know, it's a pleasure to read writing this good, even if it's "just" a film review. I'd say you more than qualify as an artist in your own right. Thank you for caring enough to write your reviews so well. They needn't be, but they are. Every time.

Critic a four letter word? You're proof it doesn't have to be.

Roger,
I love reading your opinions about films - great and terrible, good and bad - and this blog articulates PERFECTLY why you are the first (and only?) film critic to win a Purlitzer Prize for your profession. Nobody writes quite like you, try as they might, in that way that can explain exquisitely why a film is the best of the year, or quite possibly among the worst ever made. I don't feel (re: last blog entry) that you give too many stars, because if love of film in general is a crime, I don't wanna be innocent (and I don't think you would want to be either).

I have been reading your reviews for roughly ten years now and though I've also gone into phases of Leonard Maltin (whose failed attempt to copy SISKEL & EBERT was eerily prophetic of the now Siskel, Ebert and Roeper-less AT THE MOVIES!), and I've looked at just about every other "film guide" you can imagine. I always come back to you.

I write film reviews for my own amusement. I've been doing so for years now and it's more like a hobby to bring me further into my cinematic obsession. What I want to do (and have done to a limited degree) is be a filmmaker. I don't, however, feel that being a critic would be a bad fallback position to have.

All the best to you. Keep up the good work!

Even if I wasn't a film reviewer myself, I'm pretty sure I'd be annoyed with Brad Bird's low opinion of critics.

First of all, his depiction of a French food critic is obviously an exaggeration and yet one that does seems to fit a certain stereotype. You'd have to imagine that any respected (feared) food critic of that type is almost impossible to win over completely; but now I'm hating on my own kind.

But at the same time, if there was one character in Ratatouille who represents what at least "film" critics do it would be Remy.

Secondly, when exactly has Brad Bird ever received negative criticism in his professional life anyway? Ever? Give me a break.

It takes a bit of arrogance to be so resentful of a group of people who have been nothing but complimentary of your work.

If Mr. Bird wants to take issue with anybody it should be me, I didn't get paid to review it and review it, I did not. What I did was pay to see it, a movie about a rat in Paris who loves to make food, not a movie about an annoying kid with an American accent and a giant nose who learns to make food by having a rat pull his hair.

It was still decent and The Incredibles was, well, incredible, but Mr. Bird could use a little humilty along with those Oscars.

Roger,
Your thoughtful article invites the comparison of aesthetic judgments (criticism) with judgments in other areas such as science and, even more to the point, ethics. Are *all* judgments neither right nor wrong, but merely well or poorly defended? It is the central question of the modern age (or "postmodern" if you will). Certainly, only the naive among us can talk glibly about “proving” things, even in science, as if presuppositions and personal perspectives can be somehow excluded. But it is in ethics that the real rub comes: are ethical judgments also merely defensible in various degrees but ultimately groundless, neither "right" nor "wrong"? If I am appalled at the fatal beating of a child who cried too much, is that "just my opinion"? Such an "opinion" seems beyond debate, yet the quest to explain how an ethical judgment can be right or wrong outside a social context has proved elusive, unless it is in theology.
This runs far afield from film criticism, but the point is that a lot of people are nervous about "relativism," and not without reason, but they often respond by insisting that everything have clearcut answers, lest it all go slipping off into an oblivion of ungrounded opinions. So the question is whether aesthetic judgments such as the critic makes are or are not essentially different from scientific or ethical judgments. Some would argue that all "truths" are essentially aesthetic, defensible but not Truth (Nietzsche, e.g.). Others might argue conversely that all judgments deal with questions of Truth, for example, that it would be truly false to suggest that the latest slasher film is a masterpiece and that Citizen Kane is trash.
I find it more useful to distinguish art, science, and ethics as different inquiries for truth with different rules. In ethics, while I despise simplistic or legalistic moralities, I am unwilling to concede that moral judgments are aesthetic, that some conceivable argument could justify the fatal beating of a child. The hard questions we can debate in good faith, but let’s not pretend it’s just about personal preferences. The moral wrongness, or rightness, of an action does not depend on someone to come along and defend it well.
On the other hand, aesthetic judgments, such as whether this movie is good or not, call for discussion and argument, but the most we can hope for is a judgment that will seem reasonable to people who share the speaker’s basic presuppositions about what makes a movie good, without worrying too much about whether those presuppositions are True in some absolute sense. If we’re up front about distinguishing aesthetic judgments from moral or scientific judgments, we free criticism from the burden of being “right” and open up a place for conversation that enriches everyone, including those who disagree.

I write reviews on a regular basis and it is so refreshing to hear you say that. I get people that argue that what I do is an exercise in futility; that people will keep their opinions regardless of what I say. These people miss the point. The object of a reviewer, or what it should be at least, is not to 'change' opinions, but to provide insights that others might otherwise miss. It is not to persuade others to hate or love a particular film. It is to offer the process by which one came to that conclusion.

I can say from experience that anybody who says "everyone is a critic" just because everyone has opinions on movies has NOT been in on the hiring process for a new film critic. You'll probably get 50 terrible work samples for one good one, and 100 terrible work samples for one great one.

Criticism is a form of literature. As such, it can be art also. That is why I read, and have read, yours.

People who wish they could make films, but don't have the talent: I always thought this described not critics but studio execs.

Fascinating and wise insights into how and why critics do what they do.

The saddest thing about all this: Being a film critic is a worthy aspiration, but we now live in a world where the opportunities to work as a professional film critic - to make your living doing that, and to have your work benefit from being given the time, day in and day out, to become steeped in movies and film culture - are shrinking by the hour.

Sad, and rather pitiful, that the decision makers in the newspaper industry fail to understand and appreciate the vitality of the connection between movie lovers and film critics (and between lovers of other arts and those respective critics).

It's those intense relationships that have long served to keep readers loyal to newspapers. It's shocking - and short-sighted - that newspaper editors and publishers are so quick to replace film critics with wire copy.

What happens when film critics and other well-known writers leave newspapers? Readers leave, followed by advertising dollars, then the paper shrinks, more writers and editors are cut, and the downward spiral continues.

That's a lose-lose situation. You'd think that newspaper managers would be more more savvy about the industry that they're allegedly trying to save.

The first two paragraphs written here described the emptiness of a life spent reviewing other people's work perhaps better than anyone ever has. Reviewers (a much more honest word than "critic," which connotes a level of intellectual respectability seldom found among those who review movies) truly are "nasty, jealous, jaded and bitter... poseurs" who "can't do it." As for the rest, it can only be said that mass murderers and totalitarian dictators also take pains to defend what they do. Most reviewers exist because they never could have been anything else. Leonard Maltin, Harry Knowles, A.O. Scott, and Pauline Kael were destined to mediocrity, just as flies must spend their lives eating excrement. Roger Ebert, however, is a man with a real mind, who has robbed the world of a great writer or filmmaker in his decision to squander it on reviewing the works of others. What if Hemingway had spent his life as a drug dealer? It's a tragic scenario rivaled only by the thought of all the great movies Roger Ebert never made, and all the great books he never wrote.

The critics I have always gravitated to are the ones who seem to take far more joy in liking something than in disliking it. Disliking a movie is easy, and writing bitchy criticism is easy, too - most readers out there, it would seem, revel in the idea of rich people failing. But dropping the ego and allowing 'the other' (in this case, the film artist) to wash over you is much harder. I would put you and my other fave critic, Mike Clark of the USA Today, in that "good" column"...

In the "bad" column I would put a lot of internet critics and cranks (the kinds who believe 'thinking for yourself' is elitist, or the kinds who write a bad review of a movie that has otherwise gotten shining notices, so that they will stand out on Rotten Tomatoes and be read...)

But what use is a critic, since we have to hold dear the notion that individual ardor towards an individual movie is the meat-and-potatoes of movie love? It's a personal reaction, like a big crush. What use is "someone else's" opinion in matters like these? "I like this movie because it speaks to me, and how could someone else understand?", etc.

Well, a lot of time, no use at all. But when I read you or Mike Clark, or the difficult but wonderful Manohla Dargis, I feel like I know the person... I feel like I know when I can "ignore" the reviews occasionally, because I "know" my favorite critics and their idiosyncrasies (no offense, Roger, but I've generally gotta judge the harder horror stuff on my own, knowing your taste doesn't run that way)... but more often, I feel something akin a buzz of caffeine/taurine/whatever through the tides of my body, a real excitement when you give a four star review because I know I will probably agree as, other than in a few areas, I feel my taste runs quite close to yours, in terms of appreciating humanism, warmth, visual storytelling...

The real kicker I'll never understand, as far as you pro critics go, is how you retain your popularity and yet honestly review films that you know the mainstream audience might go for? Would you have gained a few readers if you had pretended to like TOP GUN or FIGHT CLUB? By process of elimination, we must assume that SOME critics are dishonest this way, slapping a great review on something they didn't personally groove to because they know their general readers might like said film... and by the same token, might not a similarly ethically knotted critic give a movie a negative review despite liking the film, because they believe their personal enthusiasm will not translate to the general audience?

To use an analogy: If I'm a big wine critic, and I write a column about my adventures through the wines of earth, would I not eventually develop an intolerance for mainstream wines? Would I not, by dint of my consumption and ever-growing knowledge of grapes, begin to drift into 'wine elitist' category naturally?

In other words, how does someone who has to see EVERY movie manage to keep their tastes and writings accessible to their readerse, those who see only a dozen movies a year? It would seem often a critic is reporting from a different planet of experience than even an ardent viewer.

Rambling post, sorry. Final thought: Whether pro or armchair, any "critic" who tells you that CHILDREN OF MEN isn't good because they don't explain (in the film) why women have become infertile is not worth pursuing a relationship with of any kind. Some people just don't get it, they'll never get it, and that's why they have TV shows. For those people!

One more thought, as I read through some of the responses above for a second time:

It is anathema to art, to film, to criticism, to happiness, to being able to maintain vigor and/or vim, to ALL of these things to assume in any way that:

A) A movie can ever be definitively, objectively "good" or "bad" (The more small-minded or, frankly, dull you are, the most likely you want to be able to categorize films this way - "I didn't like the STAR WARS prequels," they might say,a dull patina of haze gripping their milky eyeballs, "and everybody else in the theater with me and all my friends hate them too, so that means they're captial-B "bad", and if you like them, you're lying to yourself"; how much more comforting this world would be if there were no pointy-heads like me to confuse them with my passionate defense!)

B) There is a "right way" or "wrong way" to make a movie turn out good. This is idiocy: If it were true, then 2001 and A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE could not both be good, and yet they are. Each movie that succeeds does so, I think, because someone poured into it a little bit of human soul. Even an action movie without any kind of heart can still bristle with enthusiasm, creativity, the human presence, engaged. There is no way to be "taught" how to make sure a movie turns out good. Or how to write one perfectly, in 21 days. Those who wish to find a cut-and-dry way to make (or appreciate and write about) "good movies" would do better diving into other industries where indefinable human essence is less an important part of the mix.

I also like Film Noir and shadows and all that as part of my taste, but I must admit I am a bit of the lazy leech of art with movies--as you have said in a recent blog, movies, and I suspect directors too, incorporate all the arts. I'll watch a kung-fu movie and I'll take away more about how to clean than any fighting in the movie (no, not karate kid...well, yes, now that I think of it); I'll watch for the kind of music in the movie or in the extras of the DVD and add that to my collection--but carefully...wanted to but didn't buy the book in Good Will Hunting that the Matt Damon character praises: "A People's History of America"by Howard Zinn,who was actually his neighbor who gave him cookies--not that that is a denouncement of the book either; after watching "When Will I Be Loved" I got to know and love Glenn Gould and the Budapest Quartet. I'm sure I will be reading some books you have recommended.

In your satire of every stereotypical definition which comes to mind about critics - it makes it all the more potent that it is you, the antithesis of these stereotypes, who is the one writing them.

I don't believe in criticism so much as "constructive criticism." Anybody can talk out of the insecurity of our own sensitive egos, their own misery, and then churn it out into something ugly. But it takes someone with a real gravity of conscience and intellectual honesty to really examine something and teach us new ways to look at it. Isn't that what an artist does? Teach us new ways to look at something? And funny... isn't that what... a critic does too? As an aspiring filmmaker I'm not ashamed to say that some of the greatest teachers to me in the world of film, are not great filmmakers themselves, but great critics like Roger.

In olden times, critics are high in society and known for their snootiness of taste when judging works in theater. But what people tend to overlook is how significant their opinions were - so much that they could literally change the direction of the artistic movement they criticize. This is a testament to how the best critics represent the best in us audience, they know what we want and represent these desires with all their ability and talent in order to communicate what the rest of us wants from the work as well.

In the Marc Forster film, Finding Neverland film, there's a scene in the film where Johnny Depp (as J.M Barrie) has an exchange with Dustin Hoffman about why they're having such a difficult time producing Peter Pan.

Hoffman: "You know what happened, James, they changed it."
Depp: "They changed what?"
Hoffman: "The critics, they made it important. What's it called? What's it called?"
Depp: "Play."

Now disregarding the negative connotation in which these two used the word critics, it still proves of the evidence of their significance to society. While in the movie's light, this significance is perhaps greater than it needs to be - I still find it an amazing revelation to just how powerful being a critic, especially one who translates not just their tastes, but the audience's tastes, as beautifully and powerfully as you Roger.

That's why I've enjoyed your show for years. If it was anything about two critics bagging on every film every week or just glorifying all the movies that one would think to glorify - I wouldn't have watched it. I watched it because Roger Ebert could talk about movies that most of us think weren't that great and made them shine. I watched it because Richard Roeper talked about movies he hated with such intensity of feeling yet with such a stream of intellectual thought. It often doesn't take so much a brain as it does a heart to hate something but I think Roeper used both and that's what made him a good critic. I watched it because Gene Siskel sat in Roger's original seat and always gave a challenging show. In those days, it was more entertaining than the latest Fencing or Wimbledon tournament to watch Roger's critique spar with Gene's. Two legendary pro's, two naturals as often entertaining as the movies they discussed.

To me, critics are an important vital asset to buffer between the taste of the audience and that of the film industry. It's an intellectual conversation between the audience and the movies - and that conversation happens when we read the reviews from the best critics who scrutinize boldly and intelligently everything they love or hate out of the movie they review.

I believe that the work of a person in a critical profession cannot be based upon life experiences. However, in just terms of the writing, one must obviously bring forth a set of life experiences which make the language rich with eloquence and ideas. However, unlike most written work, for a movie critic, the archive to draw upon is not necessarily daily life in general, but indeed, other films of the past. Much like literary critcism, there must be a certain amount of knowledge regarding form, style and movements. And while it is not necessary to have a degree to be a critic (A good example would be the internet bloggers--though I wouldn't call it criticism in the classic sense), but on the otherhand, it helps to have an english background if you're going to be fruitful in some professional capacity.

Are critics good or bad? Well, I'd like to think that critics are a good thing and furthermore, I personally don't think it matters much. Critics will never stop me from going to, or seeing the movies.

People are all different and we shouldn't be so quick to judge them based upon our experience alone. Those who are far less important are the different types of critics out there who fall victim to the giant corporate machine, who are more or less vessels for the studios/newspaper collums and not their own minds. I still believe there is much to be gained from critique, but like most things (example: political commentary and media coverage) we do not always have to rely on the written or spoken word to make up our minds for us.

It is very important that see, hear or read things for ourselves; and simply allow our own hearts and minds to be the judge. The job of a good critic is to offer an educated point of view. While not condescending, to remain focused and equally balanced in order to provide the reader with the best possible recommendation. Also, to illuminate to us why we may not like certain things, based upon the critic's own personality. This second part however, should never be confused or mixed with the former.

The good critics I feel won't be noticed as being critics. Their writing will simply come through as either a work of great fiction or art; as being a friendly voice in an empty room of uncertainty.

I can think of a few critics who are like that. One such consistently writes good essays on this blog.

While mulling over your article and not really paying attention in class, I recalled three articles that I read prior to your entry, two of which you posted/wrote about on your main website: the first was about the critic David Denby, the second about the late Manny Farber, and the third about the cessation of NAFCRIT.

David Denby was in the minority when he gave "The Dark Knight" a negative review this past summer, and that didn't bode him too well on the internet, especially since he's a "Top Critic" on RottenTomatoes.com. Admittedly, I only read a bit from his review which, though I disagreed with, was nonetheless proficient and reasonable; however, that didn't stop many RT members from bashing him, leaving scathing comments in the line of "go retire!" or "you suck!" A few weeks later, I came across a response from Denby himself on Google news: he mentioned how his inbox was flooded with hate email following his review, and that the internet had a "mob mentality" whenever someone did not fall into consensus with the majority.

The phrase "mob mentality" struck me for a moment, and only when I discussed the comment with my older brother did it hit me: it reeked of elitism, the complete opposite of your "democracy in the dark" entry. Maybe he didn't mean to sound like that, I don't know, but the implication was that he, as a critic, had a opinion that was proficient yet scorned because it did not fall into the "mob" majority, and that the internet was another dimension in which critics were much more vulnerable to be demonized by democracy.

Well now that's simply not fair to anyone at all. Yes, the internet does stem many unpleasant personalities, but it is also a great gateway to what you coined "democracy in the dark." Our faces, and even our true identities, are darkened and masked by the ever expanding yet isolating web, and it's an ironic consequence because we are more than willing to express our truest opinions and thoughts on any given subject matter. You hear the voices, you know they are there, but you can never really pinpoint where they are from (if you can, please be advised that that is rather unsettling and creepy). It's a leveling play field for everyone to participate in: however, because of its anonymous nature, the internet is also a battleground of words, in which the most articulate dominate any discussion they choose to participate in.

Does that mean criticism is dead? God no. Rather, it's transitioned to a different time and medium. Newspapers are on the decline, yes, but the internet is not so much to blame than the increasing scorn and jadedness for the declining quality of journalism; the internet, while not without bad writing, is by far much more expansive than newsprint, which is why so many readers have turned and googled the web for various writers and articles which they are interested in. This puts the traditional newspaper critic in a new arena: now they are writing against everyone, regardless of their publication history or newspaper resume. Previous institutions like NAFCRIT can no longer compete with this medium since everyone has a opinion, and the internet is the gateway to finding more than one article on the same subject; quality journalism and writing has become scant - much in do to the publisher's or network's interest in commercial capital and distribution - that really, it's invariable that people will go for the medium that is relatively cheaper, even free.

But back to criticism, to which Manny Farber commented "I can't imagine a more perfect art form, a more perfect career than criticism. I can't imagine anything more valuable to do." It was such a perplexing statement, I reread the comment over a few times, and still think about it when the thought strikes: it's a honest and true statement because contrary to popular notion, criticism is writing, and writing is art. Art, by its most basic definition, is a way to express oneself and originality for an audience. That said, criticism is essential in the artistic dimension of society, whether it be film, paintings, literature, etc; it means that there's an audience for the artistic presentation, and that attentive critics are receiving it good or bad; simultaneously, the critic needs an audience to receive their opinion, and can only do so with a aesthetic endeavor. So while people may view critics as the "slippery lecherous leech-hyena mutant offspring" of anything, criticism is essential for artistic brother and sister forms to exist and thrive, and vice versa. Criticism is the "black sheep" of the art family, the yin of the yang, the essential "other."

In the end, the only difference between a critic and a opinionated, proficient individual is that the former gets paid (hence the "professional critic" title). These days you can't really name a big list of big-shot critics in print or television, but the internet does have its niche of favorable critics (besides yourself, I also enjoy reading James Berardinelli and Emanuel Levy, and occasionally Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott). I respect David Denby for defending his critique since, after all, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That said, the most worthwhile opinions are probably the best articulated of all, which is why Denby and like others seem to disregard the internet with a disdain for its double-edge effect of incompetence and ingenuity (though they always seem to focus on the former). I don't agree with this viewpoint, even if I have encountered my fair share of inept rudeness and pettiness. The internet a digital reflection of our real world, operated solely on the minds of everyone collecting, collaborating, and clashing with one another - everyone, from critics to intellects to hecklers, is in the game. It's democracy in the dark, and it's pretty awesome if you look carefully enough.

One of the problems with film criticism is that too many individuals follow Rottentomato or IMDB scores, not bothering to justify to themselves why they like the movie. Big case is "There Will Be Blood," everyone compared it to Citizen Kane after so many critics just referenced it in their reviews and then gave the movie a high score.

I could not justify that movie as great to myself, though I could tell that there was more going on in the film than a simple character story or parallels to capitalism. I finally read one piece describing the film as an all out attack on religion, a unique perspective from other reviews written. So much of the imagery and themes of it then clicked, that is what I could not understand the movie was after the first time through.

Like you said in the post, when a review teaches or enlightens you to what makes the film great or worth your time, with justifiable reasons; that is criticism. Otherwise you may as well be singing with the choruses.

Ebert: I believe many or most major critics, especially in a case like "There Will be Blood," write before the Meter is meaningful.

Roger, I have followed your reviews, your great movie series and your writings. I have seen that you are kind to many movies that I don't find up to my standard but I can empathize with your finding good stuff in bad movies. I look up to your reviews to select movies to watch and I have been happy 99% of the time. I believe a critics role is to lay out (a) just enough information about a movie's subject matter, its structure and quality so viewers can go to those type of movies they identify with, have liked before, or like to explore, and (b) identify junk movies that will be waste of time for most movie goers. You have been exemplary in both these respects and I salute you for your work. Your writing about critics is as good as your reviews. Thank you Roger.

As wonderful as your defense of film criticism may be, it feels though that it applies more to commercial/journalistic film critics than those in the academe (e.g. David Bordwell). The movie-going public usually associates "critics" from those whom they read in print, or watch on TV, but don't realize that there really are theories behind the entertainment and poignancy put on the big screen. Do you feel the stigma applies to Academic film critics as well?

On another note, though wikipedia's description of a "Deus Ex Machina" is splendid, it still doesn't make one howl in laughter, as does yours in your review of TWISTED.

Ebert: David Bordwell, who I admire beyond measure, is a rarity: A respected film academic with a shelf of important books to his credit, who writes in clean, clear, elegant prose. If you see one of his books that intrigues you, you can read it with confidence that you will be able to understand it. Bordwell has a particular disinterest in academic systems that produce writing about themselves. Like Pierre Rissient, mentioned above, he is a Man of Cinema. And not too august that he and his wife, Kristin Thompson, another famed scholar, drive down from Wisconsin to Ebertfest and join us at the Steak n' Shake in the midnight hours. They have written general books, textbooks, and "On the History of Film Style," which pulls the subject together and is built on an intimate familiarity with the first 110 or so years of film.

Hi Roger,

Just wanted to say it is very humble of you to not consider yourself as the 'teacher critic.' If anyone fits that persona, it is certainly you. I think I've learned more from your Great Movies collection than the handful of film classes I took over the years.

To me, criticism has always implied an intelligent conversation about art. Criticism is itself an art - one that is lost upon many of those who seek out art. There is a deluge of junk cinema that floods theatres and yet, if I'm forced to endure some of the schlock with a friend, I still feel compelled to talk about it. I am compelled to give a good reason why I absolutely despised a movie and provide more than simply "I didn't like it."

There is a lost art of critism among the general public in that they can't defend their tastes in many of the arts. Cinema is the classic example. When I was growing up, I always talked about the film after I saw it. It was not just like something you flipped through on the TV. No, you specifically set two hours of your day aside to go watch a specific movie, hopefully undisturbed by other patrons. So what I thought of the experience afterwards was a value to me and my family, and we loved discussing films.

Yet nowadays, I go with many people to the movies who have no comment after the film. There's sometimes not even "I liked it" or "I didn't like it." I love the thoughtful criticisms by professional critics because they often offer that intelligent conversation that has been lost to the public. I think some of it is the result of the disposable entertainment in movie houses. But to me, I never go to theatres to watch a movie, but devour it, and afterwards discuss the ingredients that made it so worthwhile - or unbearable.

Oh, to be a critic.

I have often been bashed by my sister and mother for the opinions I form on films. It is a terrible day when I sit down and have the same argument over what a good movie is, the argument I've had oover and over again, why they need to watch certain films, why foreign films are not bad, even if you have to "read." It is so difficult to pull someone in.

In a film I once made (a day in the life of myself), my sister brought up the idea that my opinions are ony based on those of critics. Of course, this is untrue. Much as I hate to say it, I did not much like Taxi Driver, and, therefore, I do not agree with everything critics say (the defense I tend to always use). They state that, had I never heard of a critic praising the film, I never would have gone out and bought it (they talk about Criterions). My response is: Well, is that so bad? Obviously, someone likes it, and it is written about very highly.

I bring up the idea that, often, had they not been informed of a film by the media, they would never have known it exsisted, much as it was before I read The Great Movies (never heard of Ozu, Bresson, Bergman, etc...sadly). How can they blame me for simply taking what some people say and bringing it to fruition?

One terrible instance when the critic in me came out: we had just finished watching August Rush, a film my family seemed to thoroughly enjoy, although I sat through it a bit impatiently. My sister asked what I thought, and I said that it felt as though the scenes were chopped in half, starting at random spots, as though the film did not capture what it could have, how it lacked so much. She could have torn my head off right there. Or, when we saw Mama Mia!, and I could not stand the intense zaniness of EVERYONE in the film, my sister chewed me out because I wasn't focused on what was "important." "I judge a film on how I enjoyed it," she constantly says, and, because of problems with quility, or with characters, I don't enjoy those films. It is a sad day for one who constantly sits and attempts to explain why something is good, while those around, many of them, indeed, will not listen. Thankfully, you and your colleagues exist to get the word out there.

Savvy

Yup, I tend to agree with you on this. Though I enjoy reading your reviews on a weekly basis, I don't actually find time to get to movies very often, so I have not yet developed a strong critical sense of what I like and don't like in film. I do, however, engage in amateur rock/pop music criticism, on my own time. This consists of me going through the various groups in my collection, and posting reviews ranging from short three paragraph summaries to lengthy screeds that would probably last ten pages in a double spaced word processor document, and posting them to a website I maintain.

In my reviews, my overarching purpose is, seemingly, nearly identical to yours: to figure out why exactly I end up liking or disliking an artist/album/song, convey those thoughts as articulately as I can, and perhaps help somebody else see a piece of music (or an artist/group in general) in a different light (for better or worse) than they might have before. In many reader comments that I receive, particularly when somebody is upset that I have expressed honest dislike of various qualities of a piece of music, there are comments to the effect that I'm just a frustrated wannabe musician, like all music critics, and that in my writing I am trying to state objective truths about what is good and what is bad, and since my statements are obviously false, I deserve ridicule.

The thing is, ultimately, I'm just a guy who really likes a lot of music (I tend to give higher ratings more often than lower ones); who has a desire to figure out his own tastes; who thinks there's too much good music in the world to waste time on mediocrity; and who tends to believe that one should never say in two words what one can easily say in seven.

I guess my point in all this is that I think I understand what you, and all the better critics in the world, seek to accomplish. The critic understands something that many artists (not all, but some) fail to acknowledge: art is not made for artists, but for viewers/listeners/readers. Because of this, it is both good and right for critics to guide those seeking good art to that which will entertain and enlighten. What entertains and enlightens a reader may not coincide with what entertains and enlightens the critic, but if the critic prompts introspection within the reader, then the task is accomplished.

In A.O. Scott's review of "Sideways" he suggested that many critics strongly identified with the lead character, Miles, which resulted in the movie being over-praised.

If Mr. Scott is correct, and I think he is, then I have to ask a question...

the following quote: "Critics are nasty, jealous, jaded and bitter. They think it's all about them. They're know-it-alls. They want to appear superior to everyone else. They're impossible to please. They don't understand the tastes of ordinary people."

Isn't this a fairly honest description of Miles?

In my experience as a reader of film criticism, many critics intend to do two things in their reviews, 1. to express their opinion on a film, 2. to make themselves look smart, although not necessarily in that order. It's true that some of them use foreign words, and also big words, to show off. And some of them certainly come across as nasty, jealous, jaded and bitter.

I have found that most of the best critics seem to have enough confidence in their writing and their knowledge of their subject to not resort to any of the above. The best critics use foreign and big words when they're appropriate, and when they do they don't seem to do it in order to flaunt their intellect. I really enjoyed reading last week's entry, as I am often annoyed by critics who seem to need a lot of convincing that they're supposed to be entertained when they go to the movies, and when they are entertained, they have trouble admitting it (some London critics are especially guilty of this - you get the impression that they sit down in their seats with their arms crossed, determined to remain unconvinced by what's in front of them, and even when they approve of a movie, they can't help themselves from nitpicking; I much prefer the American ones).

My definition of a good critic is someone who looks forward to the movies he's going to write about, and then writes about them in a way that is well-informed and compelling. I get the impression that many other people's definition of a good critic is one who agrees with them a lot of the time. I enjoy reading reviews because I love movies, and I like hearing people's thoughts on them. I don't read reviews before I've seen the movie that is being reviewed because I don't want someone else's thoughts to influence my initial reaction. As I don't use specific reviews to help me decide if I'm going to see a movie or not but because I'm interested in hearing someone else's take on it, I enjoy a review that is skillfully written, insightful, witty, maybe even funny, the way I enjoy good literature.

And to anyone who thinks film reviews can't teach, or be considered great writing: where I grew up, English is a foreign language - before I became an avid reader of Mr. Ebert's I was a pretty good English student. After, I was top of my class.

The internet has pulled film criticism into the muck, end of story. When we only had print critics and shows like Ebert's, there was a stronger sense of credibility. There were fewer opinions floating around, but they all seemed erudite, even when there was disagreement.

Now, because the main forum is online, the good critics float in an ugly stew. There is no other way to explain how the critical voice got diluted. Also, the tabloid element, much more popular, drowns out the good stuff you can find. Overall, the online mixture combines classically good critics with a much higher number of amateurs, celebrity whores and the countless twits who post anonymous "reviews" with the grammar skills of otters who barely reach the keyboard.

Not that I'm bitter about all this.

Is the average piece of junk more meaningful than the reviews designating it so? Depends on the movie.

Take Mamma Mia!, for example. Dismissed and disliked by critics for the most part. Yet it more than held its own against The Dark Knight, which was not just the biggest movie of the year, but of the decade. I saw it, and was thoroughly bored, but everybody else in the audience was delighted, enthralled, and more significantly, grateful. This was a demographic that is so rarely considered by Hollywood that it was Christmas in July for them to have a reason to go to the theaters to see a movie. And to bring their friends as an excuse to see it again...and again.

On the other hand, look at North. It's inarguable that Roger's review of that movie was for more meaningful, memorable, and entertaining than the movie itself. Personally, I believe that dreck would have been long since forgotten if not for that classic review.

La web de gull os comerá

Ebert: Y la mosca sobre usted y tiene un movimiento de intestino.

I understood the movie "Ratatouille" to be more about Pixar's stormy relationship with Disney execs (like Michael Eisner) than about Brad Bird's relationship with critics, who seem to love most of his work. After all, the Disney corporation was planning on cashing in on its rights to Pixar-created films and characters, with a direct-to-video "Toy Story 2" and "Toy Story 3," just as the chef Skinner wanted to exploit the reputation and image of Gusteau, with cheap frozen dinners. And while Anton Ego's speech can certainly be read as a "slap on the wrist" for professional critics, I think it also implicates studios and/or distributors that fail to see value in anything not specifically designed, test-marketed, committee-approved, etc. to make $100 million.

Ebert: In general I am wary of interpretations that apply a movie to the writer's theory, but in this case you are most persuasive. And many movie execs are certainly not quick to embrace the "new."

I like the idea of critic as teacher by example, but I think it comes with a danger, which I blogged about this morning. I'm just going to copy and paste some of what I wrote.

You publish reviews with the risk that moviegoers will use your criticism–not evidence from the art itself–to explain why they didn’t like it. I’ve encountered that tendency in myself. When my wife and I exit the theater with opposite reactions to a movie, after arguing the whole drive home, I’ll go straight to my computer, log on to rottentomatoes, and shout something juvenile like: “Hah! 64% of critics and 79% of Top Critics agree with me!” But she’ll stick to her initial opinion, and the professional reviews do nothing to sway her confidence in it. She’s a natural critic. The rest of us, while we need the guidance, can’t go relying on your ideas. Or worse: passing them off as our own.

But I guess that's not the critic's fault. Just something that happens. I teach Freshman Composition, and I'm going to squeeze this blog post/essay onto the reading list to launch a discussion on critical thinking, as well as a demonstration of the delayed thesis technique. You know you're a pro writer when your journal entries can be used as college-level teaching material.

If "Siskel & Ebert & Roeper" had any utility at all, it was in exposing viewers, many of them still children, to the notion that it was permitted to have opinions, and expected that you should explain them.

I was one of those young viewers. It was before the video revolution, there were a lot of us kids at home, and money was always tight. We didn't get to see many movies, mostly old films on a grainy black-and-white TV. Your show, starting back in the PBS days, opened my eyes: movies weren't just entertainment, but artifacts that could be talked about and argued about and analyzed and sometimes enjoyed; that the enjoyment could be understood and enhanced by analysis; that disagreements could be fun. It was the first, and for a long time the only real critical thinking I saw. It was a lesson that has served me well ever since.

As for living an "unexamined life", I think that being a critic requires not just thinking about the subject, but examining oneself, but doing so in public. That requires a level of honesty and bravery that few can attain. In your criticism and in your life you demonstrate what that means; I thank you.

It would be better if more people were raised with that notion of being permitted to express opinions, and expected to explain them. I'm not really political because of how I see people on the cable news channels with biased opinions and then don't really explain them in great detail; there's a lot of sound bites thrown in the air with no explanation for why it is there following it. So, I'm a centrist, politically--I just look for issues both sides can agree upon, and see where that takes me. I like to read your reviews because I don't get that sense of just throwing sound bites out and then not feeling the need to explain it. I also get the feeling from some critics that their ratings are not absolutes; that if they were having a bad day or week or month...-sorry-, then it's not their fault the movie gets a bad review. Is there any justification for such reviews....I like that you come into every movie with optimism, even if you were hammered with 4 slashers or something in a row.

Y la mosca sobre usted y tiene un movimiento de intestino??

Hahahaha! How you've made my Sunday morning! This is the reason why we love you. Now I need to get me some breakfast. Wishing you and your family a very nice weekend.

Best regards,
Robert

I fail to understand how Gene Siskel's exchange with his daughter illustrates the principle you're trying to defend. Nowhere do I see the girl's explanation of her reasons for disliking the animated film.

As written, I can only conclude that Mr. Siskel didn't like the film, and felt proud and happy that his daughter didn't like it, either.

Isn't that a perfect illustration of: Your reasons for feeling as you do are unnecessary for me to know, so long as you agree with me?

Ebert: I pretty sure that Gene asked her why. The reason for his pride was that she had an opinion. Nine of ten ten kids, asked a question like that, say "it was fine" or "it was good"or "it was scary." Whatever it was, they seem to assume it exists and they accept it and it's not up to them to have an onion about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong or reading into this too much, but over the last month or so it appears you have gone about documenting, instructing on, and defending the role of the critic. Starting with your entry "How to Read a Movie" you documented how to break a film down which is something you must do to at least some degree every time you see a film. I would assume the same of an art or food critic. In "You Give too Many Stars" you told us how to read the work of the critic. In this post you tell us why people in your career are important.

These past few articles could be made into a great book about the job and role of the critic. I've learned much from them. If you feel that your chosen career is not getting the understanding and respect it deserves why not polish these posts and expand them? Many of us would be grateful.

Currently, papers are laying off critics. As someone here so perfectly said, the internet has largely dragged criticism into the muck. While there are great places to read about film on the net often those who write here seem desperate to be hip or on whatever the current bandwagon is. Books about criticism have been written, but I can think of none that are current. The time seems right.

I have never understood the disdain that so many people seem to have for film critics. Simply put, I do not have a lot of free time to see movies. Therefore, when I do see a movie, I rely on critics to hopefully steer me towards a film that I will enjoy. Of course, I sometimes disagree with the positive critical consensus (The English Patient is a film I despise), but more often then not I am grateful for the films they recommend.

Film critics also play a crucial role in bringing awareness to the smaller budget films that do not open on 2000 screens. I recently saw two terrific movies - "The Visitor" and "Tell No One" - because of the positive reviews these films generated. I would have never heard of these films if not for film critics.

'Tis hard to say, if greater Want of Skill
Appear in Writing or in Judging ill,
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' Offence,
To tire our Patience, than mis-lead our Sense:
Some few in that, but Numbers err in this,
Ten Censure wrong for one who Writes amiss;
A Fool might once himself alone expose,
Now One in Verse makes many more in Prose.

'Tis with our Judgments as our Watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own.
In Poets as true Genius is but rare,
True Taste as seldom is the Critick's Share;
Both must alike from Heav'n derive their Light,
These born to Judge, as well as those to Write.
Let such teach others who themselves excell,
And censure freely who have written well.
Authors are partial to their Wit, 'tis true,
But are not Criticks to their Judgment too?

Yet if we look more closely, we shall find
Most have the Seeds of Judgment in their Mind;
Nature affords at least a glimm'ring Light;
The Lines, tho' touch'd but faintly, are drawn right.
But as the slightest Sketch, if justly trac'd,
Is by ill Colouring but the more disgrac'd,
So by false Learning is good Sense defac'd.
Some are bewilder'd in the Maze of Schools,
And some made Coxcombs Nature meant but Fools.
In search of Wit these lose their common Sense,
And then turn Criticks in their own Defence.
Each burns alike, who can, or cannot write,
Or with a Rival's or an Eunuch's spite.
All Fools have still an Itching to deride,
And fain wou'd be upon the Laughing Side;
If Maevius Scribble in Apollo's spight,
There are, who judge still worse than he can write.

Some have at first for Wits, then Poets past,
Turn'd Criticks next, and prov'd plain Fools at last;
Some neither can for Wits nor Criticks pass,
As heavy Mules are neither Horse or Ass.
Those half-learn'd Witlings, num'rous in our Isle,
As half-form'd Insects on the Banks of Nile:
Unfinish'd Things, one knows now what to call,
Their Generation's so equivocal:
To tell 'em, wou'd a hundred Tongues require,
Or one vain Wit's, that might a hundred tire.

But you who seek to give and merit Fame,
And justly bear a Critick's noble Name,
Be sure your self and your own Reach to know.
How far your Genius, Taste, and Learning go;
Launch not beyond your Depth, but be discreet,
And mark that Point where Sense and Dulness meet. ....

Excerpt from "An Essay on Criticism" by Alexander Pope.

http://poetry.eserver.org/essay-on-criticism.html

Critique is necessary for democracy. The same tools that allow us to know a good movie when we see it, or a good piece of literature when we read it allow us to discriminate wben poliltical discourse is just manipulating our emotions. Moreover, the tools with which we discuss politics are honed in the process of being able to give reasoned accounts of our political views. That McCain knows some much about film is a sign that perhaps he is also able to account for why the conservative worldview is persuasive to him.

What I have taken away from film criticism for the last fifty-two of my 57 years is a guidepost. When I read a critic I know the likes and dislikes, the prejudices, the wealth of historical knowelege, said critic possesses. I have always read a variety of opinions on a movie, compared them to my likes and dislikes, assessed my mood, and as a result I am usually not disappointed. I know what to expect before I see a film.

What upsets me now is the dumbing down of criticism. "Time" and "Newsweek" which used to have thoughtful and entertaining criticism have resorted to "Capsule" reviews. "Entertainment Weekly" has shortened reviews so that more celebrity photos can take up half the page. Snarky one line comments are not critiques, they are snarky one line comments. Short reviews are criticism with no substance. At least the "Ain't It Cool" guys love movies, have a definite point of view, and try to analyze why a movie is good or bad for them. They may not have the literary credentials of a Pauline Kael (although I am sure there were times when she wanted to swear in a review too) but they are more in her tradition than the "wham bam" reviewing done in the more mainstream media.

I knew when I read certain critics I could count on their opinions. I knew if critic A hated a movie I would love it. I knew when critic B gave a positive review and critic C also gave a positive review of some movie I would never have considered I might take a look.

Good critics are important because they put movies in a context, an historical, technological context, a performance context, a writing context, a directing context. Good critics who are strong writers uplift criticism to an art. We don't have to agree with everything they say but it is depressing that their introspection and knowledge are being replace by catchy phrases that are meaningless to anyone who loves the movies.

Quite intrigued by the exchange in Spanish with Vincent Gallo.I assume this is the lightly noted auteur responsible for "The Brown Bunny" and other like works. My rough translation of last half of your reply is "and have a bowel movement." Can't make out the rest, but doesn't seem to have been a pleasant exchange. I know you two have had your differences. Is my assumption correct? Might you elaborate?

Ebert: I very much doubt that it is *the* Vincent Gallo. The message warned that the gull of the internet would eat me. I replied that after eating me, the gull would fly over him and...

Robert Heinlein (through Lazarus Long) once wrote that "A critic is someone who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he hates all creative people equally." In a broader sense of the word, this is true in that most critics do seem to harbor some deep inherent dislike for creativity. And the critic has a natural negativity towards his work and his subject that is easily translated, be it on the page or on the television.

I have always felt that there are two types in the industry, the critic (of which there seems to be a much larger number than before) and the reviewer. A reviewer can tell you why a movie (or for that matter, any creative endeavor) is good or bad, what makes it worthwhile or avoidable. At the same time, that reviewer may have an opinion that may contradict the prevailing commentary and be more of a barometer of whether the movie is worth going to. On the other side of the coin is the critic, writing a commentary that may have nothing to do with his own opinion of the work.

Your own work has been in my mind that of a well thought-out reviewer. Even when a movie is silly you've found good things to enjoy in it (example being the most recent Mummy film) and when it's excellent, you've delighted in that feeling of something wonderful while watching (Almost Famous). You take the time to educate the reader, which is where the real difference between a critic and a review may exist, and that education is never couched in terms only a film student may understand but in ways that the average audience can connect with.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I'm just wondering why you posted an article pertaining to creationism on your website. Do you feel that it could interfere with your regular line of work?

Ebert: Thought it might be interesting.It is all accurate

One way of actually gauging whether the perceptions of critics are indeed drastically different from that of an above-average moviegoer is to look at the IMDB ratings of movies.

The ratings show a remarkable overlap in the tastes of critics and the movie-going public. Take for instance Mr.Ebert's collection of 300 odd Great Movies. I guess over 90% of them have a rating in excess of 7.8 on IMDB!

Ofcourse it is quite possible that Ebert's reviews may indeed have influenced those popular ratings. However, it is important not to underrate the wisdom of the crowds. Movies that owe their 'classic' status to word-of-mouth include the likes of The Shawshank Redemption and It's a Wonderful Life, both of which didn't exactly receive an enthusiastic critical reception upon release. In fact, Shawshank didn't feature in Ebert's Top 10 for 1994, though he did include it in the Great Movies collection six years later.

Also, consider the now-acclaimed filmography of Alfred Hitchcock. Though his movies were enormously popular in the box-office, the contemporary critics did not regard him as an 'important' director owing to the 'frivolous' content of his pictures. Hitch's genius was recognized by the public long before critics like Trauffart and Robin Wood celebrated it.

One more question - what are the sources of your information?

Ebert: Creationist web sites. Do I have anything wrong?

I wouldn't know if you were right or wrong. I was taught evolution in school and I have taken no effort to understand creationism.

May I ask why you have decided to believe in creationism and why you have decided to post it on your website today of all days (as opposed to yesterday, a year ago, or a year from tomorrow)?

Ebert: What in the article leads you to think I believe in Creationism?

From what limited understanding I have in regards to creationism, your beliefs seem to be influenced if not born of creationism.

Creationism, once again from my limited understanding, seems to be based in some biblical thoughts or beliefs. Once you quoted from the Bible and another time you referenced the story of Noah.

Furthermore, you cited Creationist websites as the source of your beliefs, or as places with already succinct, researched explanations of your beliefs.

Anyhow, if you don't believe in Creationism, what do you believe in?

Excellent essay, but I think you missed one crucial role of the critic: providing feedback. I try to read every published review of my work (I'm a novelist), and I treasure the thoughtful critics--even if I don't always enjoy what they have to say. They make me a better writer by showing me truths about my books that I would never see on my own. The good I can enhance and deepen in my next story. The bad . . . well, if I can see it, I can at least try to fix it.

Dear Blake,

If I had to take a wild guess at the reason for Mr. Ebert's creationist post, I would guess the running-mate of Mr. McCain.

I always love your articles, and I think you ARE the critic you claim you only hope to be. Sincerely, without your criticism, the movies would be an entirely different world for me, one greatly deprived. I gotta say though, here, that there is one particular claim where I think you seem to have either purposely and rhetorically missed the point, or actually missed it.

"I would suggest that the average piece of junk is not meaningful at all, apart from the way it conditions the minds of its beholders to accept more pieces of junk. How important is criticism of it? Powerless, usually."

It seems obvious that Anton is speaking of the power of subjectivity over the power of, as you say, systems of analysis. Following the lead of Nietzsche's characterization of the Dionysian, or Rimbaud's claim that "genius is the recovery of childhood at will," or Mann's "Death In Venice," and many more examples, many who have understood brilliant art have also understood that its greatness comes out of a completely subjective and universal sense which great art brings to us, or brings *back* to us. A subjective feeling accessible by all. And it can come from the most simplistic, cursory or superficial of sources, however much or little work was actually put into those sources, because it relies on our personal triggers, be they as little as a Madeleine or a ratatouille.

Of course, Socrates would rather be a wise and suffering higher consciousness than an ignorant and complacent lower consciousness, but when it comes down to it, what is the actual negative presence in the life of someone who watches crap films his whole life, enjoying them as much as you enjoy Citizen Kane? It is really a negative 'lack', the un-fulfillment of possibilities he knows nothing about and is quite satisfied without. I know, I know, such a person would not be enjoying a single one of their movie experiences as much as you enjoy Citizen Kane, all depth considered, but they don't know it. The main point, I think, is that the experience is always 'superior' to talking about the experience, and that experience is universally accessible. Everyone can die their own "petite mort".

p.s. It's of course a whole 'nother story when the talking-about-the-experience becomes as fantastical as the experience itself, as I feel happens with your great articles, or as with any other critic who rises him/herself to the level of art, Greenblatt, Siskel, whoever.

First of all, excuses for my poor English. I just want to inform you that here in Spain we have now a intense controversy around the topic of film criticism.

A huge group of Spanish (Víctor Erice, José Luis Guerín) and foreign film-makers (Carlos Reygadas, Chantal Ackerman, Pedro Costa) along with hundreds of other people related to media and film industry wrote a letter to El País newspaper complaining about its film critic (Carlos Boyero), whose point of view is hostile mainly to new, innovative, small and "difficult" movies.

There's a link to their letter/blog:

http://elpaisyelcine.blogspot.com/

At first, It seems like that's a good way to start a rich discussion about the nature of film criticism and its difficult position in today's newspapers, but, by now, all has diluted in crossed insults, culminating with a very aggressive and arrogant final answer by the discussed critic.

Ebert: You certainly need not apologize for your English! I often quote Robert Altman, who told me, "If you never gave me a bad review, what would a good review mean?" Of course he then added that, unfortunately, all the bad reviews I had given him were mistaken.

Thanks for your time and for your truly illuminating work!

Epitaph that Alexander Pope wrote for Isaac Newton:

Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Newton be!" and all was light.

The sea is so large but my boat is so small. You are the only person who has allowed me to see the joy, not fear or despair, JOY in that sentence. I'm wide awake but my legs are shaky. Your teachings are helping to stabilize me.

You have the power of Camus in your hands. You can bring joy to "The Myth of Sisyphus", as could the absurdist author of old. I thank you for all that you have done for myself and my friends whom I share your work with. It is not enough to simply teach, you must explain why you teach.

What better way to do this than with this blog?

Only a casual reader would ever confuse you for a Creationist. Thanks for assuming your readers are smart enough to NOT require you to point out absurdity.

Roger,
This article brings to mind many issues that I contemplate in my own struggle with art and criticism. I believe that the role of the viewer, the (gasp!) "consumer" of films and critics reviews balances a tight rope between independent thought and humility. Through the Dostoevsky masterpiece "The Brothers Karamazov" I read of the character Alyohsa who was training to be an orthodox priest. In the process of training, these young men had to undergo the experience of becoming completely under the control of an older, experienced master. The pupil would become a completely willing subject, not thinking independently or with self will at all... now this type of training forbids our Western sensibilites. We should learn, yet never lose our sense of self direction. Well, perhaps this is right, yet I have always been effected by this portrayal of the beautiful Alyosha, Dostoevsky's proudest creation. There have been times in my life where this type of "training" is something I feel worthy of consideration. Not to the intense level of Alyosha perhaps, but there have been certain people whom I feel it is worthwhile to simply abandon my own opinion and accept the thoughts of another, abandoning my own opinion if necessary...

Yet, this is certainly not the goal of this exercise. After admitting a certain degree of inexperience, through learning and knowledge we have to certainly think robustly for ourselves, holding opinion no matter what other think. I believe these two extremes are important to grasp and hold the value of a robust interest in seeking to understand the insights of great movie critics.
I guess i'm somewhere in the middle of these two polls now. In the field of film criticism I still have an awe at the great ocean of understanding, yet feel I also have enough knowledge to think independently of great films I see. The goal is to understand. My language may seem intense, but I find it one of my life goals to understand and "consume" the glory of film with a certain robustness.

I first heard of you when you started doing review with Gene Siskell. Until then I had no interest in critics' opinion because I thought they were snooty and sucked the life out of books and movies by making them readable or watchable only by people with the same unique knowledge.

However, when I watched the Gene and you on the screen I saw that you had a sliding standard depending on the type of movie you reviewed. I had never heard of a critic doing that before. You really became humanized when you listed "Inframan" as a guilty pleasure. You pointed out that the film was ridiculous, the plot absurd, but you had fun watching it (flips included).

Consequently, I try to watch (or read) your opinions as much as possible. I don't always agree and may go to a film that you panned, but Caveat Emptor.

It is not possible that you posted the absurd article defending equally absurd creationist claims, as you have made your agreement with evolutionary theory plain in past articles and reviews. Clearly your site has been hacked, quite possibly by someone dismayed by your dismissive response to a request to review the creationist propaganda film, "Expelled."

Ebert: My site was not hacked.

One reason I love critics is not just because they tell us what movies are good and bad, but they provide a cultured and more educated perspective on the films we watch and help us to see what we missed and why we felt the way we did when we watch certain films.

Just this weekend, Roger, your review of "Lakeview Terrace" was a godsend. I'm familiar with Neil Labute and I walked into the film knowing little about it except that he directed, and having been in interracial relationships myself, the movie struck so many raw nerves and left me with such tension in my stomach that at the end of the film I was completely unsure of what I thought about it. Reading your review and seeing it for a second time, I realized that this was the point Labute was making , and I engaged in a long debate with my friends on Sunday afternoon while we discussed the situation, and the choices of the characters, and what if the races had been switched? Without the critic, we sometimes don't have a frame of reference for what we see, and that can make it difficult for us to sort through our feelings and thoughts about film in general.

I hope the critic remains a presence in society as the years progress because they certainly help me and I'm sure they help others.

As easy as negative criticism supposedly is, it is often very difficult to get the word of mouth review on the street reason of how, what, where and why something may have failed in someones view.

"That sucked!

Mm, How did it suck?

It sucked Balls!

Mmm, is that "how"...?"

Because, if the experience is negative, on a gut level, it is often difficult to get that visceral reaction articulated into something meaningful to someone elses experience, in someone elses experience.
The experience needs to be framed, and that is what a professional critic ultimately does.

dear roger,

i truly hope that when you become an old man of 80 years your wit and writing skill does not become sentimental enough as to make you put 'Titanic' on your 'great movies' list. if you notice the slightest urge for sweet and lovely drama-spectacle, please let me know. my email address is just above.

I saw "La Dolce Vita" yesterday and liked it, but also saw the original title of the movie in the DVD booklet, which was "Although Life Is Brutal and Awful, You Can Always Find A Few Moments of Sensuality and Sweetness". It helped me understand the movie a little better (though, not in necessarily in the order of the title) : how at the beginning his mistress and him drive around to where prostitutes live and decide that's as good a place as any to make love (although as you said it is uncertain, I like to think they did), how the Anita Eckberg character wanders around sensually and looking for sweetness, even if her relationship with her husband can be brutal and awful, how Steiner's life is at first seeming to be filled with sweetness and sensual people, it becomes apparent that is Steiner living vicariously through others and not having it himself, how after Marcello and his wife have that fight they are in eachother's arms the next morning. The prologue and epilogue shots each show the brutal and awful life, one where sweetness and sensuality reject Marcello, the other where they would embrace him. It could be that the theme of the movie may be, but that's a risk you have to take.

I must admit, I'm a bit amazed at the number of people who would be convinced that you are a creationist or that someone hacked onto your site before they would pick up on the subtle satire of your piece on creationism. I think it may be because what you did was not even precisely satire, in the sense that you simply repeated popular creationist beliefs without exaggeration or commentary. The only satire aspect, I suppose, is that you are an intelligent, thinking human being writing that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. I've read creationist websites before, and your Q&A would fit seamlessly into even the most sophisticated of them.

I'm a bit amazed at the number of people who would be convinced that you are a creationist or that someone hacked onto your site before they would pick up on the subtle satire of your piece on creationism. I think it may be because what you did was not even precisely satire, in the sense that you simply repeated popular creationist beliefs without exaggeration or commentary.

Yes, the more I read the piece, the funnier it is. Poe's Law in the hands of a master!

Dear Mr. Ebert, I found this during one of my perusals yesterday on the subject of Creationism. I put it here not with the intent to ruffle anyone's feathers, but to provide an opposite view to Creationism.

EPISTLE TO THE OHIO BOARD OF EDUCATION: Concerning the Proposed Science Standards

(a parody by Tom McIver, composed after perusing Alexander Pope's "Essay on Man")

"Creation" now "Intelligent Design"
Now science tries to ape, and redefine.
But natural law alone in science reigns,
No supernatural cause or source it feigns.

Conceivable disproof its truest sign;
Its theories are human, not divine.
DI, IDnet, SEAO: all a ruse;
To trip us, charm, bewilder, and confuse.
All are but cogs of one deceptive plan
To loosen natural law howe’er they can.

The proper study of ID is God,
In science class 'tis travesty and fraud.
All living things betray a tangled past,
With mysteries most plentiful and vast.
Complexity and history conceal
And frustrate our best efforts to reveal.

If miracles be given, though, as cause,
One or a thousand, no more natural laws.
All life involves a struggle to survive
Environments non-living and alive.
Ideas in science, too, compete to best
Opposing theories tried and put to test.
Those win that nature proves a better fit,
Not forced on us by fiat or by writ.

True science is a still-evolving whole,
Whose body nature is, our tests the soul.
A little science is a dangerous tide
When mixed with human bias, greed, and pride.
Experimental methods are its rails,
But mix religion in and science fails.

No, science cannot tell us how to act
(Religion, morals, ethics, speak to that)
Yet science helps to tell us what we are;
From primal germ, mankind, and distant star.
We bear true kinship with all life on Earth
Though facts of ancestry show not our worth.

Hope oft consoles where science cannot tread,
Belief connects the living with their dead;
As faith hath power to soothe the troubled breast,
Religion doth both drive and help us rest.
Since oft what is, is not what ought to be,
Our Bibles from despair may help us free.

Don't glibly sneak in God, though, to explain
What properly is science’s domain.
God said "Let Darwin be!" and not be banned;
From any science classroom in the land.
Ohio, Kansas, every U.S. state,
Keep evolution in the textbooks straight.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-01-30.html

Like Mr. Ebert and earlier comments have stated, some people misunderstand critics and think they are here to pompously try to tell people what to think (though I'm sure a small minority do), but they can really help people to understand their own thoughts on a movie. For me, it doesn't matter which specific movies a person loves so much as that they do have movies that they love. It's not the movie, but what they get out of it. If they have the time to spend, and it's not something that's desensitizing them, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone watching and rather enjoying an unoriginal movie. However, I do think that they should understand the distinction between an ordinary movie and a movie that sets out to be something more. Critics can help people find those movies, and while a person probably won't agree with the critical consensus about all of them, they will certainly find more movies that will become favorites of theirs if they seek out original movies instead of sticking with clones of movies they've seen before.

On an unrelated note, I found that Creationist Q&A useful. I had wondered about some of the things Creationists believe, but had never looked them up.

The main problem creationists had when Darwin put his theory out was that the Earth could not possibly be as old as the theory implied. Then, we knew that the Earth is indeed that old and much older. The creationist should have gone extinct 50 years ago. Now, it's basically them just pulling things out of the hat. Um, missing chromosomes. Well, I just decided to youtube it, and here's what I found there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDVx9JLGzj0 . It's as though believing in creationism replaces believing in god...like fast food, or video games. And who doesn't believe in the almighty big mac every now and then?

"We know that Noah was 600 years, two months and 17 days old when he sailed. Using that as a starting point and counting forward, Genesis tells us it lasted for 40, 150, 253, 314 or 370 days."

Classic. Absolutely, completely, classic.

Hmmmm, somehow, I get this funny feeling that Mr. Ebert is "misleading our senses." (^_^)

The Bible isn't a science book. It barely dips its toe into those waters. Therefore, trying to understand the history of this world from ones limited experience or ability to rationalize creates a myopic view of humanity. The illumination we receive from scientific facts has to be moored to our ability to perceive the metaphysical. Hate it or love it, God's word declares: "And without faith it is impossible to please God because anyone who comes to Him must believe He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." If you seek Him you will find Him when you seek Him with all your heart. We testify to what we have seen and known but still you people do not believe our testimony.

Liar!

Not really, the quote from the Rat movie reads "But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new."

I'm sure RE has been there, but not for "Do the Right Thing".

And NO ONE was there for "2001 a Space Oddysey".

TS

Ebert: Not quite accurate. Moments after the world premiere of "Do the Right Thing" at Cannes, I told a television interviewer: "If it doesn't win the Golden Palm, I'm never coming back." (Spike Lee was chairman of the jury the next year). I saw "2001" at a press screening in Los Angeles the night before its world premiere at the Kennedy Center, and wrote my review immediately afterward. It was one of the first in print. Many of the subsequent reviews were negative! I am saying this not to boast, but in the interests of accuracy. :)

Thank you, Roger for humanizing what you do. Sure, a critic is just one man's opinion. But to be a GOOD critic takes into account a vast knowledge about the subject. An informed judgement. An illuminating critique. Not to just simply point out flaws (sure, that's easy) but to highlight excellence. New is not always great. Art for art sake is sometimes simply naive. But brilliance IS special. When the stars align, and writing, acting, and directing are in perfect harmony, then something special is created. But concept is everything. Truth and humanity revealed. The creative process is an intricate process. And not. They say that genius is hard and shlock is easy. Not really. It takes the same amount of energy to produce something great as it is to squeeze out something mediocre. I work in advertising. Both as an art director, copywriter and creative director. I've done my share of dreck, and produced pieces that I am proud of. Some may not agree. But as a creative director, and also a college professor, I have the responsibility of critiquing others work. In its purest form, the critique is to make work better. That's somewhat of an arbitrary statement and subjective. But years of experience have given me the skill set to know what is presumably "good" and what is mediocre if not completely hack. Unfortunately, as a tool for industry, my judgement isn't always so noble, and at its core, my job is to sell stuff. I am beheld to a client. Who pays my salary. But as a teacher, I do have the responsibility to teach. To enlighten. And in those times, a good and thorough critique, completely non-objective, is critical for a student to grow and learn. And be the best he or she can be. So critics (good ones) have a use in society. They are pragmatic. If we are to maintain a certain standard of quality (which is a loaded word anyway) there needs to be someone of intelligence and a gift for language (like yourself) to hold "art" accountable. I use the quotation marks because art is very subjective. So much of what is called art, be it visual, literary or anything is at best popular pablum. There are many individuals out there who absolutely love Thomas Kinkade or Robert Wyland.
Or perhaps Rob Schneider is the greatest comic actor of our day. Go figure. All are empty calories.
Keep doing what you are doing. We need critics. Good ones. It keeps all of us in the creative world on our toes. Mediocrity is death. Okay, that maybe overly dramatic. But progress, be it technological, artistic, social and political needs some objective punditry to move forward. A reminder that history can easily be repeated. Mistakes and failure are made. Been there done that happens frequently. And genius can truly flourish if nurtured and acknowledged.

I watch alot of movies, and I go on IMDB alot, to post comments on the "user comments" part of the movie listings. It seems though, that I am only motivated to do so by films that I really love. All the comments I've posted I would rank as great films, usually 8 stars or better. I can't seem to write a negative review. If a movie doesn't interest me, I don't waste more time writing about it. And I hate the idea, of me, being an average viewer, knocking down something that a filmmaker has spent months, perhaps years, making, even though it sucked. I know for you as a professional, you have to write negative reviews sometimes, it is your job to communicate to your public your opinions.

I am, however, very inclined to criticize people, such as politicians, media figures, celebrities for their opinions, their policies, their ideals. I am much more forgiving to works that fall short than of people who do.

" I am saying this not to boast, but in the interests of accuracy. :) "

Alas, Roger Ebert has used an emoticon. Armageddon is nigh.

I get it (I think), but you do realize that your article on creationism has a lot of people fearing for your sanity, right?

Just checking.

For the remaining citizens of the world, it is at times befuddling the manner in which the American media, and at times, the American in public in general tend to politicize every aspect, question and particle of the human experience into red-issues or blue-issues. Please, forgive my ignorance if i am mistaken, but before every question, controversy and debatable and sometimes undebatable matter, it seems rises an army on both sides of punditdom to debate and proclaim the correctedness (is that a word? please bear with me i am a foreigner) of their liege ideology. Take the matter of evolution, why is that most of the talking heads that defy this scientific recognized fact and support the pseudo-science,not-almost-there alternative belief of intelligent design are right wing commentators, politicians and pundits such as Coulter, Hannity, Stein, maybe Palin? And likewise we see legions of their political opposites holding the view that evolution is undisputed that and as I 100% concur with you, sir, evolution is God's true design. Why beat aroung a dead horse when there is no reasonable debate to be had? It is despicable to lie to children, to teach them lies is a crime. And I consider myself pretty conservative.
Now what is truly unforgivable is for these people to expan their mad thrist to opinion and show that their red/blue side of the force is all-knowing and unquestionable to ethereal subjects such as movies. Take the matter of that fellow that posing as a critic commited, in my opinion, one of the greatest sins a true critic can commit, revealing the end of Million Dollar Baby just to promote his absurd, out-of-place right-wing agenda. Ridiculous. Or how Coulter bashed Brokeback Mountain and trashed the academy for not displaying every respect and accolade to the Passion of the Christ because she thought it tingled the "right" side of her "soul". Likewise, when some left-wing, atheist ideologue, like at times Maher, feels the desire to show how much they really haven't read and chooses to bash some film because something or other or simply to make his liberal conscience feel good, i find it equally disgusting and at times subject to pity.
Yes, movies may be political, movies may seek to promote an out-of-place political agenda; but, in my opinion, a good movie would before attempt to elicit thought and discussion from its audience, showing them a valid and balanced alternative or proposal for their day to day vision and not a flat-out lie and propaganda. An even greater movie would touch a string in the common soul of mankind and emit a trascendental message that is wellcomed and discussed by our human brethren, not immedialtely or mechanically accepted, but seed to thought and research. Therein lies the job of the responsible critic, as paraphrasing a great one, to delve into the trash and sublime and advice the audience on how to distinguish them and why.
In my ignorant opinion, sir, you thus far, have been a most decent, balanced, insightful and, yes a great critic and for that we thank you. I am most glad that you are well enough to read this and wish you health, peace and many more articles to come. My sincere respect,

Fred Arinez, La Paz Bolivia

the remaining citizens of the world, it is at times befuddling the manner in which the American media, and at times, the American in public in general tend to politicize every aspect, question and particle of the human experience into red-issues or blue-issues. Please, forgive my ignorance if i am mistaken, but before every question, controversy and debatable and sometimes undebatable matter, it seems rises an army on both sides of punditdom to debate and proclaim the correctedness (is that a word? please bear with me i am a foreigner) of their liege ideology. Take the matter of evolution, why is that most of the talking heads that defy this scientific recognized fact and support the pseudo-science,not-almost-there alternative belief of intelligent design are right wing commentators, politicians and pundits such as Coulter, Hannity, Stein, maybe Palin? And likewise we see legions of their political opposites holding the view that evolution is undisputed that and as I 100% concur with you, sir, evolution is God's true design. Why beat aroung a dead horse when there is no reasonable debate to be had? It is despicable to lie to children, to teach them lies is a crime. And I consider myself pretty conservative.
Now what is truly unforgivable is for these people to expan their mad thrist to opinion and show that their red/blue side of the force is all-knowing and unquestionable to ethereal subjects such as movies. Take the matter of that fellow that posing as a critic commited, in my opinion, one of the greatest sins a true critic can commit, revealing the end of Million Dollar Baby just to promote his absurd, out-of-place right-wing agenda. Ridiculous. Or how Coulter bashed Brokeback Mountain and trashed the academy for not displaying every respect and accolade to the Passion of the Christ because she thought it tingled the "right" side of her "soul". Likewise, when some left-wing, atheist ideologue, like at times Maher, feels the desire to show how much they really haven't read and chooses to bash some film because something or other or simply to make his liberal conscience feel good, i find it equally disgusting and at times subject to pity.
Yes, movies may be political, movies may seek to promote an out-of-place political agenda; but, in my opinion, a good movie would before attempt to elicit thought and discussion from its audience, showing them a valid and balanced alternative or proposal for their day to day vision and not a flat-out lie and propaganda. An even greater movie would touch a string in the common soul of mankind and emit a trascendental message that is wellcomed and discussed by our human brethren, not immedialtely or mechanically accepted, but seed to thought and research. Therein lies the job of the responsible critic, as paraphrasing a great one, to delve into the trash and sublime and advice the audience on how to distinguish them and why.
In my ignorant opinion, sir, you thus far, have been a most decent, balanced, insightful and, yes a great critic and for that we thank you. I am most glad that you are well enough to read this and wish you health, peace and many more articles to come. My sincere respect,

Fred Arinez, La Paz, Bolivia

the remaining citizens of the world, it is at times befuddling the manner in which the American media, and at times, the American in public in general tend to politicize every aspect, question and particle of the human experience into red-issues or blue-issues. Please, forgive my ignorance if i am mistaken, but before every question, controversy and debatable and sometimes undebatable matter, it seems rises an army on both sides of punditdom to debate and proclaim the correctedness (is that a word? please bear with me i am a foreigner) of their liege ideology. Take the matter of evolution, why is that most of the talking heads that defy this scientific recognized fact and support the pseudo-science,not-almost-there alternative belief of intelligent design are right wing commentators, politicians and pundits such as Coulter, Hannity, Stein, maybe Palin? And likewise we see legions of their political opposites holding the view that evolution is undisputed that and as I 100% concur with you, sir, evolution is God's true design. Why beat aroung a dead horse when there is no reasonable debate to be had? It is despicable to lie to children, to teach them lies is a crime. And I consider myself pretty conservative.
Now what is truly unforgivable is for these people to expan their mad thrist to opinion and show that their red/blue side of the force is all-knowing and unquestionable to ethereal subjects such as movies. Take the matter of that fellow that posing as a critic commited, in my opinion, one of the greatest sins a true critic can commit, revealing the end of Million Dollar Baby just to promote his absurd, out-of-place right-wing agenda. Ridiculous. Or how Coulter bashed Brokeback Mountain and trashed the academy for not displaying every respect and accolade to the Passion of the Christ because she thought it tingled the "right" side of her "soul". Likewise, when some left-wing, atheist ideologue, like at times Maher, feels the desire to show how much they really haven't read and chooses to bash some film because something or other or simply to make his liberal conscience feel good, i find it equally disgusting and at times subject to pity.
Yes, movies may be political, movies may seek to promote an out-of-place political agenda; but, in my opinion, a good movie would before attempt to elicit thought and discussion from its audience, showing them a valid and balanced alternative or proposal for their day to day vision and not a flat-out lie and propaganda. An even greater movie would touch a string in the common soul of mankind and emit a trascendental message that is wellcomed and discussed by our human brethren, not immedialtely or mechanically accepted, but seed to thought and research. Therein lies the job of the responsible critic, as paraphrasing a great one, to delve into the trash and sublime and advice the audience on how to distinguish them and why.
In my ignorant opinion, sir, you thus far, have been a most decent, balanced, insightful and, yes a great critic and for that we thank you. I am most glad that you are well enough to read this and wish you health, peace and many more articles to come. My sincere respect,
Fred Arinez

For the remaining citizens of the world, it is at times befuddling the manner in which the American media, and at times, the American in public in general tend to politicize every aspect, question and particle of the human experience into red-issues or blue-issues. Please, forgive my ignorance if i am mistaken, but before every question, controversy and debatable and sometimes undebatable matter, it seems rises an army on both sides of punditdom to debate and proclaim the correctedness (is that a word? please bear with me i am a foreigner) of their liege ideology. Take the matter of evolution, why is that most of the talking heads that defy this scientific recognized fact and support the pseudo-science,not-almost-there alternative belief of intelligent design are right wing commentators, politicians and pundits such as Coulter, Hannity, Stein, maybe Palin? And likewise we see legions of their political opposites holding the view that evolution is undisputed that and as I 100% concur with you, sir, evolution is God's true design. Why beat aroung a dead horse when there is no reasonable debate to be had? It is despicable to lie to children, to teach them lies is a crime. And I consider myself pretty conservative.
Now what is truly unforgivable is for these people to expan their mad thrist to opinion and show that their red/blue side of the force is all-knowing and unquestionable to ethereal subjects such as movies. Take the matter of that fellow that posing as a critic commited, in my opinion, one of the greatest sins a true critic can commit, revealing the end of Million Dollar Baby just to promote his absurd, out-of-place right-wing agenda. Ridiculous. Or how Coulter bashed Brokeback Mountain and trashed the academy for not displaying every respect and accolade to the Passion of the Christ because she thought it tingled the "right" side of her "soul". Likewise, when some left-wing, atheist ideologue, like at times Maher, feels the desire to show how much they really haven't read and chooses to bash some film because something or other or simply to make his liberal conscience feel good, i find it equally disgusting and at times subject to pity.
Yes, movies may be political, movies may seek to promote an out-of-place political agenda; but, in my opinion, a good movie would before attempt to elicit thought and discussion from its audience, showing them a valid and balanced alternative or proposal for their day to day vision and not a flat-out lie and propaganda. An even greater movie would touch a string in the common soul of mankind and emit a trascendental message that is wellcomed and discussed by our human brethren, not immedialtely or mechanically accepted, but seed to thought and research. Therein lies the job of the responsible critic, as paraphrasing a great one, to delve into the trash and sublime and advice the audience on how to distinguish them and why.
In my ignorant opinion, sir, you thus far, have been a most decent, balanced, insightful and, yes a great critic and for that we thank you. I am most glad that you are well enough to read this and wish you health, peace and many more articles to come. My sincere respect,
Fred

This post inspired me to tell a story about why, as a critic, I do what I do. Last year I was asked by a faculty member at the university that runs my film website to write a review for Daniel G. Karslake's very good documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So." The film addresses the relationship between the homosexual community and Evangelical Christianity, and it certainly takes sides with the former. As an ex-fundie, I had an overwhelming emotional reaction to the film, and my write-up really became an impassioned letter to the evangelical community in which I wrote about my own spiritual perspectives and urged them to see the film and to think about its thesis.

The review almost derailed because it became so far removed from the film itself. I considered rewriting, but was encouraged by a faculty member to post it as-was because it revealed my initial, raw reaction. Since that year or so that I posted it, I've received a half dozen emails from gay Christians struggling with the union of these two seemingly conflicting identities. One person even told me that he'd been considering suicide before he read my review and was inspired to watch the film, which in turn inspired him to live. I am humbled that my words could move someone to watch a film that left such a powerful effect on them - in this case, a matter of life or death.

The moral of this story: Of course, critics are merely spectators who write about their personal reactions to films. But we are writing our responses for readers who we want to encourage to have responses of their own. The beauty of criticism, as it has always been noted, is that it always reveals just as much about the critic as it does the film. And sometimes, the written records of our reactions can truly leave an impact. I'm not so self-absorbed to suggest that my review saved someone's life. But I surely know that the film I wrote about did, and that I could inform someone who needed its gives me great joy indeed.

Mr. Ebert,

I usually don't think of you as a "critic" or your writings "critical". I prefer to read your "analysis" of films and consider you a "film analyst". Much like a financial analyst would write about an investment, or systems analyst a computer network.

I think the term "critic" is a misnomer for what you and most of your contemporaries do. People certainly would not use a term like "financial critic" or "software critic".

I humbly suggest you and your contemporaries adopt the title of Film Analyst and avoid all this critic stigma.

Thanks for all the great writing...

The subject of this blog reminds me of a bit of the press surrounding Punch-Drunk Love. The big question was always "Why Adam Sandler?" I'm not sure if they were honest questions or subtle attacks.

When I hear P.T. Anderson wants to put Adam Sandler in a movie, I think "great!" He's doing something new, he's challenging himself. What a novel idea! If there's one thing I enjoy about Anderson, it's that he purposefully never repeats himself. I wonder where he could possibly go after There Will Be Bloood.

Just to be fair, Mr. Ebert's article pertained to young Earth creationism, which "is the religious belief that Heaven, Earth, and life on Earth were created by a direct act of God dating between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago" (Wikipedia). Old Earth creationism, on the other hand, is "typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth" (Wikipedia again), it basically just acknowledges God as the ultimate cause of being. Indeed, even evolution is even becoming more and more accepted in Christian circles... just this week the Roman Catholic church acknowledged that evolution is compatible with the Bible. So not all creationists are crazy, or sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to science.

Another wonderful article!

I've always felt people misunderstand the role of the critic. Too many people seem to believe the critic's job is to tell them if they will like whatever is being reviewed, and, at the same time, to be objective about what they are reviewing.

They don't seem to understand that the critic's job isn't to tell you if you will like whatever they reviewed, it's to tell you what they thought of the item in question.

It is then the consumer's job to go out and find a critic who generally has the same likes and dislikes they have, thus they can be prepared to spend, or not spend, money on the book, movie, video game, legal brothel in Nevada, etc.

If consumers do their jobs, they will find the services of a good critic to be priceless, which isn't the same as worthless.

I enjoy reading a good critique even if I liked a film and the critic didn't. I don't enjoy reading someone's personal opinion about a movie unless they happen to match my own, but personal opinion is just fluff writing, not critical writing.

I find that good critical writing can illuminate a good film and make it better. For example, Roger's reviews of "2001: A Space Odyssey". That film put a stone in my shoe, 'what is Kubrick talking about with this film?'. I knew I liked it but I couldn't articulate why. Well, Ebert could.

He can also make a really bad experience easier to shake off. For example, "Armageddon". Why am I so annoyed and frustrated by this movie? Again, I couldn't articulate the reasons, but Ebert could. When the reasons are laid out before you, your mind can stop whirling around trying to find them on it's own and move on to more important things, like the next movie.

I also like the pure quality of the writing. I admire critics when they boil down a giant cauldron of thoughts, into a nicely packaged paragraph. Economically worded but dense with ideas. That's a thrill.

ah, but eunuchs can perform. They didn't guard harems, they serviced them.

Alfuso - Not in the Ottoman Court, they didn't.[/Off Topic]

Another of your priceless quotes was "a good movie is not about what it is, but about how it is". Great stuff.

I'm a critic myself, and have always felt the role -- and the role of the audience -- necessary. There is no art without exhibition; otherwise it's just journaling.

Or to quote Marcel Duchamp, a man I admire:

"The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act."

"If "Siskel & Ebert & Roeper" had any utility at all, it was in exposing viewers, many of them still children, to the notion that it was permitted to have opinions, and expected that you should explain them."

This amazes me because that is precisely the impact of your show on my life. (And I thought I was unique!) I distinctly remember being nine years old and being shocked that two guys *on TV* could say that they didn't like a movie ("Butch and Sundance: The Early Days") and no one prevented it. I even asked my dad about it, wondering if it was legal and whether or not uniformed men would rush in, grab the two of you, and the screen would go blank. It was definitely my first exposure to the idea of criticism, of viewer response and the social importance of the dialogue it created, and I watched your show off and on for years after that. Thank you for that--it's enough for me to almost forgive you for suggesting that Tarkovsky's movies would be better if only they were shorter!

That's..a lot of responses.

But anyhow. I usually do not care to read most of the comments I find on the web, which kinda challenges the whole point of ME writing this...but we'll blow past that.

Getting to the point of "how to treat 'junk'". Sometimes I question the importance of taste. I look at people around me, people who are able to enjoy the '2 star' movies without blinking-to-think even once...at the end of those two-three hours they have got more enjoyment out of that little portion of their life than I have. In fact I could say I had LOST those few hours to squirming and complaining.

Now isn't 'happiness' generally the point of it all? Now what's out there - IS what's out there. To steal a (cliched) quote, "A is A". My being bitter about the quality of a movie will not change it. It's not going to get me back my money or buy me back the time. Wouldn't I (and I just mean me) be far better off (humanity WILL be far worse off, but is that really my concern? Does it really make a difference even if it were? :)) if I found a way to ENJOY those two hours of mindless blow-ups, instead of sitting on my pedestal of (medium-high) taste?

Point to think about..

Roger:Having spent a disproprtionate amount of time in the last 4 or 5 years on films, you might be interested to know how I used your reviews.My constraint was time and I wanted to absorb the most in the least time..therefore only the very best..but it spilled quite beyond.....Quite early I came to know and rely on your guideposts.Basically I have used your 102 along with new ones like Juno.
Scanning your book,a copy of which is available in the reference section of our public library,I select 3,4,or5 movies I would like to see.I try not to read the review ,except maybe a para or a few sentences.I have to use subtitles even for English,because though my English is very good,I cant follow rapidly spoken speech.After seeing the film I wind up by reading your full review from your site and maybe some Wiki entries for any related curiosity.This has taken me on a fast drive through the best of cinema.
So I really need to thank you on behalf on behalf of some millions more if I may so presume.I know you may not need me to laud your service in bringing the many splendoured riches of cinema within easy access.Cinema surely has a great role to play in creating a better world....I am afraid this sounds like a speech but I actually need to say this....better films help make better people who make a better world....thanks from my family!!

You have built a highway through the first century of cinema along which anyone who is so inclined can have a comfortable and enjoyable drive......

Churchill famously said that future empires would be of the mind.......cinema reaches out to the heart,mind and soul.....to that extent you have made the world a better place.....Shakespeare too was universalised by his admirers over the centuries...to recognise and praise greatness is surely a noble thing....its no four letter word...

The world will be lost when gratitude and appreciation become four letter words....

Even after scaling peaks of worldly glory and success,you have remained a commoner....eternally a man on the street..you did not lose humility.....you dislike not being addressed by your first name......I believe that is your best quality as well as one of the secrets of your success......your encyclopaedic knowledge of film and appreciation of literature,memory,linguistic facility,ability to strike at the core and essence.....I remember your response to the peacock in Fellini's film.....come to think of it ,in praising others,we praise ourselves....

Roger:I admire your courage to face so much....as Churchill famously said ,courage is the quality which is the mother of all other qualities.....as your own Robert Frost said....miles to go ...
to quote another Robert,Burns...
Now’s the day, and now’s the hour:
See the front o’ battle lour
and a great Oriental:
"Life is the accumulation of all the moments we live. One who cannot live meaningfully today cannot hope to lead a brilliant life tomorrow. No matter what grand plans one makes, if he does not value each moment, they will be just so many castles in the air. All the causes in the past and all the effects in the future are condensed within the present moment of life. Whether or not we improve our state of life at this moment will determine whether we can expiate the evils we have caused since the infinite past and be able to build up good fortune to remain for all eternity. The key is whether or not we have faith strong enough to decide that this may be the last moment of our life. The above passage, therefore, gives us the principle for changing our karma"

I loved this paean to criticism. Thanks, Roger, you made me feel better about defending good movies from the hordes of it-wasn't-fun zombies.

I find critics to be useless unless they offer some useful advice to the creator.

Mr. Ebert,
To be brief, you do help me spend my time at the movies more meaningfully.