There will be no further discussion of Minutegate. I have now devoted 5,000 words to "Tru Loved," and read more than 114,000 words of comments. The Miami Herald even did a round-up of their critics discussing Minutegate. But all those words were focused entirely on the single issue of not watching a movie all the way through. There are many other ethical issues involved in film criticism, and with the current unemployment crisis, we should all be mindful of them.
We can't be too careful. Employers are eager to replace us with Celeb Info-Nuggets that will pimp to the mouth-breathers, who underline the words with their index fingers whilst they watch television. Any editor who thinks drugged insta-stars and the tragic Amy Winehouse are headline news ought to be editing the graffiti on playground walls. As the senior newspaper guy still hanging onto a job, I think the task of outlining enduring ethical ground rules falls upon me.
Carefully clip the Rules and fasten them to your refrigerator with a Homer magnet looking like this:
Advise the readers well. This does not involve informing them, "You'll love this!" If I approached some guy in a restaurant and told him what he would love, I might get a breadbasket in the face. No, we must tell the readers what we ourselves love or hate. If we work for employers who think we should "like more movies like ordinary people like," we should make a donation in his name to the Anti-Cruelty Society.
Provide a sense of the experience. No matter what your opinion, every review should give some idea of what the reader would experience in actually seeing the film. In other words, if it is a Pauly Shore comedy, there are people who like them, and they should be able to discover in your review if the new one is down to their usual standard.
Keep track of your praise. If you call a movie "one of the greatest movies ever made," you are honor-bound to include it in your annual Top Ten list. Likewise, for example, if you describe a film as "the most unique movie-going experience of a generation," and "one of the best films of 2007, and of the last 25 years," it's your duty to put it in the Top Ten of 2007. This is doubly true if you have published two separate lists naming 14 of the year's top 10 films.
Do the math. If one week you state, "'Mr. Untouchable' makes 'American Gangster' look like a fairy tale," and the next week you say, "American Gangster" was "Goodfellas" for "the next generation," then you must conclude that "Mr. Untouchable" is better than "Goodfellas."
Do not make challenges you are cannot to back up. For example, never say in your "Hamlet 2" review, "I challenge anyone who goes to see the movie not to sing the words to 'Rock Me, Sexy Jesus' for years to come." When Gene Siskel predicted that "Hakuna Matata" from "The Lion King" would become a national catch-phrase, he later gracefully acknowledged he was wrong, after only a little prodding from me. [Note: A reader informs me that Gene was right. I believe the jury is still out on "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus."]
Respect the reader's time. For example, in reviewing "City of Ember," a film about a city of the future buried deep beneath the surface of the earth," you must not say it "looks like it was shot on a sound stage." As Louis Armstrong said about jazz, some folks they know, and the others, you can't tell 'em.
Respect the reader's money. It is admirable that the DVD of "Cool Hand Luke" contains an extra where they guess how many eggs Paul Newman ate while filming the egg-eating scene. But in hard times like these, do not say, "Reason enough to get it!"
Beware of verbal parallelism. Never make a statement such as, "I like women in real life, but I didn't like 'The Women'." Readers may write you sharing that they loved "JFK," but they fly out of O'Hare.
Beware of category confusion. If you for example say, "When I was growing up my role models were Spike Lee and Woody Allen, but the kids in 'Role Models' are forced to seek guidance from Paul Rudd and Seann William Scott," you run the risk of seeming unable to distinguish directors from actors.
Trailers. Have nothing to do with them. Gene Siskel hated them so much he would stand outside a theater until they were over. If he was already seated in the middle of a crowded theater, he would shout "fire!" plug his ears and stare at the floor. Trailers love to spoil all the best gags in a comedy, hint at plot twists in a thriller, and make every film, however dire, look upbeat..
A trailer is not a movie. Thus, when urged to select your "picks of the week," you must never pick a trailer for an upcoming film. You must actually wait to see the film itself. [Footnote: This rule also applies to television, where as a movie critic you must never show a film's entire trailer for free. As Shakespeare writes in the saddest line in all of his plays: Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! At least that's an easy line to memorize.
Left: Me on my birthday, not posing with Ingmar Bergman and Liv Ullmann.
Be wary of freebies. The critic should ideally never accept round-trip first-class air transportation, a luxury hotel room, a limo to a screening and a buffet of chilled shrimp and cute little hamburgers in preparation for viewing a movie. If you go, your employer should pay for the trip. I understand some critics work for places that won't even pick up the cost of a movie ticket, and are so underpaid they have never tasted a chilled shrimp. Others work for themselves, an employer who is always going out of business. Yet they are ordered to produce a piece about Michael Cera's new film. I cut them some slack. Let them take the junket. They need the food. Also, I admire Michael Cera. But if they work for a place that is filthy rich, they should turn down freebies.
I admit the Freebie Rule was a hard one for me to acknowledge. In the good old days, movie critics flew more than pilots. I flew first class to Sweden, Ireland, Hawaii, Mexico, Bermuda, Iran, Colombia, Italy, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. I was virtually on the Los Angeles shuttle. I flew to England in November for the filming of "Battle of Britain," and was whisked at dawn to a rainy WWII air field near Newmarket where I was able to stand for hours and freeze my ass off while watching the filming of a scene involving a dog gazing wistfully into the sky for its master's missing airplane. If someone had given me a chilled shrimp, I would have rubbed it between my hands to warm them.
Accept no favors. For example, if some "friends" throw you a birthday party at a Vegas joint they hope to fill with movie stars who are your "friends," say thanks, but no thanks. That crosses the line, even if the "Britney Spears of Korea" truly is your close personal friend. Your only real friends come to the party you throw for yourself in the activities room of your condo building, and they bring their own booze. [Note: If the Britney Spears of Korea is the real thing, Britney Spears should be known in Korea as the BoA Kwan of America.]
No commercial endorsements. This used to be a given in journalism ethics. A critic must be especially vigilant. If you express approval of a product, you must sincerely believe what you are saying. How will we know you're sincere? Because you have (1) accepted no money, (2) or donated the money to a charity, and (3) have not accepted a free example of the product, except in such cases as foodstuffs, where the difficulties are apparent. You gotta eat 'em to review 'em. The Sun-Times has a policy: All Christmas gifts must be returned, except for perishables like papayas, etc. Candy is not a perishable. Neither, to the incredulity of many reporters, is liquor. Back to endorsements. Were I to recommend, say, a rice cooker, that must not imply I obtained it for free, or that 100 lb. sacks of rice were being dropped at my door. I mention this because I may be compelled to recommend a rice cooker in the very near future, in defense of my Who's Who entry, which claims I can cook almost anything in a rice cooker.
Be prudent with free DVDs. Of course movie critics get tons of free DVDs, just as book critics get books, etc. You may review those you want, even going so far as to pay for those you don't get for free. Recently I ordered the complete Werner Herzog documentaries from Germany, for example. Herzog would no doubt have been happy to supply them, but I would have felt like a creep for asking. If I admire him so much, I should be willing to buy them. Your unwanted DVDs must never be sold, unless you are a starving critic, in which case you are exempted under the La Boheme amendment. Technically, you should put a scissors to them before discarding, but I don't think the FBI will come after me if I give some to our grandchildren, or donate them to a veteran's hospital.
No advertisements. Gene Siskel, who I frequently quote as a fierce paragon of high standards, used to quote what someone, maybe it was David Mamet, told him: "As a critic, everything you say depends on your credibility. When you sell that, somebody else owns it." Gene and I (regretfully) turned down offers in the extremely low seven figures from a fast food chain and an airline. "After we retire, then it would be okay," we speculated. Even then, maybe not. Look at Fred Astaire. How many people thought they were paying him for their dance lessons? They look at "Swing Time" on TCM, and say, "There's that bastard who overcharged me for the mambo."
Be prepared to give a negative review. If you give one to the work of a friend, and they're not your friend any more, they weren't ever your friend. As Robert Altman once told me, "If you never gave me a bad review, what would a good review mean?" He was a great man. He thought over what he had said, and added: "But all your bad reviews of my films have been wrong."
Never review a film you have anything to do with. No, not even if you have a bit part or a walk-on. You were not chosen for your unique skills at bit parts and walk-ons. Why were you chosen? Figure it out. Full disclosure: I once dreamed that after I retired I would be in big demand for speaking roles. But wouldn't you just know? I lost my voice. Life has a way of keeping you honest.
Left: The delighted Clint Eastwood.
No posing for photos! Never ask a movie star to pose with you for a picture. No movie star ever wants to do this. They may smile, but they're gritting their teeth. "It is the Chinese Water Torture," Clint Eastwood told me. "And 99 times out of a hundred, the stranger they hand their camera to looks through the lens, pushes the button, and says 'It isn't working!' and then the fan has to walk over to the guy and demonstrate the camera and say, 'now try it'. And then it isn't working again. Looking at someone looking puzzled at a camera, that's the story of my life."
In this connection, as Emily Dickinson observes:
How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog
Remember, you are a professional. You are not a friend. You diminish yourself by asking for a snapshot. I so firmly believe this, I have a sad lack of movie star photos co-starring me. For example, the University of Chicago Press asked me if I had photos of myself with Martin Scorsese to help promote my new book Scorsese by Ebert. [Note: Plugging your own book is ethical.] I have been in Scorsese's company in Cannes, New York, Chicago, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Toronto and Columbus, Ohio. But I had only one photo of us together, from the time when he was a guest co-host on "Siskel & Ebert." That sort of situation is okay. By posing, I was just being nice to the guy. I couldn't use the photo. We were both wearing TV makeup and looked like an exhibit at Madame Tussaud's. I once visited a set of an Ingmar Bergman film, and Bergman and Liv Ullmann signed a photo to me when they heard it was my birthday, but I didn't ask them to pose with me. Damn it.
On the other hand, treasure real photos of you really with a movie star. Photos taken at a real event by a real other person unknown to you who didn't ask anyone if he could take it. My favorite such photo shows Jason Patric and me assisting Peter O'Toole as he makes his way from a reception at the Savannah Film Festival. I have appended this to the left as a sample of a permissible star photo. Such a photo can be distinguished from the other kind because they represent abstinence applied to star-f***ing.
No autographs! If for example, you are at a press event and interviewing a star, the stars are old hands at this and will think of you as a species of bottom-feeder if you ask them for an autograph. Your fellow professionals will try to pretend they are in another room, and gossip scornfully about you in the buffet line. It is bad enough they have to make a meal out of more of this god-damned shrimp without their being being associated with you. Either you are moronic enough to desire an autograph after having had the opportunity of speaking with the star in person, or you hope to sell it on eBay. It is doubly reprehensible if a star asks you for your name, and you reply, "Just your signature will be terrific!"
Sit down, shut up, and pay attention. No cellphone use. No texting during the movie. No talking out loud. No sucking up the last Coke out of the Kidney-Buster. It is permitted to laugh, or to scream when a movie scares the crap out of you. It's okay to join in the general chuckle after the It's only a cat! moment is over. There was a special amendment forgiving Pauline Kael for saying "Oh! Oh! Oh!" in astonishment. We eagerly awaited her "ohs!" and took care to note when she uttered them. It is acceptable, but rarely, to join in a general audience uproar, as at the first Cannes press screening of "The Brown Bunny." Even then, no cupping your hand under your armpit and producing fart noises.
Any rule book that mandates no armpit farts on the job is far too draconian. C'mon, Roger, throw us a bone. Can we do that if we're very good at avoiding cheesy verbal parallelism?
Loved the Altman and Eastwood anecdotes.
Hey, where's the O'Toole/Patric/Ebert photo? I don't see it here.
Ebert: All art is on the way.
Mr. Ebert,
Brilliant work (as usual)! As a (hopeful) someday critic (and/or Director would be nice as well), it provides me a succinct set of rules upon which I can base my own criticism. (Now about the problem of finding time to write...; Maybe I'm opening up a can of worms in posting the link to my blog here...). Not to put it in a bad light, but your statement of tenets on the "Rules for a critic" reminds me of the "Declaration of Principles" that Charles Foster Kane puts on the front page of the Inquirer the day he takes over. But, unlike him, I doubt you'll go on to break them ;)
Also, your set of rules regarding theater-etiquette is good advice for the moviegoing public as well. All too often I see/hear people texting, or talking to each other during the film. Granted that could be leveled as a criticism to the film, but even if I don't like it, I at least respect the $8.50 I paid to see it! In all seriousness, to me, seeing a film in a theater is somewhat of a religious experience. When I go to see a film, any film I'm looking forward to seeing, the first time I don't even bring any friends. I want the experience to be between myself and the film as much as I can.
But anyway, I'm ranting. Thanks again, and keep up the good work.
God Bless
P.S. Dugg for "Minutegate" and "Plugging your own book..."
Ebert: Great minds, etc. The still of Kane admiring his Principles is circling to land and will be displayed beside the first grafs.
And, of course, don't trust IMDB for your movie facts ;).
As a student, I've worked to teach myself criticism by trying to write a critical analysis of every film that I actually have the time to watch; my eventual goal in this project was to help understand the more subconscious reasons I liked or disliked a film, along with working to strengthen my own writing. The only books I've ever read to help me in the process are your "Great Movies" books and I strongly feel that I've learned more by simply reading your reviews than any formal class could teach me. Thank you for sharing this insight into some of the guidelines that govern your writing; I can't wait to see what else you share.
Also, which Bergman film did you get to visit the set of? My green eye is curious!
What a great riff. So many funny bits in there. And for whatever reason, the recurring chilled shrimp had me laughing out loud.
This sounds like a lot of really good advice. Thank you for writing it.
Carolyn Bruge: True, but it might be better to say, "don't trust a single source for movie facts, IMDb least of all." There's a reason for the old joke that if your mother tells you she loves you, you check it out.
"Advise the readers well" and "Provide a sense of the experience" are why I've always found your reviews so useful. Regardless of whether you love or hate a movie, I can usually predict how I'll react to it from your review.
It's too bad you avoid the trailers, however, because I'd love to hear what you have to say about interpreting promotional materials. I'm aware of the "tiny little boxes with pictures of the stars" rule for posters, but are there any dead giveaways for trailers? Other than Pauly Shore, that is?
Mr. Ebert,
You're forgetting another important rule...Don't fall in love.
Or is that for another group of professionals?
Mr. Ebert,
What is your ethical rule for spoilers or even discussion of the plot in movie reviews? I find your thoughts to be elucidating for films that I've already watched, but I have to admit that the most I usually look at before seeing a film is the number of stars and the brief statement on your homepage. It would be impossible to write a meaningful analysis of a movie without disclosing a significant amount of the plot, but at the same time I want to have something left to figure out for myself. What's your general rule?
Eb ert: See abve. Or below, I forget.
-Sam
This is the best blog entry of all time. There has never been a greater blog entry than this.
I guess I would add one more:
"Know the audience you're seeing the movie with on opening night."
I saw a couple of the latter day "Star Wars" movies opening night with friends. They waited in line for days; I came at a reasonable hour as they held my ticket in line. The audiences at such movies will scream, hell, hoot and holler during the TRAILERS and whenever key characters first appear on screen, or whenever anything "cool" happens (which is usually every seven seconds). This makes the experience nearly inaudible.
At "The Dark Knight" opening night at the Cinerama in downtown Seattle, there was so much cheer and noise during the Warner Bros. logo on screen, my friend finally yelled, "The next person who talks is going to die. I'm serious. If you keep talking, I am going to kill you, and you won't get to see this awesome movie which I saw an earlier screening of today, and therefore I am cooler than you."
(The above actually happened).
Keep in mind the audience rule applies to all genres, like the "Sex and the City" experience for the male counterpart, or the parent seeing "High School Musical 3."
Do your research, damnit.
It's amazing what a culture of endless commentary we live in. Whenever someone sends something out into the blogosphere it gets pounced on and torn to shreds by anyone with an opinion and fingers to tap away on the keyboard. It's a shame people seem to take these things *far* too seriously.
You delivered an entertaining and honest critique (both of the first 8 minutes and the eternity of minutes that followed), so those who challenge your integrity have got it all wrong, as far as I'm concerned.
And I'm not going along with the 'don't attack indie movies, they need our support' defence. A poor film is a poor film, regardless of the budget. I remember reading your review of 'Bang,' and, on your recommendation, made an effort to see it. And what a great film it is. I didn't notice the tiny budget, and I didn't really expect to. A small budget is no excuse for lack of cinematographic, editorial and storytelling talent and imagination. If anything, it forces the filmmakers to think outside the box and solve problems creatively. Welles' improv with the bathhouse scene in Chimes at Midnight is a case in point.
P.S. By the way, I am aware of the irony of posting an attack on commentary in the 'Comments' section of a blog, so no need to point that out!
I'd like to third that IMDB comment for critics. TAKE NOTES DURING THE MOVIE. It's a pain in the ass, but some homework is required. You don't want to get a minor character/actor wrong because his/her picture on IMDB is blurry and out of focus. Yeah...it happens.
Oh, and good call with the photo thing. That should go for all celebrities. I cringe every time I look at the photos I made a bunch of boxers take with me last time I was in Vegas. We all look like unhappy grimacing muppets.
Hi Roger,
In the above photo, I wonder who the person with Clint is ? How do you think that person will take this, when it is posted besides a line like "It is the Chinese Water Torture - Clint Eastwood told me."
Vijay
Ebert: I found it in a publicly-posted website that I think wanted it to be picked up. At least the fan looks happy. I could have used this: http://www.americanbagpipes.com/images/gallery/old/store_Lars%20and%20Clint%20Eastwood.jpg
Excellent article. As a freelance reviewer for the animation fansite Toon Zone, I would also suggest adding, "Be aware of your readership." Obviously, the expected readership demographics for critical analysis given nation-wide availability would level the playing field, much like writing for the Chicago Sun-Times undoubtedly provides. But as for me, on an animation website, I can expect the bulk of my readership to be animation fans. Thusly, when I write my reviews, I need not spend any time in the text convincing the audience to be interested in something animated beyond what appeal animation has for children, since nobody reading my review at Toon Zone would be likely to need such extraneous encouragement.
That's just one tiny example. Still, as there are so many specialized media outlets with opportunities for reviews in both new media and old, I think it's a worthwhile thing to remember. You don't need to PANDER to your audience, but neither should any self-respecting writer or reviewer forget them.
This would probably suit your last blog better, but this one may get your attention faster because it's recent: I am more thankful than ever that you have taken to being even more prolific a writer. Your site was once the last on my list of six or seven checks throughout the day, but it has ascended the rankings to where I am disappointed if there's nothing new posted every other day.
Your last blog managed to speak to me in a way nothing else saying generally the same thing has. I'm now more motivated than ever to compose songs that have been on my mind for years, and finally make some changes for the better in my life. Lyrics and poems have increased exponentially for me in just a week's time.
At first, I disagreed with your notion of inspiration, but after having thrown myself back into writings I had shelved long ago, I find it to be absolutely true. It's a lot harder to write that way of course, but everything gets refined, more satisfying, and I've realized I can actually FINISH these things and they can be...rather good.
What all this boils down to is a convoluted "thank you", Mr. Ebert. Having read many comments on many of your entries, I know you get that and various other praise a lot, but I hope that each bit means something to you in a slightly different but equally resonant way.
Great list. How many of them have you personally broken?
Ebert: It's been a long, strange trip.
This if off-topic, but it appears that posting it here guarantees you'll read it...
Why no reviews of High School Musical 3 or Saw V? I know, I know, the Saw movies haven't been screened for critics since the first one (despite that one getting somewhat positive reviews), and I guess the third High School Musical film was screened late or something along those lines - but still... these are two of the biggest box office hits of the early fall months. I know that doesn't mean anything - but indiscriminating moviegoers may wander in to these films having been deprived of condemnation (or praise?) from you. These aren't fairly obscure flops like Igor, An American Carol, or Bangkok Dangerous. In fact, I think a lot of people who visit your website would be curious to see what you'll make of one of the Saw sequels.
Hakuna matata IS a national catchphrase. Ain't no passing phase. It means 'no worries.' (I'd go on, but I think I've made my point.)
Ebert: "Will" is the name of Gene and Marlene's son. You included no email or other ID. I wonder if...naw...couldn't be...just a coincidence. "Passing phrase." That's a nice little pun. I think you've made your point.
I enjoyed your little rule book, Roger, but I was surprised at your intense dislike of trailers. I'll grant you that there are some that tell the movie's only semi-decent jokes or give away plot twists, but there are others that have made me excited to see movies I was only half-aware of, and some that are classics themselves (Hitchcock's tour through the Psycho set comes to mind).
A trailer is an advertisement for a movie, and like all advertisements, its job is to sell. Some sell better than others, but a good trailer, like a good advertisement, can genuinely be a work of art. I don't think they should all get such a sweeping condemnation.
Thank you for all you've given me with your work, and please accept my best wishes for your future adventures.
An interesting post. Do you have any rules of thumb about writing spoilers? I ask because sometimes it is hard to tell where to draw the line.
Also, do you have any rules about writing notes during a viewing?
Ebert: What I sometimes try to do is, refer to an event in a movie in a way that means one thing if you've seen it but another thing, although making sense, if you haven't. For example (spoiler!) this line from my "Zack and Miri" review: "This does not happen easily, and is accompanied by a flood of scatological humor." Rules about writing during movie: Do so, but not with an illuminated pen!
Wow, I'm surprised at the hatred you and Gene shared for trailers. I can understand disliking BAD ones (of which there are many), but for me, the good ones are an open invitation to experience a film I might have otherwise never considered. This is especially valuable for foreign and indy pictures. I've certainly discovered more than a few great movies this way. I also love (good) trailers on videos, DVDs, etc. for the same reason. Of course, before you get the wrong idea, I obviously don't think trailers are the ONLY way to discover new films. That, of course, would be a preposterous notion. But I don't think they should be written off either.
Though I agree with the photo rule, I dread hearing it from you. If I ever got to meet you in person, could I still ask for a picture?
Ebert: If I did it for Scorsese, I'd do it for you.
At the filming of "Battle of Britain," didn't you mean that if someone had given you a chilled shrimp, "I would have rubbed it between my hands to warm them"? Now, that's hors d'œuvre irony.
Ebert: This is such a wonderful line that I must respect genius. I will go back to my entry and improve it with a homage to your post. Consider this a footnote of acknowledgement.
I might be correct here or I might be way off base, but I'm going to go for it:
Of course you are too classy a guy Roger to personally slander any of your fellow colleagues by pulling a Kazan, but the truth remains that there is one "critic" sitting in a seat on television that does not belong to him. [Name Withheld] breaks the rule of posing with celebrities to the extent that he should be sent to the gallows. Who is he anyway, some critic rock star? He seems to be after fame and glory, not any altruistic motive of enlightening the moviegoer. In fact [Name Withheld] seems to refuse to present an articulate dialogue about film. Instead he throws around terms like "surly to be nominated for an Oscar" as if to try and force us to go see a movie based on the fact that it might win a little naked gold man. Ah, so many broken rules (especially verbal parallelism and do the math) on a show that set the rules and raised the bar for sophisticated conversation of film. Just sad and depressing...I think I'll go watch Cries and Whispers to cheer myself up.
I'm glad you came clean about this, Roger, and at the same time, I must confess that the review I wrote of "Rocky" in 1978 (late to the party) for my high school newspaper was done without benefit of seeing the film, and I must publicly apologize to Sly and John G. Avildsen.
Ebert: Reviewed a movie three years late, and still didn't have time to see it? Gotta admit you have nerve. Today in Detention Class, I want you to give me 500 words on "Last Year at Marienbad," but only if you haven't seen it.
A lot of us mouth-breathers do so because of our asthma, emphysema, or other respiratory problems.
Ebert: I haven't breathed through my nose or smelled anything in two years. Tracheotomy. But I doubt many of us do it because we're reading. :)
"Remember, you are a professional. You are not a friend."
David Maister states that professionalism is, "...believing passionately in what you do, never compromising your standards and values, and caring about your clients, your people, and your own career"
Everybody needs to have a holy cow,and "profession" seems to fill this gap quite well for many of us ......in your case your professional engagement has brought so called self actualisation in the intellectual,aesthetic(muse of letters)and social sense .....(I am encouraged by your advice in the previous post where you said with apt paradoxicality what one writes is right because that's what one writes)....I at four years behind you have less to boast by way of achievements,which I am sure a guy like you will agree is not too consequential ,but perhaps more fortunate for that very reason,being less endangerd by complacency and satisfaction for like the character in Ikiru the garden is what one builds today,not yesterday....
Life begins at sixty....
The problem with trailers is that for some reason they often include too much from the movie. I actually enjoy watching trailers (I often watch them online during my lunch break), but too often they reveal the whole plot of a movie in 30 seconds.
It is frustrating though to go to a movie, pay 8 bucks and then have to sit through 10 minutes of commercials before the main event.
Yesterday I was fortunate to view Floating Weeds for the first time----your voice commentary is on one of the two tracks---heard some snatches of your voice("obviously not an experienced kisser")...my son said you sounded different from what he expected......I'm looking forward to hearing your complete "lecture".....your calm,detached,humourous and scholarly relishing was most easy on the ear,heart and mind.....it was quite a mellifluid voice which you lost,sir,one as smooth and comforting as the serenity of Ozu's art...
Thanks for the rules, their clarity and their humor. After reading them I came to realize, in a more concrete way, why I enjoy your reviews beyond the simple "I just like how he writes." Your adherence to these guidelines define you as a critic and makes me respect your craft. It's not necessary that I agree with every review you write, but that I understand where you are coming from and what you see.
Roger,
Now about posing photos. Could you tell us something about this photo? I am going to guess that this guy is not a friend of yours.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3209862400/nm0001170
Ebert: Fran Drescher. Don't remember it being taken. Sometimes you get a social situation where there is a photog and you smile and go along. I'm pretty sure neither she nor I requested this, but simple courtesy is better than being a jerk. In this case, she would have being nicer than I was, because more people want her photo by herself than my photo by myself, if you see what I mean. That should be another rule: Don't be a jerk,
It is true that trailers always spoil, but that makes it all the tastier when a trailer manages not to--like Primer, which doesn't say a darn thing about the plot, but nicely captures the theme, or Serenity, which was chock-full of spoilers... for the first twenty minutes of the movie, revealing nothing about the main plot. When I'm cranky about a spoileriffic trailer, there's nothing I like better than to be proven wrong.
Mr. Ebert
I'm curious: how do you choose which movies to see, if you don't watch trailers? When I read your reviews, I get a sense of knowledge, as you've probably done your research about the director, dir. of photography, musical score or actors. Once I bought an iTouch, I downloaded trailers of upcoming movies, so I can see what's coming out and keep up with the industry.
I work at BlockBuster and although I get the benefit of previewing a lot of movies to give opinions to customers, I love the cinema. I go alone mostly, but I do have a friend from work (the only other employee I've met with good taste in movies, including the company itself) and we try to see a movie a week together and talk about it. I think we're the only two people in our district who know enough about movies to help customers with their rentals and purchases. I've worked at other stores and their cust. have been so overly gratified that I could answer their question about a movie, that I have to assume their staff is just a bunch of kids working a part-time job. A lot of them don't even watch the movies - I've asked them.
What do you look for when going to see a movie? Do you hear from friends, do you see posters with one-liners? I'm sure a lot of us read your reviews before or after seeing a movie, but then you're giving us an objective view of the experience and not trying to boost box-office sales. Do you ever see a movie after reading another critics review?
On a side note: I'm reading your latest book AWAKE IN THE DARK and I too love films about people who try to do the right thing. They give me hope that goodness still exists and hopefully people learn from them. Three of my fav. films with that parallel theme are:
ON THE WATERFRONT
"REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE"
SERPICO
Ebert: I am in the lucky (or unlucky) position of not needimg to choose. If it's opening Friday, I'm likely to be revewing it.
Siskel stood outside the theater until the trailers were over? Genius! Trailers are so awful they almost without exception make me decide to hate the movies they are trying to promote.
Mr. Ebert,
Thank you for continuing to keep serious art criticism alive. In a time when the media tries to convince us that entertainment news reporters and TV personalities are critics, these rules are refreshing.
You should pull a Martin Luther and go nail these on Disney/Buena Vista's door.
Poor Mr. Eastwood. The cruelty is so predictable.
Roger the rule I like best is "Respect the reader's money" It seems as if every year your DVD goes out of date and it must be upgraded for the new fancier edition with one extra minute of footage. It's bad enough they release two editions of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull with one costing five extra dollars for special features we would have gotten included before five years ago
I would also add:
Keep it simple – Talk to you reader like you’re talking to another person. Don’t try to display your intelligence with a flood of big words. This is the bane of my existence when it comes to film critics.
You know that scene in “Born Yesterday” where Judy Holliday is reading the newspaper and she keeps consulting the dictionary for the words she doesn’t understand? There are critics who make me feel that way, they intellectualize and use so many over-inflated words that I can’t make head or tail of their review. I like your reviews because you keep them conversational. I never feel like you’re using words that you wouldn’t use if you where just standing at the watercooler telling me about the movie.
As a fellow film critic, I have only one rule, but I follow it religiously (except on Sundays): Never kiss a film director on the mouth.
EXCELLENT advice. I'll pass it along to all my "unofficial critic" movie site buddies (although they've probably already seen this).
Vic
Good read.
I think this is the film post of the year.
What is your policy on autographs? Are they as annoying as photos?
Back in college, I went to a taping of your Oscar show "If We Picked the Winners" at the Disney / MGM studios (I think it was the GOODFELLAS year) and both you and Gene were very nice to hang around afterwards to talk and sign autographs. I still have a framed copy of the brochure you both signed.
Did I break some sort of rule there?
Roger,
/"...Even then, no cupping your hand under your armpit and producing fart noises."/
Wow.
You just described my honeymoon!
Well played sir..
Roger, I so enjoy reading your reviews and blog entries. Even when I do not agree with one of your reviews, it is still an interesting and entertaining read.
This particular entry needs to be forwarded to Earl Dittman, ASAP.
Mr. E:
Have you ever had a movie that you "got" after writing a negative review? Or, conversely, have you discovered that a movie that you gave artistic credence to actually was tripe upon a further watching?
I have had a few gut feelings seeing a movie that I despised, yet I find myself watching it multiple times when it finally devolves to television.
Also, I love the fact that you are mixing it up. Anytime I feel blue, I watch some youtube clips of you and Gene going at it. Precious moments. I wish you would release a video of the interactions between the two of you, maybe even a documentary. I hope that you realize that for a mid 30s guy, Siskel and Ebert were as omnipresent in my house as Big Bird, GI Joe, and Mr. T.
Be well.
I don't have a fridge magnet like that. Oh god I've failed you.
I just finished reading your Scorcese book, and it was wonderful. I enjoyed your insights into his movies, and have just ordered two different Scorcese box sets to catch up on some of his films that I have not seen.
Ebert: Now that's the spirit! "You've read the book--now see the movie!"
Do book reviewers agree with your prohibition against the sale of review copies?
Sven Birkerts (in, I believe, The Gutenberg Elegies) talks quite openly about selling review copies to a used bookstore, without any apology or sign that the reader might think this unusual. And Updike famously sold old review copies -- many of them marked up with notes for his reviews -- to a local bookseller; I seem to recall they've formed the basis for a study of Updike's criticism.
That said, one of my proudest moments as a publisher (of hypertext fiction, at Eastgate) was the day The New Yorker first called to request review copies of some of our titles. I happened to take the call myself, and was surprised and impressed when The New Yorker insisted on paying for the titles.
City of Ember "looks like it was shot on a soundstage": I would think that this is a valid point to make, given that there are movies that are shot on soundstages but do not look it. Couldn't this be an aesthetic issue relating to a film's technique?
Ebert: Gee, you're right. "Journey to the Center of the Earth" looked like it was shot on location.
Regarding autographs:
I liked autographs back in the days when people wanted them for the right reason. Nowadays I feel like they are nothing more than just food for E-Bay, that people are getting them to wait until the celebrity kicks off so the price can go up. I think if Ringo Starr had fessed up with this kind of reasoning then his decision to stop giving autographs would have sounded a little more reasonable.
Regarding trailers:
If I had my way, I would chuck all trailers from theaters and give the audience a series of short films in their place.
Regarding paying attention:
The keyword here is “paying”. I simply cannot understand the logic of a person who sits in a dark theater playing with an electronic gadget while attending something that costs them ten bucks a head. For me, cell phone use has replaced loud talking as the most irritating of all moviegoing annoyances.
P.S: I would give that title to the incident in which a woman down the row from me changed her baby’s diaper during the movie but, by the grace of God, that only happened once.
Regarding negative reviews:
I have heard people tell me that they only read Ebert’s bad reviews. There’s an upside and a downside to that. The upside is that they are often funny and provide a public service. The downside is that if you read too many at one time you begin to lose your faith in humanity.
I must also add something that gnaws at me: I think the most irritating phrase in the English language regarding an upcoming movie is “Oh that’s suppose to be good!”. Technically, ALL movies are supposed to be good, some just slip through the cracks.
I've always found that there are two types of movie critics:
1) Those who are self-involved intellectuals who toe, or pole vault over, the line of talking down to their readers/viewers so they can make a point which could get lost.
2) Those who don't review the darn film.
I like the first critics - at least they do their jobs. The second could get a STD from starf**king...and host entertainment "news."
Excellent post Roger! You must have been reading my blog: http://stopbenlyons.blogspot.com/
Ok, probably not. But it is good to see you smack-down.
It is a shame when somebody passes for a "film critic" when they are really just a Hollywood shmoozer. Unfortunately, your old employers don't seem to know the difference.
Keep up the good work!
Scott
What a brilliant essay. And a manifesto for good writing everywhere. Even though my blog has nothing to do with movies, I'm going to adopt your rules to guide my writing. (Can I tape a copy onto my wrist with Homer Simpson bandaids?)
As I always say, "Everything I learned in life, I learned from Roger Ebert's movie reviews."
Interesting advice, Roger. I've recently started writing music reviews for my school newspaper and most of the rules stated above actually adapt reasonably well to other areas. Obviously I don't have to worry about cell phone use or fart noises, but the idea of being fearless in your writing is an admirable quality.
(Per Jim's comment above...) Let's not forget NO ASKING (AT OFFICIAL PRESS EVENTS) FOR AUTOGRAPHS. It never ceases to amaze us how many times so-called journalists do this: sign my DVD, sign my poster, sign my whatever... Press events are neither the time nor the place to color your professional capabilities with a run-of-the-mill context of gaga fan.
Roger,
Allow me, a non-professional critic, to offer several additional Rules of Criticism, based on things that I hate to see in reviews:
Never describe the opening shot of the movie. The first thing the audience sees should be a surprise.
Never describe the closing shot of the movie. I don't want to know that the movie is over until it's over.
Never say that a performance or a scene "isn't dramatically shaped." The reader doesn't know what the critic is talking about, and neither does the critic.
Never treat a movie, good or bad, as a platform for your stand-up comedy routine. (Anthony Lane, are you listening?)
Thanks for allowing me to vent.
Hello Roger,
I was just wondering when your 10 Best Lists: 1967-present page was going to be updated. It ends at 2005:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041215/COMMENTARY/41215001/1023
Hope you are doing well,
Rob
Hi Mr. Ebert!
Don't worry about your job, you have built a loyal fan base over the years. Those Celeb Info Nugget reviews are like one night stands. We keep coming back to you though. Actually I really lost interest in movies for a while while you were sick. I didn't realize how much I depend on you to guide me through the minefield of lousy films. Glad your back in action though, you've really changed my perspective on film over the years.
Funny thing, there's a bar in NYC called Milk & Honey. You can't get in without a reservation, reservations can only be made by phone and they only hand out the phone number if you have a reservation. They have a list of rules such as no swearing, no loud talking, ect. One of those rules is no star ****ing! I had to look that one up! But after I found out what it was I found that rules can be rewarding. (It's a friendly, lovely little bar by the way.)
Should there be a rule on self-effacing rules? On disobeying ironic rules?
In light of your response, I propose: "Approach every gaffe with humor, humility, grace, and regret. They're the only defense against comments that only take 8 minutes to write."
http://www.simpsonsseason.com/the_simpsons_magnets_-_simpson_magnets.htm
I saw the actor, Jason Lee, waiting in the "marriage license pick-up" line with a woman who I later learned was his girlfriend, at the Registrar-Recorders office in Norwalk, while I was waiting in line to get my birth certificate. I couldn't believe it was him, so I felt compelled to take a picture of him with my cell phone camera. Of course, he saw me and wagged his finger at me. I could tell I had annoyed him. What he was doing there was none of my business and I had no right to just take a picture of him. It was a very crappy picture anyway, not even worth causing the poor guy the annoyance, not that taking a good picture would have been any more justifiable. I felt really bad for what I had done. I still do. I wish I had acted differently...
Roger,
I agree with your view on trailers. One thing I've noticed is that American Film trailers give away the plot and every joke/gag, where foreign films, you see these great visuals, but still have no idea.
Since I'm on trailers, I hate that I can tell what demographic someone thinks I am by the collection of trailers. The trailers before Juno were so horrible, all of them cliche's. I think it factored heavily into me not really liking Juno. The 5 back to back trailers of "brainless chickflicks with heart comedies" had me so annoyed, that Juno's "really clever" dialogue never had a chance.
So I guess I'm saying trailers can also ruin movies that aren't for the movie their promoting.
I love trailers, especially for movies that I have been waiting for, such as the latest, and delayed, Harry Potter. However, I have noticed that while trailers are very careful about spoiling the details of a drama or thriller, they have no qualms whatsoever about giving away all of the best jokes in a comedy. That really irks me, since I believe that a good joke should be as much of a surprise as who "dun" it.
I love your blog and miss seeing you on television. Thank you.
Just curious... how many of your rules have you broken yourself over the years? I'd guess, if you're like most of us, that you came to these judgments by trial and error (emphasis on the latter).In looking at some of your earlier reviews, circa the late '60s, I get to see some early failings of yours (most notably a predeliction for spoilers) that you managed to eventually overcome, as well as some others (particularly your long-standing bias against television as source material) that you maintain with vigilance. You do a better job than most in declaring your prejudices up front, which is refreshing, if no less annoying. I'll note here in passing that your rule against trailers would have caused you and Gene to miss Alfred Hitchcock's wonderful trailers for PSYCHO and THE BIRDS... but then, since these were crafted by Hitchcock's TV writer, James Allardice, perhaps you would have dismissed them as "just television." Or not... By the way, I hope someone tipped you on the wording of your sixth rule. Submitted with respect (honest).
Great blog entry. I agree with the trailers. I sometimes close my eyes and put my hands to my ears when the trailers come. One that pops into my mind in recent years as a really annoying one is Spiderman 3 where I felt I had already seen the first hour of it. Trailers can also be misrepresenting the movie. I found a lot more depth and seriousness in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" then the trailer suggested. Seemed to me that they just market it like your average comedy flick but it had much more to offer.
Here's something you might find interesting. I often find myself seeing your frontpage just to see what movies you have recently reviewed but some of the reviews I don't want to read before I have seen the movie. I can't quite explain my reasoning because I don't do it everytime. It just has to do with me sometimes wanting to know as little about the movie as possible so Im seeing it with a clear head. Then I take pleasure in reading your review after to get some thoughts from a critic I respect and perhaps expanding my thoughts on what I have just seen.
Regards from Denmark.
Well I suppose this article gives us your opinion that you do not much care for the reviewing style of the new at the movies hosts, but I agree with as I am sure do others.
This was just the thing I needed to read as a diversion from my mild case of writer's block over my own review of ZACK AND MIRI. Thanks!
However, now I have "Hakuna Matata" playing over and over on the jukebox of my mind...
Here is hope that video game reviewers abide by the same standard that you have laid out for the movie press.
Did you really write "Do not make challenges you are cannot to back up"? Sounds like you're caught between two ways to word it.
Very valid rules for a critic, but if I may suggest someone come up with some rules for those appearing on news channels. They are currently ruleless and frustrating. Somewhere along the lines news anchors began thinking we wanted their opinion. Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, they don't give us the the news they give us their thoughts on the news. I am an upright walking primate and can form my own opinions on world events, when I am supplied with adequate information. Walter Cronkite gave us more information in one half hour than the news talkers from every 24 hour news network do in a day. Oh my God I can't take it any more. I applaud your critics rules, but who will tell somebody what to do with a Joe the Plumber?
Wasn't it Pauline Kael who said "Movies are rarely great art, so we must learn to appreciate making great armpit noises during the bad ones"?
Well this blog led me down a trail of anger. I figured that it had to have been caused by something specific. I didn't figure it out till I went to cinematical (thanks again for recommending the site to me) and saw their comment on the entry, which contained further interesting links.
We have the same type of people in the world of music critics. I'm still developing as one, and this adds to my growing understanding of what it takes to write quality reviews.
This is an excellent summary of what should be a critic's ethical code, but I can't help noticing that quite a few entries are relevant only to immensely successful professionals (Free first-class trips? With today's oil prices? I wouldn't be surprised if low-fare airlines charge the pilots for their own tickets).
Because this was so enjoyable, I look forward to the alternative ethical troubles of the empoverished freelance critic who is lucky enough to have his or her employer pay for the movie ticket in the first place :)
Dammit, Roger! If I'm not weeping openly and/or brokenly in my cubicle, I'm laughing my ass off.
My coworkers think I'm insane.
Good blog. I plan to cross-stitch the rules and hang them in my kitchen.
An excellent list.
I would add: Never appear as yourself in a movie.
THANK YOU. ROGER . . .
. . . . FINALLY someone of stature has said "The Emperor Has No Clothes"
I would respectfully add / suggest a rule [ with special reference to ON-LINE "critics"]
NEVER MAKE COMMENTS ON THE PHOTOGRAPHY OF A FILM IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN A THEATRE . . . . PREFERABLY A GOOD THEATRE. . . a VERY GOOD THEATRE
The flow of under-informed comments from on-line "critics" who obviously
don't see films in theatres or even in GOOD home theatres is appalling
The opinion of some guy watching a movie on his 42 inch HD plasma
is a waste of our time. . . . . and dangerously misleading.
And don't get me started on the legion of on-line "critics" who seem
to be GRAIN HATERS.
REAL FILMS HAVE GRAIN . . . . DEAL WITH IT
Thanks again for calling out The Naked Emperor.
How about the import of candy-purchased-elsewhere into a movie theater? . My personal policy (for regular movie attending) is that this is OK as long as it doesn't make particularly loud eating and I have to admit to doing it all the time (more lately due to the financial situation the world is in).
The moment I saw the Clint Eastwood picture all I could think about is Stephen Colbert with his black friend...
http://www.wikiality.com/Image:ColbertAlan.png
Question #1: While waiting outside during the trailers, how did Siskel then make it back into the theater without missing one second of the actual film? Ahh, yes. Handlers/assistants/lookouts.
Question #2: How often have you had to attend a second screening to verify points you wanted to make in your review? Photographic memory? Unfettered access to the film under review?
In my very minor attempts to write about films, I found it very difficult to take good notes and keep my eyes on the screen simultaneously, which forced me to go back to rewatch scenes, especially when I wanted to quote memorable dialogue. Handlers once again?
Ebert: Handlers? Assistants? Lookouts? You've only scratched the surface. What about the bodyguards, drivers, barbers, masseurs, publicists, manicurists, nutritionists, New Age advisers and ghost writers? When we'd walk into screenings, there was so much bling, the reflections from people's cell phone screens danced on the ceiling.
Thanks for that! I really enjoyed this topic, especially because, whether you're aware or not, the rules can be applied to other lines of work as well. I can't tell you how strongly the "Be prepared to give a negative review" point hits anyone with management responsibilities!
But I can't help but think... This had best not be some effort at making your impression on your field (as if it hadn't already) as you start to pull away from it! Employers might be eager to replace you and your ilk, but you could never be replaced, or even adequately imitated, in the minds of the non-mouth-breathers around (that's redundant, isn't it). I know I'm looking forward to your work for years to come!
One rule that I have to follow as a college student: don't read other reviews before going to see a movie you want to review. I can't count how many times I've tried to critique something, only to realize that I've read the review as part of my routine every Friday.
The still from Citizen Kane is apt for the trailer reason, too. I still think its theatrical trailer is one of the best ever created. Not one frame from the film itself - just what appears to be camera tests and outtakes. It does not give away anything, while making it completely enticing.
Or other examples... Hitchcock's for Psycho. We see the sets for key scenes, describes the murders, yet reveals nothing. And ending it with a fake-out with Vera Miles screaming.
Kubrick's trailer for The Shining conveys the mood perfectly with just one lingering shot, scrolling credits, and Wendy Carlos' creepy score. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6qDqdYY6-Y
Comparisons are stupid. I hate reading how films are [insert title] crossed with [insert title] or like the example given. If someone paid me to write junk like that, I'd go with something like "Tru Loved makes Bratz: The Movie look like Salo crossed with Persona". It's just as ridiculous as comparing great film to great film. How the heck do you figure how The Godfather is better than Casablanca, but not as good as Citizen Kane?
I wrote film reviews for my high school's paper for a semester. I had free reign, so I picked It's a Wonderful Life for December. Well, I was finally vetoed over that and was forced to write a positive review of The Santa Clause per the editor's request. I hated the film, so I broke about half of those rules in sarcasm.
I was just reading up on the critic Ben Lyons yesterday; how funny that he meets all of this criteria.
Re: Respect the reader's time
Lots of films are shot on sound stages, that's like saying "looks like it was shot with a camera."
Although I do get pleasure by annoying my wife by saying "ahh, that's a back lot" while watching a TV show.
Roger,
Great article. There are some of us out there who, like you, are disturbed by the recent trend of hiring clearly underqualified film critics based on who their father is and their resemblance to a department store mannequin. I mean, can you imagine if a guy from the E! Entertainment network was hired to replace one of the most respected film critics ever, in what was once the best film review show on TV? We'd probably be hearing that movies like "I Am Legend" and "300" are among the greatest films of all time. I guess some people would rather get their film advice from a guy who looks and acts like he fell out of the cast of "The Hills" than a respected journalist.
On an unrelated note, what do you think of those guys that replaced you and Roeper on "At the Movies"? We're on the fence.
For some reason, your "City of Ember sound stage" comment reminds me of a newsletter I recently had to proofread. It included an ad for a local lawn service, which included the tagline "We make house calls." I certainly hope so.
Indeed, some folks, what they don't know, you can't tell 'em...
Ebert: Louis Armstrong said that the first time, BTW, about jazz,
I have a film review blog, and I've always wondered: how does one get press passes? Do studios provide them, or theaters? My budget is one of my biggest limitations in seeing new films. I'm sorry that this isn't a direct response to the post, which is great, but it seems a pertinent enough question for the topic.
Ebert: Press passes depend on the policies of every theater chain.
Integrity is something everyone can immediately recognize, but is rarely ever seen. I am thankful that Roger Ebert was able to show it to us.
Thank you so very much for this. It's a brilliant critique of you-know-who.
Dear Roger,
"Hakuna Matata" WAS something of a national catch phrase. I was in elementary school when "The Lion King" came out. It was the first movie my parents ever, ever, ever took me to. I heard it all the time.
All the time.
Even today, I don't think there's a child in America who wouldn't recognize it.
Just a funny side note.
The phrase Hakuna Matata was used in a Swedish comic book for kids called Bamse in the mid 80's by the character Skalman - Shellman - a really bright, but special turtle who's also an inventor (and who stores everything in his carapace except for locomotives, spaceships or atlantic steamboats).
The phrase wasn't really explained as the writer probably wanted the reader to do some research to find out the meaning of Hakuna Matata as with many of Skalmans other tricky therms and sayings.
The funny thing is the way it was used. Bamse (the main character, apparently) is the strongest bear in the world, but also the kindest, and his wife had some trouble with their youngest daughter who wouldn't speak and didn't mature as a kid of her age should, something that sometimes caused her parents to get angry with her. Skalman, however, understood that Brumma wasn't like other kids and explained to Bamse and his wife that she was "special" (intellectually handicapped) and maybe would have to go to a special school.
Being to young for school Skalman tutoured her at home, letting her do things that would stimulate her brain. He also tought Brumma her first words, Hakuna Matata, that would become their "secret" motto.
//Amanda
Ps. Speaking of Bergman, check out the Swedish version of "Be our guest" from Beauty and the Beast on youtube. Jan Malmsjö, who played the bishop in Fanny and Alexander, plays Lumiere (!) in it and does it really well.
This is some of the funniest stuff I've read in a while (probably since I finished Woody Allen's "Mere Anarchy"). That Altman line is priceless.
I think I agree with just about every point made, except the thing about the trailers, which I can't seem to make up my mind about. On the one hand, they do often give too much away, and I agree that everyone - especially critics - should evaluate the movie when they watch it, and not beforehand, by the way it has been promoted. On the other, I love watching them, and during those endless months when I'm fervently anticipating a movie, it's hard to resist sneaking a peek. At the moment I have to make a conscious effort not to watch the trailers for "Revolutionary Road", "Doubt" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" over and over again because I don't want them to impinge on the experience of watching the actual films for the first time. Of course, when you get to go to previews months before the movies are released, the wait is shorter, which makes it easier to abstain.
By the way, considering the amount of flak that Mr. Ebert regularly gets for allegedly displaying a liberal bias in his critiques, I was surprised not to see a few lines about being honest about your political leanings when they impact your experience of watching a movie.
Anything less than this would be, as Homer Simpsons would say, "For shame".
I just thought I should give you all the English translation of Ingmar Bergman's text (which, of course, is in Swedish) on the photo of him and Liv Ullman:
To Roger
with the warmest greetings
from Ingmar
Perhaps it's a bit too literal, but you get the idea.
someones been watching the new "at the movies", i dont blame you for disliking the new style, they have sucked the last bit of intelligent conversation out of it
During your' television review of Jaws the revenge you said you actually called out loud that Michael Caine just came out of the water and is somehow bone dry. So I can only think that these rules are suspended in the case of bad movies where a phantom sharks comes back and terrorize old women.
great list, important for any aspiring film critic. but one confused me a little with regards to some of the things i've seen on rogerebert.com:
-----------
Keep track of your praise. If you call a movie "one of the greatest movies ever made," you are honor-bound to include it in your annual Top Ten list. Likewise, for example, if you describe a film as "the most unique movie-going experience of a generation," and "one of the best films of 2007, and of the last 25 years," it's your duty to put it in the Top Ten of 2007. This is doubly true if you have published two separate lists naming 14 of the year's top 10 films.
-----------
this is an understandable view, but what about the times when you yourself, Roger, said Monsters Ball was the best film of one year but then put The Terrorist (from the same year) on your Greatest Films List but not Monsters Ball? or what about when Babel was written into the Greatest Films List, but placed ninth on your list of the best movies of that year, with only one of the movies above Babel making it into the Great Movies section? i don't know if that's keeping a great track of praise...
nitpicking, maybe, but i still feel it deserves some clarification. but then, me demanding clarification from you is pretty ridiculous. again, great list, well written as always, hopefully i didn't sound like a dick here.
cheers
KZ
Ebert: I named "Monster's Ball" the best film of 2001. "The Terrorist," good as it was, was not on my best 10 list. I am usually very careful to say "one of" the best, etc., so I haven't filled my list by June. The Great Movies is specifically intended to ignore earlier reviews, if any, and reflect what I think when write about one.
Hi Roger, I think the world of you and your writing, but I'd like to remind you of a screening I attended at the Sundance Film Festival in '96 or '97 where I saw you behave in a way that I feel was contrary to what you posted above under "Sit down, shut up, and pay attention". I remember the event distinctly because you were so very kind to me, then just a lowly volunteer at the fest, as we discussed your participation in the early days of the USA Film Festival in Dallas. Anyway, I think the film being screened was called "This World Then Fireworks", a real stinker, and during the filmmaker Q&A afterward I remember suppressing intense laughter as you LOUDLY HECKLED the filmmaker as he walked to the stage after being introduced! I could go into more detail of what I remember of your rant, but I'll digress there. I was so shocked to find out how much you and I had in common, because I so wanted to heckle that guy, too! It was that moment that solidified in my mind that you actually are a man of the people. It's a solid list, my man, but there are times when the rules just have to be broken! I'll always remember that day fondly. Cheers, Dan
Ebert: Are you sure that was me? I don't recall it. And although I never reviewed he film, here is the totality of what I wrote about it from Sundance, which doesn't sound heckle-worthy: "In Michael Oblowitz's "This World, Then the Fireworks," based on a novel by the hard-boiled Jim Thompson, Billy Zane and Gina Gershon play a brother and sister who have been secret lovers for years. Again, a new fiancee (Sheryl Lee) appears on the scene, but this story is told as pulp fiction, not black comedy; its heart belongs to film noir, and the movie is really about its style, look and attitude. Zane looks uncannily like a young Brando; Gershon, fresh from "Bound," continues to surprise."
Don't know what I like more: what you say or how you say it.
Paul West better include this blog in his list of The Top 10 Blogs of 2008.
great blog. will you pose for a picture with me?
btw, i agree with your thoughts on posing for photos with celebs. my best friend's father was John Wayne. I spent around 10 years at his house, on his yacht and him driving us around town in his station wagon. i'm okay with not having a picture of us together. i don't have pics of all my other friends' parents, either.
There's a certain fun to be found in viewing trailers. Trailers can be an event in themselves, fueling the anticipation of an upcoming blockbuster. Warner Brothers' trailers and fan trailers for "The Dark Knight" were almost works of art.
Though I can see what you mean when you say they spoil everything. I think the trailer companies need to rethink the entire trailer making process, to overhaul their image. Many consist of the constant flashes or music "booms", along with some text and pointless narration; usually finishing in a tail-end shock along with a posting of the film's webpage (talk about charmless cheap shots at making you see it). The way trailers are done these days have become quite hacky.
Call me naive, but the new trailer for J.J. Abrams "Star Trek" gave me goosebumps. It opens up with flaming sparks, illuminating an obscure figure of the starship enterprise, overplayed with audio of the landing on the moon and President Kennedy's talks on the space race; next comes Alexander Courage's immortal theme music as well as Leonard Nemoy's impeccable narration. This trailer was a form of calculated genius.
The worst trailer I ever saw in my life was the trailer for "The Lookout". Which if you haven't seen, is such a beautiful and complexly haunting movie about real people with genuine problems and desires. They ruined it by making it appear to be just another substandard heist thriller. I agree with you, not everything must be seen as fast-paced or exciting.
I do believe modern trailers are considerably better than the trailers of old. Which repeated the title of the film many times often with long stretches of scenes. All constantly proclaimed their film to be "the greatest movie experience of all time".
-"Come see Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor and James Dean in TEXAS, the most spectacular spectacle that you'll ever see in your entire life time!" (not to say it wasn't good).
An old style trailer set to a contemporary film. Now that would be funny. I don't think I'll be a critic anytime soon, I have a hard enough time trying to enjoy the movie myself let alone recommend it to anyone else.
In general, I try to find out everything I can about a movie before I see it. When I watch a (good) movie, I tend to disappear into the movie. Suspension of disbelief comes easy to me. I have watched Cabaret dozens of times, and every time those young Aryan monsters sing "Tomorrow Belongs To Me", I get sick to my stomach. In Jaws, every time that head rolled out from the hole in the bottom of the boat, I have jumped in my seat. I know of hundreds of such moments. I know what's coming, I have read what everyone says about it, I have seen the previews; but they are such perfect moments that I just can't help but savor them.
Having said that... You once wrote a review of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" where you referred to Johnny Depp as trying to channel Michael Jackson. Throughout the movie, I kept looking at Johnny Depp and thinking about Michael Jackson. I just could not think of Johnny as Willy Wonka. You had spoiled the movie for me.
So I suppose you should add a qualifier to your list of rules, "No matter how hard you try, someone is going to get ticked off."
Hi Roger,
All valid points, except the part where you can't plug your book. I was wondering if the rule would apply if you were a lesser-known reviewer and had to supply a blurb at the end of the review. Say, something like "Roger Ebert is currently working on /Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens/, in theaters this fall" to show you have credentials to comment on the merits of a movie. We get this a lot in book reviews. I'm also a writer, but am always reticent to supply a plug for manuscripts I am currently working on. Instead I get accused of being too facetious, ("Artie owes a debt to blurb writers for reading the book for him"), the best I've given is "While not reviewing fiction, he is most likely to be writing it." My colleagues have no qualms with plugs like "his current book _____ will be published in ____". I always thought there was something slightly snobbish, as if only writers could review books for readers. What are your thoughts?
Dear Readers:
Because of some sort of computer indigestion, we lost about 50 or 75 of your comments! We are toiling through the night to retrieve them. Do not re-post yours, because we are hopeful they will be dug up, covered with silicon. We will dust them off and restore them.
Patience,
Roger
I think it's also important to acknowledge that you may be wrong, or that your own opinion may change in due time; although I may be hurtful by being blunt when I say you are not my favourite film critic, my respect for you rocketed through the roof upon your re-reviewing of "Vengeance is Mine," which went from 3-stars to a Great Movie. Too many film critics will not swallow their pride and admit a mistake, or give a film a lower rating based on personal views/bias.
Thank you so much for these tips. I am about to start a film radio show for my college and I will follow these rules when I review films.
May I add this: are you here to eat or watch? Discreet popcorn or candy and soda, I don't mind. Whole fast food meals, on the other hand.... And why are the people who do this so loud in their eating habits? Just an observation.
Very good, very funny piece. But there's definitely one point you broke one particular time that sticks in my memory- and in fact impacted on your review- which was your review for Cast Away when you made a big point about how much the trailer spoiled the movie for you and that's why you didn't like it as much..... then, why did you watch the trailer?
Then again, I'm hypocritical to say anything since I broke the Free DVD Rule, as I've sold DVDs that I've been given to watch for my website gig (then again, I've also technically been unemployed for the last six months and don't get properly paid for the gig, so it's the least payment I could get in these crunch times).
Ah, wonderful post. Rules to live by, indeed.
I have a huge pile of review DVDs that get sent my way... I can't help it, the idea of getting newly released DVD collections makes me giddy with anticipation. I got the Herzog/Kinski 6-DVD collection last month and spent weekends in bliss, delirious at the idea that someone would give me DVDs, just to hear my thoughts on them.
The idea of separating your friends and your objective review is a pertinent one - I gave a bad review to Sean Penn's "Into the Wild" and I was given the evil eye by the PR team. It's a tricky line to navigate - since I don't work for a newspaper, I need the industry contacts to get the prime screenings. How do we navigate this chasm?
Surely you can suspend the celebrity photo rule if it means a free subscription to Mad Magazine.
My critical pet peeve: use of the word 'arguably'. As in 'arguably the best science fiction film ever made' or 'arguably [his/her] finest performance' . It's flabby and soft. It lets you use superlatives with an escape clause ("I only said 'arguably'!").
Roger,
I e-mailed you about this, but repeat it here because it seems relevant. Your rule to respect the reader's wallet, seemed to not have been followed when you gave your Answerman response claiming that "rent it" should never be the advice for a movie. I think you simply forgot (probably because it was not relevant in your own life, though maybe I am mistaken) that for many people with younger children, the cost of a movie out can be increased 5 to 10 fold over the cost of renting because of the need to hire a babysitter. The difference between a $5 rental and a $18 movie might not be that great, but when you add to the cost $25-$50 for a sitter, the difference is vast and thus it's not as you posited "2 hours of your time no matter where you park your butt". It's a big difference in expense and some movies are worth it, others while pleasant enough are not.
Ebert: Not quite my point. What I said was not "see the movie in a theater but not on DVD" but, "Don't watch a DVD of a film you wouldn't see in a theater." In other words, it's your life and try to see the best films you can, however you see them. This goes doubly for your kids. There are enough good films to see them through childhood. Start them young enough on Buster Keaton, never mentioning he's silent, and you will see attention like you've never seen before. Don't fall for the trap of renting something because "all the kids at school have seen it!" They're seen it only because they or their parents were lured by such devices as fast-food tie-ins. Try to ascertain if the movie is any good. Oh, and by the way, rent "My Dog Skip." For yourself. They can watch if they want to.
Given the gruff persona Clint Eastwood often portrays on screen I have a suspicion that many fans prefer him to be grimacing in photos taken with them.
Hey Roger,
You're featured on today's (October 29) IMDB poll! http://www.imdb.com/poll/ Also, you're on another website: http://www.cinematical.com/2008/10/23/ebert-regrets-reviewing-8-minutes-of-tru-loved/. I know you don't want to talk about Tru Loved anymore but I thought you may want to know.
Also, are you coming to New York for your book's (Scorsese by Ebert) signing and for discussing your book? If not, please convince your manager so that you visit the beautiful New York City!
I had to leave one more comment. I work for a local film festival and tonight we had a big kickoff party where we announced our new festival chairs.
Gary Cogill gave the evening's opening speech and the very first thing he said after he had walked up to the microphone was, "Hello everybody, I'm Gary Cogill, head critic for WFAA and before I say anything else, I have to say thank you to the men who made it possible for a newspaper to hire a full time critic, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. Without a doubt, if not for these men I would have no career." I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea. Just thought I'd share and figured this was the easiest way!
Roger, you win. No more about the eight-minute movie.
I gotta tell ya, though. The clangs did get to me. Harlan Ellison refers to the Clang as The Point At Which The Switch Is Thrown. He said, years ago, that there's a point where the suspension of disbelief switches off, and you squawk "Aw, gimme a break!"
For me, clumsy filmmaking does that as much as bad storytelling does. And nobody is immune. Hal Ashby did it in Being There. For me, the biggest clang was the scene roughly in the middle when Sellers is talking with Melvyn Douglas, and the boom mike is visible in the shot. For several minutes. Clang, the switch is thrown.
Steve Gregory made a comment up there about Johnny Depp and Michael Jackson. I didn't read your review, and I saw the same thing you did; Depp was playing Willy Wonka as a white, British Michael Jackson. No social skills to speak of, more than a little creepy, far too fascinated by kids. A man-child genius.
Anyway, like I've said elsewhere, I've never read a review of yours that I didn't agree with at least in part. You the god of gods when it comes to movie reviews, and if you say something's not worth the time it takes to watch it, I believe you.
Gotta go. Dawn comes early. Say hi to Chaz.
Mike
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. The lack of simple integrity in criticism (heck, journalism and the internet at large) these days is astounding. No one's perfect, but a little effort, please, between cutting back on the hyperbole and showing some actual theater etiquette.
Sit down, shut up, and pay attention. Or, as one cinematic masterpiece puts it, "Don't talk, watch!"
Great post and comments. One addition: "This above all -- to thine own self be true." (I read that somewhere...)
By this I mean: If you really did laugh out loud at that gross out/slapstick gag, write about it. If you really did scream like a little girl during a scary scene, note that too. And if you walked out, well, you get the idea. Be the same person on paper as you are in the theater.
Good advice. That's what i've been missing on some of these reviews. Special thanks for the theater ettique, as too often people forget. Also, no one should ask for their money back because they didn't like the movie. I once denied a refund to someone who didn't understand the ending to "1408."
I hope someday I will have the need to follow these rules. In other words, being a film critic is my dream job (well, screenwriting and directing is up there too).
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but how does one become a Roger Ebert? I would love to get paid to watch movies, and write my opinion of them. I can scarcely think of anything better. I don't know if I'll ever get to your level of prominence, but how does one get started as a film critic?
Last week I went to see The Secret Life of Bees. I settled down for the ten to fifteen minutes of trailers, and there weren't any. The lights went down. The movie started. This was so unusual the entire audience was "buzzing". We wondered if the trailers were skipped to make time for more additional showings of the film. The teenage popcorn clerks couldn't answer the question, and the manager wasn't on duty. We wondered if, in a world where trailers are the norm, a new trend was on the horizon...
This blog is getting a little long winded, but I had to add a comment for those who like trailers- (the Hitchcock trailers are short films in themselves, so they don't count).
I hate trailers that give spoiler plot details, which take away from the actual viewing of the movie. The first trailer that made me realize this was the trailer for the James Caan/Alan Arkin 70s film, "Freebie and the Bean". (Spoiler Alert!) The trailer ends with the main characters bursting out of the back of an ambulance, fighting with each other. If you see the movie, Alan Arkin's character is "killed" and he is placed in an ambulance in a very touching scene after the climax of the film. I knew from the trailer there was one more moment with Alan Arkin that hadn't yet played out, so the ending was ruined for me as he awakens and bursts out the back of the ambulance with James Caan for a final (and thus flat) comedic encore. BOO! to trailers! I find movies are so much more fun to watch if you know nothing about what you are about to see.
P.S. Roger, thank you for your "Answer Man" reply to my question of in what order to watch my DVD's. Life's too short to stare for hours at my movie collection, unable to choose!
That O'Toole photo must be popular; it's featured in all three--your, O'Toole's, and Patric's--Wikipedia entries!
Roger wrote:
Your only real friends come to the party you throw for yourself in the activities room of your condo building, and they bring their own booze.
William wrote:
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch'd, unfledged comrade.
" "Don't watch a DVD of a film you wouldn't see in a theater." In other words, it's your life and try to see the best films you can, however you see them."
How true.Movies should enrich and not replace life.Life seems to be becoming a slave to the Circe-like stranglehold of these honey sweet virtual miasmas.There are just too many "greats".As a kind of Olympian in having endured 8000 of them you can render a public service by advising us when and how to stop or to limit consumption.....maybe the shrinking community can suggest something......at this very moment Last Year at Marienbad,Perfect Blue and Tokyo Godfathers along with 1000 pages of Monte Cristo and a volume of Donne which I purchased after Wit are lined up around me.....for you, Roger,as a professional and participant and also since your viewing becomes a community service to filter and shield and guide others,it's a different matter,let's say it's your job,......(the Sight and Sound List of 10+10 is useful,because 10 is less than 102)....but seriously anything that tends to veer in the direction of addiction,becomes a matter of concern....a man solitarily enjoying a masterpiece in a way resembles a cat selfishly consuming a choice but slightly stale morsel of fish hiding behind a door.....Roger,your words of advice or comments will surely earn our gratitude.....as you rightly note ,life is brief.
Why do celebrities have such arrogant attitudes with regard to signatures?
It's traditional to ask for a signature from the famous as a physical token of a singular event, and as evidence that the meeting truly did occur. People have been requesting autographs for generations, and I'm quite certain it was the showbiz industry that popularized the tradition in the first place. (note the film reels of classic stars cheerily signing autographs as they enter their latest world premiere screening)
I can't stand the way celebrities now feel they are so above their fan-base as to mock their fans for appreciating them. And yet, should their star ever fade, the same celebrity will no doubt demand the attention.
Next time I meet a celebrity, I am going to ask him if he wants my autograph.
I was going to compliment you on the shrimp/hand-warmer line and say like it sounded Hemingway-esque, but I see you got it from somebody else (and you already complimented the commenter who said it). The list of rules itself reminds me a little of a list Hemingway made for novelists.
In general I find current movie trailers drain me of any desire to see the movie. (Once after a "Coming Attraction" of some beach-comedy, another audience-member yelled out, "Thanks for the warning!") The one for "China Syndrome" wasn't bad, though. Mainly a dark screen, with some swirling golden flecks of light, and a narrator sadly intoning, "When we they learn? When will they ever learn?", or something like that.
I also avoid the "Special Features" on DVD's, particularly the "Making Of" ones. A nephew who may be written out of my will once informed me as we were watching a "Lord of the Rings" DVD, at the scene where Aragorn kicks an orc helmet, "Uncle Jim, I know you don't like Special Features, but you'll like this: the Special Features on this DVD say that Viggio Mortensen broke his toe kicking the helmet, haha!"
No, I won't. Now instead of feeling Aragorn's grief that his hobbit friends have probably died in the massacre, I'm supposed to be laughing because an actor broke his toe? I want to be draw into the movie, not out of it.
For me, a good special feature would be Gandalf puffing magic smoke rings in front of a hobbit fireplace, telling stories out of "The Silmarilion."
I was lucky enough to attend junkets for my college newspaper and a few publications immediately following graduation - and I'm horrified to say I broke some of these rules. Yes, I posed for a few pictures. Yes, I got a few autographs. Yes, I took advantage of the free DV - well, at the time, the free VHS tapes.
Ten years later, I can only plead for forgiveness, and ask that you consider my age. When you put a movie-loving, raised-in-the-'80s 22-year-old in a seat next to Harrison Ford, sanity checks out immediately.
No posing for photos!
I wish I could tattoo this, backwards, on some people's foreheads. I've done enough local junkets that I've sussed out who the serious people are, and who the Harry Knowles wannabes are -- the latter's always asking derivations of "how awesome is your movie?" and asking for posed photos, often themed. (One example: for ROCKY BALBOA, this area's biggest fanboy/critic wanted a photo of Stallone punching him. Alas, it was posed and not real.
It's a job, dammit. Act like you've been there before, and recognize the unbelievable privilege of it all.
Roger, your presence is greatly missed on television. Fortunately, we have this great blog to remind us what real, intelligent, thoughtful film criticism is all about. Well done!
Personally, though, I think the jury IS out on "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus". I only saw "The Lion King" once when it was originally released, but I can still remember snippets of song. As for "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus", I can't remember a single lyric beyond the title.
I am an impoverished critic. I wrote for my school newspaper for $5 an article, and now freelance for a small website -- emphasis on "free." I also keep a blog, whose link I provide in my comments. (I assume it is also ethical to plug your own blog.) I read this entry hoping that I already instinctively follow all the rules, and I believe I do, mostly. I am guilty of calling a film "one of the best of the year" and then not placing it on my top ten list, but I believe that a year can have more than ten films worthy of being described as among the best. On the other hand, if I explicitly write that a film will be on my top ten list, it is only because the film is so good or the year is so close to over that I already know it's going to be there. However, I agree that praise like "one of the best of the generation" demands a high placement on any applicable best-of list.
I must say, though, that you did once break the rule by not keeping track of your praise in 2006. You wrote that you would have chosen "Babel" to win Best Picture, but when you made your belated top ten list, you ranked "The Departed" higher.
I would add to this list of rules that a critic should avoid hyperbole. Words have power. A critic should respect that and reserve the most effusive language for the films that truly deserve it, or else the reader is left to wonder why the critic has described the last six movies he saw as "masterpieces." The same goes for negative criticism. It's fun to give a movie a good, thorough drubbing if it warrants such treatment, but gratuitous negativity isn't criticism -- it's bullying.
Boy, am I glad I'm not a critic! Fart noises, here I come!
John August, esteemed screenwriter, wrote a great blog entry entitled "Rise of the Amateur," in which he laments the effect that internet publishing has had on writing, and on the critical importance of professionalism in everything one does. Perhaps most relevant is his point that professionals don't get time off from their professional persona. At no point is it acceptable for someone who wishes to speak with authority in a given industry or forum to undermine the professional integrity of that forum at large.
Thank you for a great blog, Roger! Thank you also for reminding us that professional integrity is something that can be easily earned and maintained, while recovering it is another matter entirely.
As one of the fortunate few asked and then paid to write reviews, I'd like to both applaud your rules (they've already been printed as a commemorative keepsake) and offer a couple of my own amendments.
The first is to inform and entertain in equal measure. Nobody digs the review that reads like a dry lecture. The second is being prepared to stand your ground. Criticism begets, well, more criticism. I've been called everything from a doofus to the surely damned (a Passion of the Christ review, go figure). There may not always be public response, but it's the sucker who believes it will never happen.
Whoah, I think I broke all, but a few of these rules. I feel so embarrassed now. But I never considered myself a writer, and only wrote when my editors, who worked for me, needed me to cover a story they couldn't.
I think I've mentioned in previous comments that I've been asked by Amazon to be a critic as part of their Amazon Vine program. There's a forum on there where we Viners have a great many discussions of ethics and behavior. Some of what you mention here is a major part of what we talk about (though at least we don't have to worry about destroying DVD screeners. Technically they remain the property of Amazon, as does everything else they send us, so that we don't have to pay taxes on it).
I recognize, of coure, that the kind of reviewing we do is light years away from the sort of reviewing you do. Nevertheless, this set of rules and ethics should apply to us as it does to you, and at the very least, I'll make sure they apply to me.
I do the exact same thing that Gene did with trailers! I am usually about 5 seconds late to every movie because I'm walking around the hallway outside the doors, and when seated already, plugging my ears with my eyes closed, I stare at the floor, which is slightly odd since my eyes are already closed...but I think I do it to act like I'm tired to the person next to me, so they don't get distracted and think I'm meditating or trying to conceal a "going postal" homicidal tendency, or in this case "trailer terrorizer".
Loved the entry, but now I'll never see Clint Eastwood without having a mental flashback to the picture you've provided. How did that fall into your hands? Did someone do a google image search for "Bad pictures of movie stars"?
Brilliant piece, Roger, but I've got the inevitable 'few more points' from this particular member of the peanut gallery:
1) Do not treasure a negative opinion for its readability on the page. If you go see a movie called "And The Critic Said...", you should not already be planning to write a piece called "And The Critic Said... It's An Inadequate Film, Folks" before you even see it. Somewhere, in some dark (and hopefully sticky) theater, at least one film critic has quashed his own affection for a film because he had a clever pan in mind and couldn't bear to part with it.
2) Do not pander to the readers' (not us, of course) desire to go negative simply to prove an artist fallible. If Wes Anderson's latest film isn't as good as his last one, that doesn't mean it isn't good. If Robert Altman were still alive (I wish) and were still pumping out movies (I wish) and they were still as good as they had been over that last phase of his career (I wish), then it would not be prudent to give one of them a two-star review simply because Reader X (and Y and even Z) would like to have their own human imperfection and general meekness justified by seeing a Sacred Cow taken down. Sorry, Virginia, there is such thing as talent, and if I happen to like every Scorsese picture, it's not because I buy into some critical ethos that says "Scorsese is God", but because every time I see one of his pictures, I like it. That's how this whole auteur thing got started.
3) Have soul. Lots of it. Like Roger Ebert, especially post-sickness. Soul spills from Roger's fingers these days, and soul is better than wit (although witty soul is like giggly bubbles in one's nose, and that's nice), and soul is better than - MUCH better than - objectivity. If, for some reason, a grown man is thrilled by the experience of HANNAH MONTANA IN 3-D, and he is a critic, then he/she has the mandate to write a piece of journalism that explains that unlikely but probably rather uplifting experience. (Liking a movie I didn't expect to like is almost as good as liking one I expected to like, which is almost as good as loving one I knew I was going to love.)
4) Actually love movies. This one, I'm not sure the venerated Ms. Kael always passed. If you are certain that movies are a inferior, stunted not-quite art-form, then go review buildings. Be interested in all movies from all eras not because someone told you a good critic does, but because you can't help it. Because if you don't see that particular obscure Otto Preminger quasi-noir from the 40s, you'll explode. (Don't worry, it's probably available on DVD in France). Because, if you're going to expect to be paid to write about movies and make a living off it, your list of favorite things should not be "cars, sex, football"... It should be "movies, sex, maybe food, and time permitting, cars" (I'm not a football fan)
Roger, based on what you have posted above, who would you say represents your idea of a principled critic?
Also, what if the star's wife/husband asks to take a picture with you, despite their partner's objections, but with them in the photo nevertheless?
Roger, I very much enjoyed this post. But, at the risk of looking like I'm trying to play "gotcha," the "do the math" comment reminded me of something I've always been curious about ...
I believe that in 1980 you named "The Black Stallion" as your No. 1 movie of the year, with "Raging Bull" as your No. 2. By the end of the decade, "Raging Bull" was your top film of the decade, with no mention whatsoever in the top 10 of "The Black Stallion." Is this accurate?
I'm one for growing to appreciate a film. And I realize that some films age better than others. But here's a case where the 'math' doesn't quite add up. And I guess I wonder if that bothers you? Also: at this point would "The Black Stallion" be worth a "Great Movies" essay? It's rather forgotten.
Thanks for being so active with your blog. Movie fans appreciate it.
Ebert: See one post down.
I would like to add my own rule:
A critic must not be afraid to change his opinion on a film after some years...
Roger,
Is there any possibility that Siskel and Ebert and the Movies (1986-1999) could be released on DVD and Blue-Ray?
Ebert: I'd love that.
Well, The Bridges of Madison County was Chinese Water Torture for most people, so now we're even. Bring something in under two hours next time Clint.
P.S. In addition to your point, I have a few principles myself:
- If you ever definitively say that an actor is bland or talentless, you must state this opinion and then debunk it if ever necessary - a prime example being Anne Hathaway's turn in 'Rachel Getting Married', which probably shocked just about everyone. This shows that you are willing to reward as equally as you admonish.
- A critic must show genuine interest in the quality of cinema, regardless of their beliefs. A real critic should never be satisfied with a disappointing film experience, even to prove a bitter point; however, trouncing studio-mandated junk in a film out of general principle is generally acceptable, unless you can't tell the difference without being told, which you must state in the review.
- Make your star rating count (this is not, despite any loose interpretation, an attack on anyone in particular, as it is too general an issue). A four star rating - and especially a five star rating - should be a grail sought after, rarely earned. Just look at reelviews.net. It would take a bank heist of elaborate scheming and flawless execution to sneak a **** out of James Berardinelli's vault past 2000, and I think this conservative thought is a definite strength when it comes down to judging a critic's body of work in terms of consistency.
- In one of my facebook notes about film criticism (which contained nearly three paragraphs for you and James each), I determined that a film critic needs only to describe thier distaste for a film in a literate and relatable way, and that taste is not really a factor in judging the actual pieces they write. Example: I may heartily disagree with you on 'Blue Velvet' (*), but you explained your position inteligently and with depth, whereas I disliked your review for 'Deliverance' (**1/2) because I thought it was in a way evasive of talking about the actual film. I think that going by quality of review is the only fair way to judge a critic, but that critic must also hold up their end of the bargain and make thier review a living work that actively engages the reader's attention and leaves a formidable impression upon one or more readings while it explains the film's shortcomings/excesses.
RE: M&M duels
Sorry to post this here, out of the proper place, but I wasn't sure just what the proper place was. I've seen the M&M duels post elsewhere, but I couldn't tell you where (I get around to a lot of sites, the old memory doesn't work like it used to). But typing "M&M duels" into Google brings up pages and pages if identical posts. This is apparently a wide-spread Internet prank. Looks like you've been 'gotcha-d'.
Ebert: Surprised to learn that.Still, the piee hasn't worn out its welcome. It was in our top five favorite hits today.
Do you like Shrimp?
Your post is an informative and original primer of professional ethics in your specific department......how about one on professional survival in a jungle where there are six dogs to a loaf----even in your country,it seems.......purely through the lens of cinema,I see contemporaneous US at its best in Juno (particularly high standard of education and maturity of youngsters),at its normalcy of thinking in Michael Clinton and Philadelphia
and on the seamier edge in LA Confidential .
Thank God I'm just a film lover and not a professional critic...
...there are just too many rules!
Anyway, I was upset to hear you want nothing to do with trailers.
While I agree 95% of them are just trashy commercials that exist purely so studio executives can feel good about their Friday release, some of them are little works of art themselves...
THE SHINING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6qDqdYY6-Y
THE EXORCIST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Es2DRp-ufA
I do find though, the best ones are usually for horror films. Wait a minute...
IT'S HALLOWEEN! How perfect.
roger, i really appreciate you maintaining this blog. you've really emerged as a great american humorist in the last few years beyond being a legendary film critic.
i am glad you are keeping this blog to share your lifetime of wisdom with the rest of us dopes. we love you.
Roger, I would like to thank you for this blog. I've found that only essays/reviews by you and Pauline Kael have ever actually succeeded in providing me with a movie's experience before seeing it and I have tried in many notebooks to figure out how to d this myself. My continual inability to succeed at this in my own eyes keeps me from even starting a blog to practice. As I type, I am printing out these rules and will focus on the first few. Seeing that you blog and still review so consistently is as much as I need to know that blogging one's thoughts does actually have a potential credibility to it. I thank you for living by your rules enough to still have the credibility which has garnered you the respect and admiration from so many of us would-be critics.
Thank you for sharing your passion and proving that someone can actually do what they love.
[i]Is there any possibility that Siskel and Ebert and the Movies (1986-1999) could be released on DVD and Blue-Ray?[/i]
Ohhh baby! That'd be sweet. I've been digging around on YouTube and found a lot of reviews that are pre-Balcony Archive. That's where I heard Roger's brilliant observation about 'Hardbodies': "It's always interesting to watch the behavior patterns of people who's mutual I.Q. is about 29".
Oh and about Amityville 3D: "You know you're in trouble when they've made three movies and the only thing you can think of to praise are the windows on the house"
I apologize, that's off-topic but I thought your readers might enjoy that.
"I wanted to see it again, to see if it was silly or profound, and perhaps even to recapture an earlier self--a 19-year-old who hoped Truth could be found in Art." Can it?
You might want to add something about not being afraid to know roughly how long a movie is supposed to be.
I wanted to watch I[nland] E[mpire] with a minimum of pre-knowledge, so I not only skipped reviews but skipped film posters. It wasn't as hard to avoid as Star Wars spoilers by any stretch (unless you considered the prequels themselves to be spoilers).
Finally got a chance to borrow the DVD, pop it in, and in the middle of one of Laura Dern's descriptions of liquidating guys' assets the movie shoots straight to the main menu. No end credits, no fade to black. I wandered around bewildered, like I'd had a vivid, disjointed dream and woke up tired, like I hadn't slept a full night.
"Well, that's great, David. I mean, I like your work, but this feels like a poorly formed idea. The quality of the video was excellent, much better than I was expecting video to look like, the ideas were interesting... but it felt like half... half a..."
Without many chapter stops, it was difficult to research, but eventually I realized that it felt like a half-baked idea because the DVD simply stopped half way. It was one of those double layer discs, and either my player or the disc was messed up.
Moral: as much credit as you'll give a director for being avant garde, they tend to have a better idea about telling a story than people often give them credit for. If I'd known I[nland] E[mpire]'s length I'd have treated it like the machine error it was instead assuming Lynch had just dropped the whole thing.
Now, to find a copy that'll play on my machine. Back to my self-imposed, Lynch-based media blackout once again!
I should name the critic, but I won't. A number of years ago, after writing a review in which he gave Kurosawa's Ran lavish praise, the critic, who uses a five stat rating system, awarded three stars to the movie for the sole reason he believed it wouldn't suit the tastes of the newspaper's general readership. "Respect the reader's intelligence" should have a place in your list somewhere.
Well, the newspaper business has certainly changed. Years ago when I worked for the Hartford Times it was an accepted practice to receive food and money in the course of my journalistic duties. The gratuities were especially good at Christmas ... until my little brother took over the route.
Re: your rules, is that why you and Richard abstained from reviewing 'Raisinets: The Motion Picture' in 2005?
Okay, forget all the questions about "could you re-review BLADE RUNNER and give it four stars" or any of the "go back and change your history" queries...
I just want you, in my dreams, retroactively, to drop in those two words ("abundantly" and "tumescent", preferably paired) in as many old reviews as you can. Since you bring up BATTLE OF BRITAIN in a recent blog post, I'd say start there. It would certainly perk up the small but inevitably loyal legion of BOB true believers.
Then, let's get "abundantly tumescent" into a review of Oliver's OTHELLO and the first BLACK STALLION movie. Oh, and maybe THE FOG OF WAR as well (that should be tricky, you'd have to use "abundantly tumescent" as a metaphor, instead of literally, as I imagine you do in your ZACK AND MIRI review.) And if you can get it into a review of Derek Jarman's BLUE and that Royal British Ballet film of THE TALES OF BEATRIX POTTER, there may be another Nobel Prize in it for you.
Abundantly yours, not to mention eternally tumescent,
Yancy Jack Berns
Ebert: For abundantly confused readers, this refers to my review of "Zack and Miri."
Roger,
I don't know why, but I always get a good feeling when you bring up Gene Siskel, and make points by referencing one of his approaches to film criticism. I think it's because I realize that the two of you represented rival newspapers for so many years, and had some healthy disagreements over certain movies during that time. It's interesting to hear your reactions to the way he went about his job. I spent a few month across from his office at WBBM, interning for Pam Zekman during the fall/winter of 1997, and got to talk to him a couple of times. It sounds like you have a lot of respect for how he approached movie criticism, and some of the standards he used.
It's true for entertainment journalists/critics that taking photographs with celebrities can be unprofessional and inappropriate (of course there are certain "hyped" and "trendy" movie critics who frequently abuse this rule).
However, what about the entertainment journalist/critic taking photos OF celebrities? You briefly touched on this.
I seem to recall a particularly beautiful, simple picture you took of Catherine Keener at a film festival a few years ago.
Ebert: Perfectly okay. They're at the festival to get publicity. Often the publicist
will say, "Now let me take a photo of the two of you." I usually say, "No thanks. I'm a newspaperman, not a fan." And grin, so nobody is offended. I would make exceptions. With Fred Astaire, Fellini, Hitchcock, I would have said yes in a nanosecond. They didn't have publicists, blast the luck. Look. In all these years, I've collected a lot of pictures with famous people. It's just that I don't ask for them. They mean infinitely more to me if they show us really doing something, and not just posing for the camera. Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands and me at the Toronto FF. Bill Clinton and me, as I was interviewing him for our TV show.
I was of the habit of writing movie reviews for websites without pay - something I no longer do (I learned the hard way that it is not fun, not funny, to do this).
However, one site did pay me - in screeners that I was assigned to review. Most of the titles were horrible and embarrassing - cheap jack productions, straight to video tripe, sexist gore films...
Sure, these discs filled out my collection - but with hopeless, depressing garbage. I didn't feel right selling this trash on Ebay and felt even scummier at the prospect of giving them to friends and family or even donating them. So I, indeed, took the scissors to them, snapped them in pieces and chucked them. So I can happily say that I was more prudent than necessary with freebie screeners.
Just to clarify up front, I've never reviewed a movie in my life and probably will never have occasion to do so.
You have the "no trailers" rule, but what about "no actor/writer/director interviews"? The interviews I'm thinking of are the ones heard on NPR, especially Fresh Air. You know, interviews with actual information in them.
I'm remembering a few months ago when Mike Meyers had a very insightful interview with Terri Gross for the release of The Love Guru. It covered his childhood, the SNL years, Austin Powers, the source of his sense of humor (his Liverpudlian dad), and his father's death from Alzheimer's. He also talked about the movie and where the idea came from - an interest in spirituality that stemmed from his father's illness and death. Finances keep me from going to see many movies, but the interview made me think The Love Guru might go on my DVD list.
After the movie was released to poor reviews, I got to thinking. If I were a critic, would hearing such an interview BEFORE seeing the movie have made me a bit (or a lot) more charitable towards the movie? Along the lines of, "Mike Meyers is a smart and funny guy. The movie's not great, but his heart is in the right place. The execution was poor, but the intentions were genuine."
Another problem I foresee is the prospect of learning about the creative process behind the movie. Interviews that coincide with a movie's release wouldn't contain actual spoilers, but I'd think a critic would want to see a movie without first hearing a director say, "Here's what I was trying to accomplish with this scene." A critic would want to see the scene and have a reaction that is solely his or her own, not influenced by any preconceptions.
Having said that, I'm sure anyone who loves movies, or a particular actor or director, would absolutely love hearing a good conversation about a movie. It's just that the proper time to hear that conversation would be AFTER seeing the movie. I highly recommend to any and all readers going to the NPR website and searching the archives for little nuggets.
Any thoughts?
Random point: Australians use "no worries" as a substitute for "you're welcome," in the same way we Americans would say "no problem." After picking up the expression during a two-week trip to Australia some years ago, I started tacking a Canadianism to the phrase, turning it into "no worries, eh." Don't ask me how it happened.
Another random point: When I see interesting TV ads for suspense or horror movies that I know are probably not very good, I go to moviepooper.com and find out the movie's ending. It's pure curiosity, and I only do it with movies I have no interest in ever seeing. I discovered from the site that the climactic scene of Quarantine - literally the last shot before fade to black - is in the trailer.
Terrific post Roger... Extremely funny and the best zinger I've read all year. The person(s) who this is subtly directed towards really deserves it.
I also want to second what Christopher Zeidel commented. But, why stop at 1986? Why not go all the way back to the 70's when you guys started and just put the whole thing out there?
I've managed to dig up some old clips of that on YouTube and it's just gold. The stinker of the week... The discussion on slasher films (though you may have taken the issue a little more seriously than was merited)
Even digging up some of those bloopers and sticking them on as Bonus Features is not a bad idea.
The body of work you and Gene Siskel did is the definition of a national treasure and your camaraderie still brings a lump to my throat.
Who do we have to pester to make this happen?
To Erik Antoine:
The shows that Gene and Roger had done between 1975 and mid-1986 were destroyed or tossed away in the trash after they aired. The company's they worked for during those years thought they were useless and felt they did not need to air the shows a second time. It was not known during those years that home theater would become a part of everyone's life and basically be the wave of the future. People could only see films if they either were re-released in theaters or were shown on television. A Siskel and Ebert review meant nothing if nobody could see the film or had to wait until it aired on television.
There is only one way some of those shows exist. Some people who owned video recorders in the early 80s taped Sneak Previews or At the Movies shows, and have kept those recordings all these years. This is why some of these shows have been uploaded onto You Tube. The most noteworthy user that has done this is firstmagnitude.
When Gene and Roger left At the Movies in 1986 and started filming their new program titled Siskel and Ebert and the Movies under a new company called Buena Vista (which is a Disney Company), more people were purchasing video cassette recorders and renting movies. My family got its first video cassette recorder (VHS) in December 1985; it was a Christmas gift from my aunt. Siskel and Ebert's television reviews were now more useful since people could see films whenever they wanted to. They could now go to their local video stores and rent movies that the two critics recommended.
"I review ,therefore am."
That was hilarious, Roger. What do you think the odds are that your intended target will last as long in the business as you have?
I'm no critic, but I have asked for two autographs in my life. My embarrassment in doing so was outweighed by my admiration for the signers, and my desire to capture a bit of their magic.
One was for Vilmos Zsigmond to sign my DVD of The Long Goodbye. The other was after a shot-by-shot deconstruction of The Rules of the Game. The critic who sponsored the screening at CWA was directly responsible for my love of cinema, and was kind enough to sign my copy of his latest book. Both men were incredibly gracious and generous with their time.
My comment has little to do with this blog, but this seemed like the best method of communication.
In your review of the [2007?] film Hitman, you state:
“The movie, directed by Xavier Gens, was inspired by a best-selling video game and serves as an excellent illustration of my conviction that video games will never become an art form -- never, at least, until they morph into something else or more.”
I am nineteen. In the same way that my generation may generally be purposely or unknowingly ignorant of the scope of film and thespian art, I contend that previous generations may be relatively ignorant of video games. Fortunately, writers such as you have done much to relieve my generation of this ignorance. While this may be an error on my part, I imagine that for many individuals introduced to art prior to the advent of video games, the term “video game” will conjure images of quarter-guzzling arcades and mindless “shoot ‘em up” games—certainly such examples of “entertainment” cannot be art!
You would be justified in questioning the artistic merit of certain video games. However, dross exists within every artistic format; surely you would agree that all films cannot be judged based on the transgressions of poor films—likewise, a great film’s existence does not detract from the dreck of another film. And so it is with all art. I hope Gertrude Stein will forgive me for this transmogrification of a well-known line from her poem “Sacred Emily”, but shit is shit is shit. One cannot discredit all video games because of the dreck that exists within the art form. And your eyes do not deceive you—I have stated that video games are a form of art. Let me explain:
Musical arrangements, visual creations, oration—these things are considered art. Video games are a polymerization of these art forms, yet they are often ignored. Why? I believe the answer is that video games are an “open” art. One may admire a painting, but one cannot paint that painting—at least, not without legal recourse. However, video games present unfinished art and then invite one to join in its completion. The video game designers have labored to bring in imaginary world to life; composers have written and rewritten musical arrangements to accompany this new world; and actors take the roles of individuals within this imaginary world. All that is left is for someone to play the video game, to combine these elements into a single work of art—to place their signature on the work, signifying its completion.
It would be unfair for me to espouse these views without providing examples to validate them. I now give you several recent video games that I believe to be archetypal examples of their art:
Dead Space
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAiHfqnbGYo
In your review of The Exorcist, you recall retreating into your seat when faced with the visual onslaught of that movie; this game has a similar effect.
Grand Theft Auto IV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5sUjl8eU_o&feature=related
The performances in this game are superb, bringing real life to these derelict individuals.
Fallout 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7jKRDTg8m8
The Apocalypse was never so much fun.
Roger, Gary Susman at EW has a theory that you seemed to have a particular film critic in mind while you were writing this list...any comment?
Just curious. What movie was that that had you taking note of Pauline Kael's "ohs"?
Ebert: "Days of Heaven."
Hello, Mr. E,
I could probably find this info on Wikipedia, but that site always struck me as the place you go to confirm rumors about dead people.
As I'm glad you're still with us, I was just wondering which article (or series of articles) earned you your Pulitzer, and where we might be able to read it and/or them.
Thank you,
Steve
Ebert: There were 10 reviews. I remember "The Mother and the Whore," not sure of the others after 33 years.
This is actually in response to your lovely obituary for your great friend, Studs Terkel. The loss of one so loved is never easy, but it sounds like he lived enough for 96 men, maybe more. I understand why you put his quote about your writing in the article. It's the essence of your previous journal entry in one simple, elegant and true half paragraph. It's very touching to me that his ashes are simply going to be mingled with those of his wife. That, to me, is poetry.
The man has gone out
to meet with his long-lost love.
To the wind! They sing...
Dear Roger, what sayest thou if, in the season of love, the movie star and the movie critic begin to like each other? Should this nascent affiliation be immediately nipped in the bud? Or, is there a way to let them have their cake and eat it, too?
I am writing this to Roger, the romantic critic, who may have a bit of Ann Landers in him. (^_^)
Ebert: Ann Landers was responsible for the first meeting between Chaz and me. Long story.
Thanks for the info Chris Z. I wanted to chime in again and say two things:
1. I wholeheartedly agree with Somniferous. Video Games are becoming much more sophisticated and can be another avenue for compelling storytelling (in some cases superior to the genre films they emulate). And it's the filmmakers' fault for not taking the care to adapt the storytelling aspects of a game, focusing instead on the more hollow aspects that result in such shallow movies. But that really is no different from a poor adaptation of a good book, in my opinion.
2. I confess that I too have asked for autographs on several occasions. Book and Record signings and after concerts because I wanted a keepsake from performers that touch my life and that I genuinely admire. But I suppose, in those cases, it's acceptable to have your book or album (or concert ticket/poster/t-shirt) signed. And I feel no shame in having done so.
Mr. Ebert,
I was dismayed that neither you nor Siskel would watch trailers, if I am correct. For me, trailers are a big part of the moviegoing experience (I skip them at home, of course), because they get me psyched for all the action, drama, and humor to come, and I know that even if I see a bad movie, I can say to myself at the end, "Oh well, at least I got to see the trailers." I can guarantee I'm not the only one who has shared that thought.
I recall you often saying that a critic should keep the audience in mind when reviewing a film. This would seem a slight contradiction with the rule of "avoid trailers at all costs". I abhor the word "elitist", but the idea of a critic waiting outside while the trailers roll, away from the people the critic is supposed to be advising seems, shall we say, "lofty". I suppose it was to be expected from someone who brought their own concessions in a special briefcase.
Mr. Ebert:
If I were suggesting rules for movie critics (or really any kind of critics), I would narrow it down to one simple one: review the thing you're reviewing. This is so obvious that it shouldn't have to be said, but it does have to be said because so many critics ignore it. A movie, for instance, basically consists of what is projected on the screen and what comes out of the speakers during its running time (unless the movie is shown in smell-o-vision, I guess). Essentially, when a critic reviews a movie, he or she should concentrate on what is visible and audible during the two hours or so that the movie is actually playing. A movie's ad campaign is not the movie. A movie's budget is not the movie. A movie's poster is not the movie. A movie's critical reputation is not the movie. A movie's box office tally is not the movie. A movie's success (or failure) at the Academy Awards is not the movie. A movie's fan following is not the movie. A movie's director's personal life is certainly not the movie. What is the movie? The movie is the movie. Review what you see and hear while the movie is playing. Concentrate on that. A review of a movie that starts by discussing the ad campaign is a badly written review, in my opinion. (And I'm sorry to say, then, that you've broken this rule several times in your career -- most egregiously in your review of "The Hudsucker Proxy," which contains commentary on that film's ad campaign that I consider strictly inadmissible evidence.) Similarly, no movie can or should be held responsible for its own reputation. It's nice when good movies get good reviews or bad movies get bad reviews, but sometimes the critics -- and the public -- get it wrong. Therefore, when reviewing a movie, the critic should do his or her level best to ignore a movie's critical reputation. Obviously, it's impossible to be completely unaware of a movie's ad campaign, fan following, financial success, critical reputation, etc. But you have to try to put that stuff out of your mind... sort of what the O.J. jurors were asked to do. Try and clear your mind of that stuff and focus on the movie itself.
Movie critics should review movies and not reputations. This is why "overrated movies" lists are a crock. Those are all about reviewing reputations and not movies.
Joe Blevins:A review is not just a review of something but a review ,an existence in itself. The ultimate rule is that there are no rules but the one's one makes oneself.One cannot close one eye,keeping the other half open so that nothing goes in beyond the book of rules.That which pleaseth the heart,pleaseth.
I have to disagree with Somniferous about video games. I'm thinking of Roger's quote about movies, which is "movies are not about what happens, but how it happens." With video games, it is about what happens because the controller is in your hands. WIth movies they don't give you a controller to control the characters on the screen. And if they did, it would be about what happens and not how it happens. And there is no art that I can think that asks anyone to finish it. I couldn't even fathom how to finish a great painting if I was asked how to, or an unfinished piece of great music. And I think the fact that these video game designers are often trying to make as many sequels as they can for the games they make says something about the games, particularly the things that change from one sequel to the next. Now, in part 2 you get to chainsaw to left of you and chainsaw to the right of you, as opposed to just up and down on part one. Very small differences ,usually about what happens,from sequel to sequel that are so small I'd be pissed off if I didn't get to chainsaw to the left of me and to the right of me...these games cost 70 dollars, and they only change such small aspects as these...your getting screwed, it's like Barbie...now, she comes with a different hat!...not no headscarf, that is so last christmas.
But back to my point, video games are about what happens, not how they happen because the controller is in your hand, and thus the game is in your hands and we the players are not designing it as we play, that would yes, require the ability to draw, write the music, direct the story, write the story, do the voice acting...but, no, all we do in video games is move the character around in a world that may one sequel coming soon include the ability to chainsaw in a cirlular motion...it's just eating away at you that that isn't happening, isn't is?
Your rules for photographs offer reward in that snapshot of you helping Peter O'Toole during a night of apparent exuberance. A simple vanity pose with the star would have meant nothing special, but that casual moment fires my imagination, making me wonder what fun Mr. O'Toole might have been that night, considering the intense performances he's delivered on screen.
Ebert: Well, he is a splendid companion. I interviewed him on stage at Telluride once, and I said I'd heard he liked the paintings of Jack Yeats, W.B.'s brother, and what with one thing and another we started quoting Yeats at each other, and kept right on, until finally he said, "I think we've proven our point," and stood up and took a bow. All free form and right off-topic. I also like that photo I ran with my "In Memory" of Pauline Kael, shwing us on a late night at Cannes.
Do you have any idea how long I've been looking for that Herzog documentary box set on ebay??? Are there any ethical rules violated by asking critics to their borrow dvds? Haha, no, I'm kidding... kinda.
Always love your posts Roger. I just re-read your entry on Studs.
Smrana:
Let's be clear about our terms here. I am well aware that each critic and viewer brings a lifetime of experiences and prejudices to a movie and that movie reviews will undoubtedly reflect that. That's fine. I'm not asking critics to put on blinders. What I am concerned about, especially at a time we are saturated with showbiz gossip and movie trivia and an avalanche of commentary from a variety of sources, is that we are letting these EXTERNAL factors have undue influence over movie criticism, and that the actual movies themselves are getting lost in the shuffle. Modern movie reviews too often read as if they are being penned either by accountants or by gossip columnists. A prime example: when the movie "The Cable Guy" came out, virtually every review -- including Roger Ebert's -- made a point of mentioning Jim Carrey's $20 million paycheck. I would argue that Mr. Carrey's paycheck has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the film and need not be mentioned in a review. Each summer, during blockbuster season, I roll my eyes as critics tell us whether a certain movie "lives up to the hype" or not. Are we reviewing movies or bus ads? My advice to critics is to review the movie and at least try to forget the bus ads. In five or ten years, after all, the hype will all be gone and only the movie will be left. Who cares about what the star made or what the cardboard standees in the lobby looked like? That couldn't be less relevant to whether the movie is any good or not.
In the Internet age of movie criticism, reviewers are too often responding to OTHER reviews rather than responding directly to the movie itself. There's a predictable (and dull) pattern being established here: a wave of positive hype/gushing is met by a wave of negative backlash and then there's a backlash TO the backlash and then a backlash to THAT backlash and so on and so on. It's a war between gushers and backlashers, and common sense is frequently the first casualty. Frequently, a backlasher will feel his review needs to be especially nasty in order to "balance" a previous gushing review from another critic. And so a gusher will have to praise a movie to ridiculous heights to compete with the backlashers. Meanwhile, we're four or five degrees removed from the actual movie at this point. And WATCH OUT if a movie happens to get a lot of awards or make a lot of money or get some kind of fervent fan following or meet with any kind of tangible "success." These factors -- none of which have any bearing whatsoever on a film's actual quality -- will have an overwhelming influence in the debate, both for the gushers and the backlashers. For a case study on this phenomenon, just google "The Dark Knight."
My advice to all critics, professional and amateur, is very simple: get back to the movie itself. Stay on topic. For the most part, you should discuss what is actually IN the movie and not concern yourself with outside factors. I think every movie, no matter how rotten, at least deserves to be criticized on the basis of what it actually contains on not on its reputation. Is this such a reactionary notion?
Roger
I can only repeat what you must get a lot on this blog -- I love this entry! I was proud because in my own writing I consciously try to avoid doing a lot of the things you outline above.
Oh, except in my Indiana Jones 4 article (which I gave a mixed but favourable review), I concluded with "I defy anyone to defend the final sequences of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as anything more than ludicrous." Which, of course, breaks your rule of making a challenge that you are unable to back up. Even if I'd disagree with you, I'm sure you could come up with an intelligent and eloquent response to that.
Also, I liked your thinly veiled barb against Ben Lyons saying "I like women in real life, but I didn't like 'The Women'." That comment exemplifies what is so wrong with this new version. It's all about the one-liner, the sound-byte, the witty remark. It has nothing to do with actually talking about the pros and cons of a given film. I really miss you on TV, Roger (or, as I'm in Australia, on my computer screen).
At the risk of being rude can i ask you ..... You reviewed the film
"Encounters at the End of the World" which slightly deviates from the point mentioned in the article "Never review a film you have anything to do with"
Ebert: I didn't have anything to do with dedicating it to myself. Besides, before I even reviewed it, I wrote an Open Letter to Werner Herzog explaining why I couldn't review it.
Roger, as a guy that loves movies, I really do aspire to become a good film critic, and to show strong ethics and integrity and professionalism in my work. Reading such a thorough list as this, I can tell you that if I should make it into the world of professional film criticism, these rules will be, if not my bible, at least my 20 Commandments.
Although I've never known how to act around celebrities, I've known right off the bat that they hate posing for photos. And in that respect, I have a question for you. You've done quite a few book signings and public appearances, so maybe you can help me with this. In the spring of 2009, I'll be attending a book reading, lecture, and signing for Marjane Satrapi. I've been looking forward to this as I'm a huge Persepolis fan. I want to make a decent impression, but I've never done events like these before, and don't know the perfect etiquette. What are the best and worst things a fan could possibly do for you at any stage of a public appearance?
I hope to be well learned enough should I ever have the good fortune to meet you and not then embarrass myself.
Ebert: I'm sure she'll be happy to see you. The problem at an event like that is, people are waiting behind you in line.
Dear Roger, I hope you don't see this as being overly presumptuous, but have you already seen "Lassie 2006"? I mention this because Peter O'Toole plays the Duke there. Light family movie with an aggregate score of 92 in Rotten Tomatoes.
I was going to give you crap for going against your "Never review a film you have anything to do with" rule, because I remembered you and Gene Siskel as having had supporting roles in the 1998 movie "Godzilla". After double-checking, though, I discovered that the "Siskel" and "Ebert" characters were played by other actors who were parodying the both of you. I was relatively young when I saw that movie, and so please forgive me for falsely thinking that you had stooped so low.
Ebert: We also did not play the two-headed monster "Ebertsisk" in "Willow."
Roger, something's gone all kerflooie with this blog page, and it's in all italics now after a note in the "A trailer is not a movie" section!
I liked especially the bit about trailers. They are something of a guilty pleasure for me, despite their nagging ability to ruin much of a film.
I remember one trailer for A Beautiful Mind that portrayed the film as a dark and mysterious caper-type movie, showing Russell Crowe in a black suit pointing at numbers in a government-type room.
That really ruined the movie for me, because I went into it expecting what I'd seen in the trailers and it ended up being a different movie entirely. I still have a hard time trying to objectively watch it and not get a little ticked at the trailer I'd seen.
Someone forgot to close an italics tag.
Mr. Ebert. These are great rules for critics. I write a lot about micro budget films and, while they all expose themselves to some obvious criticism, some of them are infinitely more interesting than some of the things that come from mainstream Hollywood. That said I have stopped criticizing films and now just review them. Give the basic set up of what the film is about, if possible, and move along with some general impressions of what the film is making me feel.
Thanks for the blog, Mr. Ebert.
Have an excellent day
All in all a great list, however, one thing overlooked these days is how quickly credentials and access is pulled when you write an unfavorable review. Music has granted me better access than film and as a result, I've written far more on music than movies in the last few years. Now, one of the reasons I write for online magazines is because of the freedom and independence. I was once told "If you write a postive review of this album, they will provide us with x, y and z in the future". It's a double edge sword and while I maintain my independence because I can't be bought, as a result it has limited my writings and the audience they may have found. It's sadly a different world than the journalists of the 60's, 70's and even the 80's enjoyed.
Roger,
Why in the hell did you give Wait Until Dark (1967) a bad rating? Would you like to back that up now? Would you? Just a bit? I didn't think so
The problem with most reviews is that the only give a judgement of the film, I'm much more interested in the films style, themes, the craft of the filmmakers. I read reviews just as much for the read it self, thats why a like your reviews because they are small essays on film and filmmaking or on film critique.
love the article, love your rules, love the homer magnet in the corner of the screen. I know constant knee jerk up to the second exaggerated criticism is killing actual criticism thanks to the net, but truly one of the great pleasures of living in the internet age (well aside from letting no film go unknown) is being able to read all your archived reviews and now seeing the reviews on the old show. As someone who has looked up to you since the age of seven (which is when my mom introduced me to your show---wait wait wait a minute, there's a show that reviews all the movies that come out that week?!?!?) I just wanted to write in and say I appreciate the lifetime of work thus far and can only greedily ask for more, you know like any other fan would!
oh and yes i have long wanted to be a film critic myself. cheap eats, slave driving editor, and grumpy complainers telling me i'm an idiot, i would suffer them all gladly if it meant getting to see everything instead of trying to work them into a time permitting schedulue. (also i can't seem to get any editor to actually write me back after sending in a sample thus far. time to refresh that sample.)
I say this with all seriousness and due respect, with no malice and no ulterior intention other than to get your opinion on the matter. But with all the controversy recently, what is your take on reviewing films without watching the entire film. Do you think that should be a golden rule? Or do you think that one would be perfectly capable of juding a film without seeing all the sum of its parts put together?
Ebert: I wrote two blogs totaling 2,500 words on Minutegate and said I did in the first paragraph of this entry. Didn't that stir your interest?
First of sorry for language as English is not my first.
I think there is only one rule for the critics and that rule is to inform us of films and help us choose which of those films we wish to see. Do you expect a full review from your friend? Nope. When your friend says, 'this film sucks', or 'this is good' or 'great' you can make a full informed decision from one or two sentences, cause you know your friends taste, and you wouldn't wry because your friend once in awhile makes 'bad' recommendation. In ideal world I would only take advice from my friends, but there is one problem. Usually friends don't see over 200 films a year, so I can miss on some good films.
Now this is where a film critic comes in. It's critics job to see at least 10th of times more films than average film goers and report back the readers about it so they can make the choice. Generally what I expect from a critic to inform me about a film that I might want to see, but neither I or a friends of mine haven’t heard of. Because we all know that there are films that people see no matter what usually because of involvement of particular person, for example, I will watch a film with Winona Ryder or film by Martin Scorsese or Jim Jarmusch anyway because I like them. So in my opinion the job of the critic is to inform about the films I might miss, for example,’ The Visitor' a film I first read about in your reviews and now might want to check it out because it sounded good.
And I believe that you can make an informed choice from any review whether it was written while eating cooled shrimps while at the cool party. And it's easy if have read 100 reviews of a critic and seen the respective film. I grew up reading the reviews of 2 critics and I can tell you that there have been cases where I have seen the film beforehand and I knew what the review would be in general and I have been right, not always though. I have learned many useful stuff that you couldn’t if you read the review of particular critic for the first time, for example if film stars Jude Love most likely the film has been over praised a little, I know that she doesn't like the horror or slasher films, but I can get the idea whether I will most likely like them or not. I have learned stuff while reading your reviews over last few years, for example, I want take your review for David Lynch film for granted, because I have learned that the things you feel uncomfortable in Lynch films are the ones I love about his films. I will most likely to see the film first and the read the review, cause I am curious of course. (On side note too bad your web page doesn't have "Inland Empire" review, because I'd love to know what you thought of that). And I don't blame critics for those things cause those things are so human, and I do the same if suggest a film to my friend or vice versa, cause there are directors actors we like a lot and we can be "objective" (I used quotation marks cause I don't believe that there is such a thing as objectivity. Group subjectivity yes.)
Concluding all this a critic especially a critic who is familiar (by reading reviews I mean) to you walking out of the film is review by itself.
PS I think the producers of that film are very thankful for all the publicity their getting right now.
I am torn about statements about trailers. I know they will more often than not ruin a film. However, I work in a movie theater and if everyone skips trailers, we have an audience walking in when the film itself is starting and it ruins it for those who were thoughtful enough to show up on time.
There's one sort of trailer that never spoils the film - trailers for movie musicals. If you eatch the trailers for such films as the 1951 "Show Boat", or "Singin' in the Rain", "The Gay Divorcee", "An American in Paris", and even "Oliver!", the trailers just tell you who's in the film and give you a taste of some of the song number. They don't tell you anything about the plot.
"Footnote: This rule also applies to television, where as a movie critic you must never show a film's entire trailer for free."
I seem to recall a TV show featuring two critics, one of whom closely resembled you, running a clip from "Sharky's Machine", in which Burt Reynolds utters the single line that spoils a major part of the plot...
I also hate trailers, mainly because they insist on showing us a boiled down version of all 3 acts of a film. Many times I have been witness to a trailer and thought "Well, I just saw the short version of the film". My favorite films have all been films I knew nothing about, watched with crowds of people who have actually remembered why they were there, and not worried about dicking around with cell phones and huge trays of messy nachos. I agree- sit the heck down and shut the heck up.
Great advice, Roger, for us fledgling critics and cineastes. As always, you cut to the chase while being funny as hell! Keep up the good work. Psst, I directed a tribute to your other cohort, Russ Meyer. You can find it on my URL. This isn't a request for a review, just an FYI!
God. You're my absolute favorite, Mr. Ebert. As my 17th birthday approaches slowly (the 27th) I am increasingly eager to participate in this year's oscar season without the restriction of a rating.
I cannot wait until Synecdoche, New York opens near me. You introduced me to Kaufman; I am eternally grateful.
How could I ever actually become a movie critic? It breaks my heart to think about the endless road ahead. And you're the standard, so....if someone knows, it's you.
Ebert: Start on the web. Post a few observations here. Don't mention your age again. Nobody will know.
I want to gush, but it'd be somewhat pathetic. So I'll save it.
Mr. Ebert, your rules have one basic flaw: Not very many follow them.
im guessing he was the critic, who a few weeks ago, was using a cellphone during a screening. i remember reading that on your site a few weeks ago and i couldnt believe it! i cant believe he's allowed on tv.
Good evening Mr Ebert, thanks for these rules. I'm an Italian journalist (can't really call myself a critic yet), and I always learn a lot from your reviews. Just in case you might have the time to answer me, I have one question. Are there situations in which an embargo can be broken?
Ebert: The only situation is when you decide to break one. If there are consequences, you will have to live with them.
I wouldn't be a critic without criticizing. Mr.Ebert, I've been a fan forever and you'll forgive me for this as you advise filmmakers to do so of you following a bad review. I can't help but detect a whole heck of a lot of negativity here and dare I say it, bitterness? You're a legend, you'll always be one, and you love movies. You're rich, you're successful and yeah you've had some bad luck with your voice, but you can still write. I think that calls for a little more positivity. Thanks for the tips. I must admit, while the medicine is sour, it helps.
Ebert: Who would you say I am negative about, and why?
Roger, your writing is always a joy. No one who has followed your blog can fail to laugh at the picture of the rice cooker next to "No Celebrity Endorsements". Your tips are exactly what I need for my own amateur [1] attempts at reviews, although I'm sure I will never need to worry about rules such as "Never review a film you had anything to do with."
Recently I discovered that not only will trailers ruin or even spoil a film, some DVD menus will do the same. I had already seen "Red Rock West", thankfully, but when I went through the scene selections last night I discovered that many chapter titles gave away plot twists.
[1] Is there a word for "very, very, very amateur, like, completely inane and juvenile"? Well, at any rate, I think I just made my point.
A little late to this party, but one rule I'd like to see added : please, Mr Reviewer, don't use a movie review as an excuse to comment on current political events. This happens all the time, and I'm not talking about magazines of opinion, but rather general magazines ( and, though less frequently, newspapers.)
You do understand, do you not, that the screenplay was likely written 4-5 years ago, and that the movie went into production one and a half years ago? So how would the Obama-McCain campaign, say, figure at all into the thematics of 'Changeling' or 'Zack and Mira Make a Porno'?
It's always strange to see the photo of you and Peter O'Toole from the Savannah Film Festival, I've seen it multiple times in various newspapers and was actually walking past your trio when it was taken. I'm pretty certain Jason Patric is watching me drunkenly leap out of the way as the Ebert/O'Toole/Patric juggernaut steamrolls forward. Ah, to be underage and armed with fake VIP passes again...
Ebert: So you were the guy!
I grepped this page for the reference but nobody cared enough to plug the lines from a poem I barely recognised into Google.
I believe you are quoting from "To His Coy Mistress" by Andrew Marvel? If so, my favourite lines are also from the second stanza; "The grave's a fine and private place / But none I think do there embrace."
That said, I really enjoyed your rules for reviewing! Thank you for posting them online. I don't have a Homer Simpson fridge magnet but I will be keeping some appropriate subtitles in a handy text file for when I next put down my opinions about someone else's work.
Andrew Marvell, two l's, wrote that. And I agree with your reader Michelle Hyde, above, that the poem is "To His Coy Mistress." Quite a wonderful poem. For going on thirty-five years, all it's taken is about six drinks to get me reciting it. Feel better, Roger. God bless.
Andrew Marvell, two l's, wrote that. I agree with your reader above, Michell Hyde, that, as you know, the poem is "To His Coy Mistress." A wonderful poem. For going on thirty-five years now, six drinks are about all it's taken to get me reciting it. Feel better, Roger. God bless.
Apt, entertaining & timely rules to live by, for all of us (critics, writers, actors, politicians) that sing for our supper. Did I miss anyone? Roger, you're a treasure. Stay with us, please. We need you everywhere.
Trailers ARE the shorts we've come to know and hate prior to buying the ticket, as we are well-reminded when the latest P*psi or C*ke ad glows before us. By and large trailers are entertaining in that car-crash kind of way. Most often my time has been saved - I need not bother with the feature. I firmly believe trailers are thus built purposely to antagonize or attract a certain moviegoer. When a single percentile rise above, I'm in shock - certain it was an accident.
Siskel's abstensia wasn't so much defiance as following the rules - review the movie, not the marketing.
Hi Rodger,
First, I admire your rules and wished more "Professionals" in more professions stuck to rules like these
Two, the guy in the picture with Clint. That was Jeff Probst,most likely taken at this year's Oscars because Mr Probst was one of the hosts. Or was that the Emmy's. I know it is Mr Probst because one of my sinfull secrets is Survivor.
Three, I have to disagree with you about Video games. As with any storytelling form there are good stories and there are bad stories. In my opinion the class of games with the best stories are RPGs. RPG stands for Role Playing Games. They have a main quest or storyline for you to follow but provide plenty of side stories to fill out the world you game in,at least the best of them do,like Oblivian and Morrowind. or provide an atmosphere of being in a film like Resident Evil 4 or Bioshock. but these games rely on the player to help write the story and that can be a weakness. If you don't put any emotional attachment to the game it can fall flat like any storytelling form.
I haven't watched television or gone to the movies since 1986, when my lover got sick; there just wasn't time to run a business and feed him and take him to the doctor and run to the drugstore. I didn't make a choice but I dropped out of pop culture, and once you drop out, you can never drop back in. The stars change every month, the hype gets louder, the tube is now visually assaultive and I run away screaming in self-defense. I need peace, not assaults. I've never seen the Twin Towers fall 'cause I didn't have TV; I want to see the full tragedy someday, but when it happened I read about it in the newspapers, I looked at eloquent still pictures.
Every once in a coon's age someone makes a movie I want to see; last, "Brokeback," next, "Milk." When this happens I turn to Roger Ebert, because you'll tell me the truth as best you know. Maybe I'll agree, maybe not, but I trust you. You're Urbana-Champaign, and you've done a fine job of keeping to the best of where you're from and giving back.
So here's a weird reaction to your post, which I haven't seen among the ones above (I only read the ones where you commented back). I laughed with delight every time you cussed. Isn't that crazed? But I did. The Sun-Times would never print star-f***ing, but it's good you know what that is and denounce it. The world is more real this way, more honest.
Maybe if newspapers want to survive they should follow other media's lead and get more adult. If Blago's an effing scumbag, it wouldn't hurt to say so. Cussing should never be gratuitous, but kids aren't reading the newspaper; we're lucky if they can read at all. Can't the papers ever tell us what's really going on?
The old-time magic of newsprint (and its seeming permanence, though it's really good for wiping windows and storing Christmas ornaments) is leading your industry to self-destruct. Please, as you've given us 20 Rules for Film Critics, give us 20 Rules for Newspapers.
I read the paper because the only-once-a-day news cycle gives reporters and editors a little bitty window to pause and reflect, ask questions, double-check. The worst thing that ever happened to journalism was CNN, 24/7 live and late-breaking, because "Oops, we made a mistake" doesn't get nearly the airplay the mistake did. As Brokaw said in Election 2000, "The networks giveth and the networks taketh away." I was never so ashamed of the glibness of TV news as that night; on CBS, Dan Rather melted down at the shame of calling the election wrong for Gore, while Brokaw just passed the buck.
My comment is nothing of film, but as you said in a different context above, you're a newspaperman.
Best of wishes for the restoration of your health. Thanks to your loved ones for the doctor visits and all. People enjoy you, Roger, even when you were that roly-poly rumpled guy next to the stringbean Siskel. I used to think he was haughty, from the bigtime Tribune against the workingman's paper, but then you'd argue him down, he'd admit he was wrong and argue right back, and suddenly we saw democracy, even if it was just about the utter trivia of movies.
Keep writing, keep telling the truth, even if you've got to use a well-chosen cussword.
Ebert: Damn straight! As we used to say at Urbana High. No need to keep pace with the latest developments, but if you have a DVD player, you can always choose a few classics--Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock. Or the animation of Hayao Miyazaki, which is universal and requires no preparation. Anyway, I share your love of newspapers.
The world is so full of hype. I'm sick of it. Hype, hype, hype, hype. What I always appreciated about Siskel & Ebert was its noticeable lack of hype. When a film critic succumbs to hype--even once--it's all over for him (or her). For example, being merely the son of a film critic, without formidable scholarly training in film criticism, renders Ben Lyons utterly irrelevant, in my opinion. At least blogs are written by plain ol' people who, if they have the gift of vivid description, can provide me with solid feedback as I seek to separate the wheat from the chaff. Your "rules" will assist me in this regard. Thank you.
I've never once asked for an autograph, but I'm (now) ashamed to admit that I have a lot of photos with actors and filmmakers I've hung with at film festivals.
In my defense, I've written my share of negative reviews of films connected to people I've met.
But yeah, now those photos make me feel a little dirty. And since I agree that a film critic's integrity is his most important asset, I think I'm gonna stop collecting those photos.
Thanks for keeping us honest, Roger. Aspiring critics should re-read this article three times a year.
Ebert: Scott Weinberg comes around here? Wow. I hope all the readers know about Cinematical, which is a blog with experienced pros as contributors.
Damn it all, I wish I did have some of those photos now. I have Wilder. Altman and Herzog, but not Preminger, Fellini, Bergman, Varda, Hawks, Fuller, Huston, Hathaway, Ford--a whole slew. In those days, a big city newspaper movie critic got to interview everybody, no ground rules.
I just finished reading the article "Dumbing Down the Film Critic", which was published yesterday in the Los Angeles Times. I must admit I've never heard of Ben Lyons, but I'm old enought to remember the bantering, camaraderie, and insight of 'Sneak Previews'. This journal entry reminded me why I enjoyed watching it and 'At the Movies', and why I haven't seen the program since you left.
Unfortunately, intelligence and perceptive criticism don't seem to be in demand lately. My newspaper gets thinner and poorer by the day, the victim of a paradigm shift to an internet facination with pseudo-celebrities. It will be a sad day indeed when print journalism is laid to rest; please keep fighting the good fight.
Actually, 'if you describe a film as "the most unique movie-going experience of a generation,"' it's time to get reacquainted with the dictionary. A thing is either unique or not -- one thing can't be more or less unique than another.
Mr. Ebert, 4 things: 1) As with everyone else, great article. 2) Extreme kudos to you for responding to comments in December on an article you wrote in October!
3) I have looked virtually EVERYWHERE and cannot find an original review of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. NOT the 1997 re-issue review, but the 1980 review. Do you have it stashed somewhere?
4) I sincerely miss seeing you and Siskel together, and am grateful for the time that you were.
Ebert: Try here: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970221/REVIEWS/702210302/1023
Um.. Who said BoA is Korean version of Britney Spears? Eww. Please!! BoA is way better than Britney Spears.
Ebert: Let's hope so.
I just wanted to add a couple of things I HATE about movie trailers. It can be bothersome when they show footage that isn't in the final cut of the film. And it truly bugs me when they edit dialogue or scenes to look as they go together-- a character will say something and another character "responds" to that statement, but the two lines are completely unrelated and/or from different scenes... sometimes it's obvious, but not always.
Mr. Ebert, thank you for this article. It made me smile, but also got across some important points. I grew up watching and reading your reviews, as well as some of your contemporaries, and apparently took good and thoughtful criticism for granted. It is so difficult now to find true criticism of film. I always enjoy reading your reviews. Keep up the work and good health to you.
Thanks for this... I have nothing material to add to the witty, clever and perceptive people who have already commented. Thank you for maintaining a positive attitude in the face of the increasing amount of dreck being made (I've retreated to mostly watching movies of the '30s and '40s, I'm sorry (read: glad) to say). And thanks for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, always and forever.
Mr. Ebert. I am young a film critic who had been writing for Epinions.com for 8 1/2 years now. I'm also love movies and in my reviews, I try to create insightful reviews for the small number of readers I have. Your rulebook definitely gave me an idea of not what to do but rather, what not to do.
Becoming more aware of what it takes to be a real, serious critic. I definitely try to avoid the "quote-praise" thing but several of my fellow writers at Epinions.com often do that. I found it frustrating to the point that I've lost respect for some of them. I often comment on what they do wrong without trying to disrespect them. Some don't want to listen to me while others felt I helped them a bit and they got better. I wrote a review of Synecdoche, New York last month and gave it 4.5 out of 5 stars.
I recommended the film though I gave caution that it's not an easy film to digest. One of those readers saw the film and his reaction was that he didn't like it. While I didn't agree with his opinion or review. His insight into why he didn't like it gave me a new sense of respect for him. While I stand on my opinion, we agreed to disagree.
As for that "critic" you mentioned. Well, he's a douche whose lack of knowledge and passion in favor of smiling in front of the cameras on At the Movies to me is a total lack of respect for the audience.
Mr. Ebert, there's times I don't agree with your reviews but your intelligence and passion for the movies you like or dislike are always enjoyable to read. Especially the bad reviews which are a whole lot of fun to read. I'm awaiting the next 0 star review. I don't think it'll ever top your infamous "North" review which remains one of my all-time favorites. Thanks Roger, you get two thumbs up from this fan!
Ebert: It sounds to me as if you're doing everything right. Good luck.
Absolutely delightful and spot-on list! I just wish certain cringe-inducing cretins had the literacy and attention-span to read and respect those rules before spouting their pabulum publically.. Who was it who said that you have to know the rules in order to break them?
Ebert: I think you can break the rules and not have a clue.
Along with the line about if your mother says she loves you, check it out: "When in doubt, leave it out." Also, "Never assume anything."
My rule of thumb is, however, "Don't be an idiot." That tends to get me the most mileage.
Ebert: The eagle doesn't f*** with flies. Never mud-wrestle a lawyer, because you both get dirty and you get sued. Always pass up a sure thing. Never buy the cheapest puppy. At dinner parties, it is better to be a little late than a little early. A woman can never be too rich, too thin or too trusting. The most dangerous words in gthe language: "Trust me."
And of course: "No garden, however small, should contain less than two acres of rough woodland." -- Baron Lionel de Rothschild
This is an excellent article. I recently started a personal blog on movie reviews of old and new. Often, I've been curious of my performance in terms of quality and ethics. Though I might not follow every little advise that the article is giving, words from Roger Ebert will always be a helping hand in one way or another.
Roger,
Way back in the CompuServe days, I did reviews for WCKG and you were kind enough to actually correspond with me individually. I've always wanted to thank you for that, even when we couldn't agree about "Natural Born Killers". Every critic should aspire to your intelligent level of discourse.
I have three points to mention, and am grateful to have the opportunity to do so.
1) The only time I have ever encountered a famous actor in a situation where I might have taken a photo with him, but declined for the exact reasons you mentioned, was in Hawaii in November 2000. While still reeling from the not-quite-over Presidential election, I flew to Maui for the wedding of two good friends. Everyone was staying at the Kea Lani Hotel, and after the rehearsal dinner, we took over the hotel bar, and had every table covered - except for a table of four people, one of whom was a famous actor. He wondered what was going on and asked that of the two guys who worked up enough guts to go over and simply tell him how great they thought he was. He's the groom's favorite actor. The actor initiated the taking of (many) pictures and could not have been more gracious, polite, and friendly. We were all grateful for that, as it really added to the celebration.
As you probably guessed, the actor was Clint Eastwood. He could not have been more pleasant. The classic comment came when he was ready to take the photo with the groom, who was downstairs for a moment. He looked at the bride and said "Where's the other one? What - did the groom split?" (Laughter ensues) He enjoyed talking with everyone - or it seemed so. Of course, he is an actor.
2) The standard of criticism has, for the most part, devolved to the point of nonsense. Studios have drastically lowered their standards, and the movie-watching public seems fine with it, and now many critics have simply stopped thinking, and instead just react. When the rigorous application of standards makes people feel badly, and the reins (not the reigns) are handed over to someone - say, a Disney TV producer hack - who probably doesn't like the rigorous application of standards, then instead that producer will hire someone who strives to help their friends and make most people feel good. There's a precious lack of standards out there, and that sadly won't change anytime soon.
3) The masses get the criticism they deserve. This devolution of the movie industry is a response to what sells, as we all know. If people just need to see a review from a quote machine saying this is "one of the greatest movies ever" and don't care who said it, or know enough to regard such a quote with vigorous skepticism, and they see the film with the expectation that it is, then walk out saying "That was awesome" because the reviewer said it was great, and don't learn from that experience, I believe that is their problem. If you buy a ticket to "Beverly Hills Chihuahua", would any review matter? People don't know what is good, and what isn't, because they don't bother to figure it out for themselves. While you've correctly said "It's not what a movie's about, it's how it's about it", others apparently think "It's good if it sells a lot of tickets, and if it doesn't, it is bad." If people think a movie is good because a lot of people go to see it, they can't be saved. Instead, they'll get a critic who tells them a movie is good because the theater he was in was full when he saw the movie.
Thanks. Keep up your excellent work.
Jeff
PS One last thing, Roger - while I would not advise this for other critics, especially certain ones, if someone had offered you the opportunity to DJ at the Hard Rock Pool with Ingmar Bergman, you should have done it.
Ebert: Frankly, the thought has never occurred to me.
Dear Roger,
I first came across your movie reviews some years ago by way of IMDb, and I was hooked almost immediately. Over the years, I've become a great admirer of your eloquence and wit, and I'm also an avid reader of your blog. As a non-native English speaker I can only dream of being a mere approximation of a wordsmith such as yourself. I enjoyed this post very much, however I think you missed two very important rules:
Never reveal everything that happens. It's perfectly fine to detest and be bored to death by a movie, but that does not mean you should reveal every plot point other than the ending. It's also perfectly acceptable to hate the way characters behave, or to admire the way they behave, but there is no need to list each and every one of their actions. There are people who will like the movie you hate, and whatever you may think of those people, you shouldn't spoil the movie for them. If you see something coming from a mile away, but the movie only sees it fit to solidify the fact halfway through, that is not reason enough to describe the event as if it happens within the first five minutes of the film. And when you love the movie and how it goes about revealing its secrets, you should be even less inclined to reveal them. There is absolutely no need to reveal what the secrets are to point out how wonderful the movie is.
Always provide accurate information. For example, never state a character gets a job in a bank when the only time this character appears in it is to rob it. Always ensure all the dialog you quote or refer to is correct and attributed to the correct characters. You should also refer to the characters you describe at length with their correct name and the correct actor that played them. Never describe this character with traits of a different character or use that character's brother's name. If you for some reason choose to reveal the movie's big secret, you should actually describe the big secret itself. If the movie annoys you, and you choose to dismissively describe its plot, you should of course describe the actual plot, not something entirely unrelated. You should also be able to tell apart an African-American actor from a Caucasian actor, as well as a robe from a police uniform, ideally both within the same review.
As a general rule, I don't read reviews while deciding whether or not to see a movie because they almost without exception reveal too much. I don't want to be told what happens. I want to see what happens. Thus, I only read reviews after I watch a movie, and that goes for capsule reviews in movie guides, too. Incidentally, most of the no-no examples I refer to can be found in your reviews, although I admire your writing just the same. However, I insist that any critic should do his utmost to present the information correctly.
Sincerely,
Peter
Ebert: I was going to say, that sounds like a litany of some of my blunders over the years.
Hi Roger.
I am a fan of course but like say I agree with BLAH's comment. BoA is not the Britney Spears of Korea or Asia or anywhere else. In fact, it is a total insult to have her name anywhere near that trailer trash version of Marylin who can't sing, act or dance.
Boa never married a baby daddy, Shaved her hair because she didnt want it tested for drugs, or ever Showed her Privates to paparazzi.
I say hey.. So what your friend got a International superstar at his Bday. Eh maybe it wasnt janet jackson or whomever you like but you need to appreciate this girls worth ethic. Even if you dislike her music or her feild ... shes amazing.
Here in america BoA is a psuedo celebrity but we Americans don't appreciate foreign culture or people enough. If you did you would know that BoA may be korean by birth but she released her music earilier than Britney. BoA premiered at 13 and never wore a catholic girls uniform to make it. BoA's songs just at this moment (at 23 years old) are becoming more lively and sexual unlike Britney who was grinding in the hallway at 15.
Shes had over 34 hit singles .. and 12 hit albums throughout ASIA unlike Britney and her crappy 4 albums.
She collaborated with WESTLife and Howie D...And even BANDS like WEEZER have covered her songs.
SO dude.. Britney not even in the same league as BoA.
I hope BoA makes it here I really do.
Ebert: I do too, and you make excellent points. I did not call her the Britney spears of Korea. Here is where I found that description:
http://www.vegasnews.com/1052/ben-lyons-celebrates-birthday-at-body-english.html
http://asianfanatics.net/forum/-talk115813.html
The first article describes the birthday party I was referring to.
I think a little research wouldn't hurt in future-
At least then you would have gotten BoAs' last name correct & not have just slapped such an inaccurate title on her either.
Ebert: Please correct me on her name. The title was not supplied by me.
I just discovered this and may I say thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Someone needs to e-mail this to what's-his-name who isn't fit to even visit your former time slot. Then it needs to be read to him before every show, and possibly several times during. I watched many of the episodes after you left, and while they weren't as good without you (and Gene) it at least kept most of the spirit. This latest incarnation however, is nowhere close. I have other words to describe it better, but I don't want to get bleeped.
Some of these rules should not even be strictly applicable to film critics, but the general public as well. I have always thought that asking for a movie star's autograph and photo was silly. But in my opinion there are exceptions to those rules...people you really don't care about, like for me, Paris Hilton I just had to get an autograph from.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
It seems too late to be commenting on this Journal post, but I find if fascinating, and amusing. I would love more than anything to be a film critic, but I bet you hear that so much it has lost its meaning. (If not I apologize if any offense is taken).
It's also funny, because I know the critics that you are speaking to, and I agree. I agree 100%. Not to mention their reviews piss me off. (I couldn't think of a euphemism). One things critics always do wrong is think that, those who have never taken a film class have no taste, or knowledge. Which is a generalized assumption. Not all of us are bumpkins.
Oh wow, I just kind of got going there, I apologize. And none of that was aimed at you. Which is the honest truth. You seem to take movies for what they are, which is rare. I also hate it when critics compare movies. I used to do that, and you really can't. Films are so different. I find it increasingly difficult to say what my favorite movie is, or which movie is better than the other. Which kind of renders the Oscars useless, correct?
Hmmm.. Oh well.
Mr. Ebert
First, I have loved and devoured your reviews for years, and ofen go back to read them after seeing an older movie for the first time. I have just discovered this site and I am ecstatic. Thanks again.
Second, I am so pleased to see you responding to many of the comments on this page. I don't know why it surprised me, but it did.
Now, I have a general review question. There are a handful of movies that I have seen which I casually refer to as "horsesh**t movies that I fu**in' love" Often the movies are greatly flawed, ususally poor scripts or weak acting, sometimes downright awful in every aspect. While some I am able to pinpoint the reasons why I am willing to forgive the movie its flaws, other times I am downright dumbfounded. It may be that the subject just appeals to me, or one good line really affected me personally. So what would Ebert say to a movie like this? Would it be a thumbs down that you also say you regretfully enjoyed. Or a thumbs up which you admit most people will not agree with, and the critic in you still does not agree, but the movie lover in you liked for reasons you are unable to articulate. I'm not even thinking of guilty pleasures or Ed Wood camp, but movies hopelessly flawed by their sentimentality or bad movies taking themselves too seriously (which I guess does include Ed Wood)that somehow still strikes a chord for me and no one else. These movies are rare for me, but I love them despite every "clang" and don't know whether I can openly embrace them. The devils!
I have seen you give a hesitant thumbs up for movie that just barely makes the mark, and you are sure to point out its flaws, but then concretely describe what did work. Has there ever been a movie that offers none of that concrete evidence or any redeeming qualities that you enjoyed regardless?
And what about a movie you loved as a kid, and as an adult are unable to disown, even though you should know better. The fantasy garbage "Legend" and "The Wiz" (the music still rocks!)comes to mind for me. Deplorable. What can I do, I still love 'em.
What would Ebert do?
Ebert: If I loved them, I would say so. And I do, sometimes to general derision.
I read this post some months back and it belatedly occurs to me to comment. I write primarily about technology, not films, and primarily for the British press rather than the US press (though I have a bunch of US credits, too). I also write a little bit about tennis, where the temptations are more similar to those discussed above.
I think in all specialized areas you write about a relatively small subculture; technology, like movies, is highly visible and highly lucrative and you repeatedly encounter the same people - the PRs if not the principals. There are certainly people in the tech press who would be as thrilled to be photographed with Bill Gates as anyone might be to help Peter O'Toole home. Though I'm not sure the journalist who asked would survive Gates's probably withering scorn.
The difference between the British and US press, however, couldn't be more marked. AFAIAA there is no major (or minor) UK publication that would not let its staff accept freebies - paid trips, lunches, products, you name it. If there is one that doesn't, it would be The Economist (for which I've never written). When The Independent was founded in the late 1980s, it began life with a grand "no freebies" policy. (In tech this meant you could keep software (like books) but not hardware (like cars).) This policy survived until the paper got into financial trouble and is long gone now. I've heard it said that the biggest difference the policy made was to travel coverage, where journalists wrote about places they'd actually want to go instead of places they could get free trips to. Of all the publications I've written for over here the *only* exception was the Wall Street Journal Europe, which I wrote for a few times in around 1995-1997, and they were *extremely* fussy. And, of course, American.
There is also a lot more crossover between legitimate journalism and advertorial, PR work, corporate white papers, etc., just as actors here cross over a lot more among films, stage, and TV, particularly but not solely for freelances. (There are, here, people who are journalists, then PR, then journalists again, all in the same field.) Everyone has to make a living and there is simply less scope in any one outlet. What happens when you write advertorial to run alongside a publication for which you also write the real stuff? In the words of at editor on one of the nationals, "I'd rather you use a pseudonym". Which, in my view, adds deception to whatever other sin is being committed.
What is very interesting is the reaction I've seen among British journalists to rules like those proposed above. They seem to feel that these ethical constraints are rather childish. They will, they say in outraged tones, say what they think, good or bad; their opinions aren't for sale to the company buying their plane ticket to Comdex. But if you press they will admit that out of courtesy they *will go look at and write about the company's products*. In Toxic Sludge is Good For You (a fabulous book about the workings of the PR industry that I recommend to everyone), John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton cite studies that indicate that people are not all that influenced by the opinions they see in the media - but that media coverage *does* influence, much more importantly, what they think is important. In which case, companies taking journalists to visit Comdex, their own research institutions, etc., are in fact spending their money wisely even if the journalists come back and trash them.
What's really interesting is that the same journalists have some contempt for US tech publishing, which they believe is in the thrall of advertisers. One journalist I know refers often to journalists in the US *applauding* at press conferences as an indication of what toadies they are. (The rule in sports, including tennis: There is no applause in the press box.)
In the early 1990s, none of the houses publishing computer magazines in this country had computerized production. Staff on computer magazines who had computers had them on loan from one company or another and every so often when the equipment was up for repossession you'd see them scrambling to organize another loan. There was actually a good side to this, in that it meant they stayed up to date on new equipment - and stuff was changing practically every week then - that their companies could never have afforded. But I had someone tell me in all seriousness that it was better to borrow equipment, even on long-term loan (a year or more) than to buy it because when you bought a company's equipment you entered into a personal relationship with that company. In some cases that might have been true: several major technology companies offered (and may still, for all I know) discounts to journalists who bought direct (mediated, typically, by the PR people). People went after these discounts, even though none were better than the prices on Tottenham Court Road.
Fact-checkers do not exist here, and the British tech journalists of my acquaintance seem offended by the idea. Their view seems to be that people should trust them to have done their job and gotten it right in the first place.
Also widespread: selling review copies of books. It's no secret that this is how many publications finance their Christmas parties. I suggested recently to a group of science writers that this might be unethical, and they just *stared*.
A (British) writer gave me this advice about reviews: the more negative the review, the more of the book you have to read. (You can't say "This book never even mentions shedelepp, which is so significant in the specklediff" unless you have read every page to make sure [made-up words borrowed from Jean Kerr].)
Fortunately for my social life among interesting people, techies tend to be annoyed by inaccuracy rather than disagreement.
One other amusement is that certainly in the 1990s, less so now, many journalists here in all fields except business/finance seemed to pride themselves on dressing in as slovenly a fashion as possible. (Except for the women, who had more to prove.) One US-based Scottish PR friend used to explain carefully to US clients that the people they were about to meet were not in fact street people but the most important and clued-up of London's technology journalists - and to brace themselves for obstreperous and awkward questions.
I leave you with Humbert Wolfe:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist -
Thank God - the British Journalist
But seeing what unbribed he’ll do
There’s really no occasion to.
wg
P.S. I believe that fuzzy logic is an important and useful characteristic for a Pot. It means you can make oatmeal from steel-cut oats and have it ready automagically for when you get up.
P.P.S. I used to love trailers.
Ebert: Yet the British quality press is the best in the world.
It seems I'm a little late to this dinner party, but better late than guilty of breaking any of these rules in the realm of criticism. One wonders if any type of or even single reviewer in specific inspired this catalogue of critical faux-pas. Certainly there can be no critic so blundering, uninformed, and unethical as to break all of these rules.
No. The world would be an even more horrifying place in that instance. You have leveled, with class and tact, criticism about as scathing as any I've ever read.
You mention Dickinson in this article, to elucidate the mires of celebrity —— mires, of course, populated by swarms of buzzing "mouth-breathers" hungry to sink their stingers into the flesh of anyone approaching famous. I'd like to add a bit more poetry, because it would seem a fitting description of these faceless transgressors and in keeping with the spirit of your article:
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Ironic that the contemporary penchant for tagline quotes and condensed criticism should fail to constitute the "bang" to which it aspires. Too much do we spoil ourselves assuming that everything of value comes in bite-sized form, and that intellectual, or even merely discerning, discussion can be replaced by numbers, stars, or even, no offense meant, thumbs. No extensive study of modern hermeneutics need be done to realize how the tide of criticism is turning. Of course not every film needs some high-nosed exegesis to explain its merits or disadvantages, but this simplification of criticism (even aggregate sites like rotten-tomatoes are guilty of this) will cripple our ability, as a society, to talk ABOUT; that is, after all, the purpose of criticism. Off we'll go, whimpering dogs, whining for whatever half-chewed scraps our masters throw to us, unable to discern, unable to discuss. This could quite possibly be the way, God forbid, the world of thoughtful consideration ends.