Hunt not the Snark but the Snarker

Interesting stuff. I think you're really bringing up two subjects: the tone in which critics, journalists and others sometimes discuss films and celebrities, and the ridiculous fascination we have with their personal lives.

Nikki's column is an example of the former, while the great controversy of Angelina snubbing Ryan Seacrest is an example of the latter. I feel like the fascination with celebs has more than simply spilled over into mainstream journalism --- it has supplanted the focus and coverage. Some play into this, but come on --- how can people with cameras follow people around and call themselves journalists and not stalkers? (Check out Julia Roberts in this very R-rated YouTube clip flipping out, justifiably, to stalker journalists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuIHoFlWhDQ).

I think there is a fine line, too. I did some freelance film criticism in college. I wrote a review for the Seattle P-I (which may be going away soon) of a particularly awful Rob Schneidermovie called "The Hot Chick." I was more than snarky -- I was pretty brutal. I said he "pranced around like a dangerously caffeinated idiot while (many) other struggling actors are left waiting tables." Or something like that.

Too mean? Possibly. Sometimes being snarky is a good thing, even justifiable. But not when it goes to our heads.

If one may borrow from your assessment that snarkers snark the famous so to show themselves to be superior -- do snarkers not also prey upon the trivial? In other words, would it be possible to snark about something of meaning, say - the holocaust? Do snarkers imply their own triviality by attacking that which is trivial in their targets? Wouldnt another term for snark be simply bitchy?

And what about snark and political correctness? Any correlation? Snark could be a passive answer to pc. In the same way that Madonna is a passive answer to the glass ceiling. Style is the point. The attitude (to borrow from McLuhan) is the message. Snarkers may pose as anti-pc but because they can only deal in trivialities do not actually confront pc.

This would apply only to habitual or abusive snarkers. Because, face it, some snark is the fault of not just the snark-er, but also the snark-ee. FOr example, some couple adopting children is likely not suitable for snark. Was Letterman`s handling of Phoenix snark? Perhaps, (Phoenix certainly thought so) but if so, justifiable. Letterman was having fun with a difficult (though trivial) situation.

Snarking isn't becoming a deliberately chosen posture; I'm sick to say it has become the dominant posture. It is a given no matter where you turn, and I hate it. This kind of thing might have its place in smaller amounts, but now it is pretty much all we got. It is everywhere now -- not just in entertainment media. There are ongoing flavors of this sickening, cynical hip posturing in regular news coverage, too, especially online. I'm sure I am even understating it. The web has made everyone into a presumptuous critic, and as you say, they use that anonymous tool to punish other people. This happens for no other reason than to sling shit at folks uphill. I almost wonder if a guy like Rex Reed is a pioneer of this, with movie reviews that are often little more than mean-spirited comments about the appearance of the actors. You read his stuff and you sense a major imbalance in the guy. I'm not sure where it began. But this snarking thing definitely rolls along with a "young hipster" engine, and legitimate sites such as The Onion A.V. Club absolutely revel in it. All the writing is skillful, but is just curdled with this kind of "cleverer than you" sarcasm. And of course, it is timelessly true that not a one of these wise-assed snarks would make any of their comments to the target's face. It's all done from the online shadows.

I agree with your criticism of snark. It's always easier to shoot something down, than to create something new yourself. It seems like the negative, scornful, snarky person always has the upper hand in an argument, but, with enjoyment's defenders like you, Mr. Ebert, it might be more of fair fight.

Dear Roger--good timing, apt subject, congratulations on subjecting your own snarkistry to the same scrutiny. That's Honesty for you.

Funny seems to forgive a lot. When Dorothy Parker told the world that Katharine Hepburn's emotions ran the gamut from A to B, Ms. Hepburn took it personally--BUT thereafter I don't think could EVER be looked at that way; she dusted herself off and went to work. (Joni and I named our daughter after her; one of our first movies watched together was THE AFRICAN QUEEN.)

I hope Mr. Phoenix goes public with some response to the public speculations. Also hope he shows the class and grit of Ms. Hepburn.

Thanks also for putting "In Memoriam" up. THIS time it was a pleasure to see!

Ebert: Ambrose Bierce: "The covers of this book are too far apart."

Haha... wonderful thoughts, like always Mr. Ebert.

This years' oscars were the best that I've seen in a while: the set was gorgeous, Jackman was entertaining and refreshing as host, and this year actually seemed to have a genuine respect for this year's nominees. My only qualms about it was that not enough people saw what a great show it was. Not that they saw it and snarked the life out, it's just... they didn't see it.

And my, my, when on Monday morning, my glee from oscars quickly evapourated when I saw that no one at my school had really watched them. The few that did simply snarked at the movie stars dressed up and the absurdity of the Oscars. I guarantee however that none of them has seen all of the movies, nor seen the entire televise.

Which makes me wonder for my generation. How is it that we can just snark away at everything, and never have time to enjoy the good stuff? Granted, the Oscars have become a bit of a political show than an actual awards ceremony, but this year seemed as I have said, genuine. Like the face-lift that was badly needed, really did make the difference after all.

But in any case, I've always looked forward to your blog posts, Mr. Ebert, and this one was no different. Keep on writing, and snarking those who NEED a good snark. (Cough.... Nikki Finke... cough.)

-Sophia

Everyone in this house enjoyed the Oscars. It was especially nice having seen a fair portion of the films. And I think Hugh Jackman did great. Thank god the announcer wasn't another comedian. You know, stand up comedy can be great but I think it has had some deleterious effects on other areas of our culture. Maybe it's because we have ceased to see the artifice of it, and seeing one person on stage doing nothing but trying to make you laugh for an hour no longer seems bizarre. I think this has caused many movie comedies to be filled with comedians, but there's nothing more dismal than a film full of people trying to make jokes when you're at the theater to see a feature film, 60+ minutes of story. That's what I felt was wrong with the movie Get Smart. The screen was full of too many comedians making jokes, winking at the screen, and the story never could get going. The only breath of fresh air in the movie was Bill Murray's short stint stuck in a tree. Fortunately, we have Michael Cera, Jason Segel, Jonah Hill, Steve Carell when the casting and direction is right, Ricky Gervais (I'm stealing him from England for this post), amongst others who are comic actors instead of comedians on screen. Hopefully, Jackman's performance is an indicator that entertainers, as well as comic actors, are on the ascendancy.

The anonymity of the internet and the ease at which one can express one's opinions has fostered an environment where snarking flourishes. I have to wonder, though: would these people make the same snarks if Hugh Jackman were shaking their hand at a social gathering?

what does it say about me that i love reading you thrashing a movie more than anything? Am i a snark addict

your review of 'four christmases' had me in tears

Thank you for posting the "In Memoriam" montage, it's nice to see full frame... by the way where is Patrick McGoohan?

Ebert: Or Eartha Kitt?

Reply to: Ebert: Now consider the widely-held theory that it was all an act, a put-on, a chapter in the life of the hip hop persona Phoenix is creating. In my opinion, that's the most likely explanation.

Case in point, Omarosa, the most hated contestant on "Donald Trump's The Apprentice." In a candid moment, she confessed that she had created a persona so she could merchandise and sell it after she left the show. Call it Game Theory. Call it trying to be in actor in a market where most actors are unemployed.

Or, my theory is, the guy's just weird. I mean, actors. If the reason they hired you is people would believe you'd stab General Maximus in the back and have sex with your own sister, then maybe the guy IS weird.

Reply to: Ebert: It is easy to snark, and I am a clever writer. I must resolve not to take cheap shots, except in those cases of truly bad movies; in such reviews, I believe readers understand the rules can be bent. In true snarking, there is no such thing as a cheap shot; the gold standard is the Good Shot.

For years, you've tried to help audiences understand what goes on behind the camera.

I admired the Game Plan of the 81st Academy Award show, to take the audience through the act of writing the script, casting the movie, filming it... but they left the Best Actor awards for the end, when in reality, there's a ton of post after the actors go home.

What they missed was, Where do the ideas come from?

How does Peter Jackson convince a studio to make three LOTR movies instead of one?

The biggest stumbling block in Hollywood are producers who think "Fired Up" is a movie instead of a concept. Two high school jocks attend a summer cheerleading camp. In a movie, at the end, the audience feels like the experience was worth two hours of their life. Or, in the case of "Titanic," some multiple of three.

Every time I walk into a video store, there are so many bad movies on the shelves. Not just "Saw ad infinitum" and "Halloween until your eyes bleed," but "Touristas" and "Benji Phone Home."

So, if you sit in the theater for two hours and at the end, it wasn't really a movie... snark away. Embarrass the clowns so badly, they leave Hollywood. Then, watch other, more talented filmmakers rush in to fill the tiny space they vacated.

'John McCain referred to an audience as "my fellow prisoners" and was never allowed to forget it. But we all do thinKs like that.'

I don't know if you meant to do that right after referring to gaffes, but perhaps that's part of it's brilliance.

And perhaps, my commenting is a sign of rampant snarkiness? I suppose that depends on if I meant to insult you. I did not, but would that have the same result?

Ebert: I didn't, It isn't. It does. No.

Snark reaches the places that substantive argument cannot, and that is usually matters of personal tastes.

Funny that you cite the Joaquin Phoenix incident. It occurred to me that an historian who watches the Oscar 2009 broadcast in 50 years will not have a clue what Ben Stiller is up to. The snark fills the negative space around a trivial story(my god, how truly, truly, truly trivial) to become the story itself.

Yes, I agree, Roger. The Oscars this year actually felt intimate and fun, as opposed to an over-bloated TV s how we have been sitting through the last few years.

Oh, and I agree that Phoenix is just doing an Andy Kaufmanesque routine/gag. Letterman was in on the whole Jerry Lawler slapping Andy Kaufman gag and has always appreciated guest who have elaborate gags, like Charles Grodin(who pretends to be upset with him) and Bruce Willis, who recently appeared to show off his new "Fry Hard With a Vengeance". Click below to see Bruce's "product placement."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrkrQrEl32I

Phoenix is just filming a Mockumentary with Casey Affleck and Letterman is in on it.

A whole article on snarks and not one mention of the boojum? Should've worked that in, Roger.

I thought Jackman's greatest need after the opening number was to catch his breath so he didn't gasp into the microphone. I would have sat anywhere, myself. And probably died.

And as for snarking in general - wag more, bark less.

"Snarky" is a word heard often in our house as we as a family generally try to embrace each others' differences and eccentricities as they are numerous. We are quick to point out when another is being "snarky". We will disagree yet try not to be too snarky about it.

I felt that the Oscars show this year was something of a relenting, a sense that they are embracing what the Oscars are REALLY about instead of trying to be hip. You disagree with me, but I thought Jon Stewart was completely wrong as host of the Oscars. The guy is for hipsters and those still in love with irony, not a snarky man generally, but certainly too "with it" to host something as daggy as the Oscars. Hugh Jackman was perfect. Loud, brash, over-the-top, corny. I appreciated the tone they went for and agree with all of your comments about it.

It saddens me that so much journalism and satricial comedy is pitched at the level of the snark as it simply betrays the cynicism and the narrow-mindedness of the person reporting and offers me no real insight. Now I know what to say when people ask why I prefer 'The Simpsons' to 'South Park'. "Because 'The Simpsons' is genuine satire. 'South Park' is just snarky."

Thank you for posting the in-memoriam video. I was very disappointed in how it was shown on television. It seemed like Queen Latifah was more the focus, not the dearly departed. Often, it was difficult to read the names of the individuals and what they did. And did anyone else sorely miss being able to hear the applause that usual comes when each name appears? It was barely audible through the singing. I'm glad they're trying new things, but I think the "In Memoriam" is one tradition that should remain unchanged.

Hope you're doing well R.E. Can't wait for Ebertfest!

Best,
Brian Rose

Yes! Now that's the "in memoriam" montage I wanted to see. Thank you.

We live in a Fuellerton Age, if I remember Magister Ludi correctly. I haven't read anything as heavy as Hesse for a while. Gossip has replaced news. Too much that passes for importance is just minutiae. In the technological warp speed of blogging, every breath can be evaluated, every split second of frozen smile memorialized.

The blogosphere, like cable television needs much filler. Much of it is thoughtless and careless. It is always easier to knock down than to consider another's ideas, actions, or development.

Thank you for your regrets, Roger. You are one of the good guys and have established trust with your readers. You have earned it.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who has a problem with the increasing culture of snark and irony that has pervaded modern society. One problem that I have with the Culture of Snark is the way that it's seeped its way into the type of so-called "family entertainment" that would make Walt Disney turn over in his grave. I don't want to sound like a prude or anything, but I'm sick and tired of films like Shrek and Madagascar that offer nothing but snotty sophomoric humor and pop-culture references in lieu of anything resembling magic or imagination. Whatever happened to sincerity and sweetness? Why do the makers of so many of these "children's movies" feel the need to wrap everything in a shroud of sarcasm and ironic detachment? Do they honestly believe that children won't watch anything unless it's filled to the brim with smart-alecky wink-wink nudge-nudge gags?
My four-year-old niece's favorite movies are The Wizard of Oz and Disney's Sleeping Beauty. Are those movies square and unhip because there are no winking asides or spoofs of pre-existing films? Of course not. They're enduring classics because they were made my people who respected the intelligence of both children and adults and didn't feel the need to condescend to either of them with smarmy self-awareness and cynical juvenile humor.

I completely agree with your opinion about people's nasty attitudes and that's one of the main reasons I love your blog. Even when discussing politics your readers tend to behave relatively well (and respect each other) which I find amazing when comparing them to those in other internet sites I frequent. My explanation for this: your articles reveal a truly well informed and intentioned person, whatever his opinions. This makes it difficult to bring out one's snarky self, whatever the subject.
The Oscars for me, well, that's another story, sure as a movie lover I feel like I have to seem them year after year but even though I don't agree with Finke's opinion's per se I do get the feeling that if that show is the only thing you ever watched, you would come out believing gay rights and the holocaust are the two main matters affecting the world today. Just on this year's show the words "dignity" and "hope" were mostly used while talking about Sean Penn's and Marisa Tomei's characters which I dont' need to describe to you while, on the other hand, nuns and priests are reflected as today's villains. This type of message is not too subtletly repeated time and time again and all I'm trying to say is that if they are not your cup of tea (they aren't mine), it's difficult not to pour out a good dose of sarcasm, no matter how much you love movies.

I would go back to our friends at the Algonquin round table. Cruel, sure, but funny as hell and the great lines remain with us. Mencken also criticized with a lot of English on the ball and that's what made him readable, what set him apart from Sinclair Lewis and the rest of the muckrakers.

Bertrand Russell was not Alfred North Whitehead because Russell's criticisms, partcularly of the Christian faith, were clear and readable and fun and nasty, and Whitehead remains more or less obtuse--more than Russell, less than Wittgenstein. (There's a bit of snark for you. Take that, DWMs.)

I say celebrate the mal mot. We're all big boys and girls and if you have the strength of character to go on the Letterman show and act goofy, have the strength of character to get called on it. And I think J.P. probably has that. I've not seen him complaining about his treatment in the press at large nor from Dave himself.

I caught Mark Wahlberg on a Brit show a couple of nights ago and when he was asked about Tom Cruise, he replied he didn't know Cruise because they "attend different churches." There was a laugh, and he went on to say, "I go to the one with Jesus." I enjoyed that. The audience liked it, too. It was his big laugh.

And our Prez? The big applause line seeemd to me to be the one about inherited problems. Snarky? Accurate? Playing to the core? Whatever it was, I didn't feel it was unfair. And hell, I didn't even vote for Obama.

I used to frequent several forums. But I have relented, visiting all but one or two nowadays. But even those are impossibly infested with snarking gone wild.

This blog is one of the few last vestiges of internet sanity and genuine wit.

Thanks for your mature exposure of this tiresome trend. I have steered clear of most blogs and amateur internet commentary for some time, because all too often the opinions seem written by a universal depressed 14-year old who dislikes everything to appear cool. I fail to understand how adults can find employment as writers using critiques such as "gay" or "retarded", or propagate one of the worst tendencies, the abuse of the word "hate". Lack of articulation and accountability by their mediocre superiors, no doubt. I suppose they have their audience, and woe to the world. /curmudgeon

What bothers me about the rise and rise of blogs (present company completely excluded) is the fact that snark itself seems to be the common currency.

Why is this?

Perhaps it's because, in a blog, brevity is king. One must be brief, and to the point, and, most importantly, oh-so-clever. (Not an original idea -- Norman Mailer once wrote that sportswriters have 'the burden of being clever', which is why sarcasm and irony became so widespread in their writing.) A novelist has the luxury of developing his or her ideas over the course of hundreds of pages. The shorter form demands a precision that often gives way to the easiest trap-door substitute -- snark, the poorman's wit.

Of course, I love blogs. I have a blog. And yet, good writing is usually not about being 'clever', but about being accessible and open and empathetic.

We're all so busy trying to prove to everybody how clever and funny and witty and wise we are that we forget to listen. (Which is why we read in the first place, isn't it? To listen to see if others reflect or embrace what we believe? And if all we hear echoed back on a daily, monthly, yearly basis is snark, then I fear that honest sentiment and sincere emotion will soon be considered quaint, almost embarrassing.)

About Joaquin Phoenix, if he's ill, he does deserve our sympathy. But if he is not ill, I don't think his little routine should suddenly be praised as some kind of deep-cover improv art. In your Answer Man column, you took him to task for devouring the spotlight that rightly belonged to the film he was promoting, "Two Lovers." The film and its makers deserve better than to be made second fiddle to Phoenix's wacky side-project.

I do agree that snark has taken over the culture, which has grown much too concerned with tabloid exploits: how fat and ugly [insert celebrity name here] has gotten, how much does Jennifer hate Angelina, and so on, and so on. I have a friend who loves tabloids and I never understand why. When she points at a magazine cover, I counter by suggesting how the person might feel at being so horribly scrutinized and why it really doesn't matter in the long run -- or the short run for that matter. She tells me I'm too nice, and I take offense to that. As if basic empathy is to be equated with softness or weakness, as if common decency is too much decency.

But I do hope you will keep your knife sharpened when it comes to your film criticism. When a truly bad film comes along, have at it. We've all seen movies that bad. We know how it feels.

Roger - This is a really wonderful article. I'm not generally one for awards shows, but I enjoyed this year's Oscars, particularly Hugh Jackman's song and dance numbers. He is quite the showman.

I have to agree that continual snark gets tiresome. Wired magazine tends to lean heavily on the snark, especially in its intro to readers' letters. Sometimes I get so irritated with the snark that I want to cancel my subscription. So far, there's enough redeeming value to the magazine that I haven't done so, but if they push it too far ....

Thanks for your analysis of snark and your request for people to dial it back.

Ah-HA! As long as we can read between the lines, we can finally see that "Synecdoche, NY" was your favorite movie of the year. Cool, now I'm gonna update your Wikipedia page.

Joking. But serious about my discover of your secret "best movie of 2008" award. I'm just that awesome.

Thanks, Roger, for pointing out how out of control this bad habit has become. I always thought I enjoyed snark, but it wasn't/isn't the stuff that's seen and heard everywhere now. Our culture has become so quick to judge, so unforgiving, and even downright cruel toward any slight imperfection, and it makes me sad that people have become so quick to tear each other down. I'm hoping that somehow the class and generosity of our new President will filter down, since I can't help but feel that the condescension and disdain of our former leaders contributed to this present phenomenon.

Snarking is like the agreed upon social form of aggression. The Denby review was interesting because Kirn responded to Denby's criticism of snarking with...snarking. Ridiculing and exaggerating his claims, even possibly threatening him with scorn at the end of the review. If that kind of hidden attack on social status has a function for humans, it is not the pretty part. It is designed purely to function how Kirn described—to undermine power that has gone insane. At the same time, would Trump have turned into such a cartoon had he not been made into one? Was he seeking more snarking? More headlines?
If power becomes corrupt and ugly like that, maybe confronting it face to face would be a more effective and less cowardly way of taking it down.

Well said, Roger. This post ties in nicely with the one you wrote about the decline in celebrity journalism. I don't get to the movie theatre as much as I'd like, but I follow the new films through reading reviews. I read because I'm interested in what the filmmakers and actors have accomplished. What kind of film is it, and what are they trying to do? I think that one of your greatest legacies is the way you review a movie for what it is, with your curiosity and intelligence. Most reviews I read now are heavily influenced by snarkiness. Like Nikki Finke, they have the tone of the review planned before the movie. I agree that those who experiment in film or dare to be 'out of line' are punished by mainstream media.

I recently rewatched Wonder Boys, and enjoyed the ease of Michael Douglas' performance as the plot progresses in a natural and unforced way. The movie handles drug use and homosexuality in a human, non-judgemental tone. It was only nine years ago, but if it was released today in the age of TMZ and screaming internet headlines, I think reviewers today would excise the most notorious bits and post them as news. Reporters would ask Robert Downey Jr. about the 'challenge' of playing a gay character, in that patronizing tone that implies that we can trust him, he's only pretending.

Filmmakers and actors that do not toe the line are marginalized in the media. The sudden controversy over Slumdog Millionaire and the filmmakers' responsibility to the nation of India reminds me of a great quote by David Cronenberg. He said:

"As an artist, your responsibility is to be irresponsible. As soon as you talk about social or political responsibility, you've amputated the best limbs you've got as an artist. You are plugging into a very restrictive system that is going to push and mold you, and is going to make your art totally useless and ineffective." – David Cronenberg

Thank you Roger for pointing out how easy it is to snark and, in doing so, pointing out how hard it is not to snark. I think that a lot of the reason people snark is to seem cool, or cooler than they are. It's hip not to care. But, it's like the goth kids who show up to the party just to make fun of the silly people who showed up to the party. I agree with Kenneth Turan- if it's not your cup of tea, that's fine, but leave us alone to enjoy in peace. There's something terribly hypocritical about watching the Oscars telecast simply to make fun of the Oscars telecast. And, I simply can't understand the motivation behind such actions. Life is very short. I can't imagine why Nikki Finke would spend her time watching a show just for the purpose of hating it. But, perhaps, she is just in love with her own writing.

I am glad to hear that you will be re-evaluating your use of the snark. But, please feel free to snark away at movies like Fired Up! I hear there's a remake of I Spit on Your Grave in the works.

"When you snark the famous, you not only associate yourself with them, but propose yourself as their superior......... It's important sometimes to be reminded that it's okay to admire. To praise. To enjoy yourself. To admit to having a good time"

Plainspeak goes with plainthink....the Bible could be an example....perhaps on the net one has to be shrill to be heard......snarking is brainspeak not heartspeak....

@ Ben McMaster

"Because 'The Simpsons' is genuine satire. 'South Park' is just snarky."

See. Here is an opportunity for a snarky response, to show my superiority (I would question Ebert`s definition that only the famous are targets for snarkiness. Snarkiness is everywhere on the web, particularly in forums. As Ebert rightly points out it is due to the anonymity provided by the medium).

But, I shall repond thusly: Pray tell, my good sir, what meanst thou by suggesting South Park is not `genuine` satire and is merely snarky?

Is one man`s satire another man`s snark?

I (and many others) recognize South Park as brilliant satire. Much edgier than The Simpsons which of course was brilliant in its own way and pretty much has ceased to be so for a while now (the movie was the death knell). Team America was brilliant satire. You didnt see any commentary in Team America?

Gandhi was known for humour and wit, but I cannot imagine him snarking. Or for that matter,MLK. It's certainly human nature at less than it's best.
If it's truly the common currency it would imply that people's minds are becoming like crooked mirrors holding up to each other.

Thanks for the video. As usual,it was a very classy tribute to those who have left us. I only wish I had seen it Sunday night.

Only one question...Where was Heath Ledger?

-Ralphie

Ebert: Only one answer: Did Heath Ledger die before or after last year's Oscar ceremony?

Your essay captures my exact feelings for the past six or seven months (or, perhaps, years).

First, the Oscars were excellent. In fact, they were the best ever. I think they were so great precisely because of the lack of snarkiness. When I reconsider the show, and why it worked, I was touched by the overarching sweetness of the whole event, the warmth... I was charmed. And yes, I have a life; I mean simply that, as a diversion (which the Oscars are) the show was a true entertainment.

Second, snarkiness has been the downfall of the mainstream movie. Funny that I should find this article only moments after screening "He's Just Not That Into You." Snarkiness equates to disrespect, with which that movie dripped. Every second. I could not respect one character, each being more desperate and pathetic than the last. Clearly, no one at the helm of that movie respected any of these characters either. I felt bad for each actress because the behavior of each was beneath her. The film was almost masochistic, each woman subjected to mental abuse from men whom, in reality, would die cold and alone. And none of these men learned an important life lesson about being good to women. Case in point: when Bradley Cooper had an affair, he not only took advantage of two women (in one particularly nauseating scene he had sex with his wife while keeping his mistress locked in a closet), but he also had the benefit of having his wife carefully fold each item of his clothing before she moved out. What the eff was that?

You could look at "Failure to Launch" as another victim of snarkiness. Romantic comedies are foolish, as they've always been, but this does not mean they are not intelligent. What separates a great romantic comedy from trash is intelligence rather than snarkiness. "Pretty Woman" has a foolish plot, but it respects the intelligence of its characters. They know they're in a messy situation, specifically prostitution, but they are smart and sensible, and they aim to get away from the situation ASAP. Now consider "Failure to Launch." After Sarah Jessica Parker first sleeps with Matthew McCanahoweveryouspellit, her character never understands the implications of her sleeping with a man as a career move. She's a prostitute. Am I supposed to respect this woman? She has just subjected herself to the sexual whims of a nasty man for whom, at this point in the movie, she has no feelings. In fact, she's only dating the man because she was hired to do so. This is snarkiness, the idea that the mainstream public will pay to see a pile of nasty trash, and then be swept away by the alleged romanticism of it all. And sadly, it's true: "Failure to Launch" was a hit.

Note that I've put about four ideas in the last paragraph. But, what the hell; this isn't a term paper.

Sarah Palin? Well for someone who might potentially have access to the nuclear arsenal of the most powerful nation in the history of history, I think if you're going to possibly have such power you can stand to be mocked a little. Snark must not be overused lest it lose potency and become annoying and boring, but employed properly against those who deserve it, like Bush, it can be devastatingly funny.

As far as Phoenix on Letterman, I'm hoping that it was simply an act; viral media at work. I mean, Mark Wahlbergh went on Kimmel and said he wanted to punch out Andy Samberg after he made fun of him on SNL. On the next show we found that it was all a huge publicity stunt, but one we could appreciate and respond to because it gave us exactly what we wanted: controversy, namely the pitting of two celebrities against each other in the public arena. It's fun because it gives the people 'what they want'.

Again though, with Phoenix I hope it's an act, and will be sorry if it turns out to be not the case. I'm also sorry that you're writing has created yet another circus in the media with Finke and all, but it's to be expected. After all, it was Voltaire who said:

"The infamous trade of vilifying one's colleagues to earn a little money should be left to cheap journalists... It is those wretches who have made of literature an arena of gladiators."

Snark, gladiator--it's a tough world out there.

Thank you for this article and specifically the passages that concern politics.

Is it television that has done this to us? Brought us to the point where we really can't see past a sweaty upper lip, or look past Sarah Palins Alaskan colloquialisms? You can love or hate Nixon or Palin as much as you like, but to harp on items like the ones mentioned is downright mean-spirited.

Needling a celebrity or a stupid TV show might be mean-spirited as well, but far less damaging for the most part. When we let snark into our political discourse we distract from what truly matters. Instead of looking deeply into a candidates policy or character, we scrutinize every wardrobe choice, every grammatical error, every bit of body language, what type of hobbies they have, or TV shows they like. Then we try to add intrinsic, decontextualized value to each of these details. All of these things might be interesting to a point, but they are not the point.

I think it would be absolutely fantastic if television was not allowed to cover politics. Only print newspaper could handle it, and only with sketch drawings of the candidates. I'd love it if we could somehow implement a law of nature that prevented cell phones from taking pictures in the presence of a presidential candidate. If we want to have an informed decision, we would be required to attend a live debate that lasts over 5 hours so that each candidate can say more than their stupid sound-bite quote their PR people told them to say. Ah, to live in 1870.

I'm sorry, this is a bit long. I'm just truly sick of the way that politics happens in our country. I can't speak for any other country, but it's a downright circus here. And I don't see how it will ever change for the better.

By the way. I wonder why Sean Penn chose to describe President Obama as, "elegant". It's true, our President is one smooth SOB, but I would think "honorable", or "upstanding" would have been better.

Ebert: "This process of reevaluating snarking has been good for me. It is easy to snark, and I am a clever writer. I must resolve not to take cheap shots, except in those cases of truly bad movies; in such reviews, I believe readers understand the rules can be bent."

I had never heard the word "snark" before today, but it's good to hear you're going to do your best to steer clear of it. In my opinion, that's a tactic become ever more common these days, which doesn't speak much for humanity. I think one can critique without attacking another's character. I thought the spoof on "Joaquin Phoenix" was funny, because the character on Letterman was so different from what we all knew of him previously that it was shocking. Still, I think it gets a bit out of line at times. My question is, though, how "snarking" is fine in the case of a bad movie. Who is to say that a movie is bad? Well, yeah, a review belongs to the reviewer, but how can you "presume who someone is" and judge that based solely on their work. I say, review the movie, but don't go "snarking" the cast or directors. I wouldn't want someone to judge my character just by some film I happened to be involved with. But I digress...

Also, I like what you said about the Oscars being 'cosa nostra.' Everywhere I looked before Sunday, people predicted the lowest Oscar ratings ever. Why even bother reporting, then? Even if it was the lowest rating ever, and that continues indefinitely, I'll still watch them just for the sake of watching them and having fun making picks (only 16/24, sadly). I saw about 50 movies released in 2008 - too busy uncovering missed classics like "After Hours," "The Sting," or "La dolce vita" to watch 250 new ones - including 25 nominated for Oscars, so I enjoy watching just to see what happens.

Maybe people are making fun of Joaquin Phoenix because in the middle of a horrible recession he's pretending to quit his gold mine acting career in order to fuck around doing things he's no good at, but can afford to do. Add to that that it IS just a performance, and really lame (sub-sub-sub-sub-Andy Kaufman), and yea, he's ripe for ridicule.

I also don't think he bewildered Letterman. At all. In fact watching carefully, Letterman seemed entirely in on it and played to it, and Phoenix appeared to thank him immediately afterwards for handling it so well. Letterman, it should be remembered, was in on the Kaufman/Lawler thing, which was much more convincing (and interesting) than this. I've seen him bewildered (Madonna, Crispin Glover - altho was he playing along with Glover, too? Hard to say.), and he wasn't there. The best thing to compare it to is his Borat interview.

I will add that I found the jokes about Phoenix lame, because the thing itself is so tired and uninspired and half-hearted. And in our 24 hour news/internet culture, it felt over with long before he appeared on Dave. I dunno. Snark is tired, but so is a lot of other stuff, Phoenix included. For my money a far more interesting recent Letterman episode, but much much much less talked about, was the one where he invited on the mother of the late comedian Bill Hicks, apologized to her for his controversial cutting of her son's act 16 years ago (mocking pro-lifers = no go), then showed the performance in its entirety. THAT was interesting TV, and that was the real Letterman, too - not a performance. Whereas on the Phoenix episode, both were performing, which is fine, but if I want to watch Phoenix perform I'll do so when he's working with a better director than himself. I snarked there at the end. Sorry Roger.

What's the difference between snark and outrage? Is it that snark is eviscerating something just because the opportunity arose, and outrage is doing it because you're really offended?

For example, if I were to write an article about all the ways that The International was a stupid, thoughtless waste of my time and money that never missed a chance to insult my intelligence and I meant it, that's not snark, is it?

Reminds me of C.S. Lewis in "The Screwtape Letters"; the devil Screwtape is essentially talking about Snark, except instead of 'Snark' he calls it 'flippancy':

"But flippancy is the best of all. In the first place it is very economical. Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about anything else; any of them can be trained to talk AS IF virtue were funny. Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made. No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it... It is a thousand miles away from joy: it deadens, instead of sharpening, the intellect; and it excites no affection between those who practise it..."

---------------------------------------------------------

Lewis has some other trenchant observations about humour in general, and the way many people use (or misuse) it - this is all from the eleventh chapter of "The Screwtape Letters", if anyone is interested - it is a remarkable book by a remarkable writer:

"Humour is... the all consoling and (mark this) the all-excusing, grace of life. Hence it is invaluable as a means of destroying shame. If a man simply lets others pay for him, he is 'mean'; if he boasts of it in a jocular manner and twits his fellows with having been scored off, he is no longer 'mean' but a comical fellow. Mere cowardice is shameful; cowardice boasted of with humourous exaggerations and grotesque gestured can be passed off as funny. Cruelty is shameful – unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous jokes do not help towards a man's damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a Joke."

Just wanted to say "Thank you," Roger, for posting the Academy Awards "In Memoriam" tribute. Nice to see it without the "Queasy-cam" effects.

So many great people left us in 2008. Thank God they left behind so many great movies.

Thanks for showing the "In Memoriam" montage. One star I didn't see and was looking for was Anita Page, who was pretty big for a while in the 1920s and 30s and who died last September at the age of 98. She's probably best remembered for playing the younger sister in "The Broadway Melody," the second movie (and first sound movie) to win Best Picture. She was at the first Oscar ceremony and was apparently the last survivor. She went into retirement at the age of 26 and stayed there for about sixty years and came back in the 1990s in small roles in low-budget films.

She was the last of the silent screen goddesses and I'm sad she wasn't acknowledged.

You gotta love the hypocrisy inherent in professing one's political support for gays and then going right back to stereotyping and denigrating them. "I voted against Prop. 8" is the new "Some of my best friends are..."

Dear Roger,

Many thanks for your thoughtful blog, including this most recent post on the ubiquitous Snark. I think the world (online and off) could use much less. (I'm also in favor of complete sentences, well formed paragraphs, standard spellings of words and clever neologisms, too.)

Anyway, I have to disagree with you and many of the readers here about the success of the Oscar ceremony, and I'm not entirely sure why. I'm a fan of the Oscar broadcast, and I've watched most of them over the last 40 years or so. Sure, each year there have been hosts, presenters and production numbers that have flopped or fizzled, but I usually enjoy the proceedings.

Perhaps it's because I could only watch the final hour and a half of the event, but I found this year's Oscars almost unwatchable. I thought the (second) song & dance number (with Hugh Jackman & Beyonce) pointless and interminable. The medley of Songs of the Year did justice to none, merging their individuality into a melange of semi-pop, semi-Bollywood that lacked the individual character of the originals. Having the five Oscar-winners present the acting awards was an intriguing idea, but the speeches devolved into a kind of bathetic "Love Fest" that was often cringe-inducing even by Oscar/Hollywood standards.

But my main criticism is that this year's event (following in the path of other recent Oscar nights) did not have enough *film* on display. The excerpts of nominated films and actors (including the technical categories) were so heavily edited with so many quick-cuts that the viewer had no chance to "take a look" at what made those movies and performances special. The "In Memorium" roll was mostly hidden in the background as the cameras focused on Queen Latifah singing. And, most ironically, there was some of the finest creative talent from Hollywood and around the world, assembled together in that grand theatre, and it looked like the film montages and excerpts were being shown on a bigscreen TV from someone's basement. If ever there is a moment to break out the big, wide screen, Oscar night should be it. Instead, we home viewers struggled to see the projected images that often filled about twenty percent of our TV screens (if that).

On Oscar night, I want to see movies, and the people that make them. The dance numbers, the spiffy, swirling graphics announcing awards and presenters, the pointless "comedy bits" have almost always been a drag on the proceedings, and were especially tedious or grating this year. And the ultra-fast cutting of the montages insults the filmmakers and the viewers that love movies.

To end on a positive note, I did appreciate that the winners were able to speak their thanks without being bullied off the stage by the orchestra. This was much more respectful to the men and women for whom such an opportunity may come only once in a lifetime.

Keep up the great thinking/writing at the SunTimes and on the blog. It's great to have you back.

—Reed

Roger, I've never detected ranor in your snark. No, you have ever been to me the epitome of the Good Shot. There must always be someone to remind the emperor that he's naked. Piss taking is something that keeps us honest. I agree that it is cruel to punish the different for difference's sake. When it gets dangerous, though, something needs to be said.

Super Snarkers of yesteryear: Dorothy Parker, Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, William Shakespeare.

Our motto is "to each his own", we don't call this the Lone Star State for nothing.
Ignore the BS merchants, go your own way.

I have received mail for my live recap of this year's ceremony from a number of readers, almost all of them negative. I loved last year's ceremony and the previous year's one, and my blog entries on them reflect that, too. This year, I was surprised that a lot of people liked the show, and good for them.

I was also surprised that I received hate mail for not liking it (and, you know, mine is a personal blog, kept as a hobby), and equally bothered (alas, neither bewitched, nor bewildered) by some of the comments in the previous entry. One person said that one had to be either illogical or just plain mean for not appreciating the way the acting awards were presented this year. I like it when random strangers, who have never met me, tell me why I feel what I feel.

Anyway, this year’s ceremony was one of the few instances about which I found myself disagreeing with Roger Ebert.

However, I do agree that there’s an overwhelming preponderance of snark in many instances of online writing. I never shy away from making my emotions known (I have been working on a review for a film which, as it stands, reads like a love letter to its creator) – positive or negative. But, it is crucial to be able to differentiate between incisive criticism and snark. Just because someone is being sarcastic doesn't mean they like to boil people's pets.

Ebert: Hate mail? It's just an opinion. You're entitled. These do seem to have been the love/hate Oscars, however. Astonishing the range of feelings.

Hi Roger, thanks for yet another must-read article. Your writings have enriched my life.

I must apologize, however, as I am not writing this comment as a direct comment on your posting. I could not find another way to reach you, so I figured this would be my best bet.

I just wanted to let you know about a project I have going on at the web site www.theauteurs.com

I am conducting a poll, modeled after the Sight & Sound Poll, but with the users of that web site. To my knowledge, the film loving community on that site is the most diverse and intellectual on the internet. What I mean to say is that the collective opinions of the users is valuable and trustworthy. I thought they deserved a voice and so I started the poll. Voting is underway right now. There are 100 registered voters, and I've already received 70 of their top ten lists. March 1st is the deadline. Shortly after I will be posting the results. Like with the Sight and Sound poll, I will post the top 10 films and directors. After that I will release full results. I bring this to your attention because I think this deserves some attention. Attention that I can't attract to it on my own. I hope you feel the same way. If not, at least let it be something amusing you can take a brief look at.

I thank you for your time and your lifetime of writing which has and will always inspire me.

Here is a link to where I am conducting the poll: http://www.theauteurs.com/topics/1179/comments

Here is a link to where I describe the poll on my own blog:
http://thebrowncoat.blogspot.com/2009/02/auteurs-sight-sound-poll.html

A tour de force journal entry, Roger, sans gaffe.

But you sound beautifully unrepentant to me, which is right because I never took you for a snark.

Is Phoenix a case of self-destruction or miscalculation? I confess I'm insufficiently curious either way. But he was one of our great actors. I would add, IMO, but who else's opinion but my own am I supposed to be putting forward? I do read the opinion of others with intense interest so I don't quite understand the need to IMO, UNO?

Snark is fine in small doses but I hate how snark and ironic detatchment have become the default settings for most people online.

When there is another set available I don't watch the show. This year I was in my daughter's house and, to be polite, and because I love her, I watched with her and her mother.

I thought it was well done and entertaining and most enjoyed the parts the decryers liked the least. Being nominated seems more important than winning and this year someone seemed to understand that.

If your approach to any subject is a complaint, why would anyone listen?

Not trying to be snarky, because God knows that I place my fair share of typos in my posts here. But since I think that your blog entries very well deserve preservation in a compilation and may one day be sought for publishing:

"This is so essential to the process that I have never observe the snarking of an unknown person."

I believe it should be "observed" here. It is a powerful sentence and deserves correction.

Ebert: My bad.

Just call me a snark-hole Roger. It must be wonderful to have 300 editors responding to your blog.

Someone raised the question as to why the internet is rampant with snark, and suggested brevity. Roger suggests anonymity and the sea of words.

A reason could be the relative inferiority of the medium. Email is a cousin of internet communication and email has become so synonymous with being misunderstood that emoticons were developed so as to make clear even the simplist communiques.

One reason for this is that clear writing is hard; it is not simply keyboarding. It requires thought and planning and editing.

Another reason is that internet posting is boring. Alone you sit, getting face time with your LCD screen.

Nobody really cares about what you say anyway, is likely to not even read it let alone think about it. Or, you express what others think and so are uninteresting. Alienation is assumed. To actually connect with someone and have a fruitful online discussion is likely quite rare.

Compare to the act of frequenting the local watering hole where a conversation is not only likely but almost inevitable, or the attendance of a weekly club meeting etc, where common interests abound. But there is something fundamentally wrong. People who have access to society actually prefer to use blogging and posting. The erosion of social skills (ie communication - expressing, listening, toleration, humour), like the erosion of folk knowledge, must be quite significant.

The internet is 99% distraction. The popular use of the internet is purely distraction. Bored people are the typical participants. So snark provides the titilation for the bored by the bored.

Ebert has mentioned that the reason why this forum is absent of flame wars and general idiocy is because he reads every post (and can therefore edit). I`d say that one main reason why people post here (and obviously spend time composing thoughts, some of which are informative or interesting) is because they know they are going to be read by at least one person. The alienation is still present, but seems less so, one seems to feel having `connected`, which, perhaps in a very primitive way, happens. I`d go even further to suggest that getting the bold letter response from Mr Ebert is what most are really after - a validation of sorts. After all, is it not titilating to have one`s post responded to by that famous movie critic? There for all to see (including my ego)?

So perhaps snark - in the more popular, common (as in baseless/poser) use - stems from the self-aware impotence of the expressor to be heard. It is the gargling of reified culture.

Politically, its counterparts are observable in other mediums. The falsely antagonistic punch and judy shows that pass for political commentary in the US are an example of non-political rhetoric, a very close cousin to snark. It is meant for entertainment, the thing that alot of people seem to live for.

Our technologies tend to shorten space and time, while simultaneously further isolate the individual. Consumerism tailors to the personal whims of `me`. Its all about `me`. The proliferance of snark on the internet is a metaphor for this process. Why else should one spend time writing a post on a forum? Well, even it is ignored, it is my post, with my thoughts.

Ebert: I have long suspected that when, say, HuffPost gets 435 responses to a news item, those responses will draw not many more than 435 readers. However, the fairly sophisticated Omniture tracking software used by the Sun-Times indicates that many readers make multiple return visits to the same entry--not to read it again and again (I wish), but obviously to look over the posts. This is also indicated by how many posters directly address other posts.

Most comment threads are not worth the time. I get an amazingly high quality of comments, as you can see, and am inclined to include everything suitable; readers who say I didn't "approve" of a post are invariably wrong, and the post most likely disappeared into web limbo. I don't post routine well-wishing or compliments, which are nice for me to read but not necessary for others. And a lot of questions I don't answer. For example, people asking "what would Gene Siskel have thought" about this or that. I'm 99.44% sure he would have loved "Almost Famous," but otherwise am not eager to speculate.

As for myself, you'd be surprised how much I have learned by reading comments. They work like my shot-by-shot sessions: There's always someone in the room who knows the answer.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you--and with Kenneth Turan, whose snark-attack is eloquent (and not at all snarky)--I'm afraid we're stuck with snarking. Dull academician that I am, I note how deeply the snark-urge runs--in the West at least back to the satyr plays of ancient Greece, burlesques of tragedy, in which a chorus of satyrs provided a boisterous, obscene, and generally ridiculous counterpoint to the serious events around them.

And while "satire" has a vital role to play in every society--exaggerating wrongs not only to ridicule but to correct them--snarking is all ridicule, no corrective. In fact, the only person thoroughly debased is the snarker, braying like a mule--or horse-faced and -tailed satyr--and not even at any figure of stature (at least the Greek satyrs took potshots at, for instance, Odysseus). Their wit is expended on movie stars and also-rans--and we already know not to take them too seriously.

Thank you for writing this piece. It gives me more hope that I am not crazy for typically avoiding the snark in my writings. I have found that the times I have fallen under it's grasp, it typically comes back to bite me in the rear, and the snark has sharp teeth.

Ebert: And when that shark bites, with his teeth, babe, scarlet billows start to spread.

Perhaps completely unrelated, Roger, you or your readers may find this article www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12465 interesting. Beginning with the `sacking` of Tom Cruise a few years ago because of his `outrageous` public antics, the writers begin a list of decisions made at the ownership level upon the actions of movie-makers. It is the capitalist form of censorship.

Of particular interest for me was the parallel between the corporate snubbing of Wexler`s Medium Cool and Moore`s Fh 9/11, and how the respective corporations took measures, due to political pressures and prejudices, to mitigate as much as possible the release and distribution - in short, the viewing - of these releases.

It is perhaps well worth acknowledging that weapons producers have a vested interest in what you see and comment on. That Pearl Harbour (the movie) was such a dog did not only not lead to its quick withdrawel from cinemas, but its release was actually extended an additional 7 months, a move that seems to mesh so finely with the subsequent political action and the impact of same on certain corporate interests. Iron Man may simply have been an excellent comic book movie for many, but most are likely naive to the fact that the participation of Boeing in the movie`s production means the movie will in no way be able to present a theme that jibes with the motives and interests of that company. I think this is broadly recognized as assumed when US military cooperates with movies portraying military themes.

Anyway, I digress. Perhaps a theme for a future blog.

When I first saw the title of this thread, I wondered if it was a reference to Daniel Pinkwater's novel The Snarkout Boys and the Avocado of Death. Anyone else here heard of it before?

Ebert: I think I would have remembered it.

It’s interesting that above you mention you weren’t trying to be PC, only decent, and it’s a distinction that sometimes gets missed. Whether the two of you actually said it at any point is unknown to me now, but when Political Correctness comes into a conversation I normally quote Siskel and Ebert with “Political Correctness is the fascism of the 90s.” Your point about snarking being an attempt to get people back in line could also be called fascist, could it not?

It’s enjoyable to watch someone who doesn’t get in line. National Treasure Bob Newhart doesn’t do the vulgar thing but is one of the most compelling and interesting entertainers of the last 40 years. He didn’t go where others went and remained successful even among non prudes. Would Newhart succeed today if we grabbed a DeLorean, went back to 1960, kidnapped him and asked him to try to start his career in 2009? I doubt it because we’re in a period where the word “fuck” on its own is funny and timing, delivery, ideas, etc., aren’t. He’d be too against the grain for people to allow him to be relevant.

I hate the idea of being pressured to get in line. The movies of Kevin Smith and Robbie Rodriguez don’t normally move me, and I never, ever listen to Howard Stern, but I appreciate all of them because they’re true to themselves, break rules and don’t get shoved in line. That’s important. It’d be nice if more people would break the rules.

My eighth-grade literature teacher so loved Jack London books he assigned them as part of the curriculum. Of all the books we read, "Call of the Wild" and "White Fang" are the ones I recall most. Those were real adventure (and thought provoking) books.

Ebert: I re-read both in recent years in the Library of America edition, and am here to tell you they are important novels, as well as being so readable. Jack London, like Robert Louis Stevenson, is a considerable novelist who has been unfairly overlooked because his books are mistaken as being for children. I read both of those books as a kid and, sure, I liked them--but when you read them as an adult, wow.

It's nice to see the In Memoriam footage properly. I found the clip choice for James Whitmore to be a bit morbid (looking up at the rafter his character would hang himself from!), but otherwise it was quite nice.

Not only did we miss the opportunity to view it properly during the show, but I hadn't realized my annoyance at the form of the presentation prevented me from realizing Queen Latifah's rendition of "I'll Be Seeing You" was quite lovely as well. Oh well, I'm sure they'll get it right next time!

This is an interesting topic. You're basically speaking against cheap shots to public people, ceremonies and films, while admitting you may have actually done so in the past.

Funny. Having read your reviews for at least 14 years, I have found you mostly entertaining and insightful, but never disrespectful.

I've never felt offended by your work, nor thought: "The man's gone too far this time." Even when I've disagreed with you, I could at least understand and accept from where you were coming. You appeared well read and studied, but underneath it all you were a fan. You still are.

You reflect back on your life a lot in this blog, and today you feel guilty for the ones you've wronged before. David Lynch. The Coen Brothers. Rob Schneider. They had it coming on their respective occasions, and most of them have made up for their blunders in a big way.

And lest we forget, you defend a lot of films the human race would hardly find classic. The Matrix Revolutions. Spawn. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. This is not because you have been losing it since the 80's, but because you like to see new things and you accept each movie on its own terms.

I'm guessing you're looking for absolution. I assure you there's no need but if it makes you feel any better, here goes:

We forgive you!

Note: This was a human pardon. If God turns out to be displeased by anything you wrote in the past, it's out of my hands.

Ebert: With Lynch, I thought the problem was with me. There was something there and I wasn't getting it, and sometimes it inspired harsh words, but I sensed there was...well, something there.

I salute, not snark, you, Roger, for pointing out something that has plagued our culture in recent years. I used to watch "The Daily Show" and "South Park" and opening monologues by Dave and Jay just to feel that outside my home there was an awareness of the absurdities going on in the world, but now mockery tends to be the predominant approach we take to life and to the people around us. There simply must be some good in the world, because there are people in the world, and people are often full of goodness.

I know it's not entirely Jon Stewart's fault, but my stomach begins to turn after only a couple of minutes of his show, and of others'. Either they have gotten too mean, or everyone has and they merely reflect it. Surely we point out the bad as a gesture to the good, or at least to what would be better. Well, I'm having a hard time staying mad at President Bush or millionaire CEOs or people who make bad movies; I find myself resenting the messenger.

I think this snarking business has something to do with a lack of leadership in this country. Over the last several years we've had a miserably incompetent president make one foolish decision after another, and leaving us out of the loop on the decision-making; we've had one brilliant political mind have half of his presidency consumed by the snarking of the party out of power, despite his eagerness to compromise; and before them we had the Iran Contra affair, recession, other incompetent (or at least underachieving) presidents, Watergate, Vietnam, and so on. Combine all of that with the fact that we no longer belong to bowling leagues and men's and women's organizations, but to online clubs and communities, where there is really no hierarchy of leadership. The result is a nation that longs for leadership, and answers that longing in the easiest way they know how: To judge and control others.

"Snarking has been part of the air we breathe for a long time. It is said to have entered American pop culture in the 1950s, with Mad magazine, Stan Freberg, and so on. Not at all. They were practitioners of the honorable art of Satire. They exaggerated traits rather than punishing them. There was affection involved."

So you're telling me that Harvey Kurtzman's depiction of Howdy Doody as a devious shill whose sole reason for existence was to make children scream, "I wan' it, I wan' it, I wan' it!" at their mothers was affectionate? That Superduperman and Captain Marbles mindlessly destroying the city around them in the midst of their pointless slugfest wasn't mean-spirited in the least?

I guess what I'm asking is, where's the line? What's the defining trait that separates snark from satire? I don't think Gaines and Kurtzman were affectionately parodying Howdy Doody, so I don't think affection is it.

Another commenter wrote, "It occurred to me that an historian who watches the Oscar 2009 broadcast in 50 years will not have a clue what Ben Stiller is up to. The snark fills the negative space around a trivial story(my god, how truly, truly, truly trivial) to become the story itself."

Do historians actually watch 50-year-old Oscar broadcasts? I donno. But I do know that not all comedy has to be timeless. "Duck Soup" is still hilarious after 70 years, but Leno and Letterman's monologues are stale after a month. Comment on current events is one of the purposes of humor.

Was Stiller's bit funny? Not necessarily. I thought it was bad timing, turning a moment that should have been about the nominees and eventual winner into a moment about Stiller. But that it's not going to be funny in 50 years is neither here nor there.

Ebert: Well, okay. By the way, I have a complete collection of all the issues of Kurtzman's "Help" magazine.

And, ohmigod! I met Stan Freberg at the Directors Guild Awards! I told him I once wrote him for his autographed photo, and he wrote back saying he had no photos but in consolation was enclosing a hair-pin once belonging to Betty Furness.

Which I still treasure.

Ah, the murky waters of Joaquin on Letterman. I concede the point that Joaquin was acting unusual. Nonresponsive – yes, spacey – yes, deserving of ridicule – no.
Here are the reasons why.

First, I am disappointed that majority of the video clips of Joaquin’s appearance on Letterman have been edited to Joaquin’s disadvantage.

Second, although I love Dave’s biting humor, I felt Dave was just cruel. Do we really believe that Dave is not aware that Joaquin is working on hip-hop music, or that Joaquin does not watch his own movies?

Third, the audience proved to be no smarter than a laugh track. Often, Joaquin would give a serious response, only to be met by the laughter of the crowd. As maintained before, Joaquin at times was unresponsive, but there were also points in which he was quick to respond. Joaquin was quick to promote his fellow actor, Vinessa Shaw. While Dave was more resolute in talking about the “bigger stars,” Joaquin always made sure to advance Vinessa’s name. Another example of Joaquin seeming excited to answer was when Dave broached the topic of Joaquin’s music. I believe had the laugh track not been on a continuous loop, we may have experienced an intriguing conversation with Joaquin and his relationship with hip-hop music. It is sad to me that because Joaquin did not say he was recording county or hard rock, the audience thought they could mock him. Even sadder is that Dave, pulling the strings, led them all to do so.

Maybe it was an act, maybe it was drugs, maybe it is mental disease, the bottom line is, I would have loved to have seen Joaquin’s eyes when (at the end of the actual televised version) he took of his glasses and exchanged goodbyes with Dave.

There's a difference between a gaffe (just saying or doing something stupid) and staring unblinkingly into the headlights. The vetting process should be even more stringent.

I knew from the first time I heard George Bush speak that he was a non-reader. It scared me enough to vote for Al Gore (instead of Nader, my first choice).

I also knew the Republicans had lost the election from the first minute I heard Palin's interview with Couric. Of course she reads the newspapers. She's in them. You don't get to be a Governor nor first runner-up for Ms. Alaska without doing so. (Unless you are from a blue-blood, patrician family, that is.)
In retrospect, do you think the blog entry linked below was snarky, Roger?

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080930/COMMENTARY/809309995/1023

Since you asked, I think Palin's inability to name a Supreme Court Case she disagrees with isn't just a gaffe. Its a completely reasonable, appropriate question, not "gotcha!" journalism at all.

Ebert: Snark, yes, but snark with a certain substance. Thank you for the link. I confess I enjoyed reading it again.

Roger, you can't mention snarking without references to your Brown Bunny comments, which might be in the Snark Hall of Fame:

Ebert said: "I am not too worried. I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch it on TV. It was more entertaining than The Brown Bunny."

"It is true that I am fat," Ebert wrote. "But one day I shall be thin, and he will still be the director of The Brown Bunny."

Ebert: When someone puts a hex on you to give you colon cancer, that's the first day of Open Snarking Season.

That said, it gave me pleasure to see the much-edited final cut of "The Brown Bunny" and find it an improvement.

Interesting how much snarking there was about GW Bush, when now all of a sudden, "oops....if we just commit to closing Guantanamo, where will we put those guys..." or "hmm....maybe we do need to do something about social security after all....." or other comments that the Great Hope is now making, with people nodding sagely along with him, when GWB was snarked mercilessly for making exactly the same comments.

I'm no Bush defender at all, but so many people became dyspeptic about him personally that I was a bit appalled and put off....it seemed that dislike for the person had dislodged all reason in the snarker.

Come for the cynicism. Stay for the subversion. Add your comment. Refresh for updates. Warning: Not for the easily offended or shocked.

I wouldn't mind the snarkers so much if so many of them didn't constantly pat themselves on the back for being "edgy". And the ones who do this are always the least witty. Nikki Finke supplied a stunning example of this.

Snark has its time and place but there is nothing more boring for me than somebody who offers nothing but snark. Which I why I consider Joe Queenan among the most worthless writers currently being published.

Oh my gosh I'm so glad that you wrote this

Snarking has always annoyed me

For years and years and years, people have been told not to take themselves too seriously. That it's good to laugh at themselves. And we're now supposed to be shocked that nothing is taken seriously? What did people think was going to happen?

Is there any subject that is treated seriously? Jokes are made about the massacres, wars, religion, diseases, global warming, death, life, and everything in between. People who don't think that such subjects are funny are told to lighten up.

Case in point: we are in the worst economic depression in the past 80 years, and people are told to laugh about it by guys like David Letterman, Jay Leno, Jon Stewart, and the rest. Do you really think that people who are losing their jobs because of massive governmental incompetence should be laughing? Shouldn't people be getting mad? We're laughing our way into a horrible future.

And unlimited sense of humor is not a virtue. "Snarking" is the inevitable result of believing that it is.

Ebert: I believe there were some people who got mad and voted on Nov. 4. I was amazed, however, that we reelected Bush in 2004.

There is an Oscar Wilde quote that somehow applies to 2004: "To lose one parent is a misfortune. To lose two is carelessness."

While the snarker aims to combine wit and superior intelligence over the snarked, more often, it betrays the snarker's character deficiency. It is nothing more than the taunts of a school yard bully motivated by misdirected rage or jealousy.

You forget, Roger, that snarking is so crucial in bringing the celebrity down to the level of "the masses." Almost everyone has a member of their family who is acts like Joaquin Phoenix, or perhaps a latter-day Brando... Even though in Phoenix's case, this might apply more to a younger sibling/nephew/cousin going through a goth phase.

This discussion of The Academy Awards and snark reminds me of George C. Scott. He won the Oscar for best actor in 1970 for his role in Patton. He turned the award down and did not show up to the ceremony. When asked why, he said "The whole thing is a goddamn meat parade. I don't want any part of it."

The once excellent Toronto Star has largely handed over its entertainment section to full-time snarkers. Marlene Arpe is by far the worst offender, in every sense of the word. In an article last week on "100 Reasons to Watch the Oscars" (linked on my name above) she offered the following:

"5. You can't wait to see if John Travolta will show up, try to overcome his recent personal tragedy but, sadly, end up having a complete breakdown on national television. Oh, no, sorry. That's not you. That's me."

Arpe is to entertainment journalism as garbage picking is to fine cuisine.

Ebert: That is reprehensible.

My general instinct is to pretty much agree with you on this topic.

I would take the assertion of the 'snarker' proposing his- or herself a step further and point out there has to be a large element of insecurity involved in the process. It's a largely childish pursuit. Anyone who went to school with more than five people could easily identify the assumed benefit of those with the louder voice or larger audience in marginalizing those who do not conform.

When did non-conformity go back to being such a crime, by the way?

Anyhow, my real question here has more to do with the Oscar show itself. I keep hearing and reading it was a well-regarded production.

Personally, I thought several times during the broadcast it was the worst I had seen. In particular, I had strong objections to the flim-clip montages that seemed some bastard child of MTV and the director of the Jason Bourne films. It was all quick cuts and loud music. From them I gained no real feel of the nominated works and the quality that earned them said nomination. Perhaps there is an assumption that those who watch the Oscars have already seen many of the films and needn't be bored with another clip exhibiting the actual art of the piece. I found it a disturbing turn in the presentation of nominated work and hope they revert to the older ideas. Otherwise, just condense the thing into half-an-hour and be done with it.

Also, I really didn't care for the contrivance of the past winners reading praises of the waiting nominees off cue cards. Again, show me a clip of what was nominated. I imagine myself to be in the minority on this one, but the sentiments came across half-heartedly for the most part and gave me no real sense of each actor's accomplishment in the role. In fact, most of the words could have been generically applied to any of the night's nominees with scant exception. (And now I've still not seen one single second of Melissa Leo's performance!)

No sir, I didn't like it. It feels like the movie part was being taken out of the award show. That seems a weird direction in which to turn.

Just to build on your post, snarkiness--or at least its modern incarnation--also seems based in misanthropic cynicism. Snarkers take the stance of superiority, but it's a jaded superiority. Snarkers are numb to the constant calvacade of celebrity culture wherein we are force-fed to believe that celebrities are superior to the hoi polloi. Celebrity personas, which on the whole are so composed and handled, ring utterly false. So when celebrity X adopts yet another child from Africa, the snarker is immediately suspicious whether this person is a humanitarian or if this person is fashionable. Lots of words are written, but the truth is hard to find.

Of course, in no way do I condone snarkiness. FMZ makes my soul weep.

Also, I'm sure he is a nice man, but I cannot stand Kenneth Turan. But maybe that's for another day.

That's a pretty low comment from The Toronto Star. However, I'd generally say that the newspaper as a whole isn't "snarky". My problem with the newspaper, particularly the entertainment and living sections, is that the people writing the articles seem to have the IQ of a small child. They're good with words, but there is no substance. They write the most ludicrous things. I constantly have to read about how anyone pro-life is a sexist pig, or how there are no good movies anymore, and how the critics jobs are so difficult (they actually wrote a huge article about how being a critic is a difficult job because they have to sit through the entire movies, which apparently no one else does).

Spot on as usual Roger. The main issue with the Hollywood watcher roundup is that it is that the players are hopelessly afflicted with myopia and can only interpret the positive/negative sum of what they observe as another indicator of how well they will or won't profit from it. Everything is reduced to how it will "move the needle' of commerce, buzz, zeitgeist, etc..

Admittedly this is fair ground in an insider's forum and Finke at least gets a pass by not doing so anonymously but when coverage is, as you pointed out, pre-determined and focused to further a brand (in this case, snark) it loses its relevance as any kind of valuable insight or observation.

There is plenty to grouse about when it comes to Hollywood but people do still like the movies and admire the talents of many of the people at work in the business. People are generally astute enough to identify what constitutes class or crass and are also equally capable of enjoying both ends of the spectrum. A little guidance and learned insight is nice from those with informed perspectives but it's becoming harder and harder to find those people on the internet and in culture for that matter for all the reasons you point out.

Don LaFontaine is another curious omission from the In Memoriam segment. They could have done something quite fun with his material. It would have made a nice opening bookend to Newman's finale.

Thank you for writing this. After the telecast, I read some of the comments online, just to see. My wife and I really enjoyed the show, and I like to read the "best of" and "worst of" comments. However, this year, all I found were bad reviews. I couldn't figure out why it bothered me so much, but for the last few days, I've been really disliking the coverage online. Finally, I read your review, and then this post.

I've noted the growing vitriol before Sunday, but I only feel it's getting worse. My students don't want to appear to enjoy anything, so they make snarky comments about whatever it is we do, from _Great Gatsby_ to Dickinson to Hawthorne. Even when we talk about more modern pieces, they still make little comments, aimed for the laugh, not critique.

I'm not sure what to blame, though I suspect the immaturity and intellectual dishonesty of our leaders and heroes make up a substantial portion of the cause. My fear, though, is that we are losing satire to sarcasm. While there are still some amazing satirical pieces out there, we are seeing more and more things like the cartoon in the Post.

Satire done well is meant to help improve a society. Yes, it is done through somewhat harsh terms, but there is always a potential improvement to be had. If the English read Swift's "Modest Proposal," perhaps they'd see the absurdity of their arguments and begin having a real debate. We have none of that now.

A radio commentator in Denver has taken to calling a local female politician "Vagina DeJet." This is what now passes for witty, and it is saddening. Thank you again for your writing. My hope is that your voice, and those who, like you, value intellect with criticism, will not be drown out by lesser minds.

Ebert: "I have a complete collection of all the issues of Kurtzman's 'Help' magazine."

Oh, man: It appears George Bailey isn't the richest man in town after all. I hope you will continue to use this site to get to all of your enthusiasms (barring anything that might tarnish your image as the nicest guy ever to write a soft-porn screenplay), Help among them.

And in honor of the immortal Kurtzman, I respectfully ask, "How's your mom, Ed?"

Ebert: Jocasta made such a beautiful bride. We gave a set of steak knives.

Again, not to digress...

In reading your review of Gomorrah it seemed inevitable to see it contrasted to The Godfather, even Scarface. But no mention of comparison with Goodfellas. You may (rightly so) watch movies for story, not history, but I think many came from theatres in the 70s having obtained for themselves a sexy view of organized crime. John Gotti, in the early 80s NYC, commented on how he/they were adored by the public in general, a notion inconceivable (beyond the cronyism you mention) prior to the Corleones.

But Scorcese was the only one to flip that (that I know of) in a somewhat subtle but clear dismissal of the fetishizing of organized crime. And similar to how The Godfather affected movie-making on the subject (see Once Upon A Time in America) I dont think a serious movie has been made since Goodfellas that romanticizes organized crime.

So, in light of 500 000 sold in France (and the fact that I'll no doubt be in line) the remaining question is - why the continued fascination with 'the underworld' (not you specifically, but as a subject. Though I am interested as to why you thought the film subject matter is important)? Does it draw parallels with broader social issues or is it a form of voyeurism? Do we still need confirmation that crime doesnt pay? Or is the point made that crime does pay and pays immensely for a few, not at all for most. Do I need a movie to tell me that?

And, while you make mention of a "growing dread", you do not indicate that you cared about anyone you met on screen.

Yes, the review in the NY Times of David Denby's new book about snarking was particularly snarky.
In line with that was Denby's recent appearance on Charlie Rose's program mainly to discuss the book. Denby has highlighted Maureen Dowd as a prime example of a ravaging snarker. My B and I found it quite amusing to watch Charlie trying to defend Dowd, "She's a friend." Ha! There is no question that Dowd, whom we ALWAYS read, is the reigning empress of print media snark. Yes, she's really GOOD at it.

"This process of reevaluating snarking has been good for me."

--it has done me a world of good too, Roger, thanks...

John L. wrote "we are in the worst economic depression in the past 80 years."

Anyone else here who actually lived through the 1970s as an adult? 10% unemployment and an 18% prime interest rate?

That was a lot worse than now.

Roger:

I think the problem with 'snark' is not its existence, but rather that should be, to paraphrase the cereal commercials, part of a well-balanced diet. The difference between your occasional cutting witticism and the tedious shrill drone of Nikki Finke's Oscarblog or Perez Hilton or Defamer or TMZ or the multitude of other offenders is that for you, snark comes part and parcel with insight, analysis, ideas; in our hateful modern age, the worst kind of snark is uncoupled from any substantive concepts and real intellectual work. Couple that with the depressing reality that it's become public policy to think we have any right to any part of a famous person's life outside of the credits of a film, so we're shown dresses and told about relationships and breathlessly told squealing gossip stories that have nothing to do with work and art and culture. (And, not coincidentally, allow us to both elevate and tear down celebrities, so we might worship and despise them at the same time and thereby avoid thinking about our own lives.)

Snark is a tool, like the dentist's pick or the carpenter's hammer; thing is, you'd probably avoid a dentist who only used the pick when a drill was required, or a carpenter who tried to cut a board using a hammer. A few years ago I made an intenal vow to quit writing the easy, mocking, breezy and funny reviews of bad film sin my work and instead roll up my sleeves and do some real work to talk about what exactly was wrong with a film, where its premises fell apart, where its technique was shoddy and its ideas inarticulate. It's more work, to be sure, but I think it's more rewarding for me. (It's also the exact opposite, depressingly, of the work that's made Anthony Lane one of the New Yorker's critics; lane's a wonderful prose stylist, but when you read his reviews, he seems more excited about film as an arena in which he can be clever than he's interested in film as an artform that speaks to the culture.) Wilde said "A gentleman is someone who never hurts another person unintentionally," and I think that's a good way of looking at it; snark can be cruel, but it can be useful, as long as you're completely aware of when it's being used and it's not the only thing you bring to bear on someone else's work.

James.

Ebert: James, nice to have you visit! I admire your work on Cinematical, and recommend that anyone here involved in writing film criticism read this carefully:

http://rocchireport.com/?p=277

I tend to agree with your statement that 99% of comment-writers are insane. That observation proves itself by the insanity on those blogs where no sane person would publish. That's why I don't have comments on reviews or anything else but this blog: I decided, if I'm going to have comments on my site, I'm going to read and approve them. I don't want the morass to seep in here. As a result, these comments are gratifying in their intelligence, literacy and information; over on the endless Ben Stein thread just today, I got a wonderful comment from a research professor. The reason someone like you would even bother to post here is because you suspect your comment will be read, understood and not surrounded by idiocy. Speaking of Ben Stein, my opinion on Intelligent Design is well known, but nevertheless I received lot of civil, well-written defenses of it on that thread (in addition to others...). I think the insane posters you refer to may visit here, look over a few of our comments, and seek elsewhere.

I agree with you on your link above: Be prepared to write about what you don't like. Or even what you don't understand. I am the first to agree I'm not expert on the "Watchmen" graphic novels, for example, but most of the people going to the movie won't be either, and might be interested in an outsider view.

I think you're using too broad a brush. You even admit to as much when you reserve the right to snark in certain circumstances.

A previous commenter mentioned the Algonquin roundtable, which was my first thought upon reading this. "There's no 'there' there" is pure snark, but also completely delightful.

As with everything else on the internets, the problem isn't the snark, but the tidal wave of bad snark.

As Wilde snarked that "sex is theater for the poor", bad snark is wit for those who type faster than they think.

Ebert: There is a happy medium. As James Rocchi just quoted Wilde: "A gentleman is someone who never hurts another person unintentionally."

Roger,

Well put. I have become more acutely aware of the reality of 'snarking' through becoming more involved in the film blog world. While there is certainly room for valid criticism I remember the year filled with amateur movie critics giving burning and scathing reviews of just about every good movie out there. For weeks I didn't want to watch 'Frost/Nixon' because it seemed there was a unanimous roar of disapproval. Of all the good movies that were ripped apart this year none has undergone such scrutiny as 'Slumdog Millionaire'. A friend I trust very much commented that it was glorifying poverty. That's an intelligent criticism. 'It's just a two hour music video' is not. I'm certainly perhaps too far on the other end of the spectrum, but I think we should go into movies with the desire to grab a hold of the movie's strengths and enjoy every second as much as we possibly can. Film are a gift after all.

At some point in our history we became this way. I may be being 'elitist' to say that I believe most 30 min sitcoms to be rubbish. There are certainly great exceptions, simpsons, arrested development, 30 rock, surely others, but I just feel like our collective comedy education has learned to laugh at the guy/gal who trips over his shoelace or runs into the wall... there's certainly a kind of pre-manifestation in this cruel humor grounded in charlie chaplin or I love lucy, but it's that touch of cynicism and superiority that has become what characterizes the new, modern mindset. Lucy and the tramp were never a buffoon, they were the hero and we actually kind of wanted to BE them. But now we've all learned to laugh and g-l-o-a-t at those who fall on their faces. I think it's because we ourselves are afraid of failure. While watching 'There Will be Blood' at the movies I was so annoyed when people in the theatre were laughing when Daniel Plainview was forced to undergo a humiliating baptism, castigating himself before the people. People were laughing because they thought he was playing the buffoon.

New levels of this type of criticism has been opened up to me ever since I have developed a strange fascination with conservative talk radio. I've become so intrigued by the absurdity of this world. I didn't expect any less, but was fairly blown over when Laura Ingraham was playing a clip of Kate Winslet's speech mocking her in-composure, mocking how some people find it 'endearing'. She added how Kate 'only' won because she gave herself an abortion in 'Revolutionary Road' and attacked 50's suburban values. As a matter of fact, i've come across many people quick to criticize her role in RR, I think because it asked us to find a hero in someone who portrayed such weakness and desperation. Okay, weakness would certainly not be the right word, but vulnerability. The fear to try something new, to take a chance at failure and therefore the desire to make sure that no one succeeds is exactly what has brought us from what made this country great.

Ebert: I don't think "Slumdog" glorifies poverty, but I'm sure the reality in India is much worse. Many if not most of the stories from that world would end in disease, malnutrition and death. "Slumdog" invents a tellable story. Dickens mined poverty in the same way.

Actually there is a great--truly great--American film that deals with a slum kid of much the same sort in a similar world in the U.S., and is completely honest in a neorealist way. That is "Chop Shop," by Ramin Bahrani, and it will be my next Great Movie. Note the director's name. You will be hearing a lot more about him.

Interesting piece. I think there's definitely a place for humor in criticism, but that it's important to think about whether we're being truly observant, or just mean-spirited.

Thanks for posting that full-screen In Memoriam—it was one of the biggest points of complaints during our (occasionally snarky) liveblog at The Same Dame. Said Jessica Mathews, "I think there is a reason they usually don't focus on a live singer during the memorial montage."

Unfortunately, they still have the wrong person's picture up for Kon Ichikawa's slide! http://www.thesamedame.com/2009/02/well-they-all-look-alike-to-oscar-joke.html

Our live-blog featured three people who enjoy and look forward to the Oscars, talking about the bits we liked and the bits we didn't. We've loved past ceremonies (this was our first attempted live-blog), but weren't terribly impressed this year. So I don't think it's fair to say that only elitists didn't like the ceremony. I'm glad that many people enjoyed it, but the folks at my watch party (in Utah, not the west coast) were generally unimpressed.

While we tried to be funny to keep it entertaining, we also tried to actually identify what was working and what wasn't. Chris Bellamy criticized the action montage: "Great, don't let us actually appreciate any of the choreography and composition that goe into creating a great action scene - just throw 2-second clips on top of each other."

And Jessica concisely hit the core problem of the five-person introductions: "Brody had to google his nominee." Is that unfair and snarky? I don't think so—it's a valid criticism. Brody agreed to present on Richard Jenkins, but could say nothing about his performance other than that if you google him you'll find that he's been in lots of movies. That's simple case of phoning it in. (The other problem, summed up: "I don't think watching actresses in Extreme Close-ups while being ridiculously flattered is something we should be subjected to.")

I'm actually working on a piece about the Phoenix thing—I agree with you and I don't think anyone has given a better performance than Phoenix himself. and I suspect that all his imitators will look rather silly in the future.

Regardless how you feel about snark, you may want to note the incredibly sloppy journalism in the Denby book to which you link. Wonkette's staff noted that all of his commentary regarding their site contained sizable errors.

http://wonkette.com/405905/the-wonkette-part-of-david-denbys-book-really-just-major-if-not-libelous-errors

Ebert: I haven't obtained the book yet; just noted that the review was snarky.

You and James Rocchi, two crème de la bloggers, are only a couple of comments apart. We have a good group in the house tonight.

I never heard of Nikki Finke. I checked out her site after your two recent articles. I won't go back.

Mart mentioned Maureen Dowd. I read her articles all the time and he's right, she is the reigning empress of print media snark. But well written snark is like raspberry cheesecake, lots of calories, not good in large quantities, but too delicious to resist. Bad snark ('THE GAYEST OSCARS EVER'), is more like a plate of undercooked greasy freedom fries, bad calories, pretentious as hell, and disruptive to the palette.

I must admit Roger, before the blogosphere reared its (both wonderful, ie you and horrifying, ie Drudge) head, I used to love a good snarkfest. The wonderful Jay Scott and (on occasion) Rex Reed made me guffaw with their reviews. They were hilarious and delightful because of clever writing, a refreshing change from earnestness and a dash of snark. Then everyone (aka readers) got on the bandwagon and it got scary. The comments to one of Finke's Oscar posts were more frightening than Alex Pelosi's "Right America" doc. This is just one example, you cite HuffPo as another. The anonymity of the internet changed the face of snark sadly to hate. Remember when "Letters to the Editor" required full name, address and phone number? This vitriol, I believe, changed the writing of some bloggers. I still enjoy a good snarkfest when accompanied by satire (I heart Letterman & The Daily Show) but snark without satire (ala Finke's Oscar liveblogging) lacks wit or irony. As for liveblogging, some readers expect snark, sarcasm and nastiness. WTF? (LOL!)

After all the times I've mentioned snarking (however obliquely) in previous postings, I thought I was pretty well used up on the subject. HOWEVER - I see you've given yourself and all the rest of us The Great Loophole: Snarking can be OK if the target deserves it. I hope you see the problem with that: Every snarker alive believes to the depths of his soul that his target has it coming. All of us, if we are honest, have our "littl list", just like Ko-Ko in The Mikado. I recall reading somewhere that W.S. Gilbert would periodically update that lyric to make it topical. (I might be wrong about that; I'm no expert. Makes a good story, though.) /*/*/ Somebody above mentioned Bill Hicks and his censored Letterman gig. For those who didn't see it, Hicks began with a prolonged snark aimed at Billy Ray Cyrus, musing on the idea of killing him. As I watched this, the thought occured to me: suppose Miley Cyrus sees this? Will she see the "satire"? And anyway, what did Billy Ray ever do to Bill Hicks beyond making music that he didn't like? "Deserving?" You tell me. /*/*/ As to Joaquin Phoenix: you say he's over. I have a simple response: Mickey Rourke. Think about that.

Ebert: I didn't say he was over.

Four words:

Pauline Kael
Robert Christgau

Fierce writers to be sure, but I'd argue they created the era of snark. Neither of them (particularly Christgau) seemed all that capable of constructive negative criticism. Instead, they dealt in variations of panning. Nothing could just be bad: it had to be awful, inconceivable... its very existence OFFENSIVE!

And now almost everyone on the planet is either imitating them, or imitating their imitators. Hence all the vitriol and atomic knee-jerk reactions. I agree wholeheartedly: it's wearying and unhelpful.

You, Mr. Ebert, are one of the great, modern exceptions to this rule - you have a remarkable talent for detecting when disrespect has been rightfully earned, and when respect has been earned even if no one else thinks so (your stand-alone appraisal of "2001" is legendary; yours of "Synecdoche, NY" will be... someday). So stop worrying!

I think the difference between two types of making fun of pop culture is pretty well exemplified by these two websites:

EncyclopediaDramatica.com and TvTropes.org

They are both Wikis that cover many aspects of pop culture.
I used to find EncycopediaDramatica to be somewhat amusing, even occasionally quite funny, but most of it is also very wearying. They are the epitome of taking things way too far, and find fault in absolutely everything. They're downright unhealthily gratuitous with gruesome and sexual "shock images." It encourages desensitization, and I would say it is a symptom of our culture's problems. Never go to that site, seriously. Their mean-spirited style wastes the potential of the site--which I can't deny does have a lot of really clever jokes, too.

A far more pleasent alternative is TvTropes.org. That site has lots of lists of tropes and cliches from all sorts of movies, books, TV shows, video games, and everything in between. It's kind of like your movie glossary. I recommend that you check it out, Roger. It's very informative, but with a lot of humor. Like ED, it makes fun of just about everything, but it's about the style and tone--it's clearly affectionate, rather than mean-spirited.

Reply to: Scott: In reading your review of Gomorrah it seemed inevitable to see it contrasted to The Godfather, even Scarface... clear dismissal of the fetishizing of organized crime. And similar to how The Godfather affected movie-making. I dont think a serious movie has been made since Goodfellas that romanticizes organized crime. The remaining question is - why the continued fascination with 'the underworld' (not you specifically, but as a subject.

Roger gave "Gomorrah" four stars, which means I read his review. Probably won't see the movie.

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

The imdb site took a survey, and the top two movies were:

(1) The Shawshank Redemption 409,000 votes

(2) The Godfather 1972 342,000 votes

Both had overall ratings of 9.1 out of 10.0

Reply to: Ebert: None of these characters ever refer to "The Godfather." The teenagers know De Palma's "Scarface" by heart. Living a life of luxury, surrounded by drugs and women, is perhaps a bargain they are willing to make even if it costs their lives. The problem is that only death is guaranteed.

I'm going to say that the common factor is NOT organized crime.

But there is a common factor at play. And it applies to other movies as well.

In both "Shawshank" and "Godfather," the central character was driven by extreme circumstances to the point where he killed two people in cold blood with a handgun.

If you want to write a screenplay about newspapers in Chicago, you've got to include the crime AND the redemption.

In "Shawshank," Tim Robbins comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man. He walks downstairs to find his gun.

In "Godfather," Michael's father was shot, and then his brother Sonny was gunned down at a New Jersey tollbooth. He knows that someone in the Corleone crime family set Sonny up...

So, both movies have the same act of double homicide, but with completely different set-ups.

Most of us would be afraid to shoot two people in cold blood. Some of us can imagine what kind of circumstances would drive us to that point. But the movies are about "what happens next," what the act of murder does to a person. We want to believe that the hero is basically a good person, or we wonder how we would react.

Can we apply this to other movies? Sure. "Doubt" comes to mind. If the mother of the abused boy had obtained a handgun and shot both the priest and the Sister, it would have been a much better movie. A different movie, but a better one. Because we want to see a mother who won't stand for her child being abused that way.

I wouldn't have put "Shawshank" or "Godfather" at the top of my personal list, but I'm fascinated at how many movie fans do.

Ebert: Shoot the priest and the nun? I know you're anti-clerical, but I can't agree with you 100% on how well you understood what the mother was saying, there, Bill.

Roger, this is totally off-topic so you can reject the comment after reading it. I was wondering if you have seen Victor Erice's film "The Spirit of the Beehive". If you have seen it and like it, would you please write a review for it? I know you are very busy, but it's one of my favorite films and I would love to read your comments on it. Thanks in advance.

I always considered most snark to be synomous with tabloid journalism and tabloid blogging. It's usually just some malcontent rooting against someone who is actually trying to be successful at something and is actually succeeding. And they make good money because they have legions of readers who are bored and act the same way. It makes me sad that Perez Hilton is a millionair because he's an ugly human being and there are millions out there just like him.

Here's to all the snarkers:

"Oh, oh, you will be sorry for that word....

And some day when you knock and push the door,
Some SANE day, not too bright and not too stormy,
I shall be gone, and you may whistle for me."

Edna St. Vincent Malley
1923

"When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.
We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely".

Oscar Wilde
Preface to "The Picture of Dorian Gray"
1891

Great essay Roger (hope my vandalizing [out of context] Malley and Wilde is not against the rules on your blog, but I thought it appropriate).

:)

has anyone been more a subject of satire, ridicule and derision than Orson Welles?

Ebert: You should know, Lamont.

Thanks for posting the "Fallen Stars" Montage - during the broadcast they were panning and tilting all over the place, to the point that you couldn't see some of the names. Sad fact - with the passing of Van Johnson, James Whitmore and Ricardo Montalban, only Jerome Cortland and Denise Darcel remain of the cast of "Battleground" a movie I watch one afternon thinking it would be a typical "over the top" WWII actioner, only to find something really wonderful - the WWII Platoon picture in perhaps its fullest form, and able to express cynicism, regret and remorse, with the war won and behind it. I don't know if it could ever be considered a "Great Film", but it certainly is a wonderful one.

I am reminded of the great Fred Allen's retort to a critic of one of Fred's radio programs. " Where were you Monday when the paper was blank?"

Reply to: Ebert: Ebert: Shoot the priest and the nun? I know you're anti-clerical, but I can't agree with you 100% on how well you understood what the mother was saying, there, Bill.

I have my own opinion about what the mother was saying. I'll post it, and see if anyone disagrees.

The play is about a real situation in Boston. Children made complaints about priests, and their own parents said, "Be quiet. You can't say something like that about a priest. You must be lying." And the abuse continued for decades. Some of the abused have filed lawsuits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/08church.html?_r=1

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 7 — The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego agreed Friday to a settlement that would pay nearly $200 million to 144 people who have said they were sexually abused by clergy members under lax supervision from the church. At a news conference, the bishop apologized to victims. “I’m very, very sorry for the suffering we have caused them,” he said, “and I pray they will walk with God for a renewed life.”

Victims of abuse at a courthouse reacted with tears, anger and a sense of resignation. The federal judge had appeared poised to dismiss a bankruptcy claim the church filed six months ago on the eve of trial as a way to shield its assets.

“I am mad from the standpoint that we will not be able to move to trial so I would have an opportunity to articulate the horrendous crimes the church has covered up and the priest perpetrated on me,” said Michael Bang, 46, who accused a priest of molesting him from age 8 to 16. (end)

so, the issue in the REAL case is the anger of the victims at the way the church covered up the original complaints... 144 victims in the Los Angeles case alone.

SISTER ALOYSIUS
I’m concerned, to be frank, that Father Flynn may have made advances on your son.

MRS. MILLER
May have made.

SISTER ALOYSIUS
I can’t be certain.

MRS. MILLER
No evidence?

SISTER ALOYSIUS
No.

MRS. MILLER
Then maybe there's nothing to it.

(and, later)

SISTER ALOYSIUS
Do you know what you’re saying?

MRS. MILLER
Know more about it than you.

SISTER ALOYSIUS
I believe this man is creating or may have already brought about an improper relationship with your son.

MRS. MILLER
Why you gotta know something like that for sure when you don’t?

(and later)

MRS. MILLER
Sister, you ain’t going against no MAN in a ROBE and win. He’s got the position.

(and later)

SISTER ALOYSIUS
This man is in my school.

MRS. MILLER
Well, he’s gotta be somewhere and maybe he’s doing some good, too.

MRS. MILLER
I’m talking about the boy’s nature now, not anything he’s done. You can’t hold a child responsible for what God gave him to be.
(dialogue by John Patrick Shanley, based on his stage play)

I can identify three stages in Mrs. Miller's speech.

(1) She says it's wrong to accuse anyone without conclusive proof.
(2) She says she knows the truth, but the sister can't go against a man who is wearing a priest's robes.
(3) She says her son might be a bit gay, and the Sister shouldn't hold him responsible for starting an affair with a priest.

All of which is... THE PROBLEM

Mrs. Miller knew the truth, and like many Catholic parents, she was looking to the Church and ptetending, "The priest couldn't possibly be molesting my boy. He's a priest." A mother calling her own child a liar.`

And I'm saying, a compelling movie needs a better arc. The mother needs to change.

The mother needs to admit that her respect for the Catholic Church made her close her eyes... and out of guilt, she shoots the priest.

That isn't Shanley's movie. I know. But it would have been a BETTER movie.

Ebert: The whole point is the future of the boy. The mother believes if he leaves the school and returns to the public system, he may very well be killed. She doesn't know if abuse involving the priest took place, but she does know her husband has been abusive to the boy, and she knows her son well enough to consider whatever has happened between him and priest to be complex and possibly benign.

The point of the movie is to show doubt replacing self-righteous certainty. Shooting the priest would have been simplistic, not justified by the facts known to Mrs. Miller, and dramatically not merely wrong but infuriating.

I'm not sure if the mother and her son are even necessarily Catholics. Many inner-city parents send their children to parochial schools simply because they believe the discipline and education will be superior.

Just in terms of the movie as it stands, your rewrite would make it necessary to remove Mrs. Miller's speech, robbing Viola Davis of the subtle power of her performance.

I didn't realize until I read this blog post that snark ruined Indiana Jones 4. In my opinion, it was great, and I agree with your review of it, Mr. Ebert. But loads of people on the internet mention in with so much snark and scorn. Why? Are you really going to let one silly scene ruin the whole movie for you? The refrigerator, the monkeys, the gophers? A CGI gopher appears for less than a second and you hate the movie now? How is that reasonable? Sure, I thought the refrigerator idea was ridiculous, but mostly because how would he not have broken bones after being thrown around? Guess what, he's Indiana Jones. He's practically a superhero. So he can survive a nuclear blast. And the shower afterward reminded me of the scene in Dr. No - because apparently, in 60's movies you can get rid of dangerous radiation with a shower.

Hey, in Temple of Doom, a man pulls a still-beating heart out of someone's chest, and Indy mumbles something about the priest betraying Vishnu. For Crystal Skull, it's pure fun to watch the movie but apparently people get fixated on unimportant details. The gophers appear for only one second, remember Jar Jar Binx's annoying presence was throughout the entire film. I like Crystal Skull, I liked Quantum of Solace, and I continue to like the tv show Heroes despite what internet people say.

Bill Hays wrote:

"In "Shawshank," Tim Robbins comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man. He walks downstairs to find his gun."

I don't think that's right. Tim Robbins' character says that he was innocent of shooting her, and in fact one of the major subplots is that his friend, the guy he tutored, knew who the real murderer was and was going to get Andy off, so he had to be killed before he could do that, in order to keep Andy in prison, doing the taxes, and keeping his mouth shut on the warden's crooked books.

But Tim Robbins' character did require a redemption of sorts, because he felt guilty for his wife's murder because he felt that he drove her to commit adultery with his lack of ability to show affection for her. He felt that if he had been a better husband he would have been with her that night, and been able to protect her.

As previous commenters have already quoted and then requoted, Wilde said, "A gentleman is someone who never hurts another person unintentionally".

I read Wilde as someone who never lets anyone off the hook, least of all himself. So I interpret this line as something more with the flavor of, "A gentleman is someone who never commits manslaughter, only murder", for example, if we were talking of killing and not hurting.

One observation: I have never had occasion to divide people into 'known' and 'unknown'. Known to whom?

There must be something in the air. On Kevin Smith's podcast, he and Scott Mosier said roughly the same thing (their choice of verbiage was a bit less refined, but you don't listen to SModcast for subtlety). Mosier brought up the pending remake of The Taking of Phelam, One Two Three - yep, they're remaking it - and said that a few years ago, he would have been outraged and full of indignant, fanboy snark. But now...who cares? Bully for them, trying to make money on a remake. Best of luck.

But it occurs to me there are different levels of snark. Television Without Pity, for example, does a relatively honorable job of holding TV shows to a reasonable standard - I don't visit them like I used to, but they seem to understand that snark comes from a personal, not universal, viewpoint. Our friend Nikki, on the other hand, is a rabid little blogger, hungry for blood. Life's too short to intentionally devour vitriol, yes?

Thank you again for another wonderful read.

I'm fine with snark as a means of deflating the powerful and pompous and powerful, but I despise how it is used to cut off sincerity at the knees. You wrote in your untraceable review "The comments are cretinous, stupid, ugly, divorced from all civilized standards. How people with the mentality of the authors of such messages are intelligent enough to get online in the first place is a puzzle. But they do. All you have to do is visit the wrong chat room or bulletin board and see them at their dirty work".

Once after expressing disgust at an antisemitic joke on a comments thread I had three separate people tell me to "Stfu moralfag".

The Late David Foster Wallace criticized irony better than I ever could;

"So then how have irony, irreverence, and rebellion come to be not liberating but enfeebling in the culture today's avant-garde tries to write about? One clue's to be found in the fact that irony is still around, bigger than ever after 30 long years as the dominant mode of hip expression. It's not a rhetorical mode that wears well. As [Lewis] Hyde (whom I pretty obviously like) puts it, "Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it is the voice of the trapped who have come to enjoy their cage." This is because irony, entertaining as it is, serves an almost exclusively negative function. It's critical and destructive, a ground-clearing. Surely this is the way our postmodern fathers saw it. But irony's singularly unuseful when it comes to constructing anything to replace the hypocrisies it debunks. This is why Hyde seems right about persistent irony being tiresome. It is unmeaty. Even gifted ironists work best in sound bites.

( . . .)

And make not mistake: irony tyrannizes us. The reason why our pervasive cultural irony is at once so powerful and so unsatisfying is that an ironist is impossible to pin down. All U.S. irony is based on an implicit "I don't really mean what I'm saying." So what does irony as a cultural norm mean to say? That it's impossible to mean what you say? That maybe it's too bad it's impossible, but wake up and smell the coffee already? Most likely, I think, today's irony ends up saying: "How totally banal of you to ask what I really mean." Anyone with the heretical gall to ask an ironist what he actually stands for ends up looking like an hysteric or a prig. And herein lies the oppressiveness of institutionalized irony, the too-successful rebel: the ability to interdict the question without attending to its subject is, when exercised, tyranny. It is the new junta, using the very tool that exposed its enemy to insulate itself.

( . . . )

The next real literary "rebels" in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, ananchronistic. Maybe that'll be the point. Maybe that's why they'll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today's risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the "Oh how banal." To risk accusation of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law."

Ebert: Eloquent, wise and true.

Great post Roger, as always. Somewhat off topic, but since we are, after all, talking about Snarks. How do you interpret the ending of Lewis Carroll's poem? Was it really a Boojum snark or did the Baker, in his unfinished last words, mean to say that the killer had been Boots?
Carroll does clear it up a little by ending the poem with the information that it was a Boojum snark but still...

Ebert: I think "Boo..." is intended to be ambiguous, so there you are.

I wonder if snarking is a reflection of a growing cynicism about our own inner lives, our own souls. We tend to project what we ourselves have not dealt with inside us. So there is snark with substance, as you said Mr.Ebert, but then there are those writers out there who just snark for the sake of snarking. Those who say, "I snark, therefore i am". I wonder what they are inside? That vitriol that is spewed is also being spewed at an aspect of their own nature, their own "shadow" that they are not in touch with, and hence project outwards. It is easier to see someone else's shadow rather than recognize it in yourself.

We are becoming a society that is so about the external world -- everything is "out there" -- the art of looking inside is becoming lost for many, the more our senses are bombarded with signals, images and sounds. The balance is lost. It is this very imbalance that i meditation, eastern philosophy aims to rectify.

With this imbalance though, our inner world becomes turmoil. We lose that tenuous connection with our own souls -- that connection that is often mediated by love with another -- and then our inner world becomes tumultuous, confused. And it becomes projected.

So i wonder what is happening inside those who snark on a regular basis. They are projecting. Unbeknownst to themselves, they are taking out their 'inner garbage', cleaning house, and doing it in a destructive way by flinging their Glad brand garbage bag at others.

I love reading your blog!

Vikas

Ebert: I wonder if compulsive snarkers are terrified of revealing sincerity. Maybe it's like booze. A drink a day might improve your heart health, but you don't want to get started on the daily fifth.

This is what can happen in the age of Snark: I saw the Exorcist with a friend when it was rereleased in theaters a few years ago. We had both already seen it on video several times, yet seeing in on the big screen was a different experience. We were both scared out of our wits by the movie. The rest of the audience as laughing the whole time.

If one's response to everything is a snide cynical pose, who can one recognize something genuine?

Ebert: Yeah, I wrote about that in the Answer Man. If you can laugh during "The Exorcist," you are seriously damaged.

Concerning the movie Doubt, Bill Hays wrote: "If the mother of the abused boy had obtained a handgun and shot both the priest and the Sister, it would have been a much better movie. A different movie, but a better one. Because we want to see a mother who won't stand for her child being abused that way."

When Errol Morris was at the Overlooked Film Fest, you asked him how he got people to say the things they do. He noted that if you simply turn on the camera and shut up, after a few minutes people will show you how crazy they are.

Roger, your blog is now officially an Interrotron.

--Unless Bill Hays was simply "making a point" (are those quotation marks instances of snark?)--or if any of my own comments can be considered crazy. As Paul Reiser puts it, "I'm just sayin'."

People, Why can´t it all be just simpler?

Isn´t it obvious? Everybody wants to be a bully today!

Everyone is fed up of having to choose manners, to mind words, to pc that, to have a say on that other. Personally I blame Nelson. Not the Admiral but that kid from "the Simpson's" that snarks his finger in everyone´s face and Ah-Ahs all the way to snark land!

When everybody is a snarker, we should look at the snark. Their are the real heroes. Never mind super-powers, the only thing that you cannot get away with today is a gaffe. To not mind it, to even promote it is the most heroic thing you can do.

There was a phrase, i think Carl Sagan wrote it in "Cosmos", that there are 10 billions ways of being human.Today actually there are less and lesser ways of expressing one-self without being blogged and Ah-ahed away just for the kicks of it.

Is life really THAT boring?

Oh BUGGERS! Dammit, curses and DRATS!

I’ve been distracted - Mutant Enemy’s back with Joss Whedon’s new series “Dollhouse” and I didn’t think to check Roger’s blog until today! Whereupon I find he’s gone and posted something REALLY though provoking now and ironically the very sort of mind-candy I went looking for and didn’t find - sigh! Not that the Oscar thread was boring or anything, just that so many had beaten me to the punch it seemed a moot point to basically add: “yeah, me too! And gee, you guys have done it again; there’s already over 100 posts!

Not that I’m snarking. Rather, just trying to figure out now how to contribute to the conversation while at the same time laughing at myself; for having noticed that there “may be” an aspect of competitiveness at work in my pathology. I don’t need to be the first to post you understand - just post something I hope worth reading. And I find it harder to when aiming to avoid repeating what’s come before when so much has. The only thing I want to be guilty of is originality; smile.

I blame Roger for that. For this is “his” medium we’re in now not mine, and my ego knows it. :) Not that he’d rip your post to shreds like Harlan Ellison in a bad mood and call you a HACK just because no one’s beating down the door to hand YOU a Pulitzer, of course. But you have to take “some” pride in what you write, otherwise you’ll soon end up with the sort of thoughtless insipid crap worthy of being mocked behind your back. So you have to at least “try” and reach for the bar Roger sets.

Case in point: I used to post at Buffyworld Forums. NO, wait! Where are you going..?! It’s all connected, I swear to God. Seriously you can trust me; I’m Canadian.

Now, I used to watch TV without thinking too much about the writing. That changed with “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and the team of writers who’d penned it aka: “Mutant Enemy”. And because they didn’t do our thinking for us, why we flocked to “Buffyworld” where fans aspired to write as well as those they admired and we engaged one another in intelligent & thoughtful debate. Everything from good vs. evil to Feminism to Shakespeare to all things existential and folks plunged into literary study and analysis on an Academic level. Go ahead quizz me – ask me about “Waiting for Godot” by Beckett.

Sadly, those days are long gone now. Perché? Because the quickest way to make a profit is to feed directly into the targeted pathology of an ill-informed youth-based demographic conditioned from birth to be that way; to buy into whatever they’re sold unquestioningly. Buffyworld fell casualty years ago to what it once sought to defeat and why I haven’t been there since. However the prospect of a new series by Mutant Enemy, had me scurrying over to the forum “Television Without Pity” to do some spelunking! But as before, albeit it to a lesser degree as some are trying to write well, there’s too much adolescent-minded schadenfreude now. Too much open delight in being able to stick a knife in snarkly. And I see that everywhere, not just inside forums.

For decades now, the forces of evil (I have it on good authority that they exist) have been actively engaged in various self-serving pursuits that at the end of the day net the same result: making it harder for people to grow-up. For what happens to a child indulged by their culture, their parents, eh? And when nothing’s presented honestly or in context requiring that they think about it? You are what you eat.

To be fair you’re not the only ones. There was a massive public outcry in the wake of genuinely cruel, infantile and abusively phone calls to an actor named Andrew Sachs by Russell Brand & Jonathan Ross as broadcast on their BBC Radio 2 show, back in Oct 2008. And granted, while not everyone liked “Monty Python” back in the day either, it’s also true that when they added a “teaspoon of vitriol” to the elements of farce, it was in pursuit of rattling cages that needed to be – not just to make a quick buck by selling the “shock appeal” of anarchy to the cult of youth. Note: there was a wonderful piece about this over at the Telegraph.

But it’s all about the marketability of shock appeal now. And for want of wit and skill with a quill, and enough minds able to tell the difference between satire and intentional cruelty, why you see what you do.

I personally suspect that Joaquin Phoenix was taping into “shock appeal” and endeavoring to “play” the media by giving it the very thing it loves to pour acid on in order to hand them a rope with which to hang themselves. But I think he went about it at the expense of the film he was supposed to promote namely “Two Lovers”. I mean, by all means hand them a rope dude, but couldn’t you have waited a bit? That way your agenda doesn’t over-shadow another's work and you still get to do what you want to just later. And because we won’t know either way until he’s ready to tell us, why it was fun to see him parodied on the Spirit Awards. Note: but I didn’t think it was cruel. Just playful satire. The same goes for Christian Bale.

Mind you, and because he wasn’t being parodied for the same reason, why I also think two different things were going on. Ie: Phoenix was being “teased” and Bale was being “spanked”. I’m glad he was for thinking that it was needed lesson in humility for having forgotten the DP was a person with feelings too. But I don’t need to see Bale humiliated. Or openly scored or vilified by the Press. For although what he did wasn’t very nice, it was also done by a person and compassion works both ways. And think that’s what missing these days.

Yes, we still empathize with the underdog but we stop short of extending our compassion to the one whose made the mistake; inventing reasons instead now to enjoy the rush of being able to get away with a “justifiable” cruelty. Which strikes as the sort of thing that children sometimes do; inflicting cruelty upon another as a form of control in order to assert one’s power alla Lord of the Flies.

There! Now hopefully, no one else has beaten me to that analogy. Chuckle!

Ebert: I would say you have succeeded in writing a very readable post, and I especially liked the Canadian "eh."

Roger, the snarking piece is a jewel. I've admired you for decades, and I just keep admiring you more and more. You expressed so well what I feel in a way that I could never verbalize it.

Regarding 'Joaq' - I'm a little heartbroken about his recent actions, whether they're real or not. I just hope he gets back to acting soon, or at least acts AND sings, if that's what he really wants. I love the guy.

Well said, as usual, Roger. I too have succumbed to the almost narcotically addictive vice of snarking. That is, criticism done in the short hand verbage of mean spiritedness. However, let us not neglect the careful art of sarcasm. Is the difference between the two choice of language and/or level of critique? Sometimes. Sometimes it is just attitude. However, like art (or, conversely, pornography), we know snarking when we witness it. I hereby pledge to go forth and snark no more.

Is THAT what the hell Ben Stiller was doing? I had no clue; I thought he was just on drugs.

Hmm.

I read about half of this then it lost me somewhat and I decided I should stop.

I must, however, ask what the big deal about making fun of Mr. Phoenix is.

If it was an act, then, like most great comedy acts, it exists partly to be imitated. How many impression of George Bush (elder and younger), Bill Clinton, or David Paterson that us "normal" folks (who are not impressionists or comics and don't know impressionists or comics) do are actually impressions of impressions? A lot, I'd think. In other words, if Phoenix's bizarre behavior was an act, imitating it is a tribute.

If it was not an act, the fact that Phoenix is a public figure opens him up to ridicule. It's the price these folks pay. Most seem to be OK with it most of the time. Some famous actress (I forget who) had a standard that, if she did it in public, it was fair game.

No one I know or know of ever suggested that Phoenix was finished or washed up as an actor. If he is, it's exactly half our fault and half his fault.

Our Fault: For taking our own snarkiness too seriously, for taking it as serious criticism. (And that, by the way, is not a flaw in snarkiness, it's a flaw of snarkers.)

His Fault: For knowing what could happen and behaving this way anyway.

For an example of an appropriate response to something not too dissimilar, note Christian Bale's half-apology, half-explanation for his outburst on the T3 set.

Hmmm...I've spent WAY too long replying to a blog entry I only read half of!

Sorry if I rambled....My point, if I have one at all, is this: Snarkiness is fine and fun. Phoenix isn't finished, and no one reasonable (so that leaves out celebrity gossip columnists I guess) thinks he is. It is up to us the viewing public to determine if reasonable snarkiness or non-reason (which is by definition not really snarky at all but merely dumbness) will carry the day.

-Nighthawk

It may be true that Joaquin Phoenix is Trying to channel the spirit of Andy Kaufman with his fake Hip Hop career, but from what I've heard his rapping is godawful, if he was able to break out of his stupor and shock the crowd with a Jay Z level performance he might find people more charitable.

A couple people have mentioned Encyclopedia Dramatica and phrases like "epic fail", this isn't snark but the discourse of a subculture infinitely more vile that finds it's origin on 4chan.com, most of the more illiterate and vitriolic emails you have gotten from your correct assertion that videogames are not art come from people that define themselves by this subhuman subculture. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html At least snarkers on sites like Gawker.com make clever references to Goethe and Ingmar Bergman films.

I'm much fonder of "snarking" behaviors than specific people; I find it fairer and more constructive. That is, of course, unless a specific person is making himself such a perfect embodiment of the snarkable behavior that snarking him would set a brilliant example.

Anyway, that's not entirely why I write.

I just saw REVOLUTIONARY ROAD a couple nights ago, and I've been wanting to write to someone about it, unable to decide which blog to post to and what exactly to say. I feel an incredible need to talk to others about this film. I found it to be profoundly good, and if "Synecdoche, New York" proves to be better (still waiting for it to come to my state; guess I may be out of luck), I'll be amazed and elated.

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD is one of those movies that one doesn't have to justify why he liked it or what was so great about it. Its greatness seems obvious or it doesn't, and it seemed obvious to me. Here is a fully grown-up movie for fully grown-up people. Is that why it was snubbed by the Oscars?

Is that last question a snark? I don't even know.

Perhaps REVOLUTIONARY ROAD does a bit of its own snarking ... or a lot. But I don't think it is snarking particular people. It is a breathtakingly magnificent swipe at a cultural mindset, a sort of human pivot, that was and is born out of human weakness and idealism and modern wealth and convenience. Mind you, I don't hate the suburbs, or the 1950s, or people who work miserable jobs and defer their dreams and settle for less in life. I love these people. I hate the mindset. I think I can say exactly the same words for this movie.

I hate the mindset because I fight against it myself. Don't most of us? That's why the movie meant so much to me.

I thought of posting my thoughts to the Oscar blog, but considered it a bit too late. If you were Justin Haythe and you wrote this brilliant script, and your spot among the Oscar nominees was taken by, say, Eric Roth and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," wouldn't you very nearly sink into depression? How could one write a better screenplay adaptation? How could one direct a film any better than Mr. Mendes has? How could Leonardo DiCaprio have turned in a more Oscar-worthy performance, or Kate Winslet for that matter? Could Michael Shannon have actually been--dare I say--robbed?

Ebert: Michael Shannon was very effective with Ashley Judd in a 2006 William Friedkin film named "Bug."

It has gotten to the point where you have to divide people into "internet people" who's identities are defined by their standings on various "online communities" and messageboards, and real people who happen to use the internet.

For example if youtube were to make a slight change to the layout of their site or the algorithm that decides how videos are sorted a "real person" would either not notice the change or not care. An "internet person" would immediately make a 2 part 20 minute Vlog on how this change is trampling on his rights as a "content producer" along with other conspiracy theories, start an online petition, and make 100's of posts on various messageboards about how the end of the world is upon us.

What's great about this blog is that the majority of commenters are Real people looking to intelligently talk about film and philosophy with other human beings. This is exceedingly rare on "Teh internets" as Marie just pointed out. I can't picture anyone I admire getting into the sort of vicious and childish debates you find under most youtube videos.

All that web 2.0 has done is bring the most vile aspects of messageboard culture to the surface. The audience is just as if not more important than the writer and if you don't have comments under everything you write then you Can't take the heat and should give up. One positive is that I have Aspergers syndrome and the internet has been something of a "Ghost of Christmas future" for what unchecked obsession and fanboyism can lead to, I might be working on a 12 page rebuttal of your (awesome) Fanboys review if I wasn't scared straight

Along with Snark there is a sort of joyless pedantry and lack of style to most writing on the internet, people just want "the facts" delivered as bluntly as possible and in their language "This movie blanked donkey blank, epic fail". Whenever a 6 part magazine article makes it to the front page of a site like Digg.com most of the comments are morons expressing impotent rage at how much they are expected to read. "Omfg you could have just summed it up in a paragraph, who does this jackass think he is Shakspear?(sic)"

Part of what bothers me about snark is the lost sense of perspective. Writing snark apparently imbues one with such confidence that they forget they're only writing one person's opinion -- and a warped opinion at that, since snark automatically makes you more sound negative than you would be otherwise. All this accomplishes is to (A) make people who haven't seen it assume it was a disaster, and (B) make the columnist seem out of touch to everyone who did see it and liked it (which I think you're spot on in guessing was the vast majority of "normal" people).

Great post. A well used, well placed snark can be a beautiful thing. The problem is that too many people (ab)use it as the fundamental tool of their communication. Perhaps, we should call these full time snarkers what they've always been called before: rude and loud-mouthed. One does have to wonder why Nikke Finke repeatedly used the phrase "that's so gay" followed by the "not that there's anything wrong...": a verbal spice more commonly used by "non-racists" who have A "black friend".
I'll use a snark when I feel it's good enough to be used. Personally, I still use a standard that I learned in school, when Cyrano criticizes the detractors of his large nose for not being creative enough in their rudeness.

Stopped watching David Letterman in 1983, about a year into his Late Night with David Letterman program, when it had become apparent that his real talent was "snark." (My criticism back then, when asked, was that Letterman was persistently "arch," a style of smirking mischief in which a speaker is sly at someone else's expense, most usually someone who is "beneath" them.)
Even back then, I noticed that Letterman's "man on the street" interviews or "candid camera" type segments (ambushes, actually) typically specialized in ridicule of people who were fat, had accents, lacked poise, or were otherwise "not-like-Dave." I would date the general American popularity of this type of crappy "humor" at least back to then, and although I dont hold Letterman responsible, I think that his success marks a point at which American humor/pop culture swung decidedly into this sad, shitty state of affairs. That it's now freely available to any boob with a blog (not just well-paid talk show hosts or critics with press credentials) isn't any sea change; it's just the logical, cumulative consequence of 25 years or more of our treating it as if it were funny or somehow worthwhile. What may be different now is that it's so pervasive, with journalists and talkradio hosts all trying to mimic it for success, and the profitable culture of voyeurism exemplified by TMZ and "Soup" being such that trash-talking people is no longer considered a vulgar Enquirer-only trade. Pathetic, but here we are.

The other posters have already made so many good points, I feel reluctant to join the chorus--just a redundant voice in the swelling choir. Still, your piece struck a chord in me, and I'd like to amplify on one small theme I've detected in the thread.

Nothing's perfect. There are always flaws. Even our best-wrought fiction is riddled with defects. But one must have a sense of proportion about them, and a willingness to accept a work of art, at least provisionally, on its own terms. Snark is the very antithesis of this perspective. It's about judgment from a safe remove--what some have called an "ironic distance".

In my view, this stems in part from the increasing professionalization of virtually every facet of human activity, even the supposedly creative areas like art and science. We are required by modern professional life to alienate ourselves from our work, and by extension, from our feelings, wishes, and desires. Snark is a manifestation of this phenomenon. It is more about signalling to others our power to maintain an ironic distance, a professional reserve, than it is about the subject that is nominally under discussion. It also serves to flatter its audience's self-perceived knowingness and sophistication.

To be "smart" in today's society, is to live "above" one's experiences, always careful never to be duped or manipulated. The American ethos has become so competitive, so nakedly Darwinian, that we must all be constantly on the lookout for scams and subterfuge. It is considered the very height of philistinism to express an honest interest in something, or to hold fast to an ideal--such things merely expose you to manipulation by the unscrupulous powers-that-be.

Snark is an easy evasion of this conundrum. Drain yourself of all dreams and aspirations, "adapt" yourself to the stark realities of the marketplace, and attack any others who fail to do so as silly and unserious. The mainstream media are a good example of this mentality.

Snark is the resentment and envy of people who believe that they are altogether smarter, cooler, better and more deserving than those who have positions of prominence in media and government. Its pervasiveness in present day culture is the natural result of spending the past 30 years teaching all middle class children that they are special -- they take it badly when they learn that they are in fact ordinary, or at least a good deal less special than those who have gotten they glittering prizes that they so badly want.

Well, Patrick Goldstein has never won the Pulitzer Prize. Perhaps he thinks an occasional snark here or there will be his ticket so he can fend off the insults of third-rate comedians who make bad movies (but hope to make wonderful ones).

Similarly, I have never won the Pulitzer Prize. But I think Mr. Goldstein's review of the Oscars sucks.

Thanks again for sharing your insights, your blog is one of the few I return to again and again.

As for all those other bloggers, there's something faulty in the assumption that if someone expresses themselves reasonably well in text on a screen, they must also have something to say that's worth reading, worth a response, worth attracting and holding an audience in one place.

I think snark's a quick and easy fix for writers who have more column space than they can reasonably fill, but since it's also a sometimes uncomfortable reflection of the writer's emotional and literary shortcomings, I do wonder at the extent of its use.

The continued popularity of the form of so-called comedy that focuses its energies on laughing at others (not with them) baffles me as well, but perhaps it, like snark, are just proof that self awareness isn't as widespread as we'd all prefer to believe, and never really has been.

I was going to write something snarky at Bill Hays and his viewing of "The Shawshank Redemption," but thought better of it. Old habits die hard. And speaking of old habits, with the posting of this on Ash Wednesday, is snarking what you're giving up for Lent?

You may be onto something. I can tend to be too sarcastic and snarkish, and it's something I want to change. I realized how much I hated it when at a friend's house she commented on some of her odd behaviour, at which I commented "we have affection for your affectations." Wow, how clever. What an ass I made of myself over a joke that was meant to amuse only me. I think that's the problem with the snark, it's simply self-amusement.
I actually feel that way about the mom in CA with the 14 kids. The snarkish press seems to relish in all the negativity. Yeah, she was stupid and has made some really bad decisions, but do we lead our celebrity news show with "will our shocking footage lead to social services evaluating the home where the 6 children currently live?" I saw the footage, and it wasn't very shocking. I was pretty disappointed and quit watching the rest of the show (and I won't return any time soon. Get her some help and leave her alone.
It is now my goal to be less "snarkish."

Sorry about misreading the Phoenix comment. Guess its's time to call IT and get the font enlarged. /*/*/ Reading the other comments is serving to reinforce my point that all snarkers justify their snark the same way - "He/she/it desrves anything nasty I can come up with, so there too." In a real sense, we've never left the schoolyard. I was a target of much teasing as a kid (won't bore you with the details), and that's when I heard the Big Lie of childhood for the first time: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." With all due respect to my late mother, and to mothers everywhere, bullfeathers. Names hurt more than anything else. A broken bone can be mended, a flesh wound can heal, but a mean-spirited crack can eat at you for all your life - because deep down, you suspect that at some level, your attacker might just be right. Some of you will scoff at this - "Oh, you have to consider the source." Or "You develop a thicker skin." Or "You just respond in kind." Or (insert your favorite defense mechanism here). Heard 'em all, all my life - even tried them, with variable success. And you know what? They only work in the short term. Memory does you in every time - and much of the time, memory makes it worse than it was to begin with. /*/*/ In the Memorial reel, I noticed that one of the clips of Van Johnson was from "The Caine Mutiny". Give that picture a look next time you get a chance; it's exactly what we're talking about. Ens. Tom Keefer (Fred MacMurray) is Snark personified. He's the smartest guy on the ship, and never lets anyone forget it. With the old captain (Tom Tully), he's smug and condescending; when Capt. Queeg (Humphrey Bogart) comes aboard, he becomes outrightly contemptuous - although never to Queeg's face. The other officers of the Caine are a different story: Keefer goads them along, undermining the Navy generally and Queeg in particular, as much for his own amusement as any other reason. When the typhoon hits and Lt. Maryk (Van Johnson) forces Queeg out, Keefer backs away and lets Maryk take the fall - even though we've seen that Keefer sowed all the seeds of doubt in Maryk. It's only at the end, whem Maryk is acquitted, that Lt. Greenwald (Jose Ferrer) finally calls Keefer out for his cowardice, and the other officers for their willing complcity in letting Maryk be the patsy. I see I've gone on a bit long, but I hope I've made the connection: it's easy to be superior when under cover of a byline or a blog - it's almost like the Pope speaking ex cathedra (that's the doctrine of papal infallibility, for you non-Catholics in the crowd; I wanted to get the explanation in before Bill Hays did.). No one will call any of us out as Greenwald did Keefer, because nobody knows us. We won't be sued, we won't be assaulted by someone's goons, we won't get hate mail sent to our homes ... it's the ultimate license to hurt anyone we want with impunity - and face this one final fact: we don't say these things unless we want to hurt. There'd be no point to it otherwise. /*/*/ I don't want to close on a downer, so I'll go off topic: Roger: are you familiar with the novels of Jasper Fforde (the Tursday Next series in particular)? I'm guessing you might be; they'd seem to be right down your literary street. Oh well, whether or not, I'll put in the plug for everyone else. Have some smart laughs, everybody.

I got to thinking along a similar like when I read all the reviews for Happily N'Ever After. When children discover cynicism and sarcasm, it becomes their new toy. They play with it constantly. And some children never grow out of it.

By Bill Hays on February 26, 2009 7:21 PM

In both "Shawshank" and "Godfather," the central character was driven by extreme circumstances to the point where he killed two people in cold blood with a handgun.

Uh, have you even seen Shawshank, Bill?

Very well put, Roger. Snarking is the most reactionary of criticisms, and seems almost like simian behavior. Look at the way that fella's acting over there. He might get our troop attacked by leopards. Let's kick him out.

I found the recent Oscar show refreshing and laid back- something they've needed for a long time. Mr. Jackman did a fine job, but imagine what a sharper wit such as Jon Stewart, Chris Rock, Stephen Colbert or Tina Fey could do with this new format? It breathes new life into a stodgy ritual that's been mocked as pompous and self-important for years. And as usual, the snarks came out to play. If they'd changed nothing, it would be decried as the same old thing, but we can't be too risky either now can we?

Roger,

You hit it out of the ballpark again. I laughed at the Ben Stiller as Joaquin Phoenix part, and was pleased to note your comment. And then your re-evaluation brought me up short. And boy, did I need it.

It's the easiest thing in the world to laugh at everything, to question if there is anything good, or true or honorable, or, yes, noble. It's easy to mock. It's hard and it takes reaching down deep to recognize what makes us really human. It's Lent, and I am giving up snark. I hope I forget to pick it back up. Thanks for being one of the few I can think of in the public eye who backs up and says, "Whoa, I shouldn't have said that. Bad idea. Poor attitude."

And thanks for the non-swoopy-cam version of the In Memoriam. A perfect example of something the snarks will laugh at and get their 15 minutes of attention. For me, the sight of Moses-Ben Hur-El Cid choked me up as did James Whitmore, with his two memorable shots from The Shawshank Redemption. And no ending more perfect than Paul Newman. My heart aches a little every time some figure from my childhood is gone, and the movies are such a part of them--I have never lost my golly-gee whiz--turn out the lights, get the popcorn, it's a movie thrill of excitement. And if the Oscars are anything, they celebrate that moment of wonder in the darkness and that frisson of delight.

Thanks, Roger--you are part and parcel of that whole thrill and frisson thing for me.

The problem I see on this talkback is that many people are confusing snark with wit. Nobody has a problem with wit - in fact, there could never be enough wit in our world.

Your response to Vincent Gallo's cancer-curse was witty, not snarky. Snark is like wit's under-nourished, runty brother. Or half-brother. There's a reason we've never heard of Oscar Wilde's brother Neville: He was the snarky one.

Billy Wilder was acerbic, mean, brilliant, witty... never snarky. Snark is what it sounds like - bile sloughed up from the belly, up the neck, and then rasped wetly out the throat. Ugly as it sounds.

Ebert: I gotta say, you have a gift for vivid description.

Now we're talking about movies.

Reply to: Ebert: The whole point is the future of the boy. The mother believes if he leaves the school and returns to the public system, he may very well be killed.

Is that really the case? Isn't the boy twelve? Wouldn't a better solution be to move to a different city? In real life, moving is always an option.

I see that statement as a rationalization. The mother is in denial. She doesn't want to admit that her son has been sodomized by a priest. In the real life cases, the victims told their parents. (I don't have the statistics, but most gave depositions before the settlements.)

My problem with the movie is the end result. The priest (Flynn) had molested children before, and was sent to this parish to get him away from rumors and angry parents. He molests children again, and Sister Aloysius says, "That man is in my school." So, he goes to a different school, where he will be allowed to molest more children WITHOUT Aloysius watching him.

All of the victims asked, "Why did you keep moving those priests? Didn't you know that made the problem worse?"

Reply to: She doesn't know if abuse involving the priest took place, but she does know her husband has been abusive to the boy, and she knows her son well enough to consider whatever has happened between him and priest to be complex and possibly benign.

That's why I posted the link to the San Diego

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 7, 2997 — The San Diego Diocese would pay $77.1 million and its insurance carrier $75.7 million, for a total of $152.8 million covering 111 cases. In addition, the diocese would pay $30.2 million for 22 cases involving members of religious orders, The Los Angeles Archdiocese has said it will sell large amounts of nonparish property, including its administrative headquarters, to pay for the settlement.

There's a whole lot of that "possibly benign" stuff going around.

Too much for me to do anything but laugh at the words "possibly benign." Do you have to wait for the boy to be initiated into the Kingdom of Heaven before you admit there's going to be a problem? Do you have to ruin the kid for the rest of his life before you say "Maybe moving Father Flynn to different parishes was a bad idea."

Reply to: The point of the movie is to show doubt replacing self-righteous certainty.

When an Archdiocese has to sell its administrative headquarters to pay a lawsuit, I'm happy with my burden of self-righteous certainity.

If anything, there's a shortage of self-rigteous certainity when it comes to stopping pedophiles.

Reply to: Shooting the priest would have been simplistic, not justified by the facts known to Mrs. Miller, and dramatically not merely wrong but infuriating.

But the story we want to see is how Mrs. Miller CHANGES after the shooting. If she realizes that she over-reacted, that's great. If she's put on trial and her son spends two days on the witness stand, answering questions to get all the details on the record, that's even more great.

Catholics don't want to admit what happened in these cases. They'd rather pay millions than have to face the truth. To be a compelling movie, show one of the parents was so devastated by her son's rape, she shoots the rapist. Shw MORE human tragedy.

Reply to: Ebert: your rewrite would make it necessary to remove Mrs. Miller's speech, robbing Viola Davis of the subtle power of her performance.

NOt at all. In the first half of the movie, the mother is in denial. she would rather believe that her twelve year-old son is gay and seduced the priest by walking around in short-shorts, than face the truth. when Sister Aloysius talks to her, the mother realizes that she has failed her son. She has called her son a liar rather than face the truth. They all share the guilt. And when she learns that the priest is going to be transferred to another parish, she says, "I'm not going to let THAT happen." I'd keep her speech as it is.... and then, at trial, have her apologize for calling her son a liar.

Here's a comment by John Truby, a script consultant:

http://johntruby.blogspot.com/2008/12/doubt.html

DOUBT

TRUBY: Plot is based on surprise. It’s what delights us. It’s the game that seduces the audience into facing the pain the drama ultimately causes its characters and all who watch them. Character development is what makes the audience care about the people going through the struggle. It’s what makes the emotional connection.

Doubt has virtually no plot or character development... Since the film has no plot or character development, it creates little emotional connection with the audience, so the argument remains intellectual and the mechanics of the drama come to the surface.

Without an emotional connection, everything in the film boils down to the quality of the moral accounting, and in this the drama fails. Sister Aloysius uses trickery to force the priest out, but this trickery is not unreasonable or extreme. And it indicates that the priest was probably guilty. (end)

The emotional connection that the film needs... is to have the MOTHER of the victim go through a character arc, and then act in a way that reveals character. Yes, doing nothing reveals character. Yes, having the priest transferred to another parish reveals the character of Sister Aloysius.

The mother knows this priest was transferred from another churches, and she realizes the church KNOWS and he wasn't stopped. What's a mother to do? Does she get mad and decide to stop a pedophile before he claims more victims? Doubt is fine, but there's a better movie that would show her going to trial for the murder of Sister Aloysius, too.

Moral choices are about choosing between doing the right thing, and the wrong thing. Moving Flynn is the wrong thing.

Saying that this boy will get a better education at a Catholic school than a public school... well, check out the South Park episode "Red Hot Catholic Love" for the details.

Ebert: I am not sure South Park is the best authority.

Why didn't the mother movie to another city? Maybe because she was poor? She and her husband needed their jobs? I dunno.

"Doubt" was a subtle, complex film, not a sledgehammer message docudrama. It is not really about child abuse but about ethical decision-making. The Meryl Streep character has good reason to suspect she may have been right about the priest, but after the devastating scene with the boy's mother she is no longer so certain what the proper outcome would be. It's called situational ethics.

You assume the priest sodomized the boy. The debates I've heard about the film leave room for doubt. Shanley has written a play that forces the audience to think. You have rewritten it into a call for murder on the basis of unproven suspicions.

An important discussion.
Here's my rambling thoughts.

As a previous poster noted, the late and sorely missed David Foster Wallace (also given to the IMO occasional slightly snarky book review) tackled irony in the best way that I have read.

But. It is possible that some of these apparently snarky commentaries are the writer's genuine opinion and that, especially in the annonymous act of blogging, people are now freed to express their true opinions without fear of recrimination (except from other bloggers).

Personally I find some of the backslapping that we see from show-biz types equally cynical, offensive and lacking in depth and/or meaning. Perhaps some of the vitriol is , however unproductive, a response to this.
For what it's worth I had to check the video online of JP and Letterman. I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. Sure, he's acting a bit strange but he was being quite funny (intentinal or not?). I didn't find Ben Stiller's "performance" to be too snarky, just a bit crap. At any rate, surely there are a whole lot more things for actors to make fun of on oscar night.

I'm in two minds about the snarking business. I think if we should check our tendency for snarkiness, then it follows that we should also check our tendency for insincere affirmation.

Though I agree with most of what was written here, I am fine with Stiller's mock of Phoenix's Late Night appearance -- I think, in fact, it's Phoenix's desired effect.

Andy Kauffman was brilliant because you were never entirely sure. In fact, you got the sense at times that neither was he. The same is true here. Stiller's parody, and those laughing at it, are part of the joke, because they fail to understand they've been had.

I think.

Well put Roger. The one observation I've made about snark is that for many people it seems to be a desperate, clawing attempt to retain individuality. If someone can find some sort of disparaging angle on a popular film, book, album, etc - it plays into this misanthropic fantasy of being one of only a handful of people who "get it". It's kind of like the cultural equivalent of fringe politics.

I think one of the reasons this attitude is so prevalent in a place like LA is because there are so many people who come here to pursue their dreams in the entertainment industry, only to find out that their aspirations may never come to fruition. Subsequently, I think these people would like to see everyone else fail along with them. It's this resentment that seems to be the cornerstone of LA snark.

Just this week I was talking to a friend in Seattle, remarking on how I just don't seem to enjoy movies as much in Los Angeles as I did in any place in the world where I've lived. He made the astute observation "That's because it's entertainment everwhere else. In LA, it's the industry".

The truly awful thing about snark is that it causes the snarker to forget that life is much more enjoyable than they let on.

I think Carroll devised the word snark as a portmanteau of snake and shark.

Have you read Martin Gardner's Annotated Hunting of the Snark (to say nothing of his Annotated Alice)? If not, you're in for a treat.

Hello Again Roger – Challenging topic (again/as usual).

This seems like a different angle on the issues you raised in your post about “The Reader” a couple of weeks ago (yes… that bug is still burrowing around my brain): When is it best to speak? What should we say when we do? When should we just shut up? What are our motives for choosing one course over the other?

These are tough questions, to be sure, and clearly I haven’t grasped them adequately for myself because… well… here I am again making you read this when we both certainly have more enjoyable and productive things to do with our time. My apologies in advance.

I come from decidedly smart-alec stock, and I love a good zinger as much (OK… probably more…) than the next guy. I loved your Pauline “when I was a child…” reference, because my struggle against my own snarkier impulses goes WAY back. As a youngster I took a shine to the power of words early, and from all accounts I learned to use them pointedly well before I learned to use them responsibly. As I (allegedly) matured into adulthood, I learned that within the polite daily machinations of grown-up-big-people land one doesn’t often find occasion to sharpen the long knives and carve away (at least if one is not an obnoxious putz). It turns out, shockingly enough, that maintaining amicable relationships with friends, family, co-workers, strangers, et al, depends a lot more on treating them with consideration and respect than it does on being able to crush them (however eruditely) in pitched verbal combat. Who knew?

This education led me to view the primary difference between “wit” and “snark” as one of intention. When George Clooney was doing press for “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” a few years back, he was discussing Chuck Barris and his role as the godfather of low-brow “Reality TV”. The interviewer asked him what he thought of that trend and he said something I wrote down because it really struck me as wise:

“We all slow down to look at the wreck at the side of the road, but I think it’s irresponsible to put the wreck there simply with the idea of slowing people down.”

Your work is an excellent example of this difference: When you write a review, you (unlike some of your peers) never seem to be entering the arena looking to make a kill. You obviously love movies generally, and this love seems to engender in you a hope that each particular movie will be able find at least some success, on some level. Even in dealing with a stinker you’re always generous: you acknowledge elements of a film that worked for you, even if it failed to move you on the whole. If it’s an idiot comedy that managed to make you laugh in spite of itself/yourself, or a kid flick that 9-year-olds might enjoy even if you didn’t, you’ll always note that in your review. You’ll often give a better than average genre pic more stars than a solid but pedestrian “serious film” because it did a better job of meeting it’s own goals. When you do break out the rough stuff, it’s clear you’re venting your frustration at the particular object of your scorn, not just venting your scorn at whatever object happens to be at hand.

On the flip side, when someone titles a live blog “Snarking the Oscars” before the telecast has even started, it’s pretty clear they’ve come to indulge their inner carnivore on whatever unsuspecting prey that comes along. This is just meanness for meanness’ sake. Kicking a dog when it’s attacking you is one thing, but kicking a dog just because you think it makes you look cool to your friends (or because you dig the rush you get from it) is quite another.

While the psychic distance and faceless anonymity of the internet makes it an ideal place for this sort of hit-and-run, it’s certainly not the only form of “new media” nurturing the recent hammerhead snark population explosion: Talk radio has always been much worse, most “Reality TV” is too, and the sheer volume of air- time that must be filled on 24-hour cable news channels has made them an increasingly fertile breeding ground.

For what it’s worth, I see this tendency as more than just schadenfreude, or even sour grapes. To me it seems like the 21st century way to scratch the venerable, ancient, and collective itch to get the ol’ mob back together and burn us some o ‘dem witches. We don’t get the pleasure of stoning harlots or watching public guillotinings anymore, but at least we can still put Joachin Phoenix and Octuplet Mom in the digital stocks and spit some words on them, eh?

Ebert: Eh!

Loved the article Roger.

I wanted to bring this to your attention, because I think this is related to your snark post. Walter Chaw, film critic for FilmFreakCentral.com completely tore apart “Slumdog Millionaire” on the grounds that it was racist, and some how politically charged. If you read his review it seems like snark, but he just used a thesaurus to do it.

But, what struck me was he made mention of you when he was commenting on “Slumdog” on the FilmFreaks blog. He said this is what Ebert would’ve said about “Slumdog” in 1992:

"I will not regale you with the details by which Bobby's maiden flight takes place. I was so appalled, watching this kid hurtling down the hill in his pathetic contraption, that I didn't know which ending would be worse. If he fell to his death, that would be unthinkable, but if he soared up to the moon, it would be unforgiveable - because you can't escape from child abuse in little red wagons, and even the people who made this picture should have been ashamed to suggest otherwise."

- from his review of Radio Flyer

Response?

Ebert: A valid enough point, actually, although I would argue "Slumdog" sets up and deserves its ending, and "Radio Flyer" doesn't. Walter Chaw is a fine critic, and I like that site

Roger, long time fan, not much of a poster.

With respect to the Oscars weren't they terribly gay this year? Is that wrong to point out? I am not basing this on the producers, I am basing this on the choice of Hugh Jackman to host and the number of song and dance numbers. News Flash: 95% of straight men (conservatively) are completely uninterested during such segments. (Keep in mind that 49% of statistics are made up on the spot, but my point remains the same). Maybe they drew in more female viewers this year, I don't know. I would much rather see Jon Stewart or another contemporary comedian hosting. Steve Martin was excellent as well. The Oscars used to be fun to watch when I was younger, but the occasional good host aside, over the last 20 years they appear to have gradually taken the unofficial moniker of "Gay Superbowl" to heart.

Ebert: They didn't seem "terribly gay" to me, although of course homosexuality was appropriately mentioned in the year of "Milk."

And Hugh Jackman, FWIW, isn't gay.

Affecting an attitude of jaded cynicism is an easy, lazy, thoughtless simulation of cool superiority. Those who mock everything and stand for nothing risk nothing. They also accomplish nothing.

As I get older and do my own creative work, I increasingly think that one of the bravest things someone can say is, "This is what I sincerely believe. I think it's true. It's important to me." What vulnerability! What potential for ridicule! Even if I disagree, I appreciate and admire that person's courage a thousand times more than that of the thousand snarking gnats who emerge to tear him or her down. Everything ever accomplished was done because someone genuinely thought it was worth doing.

To those posters who are equating Finke's "that's gay...not that there's anything wrong with that" to "some of my best friends are black...."
She is referencing the oft-referenced Seinfeld episode. "Not that there's anything wrong with that" following "he's gay" is part of the pop culture lexicon.

Are you REALLY surprised about snakery???? Come on.................you live in a country where jon stewart is intellectual reference number one!!!!!!

@Bill Hays

Reply to: Scott: ...

Roger gave "Gomorrah" four stars, which means I read his review. Probably won't see the movie.

Bill, youve lost me, I dont see your point or what youre responding too.

@Roger Ebert

Sir, you are being a bit overly, and unnecessarily, modest. But its understandable. What are you supposed to say: `I Rock!`? People bother posting at all (often going to such lengths) simply because they know they will be read, by that famous movie critic no less. Virtually none of the posts are responded to by other posters (ok, a very small percentage anyway.. its not a given that someone will have their post responded to by another poster). So if that is the reason why people post here (in may cases with such verbosity and detail and, at times, eloquently) then they must be rather stoic about it.

Im sure the question crosses your mind as to why people should care what you think (as every intelligent person poses the question to him/herself) and why should people care what you think about what they think. You write very well, interestingly, and this is not unique. What is unique is that youre Roger Ebert, that famous movie critic.

I think its fun/funny, all these people going to great lengths to express themselves here. Most must assume they are not a soundless tree falling. We are happy to do so. How many are as happy to do so, to brave indifference and anonymity, alienation of thinker from thought, in order that they might express themselves to people they actually know, live with, work with, share a streetcar or commuter train with? Human nature, eh? Great fun!

Am reading Celine`s Journey.... There`s a guy with a take on human nature (he said to the famous movie critic). Fun!

Ebert: Funny you should say not many respond to other poster after you've just done so...

I hope a good many posters do so in the hopes of being read by other interested readers. A small minority of visitors to any site are posters. Since this blog began to be monitored by SiteMeter, it's had nearly 1,700,00 visits and only 14,353 comments.

Ebert: "I haven't obtained the book yet; just noted that the review was snarky."

Ah, yes. And indeed it is. Some interesting points are made, but all under a healthy blanket of snarkiness.

And here's that post on Phoenix I've been forgetting to publish for the past week:
http://www.thesamedame.com/2009/02/joking-jokester.html

Reply to: Uh, have you even seen Shawshank, Bill?

Yeah, but I think there are layers of deceit wrapped up in a blanket of guilt. Here's the script:

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/shawshank.html

INT -- CABIN -- NIGHT (1946)

A dark, empty room.

The door bursts open. A MAN and WOMAN enter, drunk and giggling, horny as hell.

INT -- PLYMOUTH -- NIGHT (1946)

ANDY DUFRESNE, mid-20's, wire rim glasses, three-piece suit. Under normal circumstances a respectable, solid citizen. He is disheveled, unshaven, and very drunk. His eyes, flinty and hard, are riveted to the bungalow up the path.

He raises a bottle of bourbon and knocks it back. He opens the glove compartment, pulls out an object wrapped in a rag. He unwraps it carefully --

-- revealing a .38 revolver. Oily, black, evil.

He grabs a box of bullets. Spills them everywhere. Picks bullets off his lap. Loads them into the gun, methodical and grim. Six in the chamber.

He takes another shot of bourbon courage, then opens the door and steps from the car.

EXT -- PLYMOUTH -- NIGHT (1946)

He starts up the path, unsteady on his feet. The woman cries out. Her words slam into Andy's brain like an icepick.

WOMAN (O.S.)
That's sooo good...you're
the best...the best I ever had...

Andy doesn't look like much of a killer now; he's just a sad little man, tears streaming down his face, a loaded gun held loosely at his side. A pathetic figure, really.

FADE TO BLACK

Reply to: Tim Robbins' character says that he was innocent of shooting her, and the guy he tutored, knew who the real murderer was and was going to get Andy off. Andy felt guilty for his wife's murder because if he had been a better husband he would have been with her that night, and been able to protect her.

According to the script posted at Daily Script, Andy was drunk and parked outside the cabin in the woods. He unwraps a revolver and loads it, then walks toward the cabin.

And, Andy's student says, "I know this guy who says he murdered a woman and her lover, and then framed the husband."

Is that Andy's case? Would this testimony get Andy's conviction overturned?

How did anybody "frame" Andy for this murder? How did this other convict know Andy would have a gun in his glove box and load it before walking toward the cabin?

Andy was convicted. There are a lot of innocent people in jail because of eyewitness testimony.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/

DNA testing has been a major factor in changing the criminal justice system. It has provided scientific proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events. Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release. About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.

I've read many cases where an eyewitness will be shown the photo of the actual rapist or killer years later, and they will instantly admit their mistake. or not.

But Andy wasn't convicted on DNA evidence or faulty eyewitness testimony.

Andy killed his wife and another man in cold blood. With a handgun.

Of course, that might not be the reason why so many people love this movie. At best, it's one of the many reasons.

Did you happen to see the Daily Show last night? It showed footage of all the Fox News programs and several other 24 hour news networks building up a "huge" scoop about footage of Joe Biden making yet another gaffe....and when we finally saw the clip, it was of him giving an interview and mentioning a website. When the woman interviewing him asked precisely what the website was, he didnt know. He was clearly embarassed, said so, was looking around for someone near him to give him the correct name, which someone did, then he said the website. The whole thing lasted a few seconds. THAT was the whole scoop that these networks, their anchors/hosts, and a slew of guest analysts pined over for hours. Talk about snarking for a column, these people make whole careers/ networks/ headlines over the most trivial things. Since when are people not allowed to make mistakes or be forgetful anymore?

Thoughtful essay. I remember that Johnny Carson had a self-imposed rule that he could make fun of someone until that person was "down." (The example he used -- one that nobody born before the '70s would even recognize now -- was that Carson joked about Congressman Wilbur Mills' dalliance with stripper Fannie Foxe, but he stopped the joking when Mills admitted to alcoholism.) Nowadays, it seems that anyone is fair game for as long as the media wants to make him a buffoon.

Good post, and I agree that a lot of the Oscar-bashing was simply rude and distasteful. But, Roger, aren't there times when snark is the only rational response in an irrational world? I'm thinking here of your blog post from a couple of months back aimed pretty clearly at a certain movie critic who now appears on a weekly television program with which you have some familiarity. Your post was a masterpiece of snark, as it should have been. Was it measured, balanced, sympathetic? Probably not. But the sheer absurdity of having that particular person doing that particular job is so utterly breathtaking to the vast majority of rational adults that to treat the subject with thoughtful, measured discourse would be itself an absurdity. There are some things so asinine, I believe, that they deserve only snark. But maybe I'm wrong.

Ebert: I would say that entry was, accurate, true, and deserved. Does that disqualify it as snark?

"Ebert: I would say that entry was, accurate, true, and deserved. Does that disqualify it as snark?"

Ha. Perhaps it does. I made the mistake of not re-reading the post before I referred to it. Reading it now, it actually is less snarky than I remember. Though no less accurate, true and deserved.

To Bill Hays--

I take it you viewed "Doubt" as melodrama. Or, at least, the emphasis of your viewing of "Doubt" was on its more melodramatic elements, and you'd like to see more of that. However, the film (and play) that John Patrick Shanley and company set out to make was the antithesis of melodrama. It may well be characterized as an antidote offered up to cure the melodrama of present-day thinking in America (snarking, for example).

Can we agree on a definition of melodrama as, say, a sort of dramatic conversation between characters easily distinguishable as good and as evil, as this or as that, where the evil or lesser one does some unspeakable act and is punished, or the lack of punishment is seen as injustice? I think you viewed "Doubt" looking for that context: Father Flynn is clearly guilty, or was at least guilty in the past, and will likely be guilty again, and so his punishment was not nearly severe enough.

But isn't the matter of Father Flynn's guilt something of great ambiguity in this script?

What I felt to be the movie's major weakness has only proven to be a valuable strength in the thoughts and discussions I've had since: While I am not certain he's innocent of the charges, I never believed Father Flynn guilty of child molestation for a second. I'd have to decide him "Not guilty," by our legal standards, and that's always been a paradox that mystifies me. (Aren't we just as lured to the reading of the verdict because of what it may say about the jury as what it tells us definitely about the defendant?)

I only recently arrived at the thought that perhaps what Streep's character was always certain of, and learned from a previous parish that she was correct in thinking, was that Flynn was homosexual--that she may now have doubts about his relationship with the boy, but she has some knowledge of Flynn's relationship with men.

And that's the fabulous thing! A movie like this provides a whole atlas for venturing of guesses. I wonder if you may not be allowing the movie to be all that it can be.

As for emotional connection, I felt a very strong one with the Amy Adams character. This comes immediately, as we observe her in the classroom, her sweet nature having to clash with the rigid ways that most expediently keep the kids in line. We stay with her throughout the film, as she navigates the treacherous middle ground between the two opposing forces that are her superiors, constantly tugging at her sympathies. I also felt intense empathy (or at least the yearning to understand) with Viola Davis's character; she was so real to me, and I saw so much of her world, and what she had to say was so stunning, that the thought processes this film started in my little brain had to make way for a new layer of deliberation.

I even experienced vigorous, nomadic connections with Father Flynn and with Sister Aloysius. But I do think that all this emotional connection business is only possible if you engage with "Doubt" as a conversation, and enter the conversation at the level Shanley and cast permit entry. Immediately and always looking for higher meaning, baser motivations, or just plain melodrama, probably makes for the least pleasurable viewing of this or any film that intends to execute a clear agenda. A movie like this intends to send you off in many different directions, but the proposition is really quite clear, set in stone from the beginning: In this case, to seek truth, or to create one's own. (Hey, is that ... it couldn't be ... melodramatic?)

Now, the movie that you wanted them to make, frankly, makes me think of the Lifetime Channel. Please don't take that as a snark.

Bill-

It's been some time since I either saw or read the Shawshank story, but I am (if I do say so myself) a fairly discerning reader/filmgoer and I don't recall thinking for a second that Andy Dufresne was the one who really murdered his wife. Now maybe you were joking, I don't know. I've never even heard anyone mention that as a possibility. If what you posted there (the script excerpt) constitutes your whole argument, I'm not sure you've got one. I'm all for creative interpretations of films (we had a discussion about this on Jim Emerson's blog fairly recently), but sometimes it's just not there, and couldn't be. Now I would say that if you were right it would add to the 'redemption' angle - hugely. But it would also warp the Dufresne character beyond recognition, and in doing so effectively sink the story, which, if we're to enjoy it, requires that Andy not be a horrible in-denial delusional lying wife-murdering crazy guy.

Anyway I don't hold the movie or story particularly dear, but I know many do, and know it better, and I hope they post and clarify whether or not there's any basis for your interpretation. If there is, I can only say it would not only fail to elevate the picture, it would do irreparable harm to it.

I admit to be a purveyor of snark. It's easier for me to do than full out witticism. I have a day job as well as a blog. I sometimes only have ten minutes to write something, and snark is just easier to dish out than a thoughtful Wilderesque observation on life and art. Add to the fact I've been waylaid this week by a nasty sinus infection/chest cold, and I don't feel particularly intellectual.
When I did my Oscar live blog on Sunday, I opened with a thread for the pre-show, in which, yes, we girls discussed fashion choices at length ( general assessment- that was not a very pretty night). I'm an envious girl, annoyed that I can't look like that on my best days, even though I know the hours of hard work,the days of exercise, and the inability to eat a cheeseburger ever again is price those women pay to look like that. ( Damn, there I go again).
But I revere the Oscars, and it was hard to be outright snarky about it. Indeed, I was favorable to almost everything that happened on that stage. I still get a thrill watching the Oscars now as I did back at my first one in 1986. Maybe it's because this is one area of my life I refuse to grow up about.
The Oscars have never been about the best of anything, I agree with the assessment that they seem more like a wrap party for the year in cinema than anything else. Even years later, particular choices made by the Academy are bitterly argued about ( is there anyone out there still saying Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction was the right choice? I knew back then it was the wrong choice- I had Pulp Fiction sweeping the awards that year. And I was snarky about it). The vitriol spewed on mainstream entertainment sites and too cool for school blogs about the show seemed to me to be coming from a place of envy, ignorance, and general bitterness. I did disagree with winners, I disliked that swooping camera work during In Memorium, but I am furious that people out there would tag the show as too gay. I spend a lot of time on blogs and message boards asking people what " too gay" actually means. My Andrew Lloyd Webber loving brother has been stereotyped for years, and his lovely girlfriend is going to punch the next person who asks her if she's tired of being his beard, while my darling best friend since childhood gave up a promising hockey career out of fear of what would happen if he was true to himself in the macho world of sports ( and he couldn't pick Hugh Jackman out of lineup. Not his taste).
Finally, Joaquin Phoenix, one of my favorite actors, I am torn about. I am hoping that this is some brilliant Andy Kaufman type of performance art that will make me laugh the way Kaufman did. I mourn the fact that if it's not, than film has lost one of the most promising leading men it had, no mater how insecure or frustrated he was about his role in the film world. And if it is indeed a true breakdown, I just feel even sadder, because mocking it is unnecessarily cruel.
By the way, some things just deserve snark. I developed an audience last year with my weekly wrap-ups of American Idol on Entertainment Weekly's now defunct TV Fan site. The columns have continued, on my own blog ( this week skipped due to illness- I couldn't bear to watch with my sinuses pounding the way they were)and on a fan site I was a co-founder of. Frankly, there is nothing that show deserves more than snark. I am too cool for American Idol. Almost everyone is.

Ebert: Good gravy! You're that Kirsten!

I am also bemused by the concept of "too gay." Could there also be an Oscarcast that is "not gay enough," or "just the right degree of gay?" A surprising number of criticisms fall apart if you try them upside-down.

That said, perhaps I was not discriminating enough in making a near-blanket endorsement of snark. Perhaps snark works like a homeopathic remedy, where a little of the toxin cures a lot of the toxin. In that case, "American Idol" richly deserves massive intramuscular snark injections.

There was once a show on TV titled "Ted Mack's Original Amateur Hour." A contestant about 12 or 13 years old came on to sing, and started off in the wrong key. This was more than 50 years ago, but I think I remember kindly, avuncular Ted Mack calmly saying, "I know you'll perform that song beautifully if you just get a fresh start." There was more honesty, and better television, in that moment than in the full run of "American Idol." America is just getting to be too damned packaged.

Thoughts:

- For me, Finke's Snark (great name for a bar or a band, hey?) begs the question: why bother? Show biz hangers-on and barnacles love to hate the Oscars, but use some variation on the "I have to watch because of their cultural importance" as their excuse for soapboxing. Roger has professed a weakness for the Oscars, but I am sure that if there were one simple statement from him that could actually affect future broadcasts, it would be: "I didn't watch them". Hear that in enough op-ed articles, and there'd be a rush back to the drawing board.

- Above, someone cited Letterman as emblematic of the rise of snark in pop culture. Hard to argue against that, but I'd argue that his snark was aimed at the solemnity and banality of talk shows and its sacred cows like the 'man on the street' interview. Implicit in his sarcasm and irony was "come on, people, we're all smarter than this." When he takes a Paris Hilton or a Bill O'Reilly down a notch, he's doing it on behalf of the 99% of us who realize what utter unimportance there is in any 5 minute interview segment on his show. You want reverence in the face of triviality, watch the press junkets. Any loyal follower of Letterman will see there is a truly empathetic soul that rises to the occasion, such as his treatment of Warren Zevon in his dying days, his return to tv after 9/11, and a recent broadcast of a Bill Hicks segment he axed 15 years ago.

Isn't snark in the eye of the beholder?

Human beings tend to be rather selective in what they term 'snarky' or 'satire'.

Whether you disagree or not with said remark greatly influences how you perceive it, no?

You can bemoan my cynicism all you want, and light many-a candle in memoriam to gentility, but I'll take snark anyday, every day, over jazz hands, given a choice. Unless it's Will Smith-esque snark. That, I want none of.

The producers of this year's Oscars are openly gay? Really? I would've never been able to guess! Fabulous, but what has that to do with the films of the year?

Now, I know you'll call me unkind names, but you're being silly if you think you're right and I'm wrong. The announcements of the acting nominations by five previous winners seemed like a good idea to me until I realized every one of them said, essentially, the same thing the other. "Gosh golly, gee-whiz, but you really nailed it, so-and-so!"

And truncating the songs in lieu of another Hugh Jackman dance number? Peter Gabriel was right to boycott. (Though why he was sitting there in the audience of the Kodak Theatre puzzles: Did he really think he had a chance to win after publicly snarking?)

If this is the future of the Oscars, then I and the Oscars are professionally done from here on out, man. Neither will miss the other, I'm certain.

Ebert: Good gravy! You're that Kirsten!

No, sir, I am not Kirsten Baldwin ( though I wish I were...I just really want to work with Michael Slezak, who I am slightly obsessed with in what my friends think is an unhealthy way. They say that about everything, though, including reading you). I wrote under an alias on the fan site blogs. When the season was over, we were smart when we started up our new site to copy and paste all our blog posts and moved them to an archive, as we rightly predicted that after the season was over and EW moved the TV Fan link from their front page, readership would drop and the site would shut down.
In fact, of every site I comment on, there are only two I use my real name on. This is one. The other is my friend's political commentary site. I started there long before I got a clue and realized that people I might know could read these things. I use the same alias pretty much everywhere else. I'm lazy like that. Except I've had to explain the origin. A lot.
It could be out of respect, as I genuinely love and respect my friend, and I respect you a great deal. Mostly, I think it's because I don't mind being anonymous in my snarky little diatribes about what is good and what isn't. I don't really hide myself carefully, if you knew enough about me, you'd track me down pretty easily.
And I'm glad you approve of snark for Idol. It makes watching it bearable. I'm not even sure how I got roped into this, outside of the fact my daughters love the show and I'm out voted. They force me to watch Dancing With The Stars as well. Another show deserving of snark.
Apparently, being well versed in Shakespeare and French New Wave does not mean you are above watching "reality" television. Silly kidlets.

Ebert: All right, then, you're our Kirsten. What I want to know is the connection, if any, between your URL and Anthony Powell's 12-volume epic novel A Dance to the Music of Time.

This discussion is about snark, but there have been a few posts about "Doubt".

I have to wonder if our ideas about the Church inform the way we feel about Father Flynn's innocence/guilt. Bill Hays has demonstrated in the past that he is in clear opposition to anything even vaguely like organized religion, and he seems convinced that Father Flynn is guilty. Myself, on the other hand, am fairly positive in my outlook on organized religion, and would venture to guess that Father Flynn is innocent.

The actual evidence given to the audience is contradictory, and so only Mr. Shanley could tell us the whole truth.

What bothers me about "Doubt" is that the mechanics of the screenplay seem a little too calculated. If I were a parent and someone from my child's school came and told me that they suspected my child might be a victim of pedophilia, I think I would show way more concern than Viola Davis. I wouldn't care how nice Father Flynn is to my kid, or how good of a school it is, or how badly my husband abuses him at home, I would be prepared to get to the bottom of things as fast as possible. It seems to me that by keeping her character strangely aloof, and on the peripheral, Shanley clearly avoids any entrance into actually letting the audience know the truth.

The same goes for Sister Aloysius. Would a woman so concerned with being proper be so brazen in her impropriety? It's difficult to tell at times how much she wants to help young Donald and how much she wants to hurt Father Flynn. She is so completely dishonest with Flynn that it's astonishing. She (and Shanely by extension) never give the Father a chance to prove his innocence. Her whole character seems to be a set up for the final scene in which Sister Aloysius breaks down and confesses her doubt. That moment rang so false for me. I believe it would have been far better for Shanley to have staged scenes in which we can see Sister Aloysius' doubt played out in a concrete way, as we go along in the film.

If nothing else, "Doubt" is worth the price of admission just to see P.S. Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis tear a hole right through the movie screen.

Roger, I work with troubled adolescents in residential treatment. They are true craftsmen of snarking. They do it for many reasons--boredom, habit, vengefulness (usually displaced). Some have to attack anyone who stands out from the crowd (whether due to a weakness or a strength) because it reminds them of their own vulnerability, which is unbearable. Some are so hopeless that there is good in the world and in themselves that they aim to destroy even hints of positive connection--it's often too scary for them to get their hopes up. We teach them to identify this and to realize that it's typically much easier to destroy than to construct. Attacking takes little thought or courage or effort compared to what it takes to build meaningful connection with others. We see over and over that with support and patience and modeling many of them learn to risk building such connections.
In my work it's pretty easy to have compassion for their snarking; their histories are typically marked by profound maltreatment. It's harder to accept snarking done out of--what is it?--ignorance, immaturity, laziness, self-indulgence? (Though in revealing your guilt you correctly suggest that most of us have been there and in weakness return to visit.) Your initial comparison to vandalism seems apt. Thanks for calling it like it is. You continue to dare to stand out from the crowd with your many strengths. And look at the risk-taking and connections you foster via this blog. You, my friend, are the anti-snark. Or maybe snark-disabler. Snark hunter?

Ebert: I too know some adolescents who as a matter of policy are against sincerity.

First, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that if snarking ceased, most of Fox News would never be broadcast - nor would much of any mainstream "journalism", televised or in print. When corporatism drives the trade in truth, no holds are barred. The trust 'boomers had in those who fed us our information used to be of paramount importance and they were picked to do their jobs because of their trustworthiness. Obvious this is no longer the case as nobody seems to know what news or truth is any longer and it appears that snarking has subsumed it.

Now...about the Oscars being "too gay". Whether or not anything is "too anything" is really nothing more than a value judgment. You're offended, hence you find something "too", or you think (or hope) that someone you are trying to impress may have found something "too" (and are thus offended) and you want to appear hip in their eyes by drawing attention to it - sort of like being a grammar school tattle-tale, only you're an adult with an audience instead of an authority figure to suck up to.

Per Finke as quoted by you: "OK, I'm going to say it: GAYEST OSCARS EVER! (Not that there's anything wrong with that. I voted against Prop 8.) But Hugh sitting on Frank Langella's lap? Talking about kissing him? After performing a song and dance number? Seriously, did Larry Mark and Bill Condon deliberately try to ruin Jackman's career by giving him ridiculous material and props like a lawn chair? More importantly, tell me how this number is going to widen the audience for the Oscars which the Academy was desperate to accomplish tonight?"

This is a statement by a severely disturbed individual. Apparently she felt compelled to vote against something she had no moral right to vote against as she obviously has a deep seated resentment (or possibly) hatred of gay people. There would be no other reasonable explanation for the comment nor the Prop 8. disclaimer. It's not unlike saying "It seems to me that African Americans are getting too much equal time in the media - not that there's anything wrong with that, I voted for Obama".

What scares me is that there aren't more folks upset about this type of thing.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

On the subject of your latest blog-post, I realize that I have been late in reading. Ah well. I saw the post when it had no comments, and yet when I pull it up a little while later it has 167.

The Internet boggles.

So, I suppose I must voice my opinion.

I will preface this by saying that like irony, sarcasm, and the occasional well-placed snark... all in appropriate doses. One can only read "The Catcher in the Rye" so many times.

I am a pessimistic optimist -- that is to say that I have an umbrella in case there is rain, but it doesn't block my sunshine.

"Snarking", as per your definition, is remarking against something without either logical basis, thoughtfulness, or an attempt to like said thing.

You say: "I too know some adolescents who as a matter of policy are against sincerity." I agree. I think, in part, snarking may have popped up (at least among us adolescents) because of the fact that we ARE the iGeneration. Our entire world is merely a click away. We have the attention spans of squirrels, and attempting to think rationally, or appreciate (in the very least, understand) something either alien or previously disagreed with is impossible except for the select few. In the context of your quote, teenagers have cynicism towards adults, sometimes rightly held and sometimes wrongly held. Either way, when an adult is sincere they are mocked. "Adult's can't be sincere!" says one, a commonly held truth amongst adolescents. "They don't know anything." Their postulations and assumptions, though tiring, are held as laws in their worlds. These are things that cannot be breached, as adults, indeed, ARE supposedly always horrible and nasty ("Fabulous monsters," as Carroll's Unicorn would say). If they're being nice, they want something. And on and on.

Negativity runs rampant throughout teen culture, at least... that is how I see it. Nowadays, it is 'cool' to hate your parents (hate. Such a terrible word), or engage in delinquency (at least here, it is). There is a social label for those who think the world sucks "emos". Their whining is like nails on a chalkboard, to say the least.

Therefore, snarking in adolescents is inevitable. Perhaps it is lashing out against the social order. There is no logical foundation to hate the people who take care of you every day, so rebelliousness must be engendered into a single, nasty remark. Another theory I have is that snarking is the inferior sibling to witticisms. I have attempted to utilize wit against my age peers, and it didn't get across. Snark does.

Another thing I have observed is that snarking is socially accepted. If a kid in my class says something sarcastic, whether it has intellectual merit... or not, s/he will be laughed at and given attention. This has become one of the only ways they will be recognized. This is their defining characteristic, "____ the snarky one". Snark, however, is not commonly in use here. One would probably say "sarcastic" or "smart***". If someone, perhaps myself, would say another thing in the same vein, using more complicated words and more witticism than merely acidic sniping, I would be stared at blankly by my classmates. This is not socially acceptable, this is odd and this is unintelligible. Sniping is easier to understand, process, and digest. Like fast food vs. a gourmet meal.

I now see that adults snark too. Perhaps they just never grew up to understand how snark ought to be utilized (as I view it, sparingly, and with care -- like corrosive acids).

Or maybe they just never grew up in general.

- A kid.

Ebert: I am fascinated by your front-line battle reporting. I don't know who or where you are, but I know this: Someday, when many of us are gone, you are going to be an important writer, or politician, or artist, or whatever you want. You mark my words.

Reply to: nathan: Bill Hays has demonstrated in the past that he is in clear opposition to anything even vaguely like organized religion, and he seems convinced that Father Flynn is guilty.

Not exactly. I'm convinced that Father Flynn is a fictional character, and has no actual guilt or innocence to be judged.

If the movie was supposed to be a moral argument, then the issue should be "How do we deal with early signs and stages of pedophilia?" What I said was:

Do you have to wait for the boy to be initiated into the Kingdom of Heaven before you admit there's going to be a problem?

On "Criminal Minds," a CBS program, there's a team of FBI agents offering insights on the psychology of serial killers and, in a few cases, pedophiles. If a priest gives a boy wine and the mother is in tears because she thinks her 12 year-old is gay.... that's a CLUE. It's a clue that the mother is in denial and something worse is going to happen the next time.

When you're dealing with a pedophile, you don't give him the benefit of the doubt. You deal with the problem directly, by calling the cops. Because it's a disease. When a priest confuses "choir practice" with "booty call," it should be treated as a symptom and treatment started immediately.

When "The Green Mile" came out, director Frank Darabont said:

"One of the great pleasures of having made this particular movie is that I'm still trying to figure out what the metaphors are; I still haven't completely drawn my own conclusions. The film works on so many levels that I am going to be fascinated to see what conclusions people draw. It's really a function of what the audience brings to it.

Reply to: Paul: maybe you were joking, I don't know. I've never even heard anyone mention that Andy Dufresne really murdered his wife. If what you posted there (the script excerpt) constitutes your whole argument, I'm not sure you've got one.

Maybe the link didn't work. This is Frank Darabont's script:

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/shawshank.html

I've never met anyone who thought Andy was innocent. We always interpreted Andy's testimony at the trial in terms of OJ Simpson's hunt for the drug dealers who really killed his ex-wife Nicole - ie, as a ridiculous story no one could take seriously.

Reply to: If you were right it would add to the 'redemption' angle - hugely. But it would also warp the Dufresne character beyond recognition, and in doing so effectively sink the story, which, if we're to enjoy it, requires that Andy not be a horrible in-denial delusional lying wife-murdering crazy guy.

Honestly, I don't like prison movies. When the hero is sentenced to life on the first page of the script, I'm probably not going to buy a ticket. I think Darabont included enough ammunition for people to think Andy was innocent, AND enough other evidence to conclude he was guilty. What is Redemption anyway? If you're a young man and you shoot your wife in cold blood and you go to prison in 1947, and you escape in 1966, so you spend twenty years behind bars.... isn't that enough punishment for murder? Is that what "The Shawshank Redemption" means? ie, Andy paid for his crimes. They were real crimes, and twenty years of his life was a fair price.

Here's an interesting bit of psychology. When an innocent man is sent to prison, he's restless. He feels an injustice has been done. When a guilty man is convicted, he relaxes. He knows there's no reason to hunt for the real killer because the real killer has been caught.

Andy was relaxed enough to be guilty. He wasn't nearly angry enough to be innocent. But, because Andy is fictional, you can't go by that.

“Michelle represents so many problems she should almost dress by wrapping herself in that yellow tape from crime scene investigations.” – Roger Ebert, from his review of “Two Lovers”.

DAMN!

A “good” one mind you, not the bad kind; rather the sort that rises up instead from a mix of soaring admiration and choking envy. And a perfect example now of the “dreaded BAR” as I lovingly call it aka: the measuring stick I‘m driven to apply to myself whenever I’m in here and staring at writing frustratingly better than my own; ie: Roger’s. And that’s a fine bit of writing that review, and in particular that piece of yellow tape - for it’s basically an illustration in words. Damn.

Being able to do that however doesn’t make Roger perfect; far from it. For all I know, he has even more faults and failings than I do and in truth, it’s only because he’s been fortunate to find a wife who loves him enough to help conceal his “inner Darth” from people, that we think as highly of him as we do! I mean, who knows what goes on behind closed doors - he could have a wood chipper hiding in the basement where many an annoying neighbor has disappeared, for Christ sakes! But then, that would be far too interesting and so it’s more likely that all we’d find down there is a freezer filled with normal things and not anything that “shouldn’t” be frostbitten. :)

I “tease” Roger not because I can, but because it’s WAY more fun to thank him for his recent post comment by way of irreverence, while aiming to illustrate the point I hope to write as well in this one. Namely “where” I think so much snarkiness actually comes from, at least when there’s more vitriol to it than wit.

I think a lack of self-awareness is preventing people from recognizing their Jungian shadow, when they see it. Jealousy, envy, frustration, fear, resentment, anger, insecurity, low self-esteem, bitterness, disappointment; it’s a long list. And that what all this snarkiness is aimed at reveals what motivated someone to shoot a poison arrow in the first place; basically all the stuff too many are in denial about. In simply terms, I see it as a projection of someone’s issues at least on a pedestrian level; ie: you’re not a paid writer and so you’re being snarky for reasons of your own. And if you are a paid writer and spewing cruel snarky stuff, then it’s either because that’s what sells and you’ve got to pay your rent. Or because you’re just as blind as your readership is to your own shadows.

I don’t think Roger is blind to his; if he were, he wouldn’t have stopped to ask himself if he’s been guilty of being “too” snarky at times? Let alone arrive at the conclusion that maybe yes, he has. A conclusion moreover, shared where others could read it. And for me, that underscores an underlying honesty at work which serves to acquit him of any intentional harm doing. A moral coward wouldn’t have revealed it about himself, eh? That he had even suspected it.

The only thing I’ve ever felt him do is hit a target well but without malice aforethought – that isn’t same thing though, as not looking to score a point. We’ve all seen him match wits with a worthy opponent. Hello Gene Siskel; smile. That’s when you’ll see wit raised to an art form, a verbal fencing match – Thrust! Parry! Swipe! D’Artagnan vs. Cyrano de Bergerac! And I suspect at times when he’s writing, some of that verve “occasionally” sneaks in. But I personally find it more playful than anything else.

And human. Oh so very human. Not this “famous guy” with a Pulitzer on his wall – and please, keep your distance. Not something other and disconnected from you or I, but just a guy who dreams of Venice and likes a good hamburger and owns a Bialetti and mourns the loss of his beloved Blackie and still misses Gene very much. It’s because he’s so human and I know it, that I don’t hesitate at times to tease him. No; it only ever occurred to me that “if” I tease Roger Ebert, I’d better make sure that I do it well. For his sword is sharper and faster than my own. Not that I’m worried; artistic ego is akin to kevlar that can stop a bullet. And thus, I arrive now at my point…

It’s not just because I’m an artist that I’m not afraid to speak my mind or snoop around Roger’s basement – where I’m sure everything is still perfectly fine and there’s nothing to worry about, but rather, because of everything I’ve learned about myself from “other” artists. Everything they were able to illuminate for me. I’ll say it again; you are what you eat. That applies to arty types too, you know. And I ate stuff as a little girl that helped me to grow-up and develop a good, healthy sense of self.

It wasn’t until Art School that my ego introduced itself.

I remember the exact moment too; I was dressed entirely in the darkest black that was humanly possibly to wear and listening to Jazz while drinking bad coffee and pontificating about something I knew utterly nothing about. Thank God I had friends who liked me enough to take care of that with humour.

Ebert: Not to despair. There was a time I was drawn to women who were dressed entirely in the darkest black that was humanly possibly to wear and listening to Jazz while drinking bad coffee and pontificating about something they knew utterly nothing about. Just reverse those attributes are see how attractive they sound.

Was Juno snarky ?

This was a really great entry to read, mostly because it mirrors how I've been feeling about internet commentary on all things media for a while now, mostly spurned by my visits to a certain website where the main motif is to "snark" about any and all subjects. Let's face it: thanks to the internet, commentary is basically a spectator sport, for better and for worse. And I can understand that of course, because we all have a desire to have a say (and here I am expressing mine, despite the possible fact I'm just retreading points already noted).

The problem with snarking is that in order to stand out from an already crowded field, people will just verbally snipe any subject or element even when unwarranted. There's no light and shade to the humour or posts as a whole anymore in most examples; it's just needless vitriol overdone to the point of the whole internet subculture (if it can be called that) being pedestrian.
It somewhat mirrors how I've felt about the turn of what constitutes humour generally, especially on the 'net - having a small background in comedy writing myself, I appreciate things like storytelling, intricate set-ups and pay offs - a bit of meat to it all. However, the prime source of "funny" these days is a near abuse of being obtuse, irreverence, the non-sequitur, crassness with no agenda; all equaling blatant short cuts which I feel just cover up glaring shortcomings which some will just forgive because of the short term end result - you're somewhat entertained... but it's hollow. And I think the state of "snark" has become exactly the same.

I'm all for calling out stupidity, but not at the expense of quiet, earnest moments which deserve much better. And I'm happy to read I'm not the only one.

Wow, snarking is the hot new extreme sport!

I was glad to see someone mention Television Without Pity, where I post on several boards. The offical motto of the site is "Spare the Snark, Spoil the Networks", and yet the boards contain in depth, thoughtful analyses of subjects from human trafficking (Dollhouse) to '60s sexual mores and women's roles therein (Mad Men) to how much unreality are we expected to swallow on a show with flying men and ice women (Heroes). The snark is definitely the nine iron but not the driver on these boards.

Sadly, the reason that's true is TWoP has a paid staff that strictly polices the boards for trolls, flame wars, and so on. If not for that the site would have long ago disintegrated into a pool of acidic, caustic vapored crap. The fact that you personally read and choose to respond to your comments and the posters know this is more than half the battle at keeping the bar so fabulously high.

One way I judge books is if they make me want to read other books, and the same goes, I find, for boards. I recently started my first Faulkner as a direct result of the Mad Men boards, and will begin C.S. Lewis Screwtape Letters as a result of their mentions and quotations here. So let me return the favor:

A brilliant novel that no one seems to have heard of is Christina Schwartz's "All Is Vanity", the study of two women raised from birth to think of themselves as gifted and unique, and the lengths they go to to keep that illusion intact.

"What you find out in your thirties is that clever children are a dime a dozen. It's what you do later that counts and at thirty-three, I had done nothing."

It seems to me that the excess of snarkiness we have seen in these articles/blogs on the Oscars is due nothing more or less than to the desire to appear "hip" and "shocking," and "edgy" in a hip, shocking, and edgy sort of way. The writer feels that this is a sure-fire way to attract attention and make himself appear alluringly smart and admirably world-weary--and he feels that those are certainly what make up the recipe for success! I think that some writers aren't fully aware of the above--they take it for granted, thinking of it as merely a common type of style in which to write articles and blogs. Others, I think, are fully aware of the attention attracted by "hip, shocking edginess" and consequently try way too hard to be edgy. They dump edgyness on their writings with a trowel. (Was that snarky of me?) For example, I like the website rottentomatoes.com (as I'm sure many on here do) and when looking up a film I like to look at a wide variety of reviews. Without fail, for every magnificent film that has the almost unanimous praise of the critics there is one review written by a guy that is trying too hard. He points out flaws that do not exist or that he has apparently misinterpreted to look like flaws. Lord love him, I'm sure he is trying to be sincere, but I think also that he should step back and consider carefully the reasons why his opinion is in the minority!

Snarky writing of this kind has sad consequences. Once one person/thing/event has been mocked then everything is up for grabs. Nothing is allowed to be merely fun. People who love the Oscars or American Idol (I will not shy away from raising my hand) are now obliged to feel defensive, simply because so many people think they must be hip, shocking, and edgy in order to appear alluringly smart and admirably world-weary!

By Paul on February 27, 2009 8:39 PM

Anyway I don't hold the movie or story particularly dear, but I know many do, and know it better, and I hope they post and clarify whether or not there's any basis for your interpretation.

Paul, there's no there there. I'm starting to think Bill is just pulling all our legs with his fanciful script interpretation of Shawshank and his reimagining of Viola Davis' response in Doubt. Either that, or he's wackadoodie!

Ebert: I would say that entry was, accurate, true, and deserved. Does that disqualify it as snark?

Roger, in which blog post did you (apparently) take another critic to task? I've been meaning to catch up on all your posts, but.... Taking a cursory look, I guessed "'Critic is a four-letter word," but that wasn't it (although I liked your avowal of Cub fandom therein: me at 6 with a "friend"). And, IMHO, if it's accurate, true and deserved, no, it's not snark (with the appurtenant negative connotation thereof).

Ebert: It's this here one:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/eberts_little_rule_book.html

By nathan m. on February 27, 2009 11:02 PM

If I were a parent and someone from my child's school came and told me that they suspected my child might be a victim of pedophilia, I think I would show way more concern than Viola Davis. I wouldn't care how nice Father Flynn is to my kid, or how good of a school it is, or how badly my husband abuses him at home, I would be prepared to get to the bottom of things as fast as possible. It seems to me that by keeping her character strangely aloof, and on the peripheral, Shanley clearly avoids any entrance into actually letting the audience know the truth.

I think the point is to allow you to see the response of a person in a certain situation, place and time that are entirely dissimilar from yours. Given the entire set of circumstances, can you honestly say with 100% confidence what you'd do in Mrs. Miller's place? Also, "letting the audience know the truth" is exactly what Shanley wants to avoid (note the title of the play and film: Doubt). Certitude in moral matters is rarely available to the reasonable person in life.

Sister Aloysius...(and Shanley by extension) never give(s) the Father a chance to prove his innocence.

And proving a negative (i.e., his innocence), absent the affirmative proof of a contradictory hypothesis, is impossible, or damned near so.

Eric Dolphy who created the greatest jazz album, "Out To Lunch", said after creating it: "I'm on my way to Europe to live for awhile. Why? Because I can get more work there playing my own music, and because if you try to do anything different in this country, people put you down for it."

And in the documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" when Lennon visited Canada he said something like: "people over here treat you like a human being." Also, it's a tradition for our President to visit Canada as the first foreign trip--I suspect for that same reason.

We have some real snarking problems here.

Yes, JUNO is 100% snark. Or at least trying to be, 100% of the time. Yet, when considering A Kid's quite brilliant observation that snark should work like "corrosive acid," JUNO is trying too hard to be a modern version of a John Hughes film to really achieve snarkiness. It's more pesty than snarky, actually. As a gnat.

Jon Stewart, however, cannot be snark, by Ebert's definition. There is always too much truth behind most of Stewart's observations. As a wasp.

Ebert: Isn't "Juno" more about snark, especially as a teenage defense mechanism? And doesn't Juno herself frequently elevate it to wit?

Ebert: All right, then, you're our Kirsten. What I want to know is the connection, if any, between your URL and Anthony Powell's 12-volume epic novel A Dance to the Music of Time.

I've been reading Anthony Powell's brilliant novel one volume at a time since college. I get to one every two years or so, because there is so much to read and I don't want to feel I'm neglecting others. I'm doing the same thing with Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu. It takes enormous patience to read, and I'm a rather impulsive human being that needs to learn such a virtue ( and I'm still failing at it). My favorite still remains A Question Of Upbringing, although At Lady Molly's is a close second. I have The Kindly Ones waiting on deck for my commute starting in May. Yes, I schedule when books are to be read over the span of the year. I am not crazy.

Ebert: Apart from the immortal Widmerpool, who has entered into the British language, my favorite character is X. Trapnel. Not to reveal anything specific, but they share similar romantic dooms.

Bill Hays --

For you film is clearly a tractable medium, something to be re-engineered so as to satisfy and involve one's existing peculiarities. Not sure this is the best way to experience a film though.

Kirsten: "Yes, I schedule when books are to be read over the span of the year. I am not crazy."

No, you are certainly not crazy. However, if you are failing at Patience 101, then I must have skipped the entire class. When it comes to my reading, the concept of patience does not exist for me.

When I feel the desire to read, I do so. It doesn't much matter where or when, and quite often the material itself isn't even a consideration; I take what I can get. I confess I have often been reduced to reading the backs of cereal boxes, as they contained the only printed words within reach at the time.

I am not to blame for this behavior; that responsibility lands in the laps of my Mom and Dad. My parents met in Journalism school following WW II, graduated together, then started a family and took over a 100 year old newspaper. In the years following the sale of the paper, my mother worked as a librarian and a research historian while my father worked for both the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press. If cut, I swear my dad bleeds printer's ink.

(For my maternal Grandfather, a lovable curmudgeon who put up a fair chunk of the cash for the paper's purchase, the Great Depression was still burned into his soul. The recession of the late 1950's scared him so much he forced the sale. Were he alive today, he would be petrified.)

Needless to say, my brothers and I grew up completely surrounded by the printed word. I started reading very early, and have not stopped for even one moment in the past 50+ years. I read 4-5 books a week on average, and yes, that does mean 200-250 books a year. (Hmm... that would explain why my wife often complains she can't see the walls for the bookshelves?) And I do this even though I am also a huge film buff, and spend many happy hours immersed in the joy of movies. (I currently have roughly 2,200 movies in my collection, which is eclectic rather than exhaustive. It runs from Amadaeus to Zardoz; from The Thin Man to Taken.)

With film, however, I am forced to be somewhat patient in my scheduling, since films do not lend themselves to segmented viewing; to truly appreciate them you should consume them in one uninterrupted feast.

I am addicted to what human beings say about themselves, whether in film or in print; what they say about "Life, the Universe, and Everything" (thanks to Douglas Adams). I feed my addiction for film in measured (if frequent) doses; my addiction to words requires a constant "fix', not unlike an IV drip for the brain.

Does this behavior make me crazy? I think not. I consider it a rational approach to the world we live in, and if I am deluding myself, well... it certainly is one damned fine delusion.

In closing, just remember: "Sanity is a relative concept. If you don't believe me, let me introduce my relatives."

My parents made me do it!

Reply to: Bill Hays -- For you film is clearly a tractable medium, something to be re-engineered so as to satisfy and involve one's existing peculiarities. Not sure this is the best way to experience a film though.

That's how you write scripts.

Right now, Hollywood is locked into a certain type of "story." In order to be made into a movie, there are rules.

(1) Story requires character development. In order for the conflict to climax and resolve, the protagonist must go through change. His understanding of the world must deepen in some way

(2) The antagonist is the one against whom the protagonist "exerts all his strength, all his cunning, all the resources of his inventive power." A good antagonist must be as strong and willful as the protagonist.

Until your script meets THEIR standards... well, the studio fires you and hires someone else. Frank Darabont spent a year writing "Indiana Jones and the City of Gods," only to be fired and watch David Koepp step in.

Many scripts are re-engineered dozens of times before you see anything on the screen. Read the original book "Shrek." Jeffrey Katzenberg literally had a team of writers produce ten different scripts before he found a central conflict he loved.

I went back and re-read the script for "Doubt." Father Flynn had some previous trouble that was swept under the table when the Bishop transferred him. Three parishes in five years. Sister A says, "I want you to transfer to some other parish or I will make trouble for you." Flynn makes one phone call, and he's given a promotion and put in charge of a different Catholic school. And Sister A breaks down and says, "I still have doubt."

And that's why the story fails. People who know there's a danger, but can't quite bring themselves to act. (And that's why the Los Angeles Archdiocese is paying $200 million in damages. They had a fiduciary duty to protect children. We know Sister A's solution was wrong.)

Remember Rule #2? A protagonist must "exert all his strength, all his cunning, all the resources of his inventive power" against the antagonist. That didn't happen in "Doubt.' I said there was a better film using the existing movie as "Act one." A movie in which a sympathetic protagonist exerts all his resources to accomplish his goal. ie, the mother of the only black child in this Catholic school, who isn't a Catholic herself, finally is able to TAKE ACTION because her view of the world has deepened. No one is going to protect her son. Not the boy's father. Not Sister A. She has to step up and do it herself.

Reply to: Given the entire set of circumstances, can you honestly say with 100% confidence what you'd do in Mrs. Miller's place? Also, "letting the audience know the truth" is exactly what Shanley wants to avoid

But Mrs. Miller KNOWS the truth. Her son told her exactly what happened with Father Flynn in the rectory. (And no, I didn't invent the name "rectory." it's in the script.)

That's why we care about seeing her response.

At the end of "Doubt," Mrs. Miller (Muller?) knows Sister A has failed. The priest has been given a promotion so no nun will be able to challenge his authority.

Maybe it would make more sense for Mrs. Miller to file a lawsuit. Or go to the cops. But her action has to be a direct result of the way she has been CHANGED by the events of the story.

Sorry I got sidetracked. I was trying to apply this to a hypothetical script about the owner of a Chicago newspaper. Just read that The Rocky Mountain News in Colorado has folded. It lost $14 million the last year. Is there a great story with powerful character development about the end of a newspaper? I don't know. It's too early to say for sure. That's why I'm asking an expert, a newspaperman.

There are lots of movies where the hero doesn't change in a significant way as a result of the journey. But the GREAT movies all have that. Rhett Butler initially laughs at southern gentlemen and plantation owners who think they can defeat the North, but winds up enlisting and joining their lost cause.

A thought: you can't make love except but sincerely.

Ebert: Is that what Woody meant when he said, "The worst sex I've had wasn't that bad?"

“Not to despair. There was a time I was drawn to women who were dressed entirely in the darkest black that was humanly possibly to wear and listening to Jazz while drinking bad coffee and pontificating about something they knew utterly nothing about. Just reverse those attributes are see how attractive they sound.” – from a man who may own a wood chipper.

Forgive me; I couldn’t resist. :)

While being immensely pleased to see the above! Not for it feeding my ego but simply to see that no part of yours wanted to show me a basement in Chicago. I have not poked too much.

And that’s important. For while you’re less of stranger to me owing to the public nature of your work, it doesn’t mean that I no longer have to mind my manners with you! Besides, it wouldn’t “be cricket” so to speak, to take liberties on an unleveled playing field just because I know “where” I can poke you - and reside safely across the border in Canada. That said and despite it, you still have the upper hand, which more than compensates for any cheekiness on my part. The 3rd “Transporter” movie proved it doesn’t matter how clever you think you are - it doesn’t mean the other guy isn’t just going to drive away grinning and without a scratch on him. Note: the universe where that law applies is also true in here; he who drives best laughs last, EH?

And so I’m only going to be mindful to a point; smile. But only for thinking that if ever I crossed it, you’d just send your car off the bridge into a lake and then drive right back up again onto dry land, whereupon you’d MacGyver something out of thin air and crush me with superior wit while pointing to your Pulitzer.

As for “Television Without Pity”…

While it is well moderated and the boards do indeed contain in depth, thoughtful analyses on a variety of subjects, it’s not always a constant thing. And Roger has spoiled me. I think that’s why I found it wanting for having his blog now to compare it to.

Along with the caliber of writing he attracts. There are some really good writers in here. I still remember one post in particular about a cat in Roger’s “Blackie” thread, by Terry Davidson…

“My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects.
They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while the other inmates and I are fed
hash or some sort of dry nuggets. Although I make my contempt for the
rations perfectly clear, I nevertheless must eat something in order to keep
up my strength.

The only thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape. In an
attempt to disgust them, I once again vomit on the carpet.
Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped its headless body at their
feet. I had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts, since it
clearly demonstrates my capabilities. However, they merely made
condescending comments about what a "good little hunter" I am. Bastards!”

DAMN.

The good kind, born of admiration and envy. Note: when I read that, I could hear the sound of Michael C. Hall’s voice: for it gleefully reminding me of his inner monologues on “Dexter”. The episode where he meets his girl friend’s Mom.

"Milk" tells Harvey Milk's story as one of a transformed life..."

Milk is as little about homosexuality (while informative about the phenomenon) as Doubt is about Catholicism or the Reader about the holocaust. The defining moment in the film is where Penn pastes the threatening message on the refrigerator( and later ripes it off and crumples it into a defiant fist.). The road has been chosen, the stakes and price weighed, the commitment made in the depth of life. The flower of life begins to blossom when we commit ourselves voluntarily and totally to the larger good. A movie of restrained intensity (with a fine score) about the human spirit's capacity to soar, a movie about life, not gender—a spellbinding thriller.

While some have said that snark is fine for deflating the powerful, that seems to be one of the main objections writers like David Denby have to snark. While Roger has embraced blogs and goes out of his way to mention online writers he admires, much of the old guard seems to see blogs as a threat to their exalted positions in the journalism food chain.

I believe in funny for funnies sake and any writer who referes to themselves as "a satirist" or "humourist" bound to be a pompous ass, Denby makes several attempts at what he feels are primo grade snark and they're all howlers. I'm glad sites like Gawker.com had a field day with this.

Your own reviews are proof of your musing that perhaps snark is best in small doses. Most critics are like the "boy who cried snark" when they finally attack a movie that deserves it noone notices. Almost all of your snark is reserved for movies you "hate Hate HATED" so when you do give a movie the "ukelele pick" treatment people take notice.

Thanks for helping me to find a word for it!
I'm certainly someone who has used snark and has also been amused by snark. I know that I will use snark again. My problem is not with snark itself, rather with the laziness that tends to go with it. So often snark comes from skewing the facts, taking pot-shots at easy targets or from a simple lack of editing. With a little effort, snark can become something wonderful, as you yourself have shown.
Of course, snark is not going anywhere, nor has it suddenly arrived. Consider Patrice Leconte's wonderful film from 1996 "Ridicule". Now we can all display the sharpness of our wit at court, without risking the social disgrace of being outdone - professional snarkers, of course, must fight to stay on top. The issue is whether that wit was ever sharp to begin with.
I've always felt a tremendous glee when watching the scene in "The People vs. Larry Flynt" where Larry is accused of trying to damage the integrity of Jerry Falwell's image. Larry responds by saying that he wanted to "assassinate" it. Some things need to be taken down, and I'd love to be able to promise only to use satire to do it, but satire is hard. Undercooked satire will usually resemble snark. If I am snarky, let it be because I was trying to cook something more palatable.

As for the Oscars, I'd rather have Steve Martin host every year. Of course, I'd like for Steve Martin to host the Grammys, the Emmys and the evening news, also. I didn't find this year's show "too gay",more "too much like the Tonys" for my personal taste, but I imagine Hugh's success at the Tonys was why he got the job in the first place. He's a very (multi-)talented guy. Was anybody expecting Wolverine?

Ebert: Leconte is so consistently fine.

Bill Hays wrote:

(1) Story requires character development. In order for the conflict to climax and resolve, the protagonist must go through change. His understanding of the world must deepen in some way

If you believe there was not sufficient character development in "Doubt," I would ask you to think about the final scene of the movie, involving the characters played by Meryl Streep and Amy Adams, and tell me that Streep's Sister Aloysius hasn't apparently come upon a revelation for the first time in her adult life. Then, please recall the tortured look on Philip Seymour Hoffman's face in the seconds just after his Father Flynn is confronted by Sister Aloysius, and tell me he hasn't come upon some painful revelation about human beings or his own place in the world. Then, please trace the progression of Amy Adams's character through this treacherous middle ground she's had to navigate--emotionally and spiritually, and in terms of her loyalties and certainties. Finally, if you believe that Viola Davis's character needs to (a) somehow pull together the cash and convince her stodgy husband to pick up and move the family to another city, or (b) shoot and kill Father Flynn dead, then you are not speaking with much of the knowledge you surely possess of the very difficult passages in a typical human life. She does not need to change; she's here to change others, and us. Her presence in the movie, I would contend, is intended to counter Sister Aloysius's lightly-supported accusations with the heavy reality of the world outside this church. It is the very medicine Sister Aloysius needs in order for her doubt to come to the surface.

Bill Hays also wrote:

(2) The antagonist is the one against whom the protagonist "exerts all his strength, all his cunning, all the resources of his inventive power." A good antagonist must be as strong and willful as the protagonist.

I would address this part of your post by saying that all movies don't need to abide by strict, unwritten Hollywood formulas. Those of us who enjoyed "Doubt" were very thankful that it was not as formulaic as some of the garbage coming out of Hollywood, which is often engineered to suit the tastes of teenage boys who've only recently moved on from cartoons. "Doubt" was, as we know, a play first. And plays, like many films, such as the ones Roger has written about in his Great Movies section of this website, toy with formula, discard formula, or redefine formula.

"Doubt" certainly has its protagonists and antagonists, and they are certainly strong, willful, and cunning. I would go so far as to characterize the film as a ballet of protagonists and antagonists, one in which they often trade masks denoting which is which, or wear masks that obscure designation. This is something that a smart, challenging, inventive picture often does; this is even something that standard Hollywood fare often attempts with some success.

Bill, much of your opinion of "Doubt" has focused on the Viola Davis character, which I take it is one of Roger's favorite performances of the year, and one of mine. You would like to see her in this way, Bill:

"the mother of the only black child in this Catholic school, who isn't a Catholic herself, finally is able to TAKE ACTION because her view of the world has deepened. No one is going to protect her son. Not the boy's father. Not Sister A. She has to step up and do it herself."

But, again, I don't see how her character needs to develop and better understand the world. In this movie, she represents the world. Sister Aloysius, God love her, seems to be the prima donna: Trapped inside that church, she is living a different reality and according to a different set of rules from those outside its walls. Notice during their talk that it is Mrs. Miller who, having to return to work, escorts Sister Aloysius out into the cold air of this exterior reality. That's how richly and intricately textured this film really is. More meaning and message comes from the very setup of this particular shot than would come from all the courtroom scenes you could tack on.

Bill Hays lastly wrote:

"But Mrs. Miller KNOWS the truth. Her son told her exactly what happened with Father Flynn in the rectory. (And no, I didn't invent the name "rectory." it's in the script.)"

Are you so certain? Here's the script:

http://miramaxhighlights.com/uploads/Doubt_Script%5B1%5D.pdf

In particular, take a look at the top of page 71. Mrs. Miller doesn't appear to know anything about the problem Sister Aloysius is going to bring to her. She says that whatever it is, her son just needs to stay in school till June.

Sister Aloysius comes right out and states the issue in the middle of page 72. Mrs. Miller asks if there's any evidence. "No." "Then maybe there's nothing to it."

Middle of page 73, Mrs. Miller suggests that if there's some rumor going around the school about her Donald and the priest, she assumes it's not her son's fault. Mrs. Miller continues to stand up for her son through page 74, suggesting that even if the priest did give her son wine, it'd be the man's fault and not the boy's.

Near the bottom of page 74, Mrs. Miller suggests that you can't fight a man in a robe and win. Doesn't this tell us more about why Mrs. Miller reacts as she does? And doesn't it begin to explain why the movie is set in 1964, and why Donald is black? At this time, would a black Mrs. Miller have any difficulty (a) trusting a white Sister Aloysius and (b) confronting a white priest?

Whatever happened, if he can just make it till June, this will be over. He won't be killed at the public high school, and his father won't go off the deep end when all this comes out. What a difficult spot, indeed!

Near the top of page 75, Sister Aloysius admits the relationship may only be starting; Mrs. Miller again seems to doubt the whole thing. Still more doubt coming from Mrs. Miller at the bottom of page 76. (See how it may begin to whittle away at Sister Aloysius's certainty.) Some of the most startlingly accurate writing comes here:

SA: What kind of mother are you?

Miller: Excuse me, but you don't know enough about life to say a thing like that, Sister.

SA: I know enough.

Miller: You know the rules maybe, but that don't cover it.

And so at the top of page 77, we see that Mrs. Miller clearly thinks the priest is a good man. And she knows her son. She'd know if something terrible happened to him. Because of her intimate knowledge of life's hard knocks, she knows what certainty is. She acts here as a fine instructor to Sister Aloysius, to us all.

I think "Denial" would be a better title than "Doubt."

Reply to: Near the bottom of page 74, Mrs. Miller suggests that you can't fight a man in a robe and win. Doesn't this tell us more about why Mrs. Miller reacts as she does?

If you go back through the lawsuits filed against priests and the Catholic Church, you often see this. Parents would punish their children for lying rather than consider the possibility of abuse from a priest. After Sister A confirms that the problem was real, only then does Mrs. Miller say "Well, you can't change it."

Let me quote Dr. Phil.

http://www.tv.com/dr.-phil/pedophiles-a-parents-worst-nightmare/episode/497831/summary.html

Dr. Phil: Pedophiles: A Parent's Worst Nightmare 11/17/2004

Dr Phil tackles the confronting issue of child predators - no longer hiding in the bushes, these days, one of the biggest threats to children is the Internet which lets them into the home at any time.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html

CERC: In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children. Pedophilia is a compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys...

http://www.section21.m6.net/prf-how.php

Many pedophiles genuinely like kids. Somewhere along the way their thinking regarding love, sex, and kids became completely muddled. Many of them are very insecure and lonely. They feel that only children will give them unconditional love,

A pedophile will spend a lot of time getting the child ready for seduction. Sometimes he will take months or even a year or two "grooming" the child and preparing him. He uses this time to build up the child's trust in him and to get the child to see him as his best friend.

Pedophiles find ways to be around children as often as possible. They get jobs as teachers, camp counselors, schoolbus drivers, daycare workers, or even enter the priesthood. They volunteer as Boy Scout leaders, church or secular youth workers, or with organizations such as Trucker Buddy International.

Reply to: And doesn't it begin to explain why the movie is set in 1964, and why Donald is black? At this time, would a black Mrs. Miller have any difficulty (a) trusting a white Sister Aloysius and (b) confronting a white priest?

OK, let's assume you're right. If a mother knows that her child has been molested, and she grew up and lives in a poor African American community, and isn't a Catholic, why would she let a white nun control her son's destiny?

Reply to: Whatever happened, if he can just make it till June, this will be over. He won't be killed at the public high school, and his father won't go off the deep end when all this comes out. What a difficult spot, indeed!

OK, I'm confused here. I thought the boy was twelve. He was an altar boy, got caught stealing wine. Are there two boys? Is there a second boy who is about to graduate? How is it relevant to a pedophile accusation that the boy is only going to be at risk for another few months?

Reply to: Near the top of page 75, Sister Aloysius admits the relationship may only be starting;

All of the dialogue comes from a textbook called "The FBI warns parents about sexual predators." The mother knows something is going on, but she assumes a priest is a good man and her own child must be wrong. It's called DENIAL. Mrs. Miller is in denial.

After this confrontation, Mrs. Miller goes home and sits down with her son and has another talk. This time, she listens to her son. Why? Because a middle-aged nun at the school has admitted the priest might be a pedophile. This time, the mother hears what the boy is saying.

that's pretty much the way these cases went.

Reply to: And so at the top of page 77, we see that Mrs. Miller clearly thinks the priest is a good man. And she knows her son. She'd know if something terrible happened to him.

Assumes that her son would give her the full details of a seduction by a sexual predator. Considering the family dynamics, no way.

If I was writing the movie, Father Flynn would move to a new school, where he's in charge. One night, three men come up behind him and put a sack over his head. They use baseball bats to beat him so badly, he dies a few days later in a hospital. This serves as a warning to the Catholic Church. Take care of this problem or we will. Later, we learn the three men were Mr. Miller and two buddies.

and then... Mrs. Miller files for divorce, and pretends that she was so shocked when she learned that Father Flynn had died, and she realized her brutal husband must have been responsible. The police are able to document Mr. Miller's trip to the new school, and he goes to prison.

Reply to: If you believe there was not sufficient character development in "Doubt," I would ask you to think about the final scene, and tell me that Streep's Sister Aloysius hasn't apparently come upon a revelation for the first time in her adult life.

Yeah, but such a silly revelation.

A woman who runs a school should be aware of the warning signs of sexual predators. All sorts of alarm bells went off, and she swept it under the rug.

In my version, Mrs. Miller has a similar revelation. She never had an experience with pedophiles before, but she's a fast learner. She manipulates her husband into beating up and killing Father Flynn, and shooting off his mouth about "This is a warning to any Catholic priest who is even thinking about seducing my son."

I'm still thinking about "The Godfather." Young Michael Corleone killed a police Captain in a restaurant. Shot him in the throat, very graphic. If Michael had said, "Maybe there's a less violent way to handle this," the story would have failed. We needed to see Michael CHANGE and take action to protect his family.

And the same scene was in "Godfather II," where DeNiro shoots a New York "godfather" wearing a white suit. We learn that the father (Vito Corleone) had taken the same career path, forty years earlier.

Reply to: all movies don't need to abide by strict, unwritten Hollywood formulas. Those of us who enjoyed "Doubt" were very thankful that it was not as formulaic as some of the garbage coming out of Hollywood, which is often engineered to suit the tastes of teenage boys who've only recently moved on from cartoons

When the American Film Institute names "Doubt" as #1 on theirlist of greatest movies, let me know. "The Godfather" is there now, along with "Citizen Kane" and "On The Waterfront" and.. well, you can read the list.

My point was, if you look at a list of films that most people consider great or classic, there's often a character who crosses the line and commits an act of violence out of necessity. when you're dealing with pedophiles, and the pedophile is in a position of authority where he can spend months seducing his victim.... the parent has to step in and protect their child. Sister Aloysius proved to be a dud in the child protection department... so she isn't much of a protagonist. I'd rather see the contrast between the Catholics who won't act and some parents who will.

"Doubt" is a misleading film. "Doubt" showed WHY the problem existed. Some people interpret it to mean the problem didn't actually exist. which is wrong.

I don't know if Joaquin Phoenix’s stunt on Letterman was part of some grand act or not; but it seems to me that there's a time and place for certain kinds of behavior. What Mr. Phoenix does in his private and public life is his own business. Whether he does it out of malice, honesty, cruelty, fun or whether he's just "messing with our heads"; there comes a point in all social situations where there is a fine line between frivolity and rudeness, tact and lack of any kind of personality filter. We all feel different ways at different times in our lives, but whether we do it for our own benefit or the benefit of some higher unseen power; we owe it to ourselves to treat our neighbors with respect.

I for one am tired of all the talkers, all the snarkers and all the whiners. What we need is a period of optimism, shared by headstrong individuals who are interested in action rather than idle conversation and finger pointing. What we need to do is help each other, reward risk taking, compassion and goodness rather than shine a light on indecency, superiority, selfishness and shallowness.

I do not begin to understand why celebrities do the things they do. But even if they were not celebrities, they would still have an obligation as a member of civil society to maintain some kind of dignified manner. Nobody likes a class clown, no matter how much you laugh along with them, there comes a point when ridiculing others is not acceptable; and when its better to "play-along" so to speak in the given social situation you're in. Nobody likes a robot, but as a human being you have to act a certain way. If you can't be straight with people, then nobody will ever respect you, since nobody will really know you for being you. There is a part of me that feels sorry for celebrities. The amount of bullsh^t they have to endure, the circus of the entertainment industry that watches their every move, just waiting for them to screw up. There is also a part of me that doesn't feel sorry at all. With all their money and power, they sort of have an invisible obligation to cater to the establishment and please the masses. As a power figure you have a certain amount of responsibility. Once that power is over and done with, you become just another "has been" in the eyes of the machine. Still, I'd like to believe that the entertainment industry still favors creativity and decency over sucking-up and being a fake person. Maybe the whole industry is evil and we're just being led like lambs to the slaughter, as we continue to fork over our hard earned dollars for stuff that doesn't really make us better people. I think we have to remember that we're still people first, actors second. Everyone is an actor in their own little way, but when the sh^t hits the fan; it's the one's with integrity who are left standing in the end. I'm not going to get into a big thing about the acquisition of wealth. I've never found such matters important to one's life anyway.

It seems that the movies have not really changed much in over 100 years. About 60 something years ago there was a nice little movie called: "The Best Years of Our Lives". Much later, we have films like "The Lucky Ones" starring Tim Robbins and Rachel McAdams. Both films involve three characters, each film deals with soldiers returning from war. Though they are decades apart, the message is the same. Humans still savor those same messages at the multiplex; the same thrills, love and excitement which come with an admission ticket, a box of Milk Duds and an overpriced diet soda. However, what has changed is the moviegoer. The film industry almost has to "talk down" to people now, just to make sure they still understand what the movies mean. Many people are a lot more sophisticated (as far as their knowledge of movies goes) than they were 15 years ago. People all over the country know what goes into making a movie; they might even be familiar with the technical practices of film making. Sound editing, directing and acting. DVDs are full of movie featurettes, which seem to cover every facet of the business. In today's world, everyone can feel like a part of the action. For this reason, it is harder to sell movies to ordinary people; harder to market them and make sure those seats are filled. However, just because you like something a lot, does not make you capable of making those movies yourselves. I suppose when everyone in the world knows how to make movies, the industry will be finished.

It is not the flair, the glamour, the snark or the excitement of the magic of film that keeps people coming back. When they are being projected on a screen, the movies are an art form more than they are a business. There is an imaginary relationship between viewer and screen that just makes them work. Without thunderous applause, laughter and tears to go with them; the movies are just lights and sounds on a wall. In a way, it is the audience that creates the magic, not the storytellers. For all their focus groups, private screenings, town surveys and star power, it seems that part of Hollywood has forgotten what makes film work. It is not what that story is about, but how you tell that story that makes a movie worthwhile. Take a movie like "Slumdog Millionaire". Exactly what is it about that story we haven't already seen before? If you said nothing than you'd be correct. Slumdog is still that eternal struggle of enduring love. An underdog hero who is fighting against the establishment in order to win the heart of a girl. That story has been around since the dawn of time; it's simply the players and the settings which have been changed. Human beings may be more technologically advanced than we were a million years ago, but are hearts and minds are surely the same.

What good is a movie like "Black Narcissus" or "The Godfather" if you show it to a bunch of degenerates who don't know what goes into making film, but instead get their kicks out of watching stuff like "White Chicks". There is a time and place for all sorts of movies, and people are allowed to like what they like; but the joy and intellect which comes with appreciating great works of art is slowly deteriorating in our all-too-fast society of people who view films as experiences that are just as mentally disposable as your run to the local post office. Whose fault is this? Is it the fault of critics, who first told us what to like and made such a mainstream piece of attraction a theoretical, intellectual exercise? Is it the increasing percentage of so-called "Young Males" who deem only the most frivolous blockbusters worthy of attention, while throwing away any intellectually stimulating fare like "The Reader"? Is it the lack of education, the lack of interest in movies in general? Or could it be that many people have simply outgrown them. I for one don't think so, never. Most movie goers will see Iron Man, but they won't see The Reader. The reason for this is quite simple; there are enough people who know what kind of movie experience they're getting into. If you were one of the many who actually saw The Reader, it's likely that you saw something like it before. Maybe you were a fan of Kate Winslet, or maybe you like films about WWII. Perhaps you've seen erotic dramas like "The Unbearable Lightness of Being". Or perhaps you thought it would be cool to see Stephen Daldry's take on the novel. At the same time movie goers cannot be placed into any intellectual percentile or social categorie. Moviegoers come in all shapes and sizes, and they all come from a different place. Just because you have a PhD and subscribe to Wallstreet Journal does not make you a well rounded individual. And just because you wait for hours in line to see "Watchmen" does not make you a socially-deficient "fanboy".

In order for a movie to reach the masses something magical must take place. It cannot be interpreted, predicted or even explained. It must permeate emotionally like the most timeless of tales. The Wizard of Oz, Star Wars, Miracle on 34th Street, It's a Wonderful Life, Casablanca and The Lord of the Rings are not "perfect" films but they are good examples of films that are generally well-liked by people all around the planet for their straight-forward escapist thrills. I'd like to think a lot of this has to do with the complexities of advertising, but I believe more has to do with their innate simplicity, their human honesty in the way they convey their message or emotional rhythm. These are the things that hold human beings together and it does not take a philosopher or rocket scientist to figure this out.

I enjoyed the Oscars this year. At the same time I think that people make too big of a thing out of it. I admired the host; I admired the way they tried to shake things up by changing the format. There seemed to be more attention given to the movies themselves, than the atmosphere, the glamour and the snark of it all. The pre-shows were actually helpful, because they allowed people to learn about the movies in case they didn't catch them in the theater. It was not done in a snide manner but instead with a sense of youthful enthusiasm, a newfound interest. Perhaps this is reminiscent of our country's recent atmosphere of political change. A small part of this new-found optimism was shown in the way Obama was elected president. A lot of people just seem to feel more optimistic about getting up in the morning. They're a little bit friendlier, a bit more open to new ideas. There are troubles that lay ahead for us, but there are also strengths and new found innovations, new ideas and new personalities. Hollywood is just a small piece of this change. It seems that they are making way for the new blood and exiting with the old. I think the best is yet to come; it won't be so easy to become cynical and give up yet.

Ebert: Well, this is all very true, and may come back to a general failure of the educational system and the substitution of video games for reading. The cheapest thing the federal government might be able to do, in turning this society around, might be to double the salaries of all K-12 teachers, and cut the class size in half. You'd need twice as many teachers, and you'd attract good candidates. And raise some of the money by taxing video games like cigarettes and booze. Am I sounding like Ron Paul yet?

While this year's Oscar telecast was perfect for what it was--a big wet kiss to the mainstream film industry--my favorite Oscar telecast was the one hosted by David Letterman. He teased the Hollywood film industry for its overblown grandiosity and the tendency for its members to act like self-important boobs, but since the audience in the Shrine Auditorium was filled with world-class self-important boobs who think so highly of themselves that they find absolutely no humor in entertainment at their own expense, his hosting was ridiculed.

In the same vein of humor, Stephen Colbert's performance at the 2006 White House Correspondent's dinner was even more hilarious in its biting take-down of the only group equal to Hollywood in self-important boobery, the Washington D.C. government industry.

Perhaps the portion of audience in Oscar's Kodak Theater who take themselves and their worldwide broadcast much too seriously do deserve some mild ridicule if not outright snark.

Zeiram concluded his post with, "Hollywood is just a small piece of this change.(Oscars) It seems that they are making way for the new blood and exiting with the old. I think the best is yet to come; it won't be so easy to become cynical and give up yet."

Hear, hear! Good riddance to Lady Sneerwell and her friend Mr. Snake.

Great article. I would also argue that snark stops us looking deeper. It's one thing to criticise and one thing to snark. To snark means we get fixated on something superficial and don't look at issues more deeply.

For example, a political debate becomes about who commits the most cringe-enducing gaffe, not what their ideas and intentions are. If a politician has an affair in Britain, we go nuts and it doesn't take long for them to be out of a job. But does it matter? Maybe it does say something about their integrity and honesty, but also maybe it doesn't. However, in the chase for headlines this gets lost and we are left with sensationalism.

How many times have you posted an argument on the net for people to merely fixate on your spelling mistakes?

I honestly think snarking is a huge problem and could leave us in danger of abandoning art for more simple gratuitous pleasures.

Ebert: Until fairly recent decades, politicians had affairs, the press didn't report them, and nations did not collapse.

I think your opposite numbers at 'hilton, defamer and friends refer to all this as a 'guilty pleasure'(which they still manage to pass on to their victims ha ha...ugh).
My introduction to defamer was on my phone's links page - while searching for your mobile site. The article was on your ID satire, and how you were trying to backtrack on its original intent. I believe the following story was about how obvious someone's new breasts were.
The tone just reminded me of early high school, or a horrible nightclub crowd. Sad that some make a living off it.

Ebert: I remember that. What could my original intent have been? To support ID? The real story was that I hadn't heard of Poe's Law.

It's 2am in New Zealand now, and I have a law lecture at 11:30am, so I'll comment more in-depth later, but I just want to say to Roger, Small Time, and the other defenders of 'Doubt', thank you. I saw the play when it debuted in New Zealand in 2006, and I was blown away. The film wasn't as good (mainly because I felt Streep's interpretation of Aloysius was a bit shallow), but it was still a fantastic drama discussing the very nature of doubt and certainty, and it always pains me to see someone miss the point completely like Bill Hays has, asserting that Flynn should be dealt with or Aloysius is a devil-woman who brought a good man down or something like that. It does a great disservice to the amazing script, and it makes me happy to see there are people who know what they're talking about.

Ebert: Chaz and I were at a book club meeting yesterday (subject: "Kafka on the Shore") and somehow the subject turned to "Doubt." Much discussion about whether actual abuse took place, and, if it did, whether the mother actually knew, and so on. My thought: "The film is titled 'Doubt' for a reason."

Bill Hays has no doubt that Catholicism is a con game, and that the priest and nun therefore should be shot dead , even though if abuse took place they are on opposing sides. Kill the abuser and his accuser? Begins to sound like a Hong Kong crime film. As the film stands, only the priest knows for sure, and his reasons for resigning are open to more than one interpretation.

Reply to: Ebert: Bill Hays has no doubt that Catholicism is a con game, and that the priest and nun therefore should be shot dead

In all fairness, I changed that second part. (Not the first statement.)

Action is supposed to reveal character, and adding a gun to the mix doesn't really explain the situation in the Bronx in 1964.

Today, gangs uses Tec-9 submachine guns. In 1964, we're talking about a pre-gun gang culture. "Roots," as it were.

I think you need MORE layers of doubt. I keep coming back to two problems

(1) The idea of an African American mother announcing that it's okay for her son to spend a few months being courted by a potential pedophile goes against eveything I know about the African American community. The husband might talk about "on the down low" but never the mother.

(2) We hear a lot about the boy's father being violent and abusive, but there's no pay-off. There's clearly a set up, but it never goes anywhere.

Reply to: Ebert: even though if abuse took place they are on opposing sides. Kill the abuser and his accuser? Begins to sound like a Hong Kong crime film. As the film stands, only the priest knows for sure....

When Sister Aloysius asks Mrs. Miller to come to the school for a meeting, the boy's mother thinks Sister A is going to expel her son for stealing wine. Sister A says, "No, my concern is about the priest and the possibility of an unhealthy relationship developing."

How does a mother react when she hears those words?

Mrs. Miller replies, "Oh, you don't know all the facts."

What will happen next... is Mrs. Miller will go back and have another conversation with her son, and this time she will listen to him. And then, the priest won't be the ONLY one who knows.

My suggestion was, Father Flynn transfers to his new parish, where his staff gives him a list of troubled teenagers. We see the cycle starting again. The system has FAILED to protect children. That night, he's attacked by three men wearing ski masks. They come up behind him. they put a sack over his head and beat him with baseball bats.

Then, the real doubt begins. Was this an act of racial violence? Or, did Mr. Miller find out what Flynn did to his son?

We meet the boy's father. He was abused as a child. He spent time in prison for assault. He's every bit as dangerous as his wife warned Sister A. He swears he NEVER raised a hand to his son or his wife, that he has his temper under control.

And when Father flynn dies, the police arrest him for Flynn's murder. But they don't have proof. They have more doubt than proof.

Sister A tries to make an alliance with Mrs. Miller. sisterhood and all that. But she begins to suspect that Mrs. Miller has manipulated the events.

I'm talking about character development. As a result of the events, how does the character CHANGE? At the start of the movie, sister A is Catholic. Her husband died and she joined the order late in life.

What changes? As a result of the events, she faces a difficult decision between two bad choices. Her decidion reveals her character. That's what the screenwriting teachers tell us to look for.

The optimal ending... is Sister A walking out. She can't tolerate being a nun under a system that transfers pedophiles from parish to parish. She grows a real backbone and makes a moral choice. During the trial, many parents came forward to accuse Father Flynn. We learn more about the decision that put him at risk.

I don't think Father Flynn should die UNLESS his death reveals the inner character and problems of the main characters. Does his death serve a purpose? if the movie changes to an examination of the conlict between a black family and a Catholic School made up mostly of Irish and Italian kids, then it would be a better movie.

Here's my philosophy. You've seen "Doubt.' You've seen a movie that was a stage play, and won a Tony, and was made into a movie. It's a finished product. You've got to develop "Version B" with enough detail to be able to "see" it... before you can decide whether version B works better, the same, or not at all.

The guiding rule is, at the end, the main character is able to win a battle using knowledge he gained during the movie. In the current version, what did Sister A learn? Not much. The gold standard, of course, is "It's A wonderful Life." He goes from being suicidal to the richest man in town.

At the start of "Doubt," Sister A was Catholic and Father Flynn was a pedophile. At the end, Sister A was Cathlic and Father Flynn was a pedophile. Nothing significant changed. If sister A is defined by a single character trait, then that character trait should change 180 degrees. She should have to give up the most important thing in her life, because she finds something more important to care about.

And what I really want to see... is, after the boy's father is found Not Guilty, the jury walks out of the courtroom and three of the jurors raise their fists in a Black Power Salute. Like one of the OJ jurors did. Establish lots of doubt about Mr. Miller's innocence.

Ebert:Are you pointing out faults in this movie, or writing a different one?

The problem with making jokes about Joaquin Phoenix is that if his appearance on Letterman was all an act (and I believe it was; did nobody do a pre-interview with him?), then what you are doing is essentially satirizing something that's already a satire.

And, if it wasn't all an act...then the situation is sad, and you're being an ass.

Reply to: Ebert:Are you pointing out faults in this movie, or writing a different one?

Actually, I'm still trying to goad you into writing a screenplay that wins the Oscar for Best Original.

Based on your knowledge of newspapers in chicago.

Showing civilized literary types coming into conflict with the worst of the worst... because their paper needs the headlines.

Great stories are elusive. When James Cameron found out that he could dive on the actual wreck of the Titanic, he knew he'd found one.

OR... sure, I'm writing a different movie. Because the characters in the "Doubt" were shallow and ineffective. Because the conflict only existed on one level, when great movies have conflict on three or four different levels.

John Geoghan was killed by an inmate who knocked him down, then got on a bunk and repeatedly jumped onto his chest. An inmate who was already serving a life sentence for murder.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/paedophile-us-priest-is-killed-in-prison-536944.html

August, 2003: The defrocked priest John Geoghan, 67, a convicted child molester and a central figure in the Catholic church's sex abuse scandal, was killed in prison yesterday. Geoghan, who was alleged to have molested more than 130 victims, was jailed for up to 10 years in January 2002 for molesting a 10-year-old boy with whom he used to swim. He had been expected to serve at least six years.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories5/082903_guards.htm

Lawyers provided a detailed accounting of his alleged abuse in the protective custody unit at MCI-Concord, suggesting that while fellow inmates harassed him, the vast majority of his complaints involved abuse by prison guards.

Geoghan claimed that guards defecated in his cell, slammed into him, and routinely called him "Lucifer" and "Satan" to his face.

Corr4ectional officers put up a newspaper clipping about his crime in the cell block, taunted him in front of other inmates, and body-checked him -- like a hockey player -- on his way back from the visiting room.

When Geoghan complained about the incident, he was disciplined for lying. (end)

In a violent culture like a prison, this is what happens.

When you're doing a play on Broadway, the talking heads thing works. ie, when Father Flynn addresses his congregation, the audience feels included.

Reply to: Ebert: As the film stands, only the priest knows for sure, and his reasons for resigning are open to more than one interpretation

Many Catholics take great comfort from that delusion.

This was a great article! Snark can be fun, but it's disgusting how people use it just to be cool. A friend of mine who hasn't seen Slumdog Millionaire, and probably never will, smugly said to me "Why would a movie about Who Wants to Be a Millionaire win 8 Oscars?" I guess seeing the movie or reading more about its plot would be too difficult; snarking is much easier!

@ Eric (way up towards the top):

Movies like Shrek and Madagascar make lots of pop culture references because, IMO, they're not aimed just at kids but at adults too. And of course they're made by adults so they try to sneak in jokes for other adults. Or just for themselves. I think most kids (of say 10 years or younger) don't get the really hip references anyways. My kids look at me funny when I laugh at something they don't quite get. I try to explain it but, well, a good joke is never funny if you have to explain it. I remember going to see Who Framed Roger Rabbit when it came out. There were way more kids in the audience than adults. I about fell out of my chair when Joanna Cassidy said that she was late to meet the others because she had to 'shake the weasels'. I think I was the only one in the theatre that was laughing. Somebody actually shushed me from down front.

@ Mark (from about equally as far up):

Ah, Top Gear. I love that show. What made Wahlberg's comment so funny was that he said it so matter-of-factly. No snarkyness. Just like he was commenting on the weather. Everybody knew what he meant though.

Bill Hays wrote: "I think 'Denial' would be a better title than 'Doubt.'"

"Denial" would only be a suitable title if the audience was to be certain that the priest was guilty and appropriate action was not taken. In the movie that was made, Father Flynn's guilt is entirely a matter for debate. It is called "Doubt" because of both the action taken and the inaction; you wish other actions had been taken against Father Flynn, perhaps violent action, and I'm telling you that movie has been made a thousand times and may be playing on the Lifetime Channel as we speak.

Bill Hays: "If you go back through the lawsuits filed against priests and the Catholic Church, you often see this. Parents would punish their children for lying rather than consider the possibility of abuse from a priest. After Sister A confirms that the problem was real, only then does Mrs. Miller say 'Well, you can't change it.'"

You see, Mrs. Miller is trying to protect her son from being savagely beaten by his father, should any of this talk of an inappropriate relationship with a priest get out. It is Mrs. Miller who believes that her son is innocent; it is only Mr. Miller who would blame an improper relationship on the boy. You don't give Mrs. Miller enough credit.

BH: "Let me quote Dr. Phil [...] They volunteer as Boy Scout leaders, church or secular youth workers, or with organizations such as Trucker Buddy International."

You are armed with information. That's good. We need people like you. Only you and I are not on different pages concerning child abuse. I'm against it as well. This movie is not about how to handle cases of child abuse. It is about how to handle suspicion of child abuse, from various viewpoints. And yet it's not. It's really about how to handle suspicion. The alleged crime could be almost anything: Fraud, theft, murder. I'm guessing John Patrick Shanley chose child abuse because it is an especially delicate, murky, potentially volatile, and timely matter for the discussion of culpability.

BH: "OK, let's assume you're right. If a mother knows that her child has been molested, and she grew up and lives in a poor African American community, and isn't a Catholic, why would she let a white nun control her son's destiny"

Perhaps for the same reason all the other children's parents did. There's a belief that a Catholic school provides a solid education. Additionally, Mrs. Miller does not think her son is safe in the regular schools, and if he's able to make it till classes end in June, he'll be able to get into the better high schools. This is all in the script.

BH: "OK, I'm confused here. I thought the boy was twelve. He was an altar boy, got caught stealing wine. Are there two boys? Is there a second boy who is about to graduate? How is it relevant to a pedophile accusation that the boy is only going to be at risk for another few months?"

Not sure of the confusion here. There's just one Donald Miller. Well, other than my cousin. But he's Protestant.

BH: "All of the dialogue comes from a textbook called 'The FBI warns parents about sexual predators.' The mother knows something is going on, but she assumes a priest is a good man and her own child must be wrong. It's called DENIAL. Mrs. Miller is in denial."

Actually, she assumes it is not her child's fault, whatever may be happening. She may be in some denial, but about what she cannot be sure. There's an accusation of an inappopriate relationship, but it's backed up with zero evidence. Sister Aloysius believed that any child's mother would immediately be on her side, but this particular mother knows her child is in a very difficult spot and she would like to know more. Take Donald out of this school and he may be killed in a regular school. Stay and the child may be advanced upon by the priest. She suggests that Sister Aloysius go after the priest. Knowing this will be difficult, she elects to wait it out and hope for the best, knowing that a dead child would be worse off than a violated one. Tough decision. I'm sure you'll take issue with it, and, well, the point of this movie is that you do.

BH: "After this confrontation, Mrs. Miller goes home and sits down with her son and has another talk. This time, she listens to her son. Why? Because a middle-aged nun at the school has admitted the priest might be a pedophile. This time, the mother hears what the boy is saying."

This is what would happen in real life, and in the lives of these characters, for sure; but showing it would be entirely unnecessary. In a movie about the concept of doubt, I'm guessing to show less is to give the audience more ways to think.

BH: "If I was writing the movie, Father Flynn would move to a new school, where he's in charge. One night, three men come up behind him and put a sack over his head. They use baseball bats to beat him so badly, he dies a few days later in a hospital. This serves as a warning to the Catholic Church. Take care of this problem or we will. Later, we learn the three men were Mr. Miller and two buddies."

I take issue with two parts of this. One, the movie that was made is about doubt in a particular scenario of allegation; it is not about seeking vengeance on the Catholic Church for mishandling the terrible epidemic of abuse. That's your movie. Secondly, what do you suppose Mr. Miller is likely to do to his son if he's capable of killing Father Flynn?

BH: "and then... Mrs. Miller files for divorce, and pretends that she was so shocked when she learned that Father Flynn had died, and she realized her brutal husband must have been responsible. The police are able to document Mr. Miller's trip to the new school, and he goes to prison."

I wish you'd re-read my post about melodrama. That's what you'd like "Doubt" to descend into. Not that all melodrama is bad, but the movie that was made is high-minded, controversial, eager for debate. Melodrama identifies those who were injured, punishes those who were in the wrong, and wraps everything up with a pretty bow. No, thank you. I'd rather have my doubt, and all the thrilling debates that have sprung forth.

BH: "Reply to: If you believe there was not sufficient character development in "Doubt," I would ask you to think about the final scene, and tell me that Streep's Sister Aloysius hasn't apparently come upon a revelation for the first time in her adult life.

Yeah, but such a silly revelation."

As a rule, no revelation can be silly. Especially such a revelation as Sister Aloysius has right there in front of us, the armor of a life doing battle with evil peeling off, falling, clanking, to the ground; it's a rather profound thing to see.

BH: "When the American Film Institute names 'Doubt' as #1 on theirlist of greatest movies, let me know. 'The Godfather' is there now, along with 'Citizen Kane' and 'On The Waterfront' and.. well, you can read the list."

I doubt it will happen. "Doubt" is a superb little picture discussing something that, in the age of George W. Bush, needed desperately to be discussed. If, fifty years down the road, it has created more sensational debate than any other film of its time, and all parties agree to the film's brilliance, then it will be ranked highly. But controversial movies usually have a hard time gaining unanimous support. Doesn't mean they're not utterly necessary.

BH: "My point was, if you look at a list of films that most people consider great or classic, there's often a character who crosses the line and commits an act of violence out of necessity."

The most grim choice made in this movie is that of Mrs. Miller's. She is in the toughest spot. But, assuming Father Flynn is not guilty, as I do, he's in a terrible position as well. And assuming Sister Aloysius is correct in her assumptions, wouldn't you hate to be her? Don't you just cry for Amy Adams's character, regardless of who's right? A movie doesn't have to contain physical violence to register a great deal of ferocity and turmoil.

Going back to the Shawshank Redemption discussion (sorry if I'm beating a dead horse)...

I'm fascinated to see no one has regurgitated Ebert's comments from his Great Movie review: "Some have said life is a prison, we are Red, Andy is our redeemer." For Andy to fit the bill as Redeemer, don't we, as an audience, need to judge him innocent? The movie is effective because it convincingly portrays Andy as a Christ-like figure. I'll get into that more in a second...

Bill Hays and others assert Andy is "the redeemed". How does this make sense? Andy is at peace with himself. Do you think this could happen if he committed those murders? I don't. He actually rationalizes the crimes he does commit to be worthwhile because he's able to help his fellow prisoners in return. He's selfless.

Red, on the other hand, is in need of redemption. He's in jail for murder and has accepted his fate ("the only guilty man in Shawshank"). He fears he's become an institutional man. He's afraid of life on the outside. The irony is his parole: when he finally comes to the realization that he'd rather stay in prison, he mouths off to the board. Of course this results in his parole being granted. Now out, he realizes his life will not be fulfilling unless he follows Andy to the Pacific. He retains the hope for a better life because of Andy. The film ends with the audience believing Red's golden years will indeed be worthwhile because Red has found his Redeemer.

Finally, the parallels to Christianity are too obvious to ignore. Christians believe Christ, an innocent, walked the earth, died for our sins, and ascended from hell and eventually into heaven to redeem our sins. Dufresne, an innocent man, went to prison, while there fought to better his fellow inmates' lives, ultimately escaped and convinced Red to live again. This doesn't work if Andy shot his wife and her lover.

Changing the subject, but keeping the focus on Bill: I find the observation that great films often contain acts of violence performed by the protagonist against the antagonist to be a sad reality. When this trick is used in combination with a happy ending, the clear message is "violence is the answer". Taking it one step further, I find it downright depressing when I think of the people that actually require a movie to fit in the "violence is the answer" prototype. Of course, those are just the people that believe in ID (snark!).

"This is so essential to the process that I rarely observe the snarking of an unknown person."

Presuming that in this context "unknown" means "non-famous", I have to say that you lost me right here. Many large and active forums are devoted to nothing but snarking unknown people who happen to get caught on camera in some odd light. Many other forums exist for the sole purpose of allowing the participants to snark each other. The number of chats, message boards, blogs and all other public interactions where conversation takes place where you can typically find snark is roughly equal to the number of public interactions where conversation takes place that exist.

Ebert: You are correct. Perhaps I meant "locally famous." But never mind. I spoke to broadly.

Reply to: Small Time: Denial" would only be a suitable title if the audience was to be certain that the priest was guilty and appropriate action was not taken. In the movie that was made, Father Flynn's guilt is entirely a matter for debate.

I'm not accusing Father Flynn of raping the boy, or getting drunk and molesting him.

He's following a pedophile pattern of becoming "Your New Best Friend" with a boy who has trouble making friends at a new school.

A twelve year-old boy comes back to class after drinking wine in the rectory, puts his head on his desk and passes out. This single act convinces me that Father Flynn is under a compulsion, and he's taking risks to make a fast love connection at this new school. which makes him dangerous.

A typical pedophile thinks a young boy or teenager can provide him with love, and he wants to cultivate it. He takes his time. As a priest, he can tell the boy that God wants him to enjoy the companionship of adult men.

Mrs. Miller heard a story from her son. She thinks, on balance, that destroying her son's sexual identity is a fair price to pay for the credentials of a diploma from a Catholic school. I'm glad she wasn't my mother.

The guy is guilty of MY crime, and innocent of yours.

SH: The most grim choice made in this movie is that of Mrs. Miller's. She is in the toughest spot. But, assuming Father Flynn is not guilty, as I do, he's in a terrible position as well.

Now that you know what to look for, go back and watch it again. The evidence for the "real crime" is solid. Teachers are supposed to know these signs.

"The Godfather" is a favorite movie because FFC and Puzo establish an emotional connection with the lead character.

Michael Corleone volunteered to fight in World War II, even though his father had obtained a deferment.

Michael puts some clues together and realizes that his father is going to be murdered in the hospital, moves him to another room, and faces down a corrupt police Captain on the front steps. He's clever and brave

Michael falls in love with a woman in Sicily, marries her, and watches her blown apart by a car bomb.

Michael arranges for his biggest enemies to be murdered while he's attending a Catholic ceremony for his sister's child.

Michael TAKES ACTION. He doesn't sit and fret.

We watch Michael fall in love... and when she dies, we suffer the pain of her death. This bonds us to Michael. We're invested in him.

The more tragedy the hero suffers, and the more unfair it is, the stronger the emotional connection.

In order to beat "The Godfather," you've got to write a movie where the audience has the same intensity of emotional connection with the hero, the same investment. "Doubt" pretty much fails by this test.

I'm thinking of a young man who owns a newspaper in Chicago. His grandfather started the paper, his father made it a success, and now it's going into bankruptcy.

One day, he's looking over photos taken at a charity event and sees a beautiful woman. He asks, "Do you know her name?" She came as the date of a wealthy Chicago businessman, and she's stunning. Front page material. but no one knows who she is.

After some digging, our hero learns that she was hired from an Escort Agency. A very expensive escort agency in downtown Chicago that arranges dates for public events... and no one at his paper has ever heard of it.

Our hero says, "This is a story that could sell papers."

the next day, the woman shows up at his office. She's even more stunning in person. She admits that she was paid to be the man's date that evening, but there was no sex involved, implied or otherwise. She was simply Arm Candy.

I'm looking for a conflict on different levels. What would a newspaper man do? Is it wrong for a beautiful, single woman to be paid to attend a charity event as a man's date?

How do we get the audience to make a connection with these two people? Remember the meeting between James Bond and Vesper Lynn on the train in "Casino Royale"? She read his background in a file. Bond knew her background just by talking to her. It was a nice first meeting, but it didn't have 50% of the intensity of "The Godfather."

To beat "The Godfather" as a movie, you've got to understand why "The Godfather" works. Michael took a journey, and we understood exactly why he took every step. We understood why he shot the NY police Captain. We understood how dangerous his life was. We liked Sonny and their relationship, and we felt Michael's grief when Sonny was murdered.

Is there a great movie in the current crisis of America's newspapers? Is it a story worth telling? Would it be better than "The Godfather"?

The major problem with "Doubt" was, it didn't try hard enough. It was a band-aid for people who wanted to pretend a priest had been falsely accused. It swept the real problem under the rug.

The ultimate snark – “The People vs George Lucas” – and a cry for help in the making:

"If the words Star Wars make you want to speak up, we want to hear from you! Did the new trilogy leave a sour taste in your mouth? What’s your stance on the Special Editions? Are you ready to stand up for George, or to stand up to him?

The People vs. George Lucas (www.peoplevsgeorge.com) is not only the first truly democratic feature film in history; it’s also a unique opportunity for the millions of opinionated Star Wars supporters and detractors everywhere to speak up about the franchise and its creator, George Lucas.

Slated for release in 2009, The People vs. George Lucas is a new kind of Star Wars fan film, and we’d like to encourage you to participate in the making of this exciting new documentary. This film is about empowering the fans. It’s about telling George what we love and hate about Star Wars. It’s about expressing what this franchise means to us, what we wish had been handled differently, and what our hopes for the future are. Above all, it’s a celebration of what binds us, the fans, together.

So check out our website, spread the word, and send us your footage!" – writer/director Alexandre O. Philippe

Official Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoc3roT81nU

Okay, I confess this project amused me GREATLY when I first stumbled upon it a few weeks ago. I mean, someone’s actually taken the time to pen a song called “George Lucas raped my childhood” and if that doesn’t make you laugh out loud, well… gee. I didn’t like the prequels either dude, but that’s because George went all CGI at the expense of the story, and I was never into them for the eye-candy. True; I did own a light saber for a while - but it was Darth’s and yes it DOES make a difference. Point is however, I got over my disappointment. The same way I forgave my all-time favorite band on the planet ever – “U2” for their albums “Achtung Baby, Zoo TV, Zooropa and Pop” which I personally was profoundly disinclined to like.

Nowadays, and for having long since accepted the truth - Corporate is Pure Unrepentant Evil (except for the Chicago Sun-Times, of course!) why I’m able to enjoy what I do and for the most part, avoid the crap I don’t. And for knowing that if there's even a "single" finger print belonging to a corporate suit on the script, that I need to run, now, very fast and take my wallet with me. Ooo, speaking of getting mugged, Roger’s going to have to review the “Watchman” soon. May the force go with you.

Nothing will help it though, in Alan Moore’s eyes; at least I don’t imagine his views have changed since these statements appeared in Sept 2008. Los Angels Times Blog: Hero Complex: writer Geoff Boucher…

"I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying," Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. "It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change."

"There are three or four companies now that exist for the sole purpose of creating not comics, but storyboards for films. It may be true that the only reason the comic book industry now exists is for this purpose, to create characters for movies, board games and other types of merchandise. Comics are just a sort of pumpkin patch growing franchises that might be profitable for the ailing movie industry." - Alan Moore

He’s right of course, but I still loved “V” anyway. Mind you, I also love the frog prince and the Velveteen Rabbit, too. Just because someone is “aesthetically challenged” doesn’t mean they’re not worth knowing; usually quite the opposite! Anyhoo, you don’t see Alan Moore fans grabbing torches and pitchforks, eh? And even the snarkiest can’t hold a candle to some of the bile I’ve seen over at the "Outpost Gallifrey" forum: where rabid “Doctor Who” fans are not to be trifled with; chuckle! Side note: The Caves of Androzani; best ever! Loved the anti-protagonist “Sharaz Jek” - a genius robotocist left “hideously disfigured” and forced to wear a creepy mask after getting caught in a scalding mud burst, inside one of the caves. He’s… kinda mad.

Nope; for some reason the snark is most pronounced with Star Wars fans - making you wonder what Lucas really taped into? That committing the crime of disappointing some, would give rise now to an upcoming documentary called “The People vs George Lucas”. I’m honest enough to admit that I’m evil enough - but in a totally non-threatening way to you or your loved ones, to actually enjoy all the Star Wars related drama. That is the sight of “others” engaged in it. However only for finding human nature itself fascinating and amusing in all it’s WTF? are you insane moments.

That aside, I read that piece by film critic Lisa Nesselson about the wardrobe malfunction at the “Césars”, which where telecast Friday night in Paris and, as you know, there is no censorship to speak of on French TV. And all I can add to that is thank God! The F-word lives! Grin.

They may indeed be guilty of some the world’s cruelest snark and of lowering the art of speaking “well” to little more than a pretentious blood sport aka: Ridiculé by Laconte. But there is more to the Palace of Versailles than where that game was played, and ergo to the French. There are gardens in back that stretch for miles and where I’ve strolled in the past so as to tell you they sell strawberry gelato at the edge of a forest just beyond the Bassin d’Apollon. The best part of every trip there, the gelato – for it always, always taking the pee out of the sheer pomposity of the Palace; so common a thing a welcome sight now; like the F-word on TV when used well.

Dear Mr. Ebert

Around new year's, i read this article on cinemablend.com or another of those sites that starts with cinema, which gave a list of those people who are most likely to....how do i put this delicately....to pass over to the other side in 2009. It was a strange piece. Anyway, i recognised some people, i didnt recognize others. You were on the list, and i smiled when i saw that because i could just imagine the kind of awesome response you would have to that. I should mention here that cinemablend praises you regularly and credits you with influencing their writing.

My question is, does such a list start out as snarky? What the hell is the point of such a piece? What does listing people who are fighting one horrible illness or the other in order of their chances of dying accomplish? Some parts of it were outright degrading. They have praised you to high heaven in the same piece where they say you are going to die. About Patrick Swayze, they say that he is a good fighter but the odds are against him and something along the lines of his cancer being a "double whammy". Cant remember the rest of it but i guess you can find the article, if you are inclined to do so.

So im betting on you and on Swayze and the rest of the 100 people mentioned on that repulsive piece of rubbish. Whats the use though? they will put you on 2010's list.

Ebert: I think CinemaBlend is an excellent site, well-reasoned and written. As to such a list, if they indeed compiled it, all I can say is, I personally would rather die than write such a list.

Bill,

Am I reading it correctly that you think Hoffman's character should be shot?! Are you that certain of his offense as to take the man's life?

I worked as a CPS investigator for five years, and I had my doubts that Hoffman's character offended Viola's son. I'm also a survivor, and I had my doubts. It is very easy for us to say what we would do in the same situation Viola Davis' character is in.
The movie skips what could have answered all our questions: A man Viola's son trusted could have just asked him if anything was going on.

There is also a difference in how Hoffman's character might have offended her son, too. No child should ever be offended in any manner, but it is ridiculous to put all the eggs in the same basket.

Bill Hays wrote: "I'm not accusing Father Flynn of raping the boy, or getting drunk and molesting him.

He's following a pedophile pattern of becoming 'Your New Best Friend' with a boy who has trouble making friends at a new school."

You're contradicting yourself here. Now you're not accusing him of initiating an indecent relationship with the boy ... but you are still saying he's a pedophile. Does this go back to what Sister Aloysius found out about Father Flynn from his previous parish? Again, whatever she heard is completely unknown to us. I've got my own theories about possible homosexuality, but it could have been a relationship with an Amy Adams-type nun, or the previous parish simply might have thought him too liberal. The fact is, you, Bill, and I have absolutely no knowledge that Father Flynn's a pedophile. In fact, the behavior that we see him display towards Donald is of a loving father figure and a very good example.

Bill Hays: "Mrs. Miller heard a story from her son. She thinks, on balance, that destroying her son's sexual identity is a fair price to pay for the credentials of a diploma from a Catholic school. I'm glad she wasn't my mother."

Please point to the moment in the script when Donald speaks to his mother. I'm fairly certain that all we have is her scene with Sister Aloysius, in which there is no mention of a talk between mother and son. You may be assuming this happened, and I would argue that you're capable of assuming this because Mrs. Miller is a good mother who any son would feel comfortable opening up to.

Bill Hays: "Now that you know what to look for, go back and watch it again. The evidence for the 'real crime' is solid. Teachers are supposed to know these signs."

I've seen the movie twice. I've read the script through at least twice. You're going purely, entirely, on assumptions. Like Sister Aloysius.

Bill Hays: "The more tragedy the hero suffers, and the more unfair it is, the stronger the emotional connection. "

Melodrama. There are fans of melodrama, and then there are fans of the dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of other types of storytelling. Great drama does not require tragedy; sometimes simple conflict will do. "Doubt" has that in droves. If that doesn't get you emotionally connected to these characters, then perhaps tragedy is what you require. Do you consider "Beaches" a greater movie than, say, "On Golden Pond"?

Bill Hays: "In order to beat 'The Godfather,' you've got to write a movie where the audience has the same intensity of emotional connection with the hero, the same investment. 'Doubt' pretty much fails by this test."

You're right. "Doubt" is probably not a better film than "The Godfather." Let me just say, though, I'm glad you've recognized Michael Corleone as the main character in "The Godfather." Somehow, this Marlon Brando guy got top billing.

Bill Hays: "To beat 'The Godfather' as a movie, you've got to understand why 'The Godfather' works. Michael took a journey ..."

Roger's Great Movie essay about "The Godfather" is illuminating about why it's been so successful. It's not so much that we follow Michael on a journey; it's that we enter a world. And though Michael is the character who gets initiated into that world, it could not have worked without Brando's Don Vito as that world's magnetic center.

Bill Hays: "The major problem with 'Doubt' was, it didn't try hard enough. It was a band-aid for people who wanted to pretend a priest had been falsely accused. It swept the real problem under the rug."

You try writing that play and that script, about the very same subject, no changes in theme or purpose, and tell me if Shanley slacked up a bit. Perhaps he should surrender his Tony and Pulitzer if he did.

Now, I like your idea for a movie about a newspaperman. Write! And leave poor "Doubt" alone.

Roger, is Script Girl being snarky here?
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40274

Ebert: Not really. Just funny, don't you think?

Reply to: Now, I like your idea for a movie about a newspaperman. Write! And leave poor "Doubt" alone.

That one's for Roger.

In today's climate, the odds against making any given script into a movie are enormous. Steven Spielberg and Dream Works bought 17 projects back from Paramount. Any new DW script would have to go to the back of the line, in order to be a Dreamworks film.

But a romantic comedy written by Roger Ebert about a newspaper going out of business in Chicago? To be filmed at Roger's favorite landmarks in Chicago? The Illinois Film Commission would declare a state holiday. Private investors and funding would magically appear like mold on a bagel.

I'm thinking it might be a rom-com like "Pretty Woman." Or, whatever genre Roger thinks it should be. His passion for the newspaper business should inspire every scene. This is the place for Insider Knowledge, to take us into a different world.

The hero pays $3000 to take the most beautiful woman in chicago on a date, because he intends to turn it into a feature story. But dang it, he falls in love. They fall in love. Hopelessly, madly, eternally.

Make suggestions. Two hours is a LOT of screen time to fill, when every scene has to be spectacular.

Reply to: DVD: Am I reading it correctly that you think Hoffman's character should be shot?! Are you that certain of his offense as to take the man's life?

Should be? No, I'm talking movie-talk.

The job of a director is to convince the producer that the film can be made under budget. The job of the writer is to scare the producer with spectacular ideas that cost a fortune.

I'm saying that you have to put your characters through the Civil War (Gone With The Wind) where Scarlett has to amputate a few limbs, to FORCE them to change. Great movies are all about change. If your viewpoint character winds up in the same place they started, the audience feels cheated.

SISTER JAMES Because I can’t sleep anymore.
SISTER ALOYSIUS Maybe we’re not supposed to sleep so well. The Bishop appointed Father Flynn Pastor of Saint Jerome Church and School. It’s a promotion.

At this point, it's clear that the system does not work.

Why would the Bishop make Flynn a Pastor at a larger school? Where he still has access to teenagers?

The point of the story... is that the Catholic Church has failed to protect the children. They had a duty, and sister A didn't anticipate just how badly the system was broken. So, what happens NEXT? As a result of this new knowledge, how does Sister A change?

Well, this scene is not enough to FORCE her to change. So, what would FORCE her to change?

If Father Flynn is murdered, and at the trial of the boy's father, a dozen parents come forward and testify about their previous complaints to the Bishop, and how Flynn was transferred from school to school without any kind of monitoring.... that would create Doubt. Because then, we can't be sure shich parents put a sack over Flynn's head and beat him with baseball bats. Was it the Irish? The Italians? Or the African Americans? Which parents care the most about their children? The camera moves from angry parent to angry parent, and the jury says, "That's reasonable doubt. Not guilty."

ST: Please point to the moment in the script when Donald speaks to his mother. I'm fairly certain that all we have is her scene with Sister Aloysius, in which there is no mention of a talk between mother and son.

MRS. MILLER Look, I only have a few minutes. Not to be disagreeing, but if we’re talking about something floating around between this priest and my son, it sure ain't my son's fault. He's just a boy. Twelve years old. If somebody should be taking blame, it should be the man, not the boy

The blame? The blame for what? What is she talking about?

The difference between text (the actual words) and the hidden meaning or theme (sub-text) is obvious.

FLYNN I’ve done nothing wrong. I care about that boy.
SISTER ALOYSIUS Why? ‘Cause you smile at him and you sympathize with him, and you talk to him as if you were the same? You are a cheat. And that warm feeling you experienced, when that boy looked at you with trust, was not the sensation of virtue.

I'm saying, at the end, there can still be a lot of Doubt over Flynn's guilt. Or, who murdered him. But the play needs to explain how grooming and courtship works among pedophiles, so the audience can decide actual guilt. We need a criminal act and a trial, so all the testimony can come out. Maybe a civil lawsuit, but it would be hard to prove damages. Better a criminal trial. And what happened to Geoghan?

If Sister A is our viewpoint character, how does she change? What is the purpose of the story?

If Sister A realizes the Catholic Church is broken, and she can't be a part of it any more, and walks out the door to return to her previous life.... that would be a good ending. That would show character development, because the INTERNAL change gave her the knowledge and courage to ACT.

Can we please have an early review of Watchmen? I have so many doubts about that movie I need to confess.

I really needed to read this because I am thinking about studying film for my masters and I would consider myself an optimist, but it seems that many critics just like to critique just to cause a stir. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read this and to know that critics are human too! Isn't that the point of film, to enjoy it?!

In regards to the "snarking" itself, it really feels that some critics truly just look for the worst in things and I don't think that is a critics job. A critic's job, in my opinion, is to be a professional audience and that means to judge the film on its own terms. Simply put, weed out the bad and highlight the good, not smash everything and only praise "sure thing" films. Furthermore, following reviews should only be a guiding point and people should not just watch movies that were made popular by critics, for it would be horribly boring to have everyone think the same! There are plenty of great films that were forgotten and/or smashed by critics at the time ("Vertigo" comes to mind.) Although I am only 21, I feel that we have entered an age (the Internet age) in which we simply log and have our information fed to us. Information should be used as a transitional phase to propel our own thoughts in hopes of developing our own unique tastes.

Ebert: I agree with you about the role of the critic. The job is not to be onstage, but to be an ideal audience member.

Mr Ebert,

I love your work!!!! I'm 23, I recently found out that you exist and started reading your reviews-thoughts and saw some clips from your show in youtube and I gradually became a die-hard fan! It's my first post in your blog so I wanted to get it off my system. :-p

I think snarking is a bit self-damaging. It indicates that you have anger, the cause of which you don't want to admit, thus you try to find faults and criticize the subject until exhaustion stops you. The trap is that you don't really feel happy after you're done, but other people dislike you because they think the snarking has actually given you pleasure that you didn't deserve because, the truth is, no one likes it when people are happy doing bad things unless it's themselves.

By the way, (as off topic as possible) do you play chess frequently? You seem to mention it every now and then.

Jim, Athens

Ebert: Not as often as I used to. In college I played through old games, like Booby Fischer and Donald Byrne's Immortal Game of the Century, which is sheer pleasure.

You can play through it on this clever site; if you click on the notations at right, the pieces will move.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361

Bill Hays on March 3, 2009 4:04 PM wrote
But the play needs to explain how grooming and courtship works among pedophiles, so the audience can decide actual guilt.

Hi, Bill.

That depends, doesn't it? On what the writer of the play is trying to do.

What if he's trying to show how all those child abuse cases happen. How they're perpetuated; how hard it is to pin down, and how easy it is to use doubt to confuse the issue, excuse the issue, play chess with priests and parishes and sweep the matter under the rug; how the Catholic Church, in the interests of avoiding controversy, ended up condoning and covering up crimes.

So to me, the movie seems like a piece to educate the rest of us on how this happens.

What think you?

Dave's hit a home run with this statement:

"The movie skips what could have answered all our questions: A man Viola's son trusted could have just asked him if anything was going on."

Thus, the title "Doubt." If Shanley had been going for melodrama, he could have written and directed the very difficult, delicate scene in which Donald is asked what is really going on. Assumably, for dramatic purposes, Donald would have to have said that something did happen; if the answer were no, the movie would end, flat as a pancake. The fact that we didn't make it that far means two things to me: We are not to know what happened, and whether abuse actually took place doesn't even matter, because the movie's sole mission is to generate deep thought and debate. Success!

Ebert: I agree. L. C Knights declared in a famous essay titled "How Many Children Had Lady Macbeth?" that if it isn't in the story, it wasn't intended to be in the story, and you can't add it on behalf of the author.

Bill Hays writes: "The point of the story... is that the Catholic Church has failed to protect the children. They had a duty, and sister A didn't anticipate just how badly the system was broken. So, what happens NEXT? As a result of this new knowledge, how does Sister A change?"

Assuming this continues to be your issue with the movie that was made, I offer this one last suggestion. The purpose of the movie that was made, as Shanley himself has suggested, is not so much that a current issue is confronted or even that an intricate story unfolds and resolves to everyone's satisfaction, but that there is just enough plot movement and character development to generate philosophical debate in the audience about a very fundamental feature of human nature. The tenderness and timeliness of the particular issue (child abuse in the Catholic Church) serves Shanley well in intensifying that debate, as your responses have illustrated.

Shanley could have written the play/movie to take place in a jewelry store, and involving the alleged theft of several valuable jewels, possibly by the young working-class man who was hired to vacuum the floors at night. Sounds like a boring movie, but I'm sure it could have been handled by any great talent from Hitchcock to David Mamet to Jules Dassin. Very likely, the point of that movie wouldn't have been to draw attention to the epidemic of jewel theft in Paris; we wouldn't have been wholly preoccupied with seeing that the young man be fired or arrested or beaten up. We would have continued to wonder if he actually stole the jewels, pondered why he was promoted to clean the floors of the jewelry factory under such suspicion, and we very likely would have been asking ourselves what we would have done if we were this or that character. In essence, we would have been examining some of those very essential human proclivities that can be so troublesome: suspicion, certainty, doubt.