One of the reasons why young moviegoers are not flocking to The Hurt Locker is because of the R rating. I'm not suggesting that it should have been stripped down to a PG-13, but it certainly is the prime factor for this 16 year-old not to have seen it. The movie is at my local theater, but most of my friends haven't heard of it and are also too young to go unaccompanied. Frankly I think the MPAA needs to change their policy for R-rated movies. I would love to support a film like The Hurt Locker but that policy makes it difficult to do so.

Your blog comes at an interesting time. I often feel very cynical about the fate of modern film, but every once in a while news like this gives me hope: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/ao-scott-michael-phillips-to-take-over-at-the-movies/?hpw

Ebert: Does it deserve an R? Amazingky violent movies are PG-13 as long as they're "fantasy violence" or "science fiction violence" or anything but "realistic violence."

Video games again, Roger? Now you're doing it on purpose....

Ebert: Know what? I just took out the mention of video games. It was a cheap parting shot.

Hey Roger,

Quite spot on, unfortunately. It is not that the kids of my generation can't think -- they just don't want to. Nobody has taught them to love exploring life's many facets patiently and wisely. They only know how to experience the moment's pleasure and how to look for the next one. At least, that's my general idea.

Roger,

I'm 19 years old and an occasional commenter on your wonderful blog. I have a few stories related to this subject, and I hope they don't cause you to lose all faith in my generation. Of course, *I'm* dangerously close to losing faith in my generation, but that's beside the point. I'm a summer intern in an office, so my coworkers are largely 40 and older with one exception; a female intern that is my age. After Transformers 2 opened, I saw it due to a perverse curiosity ("No film could be as bad as people are making it out to be!" I said!) and left the theater thoroughly depressed and agitated by the experience. On Monday, my fellow intern was raving about Transformers 2, calling Michael Bay "an amazing director". I cringed a little. The night before I watched Tokyo Story followed by A Short Film About Killing in order to "wash my brain" of Transformers 2. Having experienced the incredible work of two of the most brilliant directors in the history film, hearing someone proclaim that Michael Bay was "an amazing director" filled me with sadness. While she and others in the office were raving about Transformers 2 I quietly, sadly sat in silence. I had to bite my tongue because I knew if I expressed my true feelings I would elicit strange looks and become alienated, I would be labeled "a snob". Of course I feel the people who "loved" Transformers 2 had their opinions formed by the relentless advertising blitzes that occurred prior to the films release, but I don't think I could ever tell any of them that. At my age, I can't afford to be labeled a snob or a weirdo when it comes to film.

I also try to recommend films to friends and family, for example when discussing the last days of World War 2 I recommended the splendid film Downfall from 2005. I raved about the film because I believe it's truly great. They were riveted by my description of the way the film attempts to humanize one of histories greatest monsters. They were incredibly enthusiastic, and they were already planning to put the film on their Netflix queues. At the last second I remembered to mention that the film was in German. Immediately all interest was lost and they said "Oh, never mind". They collectively explained that they "didn't do" subtitles. As one sibling said: "I don't like to read while I'm watching." That evening also left more disheartened than the day at work, because these were my family members! I expected better from my loved ones! I never realized that they limited their taste in such a way.

As I said I hope this post doesn't cause you to lose all faith. I keep my faith because I know that there have to be people in my peer group with my taste, my level of critical thought, and my open mindedness. I hope, using that knowledge, you can maintain your faith as well.

Ebert: People who "don't do subtitles" suffer from a form of deafness.

Tonight I am particularly grateful that my generation had some wonderful teen movies to flock to. I wonder if today's young people will ever feel the collective sadness over the loss of a filmmaker from their youth that Generation X feels tonight.

I also find the talk show interview dance maddening, and tend to avoid those shows. However, I do enjoy Letterman when he decides he's not going to play along, as in his Paris Hilton interview.

The Dick Cavett show was before my time, but after seeing his priceless Hepburn interview on TCM recently, I have been working my way through the dvds. I highly recommend them.

While everything you said is accurate, I think there's still one factor that the original stories didn't take into consideration: the rush factor.

A movie like Transformers 2 or G.I. Joe burns bright, but fast. Everyone has to get out to see it as soon as possible. They've got huge opening weekends, but they tail off fast.

A movie like Hurt Locker smolders much more slowly. And I'll posit that even a young person wanting to see it doesn't feel the intense, overriding, burning need to see it the moment it comes out. They're patient, and can wait to see it a little later. So if you're just measuring in numbers-per-weekend, you might not be getting the most accurate view. But if you measure over the long term, things might look a little different.

I submit for your perusal, this quasi-related graph from the New York Times website, which manages to give a visual intuition for popularity peaks vertically, longevity horizonally, and overall intake as area.

and tax video games like tobacco.

Seeing as how "Transformers 2" has taken so many hours from so many lives, shouldn't all movies be taxed, too?

If I mention the cliché "the dumbing-down of America," it's only because there's no way around it. And this dumbing-down seems more pronounced among younger Americans. It has nothing to do with higher educational or income levels. It proceeds from a lack of curiosity and, in many cases, a criminally useless system of primary and secondary education. Until a few decades ago, almost all high school graduates could read a daily newspaper. The issue today is not whether they read a daily paper, but whether they can.

Roger, I cannot agree more.

My experience as a college physics teacher over 20 years, in both coasts of the US and elsewhere, corroborates my suspicion that kids have been steadily losing their reasoning skills. I will not speculate here on specific reasons for this decline (decrease in the quality of basic education? chemical dumbing-down? 15-second-long overcharged sound and visual bytes that limit one's attention span? something else?), except to mention that a recent technological breakthrough is, in my opinion, a major contributor to today's kids' inability to communicate properly in their own language: cellular phones.

For 3 years after its creation, from 2004 to 2007, I was very active in the social networking site orkut and I watched in complete horror how kid after kid would make posts using that butchery of the English language which is sms-style text-messaging.

It could be argued that using an abbreviated style of writing when sending text messages with a cellular phone is acceptable, because of bandwidth limitations, but these were posts made from home computers, not cell phones. My conclusion was that kids have become so used to writing that way that they've been slowly losing the ability to write a complete sentence and express a complete thought.

So, it really doesn't surprise me that today's kids are averse to reading newspapers or even their online digital counterparts. When short bursts of highly condensed information are becoming the norm, who has the time, the interest, and the attention span required to read a longer piece of writing?

As a result, English - the way you and I write - may be a language in a path to extinction, and the ability to communicate effectively may soon become a rare commodity.

Incidentally, the first two video clips you selected, of the two young women expressing their thoughts, are literally very painful to watch. I had seen the Miss Teen South Carolina one before, when it happened, but I had not known about the other one.

The third video clip, regarding the chemical dumbing-down of America, sounds a bit too much like a conspiracy theory. However, if the facts corroborate the claims (of too much thimerosal in vaccines and the dangers of fluoride in water) then so be it, conspiracy or not.

A related piece is this video from the National Vaccine Information Center regarding swine-flu-related measures that may allow, for instance,

state officials to enter the homes and businesses without the approval of occupants; to investigate and quarantine individuals without their consent; to require licensed health care providers to give citizens vaccines and to ban the free assembly of citizens in the state.

Ebert: I gather some of that genertation have little skill at handwriting.

I'm 21 and understand every word you're saying on this post, Mr. Ebert. I concur, as well. My generation is very sad. I would love to see "Hurt Locker," but it hasn't even come to a theatre near me (NE MS). I've seen so many movies by myself, knowing full well that no one would enjoy the film and would go on and on and on and on about how they disliked it--even smarter friends. My generation is largely stuck in a cycle of pop culture. Many would avoid talking about it, or think it's wrong, but, I believe 9/11 has had a large impact on this. The protectivity of parents, etc. Also, the only decent kids I see coming out of this generation were raised by late baby-boomers. The rest are being raised by younger parents who are still trying to live their own lives. My mother (retried teacher of 28 years) has told me that after my class came through it was progressively worse each grade year. She also retired because of 'No Child Left Behind.' I also have a complaint about this trend of Michael Bay's which has begun to not only take hold of new movies with CGI effect, but re-releasing horror films. Etc, etc, etc, haha--you know all of them before I get to them. Cheers and good health.

Ebert: Hang in there.

"The more knowledge one gains, the more important becomes the question of what that knowledge will be used for. Knowledge without wisdom and philosophy produces nothing more than talented beasts"..Daisaku Ikeda

I can somewhat relate to what you're saying about people being looked down upon because of their "superior" movie choices. Just the other day I was with my family and we were watching TV. On the television set came a commercial for the Miyazaki film "Ponyo." I felt so excited not only because I really want to see this film but because I feel that Miyazaki's work is finally going to get the mainstream recognition he deserves. My sisters on the other hand said, "There is no way I'd like to see this Japanese animated film." In fact, the only reason they were aware of it was because the Jonas Brothers' and Hannah Montana's siblings happened to be in the English dubbing (I'm excited that Liam Neeson is in it). When I tried to explain who Miyazaki was and how great his work was, they just nodded their heads going, "Yeah, uh-huh." I guess that the college student will be going to this family film without his uninterested younger sisters.

When I was in high school I was in a film club during my senior year, so I saw some great films like "Rashoman," and "Annie Hall." Also, I took a film studies course and saw some more great movies like "Modern Times," "The Philadelphia Story," and "Midnight Cowboy." In those environments I was around fellow film lovers that I could talk and relate too.

I'm also planning on seeing "(500) Days of Summer" either tomorrow or in the next couple of days, depending on my schedule. It has finally come to my local theater. I also might see "District 9" (looks really good and it comes out the same day as "Ponyo").

Ebert: I hope your sisters realize that all animated films are dubbed.

It's truly concerning to me that I, as a member of this generation, feel the effects of this personally. Having recently graduated from high school, I can say that I watched firsthand as my peers glided toward graduation with little to no effort (and I wish to emphasize the fact that I literally mean NO effort). I know of several people who cheated on their term paper, including one student whose father paid someone else to write it for him. And I live in a pretty nice town (although it is in Michigan, after all). The scariest part of it, though, is that I sometimes feel the urge to conform to this sort of behavior. It sounds ridiculous to articulate my awareness of this, but it's true. I want to be lazy and stupid. I am inclined to place very little value in acting in an intellectual and mature manner. That's sad. But again, it is true. And it is reflected in the current state of the entertainment industry. True artists are shuffled aside while Micheal Bay makes millions. I did not enjoy the new Transformers, but I'd be lying if I claimed I hated all of Bay's work. I do not always agree with your opinions on certain films, Mr. Ebert, but it is your ability to express those opinions that endows them with validity. It just so happens that this time I believe your opinion to be absolutely correct... and that gives me hope that I'm "above" the other idiots of my age.

Ebert: f course you are. One of the best reasons to avoid being lazy and stupid is that lazy, stupid people have trouble keeping themselves entertained.

Um, wow. I'm going to refrain from commenting on your joke about taxing video games like tobacco.

I just wanted to point out that movies like "G.I. JOE" and "Transformers 2" make most of their money overseas. To date, more than half (52%) of the worldwide "Revenge of the Fallen" grosses have come from foreign markets. Movies like "Terminator 4," which bomb over here, sometimes even find "Salvation" (pardon the pun) overseas. Looking over the grosses of recent maligned blockbusters like Spidey 3 and the two "Pirates" sequels, I've found that foreign grosses often exceed and even nearly double the domestic ones.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the rest of the world is just as "dumb" as we are, or at least just as guilty in feeding these cinematic abominations money.

Ebert: Also explains why such movies have limited dialogue, always in basic English.

Now Ebert, I want to say that I love your reviews and your blog. Im an 18 year old from Puerto Rico, and I always been one of those people that feels alienated, so I know what you mean about the teens like me. I watch movies alone most of the time because the movies I love arent cool or hip around here. I think I was the only 18 year old that went to watch Whatever Works. I always grew up watching good movies, so I was looked down when I said that I hated the Matrix sequels, Transformers or any kind of bad Hollywood blockbuster. People in this country only likes guns, boobs and poop jokes on their movies. Hey, I like those, but I prefer to watch Touch of Evil or Apocalypse Now any day of the week. I always look for reccomendations in your Great Movies section of your site, so thanks for that list.

Here something I want to add. Movies like "The Hurt Locker" are most of the time shown in art houses. In this country, those types of "artsy" films are show in what I call "the rich'man theather", since it is pricey and mostly "important" people go to it. Maybe thats one of the reasons why other teens cant watch it or reccomend it?

Anyway, I want to let you know that even down south from the States, there is at least one person that has not been dumbed down by society.

Ebert: In the long run you will be happier than those you're leaving behind. I realize not everyone can race off to a pricey theater, but lots of people on this blog talk about borrowing movies from the library.

Ugh... the same is happening in Mexico, Roger. Then again, at the end of the '80s, Mexico's movie theaters became an extension of US distribution and exhibition chains, and we lost what little films from Europe and Asia we used to get more or less once every one or two months. But I mean, the same is happening in terms of younger people seemingly becoming dumb. And dumber, of course.

It is no surprise that both the US and Mexico are at the lowest levels of results in primary and secondary education in the world. Our public educational systems at those levels have been going down for some decades now and I can tell you, at least in Mexico, nothing is being done to reverse the damage. On the contrary, more money is going to the teachers unions, to their leaders and to their members who have not set foot in a classroom for years, while most of the teachers in public schools have to take two jobs to get by. And I don't even want to go (well, here I go) to the subject of schools without even the most basic services, such as bathrooms, electricity or... a roof.

It is discouraging when I talk to colleagues in their twenties (I'm 41), some of them with a high school or a college degree, and try to discuss... well, Ice Age 3. But, anyway, when I mention that one of the most hilarious ideas for me was the Moby Dick reference, "Moby Who?" Everytime. I don't know, Roger... Moby Dick was a very well known novel (or at least the story and its characters) by most of my friends when I was in primary school, back in the '70s.
Yes, the dumbing of America. All of North America.

Ebert: I have the impression Canada is staying ahead of us. :)

You know, I've been reading your stuff for a long time, now, and while I don't always agree with you on some of your movie reviews, or some of your political views, or occasionally your religious standpoints, I believe that the way in which you express your opinion is justified, and that has won me over. Grant it, especially with movies, you're almost always spot on, and what I enjoy most about you is that even if I disagree with you, I still have someone I feel knows what they're talking about. And I absolutely agree with you that this type of quality might be dying out with the older generations.

But over the past couple of weeks, as I've witnessed a summer of some pretty bad movies (Up being the exception out of what I've seen), I've found myself almost drawn to the crap that I try to stay away from, and, believe it or not, a lot of it has had to do with how much you've talked about it. I'm not criticizing you, let me explain. Since Transformers 2 came out, you burned it in your review and then continued to burn it in your blog, and even occasionally in other recent reviews. So much has been talked about here and elsewhere about how bad of a movie it is that I almost HAVE to see the train wreck, do you know what I mean? It's only when I realize that I'm pretty broke and haven't seen the movies I've really wanted to see (I read somewhere that 500 Days of Summer is being released straight to video...sad), that I couldn't fathom spending 9 dollars to watch what essentially everyone is calling the worst movie in a long time. There's other excuses, too, like how I like to think that if a movie is that universally panned, it doesn't matter how fun the first one was, there's no way on earth I would go see it, but come on. If I had an extra couple of bucks to spare, I probably would go see it. After all, there is something to be said about watching bad films to understand what NOT to do (especially if you're studying film, which I am).

But I think my point is that because there's been so much publicity about it, even from you, it's almost drawing me closer to it. How many one star reviews of yours have I read that you quickly discard and stop talking about, and then I see them on the shelf at the store months later thinking to myself "Oh, yeah, I forgot that even played in theaters"? A lot, I guess. But if a movie is so bad, so disgustingly pathetic, does it deserve all the ranting about how its just another atom bomb bringing down the movie business? Shouldn't we just let it die? If no one talks about it, will they stop getting made? If I stand in the middle of a crowded street and scream at the top of my lungs while doing a dance, and no one even glances at me, will I continue expending energy for nothing, or will I give up and try something new? In the money-hungry movie business, I don't think they'd keep on doing that for long and instead switch to a different song and dance, but then again, is that a reality? I think it used to be, right, back a couple of generations ago? Now we're all getting too stupid, and the sweaty obnoxious guy burping and dancing and yelling on the street is so awesome that we have to watch.

I've witnessed the stupidity of my generation (I'm 24) countless times, and countless times I am amazed. I am surrounded by people, people in college, who are supposed to be getting smarter and more mature, do nothing but sit around and procrastinate way past their Freshman expiration date. In 2006, my first semester at a university after a few years in community college, I pitched a television show to the student-run TV network on campus. It got accepted, and since then not only have I been the only show that has produced more than three episodes in the history of the station, but through sheer willpower have made 15 episodes, 5 per season, with the final season in post-production now. Looking back on it, I am convinced that the hardest thing I had to deal with concerning the entire production was working with some of the actors and crew that were gung-ho for the first five minutes before regressing back to their lazy, partying ways. That I managed to keep most of them on the show for continuity's sake is a small miracle, accomplished only by the help of my producer, who shared my vision as much as I did. We're dating now.

But what really drove it home for me was the fact that in this last season, I wanted to bring in different actors other than college students. The show is based on college and post-college life, and the characters were always talking about parents and teachers, but I never could find any to cast in the show, so they stayed in the outer edges of the story, never seen. I used a connection of mine and found a website full of resumes of local talent. Perfect! I could cast a mother and father now for one of my main twenty-something characters! I sent the two I liked best e-mails, and THAT DAY they e-mailed me back, and the next day I got a call from the lady, Anne, who hadn't heard from me since the initial e-mail (the day before), and just wanted to make sure that I got her response and that she was interested in the part. Understand that this is a student television show, and there's no money involved. Heck, I couldn't even get money for DV tapes and had to fund everything myself. Had that been a student my age that I had e-mailed about a part, they probably would have gotten the e-mail instantly on their iPhone, read through it, discarded it in the "I'll-Think-About-It" part of their brain, and then forget about it five minutes later, and I'd still be in the hunt. Not all young people are like that (my girlfriend/then producer responded quickly and enthusiastically), but there is a huge difference that I've noticed between this generation and the next. But I wonder sometimes...is it just a phase? Will these kids grow up? Will they learn responsibility eventually, because society demands it?

...But does society even demand it anymore?

Yikes.

-Phil

Ebert: A little good news: (500) Days is still in theaters.

After reading through your blog post, I have to concur with what you say about how those kids who don't like the biggest blockbuster are shunned upon. Recently, a friend was at my house, and we were going through my movie collection. As I suggested film after film, ranging from Platoon to Blazing Saddles, he asked me why I only bought bad films. I told him "Because these 'bad' films happen to be some of the greatest films ever made". He asked if I saw the original Transformers, which happens to be, in his opinion, the greatest film ever made.

I pity my fellow classmates, who are all hooked on what the media tells them to watch. Maybe while they go out and watch G.I Joe, and than tell me how awesome it was, I'll stay at home and watch Apocalypse Now on DVD.

PS: Earlier this year, my English class (I'm 16) watched Schindler's List as an assignment. 30 minutes in, one classmate stood up and said "This is boring, its not even a good film.". That consensus was reached with the majority of the class by the time it was over.

I'm so glad someone else found Mad Magazine so instructive. I loved their movie lampoons. The one for The Empire Strikes Back contains one of my favorite quotes ever-- Yoda: "Do not hit a man when down he is." Luke: Why, Master Yoda?" Yoda: "Because up again he may get." :D

And I agree with you about the insipid pr interview format--it's pretty horrible. Where's Dick Cavett when you need him? I seem to remember a fabulous interview Cavett did with a new director named Steven Spielberg in the mid-70s, when I was a middle-schooler. But maybe I just dreamed it because google can't seem to find a clip of it. :..(

As a suburban eighteen year old movie buff, I've wasted a lot of my brainpower trying to figure this out.

The experience of going to the movies for so many people of my generation has been degraded from one of engaging with a story and ideas into one of vegging out in front of something. In this way, movies have become like TV and Youtube. We don't care really WHAT we watch, we just want to sit down and do nothing for an hour or two. So it doesn't really matter what is appearing on the screen, because it's all going in one ear and out the other anyway.

I'm not saying that watching a movie mindlessly is necessarily a bad thing (when you're really stressed out it can be a wonderful thing), but the movie ITSELF should not be mindless. By that I mean that you can relax in front of a movie, but that it should still be smart with its story and its characters. Even a mindless viewer can tell the difference between a good movie and a bad one.

But young audiences today don't seem to care whether the movie they are watching has any intelligent quality to it whatsoever. A friend says "Do you want to go watch Transformers 2?" like they might say "Do you want to go to the beach?" or "Do you want to come over?". Watching a movie becomes simply something to do. If you're not busy, why not? People no longer watch movies because they think they'll be worthwhile. We watch them because they're there.

One of my best, best friends, a guy I've known for 14 years (and I'm 26), hates my taste in movies. My taste in movies generally comes from reviews I read. He never reads reviews, and despises the idea of watching whatever a "critic" says you should watch. Often I convince him to see some of these movies, and he leaves disappointed, and only more assured that critics can't be trusted. As much as I urged him not to, he recently watched "Transformers 2," and said he enjoyed it.

Fine, to each his own. But don't worry -- this is a happy story.

When "The Hurt Locker" finally opened in our area, I called him up that very Friday morning. It took some effort, but I convinced him to tag along. That was about two weeks ago. I saw him just earlier today, and he was still raving about the film, urging another friend of ours to see it, and saying he'd even be willing to see it again.

The lesson: Never stop trying.

A total lack of creative carrot-dangling on the studio's part. Why not have a two tickets for the price of one deal for all kids who go to see The Hurt Locker? Kids attend movies in packs. A group of eight might save forty bucks. That's dinner right there. Or what about this, on Thursday nights all teen-agers see The Hurt Locker for free. Just get them in the theater. If they like the movie there will be lucrative word of mouth and a DVD/blu-ray upside. Kids that like it will turn their folks, who might not have seen it otherwise, onto it.

Hey Roger -

What is curious to me is that the drive for education is stronger than ever. College acceptance rates are more competitive than ever, suggesting in some part that parents (and it can't be some sort of elite minority) are pushing their children toward the best of the best, realizing the importance of education. When I get overwhelmed with the idea of a dumbed-down America, I can only hope this is a step in the right direction.

nick

Every generation has a different method of enforcing conformity, and intellect has always been seen as non-conformist. I think the problem nowadays is that intellect has also come to be seen not just as weird or nerdy but unnecessary.

The problem is paradoxical: it's the extreme educational elitism (based on economic elitism, because a good education is obscenely expensive in the US) that forces Americans to have one or more university degrees in order to get any decent job. The cost of not having that degree has been set so high that parents can't afford to let their children fail. Parents do things these days that would have been considered serious academic misconduct in the 80s: filling out their children's college applications, doing their homework, completing their science projects. Any one of these would once have had a student failed or expelled, but now they're considered standard procedure to the point that a child who completes a project on his own can be failed because it looks like something a child produced, or because the child used paint his parents had at home instead of going out and buying the "right brand". (This is from an acquaintance's personal experience; nice to know the teacher expects families to spend money so their kids can pass a ninth grade science course. I'm sure the poorer families were charmed as well.)

But all this coddling means that children never learn the dangers of failure or the importance of hard work, which in turn teaches them that they are entitled to whatever they want with no effort or talent of their own. Why would they want to learn anything when they think they don't need to? If they can't get what they want on their own, somebody will do it for them. They're entitled to that fancy house, that hot girlfriend or boyfriend, that high-paying job, that trendy car.

PS: Hate to point it out, but the International Date Line never actually approaches Newfoundland. It's a stationary line that runs through the Pacific. I don't know if there is a word that describes the midnight terminator, but "International Date Line" isn't it.

PPS "Midnight Terminator" sounds like a dreadful Dean Koontz/James Cameron crossover, doesn't it?

I'll be frank: I hate it when an actor, athlete, celebrity, or really anybody has to hide behind their PR image. Why does a grown man/woman need a PR representative to help them answer questions? A movie star is not campaigning for an election. Being a basketball fan, the athletes I like most tend to be the most outspoken, honest players in the NBA. Not surprisingly, these are also the guys most hated upon and targeted by the sports media. Weird, isn't it?

I have been reading your blog for some time now, Mr. Ebert, and is the only one I feel comfortable commenting in.
Recently, I graduated high school and I remember the last day in Biology class we were given a choice of science themed movies or one of the DVDs a student brought. Systematically, the choices ("GATTACA and "2001: A Space Odessey" were among them, which are two of my favorite movies), were voted out. I wasn't surprised; these was a class of 18-year-olds who were itching to leave. But what took me off guard was when the reason for crossing off those films was because "you have to think".
Personally, I was kind of taken aback; was it bad to think in a film? Thankfully, we watched "Say Anything" brought by one of my classmates.
I think it has to do with my up-bringing. My parents did not shy away from thinking in our house nor did they want us for follow what other people say. Sure, we've seen our share of ridiculous blockbusters, but we've always liked well-made films better like "Alien" or "2001", both of which are a family favorites.
I'm moving to college soon and the first thing we did was to search for a theater that shows films other than mainstream ones. Three movies later ("Food, Inc", "Moon", and "The Hurt Locker".) we found one.
In short, I'm glad you're bringing light to this coming Dark Age. But it leaves me with a pessimistic outlook. If the your demographic for this blog is 50 and over, than it's a shame (or perhaps more) that more people aren't reading this and learning about films that are outside the box (office).

I am sure that this is mentioned often but all of this reminds me of the criminally underrated Mike Judge film Idiocracy, about the dumbing down of America to the point that movies in the future show just butt cheeks that fart for 90 minutes and win the Best Screenplay award at the Oscars.
You were right that marketing has taken over standards of films. There is a reason though that so many bad overhyped movies drop off after a week or two. No staying power. When I worked at a movie theatre I was always interested in what movies stayed for a long time (Napoleon Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine etc) and what movies left two weeks later. As much as marketing hype the next big explosion, it has very diminishing returns.
There are still good movies being made (I am personally looking forward to Park's The Thirst and District 9) when it comes out.
As for Mad Magazine I am sorry to say that it has dropped in quality tremendously, and been taken over by those marketting forces that it used to insult back in the day (now its owned by Time-Warner-AOL). I still read my dad's copies from back in the day, but sadly it is no longer the shark satire it used to be. Luckily for people now, we can get our satire from Colbert and Stewart who are always sharp to the ways of modern society

"The mass media is the bitch of marketing."

It seems like everything is these days. I read some NYTimes articles about Doctors getting free samples (along with other perks) from Pharmaceutical companies so that they would promote – explicitly or implicitly – the company's drugs. And, from what I've learned in Physiology, we really don't know the scope of effects for a good chunk of the drugs out there. Most pharmaceutical companies just want to market their drugs to as many as people as possible. Marketing is symptom, and it's gotten quite serious in America.

Even more frustrating is how difficult it is to find theaters that are not chain theaters. I remember growing up, it was Edwards Cinemas until (I later learned) they went bankrupt and were bought out by Regal. Until now, I never understood or comprehended the decline in film projecting quality Regal Cinemas "strives" for to "reduce cost" (I'm looking at you, ticket prices) because really, I just wanted to be able to see movies; as I got older and moved out to school in a different city, my film perspective changed and I now believe Regal to be the antichrist of film projection. But in my hometown, Regal Cinemas is king, with AMC slowly putting its foot in, so ironically I still attend their theaters to see films I'm interested in.

Thankfully, there is the benefit of the local dollar theater that shows films a few months after their initial release at reduced costs and two theaters (one owned by Regal, interestingly enough!) that show independents. At school (which is seven hours away from home), I'm very lucky that there are numerous theaters sprinkled about, Landmark Theaters being the best of them. But that's just the thing though – I'm lucky to have these accommodations. I can only imagine how many people out there who have to drive hours to a theater in order to see something other than Michael Baysplosions or a screaming Christian Bale.

I guess what I'm trying to say that no matter how much we punch and scream, corporate America has taken over. The free-market has mutated into a reality where money and marketing is power. The fact that KCET has become a gem of journalistic excellence is a sad, sad reflection of how badly mass media has declined.

I'm fortunate enough to be acquainted with friends who are open-minded and willing to discuss movies we find interesting or are interested in seeing. So many forget that discussion does not mean unanimous agreement: it means having a original thought, poking at your brain and trying to learn from what others have to say, agree or disagree.

And lastly, to end my little vignette, I'll post a little dialogue from an episode of "Futurama":

Fry: So you're telling me they broadcast commercials into people's dreams?
Leela: Of course.
Fry: But, how is that possible?
Prof. Farnsworth: It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg.

I have something to admit. I said something I always swore I never would.

That something I said was "I don't have to see it to know that it's crap," in reference to Transformers 2.

There was a time when I would give any and every movie a chance. But lately I find it harder and harder to make myself go see everything just so I can justifiably have a comment on it. Life is too short to sit through Michael Bay movies.

Instead, I've seen "The Hurt Locker" three times, and am a better person for it. What a great film. Thanks for the recommendation, Roger. You very rarely steer me wrong.

Mr. Ebert. With all due respect to your opinion on movies, no one disagrees that you are one of the best when it comes to the work that you do. However, you have to realize that the genre of super-hero movies or even movies based on toys and comics is really critic-proof in a sense. It's like you're trying to present a critique on the comics and toys themselves. In essence there is bound to be one big disagreement every which way you look at it.

To the uninitiated, Transformers 2 may have seemed like a mess of a movie. I say this because I have been an avid Transformers fan since my childhood. I, like countless other 'fanboy zealots' as you choose to term us, understood the storyline better than most of those who haven't read the comics or played with the toys or watched the animated TV series and movie versions.

You just have to sit down and think with a cool head, "There is a heck of a difference in quality when you read the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and then read a Transformers comic." One is a great piece of literature and the other is a storyline featuring robotic organisms. I personally take a bit of offense to your gripe about fanboys being dumb. My favourite movie of all time is Braveheart, and I absolutely loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Other favourites of mine are the 'critically acclaimed' Gladiator, Dark Knight, Any Given Sunday, The Insider, etc. But then I also liked the Spiderman trilogy, the original Christopher Reeve Superman series, Ironman, etc. And I can't wait for other superheroes to be brought to the big screen like the Green Lantern or Captain America.

Just to let you know I'm 30 years old, and very successful in my field of finance, to counter being labeled 'dumb'. But if I get a chance to relive my childhood by watching a live action movie about my childhood toys, comics, and cartoons, please don't call me 'dumb' and allow me this indulgence as a way of tuning out the problems of the real world for a while. Also, it would be interesting to see an audience profiling based on age and their opinion about Transformers 2.

This isn't just a US problem.
If anything, the problem is accentuated in countries such as India.

Not only do distributors believe that the only movies that will run here are the big summer blockbusters but there are also NO art-house theaters to be found anywhere in the length and breadth of this 2nd-most-populous nation.

People are wary of any movies with subtitles or those classified as 'Oscar' movies. Whenever we're lucky enough to have Oscar nominated movies that play in theaters (usually in the run up to the Oscars), these shows play at 9 in the morning and play to almost empty theaters.

In general, the available selection of DVDs is pitiful and it takes hours of searching, or placing a request and waiting for months for your order to arrive, before the DVD of your choice is available.
Unless you have the finances and access to DVDs from Western World, it is impossible to find a copy of say, 'Night of the Hunter' or 'The Third Man'.

While in recent times, non-pirated versions of Bergman, Wilder, Bresson, Melville, Truffaut and Kurosawa films are available (I picked up copies of Le Cercle Rouge and Some Like It Hot recently), it does not surprise me in the least that the attitude of distributors and theater chains in this country is responsible for the astounding amount of piracy prevalent here.

I too have often been frustrated about the manipulative "dumbing down" of American pop culture. But I also think it unwise to simply ignore/disengage from the mainstream--a temptation that on-line communities like this make it very easy to indulge.

A recent Salon article about science in pop culture illustrates the problems associated with ignoring the mainstream. Because real scientists have often ignored, dismissed or misunderstood pop culture (save a few notable exceptions), members of the entertainment industry and political-action groups have readily filled the gap, and now we have schoolkids who loathe science and imagine its practitioners as geeky, eccentric caricatures of Dr. Frankenstein. We also have citizens fueled by political bias vehemently arguing faux "issues" that have been fairly well settled in scientific circles (e.g. global warming or vaccines causing autism--pop science has apparently abandoned both sides of the political spectrum).

Perhaps pop-culture has become so commoditized that it can no longer be swayed by something as quaint as intellectualism, but that's not a reason to stop trying. Blogs like yours are helpful, but I fear they also can foster a kind of "clubbiness" that works against the stated hope of avoiding another mind-numbing "Transformers"-style explodo-fest. I'd love to read your thoughts on the matter; do you personally feel your professional writing is less engaged with the mainstream than it was, say, 10, 20, or 30 years ago? And if so, do you see this as problematic, or just the inevitable result of cultural change?

I am 15 and feel completely in the same boat. Not only am I surrounded by peers who seem more interested in the hype about a film than the actual film, but I live in a small, suburban town, with the nearest limited releases hours away.
While other kids are spending time in packed theaters watching Transformers or GI Joe, I find myself in my room watching Godard or Herzog films lamenting over the lack of good, popular mainstream cinema.
I feel out of water at school, and kids look in bewilderment when I say that I didn't find Epic Movie funny or I didn't think that the new Indiana Jones film was nearly as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Yeah, it's pretty awful to see where we're headed in a cultural sense. I think in most cases these days -- at least for mainstream blockbusters like "Transformers 2" -- critics really are pointless, because they have virtually no effect. "TF2" is, like, what...the eighth highest-grossing film ever now? And received some of the worst reviews of the year?

I think critics still have the power to help a low budget film like "The Hurt Locker" achieve wider audiences, but I think many blockbusters are critic-proof, and probably have been for some time. And now that the studios are gradually realizing this, it seems like more and more films are being refused screenings. The fact that they're now giving selective screenings -- i.e. screenings targeted towards fanboys who they know can be half-bought into supplying positive feedback -- is disturbing.

I guess part of it is the Internet, and part of it may just be shifting cultural trends; for the same reasons that people don't really read the papers as often anymore, the idea of reading other people's input on films doesn't appeal to people as much, I suppose. Plus: I think most teenagers/younger viewers don't agree with critics, so frankly, they don't care. I know few people from my generation who treat film as an art form; they view it merely as entertainment, and they are perfectly content to never experience anything more from the medium. On one hand, for film buffs like all of us, it's frustrating -- and you feel like saying they're maybe a bit ignorant to settle for less -- but at the same time, I suppose they're happy with their ignorance, so how can you fault them? They seem pretty satisfied (I met plenty of people who loved Transformers), so how can you tell them they're wrong? There's no accounting for poor taste.

Another interesting trend is the ability of Twitter to make or break a film; some analysts have credited "Bruno's" enormous second-day drop-off to the fact that many people, while still in the theater, were Twittering negative reactions to the film. On the other side of this, you have a film like District 9, which was screened at Comic-Con; people began Twittering about it, and it attracted the attention of a couple celebrities who "tweeted" about the film (I believe one of them was Jennifer Hudson, but I may be wrong); because these celebs have hundreds of thousands of followers, many of whom "re-tweeted" the message, literally overnight it had been read about by millions of people. That level of overnight hype is almost unprecedented.

I'm not sure why the younger demographic is desired for feature films. I guess I can understand it if an action flick is tied in with toys or action figures from fast food joints. But what I wonder is, if a smart movie is geared for grownups (those over forty or fifty, for example), why wouldn't a studio build an ad campaign aimed at that older demographic, so that audience would flock to see a film? Or does "flocking" stop once you're past a certain age?

...is that person going to be much good for conversation?

This comes after:

Some...simply lack the nerve to suggest a movie choice that involves a departure from groupthink.

Sometimes people just want to, you know...be agreed with. Or agreed-with. Both, probably. That's what movies such as "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" are good for: self-reaffirmation. I asked one friend why he was going to see it. His response was, "Because it's fun. I don't know." I asked him to explain what that meant. He just shrugged.

So, you go see that movie when you want to agree with people; and, more importantly, when you want people to agree with you. Because, frankly, I find no other reason to see it. You don't have to ask thoughtful questions. Or any, actually. Because it's seen as being the "in" thing to see it.

My hypothesis depends on the assumption that a majority of the people who saw this movie would say, "It's awesome!" or, "I know it's bad, but I like it," one of which is sincere and the other of which is obviously not.

We need the movies, 'cause they're movies, and stuff...

I've been a loyal reader since age 19, and, thanks to the laws of the universe, have indeed only been getting older.

My googleplex is not playing anything that I want to see; namely, "Hurt Locker," "(500)Days of Summer," etc.

On the plus side, I still haven't seen "Transformers 2!"

As to your review of "Julie and Julia," it seems a shame that the loving relationships, of which I read in both books that frame the film, are not as much in evidence. I read "Julie and Julia" two years ago, and it inspired me to get "Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Volume 1" as quickly as I could. While I'm definitely yet to cook through the entire book, it's such a resource! Mr. E, I would gladly have sat next to Julia Child on a multi-day trip, and discussed topics as far afield as Moroccan cuisine and Dan Aykroyd's impersonation skills. Last week, I prepared three recipes from the Book of Julia for my mother and uncle, to great success. Argh! Digression!

I read "My Life in France" a few months ago, and, while it wasn't as in-depth about certain things as it could be, I got a very real sense of the love that Julia and Paul shared, and, knowing their personalities, I'm sure that nothing was a cakewalk. I bet they had some great cake along the way, though, if the recipe for the "Reine de Saba" (Queen of Sheba) Chocolate and Almond Cake on page 677 is any indicator. It's sooooooooo good; like a bit of gooey, ganache-lubricated heaven...

The real crime, though, is that you said it doesn't have any great food moments. This cannot be! A movie about cooking every one of Julia Child's, Simone Beck's and Louisette Bertholle's recipes cannot cheat the audience of scenes like, say, the dinner in Stanley Tucci's "Big Night!" Pour la honte! Could it be that, perhaps, the film suffers from the same malady that afflicts pornography? Because, I could definitely envision that happening.

So, I guess that I'll just have to prepare to be disappointed in what I was hoping would be the third star of the film. And, I guess, the spineless husbands. As the pursued white-striped kitty usually says the cartoons, leSigh...

Groupthink drives me crazy, but the submission to its pressure by otherwise independent thinkers drives me crazier. If all such people actually spoke up at the risk of being alienated and labeled "snobs," then everyone else would start getting used to being exposed to independent thinking -- and then become less likely to pressure others into conformity!

I realize that's a ridiculously lofty dream, as at a fundamental level it goes against human nature. But it's precisely why I say what I feel about anything under any and all circumstances -- which includes my opinion of films (as well as my abysmal opinion of Michael Bay as a director), because I am a huge fan of film. I didn't see Transformers 2 because a) I thought the first one was by far the worst film I saw the year it came out; and b) the trailer alone was painful. And I'll tell anyone that, openly and honestly!

You're right. Canada is doing many things right. I guess I just sandwiched it between Alaska and the rest of the states when I said "North".

And yet, every now and again, we'll get something right. My generation responded very well to Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc. I showed a friend of mine Amelie, and she liked it so much that she went out and bought it herself...the very next day.

My best friend has this odd tick. He's an incredibly smart person. Valedictorian in high school, Suma Cum from Penn. Great guy. You know what kind of movies I see with him? Hitman. One Missed Call. Resident Evil. We see other things, agree on some stuff here and there (mutual dislike of Watchmen, The Spirit, almost every horror movie we see), and he once lent me Citizen Kane on VHS, though I declined to watch it at the time, but I've seen his Netflix queue, I've seen what he rates movies, and it's somewhat frightening.

And yet, he really liked The Hurt Locker when we saw it in Philadelphia.

He told me once that he doesn't really like serious movies because so much of what he does in and out of school is serious. He views movies as escapist fun. He doesn't walk into a movie expecting to walk out with some new kernel of hope, knowledge, etc. That's fine. From him, I buy it.

From my other friends, who claim to have liked Transformers 2 but cannot recall a single minute of it, I don't buy a thing. It's odd, because I don't think less of my one friend for really liking the Resident Evil series, but the Transformers types...oy vey.

On a somewhat related note, I think that the passing of John Hughes and the subsequent rush to evaluate his work will show how badly my generation got the shaft. He invented the modern teenager movie, but boy has it been bastardized. Compare and contrast Sex Drive to The Breakfast Club. Guys like Hughes don't come around all that often. We have Smith, Apatow, Greg Motolla, etc., but there are more I Love You Beth Coopers than Adventurelands, and I think that's the way it'll stay.

Mr. Ebert,

You have given me so many movies. I say this to tell you how much I value a good critic. I can't tell you how many movies I'd dismissed out of hand only to see a good review from the entity I call 'The Ebe' (for some reason this makes you more interesting to my friends)

That said, I have to disagree that America is being dumbed down. It seems to me that there have always been smart people and dumb people and that there's no--**predictable**--factor that can really make us smart or make us dumb. Is education abhorrent? Yes. But is the internet changing the world in ways we just can't f**ing predict? Yes. What year did your favorite movie come out? Was there a movie that year that was just as dumb and perhaps as successful as Transformers 2 (which, on the word of a good critic and my previous experiences with Michael Bay movies, I have not seen)? Hasn't there always been smart and dumb?

I was a teenager in the 90's. My overriding opinion of my peer was that they were idiots. They continuously eschewed quality for the latest piece of idiotic crap. And yet there was always...that which was not the idiotic crap. There was always the real thing to seek. And it seems to me that the real thing is amazing in its ability to defy the resistance thrown against it. Who would think that one of the most soulful movies of THIS particular year was a Judd Appatow movie starring Adam Sandler and Seth Rogan? While simultaneously being rife with Tom Cruise penis jokes?

I don't mean to disagree. I just mean to offer hope. The television and the newspaper may not survive these days, but man does the internet just seem to offer so much more (and certainly more of the bad with the more of the good, but what are you gonna do?) I think that there are probably about as many smart kids today as there were when I was a kid and that the good stuff will get to them.

Did John Hughes' death get the wheels turning and prompt you to write this? His preoccupation with youth, the coming of age in the 80's and all that, you know?

Back in the 50's we had James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause" and Marlon Brando in "The Wild One" making life miserable for our "Greatest Generation." In the 60's the infamous "Generation Gap" was epitomized by Archie Bunker. The movie "If" made Malcom McDowell famous even before "A Clockwork Orange" back in the same day--both reductio ad absurdum of generational clashes.

I guess the twain has never met, ever in history. Today I post on any number of internet sites my recollections from decades gone by on issues related to history, politics, science or sports and I am guaranteed to be derided by numerous whippersnappers who delight in ragging on old farts and geezers whom they think are better off dead. The group think mentality is quite obvious in the way they tend to join the feeding frenzy. Yes sir, it often turns into one hilarious put down after another about walking ten miles to school through uphill snowbanks in both directions. Clever kids.

Let's see, the highschoolers should be running this place in about 2050. Lucky I won't be here.

Thing is, I realise that they are presently no crazier and dumber than we were at the same age. Somehow we made up for all our astounding deficiencies... or did we? Hmmm, you look at the crew trying to run congress and maybe I fail to make my case.

I should go back to bed.

Ebert: I learned of his death right after I wrote it. I was surprised and saddened.

Hi Roger,

I'm 19 years old and a proud "film snob," as I have been lovingly dubbed by my friends. I've read your blog for some time but this entry, targeted so directly at my generation, compelled me to comment. I've been trying to figure out recently exactly what it is that separates my taste in movies from so many of my peers.

I am blessed with a group of close friends who have responded positively to my attempts to "convert" them, but I am always surprised at the resiliency of the groupthink mentality. They all, of course, went to go see "Transformers 2," ignoring both my pleas and the fact that most of them didn't even like the original in the first place. Last week, I forced them to come with me to see the wonderful, thoughtful sci-fi flick "Moon" rather than give in to the supposed allure of "G-Force". Afterwards, they praised my taste. I have made sure that everyone I know has heard of "The Hurt Locker," but I already know that several of my friends are again making plans to see "G.I Joe" this weekend.

Many of those my age who trot out to see these CGI blockbusters are intelligent enough to see through the ploys of a marketing campaign. But they go anyway out of a need for communal experience. Years ago, people could turn on the Ed Sullivan Show or I Love Lucy, or listen to the latest Beatles single, and know that half of America was doing the same thing. Many teenagers go to see "Transformers" or "G.I. Joe" just so they definitely have something to talk about with their co-workers and classmates on Monday, even if it is to talk about how disappointing the film was. If a studio distributed and marketed "The Hurt Locker" like they did with "Transformers," I can guarantee it would've been the biggest hit of the summer (perhaps with the exception of "Harry Potter," but HP fans are another subject entirely).

I don't know how to fix this situation; there's a bit too much of the chicken and the egg in the problem. How do you convince the studios to market smaller, well-made, thoughtful films if they don't have the box office numbers to back those decisions up? How do you convince audiences to shift their communal experience away from the blockbusters when the studios use all their resources to play devil's advocate? Critics should act as guides, pushing the audiences in the right direction, but critics all over are either getting laid off or shoved aside in favor of fanboys. I'm afraid I agree with your assertion that a Dark Age of film is coming - I can only hope the situation is cyclical, and Hollywood will soon become too bloated for even millions of groupthinking teenagers to support.

My only problem with your theory is it ignores the effect that the studio release policies have on our abilities to see these films. I live in Jacksonville, FL, the 13th highest populated city in America, and we still have to wait between two weeks and two months before the "little" films like (500) Days of Summer and The Hurt Locker come to our town... then when they come to our town, they play in one theater for one weekend until they are gone again, in favor of the next heavily-promoted big-budget film. I write on my blog constantly encouraging Jacksonville folks to see the small, critically-acclaimed films, but if they only reside for a week in a city as big as mine, and they only arrive well after the initial buzz of reviews by the big-name critics have worn off, then how can Jacksonville even build a hearty arthouse following, so that we can encourage the studios with our numbers to send us indies sooner? It's a Catch-22: until they publicize these films better and get them to more cities sooner, the cities can't build a following for these films, but they won't invest the money in catering these films to us unless we have the following.

It's true that American audiences aren't the smartest (my audience HOWLED at the racist twin robots in Transformers 2, and children cheered the jive-talking guinea pig in G-Force equally), but until studios give the smarter films a consistently bigger and wider-spread push, I don't see how movies like The Hurt Locker or (500) Days of Summer can ever reach a young audience or get matching ticket sales to a film that instantly is placed on 3,000 more screens its opening weekend.

I think Phil is right. We need to start campaigning to get better films instead of whining about bad ones. That's why I'm creating a film society to get independent pictures here so I won't have to constantly ask my dad to drive me three hours to Salt Lake City so I can see "The Hurt Locker" or "Tulpan".
I'm a 12-year-old-boy and I wholeheartedly think that "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is the worst movie ever made. But everybody my age and older loves it, God knows why. I would stop watching movies if it weren't for the occasional masterpieces such as "Rachel Getting Married" and "Being John Malkovich". I'm dreading having to see "G.I. Joe" for the paper on Saturday.
Family films and action movies seem to be the worst pictures these days. Comedies are also failing. If they make another film like "Epic Movie" I'll have a (probably one man) riot in the street. I'm glad I'm a devotee of "SNL" and smart comedies, otherwise I would never laugh.
And in this Dark Age of Cinema, everyone needs a good laugh to drive away the depression of bad movies. At least me.

I can't believe I didn't say this earlier, but, Rest In Peace, John Hughes. I celebrate your gifts to the party, but lament your leaving it as soon as you did. So many great movies, which to youtube...

The only one on Ebert's Great Movies List, of course! "Planes, Trains and Automobiles."

One of my favorite moments, and possibly my favorite line in the movie. Sideways... HEHEHEHEHE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY4tw7egGn0

Wrong way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7v0eth4XAM

"Oh, boy, what!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4CgLRcYN74

"...and a Casio!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvp18xEPPK4

I wanted to be a movie critic really badly when I entered college three years ago. I read all of your Great Movie essays, I would stay up until midnight to read the newest reviews, answer mans, and great movie essays you produced. For an English research class, I argued why film is art, and read Truffaut's original article in Cahier (sp) du Cinema about the auteur theory in addition to Andrew Sarris' article opposing it. I was on the prowl for books by Pauline Kael, by Sarris, trying to voraciously study, read, and watch film.
The fire, though, died in me when my friends and classmates called my search for appreciating and watching great film as pretentious. No one would want to enjoy Fanny and Alexander, or even Ikiru, preferring we rent some dumb comedy or the safe Tarantino movie that is edgy enough but all my friends have heard about. No one wanted to stretch the limits for their love of film, and this was college! A local, independent rental store was a fifteen minute walk away and people avoided it like the plague.
The lack of respect for great films killed the fire I had for any movie critiquing. The collapsing of the newspaper industry didn't help either. Instead of aiming to be the next big critic, instead I'm aiming to doing constitutional law so I can protect the first amendment rights of bloggers. Or environmental law or corporate law so I can still hold on to some ideal that is worth fighting for.
I was absolutely crushed when I let go of my reviewing dream. I still try to see great movies in theaters when I can afford them, or hope they'll come to the second-run movie theater where a ticket is $2.
I would love to write for a special, small audience that'll appreciate my film criticism and my insights into films, but I think of the mountain I have to climb to get to that position, and whether I want to climb that mountain zealously or do it as a hobby, something I carve my free time to trying to accomplish. I wish someone would pay me to do it, but to write all of it for free as a blog, hoping to become the next big thing is something I can't afford to do. Bills need to be paid and food needs to be eaten. If that means I be a lawyer instead of a journalist, so be it.

When I was about 8, I decided to watch all of the best picture winners by borrowing them from the library at the college where my mom worked. This lead to me reading about film in the books at the same library. This lead to me watching a lot of other films (not necessarily oscar winners). When talking about favorite films with my peers (I'm 30, but back in law school, so most of them are around 24-25) I'm amazed at how resistent most are to "taking chances" on movies. I finally got a group of us to go see "In Bruges" last year and everyone loved it. "The Hurt Locker" is my movie of this year....we'll see how successful I am.

What amazes me about my generation and younger is a lack of wanting to be challenged, a lack of curiousity, a lack of willing to be uncomfortable. I'm kept up at nights wondering about "things." I'm currently reading a physics textbook because I had to. I play piano and write songs (not good!) because I have to. I'm training for an Ironman triathlon right now because I have to. There is this nagging motivating "thing" in my head that does not want me to do things that are not productive. This means going to see "The Hurt Locker" rather than Transformers II. I think many more people in your generation had the nagging motivation "thing" that made them curious and pushed them to be challenged by things--even if that challenge made them uncomfortable. I truly think that the lack of willingness to take on a challenge is a large contributing factor to the overall dumbing down of America.

Thanks for the blog and reviews, I love them both!

Ebert: Everyone, and I mean everyone, who has mentioned "The Hurt Locker" in three different threads here has used superlatives. It's a home run.

I'm a teacher and I appreciate the mention of our salaries. It's true that society tends to pay more to what they value....so....Tom Cruise is more important than a good teacher. I teach the heart and not the performance, so it's frustrating to see what some people value.

By the way, thanks for the John Hughes article. He won't only be missed, he will be greatly missed. He really got what it was like to be a teen in the 1980's.

Thanks!

Mister Ebert! Come in! Good to see you! Have a seat. No, not that one. Use the smaller one over there, all right?

Is it "Rodge," or "Roger"? Roger, your day has passed. You and your quaint phrasings, sesquipedalian compositions and antique opinions will not survive the crashing tides of virulent, vital, jejeune Transformers fans already seeping into your nightmares.

You are doomed. Give up. I have an e-coupon here good for 15% off at any suicide parlor, which I will forward if you let me win one of your contests. As for me, I expect to live to be a craggy, cranky old loner with an AK47, trolling for busy schoolyards. Between you and me, I mean to save as many of them as I can from the New World Order, if by somewhat harsh means.

You hear from smart kids (me too) and I was surrounded by 'em for 10 years at my daily coffeeshop breaks -- as a doddering, eccentric old fool with a large mustache. Once I got drunk and stoned with a group of them, nodded off in my lawn chair, and when I next looked up, they'd called an ambulance. They hadn't even bothered to check if I was alive. Yes it's a true story.

So, dumbing down. I keep mentioning Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's book, THE DELIBERATE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA. It apparently sold well in the 90s, and is now available free if you google for it, which I did. Whether she's got commies hiding in her fridge or not, she was head of the U.S. Dept. of Education and the book is a bitch to read because it's one documentation for her case after another. And the fact is, I bet no one here could pass the Kansas Board of Education 8th Grade exam of 1898 that was circulating the 'net awhile ago.

Plus, there's a precedent, the Nazi plan to dumb down the conquered Polish territory.

The thing is, though, the best laid plans o' mice an' men oft gang aglay. The intent behind that sort of thing is supposedly to make people obedient. But you can't really dumb anybody down. You can certainly bore the hell out of them on purpose - that's what county board meetings and congress do to minimalize the opposition.
Such a psychology, applied by a cynical government education system, is already backfiring 6000 different ways, if that's what they're up to.

But I tend to think it's something other than a secret plan to zombify our children to do the bidding of bony-fingered hooded types out to enslave mankind. I think we're seeing the work of thousands of people making themselves look as busy as they can, coming up with one addle-pated educational theory after another to keep their jobs, make political connections for more pay and feel important.

We look at combed marketing data every time we think we need to know how a trend will go. What we're looking at is combed data produced largely by low-paid employees who'll jiggle the statistics anticipating what the client wants to hear, in hopes of keeping their jobs. They don't need to be told to do that, they make the guess. The younger they are, the less they mind being dishonest about it.

"We throw out 60% of the data and we're not telling our clients we're doing that," confessed an analyst named Anthony to me once, at a big research company in Berkeley, CA. As those long interview questionnaires cost their clients about $1500 each, the theft amounted to millions. But the remaining 40% pleased them with how close to their expectations the scientific plus-or-minus four-percent results were. (It so happened I later bumped into a PG&E publicity man and imparted that sentence to him. The following year they saved themselves $6M by no longer requiring the marketing company's services. Tee, hee hee.)

I've got a book here by a retired ad exec from Ogilvy & Mather and other famous ad companies. Concidentally, my nearest neighbor also worked for them. Both have one really amusing story after another about how deceptive these marketers are. I find it believable from having been a copywriter myself, years back. The fraudulent stats you're going to get in the entertainment industry in general are much worse.

The best fable you'll read about the whole thing is Vonnegut's story about "Shazzbutter" in BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS.

Incidentally, the ad exec is suing his present ex-employer for age discrimination. Part of the corporate malaise everywhere is to hire kids because they'll work cheap, besides bowing to the fading myth of Youth Culture. It's a malaise because they also work much stupider. Lots of corporations are losing their shirts for it.

Pray tell Roger where do these little kids get the money for these increasingly expensive movies? Paper routes every one? I didn't see any gaggle of independent pre-teens either time I stepped in to watch a little of that Transformers flick, or even teens. I saw twenty and thirtysomethings and some parents with their kids. I always study the audience, an old habit. That's what I've seen with every blockbuster kid-movie I've ever looked in on.

People take their kids to movies as a mollification, a treat, or an excuse to see it (as I did) and who is footing the bill for it?

So, what is this "24-54" demographic s'posed to mean? Did I step into the only multiplex in the United States where it wasn't packed with teens and preteens? A lot of the letters you got praising the film were from thirtysomethings, the group who grew up with those toys. The obvious kids who called you names and such were just teenie trolls who get a hoot out of riling up an old man. They're not angry, they think it's very funny. You should see some of the abuse I get. But they're just playing, I know it, and I'll play along. I also routinely get full-length novels from teens age 13-21.

Do you remember when "The Gods Must Be Crazy" came out? A little art theater up the street from me had lines out in front of it for two years. "Hurt Locker" hasn't showed up here yet, which is strange, as this is an entirely artsy town, but if it's got the staying power I've heard it has, they'll make plenty.

Know ye not that Slim Whitman outsold the Beatles? And for that matter, Metallica, whose documentary you reviewed, also came from nowhere so far as the Mighty Mass Media was concerned. Right up out of a groundswell where no record company had tread. They wound up in Madison Square Garden that way.

And of course you remember the story of Pia Zadora. Half a billion dollars invested, and she finally got an ad selling Serta mattresses. This was not new. Who was Marion Davies?

We're looking at people putting up all kinds of sciency-sounding stats about trends, none of whom take people's enthusiasm into account in the primary way it's ever meant. Half a billion dollars won't turn a turkey into a hit.

Apart from your review of "Funny People," I read another that said this signaled the end of Judd Apatow. Well, "Funny People" was number one at the box office this week. Hopefully, this was based on nothing but the receipts. The theater was almost full when I saw it on a Wednesday night. Which marketing geniuses made that happen?

What's going on in Hollywood, I hear from Catt's old friends still slaving away, happened to the music biz. They overextended and outsmarted themselves with statistics and corporate smartness. Did you notice 100 William Morris Hollywood agents were dumped a few weeks ago? The grunts, the sound people, technicians et al, are also being trimmed, some have simply quit for their sanity, and the rest are working heart-attack hours. Yup, some have died of overwork.

This doesn't sound like you've got all that much to worry about, unless you're planning a new career in an editing hothouse. But if you slack off this good writin' you do, I can't guarantee your priveleged position in our company forever, Mr. Ebert. Kindly close the door on your way out, won't you? Thank you. Click. Miss Cherrybottom, bring me my nitroglycerine pills.

I remember a comment here at your blog, on an entry about "free range children", it was a blunt statement: "ah... the lament of the baby bloomer". It was silly and I never believed it, but it made me wonder how quickly did you dismissed it.

I have a theory, you see, about "intelligent" people. They're happy as long as they're surrounded by intelligent people, and once they're out of their element, they lose it. Simple, isn't it? Now hang on with me for a second; what I mean is, I've met a lot of smart people in my time (I've been that lucky) and it happens every now and then: they find out that people out of their circle of friends don't like good movies, good music, good literature, etc, and they get a little pissy. It's not really that they didn't know that fact about "other" people, it's more like they suddenly have to deal with it, and they hate it. Like when they get a new job, or they move out of town, or they change colleges, or neighborhoods... Of course they're not blind or dumb (they're smart), they do remember public high school: it sucked; they remember their not-so-bright relatives: it was awkward; they remember complaining about transformers to the wrong audience: you know about that. They simply took too long of a break from all that.

Long time ago now, I asked myself a question and started the countdown: How long will Roger will survive in contact with the internet before giving up to disenchantment? Will he be able to take it? Does he have that sort of heroic guts?

Of course, I never even knew if it meant any difference to you, you might be used to a sort of hate and stupidity, like fanboy stupidity... but INTERNET hate and stupidity? anonymous,ill written, poorly thought, drive-by stupidity. How are you doing it man?

This all connects with the matter at hand because I simply don't believe it. I don't believe people are in any way dumber now than back in your day. I am convinced. And I actually believe this is your day. Your children, and nephews and young friends day. All the kids day.

What? bad education is new? bad teachers are new? peer pressure is new? elitism is new? lack of interest in art is new? Could it be that you are just now noticing it vividly? maybe for the first time in a long time?

I read your blog entry and I'm puzzled, I really am. I can make silly theories but I really have no idea. What takes to make a good man lose faith in the new generation? I wonder, is he really in contact with all the sides of it? or is he just keeping his thumb in the internet's pulse? What could it be?

I love you, man, like in a non sexual but totally dirty literary infatuation. But I can't believe you're saying a Dark Age will come because kids are not thinking as good as they used to. I can't believe you believe it from the heart.

You see, Mr. Ebert, I do not think the phenomenon you just described is a process exclusive to the United States of America. I am of the opinion that western post-modernity has generated a culture that is at the same time imbecile, self-centred and shallow. I agree entirely with the Adorno's thesis that the "massification" of culture, the transformation of art into a commodity, a product, is slowly destroying the cultural bases upon which art itself blossomed.

Anyway, I've reading your journal for quite a long a time and it's always an enriching experience. Greetings from Brazil.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I really enjoyed this latest article, particularly the part about how mass-media campaigns virtually guarantee box-office success. I've seen a lot of films, including Transformers 2, that didn't deserve all that money. I also agree that a lot of younger Americans my age (I'm 23) aren't as adventurous as they should be in choosing movies. But I wonder: Do younger Americans lack curiosity or are they afraid of leaving that comfortable bubble called "group think"?

You are absolutely correct in recognizing this sad social trend. Part of the problem is distributing, it is often difficult to find theaters playing the movies that need to be seen most. But this is unfortunately a reflection of popular interest. I have started studying film recently (u of i!) and have been amazed to find that it is such an incredibly accurate indicator of a society's values. Someday the film students of the future will look back on this era and see a cinema of instant-gratification, but that's being optimistic.

Despite the crap that Hollywood has thrown at us (the younger generation) this summer, movies like "The Hurt Locker," "Moon," and "500 Days of Summer" have nearly redeemed it. These are some fantastic films. I feel that after viewing them and appreciating them that I have an obligation to help them out.

How can I help out?

p.s. to the youth who worry about pressure and judgement from their peers concerning cinematic taste, I present this advice (I think it is Roger's too): these people are not your friends!

I don't blame the schools... much. School has always been the bastion of morons and a place where intellect is punished. I don't believe that any child's personality was ever formed at a school. Mine sure as hell wasn't. Beaten down maybe, but not formed. I spent most of my time finding more and more intricate ways of skipping class anyway.

What I blame most is kids entertainment since it's the TV that raises your average child nowadays. (I've long given up hope that parents might wake up and stop treating father/motherhood as if it consists solely of being the entertainment director for a small daycare. These people are so useless that I genuinely think the TV is a better role model.) Anyway, look at what kids watch: It's this soft, soulless, unchallenging, unintelligent drivel. Movies like "UP!" aside, most kids stuff is barely more sophisticated than shiny things and bright colors flashing on the screen. There's no subtletly, no winks at adults, no complexity, no humanity at all. We've sanitized everything that touches children to such an extent that we've raised an entire generation of emotional and intellectual zombies that don't seem to understand anything about other humans. So obsessed are we with removing sadness and dissapointment from our children's live that we've forgotten that these are the foundation of humanity and empathy. It's the hurt and anguish of childhood that makes us human. Remove that from a child's life and you remove his humanity. All these life lessons are like the chicken pox, if you don't get them when you're young it's going to almost kill you when you're an adult.

You want to see how emotionally stunted the average moviegoer is? Just look at the Transformers and GI Joe movies. They're aimed at the teenager and young adult crowd right? Well, am I crazy or are those franchises based on 80's era CHILDRENS entertainment? What's next? A "Jem and The Holograms" movie? What about the future summer blockbusters? Can "Teletubbies: The Movie" be far behind? Is this all that 18 year olds can handle?

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a lot of smart kids out there, but a lot of them desperately need to be allowed to have their heart broken. You can't grow up any other way.

I'm not ready to proclaim the "dumbing-down" as a definite trend. I'm 21, so I guess I'm in the thick of it, but, while I've thought this summer has made for pretty lousy movie-going, just last year, I was loving almost everything I went to go see. I thought Speed Racer, Kung-Fu Panda, The Dark Knight, Wall-E, Iron Man, and The Hulk were all excellent. They didn't compromise creatively and in the cases which had source material, I thought they did a wonderfully reverent job of capturing the original. Those movies all found mainstream success. So, unless we're talking about this trend becoming especially pronounced just this year, then I'm not ready to acknowledge it.

I think Speed Racer is an excellent example of this disconnect you mentioned between audiences and critics. Most of the time, when flashy movies like that come out and it creates camps like Transformers or G.I. Joe will, I tend to side with critics. I'd love to see a respectable Transformers film. It's somewhere buried in the source material if only the filmmakers would do their homework.

Anyway, Speed Racer. The critics, for the most part, didn't like it. It has a 36% on RT, with the general Consensus being "The Wachowski Brothers have overloaded Speed Racer with headache-inducing special effects, and neglected to develop a coherent storyline."

I will never understand that complaint about that film as long as I live. I thought the visual style was extremely different from anything I'd ever seen and I loved the vibrant color palette. The performances were all great and, for a kids movie, the story had a very intricate, winding structure, which I've come to appreciate more with each new viewing. Not to mention the way it manages to take almost every single ridiculous aspect of the original cartoon and include it all while still maintaining a plot which, to me, was compelling and dramatic.

The point is, I think my generation, for most part, senses an irreconcilable disconnect between the lens through which they view films and the one which the typical newspaper critic views them. With some of the outrageous claims which get printed (such as my local paper, The Columbus Dispatch, giving Steam Boy a bad review because it was "historically inaccurate"), I can see why many are turned off. Why spend the time absorbing someone else' opinion when they don't seem to live on the same planet?

With you, though, even when I disagree with what you've written, I can usually see where you're coming from. I wish more critics would make these substantial arguments.
-Sean

Roger, this is yet another incredible article. Let me share a story, if you don't mind.

I am eighteen years old, and in a few weeks, I will be departing from Austin, Texas - where I have resided my whole life - to New York City, where I will be attending New York University's Tisch School of the Arts as a film major.

When I was eleven years old, I began reading Roger's reviews. I quickly became a staple of Ebert & Roeper, setting my VCR to record the program every Saturday night. And his reviews became an indelible part of my life. I remember breathlessly reading his four-star review of "Changing Lanes" in April 2002, a film I was eagerly anticipating, and rejoicing in the fact that Roger thought it was a great film. I knew if he loved it, I was certain to, as well. When I saw the film that night, I was incredibly moved. Roger was right, as always.

Roger became one of the largest parts of my childhood. I took friends to see films I knew they would never experience otherwise - I can remember dragging twelve year-old friends to "City of God," "Owning Mahoney," "Raising Victor Vargas," and "Nowhere in Africa," among others. I can thank another person for all of these wonderful film experiences - my mother. She at first reasonably objected to taking me to so many R-rated films, but she learned quickly - many times from Roger's reviews - that at eleven years old I was ready to watch "Nashville" or "Raging Bull," and appreciate the film differently from most.

A few months before I turned twelve, I began writing weekly film reviews for The West Austin News in April 2002. Only weeks later, my father died from alcoholism. As someone so young, I believe I ran from the unbearable pain by immersing myself in film more than ever. And if anything, Roger taught me in his reviews that film is as healing a medium as any therapy.

I eventually bookmarked every "list" I could find from Roger and Gene Siskel. I religiously watched my way through the Great movies, and studied his list (as well as Siskel's) of the best films of the 1980s and 1990s. As a 'film critic,' I was invited to advance press screenings from the major studios, and so often times i published my review for the paper a few days before I would be able to read Roger's review. During that time period, I would pray that he would agree with me (my first official press screening was for "Adaptation" - I thought it was one of the best films of the year, and I hoped Roger would agree, and he did).

I bought every Ebert book I could find, and read them all multiple times - The Great Movies, Your Movie Sucks, Video Companions from every year, etc. When he and I disagreed, it was only slight. And in the process I was able to take friends to 70 MM screenings of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Lawrence of Arabia" at the Paramount Theatre downtown. All thanks to Roger.

I continued writing for The West Austin News for two years, and then began writing in August 2004 as the film columnist for Austin Family Magazine, where I still write a monthly column. I began my own website for film criticism, jackkysermoviereviewsandmore.com, which I sadly rarely update these days (it is interesting to watch my writing style grow from 2002 reviews to the present - my review of "Gangs of New York," for example, is pathetic next to my review of "No Country for Old Men").

In short, he changed my life. It was articles such as this that turned my love for cinema into a real passion. And at eighteen years old (almost nineteen), I come to this blog every day and agree with everything he says (and, I should note, that there are about two-hundred film freshman joining me at Tisch this fall, and we are all currently watching our way through an Essential Viewing List which, thanks to you, doesn't have too many unfamiliar titles).

I agree with everything in this article, but I'm hopeful. I haven't seen a "Transformers" movie to date. Did I get chastised in high school? Sure, but my revenge was taking people to interesting films. Some didn't care, and some did - I have a friend who now has a painting of Martin Scorsese in his bedroom, and he once only watched James Bond movies. So, just as I might have introduced them to something new, Roger introduced me to great film. Thank you, and may many more younger people follow in the same path.

Roger (Or Mr.Ebert, I cannot imagine addressing you as 'Roger' in a real life encounter), I have seen both 'The Hurt Locker' and 'Transformers 2', I am 18.

I feel you make several valid points. Particularily in regards to attention span. In playing a card game like Euchre with my family, it is often common to see participants texting throughout the entire game, often leading to confusion about tricks/trump/score, etc, making the game a burden in some circumstances.

The constant need for screens in my generation has made me coin the phrase 'Generation S', s for screen. The teens and 20 somethings need and crave screens via cell phones and the computer. This translates into film and pop culture. The current generation watches films that grab their eyeballs on the TV or computer. Explosions, violence and the promise of nudity lure in the teens, and, for the film industry, money.

Movies like 'The Hurt Locker' do not use these tactics to gain audience members. 'The Hurt Locker' must rely on a leap of faith by movie goers. They do not know what they are getting, so they are less likely to watch, let alone spend money, on a film they know nothing about. Against the Transformers' Trailer, does 'The Hurt Locker' look as interesting? Instant gratification attracts teens, we are visual creatures after all. I would even suggest that the trailer could have been the death of quality cinema.

People become more conditioned to 'wow' (explosions mostly), so it must be cranked higher and higher to gain the attention of the audience. The expansion of 'wow' forces the contraction of things such as quality of writing, plot, and character development. And why should a film maker or studio focus on these things? Personal or professional incentive? Screw quality, the studios and writers want money, character development be damned.

Additionally, the contraction of technical quality dumbs down America by allowing the audience to turn off their brain when watching a film. Instead of thought, it is about ease of viewing and consumability. People don't want to think. When asked why someone likes a particular film, the reasoning is generally less about reason, and more about feeling. People 'feel' about a film. No thought. And, because a feeling is much harder to attack then a argument based on specific reasons, a person can hide behind the veil of feeling.

In the end, good cinema will still sell, it just has to be packaged right. 'Iron Man' and 'The Dark Knight' are examples of quality film that appealed to the masses. Neither are an 'Apocalypse Now', a personal favorite, but both still represent quality cinema that can provoke thought.

Ebert: "Generation S." Yes. I'm going start using that.

Whatever you said, Rog, everything, it's right. I've started a column on a blogsite (mt HTML skills are lacking at the moment, a computer class might help). The column is pretty much like your great movies section. From the Vault, it's called. Right now only a few movies are up there but I got hundreds of reviews I've written that I'm going to put up as soon as I edit them properly.

For me, I love movies. Mostly classic and foreign films (since I feel that some new films leave me in the dark). I saw The Hurt Locker, but wouldn't dare say it's the best American movie out there right now...I reserve that right for 500 Days of Summer, which I positively loved like no other film in recent memory. But I do have friends that I think are just simple minded. They want to be filmmakers (well, one just wants to be an editor), and the love everything Hollywood feeds them...almost. To them, Speed Racer was the best movie last year. This year their favorite is Transformers...and no doubt they'll love G.I. Joe. They're favorite filmmaker of all time is Michael Bay (and no, that's not an exaggeration or anything, they REALLY love him) and anything that has the remotest special effect is at least a high grade movie (they'll defend Superman Returns to this day, and I shoot them down with why they're wrong). I love my friends, they're awesome and always there for me, but I really don't like their taste in movies. I've tried to get them to see other movies (at least they had good things to say about The Hurt Locker, thank god) but I suppose they'll like what they'll like. I once talked to one of them and was analyzing Casablanca. He told me that he didn't see the big deal of the movie and that it was slow and boring. At that point I knew I lost him. For a person to say Casablanca is slow and boring but to hail Speed Racer or Trasnformers as one of the best movies he's ever seen...either he's crazy or he's secretly a 7 year old in a grown up body.

Sometimes I don't know what to do. I'll always have my Raoul Walsh, Murnau, Herzog, Cukor, and John Ford flicks. I just wished I could get more people interested in seeing them as I am in watching these legendary great movies by these fantastic filmmakers! HELP!!!

Roger, I replied yesterday to someone on Jim Emerson's blog who asked (rhetorically) if we were entering a cultural Dark Age. And his reason for noticing that we were entering a Dark Age was that people were talking at the movies. And I pointed out that that should not have been his first indication.

Here I have to do something similar - we're several decades deep now into a cultural Dark Age, such as we've not had since - well, since I guess The Dark Ages - and you're asking if film criticism of all things is entering a Dark Age. I got news for you. Love your writing though I do, and that of many other film critics, your entire art has existed in a cultural Dark Age. And so have most films. The very notion that criticism IS art is a dark age thing. And so on. So I'm saying there are far greater problems. Now relatively speaking, of course, film is a great art and good film criticism is valuable. But we need to take a big picture view here.

And you shouldn't backtrack on your shot at video games and the people who play them. Take as many as you possibly can. These are some of the propagators/victims of the cultural dead zone we're in right now and will probably remain in until well after you and me are both dead. Don't be mean to the people, but never pass up an opportunity to speak the truth about what they enjoy and how they live and the implications and ramifications of it. Because it's not just their business. It's ruined it for all of us. Only so many of us can hide in a library and pretend this culture isn't real (and even that wouldn't work, since libraries are now middlebrow places where people surf the internet, borrow movies, and so on - there's no haven for a cultured person but the company of other cultured people).

I would like to say, Roger, that I too am one of the poor unfortunate teenagers who has become ostricized from his peers for prefering "Days of Heaven" to "Transformers", and for being able to pronounce the full French title of Godard's "Alphaville", but I think that I would end up also becoming a cliche, the flip side to the confederacy of dunces around me. I feel very forunate to live in a major city in Canada (Vancouver), and to be exposed to movies I wouldn't be able to see anywhere else. While far from perfect, the Canadian rating system is a definite step up from our degenerate MPAA counterparts. Instead of having G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 as in the United States, films here are rated G, PG, 14A, 18A and R, with anyone 14 and over eligible to see 14A movies and similarily for 18A pictures. Our R is basically equivilent to NC-17. This difference in our ratings system is quite a blessing when it comes to films such as The Hurt Locker, which here is only rated 14A. As a result, the film is available to a far wider audience than with the standard American R rating. I've even managed to convince my friends to see it. So, as per your problem Sean, feel free to make a quick trip up north and see a showing of The Hurt Locker. Just don't expect the people here to be any smarter.

Your comment above about the fact that realistic violence gets a movie an R rating while a movie containing fantasy or science fiction violence gets a PG-13 rating reminded me of something filmmaker Kevin Smith said in Kirby Dick's documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." Smith said that a more rational way to do it would be to make bloodless violence and murder R-rated and realistic violence PG because only adults can handle the fictional idea that murder and violence don't have consequences.

I agree with everything you have said here. I'm 23, I'm in college and I worked at Blockbuster for 2 years and I complain about the same things on a regular basis. Everyday at work I would see customers only looking at the new release wall and only picking the biggest, newest titles. Most did not even take a glance at the "older" movies in the middle of the store. Some people would just leave without anything claiming they had seen everything in the store. Now, I know Blockbuster leaves something to be desired in it's movie selection but still, it does contain a lot of excellent movies in it's non-new release section and I refused to believe that these people had seen a lot of the great movies we had to offer. So I would call them out on it and show them some of our "older" movies. They had not seen Notorious. They had not seen Seven Samurai, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, The Last Picture Show, The Great Escape, The Bridge On The River Kwai, Network, etc. And do you know what their response was when I recommended these titles? "But aren't those old movies?" And this happened on a regular basis and not just with teenagers and my generation but people in their 30s and 40s. Point being, I'm bothered that so many people have come to think that older equals boring or bad. I think that goes hand in hand with what you are saying about modern movie goers not wanting to think or exercise their brains. They want to be entertained only, but not entertained for too long or they will start to complain about length after 2 hours or so.

As far as new movies go, about a week and a half ago, I drove 3 hours (6 hours roundtrip) to spend a day at the nearest (literally) theater where I could go see movies that weren't that week's biggest money makers. I watched The Hurt Locker, (500) Days of Summer and Moon. I came home raving about The Hurt Locker and most everyone had no idea what movie I was talking about. Most people even ridiculed me, saying I wasted my money and gas on movies. They were wrong.

So I identify with what you are saying and I hope that the trend turns around but sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. I do my best everyday to provide my friends and family with movie recommendations that will expand their minds and make them step outside of their comfort zone with movies. I appreciate you fighting the good fight too and not being afraid to say things like, "But think about it. Wouldn't you expect a critic to be more highly evolved in taste than a fanboy zealot?" and "And what about your date this Friday night? If he or she only wants to see the movie "everyone" is going to see, is that person going to be much good for conversation?" I think you are dead on.

Great post Roger. Unfortunately it is also pretty spot on. Its not that kids are are any less intelligent these days, rather I think the general idea is that its "cool" NOT to be intelligent. If you express a different albeit intelligent viewpoint, you are a weirdo. What really concerns me is that no one seems to question anything anymore, no one seems to have a curiousity about anything outside the norm that society says you should like. I often wonder if some of my friends even want to see the new Transformers movie (or whatever candy colored action flick has recently opened) or if they are simply following what they believe others want to see. I'm probably shorting some of them, but thats just the impression I get. I believe technology is partly to blame; people spend so much time texting their friends or planning for the next weekend that they forget to live in the moment, they never take more than a few seconds to really think about something, anything really, just for the heck of it. You know what I mean? Perhaps that kind of lifestyle lends itself to an affinity for action flicks that require only a 2 second attention span. This blog gives me hope for the future though.

On a side note, I haven't seen the Hurt Locker because I'm a broke college kid, and I spent all my money for moviegoing on seeing Up twice!

I am always fascinated by discussions of how the 'younger generations' are going to ruin America. I remember hearing it when I was a teenager in the 80's. Our fashion choices(Madonna) were drawing unbelievable stares from older folks. Our choices in movies made critics gasp. Well, hearing about John Hughes passing away made me realize that we have survived and grown up. And now, WE get to complain about the movies kids are seeing these days. But then, through my eyes, a lot of movies coming out now really are horrible. When I was a teenager, I loved movies such as: "Ghostbusters", "Star Treks 2-4", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Poltergeist", and "Return of the Jedi." And also "Fletch" and "The Goonies" which weren't really favorites of anyone over the age of 20 at that time. As a teenager, would you really expect me to pay my $3.50(at that time) to see "Into the Night" ,"Once Upon a Time In America", "Amadeus", "Chariots of Fire", "The Four Seasons", or "Platoon"? Well, I did, and so did some of my friends, but it wasn't a usual thing. I was too young to understand and appreciate "Full Metal Jacket" when it first came out, but I sure could enjoy "Commando" and "Predator."

Current movies, such as "Transformers 2" are not ones I would want to waste time seeing. But I did see "Terminator: Salvation" and "Star Trek" and felt both were unnecessary movies. Even reading the reviews of "Terminator: Salvation" couldn't deter me from seeing it, and the reviews of "Star Trek" encouraged me to see it. I doubt there are many teen boys today that after seeing "GI Joe" are going to want to see "500 Days of Summer." Just like after seeing "E.T.", I wasn't making plans to see "Gandhi." So, as much as I do believe that the teens of today are numb, glossy-eyed self involved punks, I think adults 25 years ago were saying the same thing about my generation.

And now for really feeling old...hearing that there is going to be a remake of one of my favorite movies: "The Karate Kid." Yikes! How can I be old enough to be seeing a remake of a movie from my youth??

Chad

It's almost impossible to understand how difficult it is to get anyone to watch "subtitled films" without attempting to adapt a couple of such movies for the school play. This year someone suggested we do Seven Samurai because it has quite a bit of action, will let us try several things with sound and lighting, will let us try an incredibly difficult adaptation and is complex as well as entertaining. Everyone was extremely enthusiastic about the story, the roles, everything. Well, that is until the person happened to mention that the movie was in Japanese. The interest waned faster than ammonia dissolves in water. And now the handful of us still interested are slugging through an adaptation that includes translation, editing and re-writing. Of course, we could do something easier eventually but why bother? I'd rather fail grandly than to succeed mildly at stuff like this.

P.S. Do you think if we adapted Magnificent Seven it would help or does the movie strip away too many layers from the Seven Samurai plot?

Roger, I agree with most of your post, about how young Americans in general have lost interest in quality cinema, and have instead opted for escapist CGI thrills. However, as a 16 year old, I would LOVE to go see The Hurt Locker, (500) Days of Summer, or Moon, but I simply can't. First of all, there's a problem with the ratings. If these films were rated PG-13 instead of R (and I'm not saying from an artistic standpoint they should be), they would surely have more box office potential, and they would more likely than nought be distributed more widely, and younger audiences would have greater incentive to see them (why drive an hour to see (500) Days when I could see The Ugly Truth in my hometown?). This would encourage studios to fund and distribute higher quality films. The reason movies like Transformers dominate the box office is because they pander to younger audiences. I'm not saying films like The Hurt Locker or Moon should pander, but just that they should keep younger audiences in mind on the cutting room floor.

Dear Rog,

all hope is not lost. I run a film club at my university where I teach here in China. In our last session before the semester ended I decided to indulge the students and allowed them to choose whatever movie it was that they wanted to view (knowing fully well that considering the club is heavily patroned by female students, it would invariably be a romantic comedy). They choose the man in the moon. It was a movie I had never seen before (but one that they were familiar with)starring a very young Reese Witherspoon in a beautiful and revelatory performance. Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised.
Even thought this summer the theatresin Beijing have been sold out with showings of transformers 2, but at the same time I still found myself standing in line to buy tickets for sold out screenings of Wong kar wai's "Ashes of time". All hope is not lost

Ebert: Judging by comments in this thread from China, Mexico, Brazil, Germany and India, this generational observation may be global.

Hi Roger,

This is the first time I've ever commented online like this, but your review touched a nerve. Being a 22-year old myself, I have to agree with you about the sad state my generation is in. (And don't get me started about the one coming after me!)
I work in a public library, in Vancouver, Canada. The reading level of children when I was growing up, say age 8, was the expectation that you could read a novel. Do you know what the national reading level for an 8 year old is now? It's "readers." In other words, Dick and Jane, See Spot Run kind of stuff. I guess we really are getting "dumbed down."
I saw the Hurt Locker and was spellbound. Wonderful, layered characters. Not a stereotype to be seen. I saw it with a friend of mine (same age) in a pretty much full house (at a main theatre.) I felt pretty good, thinking that our little group of an audience had just seen a great film. As we walked out, we mingled with the emptying theatre across from us...the Transformers crowd. Hands waving in the air, talking about how great a movie it was. Sigh. Oh well. One good thing is that I've pushed everyone I know to go see the Hurt Locker, and those who listened couldn't stop talking about it. So maybe there's hope after all?

Roger, I worked for many years behind the counter of a video store, which was a great job for me because I love movies. But what wasn't so great was the almost daily disappointment of customer interactions that reminded me just how poor the average movie watcher's tastes are and how narrow-minded they can be. You can be sure that Anaconda was a top renter, but Groundhog Day (I was more than once informed) was "stupid" because, and I quote, "it's just the same thing over and over and over." Black and white movies sat on the shelves, collecting dust. Subtitled movies? Forgetaboutit. I received at least one negative customer review of Pulp Fiction dismissing the movie as unwatchable because of its non-linear storyline. An incensed lady one day phoned the store and proceeded to call down fire and brimstone upon me for renting her a "porno." Since our store did not rent porn videos I was confused and suggested that she must be mistaken. After treating me to another goodly dose of righteous indignation she finally identified Boogie Nights as the offending film. My incredulous response and gentle explanation that though the movie is certainly concerned with the porn industry it is by no means a "porno" didn't seem to douse her holy fire. To this day I wonder what the hell she thought she was getting when she rented the movie. Did she read the synopsis on the back of the box? Did she check the rating? And then perhaps my most forehead-smacking encounter involved an angry mother who had rented Starship Troopers (Rated R, as you know) for her 8 year old son. Can you guess what she was angry about? Actually, if you said the buckets of gore and ultra-violence -- sorry but no cigar. She was horrified that her 8 year old son was exposed to a co-ed shower sequence that showed bare female breasts.

All that by way of saying -- I agree with you Roger. And this "dumbing down" does seem to be getting worse. But man, it's nothing new.

I was reminded of that old video store job when I rented The Orphanage last year. The kid behind the counter said, "You know this is in Spanish, right?" He sounded a bit gun-shy, like he'd already dealt with about a dozen angry, no-subtitle-reading Joe Publics and so had recently instituted a new preemptive policy of full disclosure in an effort to save himself some grief. I felt his pain. I just smiled and said, "Yep." We probably could've stood there and swapped war stories, but I didn't want to hold up the line. The gentleman behind me had a date with Michael Bay.

I was so glad when my theater started showing The Hurt Locker. Over my last few shifts at the theater, I've talked with a lot of people seeing it. Most people have been in their 40s or 50s and I have seen very few teenagers. It's really frustrating seeing the hype that all my friends had for Transformers and then a great movie being ignored. Harrumph!

I am conflicted about this. I'm 25 and must be anomaly. Heavy in drama dept and on varsity basketball in high school. As was my best friend. Our high school parties usually involved movies and discussion. A great Friday night for us was gathering our friends together and watching Orson Welles' version of "Othello." There were plenty of stupid people then, just as there are now. But I also have to believe that there are others like me. They've found your blog, just as I found your show and site as a high schooler and eagerly awaited new reviews.

My conflicted feelings also stem from the fact that the newfound availability of film equipment to just about everyone means a few more good, maybe even great, filmmakers have a voice who wouldn't have... and a whole lot more idiots have a louder voice too. Movies don't stick around much these days. Does anyone even remember that "Wolverine," "Night at the Museum 2," "Terminator: Salvation," and "Angels and Demons" were all released barely 3 months ago? And they all made well over $100 million. Studios spend more and more money for a quicker, cheaper, more fleeting thrill. I can't help but feeling like those movies share just as much blame as "Transformers." And I hate "Wolverine" most of all and kinda liked "Terminator." I worry that this generation of films will have fewer pronounced "classics" than previous generations. When was the last time a film stayed in town for 15 weeks? Even 10 weeks? Hell... 5 weeks? Those movies became part of the fabric of the communities in which they were shown. Standing in line must have been long and boring, but it also built up an anticipation. Now, showings start every 30 minutes. Very convenient. No one has to wait and no one has a chance to wonder about what they're about to see. Too many commercials and pre-movie advertisements and cell phones and people texting up until the very moment the movie begins. I think what we need is some stillness before our eyes before we see a movie. I doubt the marketing people would agree.

So... that's one side. Another is that some big budget movies really delivered - "Up" and "Star Trek" and "Harry Potter" leap to mind as great entertainments. Last year's "The Dark Knight" and "Ironman" both got 4 stars and made over $300 million apiece. But do most people differentiate? Do they care about the artistry or just the escapism? Did the good movies make money because they were good or because they were big, and if the answer is because they are big then why should a studio put in the extra effort of making a good movie? Perhaps the issue is not the budget of the film but people's perception of what a film should do. Maybe they don't see a MOVIE as anything but a way to pass the time? Big, exciting, fun... easy. I think the latter-most adjective is the key.

And still I'm conflicted. Didn't that modestly budgeted comedy "The Hangover" make $250 million? So... what happened there? It's genuinely funny! Didn't the lame-brained "Land of the Lost" and "Year One" completely flop? They had just as much marketing behind them as the others. Critics hated them, and people seemed to stay away, they could smell the marketing campaign's desperation to sell them. And what about Judd Apatow? 10 yrs ago, his movies would never have been made, much less become outrageously successful. So, I can't think people are totally stupid.

Finally, aren't we seeing more small gems being made and getting some sort of distribution? Look at 2007's "Once" for example. Look at the movies from this year - "Moon," "Away We Go," "The Hurt Locker," "(500) Days of Summer," "Whatever Works" (which didn't, by the by)... and smaller ones too, I'm sure. They don't make nearly as much money, but they make enough to keep getting made, to the point, even, that there has become a type of packaged indie film. Even indie movies have become formulaic, so that it might just be the big budget effects movies who are taking bigger chances. Well, some of them.

I don't know, there seem to be some reasons of hope in the midst of despair. And isn't that kinda the way it's always been?

It seems to me that this dumbing down effect is happening at earlier ages. Some kids movies are so innocuous, it's as if the studios are under the impression that kids in general aren't mature or smart enough to handle something more complex and engaging. I recently had to sit through Aliens in the Attic, a film I felt had no ambition other than to turn kids' minds into mush. What infuriated me was a blurb on some movie blog describing it as the "perfect children's movie." This got me thinking: The Wizard of Oz has been beloved for generations, as have Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Pinocchio, and I'm pretty sure newer films like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone will be remembered for years to come. These movies, so far as I'm concerned, do much more to stimulate young imaginations than a sterile romp about tiny green aliens, mean and resourceful kids, and clueless adults. No wonder younger crowds won't go to see The Hurt Locker: They grew up on mindless films and know nothing else.

Hi Roger,

I think "The Hurt Locker" deserves to be 'R' but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a high school field trip movie.

I do know that the word of mouth is strong. I have recommended it myself about twenty times already. I haven't been so overwhelmed by a film in a while. I saw it with my brother, my mom and my grandpa and afterwards I snuck away and hid in a vacant theatre to try to collect myself, get some tears out, take some breaths, basically just hold me head in my hands. I thought I might be okay after a while but film is so powerful that the moment I walked out into the sunny street again I was a wreck. You can tell yourself to calm down, try to think about stupid shit to ignore the feeling, but when a film is that good I think it deserves the inevitable surrender. It deserves it's tears.

Rarely is an utterly realistic film so visually lyrical. The sniper scene is one of most overwhelmingly powerful war scenes I've ever witnessed - as beautiful and lyrical as it is gut-wrenching. The car bomb scene, with the attention to process (he checks what seems like every part of the car) is brilliant as well. I can't imagine that a better film will come out this year. This is like "United 93" -- we need this movie, we need something that gets to a kind of truth, that speaks for itself. Anyone who sees this film will be affected, will want to talk about it. Kathryn Bigelow has gone from a respectable, good director to a master with one film. There are moments if this film that are so real that you know that it's as close as the movies will ever come to describing what 'it's really like.'

If kids would rather watch Transformers, then oh well. The masses have never really appreciated great art, if they do it's merely a coincidence. Sometimes something great becomes a hit.

With "The Hurt Locker" and "Up", I've seen two classics this year.
The world has changed this year in some major ways, and maybe films are changing too.

I work around young people interested in watching great cinema! I often times catch myself talking about what Scorsese did in a movie than talking about what Megatron did. I find that genuinely refreshing. When these young filmgoers know that I have reviewed movies and still write about them - although, my work is not published - they start talking Kubrick or some other serious filmmaker. There are young people out there serious about cinema and not the "Boom Boom Pow" aspect of the blockbuster. Hollywood needs to recognize this and nurture it even if they still choose to lead with their megaplex monsters. Great filmmaking will never die; it's just getting harder to find...

Sorry Roger, but Canada isn't that ahead of you guys. We may have a much literate population, but not for films. Smaller towns are more likely to get something like the Hurt Locker, I live in Vancouver, a city of some 3 million people. And there is only one theatre that plays Independent hits like 500 days of Summer and Moon, we have dozens of "Silver Cities" though. And they'll certainly be playing "G.I. Joe" on more than one theatre.

In my opinion I did not live through the eighties, but I imagine what we are going through isn't something new.

But after the weights of money makers have collapsed, filmmakers like Ramin Bahrani or David Gordon Green or Kathryn Bigelow or Marc Webb will come and restore the balance.

PS. And it wasn't a matter of wether or not a film was PG-13 or R. The Matrix was still number one when it came out and I suspect the same for Pineapple Express also.

And to think this coincides with the passing of John Hughes. Agh!

What a depressing time.

Have you read Fahrenheit 451, Roger? It's about a society where all books are banned. It may appear at first to be about government oppression, but it is actually about anti-intellectualism, hedonism, and laziness. I haven't seen the movie in a while, but if I recall correctly, it didn't really get the point of the book across. Anyway, in the book, the People (not the government) gradually made the decision to ban books, and became increasingly stagnant intellectually. Due to their society and the way technology fulfills their every whim, they no longer wish to put any effort into anything, especially thinking. As a result, any intelligent argument intimidates them with the threat of having to put effort into thinking, and books that proposed ideas that anyone disagreed with were banned to avoid unpleasantness, until finally there were none allowed at all.

Although I doubt it will ever come to that, I believe Fahrenheit 451 is a much more timely and plausible dysotopian future story than the oft-mentioned 1984.

In hindsight, I find it sort of remarkable that any good movie ever became popular in the first place; the games industry isn't even willing to produce 'gourmet' games, let alone find them an audience. You guys don't know how good you have it over there in movieland.

What I am realizing about Transformers 2 is that the people going to see it are not at all interested in movies, in the same sense that the people who listened to the Backstreet Boys (me, in grade 6!) were not especially interested in music. The craft, the art form are not present; it's actually just a pop culture event, largely separate from the idea of cinema. Its magnitude is determined chiefly by advertising dollars because the event (and, indeed, the movie itself) IS the advertising dollars. The marketing/production people contribute to the event by financing it, and the film goers contribute through their attendance. The result is something seismic, a shockwave felt by everyone involved. This is what they paid for; it's self-stimulation, mass consumer masturbation.

Roger-

Since demographics seem to be at the heart of this discussion, I'll tell you as an opener that I am 27 years old. I also have a college degree in theatre, which I have been putting to good use for the last 6 years. I have always been a right-brained guy and care about the arts more than what the crowd is telling me to watch.

I just saw "Julie & Julia" (on a small screen with about five other people in the room) and loved it, although I can understand that it's not a perfect film. What I find interesting is that my roommate (who is herself a published author) chose instead to see "GI Joe" with the masses on the other side of the wall, claiming she only wanted to be "entertained." I groaned. I'm tired of hearing that word. I pointed out that homeless people peeing in public has been to known to entertain some folks I know, but I would hardly want to pay $10.50 to watch it happen in IMAX, fake or otherwise (the IMAX not the pee - what would be the point if it was fake?).

I've been wondering if people avoid good movies because they feel the need to protect themselves from getting involved in a truly good film that may include some less-than-rosy story lines. They want to sit on the couch and relax, not think. They want to "get away" and just have fun with something exciting and nonthreatening. You know, nonthreatening like racist killer robots and wildly gratuitous nudity and public sex acts. Yep...those things relax us.

My roommate and I are in two opposing corners on this issue: instead of watching mindlessly "entertaining" CGI movies and going with the flow, I actually have an unfortunate tendency to purposefully disdain anything that's too popular or "action packed." Usually I'm not too sorry to have missed it when I finally do cave in and rent the DVD, and I REALLY wish I hadn't given two hours of life to "Bruno."

However I myself must admit to having a crisis of faith recently. I actually avoided watching "Grey Gardens" until only a week ago because it seemed like a depressing and boring subject. I re-watched films I'd already seen multiple times before finally seeing it two weeks ago. Then I discovered a fascinating world of characters who are filled with a wonderful love of life despite their dour surroundings. I immediately scolded myself for waiting so long, because every time I have taken the time to actually watch a film that was critically praised, I've been rewarded handsomely.

It seems to me that if studios can make exceptions for ridiculous movies like "Bruno," then they could maybe open up their rubric and allow decent films to slip by too. The gulf between how I felt after seeing these two films is enormous. After "Bruno" I was exhausted from being subjected to almost completely humorless BS that felt more like a season finale to some MTV reality show then a movie, and after "Julia & Julia" I felt a refreshed and positive view of the world and even my own life. Like anything is possible, even de-boning a duck.

So what's the point of these things anyway? Only to be "entertaining?" To a certain extent, when I think of a movie I love I'm not remembering my experience in the theater watching it - I'm reflecting on the wisdom or ideas that I gained from having been there. It doesn't really matter whether the flu shot is fun at the time you get it, but the fact that it protects you from the flu. Am I right? I might have laughed more or screamed more or had a more visceral experience at a movie that was broader or uglier or bigger or badder or louder than "Julie & Julia," but I probably wouldn't still be thinking about it now, and that's what matters to me.

Hopeful in Manhattan

PS - and if they had a Julia Child action figure I would SO have one on my kitchen counter

I can't say I'd make the assertion that Canada's education system is keeping ahead of the rest of North America, we suffer from many of the same issues listed above, and I'll agree that it generally seems to be cellphones and instant messaging programs causing the problem as far as communication skills are concerned. It's pretty common for humanity to look back on a golden age in the past, and think ill of their own time, but I've always thought of it as being more a "kids these days" misunderstanding of youth. Because of that I used to dismiss criticisms of my own generation, but at this point I really do feel it's undeniable that my generation has startling deficiencies in communication skills. I may have been saved by my refusal to use a cellphone and my insistence on using full sentences when I write since I noticed myself shortening "probably" to "prolly" about 10 years ago, and I found myself a bit of a rarity in the English program at my university; an English major who both reads and writes for pleasure and not just for grades. Fewer things have scared me more than class discussions requiring mentions of Madonna and Paris Hilton as a frame of reference for literary characters before many in the class were able to understand basic plot elements. If the text-message mentality and the treatment of core skills as boring stuff to be suffered through and then discarded, I can't say I look forward to my cohort becoming dominant in the demographics of the workforce. I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic, but it feels to me like our society is failing to get people much past the level of McDonalds workers, and then pretending that that's not what's happening. And beyond that they can't put the cellphones away well enough to watch the food cook.

I know quite a few teachers, and what they tell me is that it is no longer possible to control cellphone usage in class because parents consider it necessary in case of an emergency, so almost nothing can be done to keep kids focused on the lessons. There's nothing wrong with cellphones for that kind of thing during breaks, but during class time the school office can be phoned in an emergency. But any attempts to strongly enforce that kind of thing have failed to be effective (the most extreme example being this: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/03/31/bc-cellphone-jamming-highschool-port-alberni.html - if it were up to me there would be a statue in honour of that principal), so I don't see many prospects for a turnaround.

Getting most people I know to consider watching a subtitled movie is beyond a pipe dream, many don't even have the attention span not to spend half of every social event they attend text messaging people who aren't there. I don't expect people to be interested in working through the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? lists, but even a slight curiosity towards any kind of movies that don't come to the one depressingly limited theatre in this city would be appreciated.

I completely agree with you here, getting people to see unusual or interesting movies nowadays is just so difficult, it really is a sign of how bland our culture has become in general. People would rather have thier quick McDonald's burger of a film instead of a decent steak.

Part of the problem is that it isn't just teenagers and kids who won't go to see anything that isn't this weeks blockbuster, it's people of my generation (ie people in their 20's). You can only imagine the looks of disgust I got when I was desperately seeking an alternative to a group trip to the cinema to see Transformers. It's no longer a badge of honour to discover a good film and to tell people about it, to do so you're just seen as odd.

The problem is a self-fulfilling one as well, a lot of mainstream cinema goers say that the alternatives to the blockbusters aren't as good and therefore they don't see them. That just leads to the funding for these films to be reduced which lessens them in the eyes of most of that market.

In the early days of cinema the pioneers ruled, then it was the studios, and then the director had a brief spell in the seventies, the studios got back on track in the eighties but now sales & marketing rule the roost and that is a shame because they clearly can't tell a good film from a bad one.

Also, you mention the idea of America dumbing down - I would say that is unfair to America as it's a totally worldwide phenomena(although I accept that where you guys lead we follow in that respect). It's particularly obvious here in the UK where we flock to see the latest blockbuster while ignoring much of the directorial talent we have and forcing them abroad (as was recently alluded to in this month's Sight & Sound).

To quote Peter Fonda in Easy Rider; "we blew it"

----
Ps. I love reading this site and have done for a long time, this is my first time that I've left a message.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I'm 24, and I have been extremely lucky. I have schizoaffective disorder (Bi-polar subtype) and OCD that went untreated and undiagnosed until age 19, though I was symptomatic starting at age 7. This made me a very alienated and isolated child. The psychosis made me unable to communicate well (and at times, at all) with my peers and the OCD made me unable to do anything but study. I had no real social life, except by falling into the universes of the many, many stories I watched and read when I wasn't studying.

But I was lucky. From the third through eighth grades, I attended a gifted and talented school where I learned what would become the mind-warpingly invaluable skill of true critical thinking.

Now I am 24. I have learned to harness my critical thinking skills to overcome the paranoid and disorganized delusions that constantly pervade my conscious mind. When I see a youtube video decrying the vile machinations of the insidious Illuminati it is immediately obvious that the maker(s) of that video are probably pulling it out of their @$$ - they provide no proof, just wild paranoid speculation. Speculation so paranoid that I feel as though I should try to contact the makers to extol the virtues of haldol, speaking as I do from first-hand experience.

But why all the personal information?

Because I was only introduced into the social world about three years ago - when I had begun to finally get my crazy under control. And now that I can control it, I find myself in a sort of living nightmare. A nightmare of mindlessness, ignorance, laziness and apathy you and the commentators before me have articulated beautifully. That atmosphere that was so unlike the many worlds of your “Great Movies” (well, those that I have seen at least) and the many books I've read.

I have been amazed at how nearly each member of my generation with whom I now hang out is utterly incapable of critical thinking.

Can this be rectified? I don't know. One person I know was very lazy for a long time and is just now beginning to get serious about his life. He is quite talented and intelligent and he introduced and explained to me the Taoist axiom that "One must be like water" (I'm paraphrasing here). My embrace of this has granted me ever greater mastery of the functioning parts of my brain and I am indebted to him for giving me a tool that helps to reliably free myself from my illness.

But though he may have an amazing understanding of The Tao he also believes with all his heart that a secret omnipotent oligarchy controls the entire world's political machinations with the intent of “population control" (his words).

His source of this information? Those youtube videos I mentioned previously. He takes them at their word because he doesn't know any better! No one ever taught him how to question authority.

And the sad but honest truth is that he is the most thoughtful person of my generation I know.

What is to become of us? It frightens me.

Any words of wisdom or reassurance from an articulate intellectual such as yourself?
Thank you for your time in reading this lengthy rant.

Ebert: There is something very moving about having had serious mental problems, only to recover and find you are now somewhat lonely in your competence.

Now, now, let's not all knock the millennials (a demographic which, for full disclosure, includes me). Sure, many of our number flock to the mindless blockbusters each summer yields. But--here I resort to an old chestnut--it's not entirely our fault.

We could blame the '60s kids, but it wouldn't really help. Nevertheless, since then, the world has largely shifted from a father-knows-best society to a teen consumerist Godardian nightmare. In short, society caters to the young. I'm 23, and I already feel like I'm too old.

So, yes, there's something to be said for accountability and personal pride, which is why so many of us frequent sites like this and movies like The Hurt Locker. But many (most?) of our peers float with the pop culture current because society rewards such behavior. How do you wake up if you don't know you're sleeping?

Wow, Ebert. I was sorta blown away by your characterizations of teenage film buffs. As a 20 year old aspiring film critic who is indeed a devoted follower of your journal, I have to say that I'm very glad that my experience hasn't been anything like that. Through most of high school up until today, I've been extremely interested in film, but instead of going along and seeing the same mainstream movies as everyone else my age, I was always the one pushing my friends to see the lesser known films, and more often than not I was thanked for it, not ridiculed. But perhaps I'm just better at evangelizing than most my age, or maybe I just had smarter friends. In anycase, I think there's enough people my age looking for films like "The Hurt Locker" that we don't have to be too worried for the future of the art form.

Personally, I think the problem here is mainly an inability for these studios to properly market the films to my age group. I'm not claiming to know anything about marketing, but I think the studios aren't exactly marketing these films through the necessary channels. I've heard of "The Hurt Locker", but only because I'm a film buff and I thoroughly scour IMDB.com's "Now Playing" page all the time. I've never seen an ad for it on Facebook, or on my Xbox 360, or in any of the other million places I go where there are advertisements.

Look at a movie like "District 9", which (and I suppose I could be wrong) certainly doesn't look like the usual mainstream blockbuster film, and yet quite a lot of people my age seem to know and be excited about it. "District 9" was at Comic Con. Maybe "The Hurt Locker" should've been there too?

Nothing like a post about the disappearance of intelligent, discerning and articulate young people to bring them out of the woodwork, eh?

Anyways, when I hear people express fears of societal decline due to the dumbing-down of youth, I find myself buffering my lack of any personal frame of reference (I'm 19) with objective comparisons between the past and today that seem to merit optimism.

That said, I notice more and more when I see historical footage of young people speaking, generally in old news interview clips or documentaries, they are uniformly more articulate and lucid speakers, across all strata of society, than their contemporaries. Despite (or because of?) advances elsewhere, there appears to be a real regression in the ability of people to effectively and eloquently express themselves. This is something that fascinates me whenever I think about it, as it makes me wonder how that decline in the quality and effectiveness of interaction between individuals affects the function of society as a whole, a sort of societal Alzheimer's if you will.

Maybe someone older than me can tell me if that's an accurate assessment, or am I just imagining it?

It's sad to see that at a time when a wider range movies become more and more available to the public, tastes become narrower and narrower. Hulu.com is a giant online repository of TV shows, but browsing their movie section returns some surprising results. They have, for instance, the excellent film version of "Slaughterhouse Five", and I was surprised to see little known works by Orson Welles like "Mr. Arkadin" and "The Stranger" posted there. The material is out there, if people would actually look for it.

I do not know whether you subscribe to the notion of vaccines causing autism or water fluoridation being a means of mass mind-control as the third video you posted seems to think (Dr. Strangelove is on your Great Movies list, so I should think not), or if you're putting it up there for the purpose of satirizing their claims, but since what they're talking about is chemical rather than cultural it seems just to muddle your point.

Hello Roger,

I'm 21 and I agree that for the most part my generation doesn't have a strong appreciation for movies with substance. I don't think the problem is in our school systems, however. It has been my experience that a student tends to learn more from their peers than their teachers. The problem that's facing the youth today is a lack of an attention span. We've become a society of instant gratification and the problem is only going to get worse.

I think I'm lucky because the core group of friends that I have make a point to see only the movies that we genuinely think are worth it. I always check to see what you have to say about a movie because I agree with your reviews more than I do with anyone else. Occasionally we'll go see the hot ticket but then realize why we avoid them. Cliches, predictable plots, constant action and the like are the bane to our movie going experiences. I've yet to see The Hurt Locker or (500) Days of Summer because I live in the small market of Stevens Point, WI. I can't wait to see them though.

As far as the interviews with a talk show host...I don't know if anyone was better than Rodney Dangerfield. He was a little before my time and his movies were generally run-of-the-mill but he had a way about entertaining the audience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptQ9wNs8bKI

Yesterday I saw an interview with Debra Winger (absolutely wonderful actress), where she said "If you want to see the film don't wait to see it, see it on the first week" and went on to add that it has become like voting, you don't vote or week or tree weeks later. However sad it sounds it's true, when directors like Terry Gilliam have to go and storm TV show lines to beg people to see his film on the first week, cause studio doesn't advertise it, or can not get distribution deal of fantasy film with Ledger, Depp, Law and Farrel. I don't even live in US but the BO numbers there affects me, cause very rarely we get to see a film that "flopped" in US.

ON the other hand there is no way that a movie like "Avatar" with budget of $300 mil plus who knows the marketing budget can break even if it doesn't make around $800 mil world wide and that's when the video games come in to make profit. That's why I hope "District 9" succeeds. First of it's premise is intriguing and visuals look great, and hope it will be this smart sci-fi film that the advertising sets it out to be. And I think it has a good shot at being successful at BO and showing that you can make great sci-fi actioner for just for $30 mil and smart advertising.

PS As for film criticism there are some good news from september "At the movies" will be made with Scott and Phillips.

While there is definitely a dumbing down effect (and believe this French guy who's lived in Chicago, it's not happening exclusively in the US), I believe there is another factor at play, namely, the lack of exposition to culture of which a lot of kids suffer nowadays (upon which you touch without going into depth, but given that it's a problem that particularly irks me, I'll try to articulate it a little more).
I just spent a year as an exchange student at the University of Chicago (supposedly one of the most "elite" schools in the US), where I was lucky enough to meet intelligent kid after intelligent kid (and some not-so-intelligent ones, but those I tried my best to avoid), kids who were articulate and followed the news regularly, and who could discuss a range of topics convincingly. Not dumb kids, far from it.
Yet even there, many of them, when it came to literature, films and music, were very much victims of marketing, who would go see (and love) [i]Transformers 2[/i] in a heartbeat, and would listen to whatever MTV or VH1 was hammering them with. Not all of them, of course; the English (and Philosophy, and History...) majors read more, and more widely, than the average student. And many Economics majors (and boy are there Econ majors at the U of C!) were pretty weel-read as well. However, culture seemed very compartmented: I met many English majors who had a wide knowledge of literature, but whose tastes in movies followed the masses.
What became painfully obvious was that the well-read kids all had a reason to be so, and that very often, that reason wasn't school. One of my best friend, an English major, was born in Europe to diplomat parents; another one had a father in the military and spent her childhood moving from one place to another, a situation that led her to become an avid reader. Of course, those are two extreme examples, and other kids just were lucky enough to pick up a book when they were 6 and be hooked, or to have parents who were themselves great readers (my own parents have more bookshelves than the rest of their furniture combined). Most of them didn't get their taste for literature through school, though.

Which brings us back to your point about the primary and secondary school systems being "criminally useless" (the French one, while different, is not much better, if better at all). School does not, indeed, foster curiosity in the students; a good teacher might, but the system itself is designed in such a way that it takes a great individual with a lot of motivation to accomplish what should be a basic goal of education. Kids are not encouraged to read outside of class (after all, what help would it be for the SATs?), and then they are expected to be able to understand Faulkner's "The Bear" at age 13 or 14 ("The Bear," really? I love it, but I can think of half a dozen Faulkner short stories that are just as good and would serve as better springboards than "The Bear"). Literature is never presented as something you can (and are supposed to) enjoy, always as something that has to be studied if you want to score high on your standardized tests. And we wonder why so many kids don't like to read...
This, I believe, is the major failing of many school systems. Parents are often blamed for not being present enough when a child experiences difficulties in class or behaves "inappropriately" (I might not be up to date on my politically-correct euphemisms) and, to a certain extent, that is often a cause. However, exposing kids to culture (and by culture I mean more than the dozen novels or short stories students are made to read through high school) should be one of school's top priorities, if not its number one priority. As it is, it is most often left to the parents and to the student himself; if your parents didn't get the reading bug from their own parents, and if you aren't lucky enough to stumble upon a book that is not [i]Twilight[/i] (cheap shot, sorry), school is not going to make you want to go out of your way to read or go to movies that aren't blockbusters.

It's not restricted to the US, unfortunately. I'm a film critic running a german movie website, and it's a constant pain to see the reader's reactions to my reviews.

I wrote about G.I. Joe that it was vile, stupid, incoherent and had an ending which made all the noise that came before it totally senseless, but it wasn't boring, since it's loud and often unintentionally funny.

According to the user comments, that's a glowing recommendation.

I think the reason it was shown beforehand in Germany is that reviews don't really change anybody's mind. Maybe because Germany doesn't have the same kind of cinema culture that you have in the US, there's really no well known film critics and therefore (for lack of a better term) no tradition of listening to them. Sure, people read reviews, also young people, but only in order to read what they already expect. To feel affirmed in their expectations, at least that's what the reactions feel like.

Regarding subtitles: European audiences seem to be renowned for being more willing to read subtitles than american audiences. That may be the case for arthouse-goers, but it isn't for the mainstream.
Half the fun of watching Inglourious Basterds - especially if you're german or french - is the interplay of the different languages. If the trailer is to be believed, the german version will be completely dubbed, which basically just leaves an overlong war movie with a strange use of music.

Of course, the dumbing down isn't in any way restricted to the kind of movies people watch. The current government is slowly turning Germany into a police state (Like in many other countries, it's legal for the police to search your computer without your knowledge, the internet is in the process of being censored and the police given the authority to detain your computer and who knows what else if you follow a wrong link. And our highest court just legalised the use of evidence that was obtained during illegal house searches.), but people don't care. They are too busy planing their vacation or twittering what they ate for breakfast. And if they even vote, they vote for the party who tells them that they'll lower the taxes, not the party who actually worked on solving our problems in the past. Because actually looking at what the parties have said in the past, and what they actually did when they came to power, no, nobody can be expected to put in that much work, just to put a little X in one circle instead of another, can they?

Please excuse the rant. It's just that this whole thing hit a bunch of nerves at once. Maybe it's true what a german comedian (yes, such a thing does exist) once said: The amount of intelligence on this planet doesn't change. It's just distributed among more and more people.

All the best.
Flex

I think this news article is very appropriate for this blog entery.

BEIJING, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A 14-year-old Chinese fan of the Transformer movies has been drinking gasoline for five years in an attempt to "become a valiant fighter" like his hero Optimus Prime, Chinese media said on Monday.

"He started drinking gasoline about five years ago, when we first discovered he enjoyed smelling lighter fuel," Xinhua said citing a local newspaper report.

At the age of nine the boy from the southwestern Chinese city of Yibin began stealing lighters from his mother's grocery stall. After discovering that their son had drunk half a bottle of gasoline from the fuel tank of the family motorcycle "to obtain energy," the worried parents locked the vehicle away.

The boy, however, started emptying the fuel tanks of cars in the neighborhood, gradually increasing the amount of consumed fuel to two or three bottles each day. His concerned family has sought medical advice and a doctor diagnosed the child with a serious mental disorder and "petrol addiction."

"Since my son began drinking fuel, his IQ has dropped sharply and now he can't figure out addition and subtraction within 100," the father told West China Metropolis Daily. "Before that, he was a very smart boy, and he could even repair the television. But now he does not know the answer of 7 plus 17."

Meanwhile, the second movie Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is breaking box office records in China. The movie, which went on release in China on June 24, has so far earned $58.4 million, breaking the 10-year-old record set by the Oscar-winning film Titanic.

The first Transformers movie was released just two years ago in June 2007.

Original article here

Roger,

First of all, let me tell you I've discovered your blog this summer and I wish I've done so much earlier. I was pleased to read your recent post, uncovering a phenomenon concerning me for a time. I live in Hungary, where movies like "The Hurt Locker" doesn't even come to theatres (and I'm talking about the major ones). All we get is the latest blockbusters, usually having minimal or none artistic value. Furthermore, on the current schedule of one of the biggest cinemas Budapest has, from 10 movies only 2 are subtitled. This points to a sad conclusion. The majority of people enjoys watching movies with poor, sometimes ridicoulos dubbing, saying they "can't read while watching" or simply "doesn't like to read". With the really good movies missing from theatres, and the rest being dubbed, I don't see a point in going to the movies any more, which otherwise would be one of my favourite ways spending time. I'm therefore forced to watch movies on my PC which, understandably, ain't the same experience. And why is that? The answer is simple. Decreasing the mental age of mass audiences is profitable for those responsible for it. And are they being succesful? Let me tell you a story. I recommended "The Shawshank Redemption" to a friend of mine, for thinking it is a great movie to see. My friend told me he started watching it three times, but not being able to finish it, finally deleted it from his computer. It was "sooo boring", he sad. We're got used to a lifestyle of never-stopping hurry, that's why fast-paced action movies are so popular and the reason why movies are so "over-cut" these days. Another friend I used to watch movies with stopped talking to me after I tried suggesting him we shouldn't always watch the newest movies. I sometimes feel like the lone survivor of a zombie-apocalypse alienated among the brainwashed. This blog is like an oasis, one of the last fortified settlements remaining. But don't think I'm blaming the mass media alone. In my alma mater, one of my former teachers decided to form something he called "Lumiére film club". He was projecting classics like "Apocalypse Now" or "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof". The rest of the teachers started propaganda against him, labeling him a weirdo and urging us not to attend the club. Those films are a waste of time, they said. I've been seriously disappointed. With no proper education and the dumbing-down executed by the media, I see no light in the tunnel.

Ebert: The other teachers resented it that he was more enterprising than they were. Very, very sad.

When I was fifteen (I'm 22 now), my English teacher had the class do an exercise that I can't for the life of me remember was about, but it required each student to name and describe to the rest of the class a book we had read, a movie we had seen, or a song we had heard. For whatever reason I named Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke and started to describe it. Either the other students--and the teacher--thought it sounded very strange, or my description didn't do the film any justice (that I doubt), because when I finished I had never seen a more confused-looking bunch of people in my life up to that point.

I think if I had heard Princess Mononoke described to me the way I had described it to them, I would be very, very interested in seeing it for myself. Instead, for the next few days my fellow students playfully mocked me about it. "Did you watch that Japanese demon movie again yesterday? Did the wolf girl win the fight?"

I think at some point, people my age started to equate "unique and different" with "silly and weird," and not silly and weird in a good way. I think their mindset is: the movies that get hyped and advertised to death are the movies normal people like us go to see, and if there is some different film that lives only on word-of-mouth buzz, it's for those other, silly, weird, counterculture people.

Roger, I cannot agree more. I'm 24 years old and it's amazing at how little people in my generation read, and when they do, it's usually pop drivel like Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series. Very few pay attention to the news, watching Jon Stewart's Daily Show as if it were a real news program instead of the comedy show it is. And almost none read the paper.

I believe this is because of the internet, and the speed that information and entertainment is readily available at. Everything about today's high-tech-centered world trains America's youth two things: instant gratification and to have a very short attention span. People want the news, abbreviated so they skim the headlines on the websites of news organizations rather than watch the news or thoroughly read articles. People like flashy, shallow, thoughtless movies and books such as Transformers or Twilight because they are easy and pleasurable. Movies or books that challenge and engage their viewers and readers are avoided because they're not as exciting or sensual, and because they are not "easy" to take in.

It's easy to be entertained; it's difficult to think critically. In today's world, what's easy is what caters to instant gratification, and thus is what attracts the large crowds. As much as I like the things that technology allow us to do today, I don't particularly like what they've done to our culture and society as a whole.

I am glad this idea has been explicitly stated.

I am (un)fortunately part of the third-paragraph group, and must remain a part of that group forever. I both like it and dislike it for obvious and previously-laid-out-in-your-entry reasons, but I would not ever become part of my generation in anything more than physical age and the "fact" that I was born within the kind of undefinable generation birth-year limit.

I am forced by, I don't know, fear to see movies with my dad (not that there's anything wrong with that, in essence, but in two and a half years I have seen one (1) movie [Cloverfield, so, yes, blockbuster and while good, not a Great or great movie] with a friend/peer). Fear that (a) my choice of movie will be rejected before we go see it by my friends, or (b) my choice of movie will be rejected after we go see it by my friends, after which, of course, I, not just the movie, would be rejected.

I don't know how many people at my school know I love movies. Few, I would bet. I've only met one person who had ever been to our, like, art-house theater (which isn't very good, but is playing Departures soon, so I'm going for that). She graduated and left.

I wince a little inside when I see my friends' facebook statuses (yes, I know, but you can't delete a facebook. I've tried.) hail forgettable blockbusters, e.g. and esp. Transformers, as "the greatest movies ever." I say (500) Days of Summer last night (with someone not of my generation) and it was like Victoria Falls to a sort of dirty trickle of gray snow-melt dripping down the curb in New York.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I was worried.

Ebert: I like that image.

Pauline Kael once said that she would find it difficult to befriend someone who doesn't like "McCabe & Mrs. Miller". Could you?

Ebert: I wrote that it is "a perfect movie." I would find it more unlikely than difficult.

I keep thinking how rediculous it is that primary and secondary schools don't encourage free thinking. The only students praised in my school were ones who could recite facts. The students to question anything the teacher said were looked upon as disrupting the lesson.

Thank you Mr. Ebert for finding a way to promote "The Hurt Locker" again. This film deserves the attention.

Stephen King says that he is "the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries". He might be overstating things a bit but I take his point. "Junk" movies or books like junk food may have empty nutritional value but it sometimes just tastes good. (Hey Steve. I loved "Maximum Overdrive" Things got blowed-up good!) Everything in moderation however. A steady diet of mindless entertainment will result in flabby thinking.

I can only imagine the thrill you must get while reading the wonderful prose of the many young people commenting on this and your other journal posts.

As for the talk show commentary, you should check out Craig Ferguson's Late Late Show occasionally. He's quite unique in only asking questions he's actually interested in hearing the asnwers for. It's not uncommon for him to stop the guest mid-sentence when they're rambling on about their new movie to ask about something else entirely. Quite refreshing.

I remember back in the 80's scoffing at yourself and Gene for panning one of the Rambo films. As a teenager I thought that you were out of touch and didn't 'get it'.

I grew up. There is still hope that these current teens will develop their critical skills with more time. In my experience most people are seeking mindless entertainment. They tend to be passive viewers who don't think very much about a film after they've watched it. Some films, like 'The Godfather' transcend as it is extremely entertaining while being sublime in technique and story.

Young people haven't seen enough films to identify cliches. They are swept up with the intense emotion that visceral action films and melodramas provide. Some will grow out of it, some won't. I was one of those teens so many years ago. I watched your 1988 review of Rambo III on youtube and now I think you were being a bit kind to the film...

Hi there Roger,

I've seen much the same happening with literature in people from about 30 on down. The concept of effort, of hard work resulting in significant reward, seems grounded when it comes to something that produces a dollar, but not so much when it is art. Art, the argument goes, should be immediately digestible or not at all. A difficult concept is the artist's way of showing they are smarter than you, and that you are stupid.

But surely not. Literature, along with movies, along with painting, theatre, dance and the orchestra, is capable of entertaining as well as enlightening. Saul Bellow, as you know, cracks jokes - both dirty and clean - and street talks with the best of them, and all while discussing Nietzsche and the problems of philosophy in a world ruled by love and chaos (Herzog), poetry and history and movies (Humboldt's Gift), and H. G Wells and the Holocaust (Mr Sammler's Planet). Do the kids like violence? Then read McCarthy, read Bolaño, read Mario Vargas Llosa. What about sex? There's Roth and Updike and many, many others. Disillusionment? Try any French author since the 1950s or, hell, read Salinger.

But my point is not to give a lesson in literature, although it's very much the same there as it is in movies (I am less familiar with the cinema, though I like it very much). My point is best described in the following story:

I work for an industrial relations firm in Australia. Roughly, we deal with labour regulations and working conditions/pay rates/contracts. The people I work with, predominantly in their twenties, are very smart at what they do. Frighteningly so, in some cases, with multiple degrees and masters abounding. Lunch time conversation, however, revolves around Transformers 2, Harry Potter, the Twilight series, and celebrities. Should I dare - and there is another fellow, admittedly, who thinks the same though dares just as little - to mention Camus, or Melville, or The Burning Seasons, or the ongoing Brisbane Film Festival, then my attempts at conversation are uncomfortably rebuffed and - yes - nervous laughter is heard.

The reason given, when pressed, is that work is for thinking and 'real life', that which exists outside of work, is for dulling yourself into a vegetative state. "I enjoy watching crappy television because I want to turn my mind off", is a common theme. They know it's bad. They like that it's bad, because - they don't need to think. They don't want to think. Too often holidays are held up as the time when they will read all those books they've heard about, and get out some good DVDs for a change. But the holidays never come, or if they do, they mysteriously shift into an overseas trip. Which is fine, except...

What happened to intellectual curiosity? What has come of the grand quet to discover (as best as one can) the meaning behind their own unique self? When did opinion overrule fact, and cant overtake measured thought? A person can, now, go to university and become educated in a certain field, be it biology or physics or accounting or law, without having to endure a single subject involving art, be it cinema or literature or philosophy or anything at all. Allan Bloom had it right, all those years ago, when he discussed the defects of American universities (and, by extension, all English-speaking tertiary education providers), and the general cultural poverty of higher education. There are hold-outs, yes, and sterling exceptions, but they are that - exceptions.

Curiosity is fought, personal exploration is demonised, shifting away from conventional thinking is shunned, and daring to look outside the rigidly defined left-right dichotomy is, well - it isn't done. Around the clock news is news, simply because it is. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore were in a (non-serious) plane incident! How do I know? Australia's newspaper of record had it on its front page.

But let's not be so negative. There is, and always has been, a secret place that those who are willing, who are curious, who demand more from themselves and from others than simply banter, can go, and the place is wondrous. It is the realm of Mann, Kurosawa, Coppola, Fellini, Tolstoy, White, Proust, Stoppard, Friel, Kundera, Welles, Goddard, etc, etc, etc.... It's there, and it's ours, and, happily, great artists tend to work well on the fringes, and they don't usually need a large budget to realise their vision.

It is unlikely that the books I love will ever truly become impossible to find. Libraries, second-hand shops, and dedicated publishers exist and, in some cases, thrive (Faber and Faber is a good example, or the wonderful Penguin Classics). Movies, too, are held in perpetuity by organisations like the Library of Congress and so forth. For those who know how to look, the internet is an embarrassment of riches, and increasingly becoming legitimate in terms of copyright infringement, too.

To conclude, the situation is dire and it is getting worse. But, and I have experienced this myself, if the passion of an individual for art, culture, and intellectual exploration is sufficient that is inspires another to wet their toes in the vast ocean of genius that has come before us and continues amongst us, then we have done the best that we can. And critics like yourself, with a significant body of work behind them, have, surely, convinced more than your share of hopeful explorers. And that is all we can do, but is a grand endeavour, and noble in its own way.

Ebert: Duh. Who needs to read about sex in some book?

I love movies with brain... usualy brain smashed on the ground... lol

Your comment on peer groups (pressure?) rings true with my film watching experience, particularly in college. Sure I watched those Big Marketed Movies that are churned out every year, but I fell in with two crowds. One who fit the classic profile of film lovers, and were good at articulating why they liked/hated a film like a critic. The other introduced me to movies from Asia, expanding that exposure from my narrow passion of Kurosawa's films to, mainly, Hong Kong. We made weekly trips to watch the latest movie that wasn't going to be coming to very many theaters near anyone. (A benefit of living near The Company Town)

Now before college I watched these two guys sit in a balcony argue about what films were good or bad each week on TV. Using their thumbs. I think that had something to do with finding peers who had similar passions for film, even though I didn't the always get the finer points of their arguments. Instead I found these two guys to be pretty entertaining, especially when they were exasperated at each other's failings in cinematic taste. Now that was great reality TV.

But I am a nerd, a geek. A definite outsider socially through most of my educational life. We were different. We weren't intimidated by subtitles, people speaking in a different language (heck, I'm sure some at my alma mater were fully fluent in Klingon). While we enjoyed action flicks as a diversion (or an opportunity to heap MST3k-like derision upon anyone involved in the making of a bad movie), we knew that a well made movie was much more fulfilling. It pushed our boundaries. It questioned our assumptions, etc etc.

But young people who want these boundaries pushed or questions raised are rare, especially among teenagers. Their main concern is where they stand in the social pecking order at school. Plus teenagers (and I would put my younger self in this category) know everything. Why do they need some boring movie to tell them that maybe, just maybe, they don't?

I don't see these as yet more failings of the educational system, so much as the natural and strong impulse to follow the crowd during those years when who's in and who's out is seemingly centrally important to a young person. I had teachers who would screen relevant (and not so relevant) movies during class. I recall a screening of "Ben Hur" in Latin class, and some contemporary shakespeare films during English. Most of my classmates found these times excellent opportunities to work on their card games, sleep, pass notes, etc.

I think it's easy to bemoan the failure of teenagers to stand apart from their peers, and almost unfair, since the barriers to that are substantial for them. As you allude to, the media marketing machine's power is great, but it's not absolute, even though they do have a lot of cognitive science on their side (for instance, promos and trailers in heavy rotation, as familiarity breeds positivity). For young people, media corporations dictate what is cool and what is not. If you want to maintain a certain social standing, you abide by these dictates, like fashion designers following the will of Vogue. "Cool" films have to be in current wide release and can't be in a foreign language. "Cool" films have plots that fit easily into one short paragraph. "Cool" films are not downers. "Cool" films do not tax intellectual faculties or make any demand beyond sitting.

You might notice here that this tendency to follow media driven notions to maintain social standing has an eerie parallel for those of us who are no longer teens. Folks older than me would call it, "keeping up with the Joneses": Having the "right" car, the "right" interior decor, the "right" big screen TV, the "right" house in the "right" neighborhood.

Many films have the theme of breaking away from the masses, where a lone protagonist does what is right, risking being ostracized. These are often applauded in the theater. But there are many who would applaud this theme that dare not do it themselves, even as they consider how they will spend their dollars and 2-3 hours of their time. What I would bemoan are those whose incurious natures or inability to defy the peer group remain with them long after the senior prom.

I have to admit that I didn´t start to become really interested in movies before the age of 21. It seems to me that this phenomenom is nothing new: Young people don´t read critics, so they don´t know that "The Hurt Locker" could be of interest for them.
It was in my 20s when I became more and more curious about movies and the history of film in general. I was studying at the time, and I could find the time to go to the movies more than once a week. And that´s still the case, now that I´m 38 years old. You see: Some people start late, but the case is not lost on them. Our young people grow older too; and they will find out that "Transformers" or "I am Legend" are not among the best films they will ever see.

Roger,

I notice the dumbing-down even in people who formerly were a cut above the norm. In high school, my circle of friends were the National Merit scholars. We prided ourselves on our outcast status, we embraced it. Now I barely interact with those friends (15 years later) because they ultimately decided to join the mindless herd.

The hurt that I feel at the loss of these friendships is the same I feel when I look at the state of our nation. This country was founded on many dreams, but the one that spoke to me was the ideal that we can do something great if we always strive to be the best version of ourselves that we possibly can be.

And sure, we've failed to live up to that ideal more times than anyone can list. But I believe that the trend was upward for a good 200 years. Where was the tipping point? When did we lose that momentum?

When newspapers like the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle P-I and Tucson Citizen failed, I visited their comment boards to learn what those communities felt in the days leading up to the end. Many online readers were troubled and torn, but many ... many were filled with glee. They were elated at the end of a source of information and knowledge. So, so many were filled with joy at the triumph of ignorance.

Of course, the gleeful hordes cited the perceived bias of these newspapers as the source of their joy. If they detected bias, then they must have detected the work of human beings.

We worship stupidity and ignorance in this country. The litany is endless. A TV show proudly labeled "Jackass" spawns a pair of movies. A man who demonstrably cannot sing, William Hung, earns a record deal for his misguided efforts. A president who struggles to speak and earned poor grades at Yale earns plaudits because "he's one of us." A movie is constructed of meaningless explosions and earns hundreds of millions of dollars. Another movie is about people who live with the meaning of explosions, and it is virtually ignored. ...

... and a film critic points out the odd coincidence of these two movies, their commonalities and differences, and he is written off as irrelevant and obsolete because this comparison is found to be uncomfortable, or just too hard to understand, or too likely to make too many people feel guilty for never seeking out something a little more challenging in their entertainment fare.

I have a rule for book-reading. I alternate, one meaty work with one palate cleanser. Edmund Morris, then Caleb Carr. Stephen Jay Gould, then Michael Crichton. Cormac McCarthy is followed by Anne Rice. I value the lighter fare when done well. It gives me relief from the works that tax my brain. But a diet of nothing but light fare would leave me intellectually flabby.

That is why we, your fans, are offended by "Transformers 2" and "G.I. Joe." Not because they are mindless diversions, but because so many of their viewers are simply gliding from one diversion to the next, heedless of what it is that they are being diverted from.

I will respond to this blog by responding to something else: John Hughes death.

If the country is dumbing down, it is no thanks to Mr. Hughes. He exposed teenagers to be young people, not sex crazed adult obstacles. It had been done before, perhaps best in American Graffiti, but usually movies about teens were filled with goofy dialogue and actions and were based primarily on their overactive hormones. Mr. Hughes showed we teenagers (at the time) that our fears, hopes, and feelings were valid and should not be dismissed by adults who, in a pleasant bit of revenge, were reduced to teenage obstacles.

Feeling unloved, or alone, or misunderstood, or stupid, or ugly, or disappointing were not foolish emotions but a part of each and everyone's life during those pivotal years. Hollywood for too long painted teen life as blissful simplicity, and the last rest stop before real troubles began in adulthood. John Hughes needs to be recognized throughout the country as someone who rescued an entire generation, and possibly future ones, from feeling like second class citizens.

Just two weeks ago I watched Ferris Bueller with my 13 year old daughter, fearing beforehand that she would not 'get it'. Well she did, and she loved it. I had been pondering showing her The Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles, though I still think some stuff is a bit inappropriate for her just yet. Rest assured however, that she will see them and she will relate to them as I, and many many others, did.

I also introduced her to Planes, Trains, and Automobiles last Thanksgiving, one of my favorite movies of all time regardless of season. In it Hughes showed us something else: we never actually lose the insecurities of our teenage years. While there were no teenagers in it as far as age goes, save for the two on the bus, the two main characters were as much teenagers in actions as any in Hughes' previous work. Candy was a constant talker, always trying to make friends and desperately sensitive to those who insulted him. Martin was Mr. Perfect annoyed by those who were not like himself, and quick to hurt others to mask his own dissapointments.

I was always bewildered by that films lack of being recognized as a classic, not just a good film. I was please when I saw last year that it is included in your Great Movies category, and pleased also to know that one of the nations most respected film critics sees this as a holiday tradition as we do. I honestly believe that in time this will be far more respected as a film, much as It's Aa Wonderful life to time to ripen in our nations eyes. And by the way, my daughter fought my attempts at making her watch it, but afterwards said she loved it.

John Hughes is being praised as a great creator of films in his death, which is nice, but I think there is too little credit being given when he is described as a 'teen movie' maker. There is more value there than is being given. Every adult was once a teenager and knows without fail that his films are accurate in their portrayals of those horrid years. He was a keyhole in our discovery of a great many truths that adultood seemed to forget, that adolescent pain can be valid most chief among them. We were not all cowboys, though John Ford is, and should be, recognized as a great filmaker. Not all great films need wide shots and complex angles to validate them. John Candy's expression as Steve Martin berates him in the motel room is worth a crisp shot of Monument Valley in my book.

In short, I praise John Hughes as an innovator, philosopher, but most of all a great film maker. Thank you John, and best wishes to your family.
______

As for the topic of your blog, and a pseudo tie-in to that above, we are not dumbing down as a nation, it's just that the internet allows the crevices of ignorance to be exposed where once they hid sniveling in the shadows. Thank you Roger for being a platform for intelligent conversation.

"In early youth, as we contemplate our coming life, we are like children in a theatre before the curtain is raised, sitting there in high spirits and eagerly waiting for the play to begin."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

To be frank with you, I am a lousy graduate student who, as my advisor professor assured me today, will never get Ph.D. In next year, I will probably walk away with master's degree or nothing and then will study for patent agent license examination. I'd like to be a critic, but I accept the fact that I need day-job. Plan A was Ph.D, but now I have to choose plan B.

Most of my colleagues, more efficient and accomplished than me, are willing to spend time on movies like "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" or "Terminator: Salvation". I have tried to told them why these are not worth their time. However, like many visitors in your blog, I have been labeled "strange". Although they may admit that I watch many movies, they just ignore my advice. Graduation papers are waiting for these brilliant people, but they are "dumbed down" in theaters. In contrast, I am incorrigible idiot in their field, but I can immediately tell anybody what movies are good. I am saddened by people going to see movies mindlessly. "Fahrenheit 451" becomes more eerie as the time goes by.

By the way, I watched "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" last night. Thank God it was endurable. Paramount people, you should not have worried about it. At least, it is a little better than "Transformers 2". There are few good things: Shorter running time and more amusement(I am curious about the reactions from French audience). However, it is ultimately 2-hr pilot with ADD problem. I had some fun, but I don't like it. But I want to congratulate Stephen Sommers for beating Michael Bay in quality.

Mr. Ebert,
Do your feelings about the younger generation extend beyond their movie taste? I'm 23, and most of the written "profiles" of my generation describe us as being more tolerant, diverse and international than any previous generation. This could just be the way of the world (every generation is more tolerant than the previous one), but I objectively think it could be something more-- a reaction against Gen X's oh-so-bored mindset.

Also, you may be surprised by how many of my peers are interested in foreign films and movies that don't follow convention. Netflix, the Internet and the like has given lesser known titles a better chance to find an audience, and my generation has been pretty good about using those methods to seek them out. (I have 9 friends on Netflix, and each of them, including ones I don't consider major movie buffs, have seen "Happiness" based solely on word of mouth.) Since we are a more "international" generaion, we're also more aware of/ interested in foreign films and cultures than we would've been otherwise, and perhaps more than previous generations.

Granted, this isn't a perfect sample (anyone who lives in a major urban area like I do and likes movies enough to go on something like Netflix is more likely to hear about more obscure titles), but when I read your post I kept saying "yes, but..."

Roger, I love your reviews, even when I don't agree with them.
I usually do.
But lately I've seen a huge shift in what critics think are good, and the general audience. I saw Transformers 2, twice. Enjoyed it both times. Could have been better, but it wasn't the nightmarish experience thecritics are describing it as.
I just saw Bruno. Horrifically bad. I gave it Zero stars, and called it the worst movie I've ever seen. The audience didn't laugh once. We all got up and left as if leaving a funeral.
Critics loved it! I've seen other "criticaly acclaimed" movies, that are simply unwatchable they're so depressing boring.
I attended the Acadaina Film Festival, and began watching the short films. I eventually let after the fourth one, because they were so odd and depressing I needed to go home and watch Sponge Bob to cheer me up! (There was one documentary earlier in the day by Connie Castille and Allison Bohl about plate lunches, of all things, that was very good, I'd give that 4 stars...to show I have SOME taste...literally!)

So, perhaps critics and audiences will aways be seperated in their opinions of movies, and will only rarely meet in the middle (The Dark Knight, Titanic, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, etc.)
(Another note - I found Citizen Kane to be thoroughly enjoyable and well done. My wife fell asleep during it.)

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I totally agree with your assessment of the younger generation and its lack of curiosity, as well as agreeing with the opinions generated by your posters. Your column has made me aware of great films and what makes them great, and I appreciate that you are still working your beat after all your years as a cancer survivor. Let me tell you that my older sister told me about a book called The Magnificent Ambersons by Booth Tarkington, which dealt with an earlier generation that embraced these non-values as seen in the example of one spoiled rich man. I have not read a good book recently due to time constraints, but I am seriously thinking about getting The Magnificent Ambersons and reading it. The book, my sister told me, told about a generation who lived lives of inanity and preferred being fashionable to doing anything worthwhile with their lives or giving of themselves. Reading your blog this morning, and reflecting on the younger kids who embrace deliberate stupidity (I am 34), I could not help but think of my sister's description of the book. Incidentally, I have heard of Orson Welles's movie version and hope that after reading the book, his movie - even in its studio-edited form - will retain something of the book's observations and tone. If they find the missing footage from that movie, I bet your website will be among the first to report it. For all you do - thank you.

From 10,000 feet, the view is grim. Nevertheless, as an uncle of 5 and (by proxy) cousin of another 5, all under the age of 15, I can tell you this - in the right setting, kids are smart, perceptive, literate, etc. None of these kids is more than middle class, but everyone (parents, aunts, uncles, cousins) is involved in their lives and actively encourages their education, interests, etc. - and not in the 'isn't that cute, Amanda wants to be a writer...' kinds of way. Ten kids, all of varying interests and talents, provide for me a statistically significant sample suggesting that in the right environment, kids brains do grow - ALL kids. It isn't the culture, it's the parents and families who destroy kids' abilities to develop individual personalities and critical thinking - or if not outright destroy, undernourish.

PS - The Miss Teen clip is one of the scariest things I have ever seen. The only saving grace is it looks like a coherent teen asked the question that so stumped her, and it looks like that teen might have been able to give a coherent answer.

Mr Ebert,

you are obviously right about the importance of an improvement on the educational system (I don't think there are a lot of countries that are satisfied with their educational system). On the other hand, what made me get more interested in books and good movies is my mother who can be very passionate and inspiring when talking about them.
Being inspired by someone is the key. It is easier for parents to be inspiring because they're with you almost all the time. I mean, if a teacher is inspiring, his effect won't last because after one year everyone might have forgotten him and his teachings. There is also the chance that a good tacher might not help the student if the latter goes home and has his parents making fun of the teacher's opinions.
What I mean is that in addition to improving the educational system, it might be useful to educate parents as well. What the kid should eat, how it should be careful with sex, what it should consider to be entertaining.

It is hard to know where to begin but I suppose if my young mind taps away long enough perhaps some granule of insight may be elocuted.

I think the youth of the nation are an easy target. There is no doubt that my generation has difficultly appreciating subtlety. We are suffocated by the conscious effort of media, corporations, and the government to become a homogeneous society; easily controlled. I agree that it's disheartening that films like 'Tranformers' make huge profits while less than 5% (my number) of the country knows who Andrei Tarkovsky is. The funny thing is that it's not just my generation that hasn't seen '8 1/2' or talked over dinner about 'Synechdoche, New York,' it's the American populous as a whole. Why lambaste my generation when my parents generation is the reason corporations have taken such prevalence. Reagan got rid of 'The Fairness Doctrine,' broke unions, deregulated everything, and made the presidency a corporate office; thus K Street was born. Three corporate lackeys later, and it's my generation that bears the 'chemically dumb' title: Generation Slacker.

I work as a gas station clerk schloking petroleum products and greasy food at fat, dumb America, and I can't help but feel like nearly everyone I 'serve' is inflicted with the docile effect- that general cozy dispassionate mindset you spoke of. So many vacant eyes lost in their tiny jaded little world, coddled by their caffeine and local paper. They all treat me superciliously -I am of course but a humble gas station clerk- and I'm paid to nod and smile. I've had countless middle-aged, elderly, you name it, say things like, "Obama is going to take my guns away." "I am going to the tea party, screw taxes." "You know, Transformers was really awesome." I respond, "Obama is not going to take your gun away." "Are you using public highways to get to your party?" "I really enjoyed Moon." and the reaction is always the same: curled eyebrow, mouth agape, confusion, and an exit.

I think I've lost my general arch. The point is, maybe, that the vast majority of people simply don't care. They want life to be simple, they don't want to think. This may be indicative of the their education, their surroundings, or maybe just a modern mind set. Its not that critics are more evolved, its that you educated yourselves; that you are passionate. It doesn't seem to take much to be labeled an 'intellectual' anymore. Where'd the passion go?

Maybe that's the point: Where did the passion go? And not the mock passion of "TrAnsformsr is teh bestest film ever." I mean the passion for film in Paris in the 70's.

My proposal: make every teenager watch Bela Tarr's trilogy (Damnation/Satan's Tango/ Werckmeister Harmonies), and read 'War and Peace.' Doubling teacher salaries is a good start too. Maybe cut the defense budget in half while we are at it...

Just a muddy thought.

Roger, thanks again for another great rant. (And I don't use the term "rant" in a pejorative fashion - people NEED to be ranting more often and more vociferously about this and other social problemsthat we seem to not only be tolerating but celebrating.)

Sure, there have always been dullards, half-wits and imbeciles among us - in this and every country and culture around the world.

However, I think it is a uniquely American phenomenon (and, perhaps a rather quite recent and growing one as well) where stupidity is not only celebrated but intelligence, erudition, sophistication, thoughtfulness, etc is belittled and mocked.

Granted, the term "egg head" is seldom thrown around anymore but the uniquely American disdain for the intelligent or the educated - for folks who can thoughtfully and articulately discuss an issue rather than merely paint it in simple black and white terms - a person who challenges others positions and may actually make them THINK about the positions they hold would be comical if it weren't so terrifying.

To a degree the rapid-fire, shouting down your opponent tactics of O'Rielly and his ilk (which you've eloquently written of in the past) helps to foment this scary penchant for the out-of-hand dismissal of opposing views and the entrenchment in one's own views however absurd or impeached they may be.

What the remedy to this may be I do not know but it's all but inarguable that we are, as a nation, becoming less informed and, hence, fundamentally "stupider" by the day.

This sad phenomenon has existed in certain portions of the black community for some time where studious, smart, hard-working and well-spoken students have been mocked and scorned for "acting white."

Now, alas, this phenomenon seems to have permeated all segments of American society and anyone who is demonstrably intelligent, thoughtful or well-spoken is similarly chastised and (ironically enough) belittled for being "stupid" when anything they say, do, or believe cannot be understood by those who TRULY ARE stupider than them.

The Sir Arthur Conan Doyle quote "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius" comes to mind when thinking of this.

This phenomenon may certainly have been going on for some time (as recounted by this great Bill Hicks bit from years back relating his encounter with a Waffle House waitress) but it certainly seems to be both picking up speed as well as becoming more commonplace and - sadly - acceptable.

I find it interesting that, while you say movies are perhaps entering a Dark Age, American Public Media's Speaking of Faith program claims that television is entering a new Golden Age, with excellent writing, especially in such science fiction dramas as Lost and Battlestar Galactica, and HBO leading the ways with works like The Sopranos and Oz. A few years ago, I read in one of your reviews (I don't remember which) that you don't watch television, that you don't have the time. Have you thought of removing your self-imposed ban on watching television programs, or perhaps even becoming a TV critic? Now *there* would be an irony.

Ebert: There is great television available, thanks to cable, but it finds a smallish audience.

I'm with you on the "dates who want to see crap movies" angle.

God help me, I once dumped a girl because she liked "Simply Irresistable," the 1999 movie in which Sarah Michelle Gellar cooks magic food (thanks to an enchanged crab or something).

The fact that she loved that movie told me all I needed to know.

Perhaps the one thing (if there is one) that defines todays youth generation is conformity. They simply love to conform. But, it doesnt matter. A few years after college they will be so immersed in the daily commute, the daily grind, with the consumerist`s self-obsession, that the spirit to recognize, value and form, an informed insightful, thoughtful opinion will have virtually evaporated - in other words, they will exist as members of a demographic only - long before they start growing aware of it. They will develop, in their 20s, the knawing sense that they are idiots, but will offset it with the recognition that they appear no different from, and get along well with, others. It will take years - decades - after this insight for them to grow so disillusioned with others before grow disillusioned with self and have a shot at freedom. It is not a given they will take the shot.

Great article. I am 23-years-old and have friends of the same age who still get "geeked" about seeing Transformers and G. I. Joe. What's more alarming is that after knowing these friends for years and on numerous occasions rejecting their offers to see these movies with them, they still ask me if I want to go. I used to cave in--not because I wanted to see the movie but rather I figured I was at least paying to have a social experience, like going to a restaurant when I could just cook my own food for cheaper. Well, I ended this stupid caving in after I paid ten bucks to watch Boogeyman. I saw it was produced by Sam Raimi and so I actually was hoping it would at least have a cult-thing going on. Nope, that movie was an elephant pile of s-to the-h-to the-it.

However, one flaw of this blog post is the last youtube clip you have posted. While I agreed with many parts of the clip, what I found was surprising was that after six minutes of describing how the mass media is often a culprit in dumbing down America, they show clips of newscasters as evidence that flouride in water is bad for our health. While water flouridation has always faced criticisms and controversies, many health organizations actually endorse the health benefits of doing so. And no, these are not just American health organizations endorsing this "conspiracy" on the levels of Nazi control. (By the way, I love how any time we want to show that something is bad, just link it to being a Nazi. This is why an ignorant person thinks socialism is a bad thing.) Many organizations across the globe endorse flouridation. One such example is found here from the Australian government: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/PUBLICATIONS/synopses/_files/eh41.pdf

Anyway, my point is this: while many Americans fall into a trap of being dumbed down by blindly following what they're told, many intelligent Americans have done the same thing. This last youtube clip is a prime example: We're being frightened into this belief that the American government is poisoning the water to makes us all autistic, when logical reasoning would suggest otherwise, such as: If this were the case, wouldn't those politicians running government avoid drinking the water then? A pretty impossible feat when even many natural sources of water contain flouride.

The last youtube clip is no worse than an attack by Bill O'Reilly: scare the eff out of your audience so they will follow what you say. The clip is good at disguising itself as an unbiased and truth seeking investigation, especially with it's last words saying "research for yourself." I won't lie, I was scared to finish drinking my cup of water on my desk after that clip. Then I researched for myself and wrote this ridiculously long comment to an otherwise very enlightening blog.

Keep on writing Ebert, and by the way, I hope you write another blog about your youth (or better yet, a book :).

Roger, this was a wonderfully written post and very astute. My wife and I are both 26 and feel the truth that you have laid out. Although we do have friends that enjoy the same adventurous taste in film that we do, that group is regrettably small. My biggest fear is that great movies like The Hurt Locker will cease being distributed. At least there are still some critics out there that champion these pictures.

I was in the 5th Grade when my Dad bought me my first Mad Magazine (the California Raisins were on the cover). In subsequent issues I remember reading parodies on some of the most popular movies of the time (Batman, Rambo III, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade), and I clearly remember how refreshing it was to have my own assumptions of what was good/popular challenged.

It has been a while since I bought a copy; perhaps I'll do that today (I hope the above comments about its drop-off in quality aren't true, but I would not be surprised). I imagine the pages are half adverstisements now!

Geeze, Roger—don't get what's happenin' with the kids these days?

Old modes of communication, social structures and publishing infrastructures that folks our age always assumed would be in place for the next generation are rotting away just like everything else is, and the investor class has decided that it's not worth the bucks to maintain them anymore. We—and by "we" I mean folks 50 and above—are watching the old school get torn down, paved over by the information superhighway. Instant access all too often leads to instant, unthinking responses.

You should have left your citation of video games in. Even though you would be accused of reverse agism, those high-tech virtual environments are designed to make folks both more trigger happy and faster in their response time. The acceptance of instant, unthinking responses in the presence of the "other" is played out in town-hall meetings and "teabagging" parties by folks who don't even know the purposes of town-hall meetings or what teabagging really is. And blogs where you'll find some of the most egregious abuses of the English language accessible instantly—world-wide—to a nearly unlimited audience. The issue's not "Callow Youth" but one of encroaching stupidity. It's not an age factor you should be concerned with, it's the calculated imbalance of public discourse in the era of "Cable News" and the kind of inescapable propaganda that "NCIS", "Law & Order" and "G.I. Joe" represent.

I'm surprised you didn't mention "Idiocracy", Mike Judge's futuristic dystopia of mall culture gone amok. Don't expect anyone to push for better education anytime soon, the deep pockets see no future in that sort of investment.

There are a lot of things to consider in this piece, but here's a few points I'd like to get across that I haven't found in the other comments. The first involves subtitles. One of the reasons a lot of people don't see subtitled films is because they're going to have to read -- and read quickly. Since people read less and less these days, except for what's online, they can't keep up with all the words, and lose the plot, etc. I speak from experience, since I used to teach some film classes at OU while a TA, and students complained about this. When I was a kid, we used to be tested on how fast we could read, and had a little version of a slide machine that moved at a quick pace so we could improve our reading skills. I give full credit to this procedure for allowing me the opportunity to fully savor international films at a young age, because I could read fast and well. Another point is that the economic crisis has caused a re-thinking of how Hollywood works, and it is moving closer and closer to safer, easier to understand features because they need to get that money in, and smarter films get the push.

But, by far, the biggest problem is our educational system right now. While there are certainly some fantastic schools out there that push students and expose them to critical thinking skills, the vast majority are so worried about getting funded that they only teach what's needed for the standardized tests that pop up every few years. Critical literacy is what makes you a functioning person in a democracy, and (while I disagree with Allan Bloom's ideas for the most part, he was spot on on this) without a thinking public, a democracy cannot function. We see this today, where people with little education are trying to destroy any chances of a health care dialogue because it's either over their heads and, therefore, scary, or they can't follow up on what misinformation they do get fed to them because they don't have the skills to do so.

To this day, the Dept. of Education is underfunded, undefended, and constantly under attack by those who want to keep the status quo either because they themselves are too scared or too prejudiced to allow for changes or alternative voices to their own. This is a huge turning point in America, and unless we address this problem, we will never recover, and Mike Judge's Idiocracy will no longer be satire, but prophecy. I remember finding Sneak Previews as a child, watching it when it was on, and then asking/demanding my parents take me to those movies that received two thumbs up or ones where the disagreement made me interested in seeing the film to make up my own mind. By 11, I was a darned decent film scholar, and my parents indulged my curiosity. I saw Apocalypse Now when it opened, and Raging Bull, and "got" them; I was 10 and 11 at the time, respectively (thanks, mom and dad). I can see some child going through the same thing, but having so much more of a chance to watch the great films, simply because there's more access to them, but fewer and fewer take advantage of the opportunity. This should be the best time for film education because the technology has made watching obscure or international films easier than ever, but the opposite is occurring. I can't thank you and the late Mr. Siskel enough for inspiring my creativity, and my curiosity. Somewhere out there, a teacher is trying to do the same to someone else, but that student doesn't have the skills to take advantage of it,because critical thinking is not able to be taught for budgetary, time, and politically expedient reasons. The dark ages upon us, indeed. Now, when I find a film that embraces intelligence and requires you to be a part of the dialogue, I embrace it as much as I can. Zodiac (one of the best American films ever) and Primer are two films that I fell in love with immediately, because they assumed I would be willing to work with the text to understand them, and assumed I would be smart enough to do so. Thanks again.

I think film that treats the viewer and creator as equals comes naturally from the dissatisfaction that the movie equivalent of junk food causes. They get tired of being talked down to, treated like dupes who are tricked into the theater with a salable name, some stars, and trailer, for which they're rewarded, again and again, with a longer version of the trailer.

Some questions I'd like to throw out there: Is the crowd that is seeking the unusual in film growing relative to the same crowd before (not the total moviegoing population)? Or is it static or in decline? You can't expect everyone to just become more nuanced in their tastes in some mass rebellion. I wouldn't expect everyone to ever hop on that bandwagon, because you would see market forces change these interesting ideas that we see in smaller films just change into the new tropes.

I get the feeling that success is sometimes luck, but it's sometimes due to drive. You'll get people who are great at assembling money for a picture, getting the word out, selling tickets like mad, and only after we're in the theater do we find that their work is just abysmal, while there are people out there who are really creative who never get seen. It's rare to get a combination of those two aspects that'll give us something grand that we'll even know about, let alone see in significant numbers.

As long as quality film is sustainable I think we shouldn't worry. We worry if executives start pretending that the immediate and biggest payoff is the only way to win.

I had a similar reaction when I read Rob Moore's comments on the reasons for eschewing critic screenings. It was refreshingly honest, yes, but it spoke to a general apathy in mass audiences toward expert opinions. It's an apathy that smacks of anti-intellectualism.

While discussing this issue on a few internet forums, nearly every response indicated that the people I was discussing this with didn't care about critics and didn't read reviews. Some even seemed to take it as a point of pride, saying things like, "I form my own opinions." I wanted to ask this person if they really believed they were forming their own opinions, or if they were simply doing what the studio marketing department was telling them to do. That seemed too condescending.

My roommate, an intelligent fellow though he is, seems resistant to see The Hurt Locker despite my championing of it. Part of this is due to lack of funds, but I've even offered to pay for his ticket, and still he will not go. He claims he wants to, but he can't make time for it. He made time for Transformers 2. I don't know what to make of this. It's frustrating as a young film enthusiast to see this resistance.

I am reminded of one of my favorite movie-going memories, from when I was in high school. I took a friend to see Minority Report. Typically this friend was very resistant to my suggestions, but he opened up to the idea when I described it as a science-fiction action movie. After the movie ended and we were walking back to my car, my friend said, "That movie was good. It made you, like, think and stuff." I smiled, agreed, and then we discussed what the movie made us think about. In the years since, even as we've grown apart and into our own lives, he still trusts my voice on movies completely. There may be a level of narcissism and arrogance in that statement, but I have brought great movies to his attention, and he has shown great appreciation for this.

All it takes is one film to open someone's eyes to the world they're shutting out. But if people continue to resist critics and avoid going against the studios' marketing despite protestations, how will their eyes be opened? All we can do is continue to struggle against that. On my online journal, I occasionally post reviews, and my friends usually read and comment on them. Yet, amateurish though my writing and insights are, sometimes I'm able to get one of my friends to seek out one of these movies I recommend. This past weekend, a good friend finally saw The Hurt Locker, and was very grateful for my recommendation. This gives me hope.

This entry sparked something in my mind that has been troubling me for a while. My father, a classic film buff, raised me on the offerings of TCM and our local blockbuster. I saw a lot of films in my childhood, and now am trying to see even more. As an aspiring film critic, I am saddened by the decline in good film criticism in America. There are still several good writers working today, yourself and Jonathan Rosenbaum come to mind, as well as perhaps Ray Carney. But criticism appears to have become a largely populist game, devoted to pushing out quick one-liner summaries in the hopes that they will appear on a poster, since no one really reads criticism anyway.

What troubles me strikes me especially when I read Jonathan Rosenbaum's blog, and his list of his favorite films. The man has seen thousands upon thousands of films. It's staggering. Few critics, few people can claim the experience Rosenbaum has with cinema. And I think to myself, as hundreds more films are released every year and I struggle to catch up, is it possible that we will ever again have critics as knowledgeable as Jonathan Rosenbaum? I will most likely die still playing this game of catch-up.

Hang on, Roger, I have to go finish watching every Nicholas Ray film ever made. One director down, a few thousand to go.

I recently had to move to a different state to help with aging parents. I picked the town I live in, in part, because their movie theater describes themselves as an "art cinema". This week they're showing G.I. Joe. Last week, Harry Potter. Before that, Transformers, Star Trek, etc., etc. -- you get the idea. There's about a month during Oscar season when they'll play some of the nominated movies, but that's about it for art cinema in this prestigious university town. (Lately it's been no better during the school year than in summer.) I can't blame the theater management: I'm sure they want to show good movies; but if they should happen to show a serious film, you won't see more than a dozen people in the house. I thought it was because the state I live in is a rust belt state in which too many educated people have left. Your article saddens me greatly because now I'm realizing the problem is larger than that. Oh, to be back in Seattle, where people still appreciate good movies! Netflix is okay, but one wants real popcorn and good conversation to go with one's movies, right?

For not good reason, I cannot forget one particular night at the cinema, even though it was not very good. I had returned home from college for some holiday and met with several old friends who were likewise taking a respite from education. We went to a local Carmike theater and elected by some process of making decisions that I cannot remember to buy tickets for "Resident Evil Apocalypse".

"Resident Evil Apocalypse" is a very bad film and one that I could only have really enjoyed if we had been sitting in one of our family homes where we could freely mock it in the spirit of "Mystery Science Theater 3000". What confuses me most is that we together had decided to contribute money to the success of such a dreadful film, but individually I know that we all had at least modestly discriminating taste. I was raised by a cinemaphile father who still visits a local art house weekly and largely succeeded in inculcating a sense of taste in me. I remember that another friend of my present that night had once recited to us his scathing and trenchant review of Gus Van Sant's "Elephant". He had hated it, but for different and better reasons than some dearth of puerile excitements and at least he dared to see it(n.b. I haven't seen it, so I'm not sure what it might have instead).

So several people who ought to have known better individually collectively paid money to suffer through a dumb, vacuous and too loud film. I can't quite account for it, but perhaps in being together we were all partly stupefied or the contrarians felt that the bother of persuasion wasn't worth the low likelihood of success. The instance was not unique, although we had seldom attended a film as bad as "Resident Evil Apocalypse" before, except perhaps for "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". On that last point, however, I can at least report that several of us paid our admission with vouchers from a showing of "Road to Perdition" where the projector had failed and in my case, I was just naïve in thinking that Sean Connery starring in something based upon the works of Alan Moore would be worth watching.

I wonder if things might be worse in part because communication is better and more pervasive. Nowadays one can be ceaselessly "in touch" with one's friends, which I suppose is pleasing in some ways, but probably affords less opportunity for cultivating independent thought.

None of my friends loves cinema the way I do. But none of them (not even people who I'm not firends with) treat me differently for that. The same way none of us mocks the girl who loves literature (for ther ecord, i love literature too, but that girl is just as crazy about books as I'm about films, or the one who is a Jazz fan, who can recongnize every song. We repect each other, adn we TALK to each other about the things we love. They know something I don't, and since I'm always ashamed of "not knowing", when i have a doubt I go to them. I ask her to borrow me "the catcher in the rye", adn him to make me a copy of "A love supreme" (coltrane). In the meantime I try to share my love for cinema with everyone. Whenever possible i lend movies. I just gave one of my friends a copy of "Top Hat" and "City Lights", and other "400 blows" and "A bout de souffle". That way we all get samrter, we all win.
When I first entered my high school there was a Film Club. When I was in third year (iI don't know how it wors in USA, but here, Argentina, third year is for 15 year olds) I started to go there. Nowadays (fifth year, 17 years old) I'm some kind of "authority" (i wirite this not prudly or showing of, but with a smile on my face) and I have a big influence on what films we show. One would say that the Fridays we show "Edward Scossros hand", "The Wall" or "The life of Brian" (it's amazing how popular Monty python is around here) would be the only days more than 5 show up (two of them being me and the proffessor who organizes it), since teenagers are only interested in Tim Burtons goth films, rock music and english humor.
But I have had pleasant surprises in this 2 and a half years. The day we showed "nights of Cabiria", there were abou 20 people. May not be much statistically, but for me it's 20 persons more who now know who Fellini is, and who enjoyed it. The day we showed "Some like it Hot", there wasn't even enough space for everybody to sit. Everybody wasl laughin maniacally at Jack lemmons performance, and, in the end, appaluding and cheereing with the "nobody's perfect". As long as i'm a film lover (hopefully forever) I'll hold those experiences in my heart.

So, I guess I'm the luckiest person in Earth. It says that there are a lot of posts from "young readers who sadly agree with me about their generation". In my short life, I've met many people who love cinema (or other arts) in the wrong way. They believe themselves superior to others so they have the need to make people realize how "retarded" they are beacause they just don't know who Bergman is, and beacuse they enjoy the latest Harry Potter film. That kind of people, I hate more than the boy who likes to go and watch Harry Potter. My relationship with cinem is not that i watch great films so now I'm greater than anyboody who doesnt. This relationship isn't defined by what others don't watch. I'm just grateful that i've met this wonderful world full of joy, and it's almost my mission to share it with my companions.
Of ocurse, as you said in another post, we can't just go around saying "everone is entitled to theri own opinion so if you want to say Scary Movie 3 is the greatest comedy ever i'm okay witht hat". No, but in that case, what I feel the need to do is to burn that boy a copy of "Dr strangelove", and show him a real great comedy. Not mock him because his film taste is idiotic (or ill-informed).

About three weeks ago my friends wanted to watch Transformers 2. I had a morbid curiosity on the movie, after reading that "It will be studied as the en of an era". We got there but when we were on the line I reliced that "Up" was going to be shown roughly at the same time. I convinced my friends to drop the idea and go watch "Up". We all had a hell of a time (you might say "Up" is a Disney film so it's not that hard to convince anybody o seeing it, but 17 year old boy can be very worried about the possible effects of watching a kids film will have on their manhood")

So, that's it, I believe in my generation. If you can't convince a friend of going to see a film that is great on all acounts, don't hate your generation, get new friends.

Also, a word to those recommending "higher" cinema to their friends: There is a median between what the general population deems "art films" and dumbed-down popcorn fare like Transformers 2. You might introduce your friends who love action films to the work of Jack Starrett, John Flynn, Russ Meyer, Sam Peckinpah, or Jack Hill. These movies offered plenty of thrills while still making excellent contributions to cinema. Recommending Ordet to someone who loved T:RotF is not the way to go about it. They'd probably get a kick out of Rolling Thunder, Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, or Race With the Devil. Maybe even The Wild Bunch. Preach to the choir.

If you are going to cast doubt on an entire generation, you should find better measures than box-office tallies. Citizen Kane and Night of the Hunter were both bombs. Countless great movies were financial failures, and many terrible movies were huge hits.

My wife and I (we're both cinephiles) live a few blocks from a theatre currently screening "The Hurt Locker". We have considered seeing it, but decided instead to give it a pass. The reason being that we have very limited time and money, and with tickets for two costing $25, we need to be highly selective. The Hurt Locker simply hasn't aroused our curiosity enough to part with both the cash and the time. We'll get it from Netflix.

I haven't writen here in a while but I have to address this. This argument of dumbing down of America and "Oh God! the Childern who will think of the childern!". I've heard this stupid argument from people who should know better and just don't get it. WHO CARES!. I enjoy music. I really enjoy obscure 60s bands. You know how many people enjoy my music... not many. It's my deal. Look you have to understand your are weird. You do enjoy things in film that other do not. You seek these things out cuase- it's you deal. You can't blame or say that other are less then you cause they don't understand or what to get that deep. They might be readers or into music or art so who are you to judge them? You are a film critc and if you looked at your peers then maybe you'd understand why most of the public ignores them. Most are paid off cronnies of the film companies or are so personally unlikeable and mean sprited who wants to read them. (A.O. Scott comes to mind.. what a jerk) I've been to one film this summer. Why? cause theaders are too freaking exspencive and most of the films this summer have been awful. Am I missing an expence not going to see Hurt Locker? No. I'll catch up on DVD; then spend as much as I do for one month of Netflix on going out the movies (On just myself If I bring a date double or triple that). I feel you've spent so much time reviewing film you've lost perspecive on life. Wow an 18 old kid doesn't want to see a movie about kids his age killing and dieing in a war that the same kid could end up fighing and getting killed in- what a shock. Did you even think about that before you judged all teen as stupid or uncaring GI Joe watching morons for not flocking to Hurt Locker. I think your just as dumb as those your judging after all you gave a good review to Funny People. This was the bigest bunch of old man bullshit yelling I've seen in a while. Get those punk GI JOE watchin kids off Roger Ebert's lawn!!!

PS. I could care if GI Joe or Hurt Locker are good or not but your attitude in this blog is just snobish and jerkish. I thought you a better person than that. If you spoke at a party or event in such a way to me I would have knocked you on your ass.

Ebert: I will be careful not to speak to you at a party or an event that way.

From where does this dumbing down come? Hard to say. One of the smartest people I know dropped out of school at 16 on the advice of her mother who correctly reasoned that she wasn't bothering to go anyway. She's now successful in every aspect of her life, including education.

My post-secondary was two years of journalism school, with an emphasis on photo-journalism. We were learning how to bang out copy for daily and weekly papers, very little emphasis on theory. Still, I go to parties and enjoy 'talking leisurely circles' (your phrase, from your review of "The Last Supper") around University grads with poli-sci degrees whose great insight into the world is that Bush is dumb, Cheney is evil and you shouldn't watch Fox News. (My response: "It's not as simple as that, it's not as simple as that and I don't own a television so I don't.")

I often think back to Ms Anderson from Grade Five. Nice lady, the school counsellor. Also taught us math and social studies. Hippie. Politically correct. Determined to really 'connect' with her students. Quite useless, really. Came out of grade five with about as much knowledge as I had going in. The two grade five classes in that school were in one large room with a divider in the center - the class next to ours had Mr. Baker teaching math. Old guy, the school principal. He was teaching his class long division while Ms Anderson ran us through the multiplication tables again. Didn't want to go too fast, you see - might be damaging to our self esteem.

Ms. Kemp from High School - now there was a teacher. After dropping out of English 30 - again - because I couldn't stand being around a classroom of people who couldn't figure out that the frozen leopard symbolized the protagonist, she came up with an extra-credit course to ensure that I'd graduate: we met in her office once a week and discussed the books I'd read in the week previous. While my classmates were reading the Coles Notes (Canadian version of Cliffs Notes) of Wuthering Heights, I was enjoying The Brothers Karamazov, Cry the Beloved Country, King Lear and A Tale of Two Cities. Had to write a report on each book as I finished it, but that was easy enough. At least I wasn't bored. At the end of the year, she made me a gift of The Fountainhead.

I have a theory that society really started to go downhill the first time a teacher said, "I'm not going to grade you on your spelling and grammar, as long as you communicate your ideas," - without realizing that spelling and grammar are necessary for communication - and was allowed to keep their job.

Roger,

I'm a teacher and, number one, say hooray to your closing sentence!! haha But can offer at least part of an explanation. While there is more to the problem than just this, where I'm going is certainly at the root.

Teachers more and more now-a-days are encouraged to pander to this generations lack of attention span and lack of curiosity. Younger teachers coming up (of which I am just barely one now) are taught in essence to feed students information that they can recite and, when it comes to writing, teach them a fail-safe formula that will get them to pass with a 3/4 on the rubric (this equates to a C-minus)--and if they happen to be talented enough to do better, super, your job it done.

Even in higher level thinking areas, students are taught formulas for how to correctly answer a question! Honestly! In an area of education that is meant to measure a student's ability to reason independently and lurch and find thoughtful answers, the students' answers are instead form fit into a square peg that is easy for the standardized test evaluators to score. It's insanity. The blame lay not with the laziness of the young, Roger, but with the laziness of the adults.

I'm in the middle of Reading the excellent biography of Einstein that was recently released and early on in the book (I wish I had it with me to quote!) it describes Einstein's earliest post secondary school education where he was taught in a system that ENCOURAGED students to experiment and fail and try again and ponder and wonder.

The modern education system in America does the exact opposite.

Even Mad Magazine has been dumbed down. Aside from the occasional Mort Drucker parody or Sergio Aragones cartoon it reads like an internet age version of one of its forgotten 3rd rate competitors.

Your blog eloquently expressed many things that have been troubling me for some time. I'm in my mid-30's but have regular contact with kids ranging from the late teens to mid-20's due to my job and some volunteer work I participate in. What distresses me is the complete lack of desire to think freely and to examine the "why" of things. Notice I didn't say the lack of ability-most of these kids are very sharp people, they just don't care to look any deeper. I think you are spot on in citing bad education as a leading cause. I remember my college years as a thrilling time where I really honed my ability to think, analyze and communicate. Granted, I was blessed with some great teachers. What is happening in our schools? Have we become completly satisfied with mediocrity? Is meeting certain standards enough, no need to challenge a student to go beyond?

It's gotten to the point that I don't even mention the films I love around younger people (and don't even get me started on the books I love. One of my deepest fears is so much of our classic literature will be lost because this generation views reading older books with even more disdain than they view black and white film). This never fails to lead to one of them checking the film out, hating it and questioning my ability and tastes. This happened recently when I mentioned how much I loved Rachel Getting Married and was moved by it. A 25ish girl checked it out and couldn't wait to tell me how much she hated it and that "it ws like watching someone's bad home movies." This depressed me beyond words.

I may be the only one here who actually *enjoyed* transformers 2, and yet still agree with your statement about the abysmal state of education, not to mention the culture of mediocrity that is shoved upon everyone by mass-marketing execs. I and my family liked transformers 2 for what it was: mindless explosions and silliness. But we also like the good, more 'serious' stuff, too. Both my kids watched Seven Samurai--subtitles and all, naturally--before they were teenagers. But both of them also have felt the pressure and have been variously called 'nerds', 'weird', etc. My wife and I rebelled against the system long ago by refusing to buy cable, having long ago decided it is complete garbage. And I think the insulation againt mass advertising has improved their IQ considerably.

I'm a doctor myself, and I find the chemical theory a bit far fetched--not only that it isn't necessary since advertising, in particular, repetitive tv ads aimed at normalizing everyone so that they feel it necessary to purchase every stupid thing they come along with, is so darn effective. Combine that with overworked, underpaid teachers and an apathetic system concerned with shuffling everyone through no matter what, and its a recipe to shape exactly what we have now.

The changing standards in our educational system are just as responsible for the "dumbing down" as all of the other items mentioned by the article and the comments following it. In the 1940s and 1950s a large number of our teachers were extremely dedicated to their work and most parents saw the public education system as the best opportunity for their children to have a better life than they had. The miners and farmers that comprised the majority of the tax payers in the place that I lived as a child were willing to pay incredibly high percentages of their income to ensure that their children received the best possible education. A large part of that system was an unspoken agreement between the taxpayers and the schools that the schools would be permitted to administer appropriate and occasionally serious discipline when children misbehaved while in school.

As a result of the incredibly well organized and well disciplined schools of those years America developed a generation of thinkers that have changed the world as we know it today. Unfortunately a quiet but effective movement against applying appropriate discipline slowly but surely crept into the public schools until we have a situation today when a school may not apply appropriate discipline for even the most major kinds of misbehavior. Many people who might make wonderful teachers forgo the opportunity because they actually fear for their lives and well being in the educational institutions that have evolved amid the lax discipline standards we have today.

Thank you Roger Ebert for once again targeting a very serious topic and accurately identifying some of the main reasons for the issue. You make our generations very proud.

Wow. I just saw the Miss Teen South Carolina video (I think "Caroline" is a misprint). I wonder if she saw that video after giving her answer, and if so, if she understood what she was saying. Even the part I could make out--that people need to have greater access to maps so that they can locate the U.S. easier--would make sense if it were Stephen Colbert saying it as a joke, but not a teenager saying it as an answer to a pageant question.

You'll be sad to know that the dumbing down of younger generations is not limited to America. In Japan, some people in their twenties and younger can't write out complex kanji by hand (an alphabet derived from China, which is a pictoral--rather than a phonetic--written language) because they're used to writing with a keyboard or touchpad, which will select the kanji for them. All they need to do is be able to identify which kanji they want to use. I've also heard complaints that younger people in Japan don't know how to use keigo properly (keigo is a highly polite form of language used to denote class and relationship differences between speaker, the person being spoken about, and the listener).

Now, as to movies: I can empathize with younger people who love watching well-made movies as opposed to the next box office blockbuster, not that all box office blockbusters stink (as The Dark Knight and a handful of other movies prove). I have been that young person, and as a young adult, I am still that person. The difference now is that some of my friends (more than I would have thought) enjoy seeing well-made movies. I've read posts of friends who wanted to see the Hangover, but very few who wanted to see Transformers 2. Now, would most of my friends watch a foreign movie, or (gasp) silent films? I'm not sure, but I know of at least a few who love, LOVE, both categories of film, as I do, and others who actively seek out older films. I've also been derided by my parents sometimes for my movie choices (and for the movies I choose not to see), but the strange thing is, whenever one or both of my parents have watched one of my "artsy" picks, they often end up enjoying the movie, too.

The main problem with the future of cinema, as I see it, is that the major film studios run on short-term gains, much as many of the bailed out companies did before they crashed and burned. I don't think they care how much money the movie makes ten years from now, as long as it makes a lot of money right now, so that those who made the film can reap the rewards quickly. I've long suspected, however, that truly great films are more profitable over the long run, since each generation gets a chance to rediscover the work. Same with books. Same with music. The problem for studio executives, of course, is that they will not be around to personally receive all of this money, yet wouldn't the longevity of a film be good for the studio, if not for the studio exec?

And yet, as you pointed out in another blog, digital movie recorders have made it easier for independent filmmakers to make movies. So maybe the future of filming will be movies downloaded from the Internet and shown on movie screens for less money than studios charge for their movies to be shown.

Finally, for people who love old movies now in the public domain, you can find many of those movies (mostly silent films) on Youtube. I like to think of Youtube as a big library, and I would hope that some agreement could be reached with film and TV producers so as to have copyrighted content shown on there for free some day, but at least movies like Sunrise and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari can be seen online, for occasions when one's local library or video store does not carry them.

Hi Roger. My theory:

1. By definition , there's always been fewer smarter-than-average people than combined average and dumber-than-average.

2. A few hundred years ago, being dumber-than-average actually hurt you a lot more than it does now. Scientific advances have made dumb choices and laziness in thought and deed less lethal. It takes some doing to make the Darwin awards now. In the past , even when being dumb didn't actually kill you, it hurt you, so life kept pushing you to be smarter. Now technology meets you half way, it lowers the cost of stupidity and laziness. Call it progress.

3. We live in an age of mass media. Your real value to corporations who use mass media is as a consumer. Dumber people make less discriminating ("better") consumers. 100 years ago, those media couldn't reach you. Today it takes some real doing to spend more time reading great novels or watching great movies than being exposed to advertising in its many forms. Mass advertising by its nature is designed to reduce you to a person who thinks they need to buy something in order to be happy. Great works of art typically aim for a lot higher ideas about what life is all about.

4. People have always wanted to fit in. In fact, in a time of prosperity, the ability to fit in socially is allowed to take a higher place than more basic forms of survival.

We're not stupider than we used to be. Life is easier. Really smart people always have to swim against the current. In the past really dumb people had to as well. But changes in technology are moving the centre-point of resistance. It's easier to be dumb than it's ever been.

Now comes the depressing part: for whatever reason, either because we all want to fit in or because it sells more product, our media is more and more celebrating stupidity, modelling it as a kind of a care-free cool. I don't have answers to that.

To the younger readers, don't despair. Being smarter than average has never been an easy road, but it's the only one worth taking, and you're too self-aware to take the other one anyway. Find a group of peers that values intelligence, marry one of them, and raise smart babies.

I'll keep this brief. Some thoughts:

1) My parents took me to our town's local film festival when I was 11 years old, and I haven't stopped going since. The encouragement to see good art should come from them as much as a peer group.
2) I love movies, and film criticism, and rely on both for my income, but if they should be put to death, so be it. There are hundreds of thousands of films from decades past that I have not seen, thousands more books on film I have not read. I could live to be 100 and not experience it all, so the need for "new" works is pleasing, but incidental.
3) The Hurt Locker is not the best American film of the summer. It is fine in its action sequences, but bloated with distracting cameos, and follows the horrifying trend of filming intimate dialogue with unframed, shaky camera movement. Whatever happened to just keeping the camera still? It's as aesthetically offensive as anything done by Michael Bay.

Just out of curiosity Roger, what did you think of Mike Judge's Idiocracy? It does seem pretty prescient these days.

Roger, I don't think that it is necessarily true that this generation is dumber than the previous ones. I'm not saying that this country is filled to the brim with great minds; I guess what I am saying is that it wasn't teeming with great minds in previous generations either. I would dare to say that the proportion of intelligent to unintelligent people is largely unchanged.

I think that in the end it's a matter of free markets working against the greater good. It used to be the case that not being intelligent was considered a bad thing. Someone smart realized that people almost always take the path of least resistance, and would most likely prefer to be accepted as flawed than to strive to better themselves. Through the use of semantics and marketing, being intelligent and eloquent makes you part of the elite, which somehow became a pejorative term. Fat people are no longer "fat," they are "real," unlike the "fake" people who are physically fit. Rather than having knowledgeable experts on shows to educate or challenge people's pre- or ill-conceived notions, platforms are given to nutjobs who, in essence, have turned television shows into echo chambers.

The result is that dumb people are more evident and celebrated now than they have ever been, and now they are given reason to be proud of their intellectual shortcomings. Yet, I wouldn't say that their proportion is necessarily larger, though that seems like an unavoidable tendency if things don't change. The ready availability of information allows for the idiots in the videos you attached to be beamed to millions of people, when a couple of years ago they would never have been known, much less forgotten. On the other hand, however, there is more information available now for those of us who are thirsty for it than there ever has been.

In short, I don't think it's a dumbing down of America per se. I think the ever-increasing availability of information has made the number of idiots in this country more obvious, while it has allowed intelligent people to become even smarter, thus widening the intellectual gap.

The first time I realized that quality movies would often suffer in the face of dwindling audience intelligence was in 1996. I was a senior in high school, and just couldn't get anyone excited about John Sayles' "Lone Star." I guess I could have described it to people as a whodunit, which would have been accurate but incomplete. In all of my 17-year-old-earnestness, I tried to explain the discussion of race relations, politics, generational tensions, madness and incest that made the movie so thrilling for me. While trying to explain this, I would often see eyes glaze over. I knew I had lost them. Eventually I would say, "That new guy who's in 'A Time to Kill' is in it," which got a few takers. Thirteen years later, I still feel like a failed evangelist.

Would it be considered "selling out" if the studio marketed The Hurt Locker to the idiots?

"Coming this Summer! Sweat! Explosions! Chaos! Because when you live on the EDGE, life is a ticking time bomb just waiting to GO OFF! From the director of Point Break! The Hurt Locker! Bringing on the PAIN to a theater near you! Rated R!

I would like to shed light for a moment on what you have to say about young people being shunned for going after great film. I'm the Ikiru guy, an 18-year-old who now owns roughly 80 movies from your Great Movies list, and my friends to be honest think it's rather fascinating that I am so interested in art cinema and most of them, despite the fact that they are fairly average movie-goers who tend to see mainstream film, agree with me about films like Transformers and other brainless popcorn fare. These are not the stereotypical teenage conformists, but people I value for their intelligence.

But the problem is that it's quite a commitment to be a fan of great cinema. Art cinemas are scarce where I live and are more expensive than most theaters. Criterion DVDs are expensive and it's too much of a hassle for someone who isn't a massive film fan to actively seek out more obscure or classic titles as opposed to occasionally picking up a new release if they see it at the front of a store. I have come to believe that if great movies were more accessible, perhaps intelligent youths like my good friends might pursue them a little more. But sadly, film just isn't a high priority for people; my friends recognize that there are better films than the latest new release, but it's not worth their time to seek them out.

And what saddens me even further is that these friends of mine are probably the closest I have at the moment to having intelligible people to converse with about film, and the average person my age is even worse. My high school film class, for instance, moaned out of boredom when we watched The Grapes of Wrath (only lately did I see it without their distraction and absolutely adored it), and yet so many of them proudly champion the modern brainless teen comedy. I live among people who much prefer She's the Man or Mean Girls to Citizen Kane, and it is when such sentiments are expressed that I feel so isolated by my generation.

I did see The Hurt Locker and I loved it, and I'm almost positive that most people I know would love it. But sadly the theater is just a little too far away and the ticket price a few dollars too high for anyone to care.

Bravo.

Last week, Barack Obama said that he hoped that a "teachable moment" would arise from the Henry Louis Gates affair.

But how can you have "teachable moments" when everybody thinks they already know everything?

Narcissism, entitlement, and arrogance are no replacement for a good education.

I'm 23, and most of the written "profiles" of my generation describe us as being more tolerant, diverse and international than any previous generation. This could just be the way of the world (every generation is more tolerant than the previous one), but I objectively think it could be something more-- a reaction against Gen X's oh-so-bored mindset.

Every generation is certainly NOT more tolerant than the previous one. The Spanish Inquisition occurred long after ancient Rome fell, and there are countless more examples like that. The eighties occurred after the sixties, recall.

I also don't see that being diverse and international is of itself a virtue, if everyone's culture is essentially the same vapid no-culture. In other words when you chat online with a European or a South American, you're no longer necessarily talking over a great cultural gulf - what might have made such a conversation of especial interest and value 100 years ago is in large part gone today. As for tolerance, by and large it's a virtue, but it's one that's apt to be taken advantage of. I think we ought to be tolerant of all races and people of every sexual orientation, and I've been pleased to see progress in those areas. But the natural fall out from this tendency is that the culture becomes permissive, and ends up celebrating some things that should be merely tolerated (I speak here not of homosexuality, per se, which I consider morally neutral - but of sexuality and sexual promiscuity in general), and there is no longer any firm ground on which to stand to denounce ANYthing without seeming intolerant. So tolerance is not a total good.

As for the Gen-X boredom, I think why they had it and why we don't (I'm 25) has more to do with their proximity to a literate, adult culture - which we lack. They knew they were being cheated of something, that they were appearing on the scene while the ashes of a living culture were still smouldering. And their whole attitude was an unconscious reaction to it. But the key difference is they KNEW something was off. We do not. We are post-literate, we lack even the ability to make distinctions such as culture/no-culture, because we have no idea that how things are now is not how they've always been - because we have no sense of history. True culture comes from continuing a tradition, whether by building on it or tweaking it or rejecting it altogether - but a long tradition of values and ideas and ways of looking at things and doing them is involved. Culture is never merely 'living in the moment'. Our current 'culture' is entirely in the moment. And on account of it, the moment is indefinite and miserable.

Transformers2 does not spell doom for the planet. Consider that the first T movie had enduring characters that we (okay - maybe just me) actually liked, and we were excited to visit again. Yes - the movie is pretty bad and I have not recommended it to my friends, but I gave it *** because I like the characters. But Paramount used their silver bullet by releasing a relative dog, and the Transformers grace period is over.

Conversely, Hurt Locker was extraordinary, but so stressful to watch, that I can go ***1/2, but not recommend it because so many friends go to the movies to escape. Or Summer Hours was gloriously subtle in humor that you might understand after considering it for 2 days, but not many people I know who will think about a movie that long (my favorite gag is casting French icon and goddess Juliette Binoche as a French-American convert who has polluted her classic French sensibilities with American plastic culture).

Roger - you have positively-reviewed lots of silly movies (The Perfect Getaway for example) for non-artistic or non-quality reasons. While it's true that T2 is not just silly - it's actually bad - it is not a harbinger of doom. It has a one-time quality - we like the characters from T1 and want to visit them again. But we are not likely to be duped again.

Hey Roger,

There's a lot I could say (mostly agreeing), but I think it's important to note that if Hollywood continues strictly on the this path of commercially driven blockbusters, it will eventually end up in a draining quagmire like the music industry.

File-sharing has certainly had an impact. However, since the music industry has consolidated under the control of a few elite, from the record companies to the airwaves, solely focused on manufacturing the next big hit, there's pretty much been a steady decline since they hit a high-water mark back in the 90's. There's no longer any respect for the ebb and flow of musical trends, and actually discovering artists who have honed their craft or are merely exceptionally talented.

Look back to the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's. All periods kind of had their sound, the definition of 'pop' music was somewhat fluid Sure, business had a role in the promotion and popularity of these groups, but there were enough independent outlets and ears out there seeking out new talent and trying to discover 'the next big thing' rather than manufacture it. If you hated a musical trend, at least the sound would change over the years. From the late 90's onward, it feels like we've been trapped in a malaise of bland, empty crap.

Popular music today to me feels practically dead. Sales are down, but file-sharing can't be the only reason. And the youngest of generations can't even fathom things looking or sounding any different, because it's all they know.

So when a film of even sheer technical incompetence like TF2 is revered by a younger audience (please note the blatant use of stock footage in a $250 million dollar flick at the end battle sequence, with skies that are never the same color between shots), it's because the younger audience doesn't any better.

In the short term, this looks good if this piece of junk rakes in $400 million, but eventually, even all the clanging metal, explosions, amateurish numbers of slow-motion shots of people running through mist and smoke, stitched together by editing that wouldn't even pass in a music video, will eventually bore the audiences that are being created who will define THE movie going experiences as merely as such, and just casually download them and watch 'em when they're REALLY BORED. Maybe they'll begin seeking films that used incorporate items such as decent story and plot (and the explosions!), and rediscover what film making USED TO BE. Although, this won't help the flagging B.O. #'s.

But maybe if good films are still being made, the movie industry will enter a new Renaissance. That's assuming the industry is able to get its head out of its ass long enough to realize that the work of an artist and craftsmen are not the same as a 3rd-world, cookie-cutter assembly line with good marketing.

One thing's for sure over many years, the music industry hasn't learned a damn thing yet. And if TF2 is any indication,we're looking to be potentially shafted with years of lousy movies until someone at the controls realizes something is wrong. The only bright spot is that the movie industry is not as dumb as the music industry (at least not yet), and there are still more insightful voices out there along with great directors, but perhaps not as many there used to be.

I'm 23 and I want to just offer this advice to any high-school cinephiles out there: I know how rough it is to try to wax lyrical about Fellini to friends who won't see any movie that's more than a ten-minute-drive away. So when it comes time to pick a college, be sure to check out what kinds of film programs your top choices have to offer. Even if you don't plan on majoring or minoring in film, you can still make use of their resources. Make friends with a film professor and you can sneak into screenings for classes you're not even taking. Want to be a film critic? Smart schools tend to have smart newspapers, and with annual staff turnover, you can work your way up to your own column in less than four years.

You don't have to spend the rest of your life being dragged to Friday-night screenings of "Transformers 2." There ARE places where you can find other young'uns who treat those silent film superheroes in The Alloy Orchestra as the rock stars they are (we sure did at my own alma mater, Brandeis University, which invited them to our humble theater on many a blessed occasion). And if college isn't an option or you've already graduated, look into volunteering for a film festival and you'll find scores of fellow teens and 20-somethings who are excited just to tote chairs around in the name of Film.

You are not alone!

This reminds me of one of my first-ever dates: we were 16 years old, and I took her to see Woody Allen's "Shadows and Fog." Suffice to say, I did not get lucky that night!

Your desire to see a talk show host ask questions not approved by the guest's publicist made me immediately think of Billy Bob Thornton's angry interview on CBC radio. But for me, the most bizarre part was how a couple of weeks later he got to reply via a softball, approved-questions-only interview with Jimmy Kimmel. It was like the matrix repairing itself, explaining away the brief glimpse of truth.

One of the comments that's sometimes made about the (English) Canadian film industry -- which puts out some noteworthy films, but has a disproportionately small share of the domestic box office -- is that it lacks a "star system". I guess the belief is that more people would have gone to see The Sweet Hereafter if only they'd known who Sarah Polley was dating. Instinctively, that makes me cringe, but I can't deny that those dumbed down mass-market movies bring in a lot of cash, some of which could be used to fund or promote more thoughtful work.

And a suggestion to your younger readers who find their friends are only interested in blockbuster films: volunteer at a film festival near you. Not only will most festivals let you see films for free that way, but you'll find plenty of film lovers of every age among your fellow volunteers.

I saw the hurt locker and liked it but not to an extreme amount. I find that some films critics overlook any flaws in it just to make sure people will see the film. Then when people see they may be annoyed because there are some flaws in the films the critics refused to mention. The flaws I saw in it were few but there. One being the main hero did standard action movie cliche of not using the safe method instead using the "cool" method (not using the robot. Also the film had the cameos from known actors which I thought were distracting because they showed just to be killed, which was almost like the stars aren't safe therefore the main characters are not. Finally there were too many middle eastern characters who acted like psychopaths for no reason namely that taxi driver. I just wish critics would mention any flaws even small ones rather than just give an one hundred percent glowing review.

Hey Roger,

There's a lot I could say (mostly agreeing), but I think it's important to note that if Hollywood continues strictly on the this path of commercially driven blockbusters, it will eventually end up in a draining quagmire like the music industry.

File-sharing has certainly had an impact. However, since the music industry has consolidated under the control of a few elite, from the record companies to the airwaves, solely focused on manufacturing the next big hit, there's pretty much been a steady decline since they hit a high-water mark back in the 90's. There's no longer any respect for the ebb and flow of musical trends, and actually discovering artists who have honed their craft or are merely exceptionally talented.

Look back to the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's. All periods kind of had their sound, the definition of 'pop' music was somewhat fluid Sure, business had a role in the promotion and popularity of these groups, but there were enough independent outlets and ears out there seeking out new talent and trying to discover 'the next big thing' rather than manufacture it. If you hated a musical trend, at least the sound would change over the years. From the late 90's onward, it feels like we've been trapped in a malaise of bland, empty crap.

Popular music today to me feels practically dead. Sales are down, but file-sharing can't be the only reason. And the youngest of generations can't even fathom things looking or sounding any different, because it's all they know.

So when a film of even sheer technical incompetence like TF2 is revered by a younger audience (please note the blatant use of stock footage in a $250 million dollar flick at the end battle sequence, with skies that are never the same color between shots), it's because the younger audience doesn't any better.

In the short term, this looks good if this piece of junk rakes in $400 million, but eventually, even all the clanging metal, explosions, amateurish numbers of slow-motion shots of people running through mist and smoke, stitched together by editing that wouldn't even pass in a music video, will eventually bore the audiences that are being created who will define THE movie going experiences as merely as such, and just casually download them and watch 'em when they're REALLY BORED. Maybe they'll begin seeking films that used incorporate items such as decent story and plot (and the explosions!), and rediscover what film making USED TO BE. Although, this won't help the flagging B.O. #'s.

But maybe if good films are still being made, the movie industry will enter a new Renaissance. That's assuming the industry is able to get its head out of its ass long enough to realize that the work of an artist and craftsmen are not the same as a 3rd-world, cookie-cutter assembly line with good marketing.

One thing's for sure over many years, the music industry hasn't learned a damn thing yet. And if TF2 is any indication,we're looking to be potentially shafted with years of lousy movies until someone at the controls realizes something is wrong. The only bright spot is that the movie industry is not as dumb as the music industry (at least not yet), and there are still more insightful voices out there along with great directors, but perhaps not as many there used to be.

From your own site I learned Phillips and AO Scott are taking over your old show and I was pretty sure I knew how you feel about it, even before reading this Blog (I was under the impression Phillips was going to be working for the new show with Roeper though).
I have no question the show is going to regain its excelence even though I have my doubts Scott will be able to connect with the public. I think he simply lacks the "regular guy" charm you and Siskel had. That said and forgive me for being so un-PC but I'm so glad Lyons will leave your old seat, his assignment there not only was a symptom of the way studios view audiences these days but also a travesty to those of us who loved your old show.

"but simply lack the nerve to suggest a movie choice that involves a departure from groupthink."

Could it be that these kids DON'T LIKE Hurt Locker? It couldn't be at all? Where does the "group think" come from?

I think it's this age of internet and isolated niches that allow the smart people to grow smarter and dumb to grow dumber. New ideas don't need to "invade" newspapers and TV to get heard, they can stay on the internet and not be found until you're looking for it.

Ebert: If they haven't seen it, how do they know they don't like it?

I love your passion for movies and I agree that the younger generation does seem to be much more interested in Transformers 2 than many quality films. The problem that I have with your argument is that the implication that the older generation is actually interested in quality films. I am a college graduate and both my parents have multiple college degrees. A couple of months ago, I sat down with my parents and watched Slumdog Millionare on Blu-ray. Their response after the film: "That was weird". I have been around enough older adults in business and in social settings to know that my parents point of view on this and other quality films is common.

In the end, I feel like most individuals, both old and young, do not prefer movies that engage their minds but rather those films that serve as simple escapism that doesn't make them think too much.

There's something comforting about you watching "The Daily Show". John Stewart may occasionally be cuddly with a movie star like Giamatti, but he hardly pampers the politicians and the news anchors he interviews. The Dark Age you speak of also applies to events both local and international, so it's ironic that a fake news program is one of our last existing refuges from hypocrisy.

Geeze, Roger—don't get what's happenin' with the kids these days?

Old modes of communication, social structures and publishing infrastructures that folks our age always assumed would be in place for the next generation are rotting away just like everything else is, and the investor class has decided that it's not worth the bucks to maintain them anymore. We—and by "we" I mean folks 50 and above—are watching the old school get torn down, paved over by the information superhighway. Instant access all too often leads to instant, unthinking responses.

You should have left your citation of video games in. Even though you would be accused of reverse agism, those high-tech virtual environments are designed to make folks both more trigger happy and faster in their response time. The acceptance of instant, unthinking responses in the presence of the "other" is played out in town-hall meetings and "teabagging" parties by folks who don't even know the purposes of town-hall meetings or what teabagging really is. And blogs where you'll find some of the most egregious abuses of the English language accessible instantly—world-wide—to a nearly unlimited audience. The issue's not "Callow Youth" but one of encroaching stupidity. It's not an age factor you should be concerned with, it's the calculated imbalance of public discourse in the era of "Cable News" and the kind of inescapable propaganda that "NCIS", "Law & Order" and "G.I. Joe" represent.

I'm surprised you didn't mention "Idiocracy", Mike Judge's futuristic dystopia of mall culture gone amok. Don't expect anyone to push for better education anytime soon, the deep pockets see no future in that sort of investment.

I'm not sure I understand why Mr. Ebert continues to rail against the willingness of American movie studios to spew and promote arrant crap -- and the willingness of the vast majority of the American public to buy crap. Sturgeon's Law hasn't been repealed; 90% of everything is crap (including the human race).

For my part, I never expected much from the movies. By default, I expect to be bored by them; this allows me to be not only surprised, but grateful when I find myself proven wrong by films like Seven Samurai, Iron Man, or Amelie. Given a choice between watching a movie and reading a book, I'll choose a book instead -- and let my wife watch the movie.

Why do I prefer books over movies? For the same reason I prefer video games over movies: as far as I'm concerned, non-interactive video is defective. While reading, I am constantly engaged with the text; I become an active participant by visualizing the text, analyzing the author's intentions behind each scene, and making the story my own. Why should I settle for Hollywood's images of the Count of Monte Cristo when I can imagine my own?

As for video games: Mr. Ebert can take as many shots at games and their players as he likes; I'm a big boy and I can take it. After all, he probably thinks (with some justification) that most games haven't advanced beyond the likes of Pac-Man. However, I engage a video game as it if were a puzzle, a contest between me and the game's developers. The question becomes, "Can I outwit these programmers?"

Furthermore, games can be used to tell thought-provoking stories. In Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4, a group of students take it upon themselves to investigate a series of murders when they realize that a preternatural element beyond the authorities' understanding and imagination is involved. In Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions, two friends part ways. One, a commoner, manipulates and backstabs his way to the throne to avenge the death of his sister, who died as a result of the games of power played by noblemen. The other, a nobleman's youngest son, exposes a conspiracy within the church to fan the flames of civil war so that the church may consolidate its power.

Of course, Mr. Ebert probably has not played those games. Furthermore, as he is a movie critic it is in his best interest for people to retain an interest in film instead of abandoning it as the obsolete entertainment it has become.

Is this the typical new Hollywood pitch?
WRITER: We open with tumbling cars exploding along a highway in the desert at dawn. The girl is running across the dunes. The helicopter chasing her explodes and tumbles to crash behind her. The music ...
HONCHO: This isn't a musical, is it? No musicals. I hate musicals. Musicals suck. How many explosions you got? Get back to the explosions.
WRITER: Right. Well, there's when the girl tapes the giant diamond to the tracks. The train comes roaring along, hits the diamond, and is thrown tumbling through the air exploding. That's a good one.
HONCHO: What else?
WRITER: I have this swerving armored car gun battle that ends with all five of them tumbling off the cliff exploding into the river. The girl steps to the edge of the road and throws herself off to hang by a root when the small plane tumbles crashing into the road and exploding on the very spot where she was just standing.
HONCHO : Nice touch. What else?
WRITER: We have the unfinished freeway overpass topple with eight busses tumbling and exploding. The girl saves herself by jumping from the motorcycle before it tumbles and explodes on the pile of busses.
HONCHO: What else?
WRITER: I'm really excited about the ending. The girl is walking along by this stream through this little green forest and she comes to a clearing where she spots this cottage. And for the first time in the whole picture she smiles. Then out of nowhere here comes this car tumbling and exploding right in front of her before it freezes midair. The end.
HONCHO: Not bad. Look. Bottom line. How many cars and whatnot do you have tumbling exploding in the script?
WRITER: Let's see ... busses, cars, helicopters, planes, tanks, ocean liners ... ballpark figure, 65.
HONCHO: Can you make it 100?
WRITER: I can make it 125!
HONCHO: Back off, captain. I asked for 100. Let's try to keep it real.
WRITER: 100. No problem. Perfect. Deal?
HONCHO: Deal.

Transformers2 does not spell doom for the planet. Consider that the first T movie had enduring characters that we (okay - maybe just me) actually liked, and we were excited to visit again. Yes - the movie is pretty bad and I have not recommended it to my friends, but I gave it *** because I like the characters. But Paramount used their silver bullet by releasing a relative dog, and the Transformers grace period is over.

Conversely, Hurt Locker was extraordinary, but so stressful to watch, that I can go ***1/2, but not recommend it because so many friends go to the movies to escape. Or Summer Hours was gloriously subtle in humor that you might understand after considering it for 2 days, but not many people I know who will think about a movie that long (my favorite gag is casting French icon and goddess Juliette Binoche as a French-American convert who has polluted her classic French sensibilities with American plastic culture).

Roger - you have positively-reviewed lots of silly movies (The Perfect Getaway for example) for non-artistic or non-quality reasons. While it's true that T2 is not just silly - it's actually bad - it is not a harbinger of doom. It has a one-time quality - we like the characters from T1 and want to visit them again. But we are not likely to be duped again.

"Wouldn't you expect a critic to be more highly evolved in taste than a fanboy zealot?"

Yes, absolutely, especially because fanboys are typically far more concerned with a film's fidelity to its source material than anything else. In that world, it is better to be faithful than original and so it's to a movie's benefit not to be provocative or stimulating.

As to the nature of a critic, I often think of your own words on the subject: "The critic has to be the ideal viewer... he has to be presumably the most interested and alert and involved person in the audience." The problem you've identified is that the gap between the ideal viewer and the rest of the audience seems to be growing dramatically.

Geeze, Roger—don't get what's happenin' with the kids these days?

Old modes of communication, social structures and publishing infrastructures that folks our age always assumed would be in place for the next generation are rotting away just like everything else is, and the investor class has decided that it's not worth the bucks to maintain them anymore. We—and by "we" I mean folks 50 and above—are watching the old school get torn down, paved over by the information superhighway. Instant access all too often leads to instant, unthinking responses.

You should have left your citation of video games in. Even though you would be accused of reverse agism, those high-tech virtual environments are designed to make folks both more trigger happy and faster in their response time. The acceptance of instant, unthinking responses in the presence of the "other" is played out in town-hall meetings and "teabagging" parties by folks who don't even know the purposes of town-hall meetings or what teabagging really is. And blogs where you'll find some of the most egregious abuses of the English language accessible instantly—world-wide—to a nearly unlimited audience. The issue's not "Callow Youth" but one of encroaching stupidity. It's not an age factor you should be concerned with, it's the calculated imbalance of public discourse in the era of "Cable News" and the kind of inescapable propaganda that "NCIS", "Law & Order" and "G.I. Joe" represent.

I'm surprised you didn't mention "Idiocracy", Mike Judge's futuristic dystopia of mall culture gone amok. Don't expect anyone to push for better education anytime soon, the deep pockets see no future in that sort of investment.

Anything that is publicly owned will tend toward power fantasies and voyeurism, and if they lack the courage to even go that far they will copy each other. It's where their incentives are. When something costs $50 to $200 million to make, and the people fronting the money are business people with little artistic understanding of the medium in question, they'll mandate it conforms to a checklist entitled "Mass Market Appeal" ... which means roughly the same as "Lowest Common Denominator." Indy films, and increasingly indy video games, push the artistic potential of their medium because they venture less and therefore the artists themselves can publish. As their art is their motive, they have made sacrifices to the probable breadth of their audience which is less of a risk as well because their monetary investment was relatively small.

Venue is a big problem for indy entertainment of both types. How do you effectively monetize something in the face of withering sensational ad campaigns pushing Monster Budget Production X? Your site, among others, does a great service to independent film. It is my main resource to motivate seeking out good movies. Something will surface doing the same thing for video games and the progressing discourse on them will be a big part of them maturing into an art form.

You see it in food and retail too. Packaging, brand, and marketing are prioritized more highly than actual value offered. I've been in the room when marketing VPs have said, "You can sell anything."

We have a cultural problem.

Roger, everybody, consider that a major part of the "dumbing down" process comes from the fact that is it now possible to stay in your own personal perception of the world and never be without your own set of preconceptions.

Up until, say, the 1980s, most American homes had access only to the three broadcast networks. Equal weight had to be given to many genres: comedies, Westerns, etc. The Beatles were on Sullivan along with the cast of "Oliver!". If there was nothing on you wanted, tough. Now you can watch cable channels presenting nothing 24/7 but Golf, cheap "Syfy", etc.; each channel confirming your view that their specialty subject is the Most Important Thing in the World. Curiously, the most popular channels on cable are the ones running mostly old TV series. You can even watch made-up news of Faux news channel, and email your friends urban legends about Obama's birthplace that ask "why hasn't the 'MSM' covered this?" (Uh, because some of them still engage in fact-checking?)

Even the idea of being able to listen all day to your favorite music is relatively recent: full-service Top 40 radio started in 1960. Year by year, as radio stations proliferate, they pared extraneous distractions like news, public service programming, and finally local DJs who could talk about anything besides last night's "American Idol." But now you can listen to music from over-research playlists that guarantee you'll never hear anything that might even for a second make you want to change stations. And if the overload of commercials gets to you, load an MP3 player with only the music you want to hear, and never have your tastes challenged.

Until about the mid 70's most towns only had one movie theatre with one screen. Even in the cities, most people went to the neighborhood theatre which ran a movie AFTER it had the opening performance downtown. That movie was your option for the weekend. Now, most metropolitan areas have a choice of 100 screens within "easy driving distance" In fact, I just Googled the nearest 100 screens to me (west suburban Chicago). Only two of them are showing "Hurt Locker." "G.I. Joe" will be on 13 of them.

I also worry about the way many seem to celebrate stupidity, as long as we see it in others. It's not just beauty contestants getting caught off guard by simple questions. It's Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" features, or reality shows in which people do stupid things to get on camera. Knowing that every one of those criminal suspects on "Cops" gave their permission to be shown getting engaging in stupid behavior. Making "heroes" out of the likes of Paris Hilton whose only discernable talent is being able to get TV time. and again, tis is all fed into popular magazines, TV "news" shows and whole cable channels dedicated to getting pictures of "celebrities" with private parts exposed, Octomom or Jon & Kate, while offering no discussion of anything those with talent actually do. I doubt "E!" will spend more time next month discussing Brad Pitt's performance in "Inglorious Basterds" than on whatever the "Brangelina" circus has to offer. (I don't mean to impugn Mr. Pitt by putting him a paragraph about stupidity, as he's one of the few closely stalked celebrities who can acquit himself well in a movie).

What I'm rambling on about is that it's so much easier to have your own personal opinions "stroked" that you never have to have your assumptions challenged ever again. Why worry about global warming when you find this here website that says it's all made up? See, no need to learn science! Someone else is going to do the thinking for me.

Roger,

at the time I'm writing this post, there are 94 comments. I've read each and every one, though not every word of every one. It didn't occur to me to count until late in the process, so I don't have the exact number, but I estimate that about 25% of the comments are from people under the age of 22.

That is fantastic! Perhaps there is hope after all.

I'm one of your demographic, so you were preaching to the converted.

But I did want to address the controversy over your comment that critics are "more evolved" movie-goers. Here you've touched on something the great Quentin Crisp also pointed out (while he was wearing his movie critic hat.) He, too, believed that movie-goers had to be "educated" to appreciate movies. Not educated in what used to be called "book larnin'". But educated in the language and nuance of film. Happily, he pointed out, that education was open to all. Just simply see more and more movies of all different types. To be educated, as he termed it, by "a steady diet of celluloid". As Quentin noted, you couldn't have sat a turn of the century nickelodeon audience in front of Citizen Cane, or a Martin Scorcese work or an arty European flim. Audience started with simple fare and had to grow up with the medium.

I think old Quentin, if I may speak for him, would have said it's okay to start on Transformers or GI Joe if that is where you start. Then keep venturing out to more and more complex fare until you become a film autodidact. Sound as if, judging from the comments of A Kid and other of your younger readers, a heartening number are doing just that.

As a 24 year old recent college grad, it sickens me that many of my close friends, many of whom I consider intelligent individuals, rush to see each new weekend blockbuster and have no interest in a film like the "Hurt Locker". Yesterday I mentioned in a group of peers that I have never seen "Wedding Crashers". They looked at me like I was a giant robot that transforms into a car. It is impossible to even have a conversation on film with many of these people. I used to try to convince them to broaden their horizons but its come to the point where I've simply given up. I won't argue with merits of new movies anymore. I'm often told, "well you have a strange taste" or am told I am trying to be an elitist snob.
Here is one problem I have found with trying to get my friends into better, independent movies. Often times they don't want to go to the small art-house theater. They want to go to the big multiplex with stadium seating and huge screens. Unfortunately such places only play the big blockbusters. I would have loved to had seen "Moon" on a massive screen, instead I had to settle for the tiny screen of the local art-house theater, which many of my peers would rather avoid.

I am a undergraduate student and like you mentioned frequently choose update my netflix queue with your Great Movie recommendations (La Belle Noiseuse was incredible by the way). I was recently discussing the new Harry Potter movies with my friends (NOT fanboys) and they got angry with how "critical" I was of the movie. They said they noticed how "critical" I am of movies and wondered if I enjoyed any of the movies that I saw.
This more than anything disturbs me about my generation. Since when are "criticism" as they call it and enjoyment mutually exclusive? People my age simply shun any open discussion of art, in all its forms. Was this always so? Did discussions of films always boil down to "Aww man, that part when ..... was awesome!"

What disappoints me the most is the converse relationship between the popularity of the medium and the quality of the texts. Films and film criticism are more available and sought now than ever before it seems, considering the success of aggregate Web sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Yet those rankings and numbers are ignored by the masses, especially those of my generation. At school, I know plenty of intelligent and interesting people who readily admit they prefer "bad" movies because they do not require intellectual thought and discourse. These are my peers who absolutely adored "No Country for Old Men" until the ending, then left the theater wondering why the Coens ruined an otherwise wonderful picture. Needless to say, the final scene of the movie became a national controversy, mainly because the average viewer chose not to dig for its significance. I've seen the movie at least three our four times, and I certainly don't understand the movie's nuances, but I am willing to keep watching, trying and learning. It is a wonderful film.

You are correct in your assessment of the power of peer pressure in this situation. Gathering a group to go to the movies is easy if you suggest seeing something safe, such as "G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra" this weekend. I think there is a sense of safety in numbers here, which is why box office receipts are advertised as somehow being relevant. For if "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" has already made a billion dollars and half the planet has spent their hard-earned money in a recession to see it, then certainly it must be worthwhile. The studios make impressionable young people feel as if by not seeing the latest blockbuster, they should feel ostracized or somehow outside the norm. As we know, for high school and college students, not fitting in is perhaps the greatest of sins and fears. This leads to an unfortunate herd mentality, which prevents "The Hurt Locker" from receiving the audience it deserves. I have yet to see the movie, but I plan to Sunday night. Each day, I read something proclaiming its brilliance. I look forward to the pleasure of viewing it.

From reading your blog and the comments, I am starting to believe there are more young people who have found a way to break the mold. Intense peer pressure has the incredible ability to stifle and suppress any dissenting opinion. But it is clear they are out there. Surely, you have come to see that simply from the incredible number of posts by young people who are demonstrating that not all of us are lost. I hope I am one of those people.

Most young people smart enough to appreciate 'The Hurt Locker' would have the skills to find it for free online without fear of repercussion. This becomes especially important if the film has a limited release.

Roger,
The way to combat the darkness is to light a candle. Take a young person to see a movie that's not on their radar. You might start a spark.