Other Crap

How Rotten Tomatoes has changed film criticism.

Frankly, it has not changed it enough.

Film critics never seem to catch on that we don't care whether they liked a movie. We only want them to describe a film well enough so that we can tell whether WE would like a movie. In addition, we need them to reveal their biases transparently, so that we can evaluate whether their description has been affected by those biases.

Is Roger Ebert a great critic because I agree with him? Of course not. I don't agree with him any more than I agree with Red Reed. But Ebert is a great critic, and Reed is not, because I can read a glowing Ebert review and tell that I would hate the movie, while a Reed review is nothing but a bunch of eccentric posturings which give me no indication of whether I might agree with his judgment.

I should add that Ebert can be a very eloquent writer. His review of Lost and Delirious is far better than the film itself. In fact, it is one of my favorite reviews, even though he praised a film that I found to be pretentious (but sexy) claptrap. It is obvious that the movie connected to him, and he explained why that happened in a moving and articulate manner. Even more important, I could see that I would not share his enthusiasm.

THAT is good criticism.

Here are some excerpts from that review:

"As a teenager ... I read every word (Thomas) Wolfe ever published. Today I find him unreadable--yes, even 'Look Homeward, Angel' and 'You Can't Go Home Again.' I have outlived that moment when all life seemed spread before me, all possibilities open to me, all achievements within my reach. Outlived it, but not forgotten it. 'Lost and Delirious' stirred within me memories of that season in adolescence when the heart leaps up in passionate idealism--and inevitably mingles it with sexual desire.

There is a temptation, I suppose, to try to stand above this material, to condescend to its eagerness and uncompromising idealism. To do that is to cave in to the cynicism that infects most modern films. This is a movie for those who sometimes, in the stillness of the sleepless night, are so filled with hope and longing that they feel like--well, like uttering wild goat cries to the moon. You know who you are. And if you know someone who says, 'Let's go to `Scary Movie 2' instead,' that person is not worthy to be your friend.

Footnote: The movie is being released 'unrated,' which means it is too poetic, idealistic and healthfully erotic to fit into the sick categories of the flywheels at the MPAA. Mature teens are likely to find it inspirational and moving."

Reader response:

Hey Scoop, just a quick note. I completely agree with your opinion of Ebert as a critic; I have friends that say I won't watch a movie unless Ebert likes it, and criticize me for that, but I keep having to explain to them that I don't read his reviews to see if HE likes the movie, I read them to see if I will like them. Unfortunately for me, I have some dim friends who cannot grasp the difference. However, having seen Lost & Delirious, and being a loyal follower of yours for close to 11 years as well as a follower of Ebert for God knows how many, I wondered if you had ever noticed something I did a long time ago: Ebert loves film nudity. Although I cannot precisely remember him ever explicitly expressing that sentiment (aside from a note in his review of Swordfish), if you listen to and read many of his reviews over the years, you can always tell that he enjoyed seeing breasts in a movie. It's subtle, but it's definitely there. Easily going back to his screenplay for BTVoTD, you can tell the beginnings of it. Obviously this is not a fault, but I don't know if he is aware that his affection for film nudity comes through in his reviews. Sometimes it seems almost as if a film contains some beautifully shot nudity, in his book, that's an automatic 2 stars, regardless of the quality of the rest of the film ... but who can blame him?"

Scoop's reply:

Excellent point. I have noticed it, and I share that bias. Good female nudity can turn an awful film into a satisfactory time-killer for me. Compare these prospects: (1) a Pauly Shore film with no nudity; (2) a Pauly Shore film with good nudity from Megan Fox. I would watch the latter, and would probably recommend it to some others, albeit with appropriately weaselly codicils. Hell, nudity can even make a great film greater. The long version of Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time In America is a perfect example. In my opinion, there are not many films which could not be improved by a bit of flesh. Jessica Tandy was about a thousand years old at the time, but her nude scene made Camilla a better movie, even though there was nothing sexy about it. I think you are right in that the E-man seems to share this opinion, whether or not he has admitted it explicitly.