Quote of the Day
Roger Ebert, in a review of “Black Dynamite”:
The women are also dressed in period threads, and many have big Afros. I am happy to say it brings back an element sadly missing in recent movies, gratuitous nudity.
Sexy women would “happen” to be topless in the 1970s movies for no better reason than that everyone agreed, including themselves, that their breasts were a genuine pleasure to regard — the most beautiful naturally occurring shapes in nature, I believe. Now we see breasts only in serious films, for expressing reasons. There’s been such a comeback for the strategically positioned bed sheet, you’d think we were back in the 1950s.
Amen, brother!
Roger Ebert is underrated as both a writer and a dude. If he hadn’t lost his voice (an incredible tragedy, that), he would be near the top of my focus-group-style “have a beer with” list.
On a related note, have you ever read his review of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? It might be the best and most vicious takedown I have ever seen.Report
Lost his voice?Report
Ebert has lost the ability to speak.Report
Ebert is a national treasure. The LXG review was great, but his best take down, for my money, was the Jay Mariotti goodbye letter:
http://deadspin.com/5043228/roger-ebert-gives-jay-mariotti-a-strategically-placed-thumb-on-his-way-out-the-doorReport
They’re Not Titties, They’re Blood
When a journalist asked Jean-Luc Godard, why there was so much blood in his latest movie, Weekend, Godard replied: “It’s not blood, it’s red,” as a way of pointing at that what is portrayed on screen, be it violence or sex, is never the same thing beheld in real life. They’re are social and political implications as well.
In writing, “Sexy women would “happen” to be topless in the 1970s movies for no better reason than that everyone agreed, including themselves, that their breasts were a genuine pleasure to regard,” it’s like Roger Ebert forgets he’s watching a fucking movie. Sorry, pal, that stupid smile on their faces has nothing to do with being pleasured by their own breasts, but because that’s what the director told them to do.
Ebert wraps his infantile thought in some kind of liberal rejection of 1950’s sexuality, when really he’s talking with all the intelligence of boys who joke, “If I was a chick, I’d just be in my room, rubbing my tits all day long.” Or better still, the way he writes about the shape and bisexual enjoyment of breasts as a natural phenomenon, as an unwavering eternal Truth, he might as well be speaking like an ordinary dumbass who says, “It is what it is.” For a guy who champions gay rights, you’d think he’d have a more open-minded attitude as to what is “natural” and what isn’t.
A very good friend of mine pointed out that the problem with the sexual revolution of the 60s is that the cause was driven by the fantasies of men and not what women desired or needed. Hey Ebert, in case you haven’t noticed, females don’t come. Maybe what we got ain’t working for them. Even still, in case Ebert hasn’t noticed, there are a bounty of breasts on TV, on every bus ad and billboard, and even 12 year olds are wearing halter tops these days. So feast your eyes, boys, this isn’t the 1950s I heard about.
Then again, the whole issue could be resolved if Ebert wouldn’t allow himself to get so damn lazy that he forgets he’s watching a movie. Those aren’t titties, Rog, they’re a portrayal of women that has only gotten sicker in the last several years. I for one am glad they don’t show the “natural shape” and everlasting beauty of breasts more in films because, chances are, we’d be looking at some inflatable breasts the size of basketballs.
So please, Chas, for the rest of us, please fuck Roger Ebert more so the blood can return to his brain and he might have more intelligent things to point out.Report
I bet this troll eats nanny goats too.Report