The Real Lesson of Siskel and Ebert

Kristin Devine

Kristin has humbly retired as Ordinary Times' friendly neighborhood political whipping girl to focus on culture and gender issues. She lives in a wildlife refuge in rural Washington state with too many children and way too many animals. There's also a blog which most people would very much disapprove of https://atomicfeminist.com/

Related Post Roulette

45 Responses

  1. Jaybird says:

    I imagine that we could make a political compass map with a couple of axes:

    “Good/Bad” but that means “whether or not I liked it”.
    “Good/Bad” but it’s more of a measurement of artistic merit.

    We could probably also add “Good/Bad” but it’s more of a measurement of how much it captures a zeitgeist. (I’d put American Beauty here, fwiw. And, man, has *THAT* zeitgeist ever passed!)

    So, like we could just say that there are movies that are just fun but are objectively bad (and, man, they don’t age well!), movies that are Important and represent the fierce urgency of now but, jeez, nobody ever wants to watch them again. And stuff like Pan’s Labyrinth where the movie has you sitting on the edge of your seat, watching between your fingers, and leaving you in an exhausted puddle at the end but, dang.

    Maybe add an axis for “Good/Bad” meaning “how rewatchable it is”.

    Say what you will about Wayne’s World, there’s no problem leaving it on in the other room while you’re balancing the checkbook.

    A good critic is one that has axes that are closer to your own internal axes. Oh, this critic is an artistic merit/zeitgeist critic. That means that Important People read him and agree with her. Oh, this other critic uses the fun axis and the rewatchable axis. That means that the zeitgeist critics will call him a sexist for disagreeing about Captain Marvel.

    And so on.

    Find a critic with your axes.

    (I remember Groening’s Life in Hell comic about Film Criticism. I’m guessing that he was a Zeitgeist/Artistic Merit guy with a West Coast mindset and got ticked off at an Artistic Merit/Zeitgeist guy from the East Coast who COMPLETELY MISSED EVERYTHING IMPORTANT ABOUT THE MOVIE and so he made this comic in response.)Report

    • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

      I like this idea of the axis. Like if you really wanted that zeitgeist of Right Before 9/11 Changed Everything you could do a run through of Office Space, American Beauty, Fight Club, and the Matrix. The only one that I think is still universally well regarded is Office Space. Now everyone hates American Beauty, the Matrix was drowned by its run of inferior sequels, and even mentioning Fight Club online risks provoking a complete flame war (the first rule of Fight Club is…). And yet you’d kind of have to credit them all as important for what was going on in popular cinema in their time in space.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

        Red Letter Media is probably the closest thing to a Siskel/Ebert that we have in the current year and they do a good job of letting the audience know which axes they’re using.

        Like, they can jump back and forth between talking about explodey stuff being cool and monologues being moving.

        They reviewed The Assistant, and Pig, and the various Star Wars flicks, and the unending flow of superhero movies. Get this, I knew whether I’d want to see each of them and what attitude I’d need to have before I sat down to watch in order to get the most from it.

        I don’t want to see The Assistant (but I’m pretty sure it’s a very good movie).
        I want to see Pig (and only because of their review where they explained why I’d want to see it).

        And they can explain why this or that Star Wars movie is or isn’t good and why this or that Superhero movie does what it does well.

        And they use different Axes (well, with different primacy, anyway) for each review and you can tell whether you’d enjoy this particularly subtle arthouse film or whether you’d walk out of this particularly unsubtle blockbuster feeling insulted.

        Out of all of those four films, I could tell you why each captured its particular piece of the zeitgeist (we were in a place where all you needed for a good movie was three or four really good scenes and each one of those four had some really awesome ones).

        I kinda wish we had Red Letter Media at the time. I’d have loved to hear Jay and Mike make fun of each of those.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

        Not going to the movies again until I get a Gartner Magic Quadrant for each genre.Report

      • Kristin Devine in reply to InMD says:

        I honestly, truly, want for someone to write this book because it absolutely NEEDS to be written. Both movies that were important to the zeitgeist and movies that succeed in telling a story about a time or experience in the past that hadn’t been captured adequately prior (Stand By Me, Almost Famous)Report

    • Kristin Devine in reply to Jaybird says:

      I won’t say anything about Wayne’s World, because I think it’s a very solid movie. Both fun and enjoyable, and yet it’s definitely about something – not just about the corporitization of everything, but also that feeling when you are growing up and you start to realize all your friends are lagging behind you in that department. It contains some insight into human behavior amongst a certain subset of people who are very common and we all know, that I’m not sure has ever been caught on film before or since. And in terms of having a lingering effect on moviemaking, it is one of the earlier examples of the “protagonist talks into the camera” genre that became so popular later on that we all started to hate it. (Ebert liked it too: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/waynes-world-1992)Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Kristin Devine says:

        it is one of the earlier examples of the “protagonist talks into the camera” genre

        Got me thinking about when this really became popular…

        First Wayne’s world SNL skit was 1989.
        Ferris Bueller was 1986

        There have to be other UR sources before Ferris Bueller?Report

        • John Puccio in reply to Marchmaine says:

          Woody Allen, I think before and after Annie Hall.

          I’m sure there are others. Like any film adaptation of a Shakespeare play.Report

          • LOL I just mentioned this without reading your comment! Thanks!Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to John Puccio says:

            Yeah, seems like a Mel Brooks thing too? Blazing Saddles in a couple places and seem to recall History of the World as well?

            I’m sensing an emerging dissertation: Breaking of the 4th Wall: from Aristophanes to Wayne and Garth.Report

            • John Puccio in reply to Marchmaine says:

              Definitely Brooks. Also, the Marx Brothers had a few winks and quips directed at the audience.

              I think its probably easier to pull off in comedies than any drama (not a stage adaptation).

              Scorsese definitely started doing it with Goodfellas, Wolf of Wall Street and, I think, Casino.

              My favorite would probably be the end of Fellini’s Nights of Cabiria. Probably the most subtle but impactful breaking of the 4th wall in movie history.

              It would certainly be an interesting dissertation. I don’t want to write it but I would definitely read it! You volunteering?Report

            • Oh yeah – definitely the protagonist(s) looks at the camera in Young Frankenstein and I think Igor even talks into it at one point, where he has to steal the “Abby Normal” brain LOLReport

              • Marchmaine in reply to Kristin Devine says:

                Can’t tell if I appreciate the side-eye approach of our forebearers or the watch me, Deadpool, as we (Deadpool and I) watch Deadpool together of our contemporaries.

                I admit I like Deadpool and the good Thor (Ragnarok) more than I probably should.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

              A million years ago, we read Aristophanes and the professor explained that actors would come out and patter with the crowd. HOWEVER.

              They learned that you can’t point at the guy in the front row and say “what do you think about the play so far?”

              It’s not merely the case where the guy in the front row might not be funny. It’s that the guy in the front row is absolutely and positively *NOT* going to be funny. Sure, you might have a miracle here or there, of course… but that ain’t the way to bet.

              So the actors came out and one pointed to the guy in the front row and asked the other actor “what does that guy think?” and the other actor would say “don’t ask him, he’s a (insert scandalous accusation here)” and *THAT* is comedy gold.Report

        • Ferris Bueller was the first one I remember where it was full on, but I have a recollection of a lot of comedies earlier that had it as a temporary joke, like Annie Hall where Woody Allen starts arguing about Marshall McLuhan.Report

          • rexknobus in reply to Kristin Devine says:

            There is stuff in some of the Hope/Crosby “Road” pictures that, if they don’t talk directly to the camera, there is a lot of referring directly to the audience to make a joke. Also, way back in the early talkie days, there are a few instances of someone stepping out on a proscenium stage to introduce the film, re-assure the audience that all is o.k., or to admonish the audience not to tell the secret revealed in the last reel.

            And may I then recommend 1931’s “The Bat Whispers” as a technical marvel (for its time) and an all-out OMG hoot of a movie.Report

  2. Rufus F. says:

    That’s funny- I never heard of the Stanton Walsh rule, but just recently someone asked if there was anything good about Pretty in Pink, and I said just that- Harry Dean Stanton is in it and he’s good in everything he’s in, no matter how briefly.Report

  3. Pinky says:

    Quick question – How can someone who’s seen American Beauty consider Plan 9 to be the worst movie ever made?

    By the way, I consider Independence Day to be a mini-masterpiece. It’s far superior to The Fifth Element. I didn’t believe a single character in the latter, it’s hard to describe any of them as having arcs, and the tone was all over the place. It had That One Scene, sure, but Independence Day was packed with Those Scenes. I remember what happened in independence Day. It had a comprehendible but enormous scope. Events in one scene led to the next one. Maybe too tightly, sure. It was designed to be a crowd-pleaser. And it ended with my least favorite trope, the car driving up and stopping too soon so that the people can get out and run toward each other. But it’s an epic movie that gets a lot of undeserved hate.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Pinky says:

      “I consider Independence Day to be a mini-masterpiece. It’s far superior to The Fifth Element.”

      you fucking what mateReport

      • Pinky in reply to DensityDuck says:

        Good guys, bad guys, story, resolution, no Chris Tucker.Report

        • Kristin Devine in reply to Pinky says:

          Chris Tucker’s character was both 100% prescient (predicting the YouTubers and Instagram influencer class with an eye to the future that Jules Verne would have been jealous of) and was a riff on a certain style of performer that absolutely existed – Little Richard, Prince, Liberace.

          IDK I think it’s genius and also far braver than “hey, let’s make a president that’s a kinda mashup between Bush and Clinton thereby offending no one!”Report

          • DensityDuck in reply to Kristin Devine says:

            I did find it interesting how many criticisms of Tucker’s character were based more in “he’s gaaaaay” than in “he’s calling back to racist stereotypes of Black performers but making it look cool and funny instead of exploitative and demeaning”.

            It would be interesting to see it come out now, and everyone would be like “it’s the new movie starring Whiteman McHeroface and his sidekick, Stepin Fetchit 2000…”Report

    • Kristin Devine in reply to Pinky says:

      Ok, point taken about American Beauty and Plan 9.

      Neither Independence Day nor The Fifth Element is meant to have believable characters. So I don’t hold that against either movie, although I will point out that the unbelievable characters in The Fifth Element were far and away more unique than the unbelievable characters in Independence Day – it is more the cookie-cutter, totally thoughtless trope characters in Independence Day that bug me so much.

      As for the rest, to each their own!Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Kristin Devine says:

        I think the funniest thing about Independence Day–wait, actually there are two funny things.

        The first is that “the aliens are vulnerable to a computer virus!” is a reference to classic SF that nobody picked up on (in this case, War Of The Worlds, where the Martians all die because they have no immunity to Terran viral diseases)

        The second is that “WELCOME TO EARTH” is now itself a reference to classic SF that nobody gets, because it’s the title of a National Geographic sizzle reel series narrated by…Will Smith.Report

  4. j r says:

    You are right about the need for good criticism and good critics, but the “corporate lackey dudebros” are a symptom of a much deeper problem. For one thing, film criticism is still very much in the shadow of auteur-style filmmaking, even as auteurs have been on the wane. Good film criticism is often about understanding what the filmmaker is trying to do, explaining it to the audience in a way that enhances the viewing experience, and offering some comment on how successful the filmmaker was at executing the vision. That style of criticism becomes difficult, if not impossible, when the filmmaker is a kind of operationalized algorithm.

    We are in a moment where the confluence of consumer preference and self-actualization converge. Some people want to go to the movies to see the most recent iteration of some longstanding piece of IP, so they can join the conversation about how the most recent iteration is “the best thing to happen to the franchise since…” or how it’s just trash. Some people want to know which movies are “important” so that they can reference them and be seen as important and other people want to know which movies are “problematic,” so they can avoid being associated with problematic things.

    The effect is the same. You get a criticism centered around, “what does liking or disliking this movie say about me?” Because that’s what people want. For those of us who want something else, we are best looking outside of mainstream film criticism.Report

    • Kristin Devine in reply to j r says:

      Oh wow good point, it’s definitely at least in part an element of the “I must put forth this perfectly curated self-brand to the world right down to the movies I like” Great comment, thanks for reading.Report

  5. rexknobus says:

    Excellent essay. Thanks. I’ll post a bit of shorthand that I have used through the years (the film school I went to emphasized criticism over production): A Reviewer sez: “If you like X, you’ll like Z, because of these things they have in common. Enjoy!” A Critic sez: “This artwork is good/bad/important because of the ways that it reflects/impacts other artworks and society at large. Examine.” Obviously, YMMV.

    A cool Roger Ebert story: I was co-director of a massive film festival in 1976 and he was a guest (before he was really nationally famous and on-air). I showed him to his conference room where a large crowd had already gathered at the door. I had forgotten my key. A rather loud-voiced film student was ranting on about Pauline Kael, who had recently questioned some of the story of the making of “Citizen Kane.” “What does that rich bitch know about film-making?” the fellow snarled. Mr. Ebert quietly said, “Well, she isn’t really all that rich.” The guy really lashed into him. “What the hell do you know? I study film! I know how the process…” He went on for a while and Mr. Ebert just nodded. The really, really fun part was when my keys showed up, I let the gang in, and Mr. Ebert sat at the table in the front of the room. Mr. Lungs was, to his credit, completely flattened and apologized profusely. Mr. Ebert was very kind to him and the seminar proceeded very nicely. Nice guy indeed.Report

  6. DensityDuck says:

    On the other hand, there’s George Lucas, who made a point, in “Willow”, of having a bad guy named General Kael and a vicious two-headed monster called the Ebersisk Dragon…Report

  7. Dopefish says:

    American Beauty is fun to make fun of. Making fun of “The Lion King” would break most critics’ brains.Report