Ebert.

**Quarterquack** · 03-05-2011, 04:01 AM

As I'm sure there are a few Ebert fans around (I know of at least one on this forum), I'd like to have your opinions on him.

I'm trying to like him. Really trying. I do agree with a lot of his reviews, if not even think that he needs to be a tad more cynical to be spot on with his opinion (in my opinion, obviousment), but it seems like everything he says off-topic from his usual movie banter (more like 90% of what he says) is pointless tripe that shouldn't be spout out of a human mouth.

Can someone point me to something that will make me respect him a little more than I would by seeing him try to step on Charlie Sheen's toes or insult the gaming industry?

**IdolEyes787** · 03-05-2011, 01:05 PM

He's won a Pulitzer .

Anyway if Ebert is a little more esoteric nowadays it probably stems from his battle with throat cancer and the prolonged facing of his own mortality.
Not that he hasn't always included seemingly "pointless" but not anecdotes in many of his reviews .
Film criticism doesn't exist in a vacuum and a certain perspective is necessary or it becomes as pointless and vacant as the " I rate this film 8/10" threads that I detest .
Isn't there some quote that goes something like" to understand the art first you have to understand the artist"?

And make no mistake quality writing at any level is an art and Roger Ebert is very much an artist . If that bothers you and you wish no more than bare facts delivered with an absense of passion or humanity then there is no dearth of talentless hacks out there to fit the bill.

**Quarterquack** · 03-05-2011, 05:49 PM

I think you gravely misunderstood what I was asking for.

I do enjoy his reviews. Very much so, or else I wouldn't even give it a shot at liking him. I like the color that only he could add to stories, movie reviews and opinions. He's articulated, reasonable - but more often than not idiotic. It seems like every time he says something off-topic, he gives me a reason to dislike him even further. A few days ago it was the fiasco with him insulting Charlie Sheen and hopping on the hate bandwagon. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that what Charlie Sheen is doing is right, I just happen to agree that people shouldn't give a damn. People act like Charlie all the time; just because he's a celebrity shouldn't suddenly earn him the pleasure of having people give two shits about him, nor should it give people reason to insult him. If Ebert wanted to see a better world, with less Sheens in them, then he should go out and donate inordinate amounts of money to be the change he wishes to see in the world - and that is exactly what I'm asking to see here. I've heard him complain about people being imperfect, I've heard him bastardize (or perhaps in his opinion report) what the word "art" means; and all I want to see is more of him acting out these opinions so maybe I get a deeper appreciation of them, than simply throwing the word out and waiting for shock value to bring him back some page hits.

P.S. I deeply disagree with understanding the artist. Two people can look at a painting; one can see his mother's likeness in it, while the other can see an abstract notion such as comfort or freedom. Just because an artist produces something, and attempts to add his opinion or flair to the written piece, drawn piece, or even poem (just look at the books upon books analyzing Dulce Et Decorum Est with extremes taken at every opportunity) does not mean that the people that appreciate its beauty have to agree with either its meaning, stance or even the very reasons for its beauty; nor does it necessitate that they have to relate to the artist. A contextual background is always nice (and would solve half of the religious problems in the world) but it doesn't draw away from the perceived beauty of the piece in the beholder's eyes. Otherwise, all forms of art would be dead, except for writing. The only reason I want to read about Ebert's better side, is because I want to like him. Otherwise, I truly believe you can have two mutually exclusive opinions about a person and his work (as is the case with Sheen, funnily enough).

**IdolEyes787** · 03-05-2011, 06:01 PM

To understand the art you have to understand the artist. Appreciation is not the same thing as understanding . People putting their own spin of what something represents makes it personally meaningful which is as it should be but doesn't negate the fact of the first sentence. Or maybe you think that my interpretation that Starry Nights was born from a deep love of tree stumps and wheat alcohol is a valid one?

**Skiz** · 03-05-2011, 07:15 PM

Do you want this in the Drawing Room?

**IdolEyes787** · 03-05-2011, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

To understand the art you have to understand the artist. Appreciation is not the same thing as understanding . People putting their own spin of what something represents makes it personally meaningful which is as it should be but doesn't negate the fact of the first sentence. Or maybe you think that my interpretation that Starry Nights was born from a deep love of tree stumps and wheat alcohol is a valid one cunt?

I edited so that it's more Loungecentric.

**megabyteme** · 03-05-2011, 10:23 PM

I was always more of an eErnie fan myself. Like who you want.

Originally Posted by Darth Rings

As I'm sure there are a few Ebert fans around (I know of at least one on this forum), I'd like to have your opinions on him.

I'm trying to like him. Really trying. I do agree with a lot of his reviews, if not even think that he needs to be a tad more cynical to be spot on with his opinion (in my opinion, obviousment), but it seems like everything he says off-topic from his usual movie banter (more like 90% of what he says) is pointless tripe that shouldn't be spout out of a human mouth.

Can someone point me to something that will make me respect him a little more than I would by seeing him try to step on Charlie Sheen's toes or insult the gaming industry?