Roger Ebert on the Death of the Film Critic

Pulitzer Prize winning movie critic Roger Ebert has written a passionate response to what some are calling the demise of the film critic, or what Ebert is calling “the death of an intelligent and curious, readership”. The whole thing was sparked when the Associate Press imposed a 500-word limited on movie reviews and interviews. I wouldn’t want to read a serious review of There Will Be Blood, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind under such limitations. Heck, I think Hunter’s TWBB review was something like 40,000 words (yeah, probably a little much, but I digress).

And some regions have decided that the film critic aren’t needed at all. Ebert blames the focus in our culture towards celebrity obsession. We use to be a culture obsessed with stories, but now the mainstream public is more obsessed with Britney Spears or Suri Cruise than good old fashion storytelling. Here are a few excerpts from his latest blog.

“As the CelebCult triumphs, major newspapers have been firing experienced film critics. They want to devote less of their space to considered prose, and more to ignorant gawking. What they require doesn’t need to be paid for out of their payrolls. Why does the biggest story about “Twilight” involve its fans? Do we need interviews with 16-year-old girls about Robert Pattinson? When was the last time they read a paper? Isn’t the movie obviously about sexual abstinence and the teen fascination with doomy Goth death-flirtation?”

“Why do we need critics? A good friend of mine in a very big city was once told by his editor that the critic should ‘reflect the taste of the readers.’ My friend said, ‘Does that mean the food critic should love McDonald’s?’ The editor: ‘Absolutely.’ I don’t believe readers buy a newspaper to read variations on the Ed McMahon line, ‘You are correct, sir!’ A newspaper film critic should encourage critical thinking, introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged.”

“Perhaps fearing the challenge of reading a newspaper will prove daunting, papers are using increasing portions of their shrinking news holes in providing guides to reading themselves.” … “The celebrity culture is infantilizing us. We are being trained not to think. It is not about the disappearance of film critics. We are the canaries. It is about the death of an intelligent and curious, readership, interested in significant things and able to think critically. It is about the failure of our educational system. It is not about dumbing-down. It is about snuffing out. The news is still big. It’s the newspapers that got small.”

I highly recommend that you read Ebert’s entire rant on his Sun-Times Blog. I’d love to hear what you guys think about this in the comments below!

  • As someone who has nothing to do with the press and is by no means a film connaisseur by any stretch of the imagination, I tend take away a lot from reviews written by film critics whose opinions I trust. If the director shoots things at a particular angle or uses color in a certain way, that usually goes way above my head until I read about it. I feel as though I'd miss out on the whole experience if it weren't for film critics because of my lack of knowledge in the field.

    Also, reviews tend to help me discover new things. For example, had it not been for all the positive feedback that it got, I probably would have missed 'Let the Right One In" and that would've been a shame. It's a GREAT movie. I know what I tend to like and of course there are movies that I'll see regardless of the critiques (hey, a Bond movie is a Bond movie... even if I was highly disappointed afterward lol) but there's also a metric shit-ton that I do see thanks to them and am totally grateful for it. Just my two cents :)
  • I completely agree with Ebert. Maybe he just got so angry about having to review the crap that is Twilight that he felt he must voice his opinion.
  • Film Criticism is becoming more and more a publicized art towards the aesthetic nature of films, and nothing beyond on that. Most reviews for example, tell us that an actress is performing to an 'Oscar' standard, but not why in the context of not only the film, but the genre and even cinema in general. Criticism is unfortunately in my eyes becoming a simplified area of cinema. Victor Perkins in 'Film As Film', has some interesting thoughts on film criticism and the theories upon which this criticism has been based. Definitely worth a read, if you wish to delve deeper into film and cinema as a whole.
  • As much as I agree with all of you, Ebert shot himself in the foot when he revealed he'd only watched the first 8 minutes of TRU LOVED and then wrote an entire review of the film, only revealing at the end he hadn't seen the entire picture (i.e. "what a tweest!")

    What better way to insinuate, whether by cheeky joke or ignorant mistake, that film critics are unnecessary then by enacting a stunt like that.
  • MarkGoug
    He only reviewd the first eight minutes of the movie; the portion he saw.
  • as long as we have slashfilm, i think we will be able to survive. if slashfilm goes, we are definitely screwed. fubar
  • "My friend said, ‘Does that mean the food critic should love McDonald’s?’ The editor: ‘Absolutely.’"

    Holy freaking cow... did that conversation really take place?

    Welcome to "Idiocracy."

    Vic
  • I entirely agree with Ebert. But I may add that this is not only happening in films but in other art expressions such as Music and Fine Arts. It disconcerts me when people use the 'cheap' excuse that art is subjective to justify bad quality. Britney Spears does not have the singing qualities that a lot of people from, for instance, American Idol do, but still she managed to outsold a lot of people with talent. I think that kind of trend should tell people something regarding the mainstream appreciation for art.

    I think the Netflix CollegeHumor parody makes a great point regarding this topic, a lot of people prefer to see something popular instead of a film classic. There are reasons why this films are considered classics and I think anyone with a real passion for film should try to watch classics just to know why those were given such classification and to enrich oneself with knowledge and culture.
  • Javier
    Amen. Im the editor in chief of my school newspaper and looking towards a career in journalism and the things Roger Ebert is completely true about the news industry. How news is now more about affirmation and information and pandering to the lowest common denominator. I'm glad someone as respected and revired as Roger Ebert has come out to say this.
  • gooberfish
    Film critics or Art critics in general are among the most useless and pointless people in society. Art is subjective; different people like different things and most people in the real world don't need a bunch of pseudo-intellectual nobheads telling them what is and what isn't good.
  • I completely disagree, especially when it comes to independent and art films. How are you to find a good film in the hundreds of indies that are released each year. This is where critic support can make or break a film.
  • Agree with Ebert for the most part. It does sound a bit self-serving, I must admit. After all, it isn't just movie critics who are finding themselves on the outs. Sports columnists, food critics, everyone in the print media business is having to justify their positions to bigger and bigger media conglomerates. The newspapers are slowly dying out and are being replaced by new media (like /Film and the podcast).

    That said, there is something wrong when the analysis of a movie has to include the stars' off-camera lives or the online fan campaigns as part of actual criticism of a film.
  • Burt Nelson
    Who givesa fuck about film critics? I never thought Ebert and Roeper were telling me anything particularly interesting. I just watched for the film clips.
  • Solid
    We need to know what's worth buying, so there will always be need for critics, especially now in the information age where we can get the latest reviews at the click of a mouse. I also think the only thing killing critics these days is the fake reviews we have now online that cause a lot of suspicion and distrust of news sources. People should always question things, but we're getting to the point where nothing's sacred anymore and everyone's scared of being scammed by some studio who wants you to see their latest stinker. Pick your critics wisely...
  • Joe
    Newspapers face increased competition from the web and have to scale back in order to survive. If they think a place to cut is the space available for movie critics than who am I to argue. They know more about their market than I do and their goal is to make money and thrive. People who want to read movie reviews probably look for them online mostly these days and the Newspaper's probably feel - so the service isn't really lost for the consumer.
  • jesussanchez
    gooberfish:

    Beyond critic support serving to make or break a picture, the critic can spark unexpected dialogue concerning art. Critics can highlight aspects of a film we as viewers were previously unaware of. It is true that all art is subjective, but your reason for getting rid of the critic is the same reason a critic should exist. Just as you have the right to express your opinion, the critic has the right to express his. You have the right not to read it and more importantly (and constructively) you have the right to read it and disagree with it. The critic is not meant to waste your time or tell you what to like and what not to like. The critic is a guide, not a taste dictator. I'm obviously not going to convince you of the value of the critic, but the very fact that you're reading /Film or any other film blog reveals that you're looking for information with an opinion attached. You're looking for debate, something to agree or disagree with, and that's how it should be.
  • fanshawe
    I worked for a news portal until about a year ago and couldn't agree more with Ebert. It's all about the clicks and how much traffic you can bring to the advertisers. Quality articles and educated perspectives on any kind of art have as much chance of surviving in the long run as a movie that doesn't have Twiilight's box office gross has of getting a sequel. It's insane. And most editors of entertainment section, where films usually go, are more concerned about entertaining than they are in quality content.
  • dlb
    Its funny. Yesterday I finished the fifth and final season of The Wire where the theme dealt with the way the press will handle a story. It mostly spoke on how the true story had died in hands of reporters who spark Pulitzer material for a bigger payroll.

    To me, this echoes that entire feel. a 500 word limit? Screw off, 500 words to sum up a film? To hell with the modern media standards and assuming that people don't "read". This is a result of other influence for the sake of money. Dollars and Sense becomes spare change in a time of every penny spent to make an "earnest buck".

    Ebert has every right to be critical here. The film critic is a person of well rounded thought. This is BS and no one will huge will fight for it.
  • I'm going to my bedroom to weep.

    I'm currently taking News Reporting at school and every guest speaker has been gloomy about the future of journalism. But as long as I can remember, I've wanted to be a film critic. Ebert's one of my personal heroes, and if he's pessimistic about that profession, what hope is there for me?
  • jjb
    How about a critic who I can look at that represents me as a filmgoer, was that ever put into consideration? I think if film critics were less like elitists like Roger Ebert, and more of a (dare I say) fanboy like Kevin Smith, I would appreciate their opinion more.
  • SML
    First, THE CRITIC AS ARTIST by Oscar Wilde

    http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/480/

    Film criticism's "canary in a coal mine" moment wasn't the shift to celeb cult worship, but rather to the simplification of its opinions into "see it/don't see it." These tools (sometimes rendered as stars and copyrighted thumbs) became a part of a process not conducive with the art of criticism (the reasoned breakdown of a work into points of interest... an attempt to expand the field of thought and theory). The criticism Ebert is nostalgic for, that he believes is dying, wasn't made ill by the simplification of the readership's minds, it was infected by industrial mathematics (by always having to feed the gaping maw of mass consumption). Criticism, artful or compromised, cannot survive in a world so hungry. It must be parceled off into fragments of what it once was, simplified, and fed to us in small, addictive morsels ad infinitum (or until our wallets are empty or our gray matter turns into fat... whichever comes first).

    Of course, some breed of critic will find refuge in the aftermath. Not in newspapers, magazines, or journals (not major ones anyway). They will flourish in tiny communities (perhaps like Peter and his cabal of thinkers). They will survive on scraps and minor accolades and introduce the world to a New Form. And when the world begins to pay attention, as the maw stretches wide, these critics, too, will simplify and industrialize to meet demand. They will do it until they are not recognizable. They will die and something new and wonderful will take their place.
  • glad to see this
    Style your statement and create a musical blog on at www.uploaded.tv with your short portfolio
  • Then what you're looking for is not a critic. You should be looking towards your peers instead.
  • The biggest problem I have with Ebert's opinion is that he states what critics should be and it's obvious that most aren't like that at all anymore (regardless of their constrictions as these are reviewers that don't suffer from 500 word maxes, etc.) This site included, I feel like most reviewers today suffer from the problem of not being able to get over themselves when they write their review. It's like watching Keith Olbermann or something where it just comes out to well in the writing that the writer is to infatuated with themselves and the idea that they are writing a review for other people to read. I mean a review is clearly supposed to be personal but after reading it I shouldn't feel like I just read the reviews life story.

    I don't know.. I may be biased because I don't generally read reviews and if I do, it's only until after I've seen the movie as I'm OCD about spoilers and reviews give away way too much.
  • The second you say you like or dislike something, you have become a critic. All day long as people we critique things and listen to people do the same. As life goes on you learn who you agree with and who you don't. When this happens you attach yourself to them and listen.

    You are defining any critic you disagree with as a pseudo-intellectual nobhead. Maybe somewhere along the line you feel they may have the right answers, but because you aren't intellectual enough you feel like a failure? You don't have to agree with a critic, they are just there to pose a point of view that may or may not align with your own. Maybe if you keep listening to or reading some of these guys material, you come to the decision that purchasing that Norbit 3 ticket is not the greatest of ideas.
  • I also concur with Ebert's views. For me the straw would have been reviewing <Insert Random Eddie Murphy here>.
  • It is hard to argue with why he did it though. I can only imagine having to sit through some of the drivel that is released. He did note that he didn't watch it all, and sometimes it's good to see the way a real person handles a situation.
  • Kevin Smith has also stated before that he is probably not a proper gauge, since he likes pretty much everything. If you like everything, why do you follow critics?
  • Jonesy
    If the majority of cirtics werent snobs with political agendas this would be bad news. But they are, so I think this is a very good thing. They have undue, misguided influence that often hypes movies athat dont deserve hype while they trash movies they find offensieve that dont deserve being trashed. The web is more democratic and I think movie reviews are much better there. Id trust an intelleigent mvovie fan much more than I would some snob writng in the New York Times. And that goes for Ebert too, who is a good writer but has questionable taste in movies.
  • jerry seinfeld
    "I'M STILL IMPORTANT! LISTEN TO ME!"

    take it easy, robert. it's just the movies, man.
  • Cerisier du Japon
    Critics opinions don't mean as much as they used to, at least to me. I truly believe some reviews, both positive and negative, have been bought and even changed to be part of the in crowd. Emmanual Levy will change his reviews depending on where the wind blows. I've read a couple of reviews by Manohla Dargis, who for many is one of the top film critics, but to me comes off as a person bent on character assassination. I don't have a problem when a critic hates a movie I like or love but I do have a problem when I feel there's a hidden agenda behind such hate.

    However, I do enjoy visiting film blogs for blogs are where I find out about smaller movies. I think it was here where I learned about an Irish film called "Kisses" which I absolutely adored. Because of blogs I made sure to seek out Steve McQueen's Hunger and I'm still looking for Let the Right One In.

    Ebert has some good points but neglects to point out how critics can be their own worst enemies.
  • One door closes, another one opens. There will always be film critics - critics of everything. Ebert is just having a cry that they won't be employed or paid the same, that's all. Indie rags, webcasts and blogs will still provide a multitude of critics at many various levels of knowledge.
  • Dan Puzzo
    I completely agree. Both of the fields I'm studying at school (advertising and cinema studies) are dying and it's very depressing.

    I write reviews for my school paper. Most of them are posted online, and when they are in print they have to be under 300 words, which is an absurd limit. Now they're even doing 11-word reviews (not kidding).

    SOMEONE TELL ME THERE'S HOPE OUT THERE FOR ME
  • Sean
    Obviously we don't NEED critics but we don't NEED movies either. It must suck being a critic of anything though...always having to justify your existence
  • IMO, critics should NEVER be about popular opinion. If they were, what use would they be? Why not just ask your peers for reviews if that's what you're looking for. I look towards critics for a more "educated" opinion. I use educated because i can't really think of a better word to use. The critics that I go to most often have and demonstrate their knowledge of cinema, from history to more technical aspects like camera technique. This is what i look for since it is something that I, an average moviegoer, am not able to accurately assess.
  • Man, Roger Ebert is a genius. I really miss seeing him and Siskel go at it. I love seeing stuff like this on the web. I am constantly amazed at how much useful imformation one can find with just a little digging. Most traditional film schools tend to skip important topics in favor of technique and things like that. One program I found online offers one on one mentoring to assure that you have all the tools to feel comfortable and ready the first day you step onto a set. One such program is Film Connection. <a href="http://WWW.film-connection.com " target="_blank">http://WWW.film-connection.com The best part is that their program is available anywhere in the US and Canada.
blog comments powered by Disqus