Roger Ebert dies at 70

[Alyeska]

Ebert was an Atheist. Those editorial cartoons are by people with a religious agenda, or the ignorant.

Wrong. He was a Catholic. His blog posts pointed out that much.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/03 ... holic.html

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05 ... night.html

I wrote an entry about the way I believe in God, which is to say that I do not. Not, at least, in the God that most people mean when they say God. I grant you that if the universe was Caused, there might have been a Causer. But that entity, or force, must by definition be outside space and time; beyond all categories of thought, or non-thought; transcending existence, or non-existence. What is the utility of arguing our "beliefs" about it? What about the awesome possibility that there was no Cause? What if everything...just happened?

I was told that I was an atheist. Or an agnostic. Or a deist. I refused all labels. It is too easy for others to pin one on me, and believe they understand me. I am still working on understanding myself.

At most, he was a Deist. But he doesn't even affirm to a creator. Agnostic/Atheist would also be accurate.

He does not believe in God. So he is not a Catholic. Thats kinda a requirement.

[JLTucker]

Did you just link to a blog post from almost four years ago (mine is from this year) as recent proof that he's not a catholic?

Are you dumb? I know my answer is a resounding "yes," but I'm interested in your take on it.

Edit: Actually he says the same thing in the blog post I liked to. He was just an idiot and you're right.

[Alyeska]

From your article.

I consider myself Catholic, lock, stock and barrel, with this technical loophole: I cannot believe in God. I refuse to call myself a atheist however, because that indicates too great a certainty about the unknowable.

He does not believe in God. He calls himself a Catholic who doesn't believe in God. A contradiction.

According to the actual definitions, he is an Atheist. He refused to label himself as such, but it doesn't change facts. He doesn't actually believe in God, so he can't be a Catholic since thats a requirement of the church. He is Culturally Catholic.

So, my original point still stands. Ebert is an Atheist. He has admitted as much, including in your very recent link from this year. That he won't call himself an Atheist is irrelevant. He meets the definition.

You didn't even read your own fucking link when you decided to start tossing insults. Nice going dumbshit.

[JLTucker]

You didn't even read your own fucking link when you decided to start tossing insults. Nice going dumbshit.

That is evident. I edited my post to reflect how I was wrong. No hard feelings, trigger discipline?

[Stark]

Whoa, admitting your error sure is a bad idea. Tucker should have just never posted in the thread again to avoid this.

[Alyeska]

You didn't even read your own fucking link when you decided to start tossing insults. Nice going dumbshit.

That is evident. I edited my post to reflect how I was wrong. No hard feelings, trigger discipline?

He wasn't an idiot. People refuse to self identify all the time. Its where the Cultural labels come up.

"I was raised Catholic or Jewish" are common ones. So people can culturally be Jewish. And even when someone changes religions, or goes without, they still tend to hold familarity with the religion they were raised in. Thats the case for Ebert. But its clear his opinions are drastically different from the Church. Ebert was very liberal. According to several Bishops, he should have been excommunicated from the church just for having those opinions.

[Junghalli]

Ebert was an Atheist. Those editorial cartoons are by people with a religious agenda, or the ignorant.

Just because somebody's an atheist doesn't necessarily mean they'd object to something like that cartoon. Personally (as an atheist) I think my reaction to somebody wishing or thinking I go to Heaven would be more "that's nice!" than "OMG get your icky religion away from me!", and the latter reaction honestly strikes me as kind of sad. I don't think I'd have any objection to somebody commemorating my death with a picture of me in fluffy cloud heaven.

I do agree if you don't know how somebody feels about that kind of thing it is better to err on the side of caution, but just saying.

[Havok]

Who cares. Fuck, it's nice to think him and his pal get to watch movies together again even if it is nonsense. I mean geezuz, you think a forum built completely around made up shit could handle some made up shit.

And to the point, the way most people think, they want him in heaven in whatever religion they believe in because they liked/admired/respected or just plain enjoyed the guy. It doesn't have to be some douchebag statement on HIS religion.

[Elfdart]

I've never had much use for movie critics (even less for music critics) but Ebert was one of the few who were interesting to read because they wrote about more than whether they liked or disliked a particular film. His Movie Answer Man articles were more useful than almost any other critic's entire archive.

He still had his faults: He gushed over Chauncey Gardner Quentin Tarantino in a way that was embarrassing. His smearing of Armond White as a "troll" (White had committed the unpardonable sin of not chewing the cud and following the critic herd) was petty and stupid. But in spite of all that Ebert was never boring, either in print or on TV or radio (his appearances on The Howard Stern Show were always hilarious).

[JLTucker]

His smearing of Armond White as a "troll" (White had committed the unpardonable sin of not chewing the cud and following the critic hers) was petty and stupid. But in spite of all that Ebert was never boring, either in print or on TV or radio.

Damn. I never thought I'd see someone defend White, easily one of the best critics alive. Talk about a guy who gets shit for his reviews, writings that actually have arguments. Ebert's handling of that was typical of the dumbasses who can't handle disagreement.

It is baffling to me that a critic could praise "Transformers 2" but not "Synecdoche, NY." Or "Death Race" but not "There Will be Blood." I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08 ... white.html

Yeah. That sure showed him! The difference is that White actually argues his case and shows knowledge about filmmaking, however pretentious he may be. Yep, Ebert was not a good critic.

[Ralin]

Who cares. Fuck, it's nice to think him and his pal get to watch movies together again even if it is nonsense. I mean geezuz, you think a forum built completely around made up shit could handle some made up shit.

And to the point, the way most people think, they want him in heaven in whatever religion they believe in because they liked/admired/respected or just plain enjoyed the guy. It doesn't have to be some douchebag statement on HIS religion.

Yeah, this. I'm an atheist and I have no idea what his religion was, but that didn't stop me from saying that Steve Irwin was "jamming his thumb up angels' buttholes now" when he died. "And dangling babies over the pit of fire."

Anyway, this makes me kind of sad. I always meant to get into the habit of reading Ebert's reviews. Guess I never will now.

[Kuja]

in fact high concept 'art games' are more likely than usual to have no conventional story.

They're also more likely than usual to be absolutely terrible as games see: Dear Esther, The Path.

The thing with games though is that we engage with them on a completely different level to other forms of art. A game needs the active engagement of the player to do anything at all, and the different aspects the player brings to the game will materially change what the game presents. It doesn't really matter how artistic the design is, it won't be anything at all without a player, or if the player is dicking around and pointing the camera the the wrong way, or whatever.

Gaming, if it can be considered art at all, is performance art, but the player isn't just the audience, they're a performer as well.

Since Roger Ebert didn't play videogames (which he actually said), this isn't something that he would have any real appreciation of. Even if you watch a game being played well, there's a missing element which is "I should be doing that, not watching it".

On that subject, I thought one of Bob Chipman's better episodes of 'Game Overthinker' was a response to Ebert's statements.



It takes awhile to get going since he talks about Ebert's background a whole bunch, but I thought it was worth a listen.

[Davis 51]

RIP Roger Ebert.

His smearing of Armond White as a "troll" (White had committed the unpardonable sin of not chewing the cud and following the critic herd) was petty and stupid.

I don't think White is a 'troll' in the sense that Ebert was using, given that they came from two completely different fields of film criticism, but calling him a troll is not entirely unfair. White looks from the perspective of "what new does this film bring to the table?" while Ebert looks from the perspective of "is this film going to be satisfying when I spend $40 to take my family to see it?" He wasn't however, going after White for not following the "critic herd", he was going after White for having no logical consistency in his reviews.

I do think, however, that a lot of Armond Whites specific reasoned criticisms of films tend to come from an inherent contrarian viewpoint. He is someone that clearly has contempt for the movement Ebert started, and goes out of his way to combat it wherever possible. So if he sees the critic herd gushing about a movie, he will either point out a bunch of older movies he thinks are better or nitpick it to hell, and has no problem contradicting his own self-defined tastes in earlier reviews. White is clearly self aware of this as well. Him being a film criticism professor, if you listen to any number of his radio interviews, he clearly sounds like he's trying to provoke thoughts different from what he thinks is the modern film critic herd, and is often loath to admit this isn't the best way to make a point.

That said, he is clearly aware that his opinions are just that, opinions, and welcomes intelligent discussion about those opinions. When challenged with another viewpoint, he will always respond in the form of an inquisitive, provocative question. It's that Film Professor streak inside of him.

It makes him a troll in a very loose sense, in the sense that he is saying things not because they are necessarily logical, but because they provoke a response. It also does make him an intelligent and worthwhile voice. That said, in a battle between whose voice is more valuable, I'd say it's Ebert's by a long shot.

[Stark]

Liking a critic more because you agree with their views is silly anyway. Reviews that show informed and reasoned contrary viewpoints are probably more useful, certainly for those trying to expand their tastes.

[JLTucker]

In this thread we learn that having legitimate contrarian views on a work of art is bad and that you're likely a troll.

Ps. Troll is a pejorative. Trolls make comments they don't believe to incite people. White believes everything he writes. If you have views that aren't with the norm (Ebert liked almost everything that came out), that doesn't make you a troll. It makes you someone who isn't afraid to go against the grain. If it takes calling TDK crap (it is) to spark debate, then who cares? Though in the case of TDK, White's dismissal of its poor quality had fanboys frothing at the mouth and eventually dismissing everything he had to say in the future.

The best thing to do is to listen to the /Filmcast episodes where White dominates those moronic hosts with his insight into movies. All they can do is snicker. I think the best thing he ever did was say that he can watch a Bay and Nolan movie on a moviola and explain why Nolan doesn't have vision. Can Ebert do that? Likely not.

Davis, can you offer some quotes from White that are contradictory?

It also does make him an intelligent and worthwhile voice. That said, in a battle between whose voice is more valuable, I'd say it's Ebert's by a long shot.

People choose Ebert because he was a lazy man's critic. All his fans have to do is look at his star rating and they'll know what to expect. His reviews were poorly written, offered little insight, more summary than critique, and often contained spoilers without warning, firmly cementing him in the realm on unethical criticism.

[ray245]

The last review Ebert wrote before he died was a Terence Malick film.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /130409984

[houser2112]

Liking a critic more because you agree with their views is silly anyway.

If someone's views (on anything, really, not just movies) have strongly aligned with mine in the past, I'm much more likely to take his opinions on future items to be very much worth listening to than others whose views are less strongly aligned. Unless you meant "like" in a personal sense, I don't see how this stance is silly.

[JLTucker]

It's silly because the mark of a good critic is one that can effectively deliver arguments against a movie you like. You shouldn't have to agree with them all the time. Armond White can't stand David Fincher, yet his arguments against the director are sound and I can see where he's coming from.

[Metahive]

It's silly because the mark of a good critic is one that can effectively deliver arguments against a movie you like. You shouldn't have to agree with them all the time. Armond White can't stand David Fincher, yet his arguments against the director are sound and I can see where he's coming from.

He destroyed his own credibility when he lambasted Toy Story 3 for the most ridiculous of reasons (it supports consumerism!), said only morons would enjoy it while he couldn't even get the names of the characters right. O yeah, and he also compared it disfavorably to Transformers 2.

Totes a guy with an opinion worth listening to.

[Flagg]

Seriously, if you like TF2 your opinion on film is worthless.

[JLTucker]

So what, Metahive? Why should he like and dislike certain movies to have credibility? the problem is that he doesn't conform to your sensibilities. If you disagree with his opinions on Toy Story 3, address them instead of dismissing him outright like every cliche before you. I adore Armageddon and greatly dislike even the most critical acclaimed movies like The Godfather Part II. Do I have zero credibility? To people like you and Flagg, probably, but those invested in art analysis won't care as long as I argue my case in a thought out fashion

[Metahive]

So what, Metahive? Why should he like and dislike certain movies to have credibility? the problem is that he doesn't conform to your sensibilities. If you disagree with his opinions on Toy Story 3, address them instead of dismissing him outright like every cliche before you. I adore Armageddon and greatly dislike even the most critical acclaimed movies like The Godfather Part II. Do I have zero credibility? To people like you and Flagg, probably, but those invested in art analysis won't care as long as I argue my case in a thought out fashion

What a stupendous strawman. It's not that critics need to like or dislike the "right" movies, it's that when they criticise a movie they should be able to do so without resorting to farfetched nonsense. As AW did in his Toy Story 3 and pretty much every Pixar review. Sorry, but ragging on TS3 for "consumerism" (because it features Barbie!) and saying that TF2 had the same plot as TS3 "only better" does qualify you as a hack, period.

Just not liking something popular doesn't make you automatically sophisticated.

[Broomstick]

As a bit of an aside, I thought one of the best movie reviews in the sense of being useful was given by one whose name I can't remember at the moment in regards to Gattacca. He started by saying he did not like science fiction as a whole and this movie was no exception to that rule BUT he said if someone liked the genre they would most likely really enjoy it due to a whole host of reasons such as character development, pacing, lack of plot holes, and so on. He didn't personally like the movie but very much recognized that it was a well-structured movie that would no doubt appeal to a sizable demographic he just didn't happen to be part of, and gave information by which people with a differing taste could still make an assessment.

Ebert, though, tended to trash anything that didn't appeal to him, personally. See "video games are not art and never will be". Even with moderating that stance a bit later in life he didn't seem to understand that a person could, indeed, value different things than he did in entertainment. When he wrote a review about a genre he didn't like he gave you no information to assess it if you did like the genre.

Is a critic obligated to do that? Apparently not, because almost none of them ever do (the exception in the first paragraph being just that, an exception). I still view it as a sign of being a superior critic.

[JLTucker]

What a stupendous strawman. It's not that critics need to like or dislike the "right" movies, it's that when they criticise a movie they should be able to do so without resorting to farfetched nonsense. As AW did in his Toy Story 3 and pretty much every Pixar review. Sorry, but ragging on TS3 for "consumerism" (because it features Barbie!) and saying that TF2 had the same plot as TS3 "only better" does qualify you as a hack, period.

Just not liking something popular doesn't make you automatically sophisticated.

I'm not seeing how he's a hack because he liked one more than the other and decided to compare them. If you read his review of TF2, you'll see that he loves Bay's visual sense and then goes on to talk more about it. You're picking two movies and judging his entire career on them. I think, deep down, you like TS3 and not TF2, and decided to use that cliche of an example. I'll retract my strawman if you stop repeating yourself and actually address his arguments in a convincing fashion. Because at them moment the alleged strawman is justifiable based on the poor example you've chosen to use against him and continuing to operate under vague arguments.

[Davis 51]

Liking a critic more because you agree with their views is silly anyway. Reviews that show informed and reasoned contrary viewpoints are probably more useful, certainly for those trying to expand their tastes.

Not necessarily. I try to read reviews by critics who agree with my tastes so I can make an informed decision on how to spend my hard-earned money on things that will entertain me. I like seeing films in theaters. It's a totally different experience compared to renting or owning at home. I don't know if you've noticed, however, but seeing films in theaters is expensive. With Ebert, you can disagree with him, but he always gave enough information that you would know when his opinion differs from yours. It would be far more beneficial for me to read an Ebert review before I see a film, and a White review after I see a film, because only one of them will determine which film I see.

In this thread we learn that having legitimate contrarian views on a work of art is bad and that you're likely a troll.

Don't misrepresent me. That's not what I fucking said and you know it. I wrote what I did because I clearly think there is a place for his criticisms in the film world, and that kind of voice is very useful in expanding our tastes. However, it is not very helpful when it comes to actually, you know, looking at which movies you should watch. Maybe in a perfect world, everyone can have unlimited time to watch and debate every movie ever, but some of us have these things called jobs and busy schedules. I love watching film, but I get to see one, maybe two films in theaters a month.

Troll is a pejorative. Trolls make comments they don't believe to incite people. White believes everything he writes. If you have views that aren't with the norm (Ebert liked almost everything that came out), that doesn't make you a troll. It makes you someone who isn't afraid to go against the grain. If it takes calling TDK crap (it is) to spark debate, then who cares? Though in the case of TDK, White's dismissal of its poor quality had fanboys frothing at the mouth and eventually dismissing everything he had to say in the future.

The best thing to do is to listen to the /Filmcast episodes where White dominates those moronic hosts with his insight into movies. All they can do is snicker. I think the best thing he ever did was say that he can watch a Bay and Nolan movie on a moviola and explain why Nolan doesn't have vision. Can Ebert do that? Likely not.

Davis, can you offer some quotes from White that are contradictory?

Let's be honest, You clearly like Armond White because you are a contrarian yourself, and you actually agreed with his Dark Knight Review. Whether TDK is crap is completely subjective so I have no idea why you feel the need to reaffirm that you agree with him. I listened to that /filmcast review, and you're being dishonest. They were snickering because he was being entertaining with his opinions. They weren't conducting a debate, they were conducting an interview. He didn't "pwn" them or anything, it was a good-natured interview with a man they were fascinated with who happened to be kind of funny. But it's not particularly 'brave' to say that you can watch a film you don't like while its in the process of being edited and tell the director why you think he sucks. If you think Ebert can't do that, you're an idiot. Anyone with an opinion and a brain stem can do that.

And if you think Nolan doesn't have vision, that's something completely objective to the viewer.

Since you brought it up, Here's a quote from that very review:

We’re way beyond film noir here. The Dark Knight has no black-and-white moral shading. Everything is dark, the tone glibly nihilistic (hip) due to The Joker’s rampage that brings Gotham City to its knees—exhausting the D.A. and nearly wearing-out Batman’s arsenal of expensive gizmos. Nolan isn’t interested in providing James Bond–style gadgetry for its own ingenious wonder; rather, these crime battle accoutrements evoke Zodiac-style “process” (part of the futility and dread exemplified by the constantly outwitted police). This pessimism links Batman to our post-9/11 anxiety by escalating the violence quotient, evoking terrorist threat and urban helplessness. And though the film’s violence is hard, loud and constant, it is never realistic—it fabricates disaster simply to tease millennial death wish and psychosis.

Now here's a quote from his comparison of "The Master" and Resident Evil: Retribution (of which I have seen neither, so I will not comment on their individual quality).

Their differences immediately reveal how a pseudo-serious indie artiste fails the aesthetic and emotional impact of commercial craftsmanship. The Master, a roman a clef about Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard and his paradigmatic follower, is a dull, nihilistic and mean-spirited presumption of cultural history whereas the futuristic fantasy of Resident Evil: Retribution turns nihilism into Apocalyptic Pop.

[snip]

This universal lesson opposes The Master’s cynicism in which P.T.’s vague storytelling alludes to notorious religious beliefs then particularizes its “expose” with pessimistic displays of Quell and Dodd’s actorly neuroses. It’s a secularist epic for audiences of the vampire age who don’t believe in religion anyway… Yet Alice (in a Wasteland rather than Wonderland) meets cynicism head on and does spectacular battle with it. That used to be the purpose of movies–at least until the indie era permitted disaffected filmmakers to obfuscate moral predicaments with narcissistic indulgence.

Here's where I find him to be self-contradictory. White clearly has a trend of trying to show value in films that don't do things traditionally. He also seems to find no value in film "nihilism", whatever the hell that means. He hits TDK and The Master pretty hard for that, actually. Yet he praises RE:R for having the main character meet nihilism head on and fight it. He likes this and laments films for not doing this more.

I wonder if he even watched The Dark Knight. Now, it could be that he is an oddity whose brain flips a switch when he sees two films both employ editing methods used since the beginning of cinema and not realize what he's saying, but White is too smart for that. One has to literally live in a vacuum where the film being reviewed exists wholly independent of the film review itself for his criticism of TDK to make any sense here.

Here's another TDK Quote:

Nolan’s single trick is to torment viewers with relentless action montages; distracting ellipses that create narrative frustration and paranoia. Delayed resolution. Fake tension. Such effects used to be called cheap.

White has repeatedly praised Transformers 2. I believe in that very same /filmcast interview, he says that Bay essentially films a childs fantasy come to life.

WHY WASTE SPLEEN on Michael Bay? He’s a real visionary—perhaps mindless in some ways (he’s never bothered filming a good script), but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is more proof he has a great eye for scale and a gift for visceral amazement. Bay’s ability to shoot spectacle makes the Ridley-Tony-Jake Scott family look like cavemen.

I sort of agree with Armond there. Bay has a talent for hyperkenetic action. However, as someone who loves Bay's style, that last 30 minutes was a goddamn mess. Some of this is understandable, given it was written on the fly due to the writers strike, but there is an embarrassingly large amount of military stock footage intercut, even for Bay. Much of this was clearly designed to drag it out and pad the runtime, making it feel more "epic". Instead, it felt like 3 or 4 smaller setpieces glued together by said stock footage. Even Bay himself said the whole thing turned out to be a mess.

If I were to read that quote above about White on Nolan and action montages, but switch Nolan with Bay, you would believe he was playing it straight.

Others have pointed out Whites hypocrisy with his talking about consumerism and commercialism with regards to Toy Story 3.

Again, White knows this. He's too smart not to. No, he was not the lone defender against a sea of nerdgasms being the only one brave enough to say "TDK SUCKED!" It's a completely subjective opinion, but he was claiming it sucked because it reveled in nihilism, which is a downright weird comment to make unless you realize he is saying it just to make you articulate your own reasoning for why it is wrong. And it clearly is, which is why this kind of trolling is great for provoking discussion.