Farewell, Roger Ebert. Your work in the field of film criticism will always be remembered with two enthusiastic thumbs up.
As a film critic for an English daily, you’re sometimes asked: “Why review masala movies?” The misbegotten implication is that these lowest-common-denominator films are meant for people who do not analyse or deconstruct cinema, people who do not have any interest in looking at films as part of a continuum. These audiences just want to entertain themselves for a couple of hours. The implicit accusation in that question is that a literate critic cannot “lower” himself to the level of the lowest-common-denominator audience – his highbrow tastes and background are at odds with the masses for whom these movie are made. If this theory were put into practice, then The New York Times would not deign to review, say, an Adam Sandler or Tyler Perry comedy, for the fans of these actors certainly aren’t interested in what AO Scott or Manohla Dargis have to say. And the tabloid Tamil press would not bother to engage with a Hey Ram either.
This observation also overlooks the fact that every critic is a lover of cinema, a lover of all kinds of cinema, and therefore has inside him a number of cinema-loving personalities: the lover of children’s films who’s capable of viewing a Pixar feature for what it is, the lover of middle-of-the-road cinema who welcomes a Kai Po Che, a lover of Soviet art cinema who’s capable of chewing on a glacially paced Tarkovsky production, and yes, a lover of masala movies who will summon up his inner wolf-whistler during a great masala moment. (The fact that a critic trashes a masala movie doesn’t mean that he doesn’t like masala movies; merely that this particular masala movie was found lacking.) And his views aren’t always about directing people to theatres, but an attempt to contextualise and record for posterity a pop-culture event. Such a film was released. This is what it was about. This is the kind of film it was, harking back to the tropes of this older film and that other one. And so on.
Few people embodied these aspects of criticism better than Roger Ebert, who loved cinema, all kinds of cinema. He wasn’t the most consistently dazzling writer, even if, when he put his mind to it, he could conjure up a great sentence like this one about the emptiness of Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master: “[The film] is fabulously well-acted and crafted, but when I reach for it, my hand closes on air.” He wasn’t particularly useful as a thinker about cinema either, someone who would propound a theory about, say, auteurs, the way Andrew Sarris did. And he wouldn’t really open your mind about a movie the way Pauline Kael did, entering its world so completely that her insights (to use her famous phrase from her review of The Godfather, Part II) would expand in your head like a soft bullet. But week after week, he registered his thoughts on everything from the massiest blockbuster to the quietest art-house production, and it for this passion for his profession, this commitment, that he will be remembered.
This is not to say that Ebert was a shallow critic. His most significant contribution to his field may be his write-ups on Great Movies, where he’d locate a film in its historical context and talk about plot and characters and technical achievements, and thus introduce the film to people who hadn’t heard about it. (This is how his review of Rashomon began: “Shortly before filming was to begin on [the film], Akira Kurosawa’s three assistant directors came to see him. They were unhappy. They didn’t understand the story.”) But a lot of critics do this. Why, then, is Ebert’s contribution so special? Because he was a superstar critic with millions of followers – not just intellectuals who latched on to Woody Allen’s Kierkegaard allusions, but regular-Joe moviegoers – and by talking about these great movies in his chatty style, he erased the forbidding aura around them. He made you feel that you could watch Orson Welles’s Chimes at Midnight even if you didn’t know what Rosebud meant. He made these movies accessible.
And despite the fact that the very same regular-Joe moviegoers didn’t care about his opinion on the review-proof blockbusters, Ebert continued to put out his thoughts on them. About Michael Bay’s Armageddon, he wrote, “The movie is an assault on the eyes, the ears, the brain, common sense and the human desire to be entertained. No matter what they’re charging to get in, it’s worth more to get out.” Audiences didn’t care. The film was the second highest moneymaker of 1998 in the US, grossing over $200 million. And yet, Ebert’s position wasn’t undermined. Another film released the same year, Roland Emmerich’s Godzilla, showed how influential the critic had become, how hated by some filmmakers. The film featured a New York mayor named… Ebert, and his real-life counterpart notes, “[He makes every possible wrong decision… and the adviser eventually gives thumbs-down to his reelection campaign. These characters are a reaction by Emmerich… to negative [Gene] Siskel and Ebert reviews of their earlier movies… but they let us off lightly; I fully expected to be squished like a bug by Godzilla.” Only, he was never the bug. He was the Godzilla of film criticism.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2013 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Abhirup.
April 5, 2013
I find his writings far more engaging and insightful than either pauline kael or andrew sarris. Shall be missing him very much.
LikeLike
Adarsh
April 5, 2013
I dont think we’d ever be able to see a critic who is as unabashedly non-elitist as Ebert was. I dont know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Just that there are not as many critics of that kind i know of.
LikeLike
venkatesh
April 5, 2013
RIP Mr Ebert.
My small contribution to his website : He had written a small note earlier on about the cost of running rogerebert.com – i suggested to him to start charging for it , a minimal fee accumulated across his large number of fans would help, was my idea. It did.
LikeLike
aneek
April 6, 2013
his entry in the great movies section in his blog about the “apu trilogy” of satyajit ray brought a lump in my throat.http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010304/REVIEWS08/103040301/1023
LikeLike
Zico Ghosh
April 6, 2013
His reviews were to me in English movies what your’s are in Hindi; they are what made my post movie-watching experiences so joyful. And he was so active even till a day before that this will be more hard on all of us.
This, BTW, is something he himself had posted sometime back.
http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2013/01/two-thumbs-down-how-gene-siskel-roger.html?m=1
LikeLike
Balaji Sivaraman
April 6, 2013
It is very difficult to quantify what Roger Ebert meant to the filmbuff community. For many, like me, he was the Baptist. When I was in the beginning stages of cinephilia, I usually disliked reading him because he came across as elitist. But then he was also the only person I read who really challenged me to look at films as something more than meaningless entertainment. The more I began to get into films, the more I realized that the problem was not that he was elitist, but that I had to expand my horizons. It is fair to say that I wouldn’t be the filmbuff I am today without Roger Ebert.
But his personal contributions have been more important than his filmi ones in recent memory. His blogs about his battle with cancer have been inspirational on a personal front for me. Anytime I would think my life was difficult and read his blog, it would feel like a slap in the face. He was so charming and endearing even when he lost his ability to speak. To have that amount of optimism in the face of such seemingly never-ending adversity was something else altogether. Even in the news yesterday, he sounded so chirpy and confident, “Now I’m only going to review the movies that I want to review.” I personally believe anybody who thinks they have been dealt bad cards should read his blog and that all of his recent posts should be archived for reading somewhere on the Internet, or better yet immortalized as a book.
I just started reading Scorsese by Ebert and have realized that there is no other director/critic relationship quite like theirs. There will be no other human being like Roger Ebert. He will be sorely missed and that is an understatement.
LikeLike
Manju Vinod
April 6, 2013
Rangan, very disappointing piece which I hope was meant to be a tribute to a man who was a larger personality & influence than just being just another weekly movie critic! Your weak back-handed compliments do no justice to the man and agree with Abhirup – Roger was far more engaging and insightful. He influenced a generation of movie-goers and I can’t summon enough superlatives that do justice to his effect on my movie tastes. I will be missing him very much…
LikeLike
venkatesh
April 6, 2013
And here is some of Mr. Ebert;s best reviews:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/40-hilariously-mean-roger-ebert-reviews/
LikeLike
brangan
April 6, 2013
Balaji Sivaraman: “I usually disliked reading him because he came across as elitist…” Really. To me, he’s anything but elitist, not just in the way he writes but also in the way he approaches all kinds of films. Among the big-name critics, he’s really the most accessible to the lay reader, IMO.
LikeLike
Hithesh
April 6, 2013
Pauline Kael was probably the most knowledgeable among the critics, Roger Ebert the most accessible. But Ebert’s love for cinema is a joy, the unbridled joy that you see on a child’s face when you take him/her to say, Disneyland.
For me, Ebert’s writing is very influential. The prime reason being that he could adopt different styles while writing reviews that could engage you. Take A.O. Scott for example or say Andrew Sarris or Pauline Kael. They are good critics with great writing styles but after a point of time their reviews start beating the dull side. You already know what to expect from them when you read their writing. With Roger Ebert, every movie is a journey in unraveling new things. It never feels old, never feels dated. The cinephiles around the world owe him a great deal for that, for showing them what it means to be in love with the movies. He lost it at the movies and he gave most of us the key to that infectious enthusiasm He wrote with the same enthusiasm he had in his first year as a critic till the day he dropped dead. With Pauline Kael you find a world of understanding, with Roger Ebert you find a love for cinema.
http://hitheshdevasya.blogspot.in/2013/04/a-journey-with-roger-ebert-my-hero.html
LikeLike
Raj
April 6, 2013
Agree with Manju Vinod. Very disappointing piece. Hardly a fitting farewell.
LikeLike
Balaji Sivaraman
April 6, 2013
I’ll admit that it had a lot to do with his stand on the whole videogames-as-art debate. I played a lot of games in those days and the entire gaming community was constantly infuriated by his condescension towards us. It was a perception which I unfortunately carried into reading his general reviews and that is what made me look at them as elitist. Of course, later I did veer a lot more towards movies anyway (still do play some games), and in the film world, he was the Emperor. So that perception had changed. I still think he was wrong in that particular debate though.
LikeLike
Bhavadas Kaplingat
April 6, 2013
Rosebud was in Citizen Kane – not in Chimes at Midnight?
LikeLike
brangan
April 6, 2013
Bhavadas Kaplingat: I meant even if you didn’t know of Welles’s history and Kane and Rosebud, you could still come to Chimes as a fresher and see it. That sort of thing.
LikeLike
Adarsh
April 6, 2013
haha isn’t it tiring, br, having to “explain”(and in many cases, “defend”) what you write every time in the comments section?
LikeLike
Pavitra
April 6, 2013
He certainly made me look at movies differently. For a second after reading about his death, I thought to myself “Who’s going to tell me exactly what I felt like when I saw this film now?” The words, will miss the words.
And to end on a morbidly-veiled compliment: I get/got my movie fix from your blog and his (I’m more of a TV Junkie). And I thought “…so there’s just brangan left now.”
LikeLike
aneek
April 6, 2013
i had to share this
LikeLike
hrishi
April 6, 2013
Terrible write up, back handed compliments
I think you should pause and wonder why people loved him…
Ebert could capture the essence of a film, which other critics and rotten tomatoes ratings couldnt…and his fans got it. You have the quality too…when it is not submerged and hidden away in complexity of the language..
LikeLike
vijay
April 8, 2013
I liked the tribute.I was interested at times to particularly read his reviews of bad masala movies and his writing never appeared disinterested, nor did he come off as a snob when he reviewed those movies. He wasn’t shy of using the first person when writing and also didn’t mind admitting that he didn’t get a particular scene or movie once in a while. It feels a bit strange to me that I should somehow experience some kind of sadness over the passing of someone who I had never met or interacted with but I guess that’s the kind of effect, his reviews and writing style have had over the years that you felt like you really knew the guy at times even if you didn’t.He spoke to you and everybody else.
LikeLike
Jupe
April 8, 2013
I think I was one of the first to catch this post and it left me deeply disappointed and offended…Thankfully I restrained myself and resisted the urge to vent my fury at what “I” perceived as a very insincere and back-handed tribute. Not mentioning this now coz of the comfort of numbers but because I still feel the same way after reading the post the 3rd time…
I completely agree with Manju Vinod, Raj and Hrishi and I’m left wondering if this is one piece you might revisit a few years down the line and reflect on the injustice of it… but then we are all entitled to our opinions so…we’ll let it go by 🙂
LikeLike
Jabberwock
April 8, 2013
To all those going on about how “disappointing” and “back-handed” this piece is…I think Ebert himself, if he could read this post, would appreciate that Baradwaj is being honest and upfront in presenting his own feelings, rather than toeing the sapheadedly sentimental line. BR has clearly mentioned the things that, in his view, RE did really well (e.g. erasing the aura around great movies), while at the same time making it clear that RE wasn’t his favourite critic or writer. What’s wrong with that? Why should he – or anyone – be obliged to think of RE as unconditionally great?
P.S. this is coming from someone who owes a big personal debt to Ebert’s work, and learnt a lot about criticism from his writing. But I also think there are, and were, several more interesting writers in the field.
LikeLike
Girish
April 8, 2013
Good question Rangan:) but again “Why review masala movies?”
We have asked this question before, your own honest answer was – “even on the blog (Rangan’s) these posts weren’t all that popular, but the writings on Hindi/Tamil cinema took care of that. So a critic can always try to find a balance — writing about Iranian cinema doesn’t mean you cannot make up for “lost readers” by reviewing, say, “Dabangg 2.”
It is simply to get large number of readers for your writing.
LikeLike
Bhavadas Kaplingat
April 9, 2013
“This movie creates a world where there are no normal people and no ordinary days – where breathless prose clatters down fire escapes and leaps into a dumpster of doom” He said very aptly about Pulp Fiction
LikeLike
brangan
April 26, 2015
Just heard about the demise of Richard Corliss, and thought I’d put this up:
Personally speaking, I was far more influenced by him than by Ebert — both in terms of reading pleasure and as a distant “writing instructor.”
I adored the way he crafted his reviews, with wordplay and zingers and knowing just how to end a paragraph.
Put differently, I read him as much to know what he thought about a film as how he expressed those thoughts.
I will miss his writing.
LikeLike
brangan
April 27, 2015
25 Great Movie Reviews by Richard Corliss
http://time.com/3833969/richard-corliss-movie-reviews/
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
April 27, 2015
Brangan, Richard Corliss’ demise is a great loss. I am not surprised that he influenced you.He gave every critic in this world -slogging through terrible films their survival mantra – ‘Everything is worth watching’. I wonder whether you specially cherish any particular review of his?. I loved his reviews of Titanic and Blade runner
LikeLike
Mambazha Manidhan Katchi
April 27, 2015
Damn! Became a huge fan of him after that ‘polyster’ mention in the review of Guru.
Big props to him for the discovery and appreciation of Mani Ratnam’s cinema, enjoying and critiquing them as we see them and not as they see us. Also, his influence in yuvar writing is so evident. 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
April 27, 2015
MANK: Yes, his “Titanic” review is a classic, especially with that “Casablanca” reference.
LikeLike