Lest you think all I do is watch movies, talk about movies, watch tv, talk about tv, watch youtube videos featuring people on movies and tv and then talk about it, I'll have you know, friends, that I also read books. I just finished a novel called Zeroville. It's about a bald dude who's obsessed with the movies! So let's just put this rumor to rest. I just don't understand people who don't read.
Roger Ebert is not a hack. He's a wonderful writer, and especially in the days of Gene Siskel, Siskel & Ebert at the Movies was an intelligent and interesting show, and more important to me in my formative years than any bullshit sunday morning cartoons. It took films seriously. Check out Siskel in this review of The Last Temptation of Christ if you don't believe me. He looks like he's going to start crying if we don't see this movie. WHY DID HE HAVE TO DIE!?
The last 8 years with Roeper were bad enough, but I just had the misfortune of catching the first episode of the latest incarnation of the show. It has now become simply "At the Movies." It stars two young, handsome, movie illiterate douche bags on a set with sweeping graphics, complete with sound effects. I know that the world seems to think that young minds can't focus on anything for more than 7 seconds without seeing a swooping graphic + sound effect, but Christ. I'm only 26 and I feel like telling these "film critics" to turn down that damn music and get off my lawn.
Film critics are not supposed to be handsome. It's fucking bullshit. Sitting around and watching movies isn't a lifestyle. It's a skill that we cultivate to compensate for being misunderstood and not getting laid. This isn't an opinion, it's an iron clad law of physics, like gravity. Jim Morrison is handsome, and he SUCKS. Thom Yorke? Ugly as fuck and he rocks. Dan Brown, the handsome author of The Davinci Code? sucks. Bukowski's face made people vomit in the streets. It's about what's in our head and our hearts.
I can't talk about this anymore. I'm starting to take it really seriously.
Interview with Author Erik Marshall
7 years ago
9 comments:
. jim morrison sucks?oh come on now! thom yorke? i bought that "in rainbows" and nearly ran off the road in my truck after slipping into a semi-comatose state. my opinion is probably skewed by my advanced age, but otherwise i concur wit youse.
-deepnaharta from lj
It's true, of course - The better looking I get, the worse at all that is good and just in the world I become.
I didn't mind Roeper as much when Ebert was there to provide steady guidance. But that steady stream of smug celebrities and sub-critics they've had on with him since Ebert's leave began was more than I could hope to bear.
As always, brilliant.
For years, I've watched "At the Movies" more than I actually watch...movies. And I didn't mind Roeper so much (he's no Siskel of course), I even watched after Ebert fell ill because I just liked the talking format of the show so much.
UGH! At the Movies is a treacle-encrusted bottleneck you must pass through to enjoy reruns of The Shield on ABC.
Also, kids these days don't seem to realize that being unattractive is often advantageous, even critical. Being all dolled up just screams eager to please, and there are many situations in which eager to please is the absolute worst message you could convey.
Film critic is definitely one of those situations. The English department assembly is another.
Where are you, Mollysays?
Sigh ... no one blogs anymore.
HW
While I share your hatred of the new at the movies hosts, I can't say in good conscience that I agreed with some of your other musings, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Jim Morrison? Rocks.
Thom Yorke? Doesn't rock.
Why does everybody love Jim Morrison? Did no one see Oliver Stone's The Doors? That's what he was really like!
Just like Gary Oldman didn't shoot Kennedy. I mean, duh.
Molly my dear. I can't say that I disagree with anything on here. Quite the contrary in fact. And, I was very fond of Ebert in his formative years, the pre "Critic as Superstar" years (about to early 1990s).
I suppose that my only beef is that I gave up on critics 15 years ago. Parasitic idiots who try and cultivate taste by shoving theirs down your throats. Of course, you know that this seeps into all areas of my scholarship and hence I sort of throw all opinion based film "criticism" out the window. At the same time, this is simply their role in society - much like ANY critic (from food to automotive to Broadway, my God though, the majority of Broadway critics do spit a lot of vitriol which is no doubt a by-product of their digestive organs not being able to breakdown their over-inflated sense of self). So, the world needs critics, there's simply not enough time available to us to witness all the things we "should" - enter the critic. Now, if only they actually took THAT particular function of their role to heart...
Post a Comment