Oh, wow...looks like Roger Ebert has an awesome official website now! (1 Viewer)

[Ashley Seymour]

Huhhh? I kind of feel like the AFLAC duck walking out of the barber shop after hearing Yogi explain how good money is.

You are missing elements of Eberts political stance here. On the one hand there is a clear effort to insert in to his review elements that reflect on what party and current leader he supports. This bias alone goes a long way toward marginalizing his reviews. But lets leave that discussion at the door so not to get the Federalees unduly aroused.

Because of his specific beliefs, Ebert tends on occassion to miss whole plot elements, the writer and directors intention and the interpretation by the actors of the characters they are playing. He will often be critical of what a character says or does without commenting on what point the director was trying to make. I often finish reading one of his reviews, shacking my head and saying AFLAC.

I am not certin if Ebert purposly tries obfuscate a review, or if he really does not have a clear understanding of what the story is trying to say. I tend to think he really doesn't understand and for this reason alone consider him a grossly over hyped critic.

 

[David Galindo]

Is there an example of a review you read? I want to re-read it with this in mind.

Thanks

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Ahh the challenge. I will search and post the ones that I remember causing me to think AFLAC.

 

[MickeS]

I was wondering why he held his hands that way and not the traditional way they are held to simulate a movie-format viewfinder (at least I've only seen them held the other way). I'm not sure if it's a "mistake" or if it's deliberate, to simulate the common "aspect ratio" of a webpage.

/Mike

 

[Ashley Seymour]

GANGS OF NEW YORK Review by Rogert Ebert

Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" rips up the postcards of American history and reassembles them into a violent, blood-soaked story of our bare-knuckled past. The New York it portrays in the years between the 1840s and the Civil War is, as a character observes, "the forge of hell," in which groups clear space by killing their rivals. Competing fire brigades and police forces fight in the streets, audiences throw rotten fruit at an actor portraying Abraham Lincoln, blacks and Irish are chased by mobs, and Navy ships fire on the city as the poor riot against the draft.

The result is a considerable achievement, a revisionist history linking the birth of American democracy and American crime. It brings us astonishing sights, as in a scene that shows us the inside of a tenement, with families stacked on top of one another in rooms like shelves. Or in the ferocity of the Draft Riots, which all but destroyed the city. It is instructive to be reminded that modern America was forged not in quiet rooms by great men in wigs, but in the streets, in the clash of immigrant groups, in a bloody Darwinian struggle.

All of this is a triumph for Scorsese, and yet I do not think this film is in the first rank of his masterpieces. It is very good but not great. I wrote recently of "GoodFellas" that "the film has the headlong momentum of a storyteller who knows he has a good one to share." I didn't feel that here. Scorsese's films usually leap joyfully onto the screen, the work of a master in command of his craft. Here there seems more struggle, more weight to overcome, more darkness. It is a story that Scorsese has filmed without entirely internalizing. The gangsters in his earlier films are motivated by greed, ego and power; they like nice cars, shoes, suits, dinners, women. They murder as a cost of doing business. The characters in "Gangs of New York" kill because they like to and want to. They are bloodthirsty, and motivated by hate. I think Scorsese liked the heroes of "GoodFellas," "Casino" and "Mean Streets," but I'm not sure he likes this crowd.
Often I get the feel from a Roger review that he doesn’t see the story for the trees. For a story to be meaningful to a contemporary audience it needs to share a common theme. The violence that Ebert dwells on is the result of an influx of immigrants, mostly Irish, and the horrific living conditions that resulted when intense competition for jobs and living quarters. The normal outlet for struggle for jobs and living space is to form gangs to defend turf. We recognize modern elements of the story as Bill the Butcher espouses the exclusion of immigrants because of the competition that threatens the established “natives.” Ebert draws no contemporary parallels to the current immigration issue which is the central link to our time. Bill uses much the same rhetoric as modern politicians and pundits and there is a commonality with modern immigration that also serves to keep wages down and be a divisive issue on the local and national level.

Several times Roger expresses amazement that democracy was forged out of the viciousness of the gangs. Quite the contrary, democracy survived in spite of the attempt of the gangs to carve out their little monopolies and subjugate their competitors and prey upon their victims. Gangs have survived till today with Black Hand and the Mafia of the 20th century, to the local gangs in any big city of today. The cesspool of the Five Points was certainly not the norm of America of the day that in reality was largely rural.

I disagree with lots of little points Roger sprinkles through his review. “Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" rips up the postcards of American history and reassembles them into a violent, blood-soaked story of our bare-knuckled past.”

A minor point, but bare-knuckled connotes something mush less violent that rivals facing each other with meat cleavers.

“
The gangsters in his earlier films are motivated by greed, ego and power; they like nice cars, shoes, suits, dinners, women. They murder as a cost of doing business. The characters in "Gangs of New York" kill because they like to and want to. They are bloodthirsty, and motivated by hate. I think Scorsese liked the heroes of "GoodFellas," "Casino" and "Mean Streets," but I'm not sure he likes this crowd. “

I think Roger may be mistaking the characters of GoodFellas with The Godfather. Don Corleone was presented as something of a Robin Hood that defended his honor and stood for his family, both blood and extended. The guys in GoodFellas were hardly likeable and often killed for arbitrary reasons, emotions, and misinformation. The characters were not noble and didn’t measure up to the Butcher Bill character who was a bit of a philosopher as Ebert eludes.

I give Roger too little credit on some issues however. He does make a contemporary link when he observes that the military fired on the poor who were protesting the draft and that Irish and Blacks were chased through the streets. I wonder if it was only the ones burning their draft cards that were shot, or also the ones that were lynching the Blacks because they perceived Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation meant they would be called on to die to abolish slavery.

Roger could make the point that the immigrants were eventually assimilated into our society and that our present immigration issues may one day be resolved the same way. His review fails to put the film into any present context and for that reason he lets down the reader who rightly should expect more from him.

There is much more in this review I could pick apart. A couple years ago he sparked a nice debate in the movie section when he changed his opinion of THE GRADUATE. I was even more at odds with him over that "revisionist" review.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Ashley, I read Ebert’s review and without commenting on (what I consider) the accuracy of the review or of Scorsese’s movie, it is my opinion that Ebert has not missed the point of the movie.

Understanding that you may well disagree with many points in the review (as I often do, not only with Ebert, but with reviews as a whole), that does not mean that he missed the point(s).

To suggest that in a review of a movie that Ebert should, change his review to comment on issues that you consider important, but that are truly not a part of the movie, is hardly fair.

Given the limited amount of space that a movie review is allowed and the limited amount of time that a critic has to write a review, I’m not upset if Ebert makes some points while ignoring others.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Maybe the movie just rips up Rogers "postcard" view of history and is revisionist to his pedantic understanding of what had made America. The Civil War cost over 500,000 American lives and I don't think our justified fixation with this period of American history can be described as having a "postcard" view.

There are many things about the review I find agreement with Roger, but I could also go on in a discussion of over 100 posts of what I mildly and strongly disagree with him on. Not only politics, but what he comes away from a moview with from an emotional and intellectual point of view.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Where I disagree with your assessment Ashley, is with your view that Ebert’s politics has caused him to miss the point of the movie. Yet much of your critique of his review is based on your view of American history, most of which has little to do with the movie.

I would suggest that the movie does not support your view in any substantive way. If Ebert got it wrong and missed the point—you are equally missing the point.

That is if the movie is a metaphor for the present day (and how it came to be) then Ebert is correct in considering the meaning of the movie in that context. As are you in your assessment. But if Ebert gets it wrong, then so is your assessment, which is no more supported by the text or subtext of the film this Ebert’s.

 

[Eman_Ramos]

His Movie Glossary is hilarious:


ETA: It seems that Ebert doesn't come up with the entries himself, as I previously thought. Still, funny stuff...

 

[Ashley Seymour]

We have sailed to the edge of the world and any further attempts by to debate my point would tip us over the edge into a political discussion. So lets just say I saw many things in the movie that Roger didn't or that he chose to interpret in a different way. I could also open a discussion in the Movie section but it would be a tightrope walk to keep it going.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Open it should you like--I'm normally pretty good on keeping to the points of the movei.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Jonathan Rosembaum points out in Movie Wars that reviews in newspapers are ultimately there to be a consumer guide--with its essential question being "should I go see the movie?"--not a detailed exploration of the films. Maybe a film journal would dive into the specific aspects of a film more.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

And I certainly agree. I am willing to cut Roger some slack as I consider him an average writer at best, but when he is paraded out and held up as a gifted critic/film reviewer I just don't see the talent. I dont' turn to the sports page and look for look for great writing and insights into the deeper meaning of last nights ball game. Yet when I would purchase the Stars and Stripes while in service the sportswriter that awed me was Jim Murray.

When I saw the Gangs of New York, I had read articles on the making of the movie and the history of the period covered. When I read Rogers review after seeing the movie I wondered if I had seen the same movie. If Roger does not have the advantage of knowing the history of the period I would be glad to soften some of my comments, but Roger doesn't seem willing to admit that he may not be as well versed in the subject he comments on.

 

[David Galindo]

I kinda hate the fact that he illustrates the best parts of the movie, to praise it, only to ruin it for me when I go.

Example: Changing Lanes. He basically told us all the plot twists, dialogue, and such. He loved the movie, but I saw everything coming thanks to the review. I try not to read his reviews till after the movie.

 

[Jason_Els]

He looks like he's voguing. Awful picture.

 

[Citizen87645]

I like Ebert but every so often I wonder what the heck he's smoking. Anyone remember his glowing praise of Space Jam? It seemed he AND Siskel only liked it because Michael Jordan was playing for Chicago. And I remember a viewer called them on that point and neither of them would admit it. I was just shaking my head...

 

[Ted Lee]

anyone catch his current essay? pretty interesting.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...SSAYS/41128001

 

[Cees Alons]

Here's another lover of those.
I have '95, '96 and '97 and then they stopped (along with the accompanying web site). Too bad.

There also was a floppy version of a few of Maltin's Film & Video Guides. I bought '95 and '96 (still have them). Then it was discontinued. Too bad again, but those were great times!


Cees

 

[Steve Felix]

Hadn't caught that yet. It's always mystified me how someone as famous and mainstream as Ebert can be so good. He more than deserves it.

 

[DaveGTP]

Personally, I find I generally agree with Ebert's scores, but not necessarily his reasons for them. It's weird

I do like that Ebert scores a movie on what it tries to be. Thus, he judges a movie not on its quality so much as its relative quality - if it is an action movie, he judges it against other action movies.

Thus I find I tend to like his scoring and judgements on exactly those kinds of movies - typical action movies, comedies, etc.