In Defense of Ebert and Maltin
Film critics need tough skin; you should be able to take as good as you give. Ten days ago, Larry Fahey wrote a piece on the website The Rumpus called “All Thumbs: Roger Ebert and the Decline of Film Criticism”. It was a curious article, effectively counterpunched by Matt Singer on IFC.com. The truly strange thing about Fahey’s article was that it resurrected the old debate on the meaning of the term “B movie”. In Fahey’s view, too many critics don’t understand what constitutes a B movie; they interpret it to be a naturally inferior film rather than (perhaps a brilliant) one made on the cheap. First of all, this argument is tiresome by now; only a very ignorant critic would argue that a B movie is inherently bad. Secondly, Singer points to the fact that plenty of Fahey’s favorite critics, the kind who approaches every movie as a work of art, fail to recognize the simple pleasures – and value – of a B movie. As Singer writes, “When was the last time Stanley Kauffmann wrote about a low budget zombie film?”
So, what is Fahey’s problem with Roger Ebert? Well, in his view, Ebert and the likes of Leonard Maltin and Rex Reed view movies as products one can rate. He writes, “They want to judge a film’s fitness for purchase, recommend that a moviegoer either should or should not spend his or her money on the product.” Fahey considers the system of awarding stars, and in Ebert’s case thumbs, reprehensible. Still, his targets are no hacks. Maltin is a highly esteemed film historian and Ebert has spent over four decades helping his readers find what he considers under-appreciated gems. For instance, he believes Synecdoche, New York, which is no favorite of mine, to be the best film of the 2000s. He’s done more for film as art than Larry Fahey will ever be able to accomplish.
The part of Fahey’s critique that does touch a raw nerve with me is his attack on the grading system. One point of this website is to provide short as well as longer reviews on films, with grades, that help my visitors discover (or ignore) movies of all kinds. My website is created in the spirit of Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert. Criticizing them for destroying film criticism is also an attack on me (and many others). Here’s what I believe. Larry Fahey needs to realize that ever since the 1960s (again, that’s over four decades now, Larry), the craft of film criticism has evolved. We now have critics who write primarily for magazines and websites that aim for readers with a special, academic interest in films… and we also have critics who write for papers, magazines and websites that aim for a larger audience, one that is simply looking for a good piece of advice on which movie to catch tonight at the local theater. Allow me to be the boring voice of reason here, but there is room for both kinds of critics.
The YouTube clip shows Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert disagreeing on Blue Velvet (1986), an example of two critics having a constructive debate.
Published by Stefan Hedmark 2010-10-31 14:35
Tweet
Bookmark this on Delicious
Comments
Due to spam, I am forced to moderate comments, which is why it may take a few hours until your comment is displayed.