The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32245 Location: Buenos Aires
Ebert was a good writer, first and foremost, and one of the most influential figures in modern film. He had keen insights and a passion for movies, and even when you disagreed with his opinions they were always presented with eloquence and thoughtfulness. He was great.
Ebert was a good writer, first and foremost, and one of the most influential figures in modern film. He had keen insights and a passion for movies, and even when you disagreed with his opinions they were always presented with eloquence and thoughtfulness. He was great.
im sure he was a good writer, its just that i dont care that much for critics. Its not him, its just something i have against the idea of considering the critic of something like art, influential or important.
likes rhythmic things that butt up against each other
Joined: Sun April 07, 2013 2:38 am Posts: 506 Location: Gulfport, MS
It's only important if you make it important. I think they have a role, they are able to articulate what they think about whatever they are criticizing and sometimes it makes for an interesting analysis. They're like anyone else, some you may like reading and others just annoy.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32245 Location: Buenos Aires
Yeah. In my opinion, the problem with art criticism is when people take the attitude of "this person knows more than me about ____, so I should pay attention to him", instead of "this person may have interesting things to say about this piece of art." I often find, with good reviews-- even if I disagree with the reviewer on the very subjective idea of whether the film is "good" or "bad"-- that I'll come away from the review with a new insight, a different way of seeing things, or even just a clever turn of phrase.
Yeah. In my opinion, the problem with art criticism is when people take the attitude of "this person knows more than me about ____, so I should pay attention to him", instead of "this person may have interesting things to say about this piece of art." I often find, with good reviews-- even if I disagree with the reviewer on the very subjective idea of whether the film is "good" or "bad"-- that I'll come away from the review with a new insight, a different way of seeing things, or even just a clever turn of phrase.
Exactly...and another problem is when the reviewer feels his work is more important than the piece itself.
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39762 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
I'm only refering to his video reviews (never read much of his written reviews), but I thought he was an inconsistent, rather capricious critic. I liked Siskel and Roeper much more. But he seemed like a nice guy and a big movie fan.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
