Roger Ebert, as everyone has heard by now, passed away last week. I'm a bit late to the party championing what he meant to world of cinema and writing, but that's okay. Ebert was an inspiration, even tenuously, to a ton of film nuts the world over and his passing is sad even to those who never met him. Like me.
It doesn't matter if you agree with a critic. If you take it as a personal affront when a writer dislikes something you cherish, you need to re-evaluate the situation. Watching film (and experiencing any type of art) is an intimate experience. The connection a movie can have will vary depending on the eyes and perspective angled at it. I may have been moved by Jason Reitman's Up in the Air when it came out in 2009 but that doesn't mean I'm owed the same reaction by anyone. Up in the Air worked as an example of the isolation felt in crowds. We have opportunities to make connections with others and sometimes we will have a negative impact on people, regardless of our intentions. We are all under a lot of pressure to make the right choices, to fill our suitcases with the right items so to speak. Some of us shut people out because it's easier in the short term but what are we left with when the dust settles?
Those are some of the ideas that came to me when I saw Up in the Air. Not everyone shared my love of that movie, and that's fine. If you saw that movie and did not connect to the themes of isolation or crushing disappointment when you actually do throw yourself out there only to be rejected, all I can do is explain to you what I did see. Maybe you'll give it another look. Maybe through that second look you will develop a different understanding and see something in the movie you didn't see before. Maybe you'll shake your head and ask yourself why you listened to that jackass.
Criticism is about communication, not about cutting artists down to size. Some critics may see themselves as the king of the mountain whose words of 'yay' or 'nay' can determine the value of something. I can't speak to that because a critic's words do not carry any importance in isolation. The conversation is not over when those words are printed.
This is what Ebert represented so well. While I never experienced it first hand, I've been reading stories and listening to podcasts about him and his connection to his fans and readers and dissenters. He did take the time to reply to people. He did consider what others thought. He did not apologize for his opinion. He was willing to share the experience with others without being dismissive. He may have savaged a movie here and there when he felt passionately about it (North) but he did so in a way that was equal parts entertaining and well-written.
My students are in the midst of a unit on film history. I am trying to inspire the idea that movies are about more than entertainment. This is a difficult task as many adults see them only as meaningless time-wasters. My goal is to have them think more critically about the things they see in movies. If they can analyze a theme or identify the purpose of a movie they otherwise label as boring or bad, they may develop a greater appreciation for film.
Movies were notoriously used to waste time when I was a student. We would watch a movie in class to kill time or reward us for good behaviour. Sometimes it was to accompany a novel or play we read, which at least provided a contextual connection. There were times in my grade 11 history class when my teacher asked me to provide copies of Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan to the class for our unit on World War 2. I am asking more.
Films have the opportunity to give audiences perspective on the world around us. Blue Valentine provides a glimpse into the rise and fall of a romantic relationship and the failed attempts at sealing the cracks. That is a fairly standard type of movie, but Derek Cianfrance executed it with a harsh realism that shakes the audience. It's uncomfortable and it should be. Blue Valentine, while very separate from my own romantic endeavours, forced me to reflect on the failings of past relationships. In some cases I likely washed my hands of responsibility of the disintegrations I was involved in. That movie was a splash of ice cold water in my face. Unpleasant but necessary.
I don't begrudge people who watch movies only for entertainment. They're missing out on the depth that is available to them. Sure, The Dark Knight Rises is exciting and features explosions, chaos and ass-kicking superhero action. But it is also a commentary on the effectiveness of fear as a method of control and manipulation. Looking at an otherwise easily dismissed movie in that way provides me with a greater enjoyment. It expands the conversation.
When Fargo came out on video (not DVD, we watched it on the VCR!) I hated it. I found the characters shrill and annoying. I, frankly, was bored. Nothing happened! Why is there this scene where this woman meets up with her old friend from high school where he becomes a blubbering mess? What's with the accent? Revisiting it a couple years later on CBC, I was hooked. It was all about desperation and what people do when there seems to be no way out. It's the same for Jerry Lundegaard as it is for Marge Gunderson's high school friend. Only Jerry is desperate for money while the friend is desperate for companionship. It has been a long while since I last watched Fargo, so I am not as specific about it as I could be.
The next time you come out of a movie, don't just go home or go to bed. Don't just move on. Let it percolate. Let it bubble. Think about it. Why was the movie made? What were the filmmakers trying to say? Granted, if your escapism is fueled by trips to Transformers movies you may find this exercise tiresome and unnecessary. But if you find yourself frustrated by a movie like The Master or Tree of Life, wrestle with it. It is perfectly okay if you hate it with all the fiery passion you can muster, but think of what didn't work for you. If something is confusing, talk with someone else who watched it and figure it out together. That's part of the fun. Whether you realize it or not, watching movies is a skill that needs to be developed to get the maximum experience possible.
It's not always easy, some of the work is left up to the audience and I challenge anyone who doesn't normally think that way about their entertainment to look deeper.
PS. Ebert's final review, of Terrence Malick's To the Wonder, features a line at the end that I find very poignant. I wish I wrote it.
"Reach beneath the surface, and find the soul in need."
Movies inspired him to write that. That is the power therein.
It doesn't matter if you agree with a critic. If you take it as a personal affront when a writer dislikes something you cherish, you need to re-evaluate the situation. Watching film (and experiencing any type of art) is an intimate experience. The connection a movie can have will vary depending on the eyes and perspective angled at it. I may have been moved by Jason Reitman's Up in the Air when it came out in 2009 but that doesn't mean I'm owed the same reaction by anyone. Up in the Air worked as an example of the isolation felt in crowds. We have opportunities to make connections with others and sometimes we will have a negative impact on people, regardless of our intentions. We are all under a lot of pressure to make the right choices, to fill our suitcases with the right items so to speak. Some of us shut people out because it's easier in the short term but what are we left with when the dust settles?
Those are some of the ideas that came to me when I saw Up in the Air. Not everyone shared my love of that movie, and that's fine. If you saw that movie and did not connect to the themes of isolation or crushing disappointment when you actually do throw yourself out there only to be rejected, all I can do is explain to you what I did see. Maybe you'll give it another look. Maybe through that second look you will develop a different understanding and see something in the movie you didn't see before. Maybe you'll shake your head and ask yourself why you listened to that jackass.
Criticism is about communication, not about cutting artists down to size. Some critics may see themselves as the king of the mountain whose words of 'yay' or 'nay' can determine the value of something. I can't speak to that because a critic's words do not carry any importance in isolation. The conversation is not over when those words are printed.
This is what Ebert represented so well. While I never experienced it first hand, I've been reading stories and listening to podcasts about him and his connection to his fans and readers and dissenters. He did take the time to reply to people. He did consider what others thought. He did not apologize for his opinion. He was willing to share the experience with others without being dismissive. He may have savaged a movie here and there when he felt passionately about it (North) but he did so in a way that was equal parts entertaining and well-written.
My students are in the midst of a unit on film history. I am trying to inspire the idea that movies are about more than entertainment. This is a difficult task as many adults see them only as meaningless time-wasters. My goal is to have them think more critically about the things they see in movies. If they can analyze a theme or identify the purpose of a movie they otherwise label as boring or bad, they may develop a greater appreciation for film.
Movies were notoriously used to waste time when I was a student. We would watch a movie in class to kill time or reward us for good behaviour. Sometimes it was to accompany a novel or play we read, which at least provided a contextual connection. There were times in my grade 11 history class when my teacher asked me to provide copies of Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan to the class for our unit on World War 2. I am asking more.
Films have the opportunity to give audiences perspective on the world around us. Blue Valentine provides a glimpse into the rise and fall of a romantic relationship and the failed attempts at sealing the cracks. That is a fairly standard type of movie, but Derek Cianfrance executed it with a harsh realism that shakes the audience. It's uncomfortable and it should be. Blue Valentine, while very separate from my own romantic endeavours, forced me to reflect on the failings of past relationships. In some cases I likely washed my hands of responsibility of the disintegrations I was involved in. That movie was a splash of ice cold water in my face. Unpleasant but necessary.
I don't begrudge people who watch movies only for entertainment. They're missing out on the depth that is available to them. Sure, The Dark Knight Rises is exciting and features explosions, chaos and ass-kicking superhero action. But it is also a commentary on the effectiveness of fear as a method of control and manipulation. Looking at an otherwise easily dismissed movie in that way provides me with a greater enjoyment. It expands the conversation.
When Fargo came out on video (not DVD, we watched it on the VCR!) I hated it. I found the characters shrill and annoying. I, frankly, was bored. Nothing happened! Why is there this scene where this woman meets up with her old friend from high school where he becomes a blubbering mess? What's with the accent? Revisiting it a couple years later on CBC, I was hooked. It was all about desperation and what people do when there seems to be no way out. It's the same for Jerry Lundegaard as it is for Marge Gunderson's high school friend. Only Jerry is desperate for money while the friend is desperate for companionship. It has been a long while since I last watched Fargo, so I am not as specific about it as I could be.
The next time you come out of a movie, don't just go home or go to bed. Don't just move on. Let it percolate. Let it bubble. Think about it. Why was the movie made? What were the filmmakers trying to say? Granted, if your escapism is fueled by trips to Transformers movies you may find this exercise tiresome and unnecessary. But if you find yourself frustrated by a movie like The Master or Tree of Life, wrestle with it. It is perfectly okay if you hate it with all the fiery passion you can muster, but think of what didn't work for you. If something is confusing, talk with someone else who watched it and figure it out together. That's part of the fun. Whether you realize it or not, watching movies is a skill that needs to be developed to get the maximum experience possible.
It's not always easy, some of the work is left up to the audience and I challenge anyone who doesn't normally think that way about their entertainment to look deeper.
PS. Ebert's final review, of Terrence Malick's To the Wonder, features a line at the end that I find very poignant. I wish I wrote it.
"Reach beneath the surface, and find the soul in need."
Movies inspired him to write that. That is the power therein.
