+5
All of this talk about the importance of the word or designation of cinephile, is starting to sound a lot like how limiting and restrictive the term 'punk rock' was. That was a scene I embraced when I was young, and standing for the virtues of punk seemed a noble thing initially. Until it began to seem that a group of people had come in and decided, on their own, what qualifies for this term of Punk, and all it was was a mirror image of the very narrow qualifications they had for a person to measure up. Or to fit in. To be accepted. And it was all just another trap to tell people how they should be thinking and behaving. Another bunch of rituals you had to abide by to be acknowledged by a group that it had absolutely no real value to be acknowledged by. Basically, exactly the kind of dogma that art so perfectly rejects if we don't buy into that cliquey bullshit.
Do I agree with a good deal of what Minio believes to be the most virtuous way to watch movies? Yes. But is there any need for anyone to be considered a cinephile? No.
So was Ebert a cinephile? Who cares? Do I agree with a lot of his tastes or critical reasoning? **** no, I think a lot of it was swill. But did he at least find his own way to engage with and articulate his love of film. Yeah, pretty consistently. Which is more than can be said for 99 percent of the world's population. So I'll cut him all the slack he needs, regardless of his terrible takes of Ridgemont High or Blue Velvet or Pink Flamingos or Elephant Man. Regardless of whether or not people want to accept him as a cinephile.