Reply to Topic
Ebert was a great critic, but he was just dead wrong about a lot of things repeatedly throughout his career. No error of his was as consistently terrible as his dismissal of horror.
Critics and Horror
Honestly though, there's an exponential mountain of crap in the horror genre. The diamonds among the dross are truly among the most brilliant pure cinema available, but horror fans are also intimately familiar with mundane disappointments on the regular. The hunt for the rare exceptions is a large part of the lure, similar to the other genres (esp. comedy and sci-fi) where the proportion of gold to grime is discouraging, but that makes the discovered gold all the more sweeter after several desperate weeks with the likes of Vince Vaughn and actors that look like Peter Weller but somehow aren't.
I think these proportions allow the less discriminating critics to write off the lot or take a condescending attitude and even end up treating mediocrities as breakthroughs (James Wan, etc.). Worse, when respectable directors try their gilded mitts on horror ("How hard can it be?"), and we see the ineptitudes of your Mike Nichols, Gus Van Sant, Ron Howard, David Gordon Green, etc., completely out of their depths and yet some critics, who clearly can't tell the technical difference, applaud their maturity. You can start to tell which critics read more magazines than books.
Others *not looking at crumbs directly* simply learn to appreciate the garbage after awhile on its own feeble terms. And, it's true, bad horror happens to be infinitely more entertaining than bad comedy. But, face facts, horror fans have long been a fraternity of survivors. We've seen some ****.
I think these proportions allow the less discriminating critics to write off the lot or take a condescending attitude and even end up treating mediocrities as breakthroughs (James Wan, etc.). Worse, when respectable directors try their gilded mitts on horror ("How hard can it be?"), and we see the ineptitudes of your Mike Nichols, Gus Van Sant, Ron Howard, David Gordon Green, etc., completely out of their depths and yet some critics, who clearly can't tell the technical difference, applaud their maturity. You can start to tell which critics read more magazines than books.
Others *not looking at crumbs directly* simply learn to appreciate the garbage after awhile on its own feeble terms. And, it's true, bad horror happens to be infinitely more entertaining than bad comedy. But, face facts, horror fans have long been a fraternity of survivors. We've seen some ****.
Critics are terrified of promoting anything with the sheen of 'low art'. Moral cowards, I say!
There's an "exponential mountain of crap" in pretty much any genre, to the extent that it IS a genre. Ask about rom-coms or westerns or James Bond movies or chase movies, or whatever, and most movies ever made don't stand up to much skeptical scrutiny.
Horror movies ARE a genre, so the rest follows. I'm a life-long fan of horror movies, have my distinct style preferences (psychic horror rather than bloodbaths). I probably like more of them than those nose-in-the-air critics who look down with withering disapproval on the likes of Carpenter, but for people who enjoy horror, like any genre, there's good ones and supremely bad ones and a lot of dreck in between.
In spite of how well-worn those plot lines are, I doubt that they will ever disappear. In the context of real life, horror serves a real purpose. It reminds us that, for most people, most of the time, when life is OK, even if your life isn't perfect, at least it's not as bad as the guy who just got bitten by a 100 foot spider or the unfortunate person who is going about their business, not suspecting that there's a psychopath with a chef knife right around the corner.
Horror movies ARE a genre, so the rest follows. I'm a life-long fan of horror movies, have my distinct style preferences (psychic horror rather than bloodbaths). I probably like more of them than those nose-in-the-air critics who look down with withering disapproval on the likes of Carpenter, but for people who enjoy horror, like any genre, there's good ones and supremely bad ones and a lot of dreck in between.
In spite of how well-worn those plot lines are, I doubt that they will ever disappear. In the context of real life, horror serves a real purpose. It reminds us that, for most people, most of the time, when life is OK, even if your life isn't perfect, at least it's not as bad as the guy who just got bitten by a 100 foot spider or the unfortunate person who is going about their business, not suspecting that there's a psychopath with a chef knife right around the corner.
X
User Lists
Others *not looking at crumbs directly* simply learn to appreciate the garbage after awhile on its own feeble terms. And, it's true, bad horror happens to be infinitely more entertaining than bad comedy. But, face facts, horror fans have long been a fraternity of survivors. We've seen some ****.
For me it's not about negotiating with feeble terms to find worth in the supposed 'dog pile'. It's the general independent and renegade spirit which goes into some of even the shoddiest horror productions. Horror is perfect environment for such stragglers. Other genres can be painfully unforgiving. Comedy falls horribly flat unless it's done with an almost mathematical precision to go along with the wit and/or spectacle, and action requires a budget and level of technical proficiency that isn't frequent to come upon in DIY productions. This leaves it to horror and sci fi to allow the true outsider artists in the door, even if they only have a handful of subway tokens as their budget.
In some of the worst films I've been known to champion, it is the spirit that is important. The kind of spirit that perseveres against all know-how. That breaks apart the reflexive elements of traditional cinematic language and finds new avenues to express one self. Without these amateurs, I don't think I could begin to tolerate all of the ****ing professionals that I'm supposedly meant to appreciate for doing what everyone else has already done for the last fifty or sixty years.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Horror is perfect environment for such stragglers. ....This leaves it to horror and sci fi to allow the true outsider artists in the door, even if they only have a handful of subway tokens as their budget.
.....In some of the worst films I've been known to champion, it is the spirit that is important. The kind of spirit that perseveres against all know-how.
.....In some of the worst films I've been known to champion, it is the spirit that is important. The kind of spirit that perseveres against all know-how.
X
User Lists
For me it's not about negotiating with feeble terms to find worth in the supposed 'dog pile'. It's the general independent and renegade spirit which goes into some of even the shoddiest horror productions. Horror is perfect environment for such stragglers. Other genres can be painfully unforgiving. Comedy falls horribly flat unless it's done with an almost mathematical precision to go along with the wit and/or spectacle, and action requires a budget and level of technical proficiency that isn't frequent to come upon in DIY productions. This leaves it to horror and sci fi to allow the true outsider artists in the door, even if they only have a handful of subway tokens as their budget.
Speaking of sci-fi, I've very fond of the recent lo-fi hi-concept films like Primer, Timecrimes, High Life, Cohesion, The Endless or The Vast of Night which find ways to do a great deal with very little. I'm also happy to see that found-footage is falling out of fashion as the favorite crutch for lo-fi pretenses.
In some of the worst films I've been known to champion, it is the spirit that is important. The kind of spirit that perseveres against all know-how. That breaks apart the reflexive elements of traditional cinematic language and finds new avenues to express one self. Without these amateurs, I don't think I could begin to tolerate all of the ****ing professionals that I'm supposedly meant to appreciate for doing what everyone else has already done for the last fifty or sixty years.
I was about as big a Roger Ebert fan as there ever was when he was around but I never, ever gave him a pass on his attitudes about Horror.
I feel like he almost invented dismissiveness at all but the most cork-sniffing films of the genre.
Except when he didn't like with The Devil's Rejects.
But yeah, so many critics I think feel like they'll lose their card if they praise a genre film too much.
I feel like he almost invented dismissiveness at all but the most cork-sniffing films of the genre.
Except when he didn't like with The Devil's Rejects.
But yeah, so many critics I think feel like they'll lose their card if they praise a genre film too much.
His rather stubborn hatred for David Lynch is my vote for worst Ebert dogma.
The critical hatred of horror films is one of the many examples of why most establishment criticism is completely lost to me. They are probably one of the most purely cinematic genres that exist, offering constant stylistic innovations, frequently making profound observations on the human condition, and yet they are considered lesser. Nonsense.
To me this has always reeked of the worst kind of pseudo intellectualism. An unwillingness to look under the hood of the films creation and intentions a little and recognize how much they offer both beyond their (sometimes) deceptively juvenile and childish appearances. Critics are terrified of promoting anything with the sheen of 'low art'. Moral cowards, I say!
Ebert was a great critic, but he was just dead wrong about a lot of things repeatedly throughout his career. No error of his was as consistently terrible as his dismissal of horror. It actually surprised me sometimes how off he was on this, considering how he generally had little fear of promoting populism in film. Oh well. I'll live. There is great joy to be found in being a contrarian, especially when you are correct.
*Pats self on back vigorously*
To me this has always reeked of the worst kind of pseudo intellectualism. An unwillingness to look under the hood of the films creation and intentions a little and recognize how much they offer both beyond their (sometimes) deceptively juvenile and childish appearances. Critics are terrified of promoting anything with the sheen of 'low art'. Moral cowards, I say!
Ebert was a great critic, but he was just dead wrong about a lot of things repeatedly throughout his career. No error of his was as consistently terrible as his dismissal of horror. It actually surprised me sometimes how off he was on this, considering how he generally had little fear of promoting populism in film. Oh well. I'll live. There is great joy to be found in being a contrarian, especially when you are correct.
*Pats self on back vigorously*
His dismissal of video games ?
Though I believe he did like one.
Though I believe he did like one.
For context, this is probably the most well-known example of Siskel & Ebert's crusade against the slashers, a special episode dedicated to the scourge at the height of their popularity.
They do come off as tsking old men at times, but I think their points on misogyny and the overall mechanics of manipulated arousal are not inaccurate. It helps that most of the films they focus on are not the best examples of the form, and can more easily fit the designation of sadistic exploitation.
However you can also find the episode where they trash Evil Dead on purely snobby grounds, so take it for what it's worth.
They do come off as tsking old men at times, but I think their points on misogyny and the overall mechanics of manipulated arousal are not inaccurate. It helps that most of the films they focus on are not the best examples of the form, and can more easily fit the designation of sadistic exploitation.
However you can also find the episode where they trash Evil Dead on purely snobby grounds, so take it for what it's worth.
For context, this is probably the most well-known example of Siskel & Ebert's crusade against the slashers, a special episode dedicated to the scourge at the height of their popularity.
They do come off as tsking old men at times, but I think their points on misogyny and the overall mechanics of manipulated arousal are not inaccurate. It helps that most of the films they focus on are not the best examples of the form, and can more easily fit the designation of sadistic exploitation.
However you can also find the episode where they trash Evil Dead on purely snobby grounds, so take it for what it's worth.
They do come off as tsking old men at times, but I think their points on misogyny and the overall mechanics of manipulated arousal are not inaccurate. It helps that most of the films they focus on are not the best examples of the form, and can more easily fit the designation of sadistic exploitation.
However you can also find the episode where they trash Evil Dead on purely snobby grounds, so take it for what it's worth.
__________________
“I really have to feel that I could make a difference in the movie, or I shouldn't be doing it.“
Joe Dante
“I really have to feel that I could make a difference in the movie, or I shouldn't be doing it.“
Joe Dante
X
Favorite Movies
Surprisingly a lot of horror is pro feminism I notice, in the original 3 Friday the 13ths the final girls do most of the work stopping Jason (in particular 1 and 3), I could also say Nightmare 1 and 4, Hellraiser, even most of the Halloween franchise. I find this something not often discussed or analyzed, due to the stereotype Siskel & Ebert caused of these just being “dead teenager flicks”, they are so much more then that. I wish they never caused this much damage, but it’s pretty funny in retrospect.
Out of the films they clipped in that segment, I think the only ones I would defend would be When a Stranger Calls, Motel Hell and The Boogyman (because Suzanna Love deserves our love).
I'm ignoring the poster montage at the beginning because, The Howling....lol. Okay, Gene.
For context, this is probably the most well-known example of Siskel & Ebert's crusade against the slashers, a special episode dedicated to the scourge at the height of their popularity.
They do come off as tsking old men at times, but I think their points on misogyny and the overall mechanics of manipulated arousal are not inaccurate. It helps that most of the films they focus on are not the best examples of the form, and can more easily fit the designation of sadistic exploitation.
However you can also find the episode where they trash Evil Dead on purely snobby grounds, so take it for what it's worth.
They do come off as tsking old men at times, but I think their points on misogyny and the overall mechanics of manipulated arousal are not inaccurate. It helps that most of the films they focus on are not the best examples of the form, and can more easily fit the designation of sadistic exploitation.
However you can also find the episode where they trash Evil Dead on purely snobby grounds, so take it for what it's worth.
Hm. Well, they're not wrong.
Well, in the most simplistic and reductive ways possible, sure. They are making a case against the genres worst impulses, and applying it to everything that has even been remotely branded as a slasher. It's lazy commentary by two men who aren't ordinarily this lazy. But they feel they can be because it's complaining about films that didn't have the backing of any major critics of the time, and were considered as made only for the most ignorant and depraved of movie fans.
If one were to already have a negative view of these movies, this would just reinforce their worst stereotypes without bringing even the slightest nuance into the conversation. It's an annoying conversation by two horror grumps.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'd say the worst Ebert review is Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Say what you will about his Blue Velvet review or his hatred of slashers, he's at least describing the same movie the rest of us saw (and in the case of the Lynch especially, had a pretty natural reaction I'd say).
X
User Lists
I'd say the worst Ebert review is Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Say what you will about his Blue Velvet review or his hatred of slashers, he's at least describing the same movie the rest of us saw (and in the case of the Lynch especially, had a pretty natural reaction I'd say).
X
Favorite Movies
X