Reply to Topic
I'm reading Roger Ebert's 2003 four star review. He refers to it as a great movie repeatedly while pointing out so many absurdities that it could be mistaken for a negative review if he had not done so. Characters have no spacial awareness beyond the frame of the shot, and thus are surprised in ludicrously comical ways. This is praised as making fun of Hollywood tropes. It's pointed out that Leone borrows heavily and in obvious ways, but this somehow isn't seen as a deterrent. Glaringly obvious budget constraints are treated in the same manner. When I watched it these things made me cringe. But Ebert doesn't mind them at all. With no merits to speak of it's somehow "art." The cinematography is praised because of it's wide shot alone, and it is somehow infinitely important and pure. Because I guess not just anyone could have used that specific camera. Oh no... it took a genius to decide on that lens over others. They hired extras on the spot. And interestingly enough that was a vibe I got but couldn't finger. Now the horrible acting makes that much more sense. Not that acting has anything to do with a movie being great (sarcasm).
Ebert says, "But art it is, summoned out of the imagination of Leone and painted on the wide screen so vividly that we forget what marginal productions these films were--that Clint Eastwood was a Hollywood reject, that budgetary restraints ($200,000 for "Fistful") caused gaping continuity errors, that there wasn't a lot of dialogue because it was easier to shoot silent and fill the soundtrack with music and effects." Is it ironic that the entire time I was watching this movie I couldn't figure out why the production quality was so bad, because I assumed it was a big budget movie?
All I can gather in any terms of greatness of this movie is that for people who enjoy this type of movie it is wonderfully charming. There's nothing masterful about it, but it's sincere in it's low-budget way and pokes fun at Hollywood. I don't know how anyone could call it art. But I can understand why some people find it entertaining, maybe even love it.
Ebert rarely talks about technical aspects in an accurate way. He asserts words like "great" and "art" with no seeming need to define his terms or explain why. Content matters most, and if he likes a movie then it's good. He is the lay person's ideal critic. The critic for the masses. For people like my Dad who think they're movie buffs and will pick a movie off the shelf looking for Ebert's seal of approval and happily enjoy Tom Cruise's acting and Steven Spielberg's directing in blissful ignorance. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
I find Ebert's comment on El Topo particularly fascinating, "The film exists as an unforgettable experience, but not as a comprehensible one." I also find it interesting when he refers to his law, "If you have to ask what something symbolizes, it doesn't." And the clause he adds, "Or it stands for itself." It reminds me of when I show my art and poetry to my parents and they can't even begin to understand it. They ask me what it means with puzzled expressions. And while there are many deep layers that I intentionally put there, there are also elements that just came together naturally which I don't even pretend to understand myself. Ebert does not know what art is. Someone like him can not understand it. But he is an intelligent person, and he understands a lot about film. When people see a movie like this they come up with all kinds of wild theories about it's meaning and significance, most of which are fabricated by the imagination of the viewer. But often I think it is what happens when people pretend to understand something they don't understand. They can see there are deep layers of meaning, and they can identify hints of that meaning, but then they stretch that in an ignorant pretending.
Many people probably dislike El Topo because it's so graphic and shocking. Many people probably love it for the same reason. And because they dislike it so strongly or like it so strongly they naturally pretend to understand why it's a terrible movie or a great movie. That's just the nature of us, and those of us who have not realised this within ourselves and changed and grown into maturity. Then there are those who overestimate their own ability to understand what they perceive, like Ebert. They don't understand something so complex, but insist that they do and that there is nothing more to it then what they think they understand. If they don't understand a symbol, well it must be the fault of the one presenting that symbol. They must not have meant anything by it, but merely lofted it up arbitrarily for it's own sake. Ebert's inability to understand El Topo is identical to his inability to understand Jodoworsky himself. His inability to even converse with the man is rooted in his inability to listen. El Topo is a movie about Jodoworsky starring himself and his own son. It has so much of his life and his soul poured into it, and everyone pretends to understand him like vultures circling and waiting for his death.
How can you compare the low-budget work of amateur Hollywood rejects to that of an artistic genius? In Ebert's review of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly he understood everything about it. In his review of El Topo he understood nothing.
All great artists are misunderstood.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gr...-the-ugly-1968
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gr...e-el-topo-1970
Ebert says, "But art it is, summoned out of the imagination of Leone and painted on the wide screen so vividly that we forget what marginal productions these films were--that Clint Eastwood was a Hollywood reject, that budgetary restraints ($200,000 for "Fistful") caused gaping continuity errors, that there wasn't a lot of dialogue because it was easier to shoot silent and fill the soundtrack with music and effects." Is it ironic that the entire time I was watching this movie I couldn't figure out why the production quality was so bad, because I assumed it was a big budget movie?
All I can gather in any terms of greatness of this movie is that for people who enjoy this type of movie it is wonderfully charming. There's nothing masterful about it, but it's sincere in it's low-budget way and pokes fun at Hollywood. I don't know how anyone could call it art. But I can understand why some people find it entertaining, maybe even love it.
Ebert rarely talks about technical aspects in an accurate way. He asserts words like "great" and "art" with no seeming need to define his terms or explain why. Content matters most, and if he likes a movie then it's good. He is the lay person's ideal critic. The critic for the masses. For people like my Dad who think they're movie buffs and will pick a movie off the shelf looking for Ebert's seal of approval and happily enjoy Tom Cruise's acting and Steven Spielberg's directing in blissful ignorance. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
I find Ebert's comment on El Topo particularly fascinating, "The film exists as an unforgettable experience, but not as a comprehensible one." I also find it interesting when he refers to his law, "If you have to ask what something symbolizes, it doesn't." And the clause he adds, "Or it stands for itself." It reminds me of when I show my art and poetry to my parents and they can't even begin to understand it. They ask me what it means with puzzled expressions. And while there are many deep layers that I intentionally put there, there are also elements that just came together naturally which I don't even pretend to understand myself. Ebert does not know what art is. Someone like him can not understand it. But he is an intelligent person, and he understands a lot about film. When people see a movie like this they come up with all kinds of wild theories about it's meaning and significance, most of which are fabricated by the imagination of the viewer. But often I think it is what happens when people pretend to understand something they don't understand. They can see there are deep layers of meaning, and they can identify hints of that meaning, but then they stretch that in an ignorant pretending.
Many people probably dislike El Topo because it's so graphic and shocking. Many people probably love it for the same reason. And because they dislike it so strongly or like it so strongly they naturally pretend to understand why it's a terrible movie or a great movie. That's just the nature of us, and those of us who have not realised this within ourselves and changed and grown into maturity. Then there are those who overestimate their own ability to understand what they perceive, like Ebert. They don't understand something so complex, but insist that they do and that there is nothing more to it then what they think they understand. If they don't understand a symbol, well it must be the fault of the one presenting that symbol. They must not have meant anything by it, but merely lofted it up arbitrarily for it's own sake. Ebert's inability to understand El Topo is identical to his inability to understand Jodoworsky himself. His inability to even converse with the man is rooted in his inability to listen. El Topo is a movie about Jodoworsky starring himself and his own son. It has so much of his life and his soul poured into it, and everyone pretends to understand him like vultures circling and waiting for his death.
How can you compare the low-budget work of amateur Hollywood rejects to that of an artistic genius? In Ebert's review of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly he understood everything about it. In his review of El Topo he understood nothing.
All great artists are misunderstood.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gr...-the-ugly-1968
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gr...e-el-topo-1970
