Ebert+Siskel


The movie poster says Ebert&Siskel gave it 4 Stars. But I can't find their review, do you?

You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody.

reply

Interesting--it doesn't come up under either the English or Japanese title at Ebert's Sun-Times site, either. Let me know if you find it, and I'll do the same...

reply

He mentions it in 3 reviews on his site:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020927/REV IEWS/209270306/1023
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990507/REV IEWS/905070301/1023
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/REV IEWS/712200304

reply

That's weird, because I'm familiar with his site and have even sent (and received) emails from Ebert himself, and yet two of us couldn't find the title in either language as of last fall. Maybe something got re-archived or something, who knows. At any rate, thanks for posting.

reply

This is Ebert's original review that I found on Microsoft Cinemania '97 CD-ROM:


The Ballad of Narayama (1983)
Roger Ebert Review: 4.0 stars out of 4

, No rating, Color

The rules in the village are simple. When you reach the age of 70, you must go up to the top of Narayama mountain and wait there until you die. THE BALLAD OF NARAYAMA is about an old woman whose time has almost arrived, and who is determined to take care of her family's unfinished business before she goes to the mountaintop. Most of that business concerns finding wives for her sons.

Stated that simply, THE BALLAD OF NARAYAMA sounds like humanism crossed with anthropology, sort of a WOMAN IN THE DUNES about death. But this movie is much more passionate than I've made it sound: darker, bloodier, more fearsome. It was directed by Shohei Imamura, whose films deal with the ways we pass laws to govern our deepest impulses, and then are driven to break those laws.

We see a poor village in the mountains, many years ago. It is a beautiful setting, a postcard, but life is raw and hard. The people work the fields in their bare feet, plowing the land and raising only enough potatoes and rice to barely feed themselves. Everybody knows everybody else's business.

That is particularly true of the old mother of the most important family. She is tireless, stubborn, willful. She wants to find wives for her sons. She turns up one wife—a new widow from across the valley—and shares her favorite recipes and the secret places in the river where you can catch fish with your bare hands. But this new wife turns out to be not quite the catch she seemed.

Meanwhile, another son, a universally scorned and hapless man known as the "stinker," creeps about the village, eavesdropping. He learns that a dying man has asked his wife to sleep with every man in the village at least once. This seems to be the stinker's chance, but it's not: the dead man's spirit turns into a butterfly that advises against the stinker.

Another son makes love with the daughter of a neighboring family, and gets her pregnant. But then the girl's father is exposed as a thief, and, in the movie's strongest and most painful image, the entire family is buried alive as punishment.

The final passages of the film have the oldest son taking his old mother up to the mountaintop. She is not sick, she is not about to die, but she is a woman of great determination and she demands to go to the mountaintop.

THE BALLAD OF NARAYAMA won the grand prize at Cannes last year, but it's not the sort of film that becomes a hit on the art film circuit—it's too introspective, too unblinking in the face of cruelty, too "Japanese." That makes it all the more a fascinating experience.


© 1996 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved.

reply

Wow, thank you for posting this!

reply

Ditto here (on posting it). I'd say Roger nailed it as he did so often, except that I'm not sure the burning is the strongest and most painful image. There's something about the act of carrying your healthy 70-year-old mother up a mountain, through the terrifying and fateful sight of bones and corpses, knowing what's about to happen, that to me is one of the most devastating things I've ever seen on film.

reply

[deleted]

The Roger Ebert review of "The Ballad of Narayama" is typical of the many other reviews of his that I've read. It doesn't stand out; it doesn't seem to me he's coasting on his reputation. (Also it was written when the film first came out way back in 1983, when he wasn't all that famous, and a few years before "Siskel & Ebert & the Movies".)

His material in other mediums (books, conferences, classes) was quite different; the reviews are fairly short, directed at "everyman", and often just a tiny bit more insightful than most other newspaper reviews. It's hard to remember now that he was not a film critic (although he could have been); he always kept Joe Sixpac in mind when writing his reviews.

Recently a very good documentary film about Roger Ebert appeared. See http://www.magpictures.com/lifeitself/

His reviews which were intended to be published in a newspaper aren't all that unlike reviews in other newspapers. He stood out for a few reasons: i] fairly often reviewing "obscure" films, ii] championing things he thought should be more widely accepted, iii] sometimes saying shockingly blunt bad things about a movie if he thought they were deserved, and iv] occasional (but certainly not constant) glimmers of insight.

reply

I remember S&E were interviewed by Bob Costas in the 90s and they admitted that what they did was "not high-level film criticism." But they said their reviews did delve into aspects of film art such as visual styles, themes, etc. My guess was and is that they were fairly erudite in film knowledge but had to review in a manner accessible to general readers and viewers.

Sadly, the best-written reviews from Ebert were the ones he did a few years before his death.

reply