I love the man. I really do.
But where does Ebert come off giving this a one star when he's penned prominent Russ Meyers films like Up (with horrendous rape sequences I might add), as well as the he big daddy of them all in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls? I found no laughs in those films, just a tawdry sense of frisson which I similarly find in Waters's films.
Wasn't Ebert involved in writing both of those movies?
That's probably why.
I know he wrote the screenplay for BTVOTD.
Just a young boy under the influence of drugs...who killed his entire family with an ax.
I love the Russ Meyer films of the 70s, so I have a problem with Ebert (who was also involved in SUPERVIXENS and BENEATH THE VALLEY OF THE ULTRAVIXENS, though he doesn't seem to admit to either) getting on a high horse regarding other filmmakers' work. If anything A DIRTY SHAME was John Waters' very capable answer to a Russ Meyer film, since he is a huge fan of the late RM. What this ultimately boils down to is that Ebert is just old and has lost the youthful appetites that allowed him to write what were basically just very clever live-action softcore porn cartoons in the 70s. Despite the misogyny and graphic violence in his films for Meyer, Ebert regularly condemns slasher movies and other ultraviolent films. Despite the X-rated content of his screenplays, Ebert often looks down his nose at movies that flaunt eroticism and vulgarity for the sake of prurient titillation. He's just an old guy who doesn't remember what it was like to write bawdy, big-breasted trash, and refuses to see the similarities between his early work and that of the filmmakers he pans today.
If Russ Meyer were alive and well today, he'd give Ebert a kick in his fat rear end.
You all need to re-read Ebert's review.
I will be the first to admit that Ebert is at times annoying for completely missing the boat on films he reviews, but in his review of A Dirty Shame, he is, alas, right on the money.
The biggest problem with this film is that it is not offensive enough. It hints at topics that have the potential to be offensive (and funny), but then turn out to be neither. Ebert was also dead on with criticizing the script as being "encylclopedic". Waters introduced characters with slang terms for sexual fetishes, and then went on to define the terms, like we didn't already know. Who did Waters think his audience for this film was?
What started off with great potential in it's first half ultimately fizzles, being neither offensive nor entertaining. I, and Ebert, simply wished for more.
On a side note, I fear the only reason this film received the dreaded NC-17 was for the homosexuality and full-frontal male nudity. It is a sad state of affairs indeed...
[deleted]
I have to agree. I'm a great fan of the classic Waters films (especially the "trash trilogy" Pink Flamingos, Desperate Living and Female Trouble) and found A Dirty Shame (and Cecil B. Demented) very funny indeed.
I haven't seen Pecker yet, but Cry-Baby and Serial Mom (haven't seen neither in years) were merely OK entertainment at the time. I definitely have to revisit them to make sure.
kasmra
:wq
From what I know, Meyers' films took a much different direction than Ebert had intended with his screenplays.
shareEbert was right anyway, this is basically just an on-going encyclopedia of sex perversions but this time without any real laughs involved, which is whats expected of a john waters movie (one of my favorite directors too!).
shareEvery now and then the old pooper gets his nasty panties in an uproar over some film that tickles one of his buzzy-butt-buttons. Check out his reviews of Caligola (Caligula) and Blue Velvet. He had an absolute tantrum over the David Lynch film on his TV show, castigating G.S. who was amused. He turned deep purple and almost burst an artery. "The lady doth protest too much," you know. (Ain't it a shirty dame?)
Wonder what's in his smut collection? I scent a secret Bum-Bottom.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the documentary on Roger Ebert 'Life Itself'. To me, Siskel & Ebert, then Ebert & Roeper were the first and only honest 'Reality TV' show EVER on the tube. And yes, I do think there was 'under the table' maneuvering ranging from studio bias and manipulation of the SAG to look elsewhere. To ad agencies and interest groups getting the best rates and keeping the the prime time 'norm' normal. One always seemed to be 'on the take' when severely bashing a particular movie, and the other would call them out on it and defending the movies 'daringness' or 'lesser market status appeal'. And too, I think Roger was good at 'reverse psychology'. When he severely bashed a film, it made me want to see it that much more. What did he say about Rob Reiner's 'North' movie - "I said I HATED that movie 27 times in my review, and it still wasn't enough" Cool, that's a flick worth seeing - even if it is THAT horrendous!
So, much like a fashion magazine hating Ralph Laurens new fall line, but realizing he's got 6 prime ads for the issue, the criticism either has to be 'finessed' with words like 'daring', 'bold', and 'highly new for Mr. Lauren'. To a outright bashing saying 'A Philippine whore wouldn't wear this garbage on a Saturday night!' - people tend to look at the ad's again and say 'It doesn't look THAT bad to me?' And Ralph, though publicly dismayed and bashing the reviewer himself; buys 8 prime ad spots in the next issue.
[deleted]