Ebert flip-floped


I read Ebert's review on Friday and I could've sworn that he said he didn't like the movie, giving it a thumbs down. Then I see him on TV this morning and he says he gives it thumbs up, and his explanation for why he liked it was less coherent than his reasons for dis-liking it. How can this be? How does a critic flip-flop like that?

reply

He pretty much said it was a bad movie but he gave Spike Lee credit for knowing the movie failed I guess but trying to do it in a stylistic way. He also said it wasn't boring.

reply

True.

reply

I know that spike is a talented filmmaker - this doesn't mean that he can't create flaming dog poo sometimes. This is spike's leonard part 6 - he needs to embrace this so he won't do it again (hopefully).

and If not being boring makes a film worthy of a 'thumbs up', porno would win oscars.

Cue Music... Slow Curtain... The End [wave2]

reply

Ebert is a hard line liberal, when it comes to black film makers and especially Lee he would NEVER give a "Thumbs Down".

reply

I'd say yes and no to that. Yes, that he is a liberal, most likely, from reading most of his reviews (I can also tell he doesn't agree much with Bush, which is fine by me). No, because I have noticed he has given at least a couple of Lee's movies thumbs down (Bamboozled as one example).

reply

Ebert gave "Bamboozled" two stars, this is a "fair" rating by Eberts own system. Doesn't sound like that thumb was down very far. If "She hate me" had been made by a white director both Lee and Ebert would be calling for his head.

reply

You must have read a different review than the one I read. http://suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-hate06f.html He gave it 3 stars, basically he said it was good because it will make the viewer understand what is wrong with characters like this in a more creative way than just preaching to people.

reply

Runner,

By Ebert's system, 2 stars in his print column = thumbs down on the television show. So, he would and HAS given a Spike Lee film thumbs down.

I agree with you, though, that he seems to have a soft spot for Lee and other liberals.

Daily Records

reply

I generally think that Ebert is very fair with his movie judgement; however, upon reading his review for "She Hate Me," I noticed he said that Spike Lee can make a good movie without any effort and that it takes a lot to make a movie like this (which sounds like Ebert is saying that if any other director made this movie, he'd have hated it--but because he knows that Spike is a talented director and capable of making good films, he's giving it a thumbs-up rating). It doesn't really make sense.

Michael

reply

*bump*

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

You make a lot of sense Marcello. Thanks for the invaluable, and obviously well thought-out, input.

Note - That may have been the most sarcastic remark I have ever made.

Daily Records

reply

I don't think it is fair to state that, Marcello. I respect Roger Ebert very much as a film critic but that doesn't mean I always believe his film interpretations are correct (I do quite often disagree). People are so fast to name films that Ebert loved or hated in which Ebert (according to your opinion) was obviously wrong.

I think you need to realize that Roger Ebert is so well-respected as a film critic because of his insightful analyses of various films. It is not sufficient to simply look at the "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down" and immediately condemn Ebert as wrong (or, in your case, worthless).

On both the syndicated show "Ebert and Roeper" and (especially) within Ebert's written film reviews, he analyzes the reasons for liking or disliking certain movies. Ebert just doesn't degrade or support a film without reason. Personally (after listening to Ebert's discussion of the film and reading his review), I think he found "She Hate Me" to be an entertaining mess--but this doesn't mean that the film was any good. I found "Showgirls" and "Mommie Dearest" to both be entertaining because they were so awful.

Ebert is relying on his intellect in deciding to give thumbs up to this movie. After considering Ebert's arguments for why this is a recommendable film, it seems that he has a double standard: he clearly states in his written review that Spike Lee could easily make a simple, good movie but that here he was playing with the boundaries of cinema to do something different (which Ebert then states didn't work). It seems to be a double standard--had an unknown director directed this film, he would have panned it; but because he knows that Spike Lee could easily make a well-made film, he states that this is Lee toying with cinema. Could it just be that Lee attempted to make a good film and it just didn't work?

reply



Ebert has alot of respect for Spike because of films like Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X. When you have a great deal of respect for a filmmaker you're going to cut them some slack for a film that's on the borderline between good and bad.





My Blog - Dialectic Humanism: http://dialectichumanism.blogspot.com/

reply

He has a soft spot for interesting filmmaking and for Spike...Not for Liberals. If he had a soft spot for liberals, he'd have a soft spot for every film ever made. ** 1/2 stars is a thumbs down...But that can be a borderline thumbs down...Or a healthy one that just isn't necessarily too far down. ** is a crap review.

reply

No one gets it- except Ebert. All anyone has to do is read this section from his review... If you still don't understand, well, then shut up. Because you're a moron.
"Spike Lee is a filmmaker on a short list with directors like Herzog, Sayles, Jarmusch, Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson, Todd Solondz and the new kid, David Gordon Green. He dances to his own music. He no doubt knows all the objections that can be raised against his film. He knows that structurally it's all over the map. He knows the lesbian storyline is logically and emotionally absurd. He knows Frank Wills came in from left field. He knows he begins with a conventional drama about rotten corporations and then jumps ship. He knows all of that. He teaches film at Harvard, for chrissakes. So why did he make this movie, this way?

I could call him up and ask him, but maybe the point is to look at this film, ask myself that question and avoid the easy answer, which is that he made a preposterous movie because he didn't know any better. He knows better. He could have delivered a safe, politically correct, well-made film without even breathing hard.

But this is the work of a man who wants to dare us to deal with it. Who is confronting generic expectations, conventional wisdom and political correctness. Whose film may be an attack on the sins it seems to commit. Who is impatient with the tired rote role of the heroic African-American corporate whistleblower (he could phone that one in). Who confronts the pious liberal horror about such concepts as the inexhaustible black stud, and lesbians who respond on cue to a sex with a man -- and instead of skewering them, which would be the easy thing to do, flaunts them.

His movie seems to celebrate those forbidden ideas. Why does he do this? Perhaps because to attack those concepts would be simplistic, platitudinous and predictable. But to work without the safety net, to deliberately be offensive, to refuse to satisfy our generic expectations, to dangle the conventional formula in front of us and then yank it away, to explode the structure of the movie, to allow it to contain anger and sarcasm, impatience and wild, imprudent excess, to find room for both unapologetic, melodramatic romance and satire -- well, that's audacious. To go where this film goes and still to have the nerve to end the way he does (with a reconciliation worthy of soap opera, and the black hero making a noble speech at a congressional hearing) is a form of daring beyond all reason.

My guess is that Lee is attacking African-American male and gay/lesbian stereotypes not by conventionally preaching against them, but by boldly dramatizing them. The inspiration for "She Hate Me" may be his "Bamboozled" (2000), an attack on black stereotypes that was one of his least successful films. Having failed with a frontal assault, he returns to the battle using indirection. By getting mad at the movie, we arrive at the conclusions he intends. In a sense, he is sacrificing himself to get his message across.

Either that, or I have completely misread "She Hate Me," but I couldn't write the obvious review. I couldn't convince myself I believed it. This film is alive and confrontational and aggressively in our face, and the man who made it has abandoned all caution, even to the point of refusing to signal his intentions, to put in a wink to let us see he knows what he's doing.

It is exciting to watch this movie. It is never boring. Lee is like a juggler who starts out with balls and gradually adds baseball bats, top hats and chainsaws. It's not an intellectual experience, but an emotional one. Spike Lee is like a jazz soloist who cuts loose, leaving behind the song and the group, walking offstage and out of the club, and keeps on improvising right down the street, looking for someone who can keep up with him. True, the movie is not altogether successful. It's so jagged, so passionate in its ambition, it raises more questions than it answers.

But isn't that better than the way most films answer more questions than they raise? "She Hate Me" invites anger and analysis about the stereotypes it appears to celebrate; a film that attacked those stereotypes would inspire yawns. Think what you want on an Politically Correct level, but concede that "She Hate Me" is audacious and recklessly risky.

reply

Good post. I may not agree with everything (then again, I haven't seen She Hate Me yet), but I liked how you supported your thesis. Thanks, dude.

reply

[deleted]

Bud, you can't even talk, let alone attend film school. You don't even make sense. And anyone who knows anything about film (especially a student of it) would NEVER refer to Punch-Drunk Love as "an adam sandler movie". That's exactly the opposite of what was going on with that movie- that's why it performed poorly at the box office (sandler's least successful film), and it's why audiences did not "get" it. It was a PT Anderson film (and a masterpiece at that), where he tried to tap into Sandler's underlying aggresion and insecurity- something that his bland, dumb comedies just don't delve into. Anyway, MarcelloManiac, you are maniac. Stop talking.

reply

And another thing- the fact that you would even consider that your opinion matters more than Roger Ebert's- is truly maniacal. Insane. Gross. Laughable. He's a film scholar, someone who has studied and written about film for decades and decades. I can't believe I'm even responding to you. Yikes.

reply

...



There's definitely something rustling behind your curtain...

reply