film at elevenses
for tonight was unfrosted, a marvelous ode to simple joys and nostalgia and whimsy.
as wolodymyr so aptly ascribed here once upon a time, i am made of and for whimsy. and there are definitely folks out there who don't understand whimsy and its virtues. quite a few prominently shared reviews from faux critics (the kind that confuse the exercise of evaluating a movie for what it is with that of evaluating how close it comes to being a type of movie they themselves enjoy) attempt to assassinate it. then there are the faux critics who have, as many faux critics do these days, some kind of agenda against a film, from motivations sometimes patent and other times obscure. it doesn't really come as the slightest surprise that the polar opposite in so many ways, including both charm and critical aptitude, of roger ebert, a man called roeper, is one of the detractors. but it's telling when he goes to full extremes in order to attempt to dissuade anyone unlucky enough to happen read his screed. even if the film weren't a particular person's cup of tea, about the worst anyone could grade it would be a flat c; even if they think it doesn't excel, it's impossible to deny its basic level of hilarity and potential to entertain. but roeper has to give it his worst possible grade, heap insult after insult, and conclusively dub it 'one of the worst films of the decade so far', a level of hyperbole that is fully laughable. by spouting such blatant falsehoods the faux critic reveals only his own character and his decision not to judge the movie on its merits.
truly surprising though is that the estate of the great ebert himself, which trades on the fame and reputation of the man with little to no adherence to the virtues he brought to his craft, has handed the reins of its publishing house to a mediocre television reviewer, who (and i can't say i've read much of his scribblings in order to judge his overall body of work and how consistent it is with his review of the seinfeld piece) falls into the former category of faux critics. in his review of unfrosted he criticizes the movie for not being a coen brothers film, and even setting aside those of us falling to our knees expressing gratitude to the heavens that it's not at all a coen brothers film, he would be just as well off criticizing a few good men or all the president's men for not being coen brothers films. the film, as with most of the best, doesn't aspire to be a coen brothers film, and all this faux critic has done is tell whoever will listen about his personal tastes; that he likes coen brothers films and isn't pleased when he encounters a movie that isn't one. but then he goes on to reveal his personal agenda when he verbally assaults the character of seinfeld the man, exposing his impetus to bash something created by that man. as one commenter on the piece said: "it may be a bad movie but i don't believe this is an honest review. matt obviously had his feathers ruffled by seinfeld's opinion of comedy today. it's a bad look and i can't believe a professional critic would leave that in." and point of fact he's only a 'professional critic' in the sense that he is being paid, not in the sense of having the ethos of a professional in a field. and it's truly unfortunate that roeper has had his salieriesque vengeance against ebert, whose shadow he clearly must have felt was obscuring the light he only imagines he emits, by instilling his methodology into the hearts and minds of similarly unworthy practitioners who might sully ebert's good name by misplaced association; matt also gives his lowest possible grade, in this case only half a star. i do appreciate though that matt saw fit to include in the review his ponderings on his realization that the influence of people given his platform has cratered in this brave new world we're in where no longer are only the voices of only a few are given the prominence to bend the opinions of the public at large, as instead the cacophony of the public at large speaking vociferously to the public at large drowns them out. he brands the film critic-proof without voicing the corollary: all movies now are critic-proof. when everybody's a critic nobody is a critic, they're just a sea of 'one human's opinion's, none carrying much more weight than any other.
in the meantime critics are hanging on as best they can, still more present in the world than the milkmen (sic) which make an anachronistic appearance in jerry's movie but have not been found near anyone's door in almost four score. so it was with great pleasure that i heard jerry, in an interview clip, trumpet the virtues of marcus aurelius' meditations, and cite it as one of his inspirations when he said "i'm going to seek the most vicious, negative, hostile, cheap, backstabbing reviews i can find. you know why? i've got this guy {holds up his copy of aurelius}. i'm gonna just laugh my ass off. because whatever your opinion is of the movie, that's your opinion." i'm laughing my ass off as well thinking that for all that these reviewers clearly hope to irk seinfeld as a [large] part of their endeavour they're actually serving him with just the fodder for laughter he planned to seek.
as wolodymyr so aptly ascribed here once upon a time, i am made of and for whimsy. and there are definitely folks out there who don't understand whimsy and its virtues. quite a few prominently shared reviews from faux critics (the kind that confuse the exercise of evaluating a movie for what it is with that of evaluating how close it comes to being a type of movie they themselves enjoy) attempt to assassinate it. then there are the faux critics who have, as many faux critics do these days, some kind of agenda against a film, from motivations sometimes patent and other times obscure. it doesn't really come as the slightest surprise that the polar opposite in so many ways, including both charm and critical aptitude, of roger ebert, a man called roeper, is one of the detractors. but it's telling when he goes to full extremes in order to attempt to dissuade anyone unlucky enough to happen read his screed. even if the film weren't a particular person's cup of tea, about the worst anyone could grade it would be a flat c; even if they think it doesn't excel, it's impossible to deny its basic level of hilarity and potential to entertain. but roeper has to give it his worst possible grade, heap insult after insult, and conclusively dub it 'one of the worst films of the decade so far', a level of hyperbole that is fully laughable. by spouting such blatant falsehoods the faux critic reveals only his own character and his decision not to judge the movie on its merits.
truly surprising though is that the estate of the great ebert himself, which trades on the fame and reputation of the man with little to no adherence to the virtues he brought to his craft, has handed the reins of its publishing house to a mediocre television reviewer, who (and i can't say i've read much of his scribblings in order to judge his overall body of work and how consistent it is with his review of the seinfeld piece) falls into the former category of faux critics. in his review of unfrosted he criticizes the movie for not being a coen brothers film, and even setting aside those of us falling to our knees expressing gratitude to the heavens that it's not at all a coen brothers film, he would be just as well off criticizing a few good men or all the president's men for not being coen brothers films. the film, as with most of the best, doesn't aspire to be a coen brothers film, and all this faux critic has done is tell whoever will listen about his personal tastes; that he likes coen brothers films and isn't pleased when he encounters a movie that isn't one. but then he goes on to reveal his personal agenda when he verbally assaults the character of seinfeld the man, exposing his impetus to bash something created by that man. as one commenter on the piece said: "it may be a bad movie but i don't believe this is an honest review. matt obviously had his feathers ruffled by seinfeld's opinion of comedy today. it's a bad look and i can't believe a professional critic would leave that in." and point of fact he's only a 'professional critic' in the sense that he is being paid, not in the sense of having the ethos of a professional in a field. and it's truly unfortunate that roeper has had his salieriesque vengeance against ebert, whose shadow he clearly must have felt was obscuring the light he only imagines he emits, by instilling his methodology into the hearts and minds of similarly unworthy practitioners who might sully ebert's good name by misplaced association; matt also gives his lowest possible grade, in this case only half a star. i do appreciate though that matt saw fit to include in the review his ponderings on his realization that the influence of people given his platform has cratered in this brave new world we're in where no longer are only the voices of only a few are given the prominence to bend the opinions of the public at large, as instead the cacophony of the public at large speaking vociferously to the public at large drowns them out. he brands the film critic-proof without voicing the corollary: all movies now are critic-proof. when everybody's a critic nobody is a critic, they're just a sea of 'one human's opinion's, none carrying much more weight than any other.
in the meantime critics are hanging on as best they can, still more present in the world than the milkmen (sic) which make an anachronistic appearance in jerry's movie but have not been found near anyone's door in almost four score. so it was with great pleasure that i heard jerry, in an interview clip, trumpet the virtues of marcus aurelius' meditations, and cite it as one of his inspirations when he said "i'm going to seek the most vicious, negative, hostile, cheap, backstabbing reviews i can find. you know why? i've got this guy {holds up his copy of aurelius}. i'm gonna just laugh my ass off. because whatever your opinion is of the movie, that's your opinion." i'm laughing my ass off as well thinking that for all that these reviewers clearly hope to irk seinfeld as a [large] part of their endeavour they're actually serving him with just the fodder for laughter he planned to seek.