In a way, it is the very embodiment of upwardly-mobile, 1980s Americana. So I bestow him with a sobriquet apropos of the (Reagan) era: The Great Communicator.
Awwww!!! I LOVE this moniker. :) I was never a huge fan of movies, but we used to watch "Siskel & Ebert" and I always agreed more with Ebert, because he seemed to like more movies. Even at eight years old, he liked movies I liked. I've always felt very strongly about critics not becoming too elitist, and he seemed the furthest thing from it. He could enjoy a blockbuster and an art film equally. To me, that's the mark of a truly great critic.
(and what's missing from modern TV critics today, IMO. It's all about the cable and pay cable series with the minuscule amounts of viewers. I'd have so much respect for a critic if they dared to do an article about why NCIS is good. Or The Voice. Or The Big Bang Theory. Something that America finds popular, about which a good critic -- like Ebert for movies -- could find something enjoyable.)
Ahem, sorry...tangent. Mainly because I don't watch a lot of movies, so this is an education for me. :)
Ebert saw in it -- and loved -- the same things I did
Well, that just says something right there, since you both are great critics. :D
Both critics were obviously disturbed by a number of films (and they put several examples on display during the broadcast) that demonstrated deeply misogynist attitudes.
Oh WOW -- I had never even heard of this!!! Talk about a man (and men) truly ahead of their time. :D That's so amazing -- and good for him and them for doing it. That's really so neat. :)
Halloween, is one they both liked because it was well made; it spoke to deeper, universal fears in our subconscious and it was always sympathetic towards its female protagonist
And that's another reason I liked them (and him) -- because they didn't look down their nose at a horror movie. I wish other critics could adopt these more universal attitudes toward entertainment.
And he brought this empathy with him to every film he saw and communicated it in his work as only he could.
What you seem to be saying here, which I highly agree with, is he saw movies as a viewer, not a critic. He didn't consider himself "above" the art he reviewed. He saw entertainment as just that: entertainment -- and knew that a movie didn't have to say something deep and meaningful to be a truly good piece of film.
My native Chicagoan husband simply eulogized him as this: "The nation's best entertainment critic." :D
Thank you for another thought-provoking entry -- beautifully written, as always!!! What a treat. In honor of its dearly departed subject: two enthusiastic thumbs up. :D
LJ is sadder and lonelier without you but I'm so glad you stopped by (heh, remember when it was ME leaving anon comments on YOUR LJ?).
It's all about the cable and pay cable series with the minuscule amounts of viewers.
Hee, and well I'll admit I can be a bit elitist about TV. (You know how I feel about MadMen for example.) You know what I think it is? You truly LOVE the medium, which is why you'd make an excellent TV crtic. Historically, I've always preferred films. And then the reality TV craze hit us in the early millennium and at one point I had nearly given up TV entirely. But then the glut of reality TV also opened up the medium and created a space in marketplace and on cable -- premium cable initially -- for shows like The Sopranos (which I never really got into that much) or SATC, Six Feet Under, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Rome (shows that I DID like). Those shows saved TV for me and I imagine it's not coincidence that the production values, the direction and writing play much closer to films and for me that's a large part of the appeal.
The other thing probably is that you historically love network comedies and I ... really don't. Not in a long time anyway. I loved Seinfeld (that was probably the only comedy I watched consistently even back then). I went through bouts of obsession with Mad About You, with Frasier ... but never really was into Friends (I know, sacrilege). And I've totally missed out on the resurgence of CBS, having seen very few episodes of HIMYM, TBBT, TAAHM, etc. And even the less broad stuff on NBC (TO, TR, PAR, C), I haven't seen a whole lot of -- some but not on anything approaching a weekly basis.
Of course, GIRLS is a comedy (a gritty one). And I ironically watch the tragicomic mess Glee has become. But that's my MO: I find 3-5 shows to focus on (60-80% dramas) and basically discard the rest. You find something interesting in a variety of shows because you love the medium and what it represents. It speaks to you in a way that it doesn't to me and I guess in a way it doesn't to many critics (which is odd, frankly). I also think, like anything, there are fads in TV criticism and it's just not trendy to talk about how great network TV is and has always been. :-)
Oh WOW -- I had never even heard of this!!!
Yeah, you should really check it out ... when I saw it again last year after so many years (I think I had initially seen a rebroadcast in the late '80s when I was a kid), it struck me how much media and cultural attitudes have changed. Can you imagine any critic now actually drawing a line in the sand on the subject? There are a few voices out there but it feels like anyone with a strong opinion about anything involving social/cultural mores is marginalized. Everything is so diffuse; everyone is so insular. You have the right-wing religious folks who are increasingly irrelevant on a macro level. You have the left who is vocal about certain things (corporate greed, the environment, etc.). I hardly see anyone outside the academy speaking about gender issues in any serious way -- which is I think the appeal of a show like "GIRLS" though it is clearly a show of our time (a post-feminist, not a feminist, show). There has been a macro shift in attitudes towards the LGBTQ community and that's probably the area we've seen the most progess (though a lot of it I imagine is simply a libertarian, "live and let live" philosophy which is fine, but different from taking a principled stance). But it just feels like there's no national consensus about anything anymore, or even a national dialogue. No cohesion any longer in important ways -- nothing tying us together beyond popular culture. And this worries me tremendously.
Thanks so much for your comments. And I owe you mine from your post yesterday, which I will get to a bit later today.
Those shows saved TV for me and I imagine it's not coincidence that the production values, the direction and writing play much closer to films and for me that's a large part of the appeal.
Ooh. I don't think I'd ever heard it explained in quite that way -- but you're right! TV has always seen itself as the red-headed stepchild in Hollywood, and the closer they can get to the perceived quality of film, the more satisfied they become with their end product. TV is self-loathing in that way (which has always bothered me), because critics adopt that attitude of "nothing is good enough."
(For me, I've found TV infinitely more satisfying because it was designed for everyone -- it works within constraints of time, language and content and has to produce a product that appeals to a mass quantity of people in order to stay on the air. It's a balancing act, which is why I initially railed against broadcast and cable shows competing when the standards are so different -- shorter seasons, no language/content restrictions, some not having to cater to advertisers)
Can you imagine any critic now actually drawing a line in the sand on the subject? There are a few voices out there but it feels like anyone with a strong opinion about anything involving social/cultural mores is marginalized.
Not at all -- not when the country is so polarized. There is no subject on which we can agree anymore, it seems. Even with women's issues (which SHOULD be a universal subject), you're either a crazed feminist or a rampant misogynist. There's no middle ground.
No cohesion any longer in important ways -- nothing tying us together beyond popular culture.
Maybe that's why I still love and believe in the power of TV. Because it can unite the left and right, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists alike. I know many people decried American Idol for swamping the airwaves, but I loved what it did for TV in a pop culture sense. When you have 30 million Americans tuning in to something on a weekly basis, it means you can start a conversation on a bus, in a meeting, waiting in line at a deli counter and chances are, the person next to you has watched the same thing you did. It provides an instant common ground. The mailroom attendant could be stuck in an elevator with the CEO, and they could bond instantly with a simple "What'd you think of American Idol last night?"
In an increasingly fragmented society, where everyone has their own personal forms of music, Internet and social media, and can be basically in their own little world, the TV is still in the "living room" or the "family room" for a reason -- because it was designed to be a mass medium, even on the smallest of scales.
Is it stupid to say "As long as houses still have a TV where families occasionally watch the same thing together, there's hope for society yet?" Probably. But it's what I believe.
(Wow, that was a MASSIVE tangent having NOTHING to do with your post -- except that maybe Ebert would agree about the whole media bringing people together thing. Oops...)
TV is still in the "living room" or the "family room" for a reason -- because it was designed to be a mass medium, even on the smallest of scales.
I do think films have the power to unite people too but in a different way than TV. Part of the power of TV is shared experience of watching at or almost at the same time as millions of other people. Films operate differently because we may see the same film weeks, months or years after one another. And yet it still operates on our collective psyche which manifests itself in other ways. And then an anecdote or reference to the film will come out and that interconnectedness will come to the fore. But most of the time it lies dormant. ... TV I think has a stronger, but briefer impact. With rare exceptions (cough, M/M, cough), what happens week to week doesn't stay with us long, but while it is on everyone's mind at the water cooler, it's the thing you can't wait to share and discuss with other people which is also important and meaningful. And of course, there's no question it's more "democratic" because it costs almost nothing -- certainly for network TV -- to enjoy. To see films on the big screen (which is part of both the enjoyment and impact I would argue) is an increasingly expensive venture. Dinner and a movie for two on a Saturday night can easily run $150. ...
Awwww!!! I LOVE this moniker. :) I was never a huge fan of movies, but we used to watch "Siskel & Ebert" and I always agreed more with Ebert, because he seemed to like more movies. Even at eight years old, he liked movies I liked. I've always felt very strongly about critics not becoming too elitist, and he seemed the furthest thing from it. He could enjoy a blockbuster and an art film equally. To me, that's the mark of a truly great critic.
(and what's missing from modern TV critics today, IMO. It's all about the cable and pay cable series with the minuscule amounts of viewers. I'd have so much respect for a critic if they dared to do an article about why NCIS is good. Or The Voice. Or The Big Bang Theory. Something that America finds popular, about which a good critic -- like Ebert for movies -- could find something enjoyable.)
Ahem, sorry...tangent. Mainly because I don't watch a lot of movies, so this is an education for me. :)
Ebert saw in it -- and loved -- the same things I did
Well, that just says something right there, since you both are great critics. :D
Both critics were obviously disturbed by a number of films (and they put several examples on display during the broadcast) that demonstrated deeply misogynist attitudes.
Oh WOW -- I had never even heard of this!!! Talk about a man (and men) truly ahead of their time. :D That's so amazing -- and good for him and them for doing it. That's really so neat. :)
Halloween, is one they both liked because it was well made; it spoke to deeper, universal fears in our subconscious and it was always sympathetic towards its female protagonist
And that's another reason I liked them (and him) -- because they didn't look down their nose at a horror movie. I wish other critics could adopt these more universal attitudes toward entertainment.
And he brought this empathy with him to every film he saw and communicated it in his work as only he could.
What you seem to be saying here, which I highly agree with, is he saw movies as a viewer, not a critic. He didn't consider himself "above" the art he reviewed. He saw entertainment as just that: entertainment -- and knew that a movie didn't have to say something deep and meaningful to be a truly good piece of film.
My native Chicagoan husband simply eulogized him as this: "The nation's best entertainment critic." :D
Thank you for another thought-provoking entry -- beautifully written, as always!!! What a treat. In honor of its dearly departed subject: two enthusiastic thumbs up. :D
-rg :)
Reply
LJ is sadder and lonelier without you but I'm so glad you stopped by (heh, remember when it was ME leaving anon comments on YOUR LJ?).
It's all about the cable and pay cable series with the minuscule amounts of viewers.
Hee, and well I'll admit I can be a bit elitist about TV. (You know how I feel about MadMen for example.) You know what I think it is? You truly LOVE the medium, which is why you'd make an excellent TV crtic. Historically, I've always preferred films. And then the reality TV craze hit us in the early millennium and at one point I had nearly given up TV entirely. But then the glut of reality TV also opened up the medium and created a space in marketplace and on cable -- premium cable initially -- for shows like The Sopranos (which I never really got into that much) or SATC, Six Feet Under, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Rome (shows that I DID like). Those shows saved TV for me and I imagine it's not coincidence that the production values, the direction and writing play much closer to films and for me that's a large part of the appeal.
The other thing probably is that you historically love network comedies and I ... really don't. Not in a long time anyway. I loved Seinfeld (that was probably the only comedy I watched consistently even back then). I went through bouts of obsession with Mad About You, with Frasier ... but never really was into Friends (I know, sacrilege). And I've totally missed out on the resurgence of CBS, having seen very few episodes of HIMYM, TBBT, TAAHM, etc. And even the less broad stuff on NBC (TO, TR, PAR, C), I haven't seen a whole lot of -- some but not on anything approaching a weekly basis.
Of course, GIRLS is a comedy (a gritty one). And I ironically watch the tragicomic mess Glee has become. But that's my MO: I find 3-5 shows to focus on (60-80% dramas) and basically discard the rest. You find something interesting in a variety of shows because you love the medium and what it represents. It speaks to you in a way that it doesn't to me and I guess in a way it doesn't to many critics (which is odd, frankly). I also think, like anything, there are fads in TV criticism and it's just not trendy to talk about how great network TV is and has always been. :-)
Oh WOW -- I had never even heard of this!!!
Yeah, you should really check it out ... when I saw it again last year after so many years (I think I had initially seen a rebroadcast in the late '80s when I was a kid), it struck me how much media and cultural attitudes have changed. Can you imagine any critic now actually drawing a line in the sand on the subject? There are a few voices out there but it feels like anyone with a strong opinion about anything involving social/cultural mores is marginalized. Everything is so diffuse; everyone is so insular. You have the right-wing religious folks who are increasingly irrelevant on a macro level. You have the left who is vocal about certain things (corporate greed, the environment, etc.). I hardly see anyone outside the academy speaking about gender issues in any serious way -- which is I think the appeal of a show like "GIRLS" though it is clearly a show of our time (a post-feminist, not a feminist, show). There has been a macro shift in attitudes towards the LGBTQ community and that's probably the area we've seen the most progess (though a lot of it I imagine is simply a libertarian, "live and let live" philosophy which is fine, but different from taking a principled stance). But it just feels like there's no national consensus about anything anymore, or even a national dialogue. No cohesion any longer in important ways -- nothing tying us together beyond popular culture. And this worries me tremendously.
Thanks so much for your comments. And I owe you mine from your post yesterday, which I will get to a bit later today.
Reply
Ooh. I don't think I'd ever heard it explained in quite that way -- but you're right! TV has always seen itself as the red-headed stepchild in Hollywood, and the closer they can get to the perceived quality of film, the more satisfied they become with their end product. TV is self-loathing in that way (which has always bothered me), because critics adopt that attitude of "nothing is good enough."
(For me, I've found TV infinitely more satisfying because it was designed for everyone -- it works within constraints of time, language and content and has to produce a product that appeals to a mass quantity of people in order to stay on the air. It's a balancing act, which is why I initially railed against broadcast and cable shows competing when the standards are so different -- shorter seasons, no language/content restrictions, some not having to cater to advertisers)
Can you imagine any critic now actually drawing a line in the sand on the subject? There are a few voices out there but it feels like anyone with a strong opinion about anything involving social/cultural mores is marginalized.
Not at all -- not when the country is so polarized. There is no subject on which we can agree anymore, it seems. Even with women's issues (which SHOULD be a universal subject), you're either a crazed feminist or a rampant misogynist. There's no middle ground.
No cohesion any longer in important ways -- nothing tying us together beyond popular culture.
Maybe that's why I still love and believe in the power of TV. Because it can unite the left and right, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists alike. I know many people decried American Idol for swamping the airwaves, but I loved what it did for TV in a pop culture sense. When you have 30 million Americans tuning in to something on a weekly basis, it means you can start a conversation on a bus, in a meeting, waiting in line at a deli counter and chances are, the person next to you has watched the same thing you did. It provides an instant common ground. The mailroom attendant could be stuck in an elevator with the CEO, and they could bond instantly with a simple "What'd you think of American Idol last night?"
In an increasingly fragmented society, where everyone has their own personal forms of music, Internet and social media, and can be basically in their own little world, the TV is still in the "living room" or the "family room" for a reason -- because it was designed to be a mass medium, even on the smallest of scales.
Is it stupid to say "As long as houses still have a TV where families occasionally watch the same thing together, there's hope for society yet?" Probably. But it's what I believe.
(Wow, that was a MASSIVE tangent having NOTHING to do with your post -- except that maybe Ebert would agree about the whole media bringing people together thing. Oops...)
Reply
I do think films have the power to unite people too but in a different way than TV. Part of the power of TV is shared experience of watching at or almost at the same time as millions of other people. Films operate differently because we may see the same film weeks, months or years after one another. And yet it still operates on our collective psyche which manifests itself in other ways. And then an anecdote or reference to the film will come out and that interconnectedness will come to the fore. But most of the time it lies dormant. ... TV I think has a stronger, but briefer impact. With rare exceptions (cough, M/M, cough), what happens week to week doesn't stay with us long, but while it is on everyone's mind at the water cooler, it's the thing you can't wait to share and discuss with other people which is also important and meaningful. And of course, there's no question it's more "democratic" because it costs almost nothing -- certainly for network TV -- to enjoy. To see films on the big screen (which is part of both the enjoyment and impact I would argue) is an increasingly expensive venture. Dinner and a movie for two on a Saturday night can easily run $150. ...
And tangents are always welcome here. :-D
Reply
Leave a comment