Ebert goes to the movies ... in Rochester!
One of the best things about Rochester is the George Eastman House and the Dryden Theatre. These institutions are devoted to film preservation and film presentation on the big screen, and the Eastman House's Motion Picture Collection is "one of the country’s five major film archives, alongside [the] Library of Congress, UCLA Film and Television Archive, Museum of Modern Art, and the Academy Film Archive."
I've been volunteering at both places for more than four years now, and every now and again I introduce one of the films in their excellent ongoing film calendar that includes classic and hard-to-find films (here's a list of the films I've introduced). But I try to get along to see films there whenever I can. Last week, for example, we went to see Jack Arnold's The Incredible Shrinking Man, a fascinating 1957 sci-fi film I remember quite vividly watching on TV as a kid; it was great seeing it again--and this time on the big screen, as it was meant to be seen.
One of the best things about having the Dryden on our doorstep is that it attracts some pretty big names in the film world to this little corner of Western New York. Some of the Big Names I've got to see at the Dryden include John Landis, Jeff Bridges, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Last weekend it was the turn of film critic Roger Ebert to visit the Dryden. Ebert is one of America's foremost film critics, and he's seen just about everything there is to see--and he has a great perspective on the state of American film today (here, fyi, is his wikipedia bio). He was here last weekend to pick up an honorary George Eastman Scholar award and present and talk about some of his favorite movies. My better half and I were fortunate to be invited to a private matinee screening of the 1975 film Night Moves, with Gene Hackman--which Ebert is considering adding to his "Great Movies" series of essays (and which I would call a fine movie--not sure if it's a great one, though). Later that evening we went along to a public screening of Robert Altman's 1977 film 3 Women--which wasn't really my cup of tea, but was worth seeing just for the fascinating discussion with Ebert it sparked. I'll quote my wife's take on Ebert that night, as she got it just about right:
- Before each screening, Ebert held forth on the problems facing the movie industry today. He made what I thought were a couple of really good points about why movies are important and why they're sadly losing ground in terms of their cultural importance.
"We are born into a box of space and time," Ebert began. "And that's all we have." Books, plays, paintings, operas, movies: they all allow us to temporarily break out of that box and experience the lives of people from different countries, different race or class backgrounds, different periods in history. But nowadays, complains Ebert, it's next to impossible to get a 20-year-old male to go to a movie that does not star other 20-year-old males. The movies are trapped in a self-confirming feedback loop, where all the audience gets to do is congratulate itself on how funny and cool we are for liking these funny, cool movie stars who are really "just like us." "When I was a kid, teenagers went to movies to see adults have sex," said Ebert. "Now adults go to movies to see teenagers have sex."
He saved special vitriol for the film ouevre of Rob Schneider, whose Deuce Bigalow, European Gigolo caused him to use the word "sucks" for the first time in a review. This brought Ebert to the second point about the flagging future of the movies: Columbia Pictures couldn't wait to finance Deuce Bigalow, European Gigolo in 2005, but the studio ran a mile from Ray, The Aviator, Million Dollar Baby, Sideways, and Finding Neverland, the five films that the Academy of Motion Picture Sciences went on to congratulate itself for producing by honoring them as Best Picture nominees. "Ray took nine years to make," said Ebert. "And even after that success, it still took nine years to make Walk the Line. These movies cannot get backing unless they're tentpoles, franchises, star vehicles, and the like. Altman's 3 Women was made by a major Hollywood studio, with a major star attached [Cissy Spacek]. That would never happen today."
posted by hdougie at 3/20/2006 11:51:00 AM
11 Comments:
First, I think that sounds like a very cool thing to volunteer for. I have been to Eastman, and it is an amazing place. In response to the main point of your blog, I completely agree with what Roger Ebert. Not only is sex extremely prominent in film it is prominent everywhere in society. I think that sex is so prominent in society as a result from films. Unlike the classic films and the few movies that are nominated for best picture most other movies are based on sex. They have the most popular stars to get people to go to the movies. Just like everyone else, I enjoy watching a good romantic comedy or comedy, especially these days with comedians like Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn, but I would really like to see more quality films about more pressing issues. I wish more movies like that could get backing from big production companies.
- Hailey Miller
COMN 160
Although I have never been to the George Eastman House, I have been to and seen many movies. I think it is sad when production companies choose to create a sequel to “Deuce Bigalow” instead wanting to create a movie such as “Ray” or “Million Dollar Baby”. It seems as though people are more willing to pay $10 for a movie ticket to see something that they have seen many times. They want to see a typical beginning, middle and a crowd pleasing end. I personally enjoy becoming wrapped up in a movie, unsure of what the outcome is going to be. Although I am in no way trying to reprimand those who see these sorts of “fun” films, I would just rather pay $10 to see something that has taken 9 years to create rather than 9 months.
-Justine Diaz COMN 160
It seems like this is just another issue of money. In all honesty, movies such as "Ray" and "Walk the Line" are a gamble and many studios are unwilling to try them. Deuce Bigalow, though horrible in its own right, has a greater chance of succeeding due to its universal appeal. Sex sells, slapstick comedy works and big stars draw crowds; that is just how it works. I agree good, quality movies are rare these days, but it's not hard to believe. If I were to invest millions upon millions of dollars on a gamble, I would bet on what has won many times before, and unfortunately that's movies such as Ebert mentioned. Movies are an investment. Why would they risk losing all their money on a quality movie with a message?? Though fart jokes, vivid sex scenes and high-school humor are easy to point at as the demise of the movie genre, it's hard to argue with numbers. I mean Jurassic Park and Home Alone rank near the top of the all-time grossing movies. They may have had no message and were unable to change the world, but they did what they were supposed to do...entertain. And isn't that the point of movies anyhow?? It's easy to criticize, and be a critic, when you are on the outside and not the one deciding how to spend a $100 million dollar check. So for all the potty-humor-loving people out there, I give Ebert one finger up...can you guess which one??
~ Dan Christensen
I've also never been to the Eastman House. Although I feel Ebert seems a bit incomplete without Siskel, I agree with his viewpoint on sex and the media. In my opinion movies or ads that are based around sex are somewhat trashy, albeit successful. Ray is an example of a risky sort of movie, but is effective with its graphic more realistic portrayal of Charles' drug addiction and adultery. Although it highlights these points of his life, it also relies on emphasis in his career and musical abilities. I think the film's main success is due to its realistic and balanced portrayal.
amanda olszowy
comn. 160
I often find myself disagreeing with Roger Ebert on a lot of his reviews, but more of the time his viewpoint of the industry as a whole is dead on. In this case, I think he was wrong.
I think it's interesting that he commented the problem with movies today is that they reinforce a reality we're living with and not "experiencing different periods in history". This is, as I'm sure Mr. Ebert is aware, after years of remaking movies that had been filmed in the 1960's or are based upon a movie or a television show in that was from thirty years ago. Charlie's Angels (and if the first wasn't bad enough, there was a sequel), Starsky and Hutch, Yours Mine and Ours, Cheaper by the Dozen, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the Hills Have Eyes, re-releasing the Star Wars trilogy in theatres and then adding three more, Ocean's 11, Psycho, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, King Kong... these are all recent examples (well, the new Psycho and Star Wars aren't that recent) of movies that weren't based on books or original scripts, but on other movies, the same movies that Ebert praises for bringing people out of their shells of realities years ago.
Now personally, I don't understand the rationale for re-releasing or re-making these movies: it's obvious because of the people they cast in the movies, they're trying to appeal to the younger crowd, but if that's the case, why make them feel as old as their parents? And if all parents are anything like mine, they will stick to the original version because it was "better," so if Hollywood is trying to try to get the crowd that first watched the movie in theaters years ago, it should change it before they lose any more money. After all, that older audience most likely won't go: according to this blog, they're too busy fulfilling other teenage dreams by watching just-older-than-legal teens have sex on screen.
::crosses fingers this summer won't be another season of sequels::
Jessica Domres
Comn160
Oh, and as a side note, I recommend seeing The Producers Musical Movie to everyone: it's a Mel Brooks film, you can't go wrong, and it's amazingly funny.
I have been to the George Eastman House a couple times over the years. My father is a photography and art teacher at the community college in my hometown so obviously he makes a trip to the Eastman House almost every semester. I have been lucky enough to accompany his class. However, I have never been there when a movie was playing in the Dryden Theatre. I have only seen a handful of older movies and I can't say that I was very enthusiastic about seeing them. I do agree with Ebert, however, about the downfall of the movies that make it to the big screen today. The slapstick comedies are more or less the same movie with different actors and punchlines. All have the same basic formula. I thoroughly enjoy the biographical movies like Ray and Walk the Line that show the individual hardships and real life success stories. Movies that deal with prominent issues such as race like Crash are also attention-grabbing. Movies with substance and thought-provoking messages are the best kind.
p.s. But who honestly could object to seeing sex in a movie. Isn't that usually the best part?
Tim Casella
comn 160
I agree with Roger Ebert's comments in response to studios reluctance to take a gamble on quality films and instead just going for what they see as potential commercial sucess. With ticket sales down at the movies this past year, studios are only concerned with their sucesses and increasing revenue. That is why in the past few years, for the most part, the critically superior and significant films are from independent studios. Miramax before its demise this past year was the prime studio known for cranking out films in hopes of awards gold. Focus Features has seemed to taken the lead as quality filmmaking, coming out with last years Brokeback Mountain and The Constant Gardner that both brought them four Oscars. Other strong independent studios include Fox Searchlight, Warner Independent, and the Weinstein Company. So even if the big studios aren't willing to make the riskier, quality projects are still being made by smaller studios and becoming even more sucessful as a result of their filmmaking choices.
Kelly Logue
I knew there was some movie theatre thing in Rochester that is a big deal for something. Now this article inspired me to learn even more over at wikipedia.org.
Anyhow, most of the examples Ebert gave had one thing in common (except sideways where they no excuse since that was rather enjoyable). Those movies were at least slightly biographical in nature. Maybe since, as everyone has mentioned, Hollywood is a profit organization they have tried biography movies and have found that a slower cheaper production is more profitable in the end. That's my defense for them since I happen to agree with most of the semi-anti-Hollywood bloggers above.
Jude Kane
COMN 160
post#2
Personally, I think Roger Ebert is one of the most pompous and egotistical personalities in entertainment today. He feels he has to insult any and every movie that shows any attempt to appeal to a younger audience or a "less intelligent" audience. He will sit in his chair and praise a movie like Ray (like he just invented the wheel). Then he will make such bold claims like Deuce Bigalo Male Gigilo is a bad movie (like he just invented the light bulb). So what if there are movies based solely on stupid humour and slapstick comedy? Personally I enjoy a stupid movie as much as the next uneducated viewer, but that doesnt mean I'm part of a generation that only appreciates mindless sex and violence as long as I'm "entertained". Ebert thinks movie goers have a much less-valued opinion than him because he is a professional critic. If he wants to talk about fads or pop culture trends of the past 10 years, he should talk about the fact that he is one of hundreds of people who now have a TV or radio career based solely on their criticism of people who are doing somethig he has never been able to do. Whatever happened to just enjoying as movie for what it is, entertainment. If i am entertained then the movie was good. Until I see Ebert produce, direct, or star in a movie of his own, I will take his opinion for what it is: one in a million.
~Tyson Terry
comn. 160
It shouldn't be surprising that movies made today are all pretty much the same thing, with very little expectations to win an Oscar and become critically acclaimed. The movie industry, just like every other industry, really, is too concerned with making money, and to make movies like Ray and Million Dollar Baby becomes a financial risk. Theatre attendance is down from even a year ago, with the advent of HDTV and dvds and anything else that entices an individual to stay home instead of going out and spending ten dollars on a ticket. Movies like Deuce Bigalow have a big(gish) star in the role, a fan base, and can market towards a certain group of individuals. Add in the right advertisers (as now movies come with a block of at least twenty minutes of advertising, followed by at least twenty minutes of previews) and you've got the means to make back the money you invested in it, on top of a profit. There aren't many executives in the movie industry who are considered about the quality of their films, and it's sad. But money is money, and it's what makes the world go 'round.
Jennifer Wrobel
I agree with a lot of what Ebert has to say. The standards for movies have completely changed in modern times, and it is almost as though it needs to be an immature comedy in order to find "easy" success. Most advertisements appear to be aimed toward a younger target audience, and have somewhat of a dumb humor to them. The only benefit to this in my eyes is that it makes the more mature and serious movies even better. If these types of movies are advertised, you can almost always count on an extremely intelligent and well thought out script, with a thick plot. It's harder to get a space into this industry, so it seems with decreased quantity comes increased quality.
Crissy Lewis
COMN 160
Post a Comment
<< Home