Elbert on Ebert

Over at The New Republic, Elbert Ventura absolutely nails everything that's wrong with that omnipresent critical mediocrity, Roger Ebert. While Ebert was once an interesting critical force, he's long since become the bad lite beer of film criticism, trading quality for mass market appeal. Some highlights from the piece:

"Those thumbs have since come to emblematize for some all that is wrong with film criticism."

"Covering about five movies per episode and devoting much of the time to a recitation of the plots, the show offered bite-sized commentary and didn't hide its consumer-oriented approach."

" By ... 1999, Ebert had become less of a critic and more of a brand--a service journalist dispensing consumer tips. Ebert's decision to replace Siskel with Richard Roeper only confirmed his anti-intellectual bent. With so many critics to choose from--guest co-hosts rotated in the interim--Ebert picked a Sun-Times columnist who, as best as anyone could tell, wasn't qualified for the job at all. Indeed, Roeper has been a disaster, an unapologetically ignorant dabbler who, unfortunately, has been granted instant credibility thanks to Ebert."

"In the path from mere critic to cultural institution, Ebert has adopted a pose at once populist and condescending. In a Slate "Movie Club" discussion with fellow critics from a few years ago, Ebert defended his rave of The Green Mile, which some lambasted for its retrograde racial politics, by brushing off his duties. He wrote: "Most of the ideological criticisms of The Green Mile are by and for sophisticated and subtle observers, writing for one another. The average moviegoer with $8 and a seat in an Abilene multiplex is likely to find himself or herself subtly more complex, humane, and liberal after seeing that film than before." In other words, why bother thinking deeply about a movie when the audience won't?"