Roger Ebert gives a thumbs down to his own review

It's definitely been the media kerfuffle of the week: Roger Ebert's admission that he wrote an entire review of a new film after only watching eight minutes of the picture has inspired a storm of outrage. It turns out that everybody's a critic, especially when it comes to judging movie critics. Now a clearly chastened Ebert has acknowledged that he was wrong, posting a follow-up post to his original explanation admitting that he wishes he had never published the review (of a small indie film called "Tru Loved") in the first place. As he puts it:

"It sent the wrong message. If I had seen the entire film, a review, however negative, would have been appropriate. But in reviewing the first eight minutes, I was guilty of too much affection for my prose. I have learned a great deal from the intelligent, opinionated, useful comments from all those readers.... I will never, ever, again review a film I have not seen in its entirety. Never. Ever." He adds: "I must apologize to writer-director Stewart Wade, his actors and his crew. They did nothing to deserve this. For them, it must have been like a drive-by shooting.... I feel like a jerk. In even my negative reviews, I try to give some sense of why you might want to see a film even if I didn't admire it. Here, I failed."

Once you get past the fact that Ebert's abject apology sounds a lot like one of those blacklisted '50s Hollywood screenwriters telling HUAC that "I am deeply sorry for ever joining the Communist Party--I let my country down, I let my family down, I let my therapist down," basically saying anything to get his job back--you get the feeling that this is just another nail in the coffin for the credibility of film critics with the average moviegoer. If there were ever an act that indelibly painted critics as elitist snobs, it would be America's best-known critic reviewing a movie after only bothering to watch for eight minutes.

I remain a loyal fan of Ebert, who was a huge influence on me as a young writer and has sprung to my defense when I've been under attack. So I'm definitely not an objective observer. I also read critics religiously, looking to them for guidance and inspiration. But I am part of a vanishing breed. The average newspaper reader has less and less use for critical opinion, increasingly preferring to rely on aggregated critical judgment from websites like Rotten Tomatoes over individual critics--or solely relying on recommendations from friends. As one Ebert basher wrote: "After learning that Roger Ebert defends writing a full-column review based on a 8-minute scrap of film, I don't feel so bad about not reading movie reviews."   

Ebert's blunder, one of the few he's made in a four-decade-long career, will probably take on a life of its own, cited in future years in various broadsides against the critical establishment, probably in a sentence that reads something like: "After reading Kenny Turan's dismissal of 'Quantum of Solace,' one wonders whether Mr. Turan was dozing off during the film's breathtaking action sequences, or whether he simply walked out of the screening room after eight minutes, in emulation of Roger Ebert's rude dismissal of a movie earlier this year." All critics have is their credibility. I'd be lying if I told you I've never walked out of a film. At film festivals, I do it all the time. Like Roger, I am convinced that you can tell after 20 or 25 minutes, almost within the shadow of a doubt, that a movie has been directed by a clumsy amateur or a deluded auteur. At a festival, when you're trying to see 4 or 5 movies in a day, you are pretty ruthless about cutting your losses and moving on to the next film.

But I don't review movies. I see them looking for stories. If a movie is so bad that I walk out, I simply scratch it off my list. If you're a reviewer, you're held to a higher standard. Trust me, it's why critics often sound so cranky--they knew the film was a dog right away, but had to stay to the bitter end, just to make sure. But you have to stick it out. I guess it's a lot like being a sportswriter. You have to stay to the last out. It was just the other day that the Boston Red Sox were down 7-0 going into the seventh inning of a big playoff game, before storming back to beat the Tampa Bay Rays 8-7. You wouldn't have wanted to leave in the middle of that game, right?

The same goes with movies. Maybe the plot kicks into gear, maybe an actor shows up, delivering a graceful performance, maybe (at the very least) the story takes us to the South of France and we get to see some beautiful scenery. If a movie has a hidden surprise, you want to be around to see it. Yogi Berra probably never read Pauline Kael, but he knew this much about being a critic: "It ain't over 'til it's over." 

Photo of Roger Ebert by Chris Pizzello / Associated Press

Comments

[Nick]

More discouraging than Ebert's unprofessionalism in reviewing a movie without watching it is his apparent willingness to write off approximately half of America as homophobes due to their support of Sarah Palin. "The Palin Belt?" It's sad to watch a man who was once one of the most respected film critics in the world resort to baseless personal attacks on millions of people that he has never even met, attacks that don't even have anything at all to do with films. I grew up looking forward to reading Ebert's reviews in the local paper before deciding what to see, lately he's only valuable as a meter of what films to avoid, namely, anything he likes...

[Raul Garcia]

Would you want your daughter to date a critic?

[NQ]

For nearly every movie I have seen, I have specifically and purposefully sought out Roger Ebert's review for his thoughts on a movie. I do this partially because it would seem that far too many film reviewers have begun to review movies as though they are horse races. That, unless a movie was number one at the box office, or has the biggest stars or cost a lot of money, it probably isn't worth seeing.

Ebert is one of the few critics to look at what the movie makers were attempting to do and report if he felt they successfully did that... If the movie is a simple film that an 8 year old will enjoy and the parent will be able to tolerate, he only compares it with other successful movies of that same ilk. That is why this admission is so disheartening. It is like your favorite athlete being busted for steroids. He might claim he didn't do it until this year, but now you wonder about all of his previous records in the sport in the past seasons. For someone who has so often judged a film by its intent, it is very frustrating to hear that he judged a movie of the first 8 minutes. This will be a tough blemish on an otherwise well earned, shining career.

[amble84]

I really don't think what he did was that awful, I mean, for one thing, at least he admitted to having only watched 8 minutes. For another, it was a funny (though mean spirited) review -- full of the kind of humor and bite that his more 'fair' reviews are often devoid of. And finally, this is hardly a water-shed moment in the history of criticism. Let's keep things in perspective, please.

[Rhonin]

However racist or homophobic this may sound, it is true. Too many critics pan a movie unless it has jews and/or homosexuals in leading roles. The Jews and homosexuals have taken over Hollywood or should I say they've had control over it for a long time. the only truely bad part to this is that the critics kill every movie that doesn't involve these two parts of society.

[Jeffrey W Levin]

It was wrong for him to write a full review of a movie he had only seen eight minutes of, but hasn't EVERYBODY seen a movie that they knew was irredeemably bad in short order? Far worse are the right-wing pundits and politicians who excoriate controversial films that they haven't seen AT ALL. To wit: Bill O'Reilly (Brokeback Mountain), Charles Krauthammer (Syrianna) and a one John McCain (Farenheit 911).

[Aletheia]

This is really much to do about nothing. Of course, "Stewart Wade, his actors, and crew" have an interest in being judged on the merits of their work instead of being subjected to one critic's pique. That said, it doesn't seem likely to me that Ebert was acting out of turn or really giving the movie or its creators such short shrift. There are many films in our over-filmed culture that deserve 8 minutes or less. As an American who regularly watches TV and movies, I can pick these dogs out. As a professional at movie-watching, Ebert is even more expert and is perfectly able to give the film its due writing a critique.

Now for the piece of work here and its author. Goldstein comes off as something between a Pollyanna and an ingrate. Just as Goldstein's fluff here isn't responsible for falling readerships for U.S. newspapers, this minor "Ebert incident" is neither symptom nor contributing cause to the supposed "demise" in readership of traditional movie reviews. Goldstein's jump in reasoning that would have a random Internet post stand as proof positive of a decline in the readership of movie reviews and evidence of a large shift to reading "aggregated opinions" on Rotten Tomatoes and accepting word-of-mouth is really evidence that he spends too much time trolling and not enough time reading critics, like Ebert, he purportedly admires. Which leads me to his lack of gratitude: Goldstein, don't say Ebert "was a huge influence on me as a young writer and has sprung to my defense when I've been under attack" and then pile on top of the man. It makes you sound disingenuous at best; slippery-tongued and back-stabbing at worst.

[Norm Schrager]

I am a part-time reviewer (with filmcritic.com, as well as my own blogsite). I certainly haven't attended screenings and festivals with anywhere near the frequency of the full-time career critics, but I have never ever walked out on a film. I learned early that if you don't like a film, you damn well better hang around to figure out why -- and then be able to convey that thinking to readers. As for trying to cheat readers, well that's just dumb.

Smart film fans don't trust critics because some will a) gush like little girls for the sake of a blurb; and b) bring their ideas from a lack of knowledge -- or even an unwillingness to learn more.

I think all critics should strive to be better writers and more well-versed viewers (my main goal as a critic). With viewers watching their pennies, reviews are actually being paid attention. Those who write them shouldn't blow it.

[Phil]

I have been on committees reviewing films at film festivals, some of which had terribly amateur work submitted. But I give great credit to the director of one of them (Faux Film Festival) for sitting through every last second of every last film submitted. He admits some are tough to watch, and his mind will wander at times, but he does it as he owes it to those who tried their best, and spent their money entering. So, if Roger thinks Tru Loved was a weak film, perhaps he should volunteer his thumb and sit in on some review committees for some low budget indie film festivals.

I will give Roger one sliver of credit though. At least he had the guts to flatly admit he was wrong and had no excuses.