As for the MPAA stuff, my gut feeling is
to say, who cares? Long ago I stopped letting a movie's rating influence how
I choose which movies I see. Crazymonk
asked me to post some thoughts I sent
him, so I'll do that in the next post.

So I have a new theory about movie reviewers. At first I thought it applied to just Roger Ebert, but now I am going to expand it to include most others. I will
call it the "Roger Ebert Syndrome Theory."

The theory is an outgrowth of some things you and your brother mentioned on
your weblog about Ebert, as well as some movie viewings I have had over
the past 2 weeks, and watching Ebert and Roeper's television show. The theory probably does not cover any new territory, but this is how I arrived at the theory, with the theory's propositions provided first.

What is the Roger Ebert Syndrome Theory?

Movie reviewers who work as full-time movie reviewers write reviews that are often better than the movies themselves because the reviewers are cued to search for
brilliance and woe in films to the point that they create their own interpretation
of what the director of the film and the thrust of the film were intended to mean.
Sometimes these interpretations are correct, and sometimes the interpretations (as articulated in the reviews) have more meaning and better articulation than the
scenes of the movies themselves.

The Basis for the Theory

According to Roeper, on his show he stated that he saw something like 430 films
this past year. That would mean that on average, Roeper (and other critics) would
have had to watch roughly 2 movies on average each work day. Going at that
rate, one would certainly be looking for more cues on which to evaluate a movie's
quality. In addition, with so much repetition in writing reviews, it probably makes sense that a reviewer's desire to write meaningful reviews with skill will improve drastically. It is at this point that the namesake for this theory comes into play.

Over the past two weeks I saw four films reviewed by Ebert: Shopgirl, The Squid and the Whale, The Wedding Crashers, and Junebug. I was seeing the Wedding Crashers
for the second time, but I remembered Ebert's review from the first time I saw it.

It also seems important to note that I usually find out if the critics have praised
or put-down a movie before I see it-- and I read their entire reviews after I see
it so that I myself am not qued to think of their interpretation while I watch
a movie.

Out of these movies, I enjoyed the Squid and the Whale the most, followed by the Wedding Crashers. After seeing the three non-Hollywood movies, I was surprised to see that Ebert had articulated what he THOUGHT was going on in these movies, much better than most of the movies did themselves. For
instance, both Junebug and Shopgirl were movies that could have been easily miscontrued by Ebert. I am not sure if I disagree with Ebert's interpretation,
but I am also not sure if I really agree. The feelings and emotions and characters
he describes in his reviews are often more revealing of his mind than what
the movie accomplished itself. For instance, his analysis of Shopgirl's characters
made me think, but ultimately I still arrived at the conclusion that his
underlying interpretation about the movie's message was -NOT- even tangentally
the message of the movie-- I would, however, would have liked to see the
fictional movie that Ebert described. Likewise, his review of the Squid
and the Whale was self-indulgent, and characterized divorce almost as "fun"
as witnessed through the eyes of two literary minded parents. Ultimately, the
film succeeds in my opinion more on its realistic portrayal of divorce (as I myself
guess from the outside looking in) than for the supposed literary quips and
brilliance of non-Phillistine remarks the parents make. Lisa Schwartzbaum in
a sidebar of EW claimed that Laura Linney's performance was great for
it's understatement-- because that was more realistic behavior of people and
that Linney should be considered for an Oscar. I think though that she was overrating what was actually a very small part for Laura Linney.

As for the Wedding Crashers, Ebert's review made a certain cameo out in
the film to be a big let-down, and overevaluated the hollywood film with his
intellectual eye to the point that it took all the fun out of it for him. I appreciate
critics' sentiment that movies with broad appeal can be better, but at the
same time, many people go to the movies to escape from their lives-- not
to examine what they may truly be like... bringing us to Junebug.

I rented Junebug last night because it sounded like a great movie. I watched
it with three other people who knew little about the movie's praise, and
they all disliked it and thought it was a long, dull, confusing movie. I watched
it hoping it would get better, deep down knowing that it was not a very good
movie and that one actress's performance was extremely over-rated. After
the movie, I tried to explain what I thought were some of the movie's
qualities-- for instance that the movie was intentionally slow to give a viewer
a feeling of what it was like to live in the South where life moved much slower
and was much duller. Ultimately though, I could tell my that friends really
thought that I just wanted to defend the movie to defend its positive reviews
and my "movie capital"-- my reputation as a person who chooses good movies
to see. After reading five reviews this morning, I am shifting more to the side
of the malcontents with Junebug (I liked the Philadelphia ? review).

In any case, I think that critics lose something by seeing so many movies
and not having to pay to see them. They over-rate bores like King Kong,
and attack fun movies like the Dukes of Hazzard with their latte induced
minds as if seeing a lot of movies makes them more adept at choosing
a film's quality. I am starting to see a movie review as something different--
I almost wonder if I should start to write some and see if I start to fall victim
to the same problems-- overemphasis on clever, descriptive writing and less
interest in what makes a movie fun or work on the level of a person who
sees a movie on average of once ever few weeks.

Well, that's probably my own self-inflated Chai tea induced rendering of a pretty bad theory, but I hope some of its unedited essence resonates with you.

Let me know what you think.

Watch out with that chai, slater. it's strong stuff.

Ebert wouldn't be ebert if not for the strength of the language in his reviews. Ebert's pen sells papers (have you ever read the rest of the sun-times? that's pretty much the only pen selling the papers). I imagine crazymonk and anthony are not alone in liking ebert for his style, even if they don't agree with the results. I don't really know anything about critical theory, but I get the idea that criticism became an art form of its own a while ago, and students today read analysis *of* criticism of literature (and write papers, ostensibly on these analyses, extending the meta one more level).

I found it interesting that you pointed out king kong in the context of unfair coloration by seeing many movies and not having to pay to see them. I saw king kong at a free preview surrounded by people who work in post-production, and i really enjoyed the experience, somewhat in contrast with popular results post-release. I definitely think the freeness and the fact that we were with an easy, pro-hollywood contributed to my enjoyment of the film. I was less cynical. But that doesn't change the fact that I had a great time watching the movie.

One more thing in this rambling post - once upon a time the hartford advocate used a two-dimensional rating system - circles to indicate the expectation of the rating, and stars (superimposed on the circles) to indicate the actual rating after watching the movie. This let the reader know if expectations were met, exceeded, or not met. For me, for example, office space would get one circle and three stars, while magnolia might get 4 circles and three stars. It really gives a better idea of the nature of a movie and the nature of the critic behind that movie.

That's an interesting system you
mention John May from the Hartford
Advocate. I will have to check that
out.

As for King Kong, I thought it was
crap-- even for a Hollywood movie.
It was really boring and the special
effects and acting did not add too
much charm. Some of the sets were cool,
but after an hour end, I couldn't wait
for the movie to end.

I like that theory Slater. But I have one quibble with an ealier post:

"As for the MPAA stuff, my gut feeling is
to say, who cares? Long ago I stopped letting a movie’s rating influence how
I choose which movies I see."

Sure, many of us live in big cities, so their ratings have little to no effect on our movie watching ways. But most of the country get no chance to see NC-17 or unrated films. Most theaters refuse to release these films and many national video chains won't rent them. And while the internet, Amazon, and Netflix might be a great equalizer, the fact is, if the ratings board decides a film is NC-17, then most of the country will have no chance to see that film.

Imagine if Brokeback Mountain was rated NC-17 (or X, which could have happened if it was released in the 70's or even 80's). It would have made little money, possibly have been popular in big cities, and then fade away, with little chance of Oscar nominations. Instead it was rated R and has forced a sort of (way overdone and overcredited) dialogue in this country.

That is why the MPAA matters. They run a corrupt system that favors studio pictures over indies and have rules that apply to some films and not others. It needs to end and become a fair system.

unfortunately, slater, to my knowledge the two-tier system is no longer used by the advocate. and the reviewer is john boonstra, who is quite a hack.

New York Tony, you have a good point.
I'll have to think about it more. I
was just mentioning to crazymonk that
I wished the New World would come to
my medium-urbanized area...My instinct
though tells me that many people don't
want to see independent, thoughtful films.
They prefer to see blow em-ups, body switching movies (Like Father Like Son), happy endings, and twists. I often
feel that way when I go to movies-- I
want to be entertained rather than feel
charm in realism. Sometimes, of course,
I prefer something more intelligent.

In short though, the reason that smaller
films don't succeed moreso reflects that
there is not a large enough market
for them-- it all comes down to how
much money they can make. If a small
film can make money-- it will have
a higher chance of ending up in more
venues. It's simple. There can't be
theaters filled solely with intelligent and/or realistic movies that don't appeal to
the masses-- fewer people would go to
the movies (on a much more drastic
scale than last year's drop). So, as for
the MPAA, I still don't see it as being
extremely relevant. My mind is open
though-- you make some good points that
I will think about.

John, why is Boonstra a hack?

And why do you think the two-tier system
was abandoned?

Just another quick thought... NC-17
ratings come primarily from sexual
content as mentioned in the article
crazymonk linked too, right? Has
there ever been a movie where depiction
of sex was critical to the movie's success
or story? There are a few exceptions,
like Boogie Nights, but they seem so
few... are sex scenes that important...
they can be realistic, but also, I
don't personally remember too many...

Well, Eyes Wide Shut was butchered in America because of the lack of a legitimate adult ratings system.

Here's Ebert's thoughts on an adult rating system:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000924/COMME...

I read that article, crazymonk, and I
am still not really convinced. An
R or PG-13 rating does not differentiate
between a movie's ability to make it
into mainstream theaters. I think it's
a separate issue entirely discussed
in this article than New York Tony's
comments.

i think boonstra's a hack cause he doesn't write well and because i think his arguments are often ill-founded. Also his overall opinions pretty dependably disagree with mine. I'm pretty sure there haven't been circle/star reviews in the advocate since i was in high school.

Eyes Wide Shut was not butchered, it was altered. The removal of an orgy scene or two didn't dramatically change the quality of the film. At the very least, the simple removal of those scenes from the movie wouldn't have effected the quality of the film. They did, admittedly, handle it very poorly. Instead of removing the scenes to get the R rating, they drew strange looking CG hooded figures between the camera and the "action". This was distracting and crappy... and it led to extended periods of time with the viewer staring at someone's back when you knew there was exciting dirty, dirty sex going on just on the other side. This was not a good solution, but if the scenes simply weren't there, do you think it would have really changed how you felt about the movie?

Ignoring that, I think sometimes crazy alterations in order to fit public morals can be a great thing. For example, has anybody watched the VH1 version of ShowGirls? It's FANTASTIC! Looking online I can't find any pictures of the modifications, only other people describing their humor. VH1 digitally added bras to the women in topless scenes. But they didn't look like bras, they looked like someone drew bra shapes over the women using MS Paint. And they sort of moved with the women in question, but not always and not consistantly. You had the same thrill as watching a poorly dubbed for tv version of movie where you know that they just might forget to bleep over one of the swear words. Any minute a woman might move so fast that the bra wouldn't be able to keep up and she'd be topless. Any minute!

It was a great time. I couldn't pay attention to the movie, all I could watch were the weird fake bras.