Roger that....

I read an article in the NY Times recently about Roger Ebert retiring from TV to concentrate exclusively on writing. Ebert was a pioneer in bringing film criticism to the wider audience television provided. Some argue that this stripped the “art” of criticism of any nuance and subtlety the Pauline Kaels and A.O. Scotts of the world brought to it. According a film one of two thumb directions does seem a little simplistic but perhaps that was the point. It brought discussion about film to the masses, which begs the further question, "Who gives a shit what the masses think?" after all, that’s why they’re called “the masses”. Well, the short answer is film studios do.

Enter Juno. Far and away the most sought after rental at the Film Buff these days, Juno is the perfect Ebert movie, one he described as “just about the best movie of the year”. You can read the whole gushing review here -

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/REVIEWS/712130303/1023

Juno is a sweet little movie, undeniably populist and brimming over with a kind of cutesy teen bravado that draws you in and makes you think about puppies. Ebert’s glowing review hides the fact however, that it’s really just a well-done teen comedy, like Meatballs was. Juno isn’t a masterpiece and screenwriter Diablo Cody will not be the next U.S. Poet Laureate. The film’s greatest strength remains its immense marketability, an asset that elevates its stock well out of proportion from its merits as a film. This is what counts in an industry striving for that rare combination of apparent smarts and broad demographic appeal (pun intended). Juno cost just $6.5M to make and made $143M at the box office, nearly twice that of No Country for Old Men, which cost $30M. This is the longer answer to my earlier, slightly rhetorical question, “Who gives a shit what the masses think? You think Ebert gets a taste?

Most of what I write (and much of what I read) comes under the general heading of “film”. I religiously pour over a few periodicals (“Film Comment” and “Cinemascope” being the best of them) and invariably learn something new in almost every issue. I regularly read books on film history, actor and director biographies, books about specific genres and about the business itself. I tend to write about films that I either liked or intensely disliked, but rarely about anything in between. In essence - and unintentionally - I seem to have adopted the very same “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” approach Ebert and the dead guy championed. I also find myself writing about popular film more than I’d like to. Does anyone really need to hear yet another opinion about Juno? Probably not.

It’s tricky to navigate the fundamentally different worlds of popular film and artistic film (in fact so hard that I can’t quite find the right word for the latter – “artistic” not being quite right, but better than any others I can think of) The additional range of genres, periods, origin and topicality adds to the confusion. The CornChowder's reviews of the Albert Lamorisse films were a real breath of fresh air and a reminder to me that these are the kind of films that need championing (as opposed to those releases 10,000 other armchair critics have already spilled ink over). I think I’m going to concentrate on those from now on. Ebert’s got the rest covered, even if he isn’t on the tube anymore.