First, this whole Minutegate deal is a joke. Ol' Roger wrote what may be his most famous review after he walked out of a movie after eight minutes and then posted a critique of the film. There's been plenty of breathless criticisms of Ebert's choice to do this, most with snobby claims about fairness and giving the artist his due. Eventually the old guy caved in on the subject. We're all kidding ourselves. It is not the critic's job to be mindful of the artist's feelings or give them the benefit of the doubt. I do not need to sit through another Uwe Boll or Eli Roth movie to know what he's about. We see countless of movies, of which 90% seriously stink. You get to a point where you can tell what's coming and what is worth the effort and what is not. Most directors are corporate hacks who offer as much artistry as the kid down at Burger King slinging fries. Don't give me these artistic platitudes.

Should a critic try their best to sit through a whole film? Absolutely. Not out of deference to the "artist" but for their readers. No matter how crappy a film is, someone is going to like it. You need to write for them as well. Sitting through a bad movie is also usually a learning experience for most film geeks. Why does it stink so bad? What went wrong? These can be fascinating questions when faced with a piece of trash.

Have I ever walked out of a film? Plenty of times. Have I ever walked out of a film and reviewed it? Yep, Vanity Fair. Unlike Ebert, I don't feel bad about criticising something before seeing the whole product (although his eight minutes is extreme). I don't need to finish a banana doused in vinegar to know the whole thing tastes bad. Presumptively, the reason I review films, and more importantly, that people actually read my reviews, is because I know what I'm talking about and can back up any claims I make in my posts. To pretend as if all films deserve attention is bunk. As long as the critic admits they walked out in as clear language as possible, they should be able to do so and write about it. The fact that they were induced to go do something else is an important element of the review. A potential audience member should know if a film is likely to do this to them.

One other thing, in his apology Ebert ponders "Should I have sent it in to the paper? I wish I hadn't. As many comments have pointed out, I was harming the chances of a small indie film. From the very beginning," Are you kidding? Its not the critic's job to keep from harming anyone. It is their job to tell the truth. If the truth is that the film was a bore and you were compelled to move on then that's the way things go. The Indies should not be treated with kid gloves, if for no other reason, they tend to be young and maybe a swift kick in the shin will get them to make better movies later on. Worrying about "harming the chances of a small indie film" is more offensive to me than reviewing a film you didn't sit all the way through.

In the end, critics are derivative creatures. We're cultural traffic cops and nothing more. All of this pretence is shallow nonsense. Ebert is the best in his field, I say this knowing that his taste in film is seriously suspect. He's given rise to modern film criticism and is responsible for all of those pesky online losers, present company included, who have run the stodgy newspaper review guys out the door. We need to have standards but we also need to have some common sense as well.

Labels: miscellaneous, movie reviews, Roger Ebert