LogFAQs > #903340977

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'm sorry, i must have missed what made roger ebert this god-like entity that caused his inane ramblings on movies to be based on anything but his "simple consumption of media."

Well, Ebert's style of intimate discussion was a pioneering style in the voice of film criticism and it changed the entire style of how reviews could be presented. Furthermore, he emphasized the content of his reviews rather than the rating, something that was so often lost on those who refused to actually read. But he was also a historian, someone who often spoke and wrote on the budding art of filmmaking as it evolved over time, and he had a true passion for what he saw as progress through the years. Ebert also internalized his reviews, giving them structure in the context of films around him. He certainly reviewed films, but he also asked audiences to process the films they saw independently and thoughtfully. In a society that is increasingly disinterested in exploring the art of something in favor of deconstructing external surroundings instead, it's an important distinction to make.

And I didn't say he was god-like. I said he was a credible critic, someone who earned a lifestyle through thoughtful writing, helping to often shape the dialogue on the art around him.
---

"Reading would be your friend." ~Dave Meltzer