Ebert Analysis
Ebert’s contribution to filmmaking as a craft and culture is insuperable. His acumen, dedication, and spirit brought the long-needed life the film has always deserved. Even in death, his blogs and old reviews still function as a spark of delight to new enthusiasts and seasoned connoisseurs alike. Through his decades of endeavors in silver-screen-stardom, Ebert still managed to commit most of his efforts to giving back to the community through his TV show and reviews. He was a force to be reckoned in the realm of Film as Babe Ruth was to baseball or Wayne Gretzky was to ice hockey.
Much of Ebert’s work was in his reviews, all of which cataloged on his website for what will probably be around as long as there are still movies or
In Chris Jones’s biography “Roger Ebert: The Essential Man” (2010), Jones narrates that Ebert’s life has changed dramatically due to medical conditions. Jones gives details in chronological order from when Ebert discovered his cancer to when he was finally cured. Jones’s purpose for writing this article is to describe a famous critics life in order to show the effects of his cancer on his life. The intended audience would be anyone interested in the effects of cancer or Roger’s personal experience with cancer.
Throughout the term I have begun experiencing movies in a different way. The class has taken ideas of cinematography, theory, and film history and practically applied it to physically watching movies. By breaking down scenes and movies as a whole, the way I look at films in general has developed. A reflection on two of the films from this term, Casablanca (Curtiz, 1942) and North by Northwest (Hitchcock, 1959) will carry the bulk of the essay. Though, I will also be discussing how this class changed the way I saw a movie just a few weeks ago. Casablanca’s script and acting are of particular caliber, and North by Northwest unfortunately does not deliver with the dialogue and casting of lead actor Cary Grant. Though, overall, they both
The selected piece “Hoop Dreams,” movie review by Robert Ebert is part of the review
Although the best reasons for “going to the movies” are to be entertained and eat popcorn, understanding a film is actually quite complex. Movies are not only a reflection of life, they also have the capability of shaping our norms, values, attitudes, and perception of life. Through the media of film, one can find stories of practically anything imaginable and some things unimaginable. Movie-makers use their art to entertain, to promote political agendas, to educate, and to present life as it is, was, or could be. They can present truth, truth as they interpret it, or simply ignore truth altogether. A movie can be a work of fiction, non-fiction, or anything in-between. A film is an artist’s interpretation. What one takes away from a film depends upon how one interprets what has been seen and heard. Understanding film is indeed difficult.
Some may say he is intelligent, while others may say he is courageous. Big words are just insufficient to describe this actor/director/screen-writer/producer. This two-time Oscar winner and nominee of numerous awards, has proven that Hollywood is not just a money making workshop, but it offers well profound characters that deserve the attention of connoisseurs. More importantly,
“The biggest mistake we have made is to consider that films are primarily a form of entertainment. The film is the greatest medium since the invention of movable type for exchanging ideas and information, and it is no more at its best in light entertainment than literature is at its best in the light novel.” - Orson Welles
“The fact that the story is set 35 years ago doesn't mean a thing. It had to be set sometime. But it was made now and it's about us.” – Roger Ebert 1
The debate over Casablanca and Citizen Kane has been a classic argument between film critics and historians alike, and this is because both of these pieces are timeless pictures that have managed to captivate audiences well after their era. On a broad spectrum analysis this is an apples and oranges debate as the two films both have great cinematographic value but for different reasons. However, the real question at hand is which film is the greatest? Which film transformed the future of American film making? It is these questions that I as many others have, will attempt to answer in the following essay as I explain why I believe Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made.
In both of the articles referring to Lewis neither make very good arguments in my opinion, which is the point/goal of many critics: to gain (or at least appeal to) an audience that has their point of views and to establish a reputation as a writer and a critic which develops a following and somehow makes them qualified to tell their readers what is good and/or bad. Both articles take the stance of stereotyping cultures and what they think when it comes to Jerry Lewis. Stereotyping is a problem in the world, something which I feel is the point of many critics but does not sit well with me. They take the time to watch a movie and offer their view point on the film, dissecting and diagnosing the film in
"Ordinarly there is a great deal of snobbery from American film critics, they will accept a film by Stanley Kramer as a work of art before they see it, or a film from a European director...but they unloose their ire against low or medium budget Hollywood productions"3
Perhaps no other director has generated such a broad range of critical reaction as D.W. Griffith. For students of the motion picture, Griffith's is the most familiar name in film history. Generally acknowledged as America's most influential director (and certainly one of the most prolific), he is also perceived as being among the most limited. Praise for his mastery of film technique is matched by repeated indictments of his moral, artistic, and intellectual inadequacies. At one extreme, Kevin Brownlow has characterized him as "the only director in America creative enough to be called a genius." At the other, Paul Rotha calls his contribution to the advance of film "negligible" and Susan Sontag complains of his "supreme vulgarity and even
Tom Tykwer’s Run Lola Run (1998) is truly a brilliant film. It is very seldom that a film manages to combine the high pace of an action thriller and a deep philosophical subtext without botching it, but Run Lola Run does an excellent job at striking a balance between both. Tackling the very abstract and philosophical concepts of chance and cause-effect, Run Lola Run is truly a modern foreign classic. Tykwer manages to postulate one simple theory through the film, that the simplest of choices can completely change everything. The film is supported by stellar performances from Franka Potente and Moritz Bleibtreu as the protagonist Lola and her boyfriend, Manni. The film’s use of cinematography to add to the narrative, clever use of the aspects of mise-en-scene and explosively-paced soundtrack add a whole new dimension to this film. One of the few German films to be both a critical and commercial success, Run Lola Run is a smart and stimulating film, which demands active watching in order to understand fully. I will now analyze the film comprehensively using three main parameters; the mise-en-scene, the cinematography and the sound.
Like any number of aspiring movie critics, on some level I idolize Roger Ebert. Even before I became seriously interested in film, I knew his name. He transcended movies, becoming an icon not as a filmmaker, but a film watcher. When I began reading his reviews, something I do with every movie I watch that he reviewed, I was amazed by the brilliance of his writing. In short, one of the movies I’ve been wanting to see for two years is “Life Itself,” a biography of Ebert from one of the filmmakers whose career Ebert boosted, Steve James. I’m sorry I waited this long to see this documentary.
The movie “Moneyball”, released in 2011, contains several negotiations that exhibit techniques we discussed and practiced in class. To provide brief context, the movie is based on the Oakland Athletics baseball team. The film begins by showing a 2001 Playoff Series featuring the Athletics playing the Yankees, and highlights the difference between the salaries each team has. The Yankees boast a salary of $114 million, whereas the Athletics salary is $39 million. Despite the efforts of the Athletics, they eventually lose the series. This foreshadows the movie’s main plotline – that the Athletics suffer from a lack of funds, making it difficult for them to compete professionally.
A well-known phrase in the English language is, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” This catchy slogan is commonly used to convey emotion, individuality, and personality in an image. In the film industry, creating movie posters will indefinitely be a part of the phrase above. According to Alexander (2011), “a movies poster encompasses the message and feeling of the film, it should be the main source of attention for the release of a new movie” (n.p.). For this project I chose the genre, Drama. Within this genre, I chose three movies that are very diverse to analyze. The movies that I chose were, Holes, Gone Girl, and The Shawshank Redemption.