How Far is Too Far When Characterizing a Film's Intended or Actual Audience?
Complete with additional comments from Roger Ebert
Have you ever watched a movie and hated it so much you can't imagine anyone in their right mind actually enjoying it? I'm not talking about the films we all know cater to a tightly knit audience of fans, I'm talking about those films where you simply say to yourself, Nope, that film was so bad no one could possibly like it. Or perhaps you make a side comment to a friend saying, "Unless you're a nine-year-old shut-in and make a habit of drooling on yourself you couldn't have possibly liked that movie." It's a harsh assertion, but it's your opinion, not an all out declaration of globally accepted fact.
I bring this up because last week I posted the video you see just to the right, which is described on YouTube as a depiction of "how the next Transformers film will look." It's a comical mash-up of noise, explosions and CGI followed by a quote from Roger Ebert's blog post titled "I'm a proud Brainiac" which caused a bit of a stir in the comments before I removed the video and halted comments considering it was neither the time nor the place. The quote, as depicted in the video, goes as such:
Those who think "Transformers 2" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve.
Ebert's quote continues in print adding, "Those people contain multitudes. They deserve films that refresh the parts others do not reach. They don't need to spend a lifetime with the water only up to their toes."
Taken in full context, and along with the
I emailed Roger Ebert and asked him for his thoughts on the posted comments and what he thought when it came to how far is too far when painting the picture of a film's intended or eventual audience? He wrote back saying, "In the case of Transformers 2, those words express my sincere opinion, and I considered them carefully."
He added, "I've sometimes regretted intemperate remarks I've made about fanboys. I think it's important that remarks are accurate about the films themselves. As I watched Transformers 2 with dismay, I wondered what it was telling me about its audience. I believe few perceptive filmgoers could consider it well made."
In those terms, can even the most ardent of apologists look at a film such as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen any differently? Remember, this doesn't mean you cannot still like it despite the fact it isn't well made. More importantly, if you liked Transformers 2 — for whatever reason you may have — does this mean you are "not sufficiently evolved"? In Ebert's opinion you very well may not be, but is he even talking about a person's overall being or simply their taste in film? Before jumping to conclusions perhaps read his entire post and see if you even fit into the group of people he is talking about.
Photo: Summit Entertainment
When I emailed Roger I addressed my question in the headline from a personal angle as well, as it is never my intention to leave a reader with the opinion I am personally attacking them as much as I am making a personal assessment of the film as I see it. The recent example I used was my review of Astro Boy, which I ended by writing, "Perhaps people that enjoy staring at blinking lights will get some enjoyment out of this mess, but when the light keeps blinking red even that can become annoying to the most tolerant of viewers." Does this mean I think anyone that likes Astro Boy is actually sitting at home staring at red blinking lights?
Ebert, who was slightly more considerate toward the film, found a comparative statement in his review and reminded me he wrote, "Has market research discovered our children are all laboring with attention deficits, and can only absorb so many story elements before brightly-colored objects distract them with deafening combat?"
Both Ebert's and my comments are opinions based on what we believe the film is saying of its audience. Keep in mind I have never met anyone that sits at home staring at blinking lights and when Ebert made known his thoughts of Transformers 2 fans he was again making that statement based on not only what the film was telling him of its audience, but comments weighed against his review. Such as the one he started his blog post with:
Roger Ebert is a moron! Transformers 2 is the best action movie ever. Don't listem to that moron! He is only into slow boring romantic movies. That is his type of movies. Michael Bay did a great good. Roger… your an old fart! John C
 Loading ... |
Plenty more knee-jerk assumptions and uninformed opinions are made in John C's 43 words than are ever made in the 1,781 words Ebert uses in response. As far as the question in the headline goes I thought Ebert summed it up nicely at the end of his email saying, "That's only my opinion. Of course, we're in the opinion business."
This reminds me of the old saying, "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks." Too true, but as Ebert writes in that same blog post I have been mentioning throughout this piece, "The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded [in a movie review], but to evaluate another opinion against his own."
Occasionally a film forces a film reviewer's hand in trying to decide just who exactly a film was made for. So far this year I have delivered an "F" grade to only four films and of those four, three are so dreadful I can't imagine anyone enjoying them — those being The Last House on the Left (review), All About Steve (review) and I Love You Beth Cooper (review). Strangely enough, Fanboys is the fourth film and it just happens to be the only one of the four that seems to not only deliver a clear cut opinion of its audience, it spends 90 minutes making fun of them. When movies resort to such tactics is it really fair to attack the people that point it out, or should we all begin directing our concerns at the responsible individuals that made the films in the first place?
NOTE: When commenting please try and refrain from insulting others. This entire exercise is an attempt to find a way to speak freely without our opinions insulting others, no matter their differences in taste.
Showing 25 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I don't think Ebert went too far, but I'm clouded by personal bias. As one who hated Transformers 2, naturally I feel that any criticism of the film is warranted. I realize that Ebert, by attacking the film's audience, may be teetering on the border of critiquing films and evaluating intelligence. However, his point is about film standards and given his knowledge and purpose, I feel that his comment is appropriate.
I feel that your comment, Brad, is completely harmless. As you postulate what would be an extremely rare case (one who sits at home staring at blinking lights), you steer clear of insulting the filmgoing masses. Unless, of course, I'm missing out on a trend here.
In the end, film critics deliver their opinion on a particular film. If that opinion involves believing that only a certain group will enjoy a film, the critic has the right to share it (tactfully, of course) — even if that group is presented in an unfavorable light.
Do I think Ebert went too far? Well…yes, and no. I recently watched Transformers 2, and even though throughout the whole movie I was thinking "man, this is a terrible movie" but after it finished I thought "well, I guess it was ok." I guess I'm just a sucker for happy endings.
What I hope Ebert meant by saying people aren't sufficiently evolved is that they have not seen enough movies, or fine art in general to appreciate what is truly good and what is bad. I used to enjoy most songs on the radio and most crap that Hollywood churned out. After expanding the music I listened to, and the films I viewed, I slowly began to realize that what I once thought was good, was actually crap. So, in a sense, I definitely agree with Ebert. I believe if anyone read a book on film, and saw the list of Ebert's 'Great Movies', that they would have a much more…'refined' taste of movies than they now do.
At the same time, I think I am more understanding of Transformers 2 fans than Ebert. If someone does not really care about movies and just wants to get away and get lost in a world of cheesy explosions and hot girls, that's fine with me. I don't think those people are any worse than real film fans. The thing that really does get me is when people talk about how much they love film and how big of movie buffs they are when really they just like most crap that comes out, and doesn't really invest the time into expanding their movie horizons.
Ok, well…that's all from me. I've always been a fan of Roger :) (and you)
I think a lot of this debate is tied up in whether or not a person believes that quality is entirely subjective or not. I'm of the opinion that it is not… It's certainly possible to enjoy something that is of low quality, but that in and of itself doesn't suddenly elevate it to a higher quality than it is. I may get a hunger for McDonald's burgers now and then, but I certainly know that's not great cuisine… or even really a good burger. My enjoyment of it has more to do with my mindset and history with it than any subjective evaluation of it, especially compared to other choices.
Transformers is a bad movie, taken subjectively. In most aspects it is not hard to find another film that accomplished what Transformers was trying to do with far greater skill. Is it possible that the movie still hit a sweet spot with certain audiences, giving them plenty of what they want and leaving them happy with the experience? Sure. But does that make it good suddenly?
There are plenty of movies that I enjoy that I'd file under "big dumb fun"… I just wouldn't argue with someone who didn't have fun with them that they were somehow great flicks.
You like what you like. If you like mindless action, people should not judge you for your taste. I liked "Crank 2" knowing it was junk while watching the movie, and still say "Land of the Lost" was good enough. I would rather see mindless stuff like those then a well reviewed movie like "Precious".
i feel that transformers 2 was an awful movie, but that is only my opinion, and thats all. Ive met plenty of people who thought it was great and their not who ebert describes. Also I feel Eberts recent taste in film as made his opinion questionable, but lets stick to insulting the movie and not the audience !
@americanrequiem: So after reading Ebert's full post you think he was insulting the audience?
I sent Ebert's quote to all my friends who loved Revenge of the Fallen.
I don't believe that Ebert went too far at all and i think he's right, i don't consider myself a braniac (although i study film and english!) but i am disappoinnted by poorly (emphasis on poorly) made films not necessarily mindless action. The GI Joe/Transformers 'what do you expect, its based on xyz' doesn't wash with me at all, they were disappointing. I think we all understand that people have personal stakes in these films through some other media but fandom (not talking necessarily about fanboys/girls) shouldn't cloud judgement? My personal feeling is that blockbusters haven't really evolved, they've just regressed and played it safe but that's another point for a different article.
Its perfectly fine to want fun and escapism from a film but i'm not sure that most of the higher profile summer blockbusters this year have supplied that. Fun and escapism i enjoy immensely but not when its badly done, i don't think anyone should accept that and i'm at a loss for why anyone should. Mindless action does not equal a rubbish film but i don't find them as satisfying to watch, Crank was great fun but personally i need something else, i can't watch the same kind of film over and over. I feel people need to watch beyond the things they know they like, try and gather an appreciation for other films made in a different way, regardless of whether they 'may' like it or not, audiences will never know unless they try something dfferent. I watch Fish Tank in a cinema with 10 other people and yet people will flock to a film they've seen already but in a different guise, it's just…disappointing.
@Brad Brevet: I do. The quote can be dressed up and diluted but those words are still needlessly demeaning.
A quick point of order. Regardless of the original source of the quote used in the video, when Ebert twittered a link to the video he was endorsing the use of the quote as a standalone comment; separate -without citation- from the original source.
Ebert’s feeling about his statement is moot, unless he intends to retract or apologize for it. As with any issue of harassment or bullying, it is not the offender’s place to determine what acceptable behaviour is. I found Ebert’s quote offensive and unnecessary. He didn’t like the movie, fine. He might not like people who liked the movie, also fine. But there is no reason for or gain from his remark, which marginalizes a definable group of people (a qualifier for criminal hate speech in my country).
Try replacing “Transformers 2” and “film” with:
homosexuality, lifestyle;
Islam, faith;
blacks, people.
I am not trying to suggest that movie related opinions carry the same social weight as sexuality, religion, or ethnicity. I am, however, trying to point out the error of making statements that insult people for their differences.
All of that said, one of the reasons I read ROS is the level of open discussion; I’m no Computerworld but I pick ROS over Ebert’s blog on a daily basis. The fact that we can discuss this issue further is a perfect example why.
Wow. Okay, I'm out.
@GregM: I think Ebert went too far. I also think he's right. GregM, I'd like to argue that, 'social weight' aside, film appreciation is fundamentally different than lifestyle, religion, or ethnicity, and that quality is objective.
Developing something AJ said, I think that film appreciation isn't entirely subjective. Clearly and indisputably, people who watch more movies of greater variety tend to like the same movies that they collectively consider 'well-made', and collectively shun movies such as 'Transformers 2'. Sure, there is some variation (some critics like Transformers 2, some 8-year old boys dislike it), but it appears to be a fact that if you were to take people who like Transformers 2 and people who dislike it, the differences in movies watched and in variety watched will be undeniable.
Of course, we now run up against selection effects vs treatment effects. I might argue that critics and film buffs tend to dislike Transformers 2 because they've watched more movies; you may argue that the sort of people who would become critics and film buffs would be the sort of people who wouldn't like Transformers 2. If I'm right, quality is essentially objective, and that "good taste" is not only objective, but something that can be obtained. This would make film substantially different than lifestyle, ethnicity, etc because convention tells us that you cannot choose a 'better' ethnicity by trying out different ethnicities, while you can in fact choose 'better' films by watching more films. If you are right, then they are comparable, and Ebert should assuredly recant his comments.
So, who is right, and how can we tell? I believe the evidence points to Ebert's side. If you look at people who increase the breadth and amount of films that they watch, you see a change in their tastes and preferences. Unsurprising. The fact that supports AJ and I is that as people increase the breadth and amount of the films they watch, their preferences tend to converge with the tastes of other people who have watched many films. While you could argue that they receive signals from critics as to what films critics perceive as good, and then misrepresent their preferences to appear in line with critics, that argument is weak, for reasons I'd have to address in the extremely unlikely event that you adopted that argument.
So what remains, is that people's tastes both change and converge when faced with more films in a greater variety: when faced with greater options than only the films that win the advertising battles and the battles of availability (wide release vs limited release), people collectively choose similar movies as 'of higher quality'. We can also argue that the primary factor isn't that of scarcity: critics and film buffs loved 'The Dark Knight', but generally disliked 'Amelia', and there are plenty more examples. Unless I'm mistaken, the only remaining answer (and the most plausible since the beginning, based on convention) is that there is a generally objective measure of quality, that people can access to a greater degree as they watch more movies. I think Ebert shouldn't have said what he said publicly. I also think that, despite the insulting 'caveman' connotations of the phrase "not sufficiently evolved", the phrase is surprisingly accurate.
@GregM: "Stupidity" and "choosing", "lazy", and "hasty". I hate it when people are like this. Cicular reasoning; anyone can do it.
We need to stop celebrating mediocrity. Period!
If someone does stupid things I will assume they are stupid…If they are clearly not mentaly handicapped, I will assume they choose to be uncultured and stupid.
@Dan Tralder: Ditto!
"Surprisingly accurate!" And scary, in my humble opinion.
oooooh I love debates like this!!
I'm a film-maker myself so this is the kinda thing that gets thrown in my way all the time…
I'm not gonna get into the full jist of it, but I just want to point out that Ebert's quote was well written, thoroughly thought out and a nice perception on his view of society and films… whereas the "Ebert is a moron" quote is actually quite moronic… not very well written, hardly thoughout out and just an opinion without anything to back it up… this in a way has proven Ebert right in the IQ bitchslapping…
and for the record I hate mainstream cinema… it is just full of awful effects (do I have to bring up the bathroom scene in the Wolverine film?) and the scripts are too generic, giving the audience who care about more than the flashing lights and big explosions a null journey – which is wrong as cinema should fulfill the audience's needs and desires and give them an enthralling journey to go through.
"Film-making is a craft, if it is percieved as art, that's a bonus." – Brian Clarke
bring me some well crafted films!
I think that resorting to name-calling in a review (which, despite what you may think, is exactly what Ebert did) is the worst kind of film journalism. I read reviews in order to find out what the critic thought of the plot, the characters, the effects, basically the film itself. I don't read reviews to be told that, if I like the film, I'm some sort of unevolved moviegoer that wouldn't know a good movie if one hit me. It's insulting, offensive, and, to be quite honest, completely inappropriate. I'm sure that Ebert could have torn the movie apart piece by piece before resorting to insulting his audience.
Incidentally, I'm not some huge TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN fan. I think the movie was what it was and I've seen far worse (and more offensive) than it. I'm just a reader who feels that movie critics should review the movies they are assigned and not the people who read their stuff.
The issue I have with Ebert's quote has nothing to do with Transformers 2 or Ebert's opinion of Transformers 2, which I partially agree with. The issue that I have is with Ebert's opinion of those who found enjoyment with Transformers 2 and is ultimately an issue of tolerance.
I don't believe it is right for one to marginalize another for the simple fact that they disagree. Whether we are discussing something as trivial as the quality of summer blockbusters or as pivotal as culture, the rule should be the same.
As I write this I realize that I made a similar statement to Ebert's, one where I questioned the maturity/intelligence of a film's proponents, in a previous article regarding Requiem for a Dream. Although I do not like the movie on a variety of levels and I don't understand how anybody else could, that does not give be the right to attack those who do. If I can find that article I'll recant the intolerant portion of my statement for I now see it was inappropriate for me to make.
The thing is, I don't think Ebert was calling fans of Transformers 2 "not sufficiently evolved" in LIFE, just in FILM. Considering the following statement, I think he is talking about what I talked about earlier, which is how the more quality films someone sees, the more they will appreciate good films, and will realize when a film sucks.
If Ebert did in fact mean that they are lesser human beings, then yes, he is crossing the line, and wrong. To assume that 'film' is THAT important is arrogant and wrong.
I fully believe that what Ebert said wasn't part of a review but an actual response to what people were writing to him. So, he did not go too far in his review, nor did he go too far in his blog. I agree with the assessment that it is a lack of evolved palettes when it comes to film. I also feel that Ebert's blog was well-written and intelligent while the post he was responding to was, well, not. Nice comment, Deev. But we now live in a world where these quick sound bites that have no weight are easier to rally around than thought out criticism. Again, most people didn't read the full blog (a blog post not a review) and didn't see that Ebert was not calling anyone a moron. Now, full disclosure, I hated Transformers 2. And I hate it even more since it started a really silly cultural war. Do you really want Michael Bay to be the one you rally behind to protect your sensibilities? I mean we just got to a point where Ebert's comment about someone's enjoyment of a film was compared to racism and sexual discrimination. Are we that so into ourselves?
FROM BRAD: Yeah, his blog post is what I wrote numerous times and even linked to more than once.
@The Check Spot: Ha!The Check Spot said it all! "Do you really want Michael Bay to be the one you rally behind to protect your sensibilities? (I mean we just got to a point where Ebert's comment about someone's enjoyment of a film was compared to racism and sexual discrimination.) Are we that so into ourselves?"
@GregM: You seem to be obessed with marginalizing. If marginalizing a definable group is inherently wrong, how do you feel about:
-sending criminals to jail, aka sending them a message that their actions are unacceptable
-not allowing failing students to progress to a higher grade, aka sending them a message that they are not intelligent enough to move forward
-allowing political debates, where people find fault with the basic values of others
If calling someone stupid is wrong, how about calling someone misinformed?
If calling someone an idiot is wrong, how about suggesting that their brain processes information slower than average?
If calling someone 'not sufficiently evolved' is wrong, how about saying that their exposure to information is lacking?
Is there any fact that is wrong to verbalize? Is this consistent with free speech? Does it have to be?
Am I marginalizing you right now?
I suspect that your views are inconsistent. Prove me wrong.
For my part, I will say only this: if the only entertainment that can reach kids in this day and age is mindless colorful, overly loud action sequences, with very little story material which ties them together, and no commentary, or even research whatsoever to back it all up … then as a potential filmmaker, I am definitely out of business, before I even begin.
I believe everyone has their opinion on movies whether they love them or hate them. Ebert is a critic. That's what he does. Just like most of the people on this website and Brad as well. You rate movies. Fan boys will obviously rebel because the movie is of their child television show or whomever. People cannot take criticism lightly anymore. They always have to defend something. Just because a movie makes a lot of money does not by any means make it a great movie. I saw Transformers 2, i liked it at first, then a couple days went by and i went through it in my mind of what i saw in theaters. To be honest i was not impressed and retracted my statement to my friends saying it was not a good movie and i noticed its many,many flaws. I respect what critics write up whether it be negative or positive views on a movie.It Gives me an idea of what i should be thinking going into a movie, that way i can make my opinion much faster.
He didn't go to far. He just said what he thinks about a particular (-y large) audience that likes god-awful movies. I mean, he's paid for that, isn't it?
Someone wrote a check to Ebert and said 'say something about Transformers 2'.
And he did!
You may not agree with his opinion regarding the movie or with his opinion regarding the movie audience, but you can't blame him for saying that. It's his job! He's not some guy with free time on the internet saying something he think's it's the absolute truth of the universe. He's a professional giving his professional remark about a theme he studied a lot and is a master about!
You don't have to agree with his quote, but you must respect it. Even if it may seems disrepctful to you.
To sum up: a critic opinion is never far off because it's his professional opinion. It may be 'wrong' and you don't need to agree with it, but its someone else doing his job, so move over.
Wow,much ado about nothing. I didn't like Transformers 2, a good friend of mine did. But neither of us think that our opinions of this movie can define who we are as people. Didn't even enter our minds,…and then we went and lived our lives.
Do people who enjoy stuff like Transformers: 2 really read and believe reviews before watching a film? Maybe, Ebert assumed that the crowd which made the film such a roaring financial success would hardly ever venture to read a critic's opinion of it.
Just like there was a common perception (true) that the film would earn a lot of money, everyone also knew that it would not end up at 80% at rottentomatoes, that critics are going to hate it and call it names. I know people, who, like me, despair when a film like this gets huge audience, and are forced to raise some very basic questions – If the majority of the audience likes this, then, what kind of audience is it? Mr. Ebert's comments are shot through with that despair. You tell someone a film sucks and they get back with "Yeah, I guess that's why people are lining up to watch it!", in such a case, at least, I don't have any answer but "People are stupid". I completely understand Mr. Ebert's comment and, like it or not, there is more than a grain of truth in what he said. Anyway, Transformers: 2 offended Ebert first!