Siskel & Ebert Advise Young Movie Critics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Legendary Film Critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert give advice to students who are writing their first film review. A learning object available for free to all teachers and students. Contains good advice appropriate for critique of literature and other art forms.
4:14 "Wanting to be liked, wanting to go along with the group .. - death to a critic" fantastic quote.
now it's job-threatening not to like certain IP products from Hollywood.
These two guys will always be the ultimate in movie criticism. They did it with sincerity and never got carried away with egos or undo sarcasm. I wish they were with us today.
@@zogwort1522 you’re so off base. There’s no such thing as “accurately judging the quality of films”. The great thing about film is the subjectivity. I could love a movie and it just hits me in a certain emotional way while it bores you to tears. That doesn’t make the film any worse or better. Are some films objectively poorly made on a technical level? Yes. But, it’s only a part of a critic’s job to judge a film on that level
@@zogwort1522 they’re not conmen when its free to read or view their reviews. Movies are not just a technical science. They are an art. Much like how an art critic can not judge the value a painting will bring to different people or a food critic can’t judge if a different person will like the taste of a dish. In a sense, film critics are just authors who are creating reviews as their own art form to be entertaining and informative reads, letting you know their thoughts on the film rather than it being a definitive guide on if you will or will not see a movie. Whether you see the film and your personal takeaways from it are completely up to you. It’d be pretty boring if a critic could just tell you the answer to if something was good or bad and everyone just held that exact same view about a movie
True, they were champions of so much. Just listening to them here and there is also the one on here where in 1995 they talked Hollywood Culture. What Gene said was so passionate. You could tell they were not crying wolf at all. When Gene died, the era ended, although Roger kept going until his death in 2013.
@@zogwort1522 Zog, you are going to find that many of the truths we cling to, depend greatly on our own point of view.
@@zogwort1522 You hear that, my friend Obi-Wan? Your wisdom is trivial.
Gene went against public opinion on a lot of popular movies which told you he was always being sincere and honest. It's why I always respected him despite disagreeing with him a lot.
Go back and watch what he says on siskelandebert.org and think, "Man, was he so wise." I loved his dumping on St. Elmo's Fire, for example.
He did get stuck a lot on what he wanted a movie to be. "Why does it have to be set in Paris with 2 couples? Haven't we seen that enough? How about 2 children, a robot and an orangutan in Ecuador?" But I kind of loved his quirks too.
Right. As did Roger, with films like Blue Velvet, Die Hard, Cabin Fever, etc. I respect the balls of anybody not going with the crowd and just stating their own opinion, whether they happen to like a film others disliked, or vice versa
Ebert hit the nail on the head perfectly. Political Correctness isn’t one sort of political ideology. It’s both a conservative thing and a liberal thing. You should tell about your liberal beliefs and not fear about what the conservatives have to say, and you should write about your conservative beliefs and not fear about what the liberals have to say. It’s so sad that this is such a problem now from both sides these days. So many people lack tolerance for other’s beliefs.
R.I.P. Siskel and Ebert.
Damn this is really insightful, well-written stuff. Thank you for this
Well tolerate others beliefs to an extent. Until those beliefs start actually effecting my life and those around me.
You're right, except the term "politically correct" was coined by conservative republican politicians who were angry that they couldn't couldn't refer to Black people as the N* word, or use other pejorative terms for minority groups. They were angry that their language was being censored. Obviously, this has evolved but that's where it started.
@@deshaunx776Conservatives believe in the kind of free speech that allows them to use racial slurs, but not protests on college campuses against say the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
This is worth showing to students in the classroom.
Zog Wort sciences? It’s art, you moron.
@@zogwort1522 Very few professional critics let alone TH-cam critics ever did a better job at movie criticism than these guys, especially Ebert. Anyone who can't understand the points they make here will continue to fail at any attempt to be a good movie critic.
I love how these guys keep complimenting eachother without using compliments. Their chemistry is great.
My God, these two... The conversations they had... This conversation is invaluable! Must see for people who want to write.
Yey, and net for anyone who must and need to use their own voice!!!
@@zogwort1522 great point!
True but in the social media/blog/podcast world, people seem to be on the total opposite end of the spectrum and only write their personal feelings and conflate those feelings with facts
@@StephenRahrig Absolutely, confusing facts with feelings is just as bad as confusing feelings with facts.
Some of the best advice a young person can receive in any kind of writing career.
I thought I had seen every minute of Siskel & Ebert. I am so happy someone posted this video. It is rare, insightful for aspiring writers, and valuable food for thought.
Go to the website siskelandebert.org. You will see stuff from the early days that is fuckin' great.
@@sha11235 Someone else must have bought that website. There's nothing about Siskel or Ebert there now.
I love Roger Ebert’s take on film criticism. Most people will warn you against using “I”, but he did it all the time, reacting to it as a human instead of a robot like so many nowadays. I have found my distinct voice on my blog, but I am always blatantly honest.
That’s great. I’m actually thinking of starting a film blog (I don’t know how to put together a functioning website to save my life, so I’ll probably need someone else to do that part for me), and I’ve been writing reviews since adolescence, and Ebert played a HUGE part in me finding my own style just by that rule. Using the word ‘I’ injects SO much personality into your review, and it is instantly gonna make people more likely to want to read it, and keep reading your work
This is unbelievable how much this can be applied to today as it did back in the 90's. My heroes!
Thank you for this. Eye opening and intelligent. Both of these men are deeply missed.
Such a terrible loss that these two guys had to pass away so young and from the most horrible cancer. I miss them very much.
Maybe sitting in a theater all day, every day for 30 years causes cancer
I miss these guys. We need someone like these guys on tv today.
It’s so crazy hearing the first minute. For one of my classes I had to de-troll an internet critic on the movie “Captain Marvel”. I was so unsure of myself so I researched any words or scientific terms to “help” make my paper look professional. Although I got a 100, I really didn't feel connected to the article like I wanted and was unable to have fun with it from in my mind. I wish I would have found this video long ago!
I always felt lucky when I would accidently tune in to their At the Movies program ...because I never knew when it was on. I'd either come across it while flipping through the channels on Saturday afternoons or late at night. They were a pleasure to listen to.
Gosh, everything they said from 0:00 - 3:30 in particular is SO applicable to modern film criticism, especially on TH-cam.
It is such a slam against all the "film critics" that claim that they give "objective reviews without subjectivity" lol
Ebert isn't gonna notice you Zog Wart, he's dead
I don't know what you mean, are TH-camrs going to be the death of entertainment criticism? they're just random people sharing opinions aren't they? the only power they have is what you give them and the amount of viewers/people that watch their content.
A much bigger problem is the "Professionals" the brand names that get put in the movie's "Here's what the critics are saying!" ads with "10/10" or "5/5 stars" next to them, that praise a film and ignore the flaws so that they agree with everyone instead of having courage like this video says.
@@webbedshadow2601 Every film has flaws, who gives a shit? That's not how Ebert, or anyone views movies
@@webbedshadow2601 Random YT morons like MauLer who's ability to critique a work begins and ends at bitching at plotholes are trusted more than actual critics who give actual criticism who actually know what they're talking about.
You can give objective reviews without subjectivity.
Objectivity means not influenced by personal opinions or feelings.
It’s simply choosing which standard to apply to a piece of art and applying it that way.
This is just a prophetic as Ego's speech in Ratatouille and yet THIS was 10 years prior to that.
Comments on this clip: "This is so true! Siskel and Ebert were the only critics with the courage to say what they really thought about a movie!"
Comments under every other S&E clip: "Waaaaa! They gave my favourite movie a bad review!"
Thanks for posting! These two having this amazing conversation... Its excellent fillmmaking! what they are saying is so interesting as well as their expressions, their entonations, they way they listen to each other. You can feel their passion for their subject, but also their affection and respect for their friend across the aisle. Thanks for posting!!!!!
I feel like more TH-cam reviewers and critics should watch this especially in today age when we have internet toxic discourse
I miss listening to these two exchanging such intelligent and articulate ideas
It’s strange to hear “Political correctness is the fascism of the 90s”. Now 20+ years later, it still hasn’t been beaten.
This is really such a wonderful bit of intellectual conversation between two guys I really respected. Shame we never get to see this kind of thing on TV any more
Siskel's review of LA Confidential was perfect - "It's not Chinatown, it's Hollywood and it's very good"
Siskel’s review of Blue Velvet: “A powerful experience, a masterful exercise in controlling an audience’s attention”
Haha dead on. Not the same depth, but perfect for what it was!
little did they know that every film student would become a youtube movie critic on youtube.
3:48 They were dead-on about being PC & 'wanting to be liked."
Siskel was describing virtue-signaling before it had a name.
Yep, and then Roger said political correctness was the fascism of 90’s (4:50). I also LOVE that comparison to ventriloquism (5:16) 🤣
I am an English major and I watch this every year as a reminder to stay true to myself in my writing. Two thumbs up!
If Mauler & his cronies see this they are gonna make a 10 hour response.
Well said mate. And then we’ll get a 11 hour long EFAP podcast dedicated to this clip, and 6 parts on why “Siskel and Ebert are wrong”/“Ebert: The Fool” something like that
They're talking about speaking with your own voice. I don't know why mauler would have a problem with this advice.
@@insidethefire3711 - I think this is referring to the part where Ebert mentions objectivity vs. subjectivity in film reviews and analyses (00:48 - 01:27, to be specific).
Who's this Mauler, may I ask?
@@Neville60001 He's a YT film critic who has made critiques several hours long that they have to be broken down into multiple parts. He's also a staunch believer in objectivity within the arts, claiming his critiques are "objective."
I always loved these two because they were entertaining together. This conversation is a revealing look at the minds of both and what great minds they had. Seeing the forest for the trees and calling out like a voice in the wilderness to the journalists of today. This is maybe why I actually watched them. What shaped their opinions came from a well informed place.
We must remember that they built this relationship over many years. It didn't start that way.
Thank you for uploading this, and with such great quality, too. I’d somehow never seen it before.
Yes, this is worth showing to students in the classrooms.
The writings and conversations of these men is still very apropos today they were towers of intellect in a shallow industry and culture. I enjoy watching these old programs and discovering great commentary and films to discover.
Unfortunately, it seems like youtube pseudo-intellectuals took the opposite approach.
It is even more apropos today compared to before.
These guys are the only movie critics I ever paid attention to.
Two geniuses. Absolutely brilliant advice!
The Critic as Artist. Oscar Wilde must have had these gentlemen in mind.
What a brilliant conversation. I really miss the discourse between Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.
i love what they both said about all film being like other forms of art subjective and that honesty in your opinion is important. this video is especially invaluable in the age of the internet/youtube film critic
Amazing that 2 film critics from the 90s warned us about the world we live in today
These guys and all great critics keep art great. They dig toward the objective to challenge artists to be more honest.
Wonderful talk. I really miss Mr.Ebert.
wow. never seen this video. great stuff. you can't deny the intelligence of these two, and although I disagree with many of his takes, Roger is one of the quickest and smartest guys I've ever heard.
Indeed! I definitely agree with their opinions on that everyone should be able to critique a film however they please, and not worry about how offended others may get over it. Of course, that does not mean you should avoid criticism, obviously.
However, I disagree with Ebert’s take on how all criticism is subjective, as criticism can be objective as well as subjective.
@@markparkinson6947 Even the value of the criticism that is objective is applied subjectively.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 What would be an example of this?
@@markparkinson6947 How much objectively worse does the disappearing dagger make The Last Jedi? If this was an actual objective field, like math, we would know-wouldn't we? Whether it makes TLJ a bad film is dependent on how much it as well as other inconsistencies matter to you which varies from person to person, how much do inconsistencies in general affect a movie's overall quality to a certain viewer both in general and compared to other aspects of filmmaking, the subjective limit of minor/major continuity errors (which mauler even admitted at 1 point depends on each person's own scale before forgetting how this affect the rest of his argument) to differentiate an "objectively" good movie from bad? People like mauler can only answer these questions from a subjective standpoint, because the truth is there is no existing definition for an objectively good and bad film, he made that up.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 That's interesting. Inconsistencies can be very hard to find sometimes, especially in a critically acclaimed film, and without the story being able to backtrack to acknowledge how the supposed flaw affects the movie, it can be very difficult to determine.
And I am loving how spot on you can be about Mauler's critiques on objective film criticism. I would love to know which part of the video did Mauler admit the "depends on each person's own scale" part, and I would also like to see you make an entire video where you critique Mauler's entire Force Awakens critique, so I can understand the scope of the arguments he makes, as you act as a very good guide on the subject.
Does anyone know where to find the full interview?
And over 30 years later there are no movie critics as well known as these guys,
Showing this to my litterary teacher, hopefully she'll let me write in first person from now on.
Never seen this before. This is great stuff.
What year was this interview taped?
How I miss them!
Someone needs to strap the EFAP crew to Clockwork Orange chairs and make them watch this on a loop until they can recite this in their sleep.
Ah, who am I kidding? They'll just memorize the part about political correctness and block out the rest.
They'll just make a 5 hour breakdown where they distort every single syllable spoken by Silkel and Ebert.
Zog Wort How dare somebody make fun of your precious Mauler!
Zog Wort If anybody’s offended it’s you. You see somebody make fun of Mauler and you just have to defend him.
Zog Wort I’m not even defending Ebert dumbass, I’m just making fun of Mauler and his EFAP buddies.
what year is this from?
I sometimes spend hours of my day watching these two talk and it’s RIVETING. Sometimes I absolutely disagree on some of their reviews but that’s what makes film criticism great, breaking down why you liked or disliked something
What were the films you disagreed with their reviews of? I’m curious
@@Overseer2579 mainly slashers and comedies
All I want to say is that I wish Ebert and Siskel had taught my English writing courses in high school instead of what I got -- insisting on 3rd person, dry bones, "scientific" book reports, instead of encouraging the kind of personal, passionate tone that these pros knew was the true way of the art of criticism.
Armond White should be required to watch this ten times a day.
LOL. I wonder..
Imagine them alive today. The PC world would cancel both. Rotten tomatoes and IMDb are 🤡
I wonder what they would've thought about today's movies and streaming shows.
0:59, 3:49, 8:24.
PC is much much worse today than in the 1990s to the point that Siskel's advice on being brave would not apply anymore. I can speak from personal experience where I myself gave a review for a guidebook which was honest yet not PC.
No, it really isn't. PC back then was literal government institutions trying to censor media that percieved as corrupting children. PC now is just a bunch of people on Twitter telling you not to be a dick, and private companies caring about their personal interests.
@@robertbarrass9176 Uhhh, I didn't know anyone in fear of losing their job back then for their opinions. Nowadays you have many. And nowadays it is a lot more than what you just said. There are many people who are cancelled and censored, like Paula Dean for something she said 30 years before. You didn't have that kind of crazy stuff. You must be really young or have severe memory problems.
This is intelligent and beautiful
I mis these guys.
Does anyone know the year this was recorded?
This is gold
4:50 "Political Correctness is the Fascism of the 90's" -Roger Ebert ... And still is today.
This seems to be the most practical form of post-structuralism that I can imagine, being a old curmudgeon structuralist myself.
I got a better idea 💡I want to take walks, and live next to my favorite directors and actors (peers) (friends) and hang out and bounce ideas back and fourth, while possibly doing some exercise, in a relaxing, no rush, atmosphere. When I worked in the Czech Republic, I just go inside the studio, the actors are there, and you’re like hey, man what’s up. The perception of actors and directors there, is they are human beings. So in my dream we all live in the same apartment complex, and meet maybe on our bikes, or something else.
Have you ever visited The Unitarian Universalist Church of Studio City? It's great.
@@thebrushpainter I haven’t
This is awesome! I wish they took their own advice though.
Why do you think they didn't?
So Gene was a film critic for 30 years and Roger 46.
This video is the anti-mauler!
This is good stuff
What year did this show come out, and which show was this in?
Siskel and Ebert and the movies......sometime in the mid to late 90s
Political correctness is the fascism of the 90’s - Ebert
That statement is 1000x more relevant today. A of what they talk about was ahead of its time
3:40
It's like a posthumous love letter to RedLetterMedia
Two Thumbs Up.
Send this to IGN
In other words, trust us, we are real.
Let's say someone is applying for a job what would you do you wouldn't necessarily fire them but you would probably help them out with some possibilities on what they did wrong and who they did it to wouldn't you?
The saltiness in the comments must be from some hack critics.
The dirty little secret about Siskel & Ebert is most viewers watched them because of their interactions not really caring about their opinions.
“Political correctness is the fascism of the 90s”
How true
And beyond except in 2020-21 its the disease called "Being Woke."
@@topoftheapple8139 Except putting things like "the big bad gay" in media isn't censoring anybody, it's the ones who are against that which are for censoring dumb-dumb
I'll take Siskel and Ebert over that bullshit Rotten Tomatoes any day.
Rotten tomatoes just aggrogates reviews. It's not the website's opinion
Political Correctness is the death of not only crtics, this fascist attitude has killed creativity and free speech for all as well. Roger and Gene were spot on with their thoughts! I wonder what these guys would have thought of the edicts recently announced by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences?
I am sure they would be against those insane rules. I am sure they would say since they would never look up the demographics of the cast and crew to judge whether they liked a movie, the Academy shouldn't be doing it either.
Political correctness is the Fascism of the 90s........boy, was Ebert right about that! If he and Siskel were alive today in 2021, oh, how appalled they would be (even though they were both politically liberal)! Political correctness has morphed into "wokeness," which is even more insidious than the p.c. back then. And wokeness has certainly poisoned film and arts criticism today, along with everything else in Western culture. I sometimes disagreed with Siskel and Ebert's film reviews; in fact, I was really appalled by a handful of their reviews. But still, this is one of the best conversations on air that these two ever had.
3:57 when was this? How is he saying this so long ago?
I came to learn and I ended up learning a lot of laughing at how correct they were about political correctness.
‘He was a little bit sexist’. Couldn’t keep the political correctness out of their criticism of political correctness 😂
to say someone's a little bit sexist isn't inherently censorship or PC. It might be appropriate in the instance...also they are not trying to DESTROY someone they personally find "A little bit sexist" which is the whole point.
Conservatives have destroyed the word political correctness from the liberals. Liberals invented the words political correctness due to people getting offended by the truth. The people getting offended by the truth were conservatives. Showing a black woman kiss a white man in screen those days was politically incorrect
Alguien por deberes de ingles 🤣
If only these guys lived now, they’d double down on this.
The "Status Quo" or P.C is the ultimate death of creativity. Further more, "Representation" is only ego and complete nonsense. Don't ever think you represent anyone other than yourself.
I miss these two. They would have never given in to the manipulation that most of Rotten Tomatoes did.
Lol imagine what they would think about “political correctness” in 2022
The difference is back then the industry was only white guys who got to judge art made by people who don’t look like them
Often stereotyping communities of color. It still happens but they are right you should state your honest opinion
These guys would be rolling over in their graves if they saw how woke the opinions of Roger Ebert’s staff have become. It’s such a shame.
Omg, sooo true. Imagine what Ebert would’ve thought of the overtly subjective culture that was to snowball thereafter.
You mean how people now are so quick to excuse plain dumbness in opinions as “art is subjective lol”? I’d say many critics who actually care about the medium who try to treat movies as objective still exist
@@villain7140 "I’d say many critics who actually care about the medium who try to treat movies as objective still exist" Did... you not listen to what Ebert said about this type of criticism? He completely disagrees with this type of critique, he ain't on the "objective critics" side, that's for sure.
"In journalism school, they should make all reviews and criticisms be in the first person to remind people that it's their own view, and not some kind of a scientific objective overview. There's no such thing as objectivity in the arts, it's all subjective and you might as well admit that." -Ebert
@@zedoctor3724 admitting that art is subjective and believing every opinion is equal and there is no good, bad, ignorant, intelligent opinions are completely different. I've heard many people say Citizen Kane is a bad movie while its subjective its also repugnantly ignorant
@@villain7140 Well, I never said all opinions are equal, or are all coming from an equally informed place. My point was that if you really listened here, Ebert thinks "objective reviews" are a crock of shit, and not really reviews. If you genuinely tried to cover art as objectively as possible, you're not really giving a review. You're giving a synopsis.
Ebert isn't vouching for you, or EM -MCs side lol.
Did i just attend a master class of critic writing??
For once critics admit it is subjective. Some critics carry on like their opinion is objective fact.
Political Correctness: 90’s
Wardrobe Malfunction: 00’s
Cancel Culture: 10’s
whoa calling out politically correctness in film criticism 😲
Ebert is known to use Objective Criticism
No, he's not
How dare Robert Warshow not say, “a man OR WOMAN” goes to the movies... he was very sexist.
... you know, political correctness is really the fascism of the 90s
Except fascism led to WW2 and the Holocaust, whereas political correctness led to you being annoyed at something you saw on Twitter. But yes, overall very similar.
Either that or Ebert was joking and you are easily offended
Like others on here you mistakenly think political correctness means "being liberal." As Ebert says here, political correctness means NOT LETTING THE OTHER SIDE BE HEARD. Ebert was a proud liberal who believed conservatives should be allowed to have as much of a voice and as much free speech as liberals do.
@@jedijones I feel like what you encountered here is the result of modern day conservatives twisting things so much, especially Americans judging by that Andrew Neil (a British conservative) / Ben Shapiro interview for example. Ebert doesn't want to censor the author he was talking about, but it seem the OP ironically wants to censor Ebert calling someone "a little bit sexist".
Film Criticism 101: Whether a movie makes you laugh or cry is not necessarily relevant to its overall quality. Ebert never got past first grade.