Of course there are people who are attributing positive characteristics to Ebert that simply were not true; Oliver Stone said even Ebert’s bad reviews had kindness, and I think we all remember plenty of At The Movies reviews where he and Siskel were smug, dismissive jerks because they knew it would make good TV.
And sometimes, frankly, a movie deserves a nasty review, Ebert certainly thought so, and saying otherwise after he died doesn’t honor him as much as it consoles the grieving. This sort of thing is just what happens when a beloved cultural icon dies. It sorts itself out after a while, when the emotions have cooled. Future discussions over Ebert’s criticism will add a lot to the field, just as discussions about Kael’s or Sarris’ or any of the other influential critics.
If you were hoping to start some of those discussions with this cartoon, it’s far too clumsy and ill-timed to be of any good. You’re asking people to believe that Ebert said nothing important during two hours of discussion on Citizen Kane? Even his haters won’t believe that.
And anyone can see you’re claiming Ebert wasn’t smart simply because you disagreed with him. That’s incredibly immature, and frankly laughable. Thousands of his reviews, TV appearances, blog posts and candid moments caught on video are available for anyone, and they all pointedly contradict your claim he “wasn’t that smart.”
This is pretty shocking. “Coon Imagery” plus Satchel’s stereotypical black/jive accent in the final panel makes this unmistakably racist. Yet even though newspapers refused to run the strip both now and in 2009 when it first ran, and plenty of people have seen the overt racism, the best anyone can do to defend Darb is say “you just want to be offended.” That’s pretty weak. If that’s the best you can do to “prove” this isn’t racism, well, you don’t have much of a case.I can’t figure out why the syndicate re-ran this one. Guess they like controversy.
Of course there are people who are attributing positive characteristics to Ebert that simply were not true; Oliver Stone said even Ebert’s bad reviews had kindness, and I think we all remember plenty of At The Movies reviews where he and Siskel were smug, dismissive jerks because they knew it would make good TV.
And sometimes, frankly, a movie deserves a nasty review, Ebert certainly thought so, and saying otherwise after he died doesn’t honor him as much as it consoles the grieving. This sort of thing is just what happens when a beloved cultural icon dies. It sorts itself out after a while, when the emotions have cooled. Future discussions over Ebert’s criticism will add a lot to the field, just as discussions about Kael’s or Sarris’ or any of the other influential critics.
If you were hoping to start some of those discussions with this cartoon, it’s far too clumsy and ill-timed to be of any good. You’re asking people to believe that Ebert said nothing important during two hours of discussion on Citizen Kane? Even his haters won’t believe that.
And anyone can see you’re claiming Ebert wasn’t smart simply because you disagreed with him. That’s incredibly immature, and frankly laughable. Thousands of his reviews, TV appearances, blog posts and candid moments caught on video are available for anyone, and they all pointedly contradict your claim he “wasn’t that smart.”