Before we begin, I have two things to address: (1) I realize that is is a response to a review written over two months ago. Old news. Why should I even bother writing about it? Because it made me very very sad. The internet seems to be ruining my happiness lately. (First the old man 30 Rock lover is a sex offender and now this?) (2) I don't necessarily consider myself a Star Wars geek (though I have been known to make a mean tauntaun quip in my day), but I have fanboyish tendencies towards many things, so perhaps that is why this Ebert review upset me so much.
I have a bit of a beef to pick with Roger Ebert, who you may remember from my blog as the best person ever to exist. I watched Fanboys last night and enjoyed it. It wasn't a brilliant movie, but it was amusing and entertaining. Then this morning I read Roger Ebert's review of the movie. You might not want to read it. It made me very unhappy, mainly because I have such faith in Ebert, even when he is praising movies like Paul Blart: Mall Cop. I can still appreciate his reviews even when I disagree wholeheartedly with him because he is generally very consistent in how he watches movies. He critiques movies based on what they aim to be. It isn't, for instance, correct to compare a movie like Paul Blart to Ben-Hur. They are not trying to be the same thing, and thus it would be unfair to treat them alike, regardless of the quality of both movies. This is where my beef with Ebert's review of Fanboys comes into play. It seemed to me that his entire dislike of the movie stemmed from his dislike of the people it tries to depict. Before he even begins to critique the movie, he starts with a critique of fandom devotees (awkward terminology, I know, but I'm trying to differentiate here between the category of people and the movie, and it is hard so give me a break). Here's what he has to say about fanboys (lowercase f): "If you know absolutely all the trivia about your cubbyhole of pop culture, it saves you from having to know anything about anything else. That's why it's excruciatingly boring to talk to such people: They're always asking you questions they know the answer to."
This is okay in itself. Ebert does not have to enjoy these people. But, as a critic, he should understand that this movie is made for these people just as Paul Blart is made for the kind of person who goes to see that movie. He should have reviewed it with that in mind, as he usually does. But he just doesn't seem to be able to get over this.
"Its primary flaw is that it's not critical. It is a celebration of an idiotic lifestyle, and I don't think it knows it..."
No, I'm pretty sure Fanboys realized it is a celebration of this lifestyle. It just doesn't (as Ebert obviously does) think that lifestyle is "idiotic". That's why the movie was made. Just as many other movies about a certain group of people is a celebration of those people. Pirates of the Caribbean is a celebration of pirates. Free Willy, a celebration of whales and boys; Ben-Hur, a celebration of chariot races; and Jurassic Park, a celebration of dinosaurs. Okay so I'm terrible at examples (although I think I would be a terrific asset to the marketing of any of those movies). It seems to only be Ebert who has labeled this lifestyle "idiotic". He can not understand the motivations of any of the characters and shrugs off the entire premise of the movie because he can not understand that a love of Star Wars is just as valid a passion as a love for anything anybody could possibly love. It's all about what makes people light up.
Fanboys wasn't a masterpiece of cinema, no, but it didn't have to be. That's not what it was aiming for. I still love you Roger Ebert, but consider us in a lovers' quarrel for the moment. Congrats on your fancy new plaque though.
Posts
GLEE.
16 years ago
