raknovel Chapter 34 Roger Ebert
Chapter 34 Roger Ebert
How important are critics' opinions to Hollywood films of this era?
To put it another way, a survey cited by the Wall Street Journal showed that one-third of viewers went to see a movie because of positive reviews from film critics, and for every 10 points increase in professional film critic ratings, box office revenue increased by 15% after the opening weekend.
For a film without a big-name cast, critics' reviews are even more important, almost the only leverage that can generate visibility in the early stages of its release.
The two film critics David visited this time were Roger Ebert and Gene Sisker.
The latter is not widely known, while the former's name is quite famous. In American entertainment articles, whenever film critics' reviews are mentioned, he is basically an unavoidable figure.
His "thumbs up" gesture is hailed as a "movie-watching trend indicator," capable of doubling DVD sales.
Early in his career, Christopher Nolan was once "excitedly high-fiving his team" when he saw Ebert appear in a theater at a film festival, because receiving the critic's praise "may have been a turning point in his career."
His evaluation can influence a film's box office performance to some extent.
In his tribute to Ebert, Obama said, "For our generation of Americans, especially Chicagoans, Roger was the movie."
His television show with Heathcliff, "Heathcliff & Ebert Film Review," reached across the United States, with hundreds of millions of American viewers watching the show regularly. In the pre-internet era, this viewership was staggering.
"Yes, I know it's a bit of a mood killer to talk about these things in the face of such a romantic and deeply moving love story..."
Sisker crossed his arms, leaned forward, and spoke first, "So, if you were moved to tears during the preview screening, please change the channel. I'm just expressing my personal opinion, not here to cause trouble. Thank you."
After this preamble, the renowned film critic, known for his sharp wit and rigorous logic, launched into his rant.
"The male protagonist, who has just become a ghost, is unable to control physical objects, cannot touch living people, and cannot feel doorknobs."
Then please explain why you can walk through the subway handrails and the outer walls of the subway, but you won't walk through the subway floor and fall onto the subway tracks?
Some people say that it falls under the category of "ground," and being able to pass through walls doesn't mean it will fall off the ground.
Then please explain whether you define "ground" and "non-ground" from a physics, chemistry, or biology perspective. Does a staircase count as "ground"?
If there is wooden flooring on the ground, is the wooden flooring considered part of the ground?
Hissker's mouth was like a machine gun, seizing on this loophole in the system and firing off relentlessly.
This fits his persona perfectly; when he critiques films, he usually focuses on the film's completeness as a work of art.
It demands a very high level of logical rigor, like a meticulous engineer checking whether every part is in place and whether it operates smoothly.
If this person were in the online literature circle, they would definitely be a standard research enthusiast, and a very extreme one at that, who would conduct rigorous research on historical authenticity and professional details.
If you're looking at historical fiction, Mike is probably the only person in the entire online community who can satisfy him.
Therefore, it's understandable that his fame and influence in film criticism are not as high as Ebert's.
Roger leaned back in his chair, a smug smile of disdain for his rigid old partner playing on his lips as always.
"I don't understand, Gene. Why do you get hung up on this kind of thing when you're watching a movie? It doesn't affect the main plot."
Do you expect the director to spend half an hour explaining that the "ghost world" in the film should conform to the "physical laws of ghosts"?
It's not a documentary; just treat it like a romance movie.
"You have to be able to make sense of what you're watching, Roger," Siskell retorted, frowning. "That's something I always tell people, and I admit that's what I was thinking about while watching this movie, if you think those are just minor details."
He shrugged. "Well, I don't have much to say then. Why don't you share your thoughts?"
"Of course," Ebert adjusted his posture, his relaxed demeanor transforming into a serious and focused one.
"I really enjoyed this movie, and I do have some thoughts I'd like to share after watching it."
"The male protagonist in the movie, Sen, said something like, 'When I feel happy, what I fear most is losing it.' Perhaps it was this sentence that set the tone for the rest of the story."
From the perspective of the storyline, "Ghost" tells just an ordinary love story about life and death.
However, the director and screenwriter deliberately innovated and ingeniously placed the story in a unique liminal space—the boundary between the living and the dead. Thus, it becomes both a ghost film and a fantasy film.
After a brief pause, Ebert launched into another long-winded critique: "Most importantly, it doesn't feel out of place at all, and it captures the sincerity of love."
Various montage techniques and clever transformations of time and space create a wonderful atmosphere for the film.
The director used different perspectives and shot sizes, making careful arrangements to make the time and space transitions in the film the most exciting part.
I especially loved the ending. The film's architecture and color palette were right up my alley, and all the old tropes were used in a particularly clever way.
In short, if any viewers are looking for a romance film this year, I highly recommend watching this movie; it's the best romance film I've seen this year.
……
“My thumbs down,” Siskell said. “It’s a cobbled-together genre film, and the logical inconsistencies make it impossible for me to appreciate the plot.”
“My thumb,” Ebert said, “is pointing upwards. It reminds me of those I’ve lost, of the things I never got to say, and it’s the best prediction of where those around me go after they die.”
In terms of film criticism, Roger Ebert is a typical humanistic experientialist, whose starting point is usually the effectiveness of film as an emotional vehicle.
He values "film's concern for people." He especially favors "delicate films that focus more on showing the bittersweet details of life and human experience, and convey them through film."
This also explains why he admires Eastern directors such as Yasujiro Ozu and Hirokazu Kore-eda—he described Ozu's "Tokyo Story" as "making cinema sublime" and believed that "a film can help us, who are imperfect, become a little better."
Therefore, he will not hesitate to praise movies that conform to mainstream social values and praise truth, goodness and beauty, as long as the story is well told.
This also explains why his extremely rebellious and anti-mainstream social values film "Fight Club," released a few years later, received such strong criticism and negative reviews after its release.
In addition, he highly admires works with "boundless imagination", such as Hayao Miyazaki's "Spirited Away" and Charlie Kaufman's "Being John Malkovich" (which he praised as having "boundless imagination" and listed as the top film of the year).
Even with commercial genre films, he appreciates those that "use new technology to make good movies" while retaining "the joy of traditional cinematography," such as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit."
The movie "Ghost" fits almost every one of the above criteria perfectly. In addition, it is a good story that has been verified in the original timeline, so it is not hard to understand why Roger Ebert praised it so much and gave it a thumbs up.
As for why David's movie was featured on someone else's show?
Of course it's because it's entertaining. Could it be something they paid for? Their commentary program is broadcast on PBS and produced by WTTW in Chicago.
As a public television program, its operating logic differs from that of commercial television stations—GG sponsors have a weaker influence, and program topics are relatively independent of commercial interests.
This means that production companies cannot directly obtain program slots by "buying GG in exchange for exposure".
Which film will be featured on the show tonight depends more on the two film critics' own judgment and interests.
David flew from Los Angeles to Chicago to send invitations to the two film critics, arranging special screenings and providing them with advance viewing opportunities.
Given the amazing feedback from the film's test screenings, the two naturally accepted the invitation.
As for their reactions after watching it, just look at their conversation on the show to know—Ebert liked it very much, while Siskell thought it was full of flaws.
In the end, only Ebert received a thumbs-up, which was not unexpected for David, since he knew the viewing preferences of the two film critics.
Although he didn't receive unanimous praise from both of them, Roger's strong recommendation made his long and arduous journey worthwhile.
"In the eyes of movie fans around the world, it seems that if Ebert gives a thumbs up, the quality of a movie is somewhat guaranteed."
The formation of this understanding is directly related to Ebert's writing strategy—"Whenever he begins to write a review, he always first looks for a potential audience for it, and then evaluates the successes and failures of the film from the perspective of the assumed audience."
This means that this guy's recommendations have an inherent audience targeting capability, allowing him to recommend movies that suit different viewers' tastes. This also means that Ebert's thumbs-up has a penetrating effect on a wider mass market.
Ebert recommended "Ghost" to two audiences on the show—one being the audience for traditional romance films, and the other being the audience who had recently lost a loved one and were looking for solace in the film.
There's not much to say about the former, but as for the latter...
Natasha has been recommending a movie called "Ghost" to everyone around her lately. When asked who starred in it, she couldn't say, only that it was a very touching love story and definitely worth the ticket price.
The male colleagues in the company have all silently memorized the name, and they must go see it on the day the movie is released to see what kind of movie it is that can make the usually taciturn goddess so actively and spontaneously promote it.
The same thing is happening in several other major U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco.
The audience members who attended the test screenings have already become "self-proclaimed advocates," promoting "Ghost" for free.
The movie "A Better Tomorrow," which was released in Hong Kong last year, had a "midnight screening" about a week before its official release.
Hollywood movie test screenings certainly can't be done like that. The population and land area of North America are far greater than those of Hong Kong Island. They should start at least 3-4 months before the theatrical release.
The test screenings are gradually showing results, and the film has received strong recommendations from the most influential film critics in the industry. The film's reputation and popularity are slowly rising like underground water levels, and will naturally emerge at the premiere.