1976 was an awful year of violent sequels and remakes?! But… but… but that’s a year before Star Wars ruined cinema! That’s a year when important films like All the President's Men reigned! Well, it was also a year where the box office was topped by remakes of A Star Is Born and King Kong, as well as The Enforcer (the third Dirty Harry movie) and a string of flicks like Carrie, Family Plot and the Omen which (I guess?) were too violent for Gene's tastes.
Maybe the 70s weren't quite as halcyon as cinephiles so often love to imagine.
Call this an uber Anti-Productivity. I’ve been idling some time away on YouTube recently by watching old Siskel & Ebert At the Movies reviews of some "new classics" like T2, Ghostbusters, Aliens, RoboCop, Predator and Beetlejuice. Beyond satisfying a simple curiosity to hear how my old favorites were received in their time, watching these has healthily reminded me of how enjoyment of your “good old days” is rarely shared by people who were actually of age at the time. It also shows that--wouldn’t you know--critics were griping about the same things 35 years ago.
Watching Siskel at work is interesting, in and of itself, because I'm far more familiar with Ebert's voice and tastes. In the long view, Roger was better at branding himself (or, perhaps, just at syndicating,) because I read his reviews every week growing up but never saw a single one of Siskel’s in print. Viewing these, now, I can see how Gene definitely comes across as the more haute couture of the two (the “snob” if you prefer) and it's clear why he and Roger had an interplay that made for good TV.
Many of the aforementioned reviews has Gene saying something to the effect of how he’d have preferred to see just the love story sub-plot by itself without the fantasy trappings, or that he enjoyed the film in spite of the special effects. FX traditionalists might be surprised to know that matte painting, optical printing and rotoscoping could've been just as distracting to some as mo-cap, keyframing and green screen in their day. I might also equate Siskel's general distaste for "movie magic" in these clips with contemporary fans’ often frothy irritation with CGI or Ebert’s current invective against 3D, but I think it goes beyond that.
Siskel describes effects (and, really, fantastical elements in general ) as almost akin to noisy patrons at a theater; something that’s an intrusion by its very nature. Something that can only be tolerated, at best. And I suppose that gets at what I see as the real sea change in the face of the movies. Gene describes some of these as being like B pictures getting undue "A" treatment, and I can only imagine the horror he’d be experiencing if he were reviewing movies today, when B and A's have effectively switched places for good.
You know what? I say that's great.
Look, these are the opinions of only one critic in his time, after all, and it's not like rejection was Siskel's only response to genre pictures. However, his sentiments in these clips remind me enough of those held by old professors and classmates of mine that I want to dredge up some frustration I had in film school. If "genre" isn't somebody's cup of tea, that's perfectly fine, but I ran into more people than I care to who had drab senses of humor and small imaginations with seemingly no room to appreciate anything fantastical. None-too-coincidentally, they were the same people who'd so often opine about how film "died" after the 70s.
If it really has to come down to an either/or, this-camp-or-that-camp disagreement, then I’m surprising nobody by saying I’m on the side of the genre picture. As annoying as the Joe Six-Pack movie buff who feeds awful blockbusters' grosses is, I’ve got a worse distaste for the film aficionado who finds anything too "imaginary" to be merit-less by nature. Excessive remakes, interminable sequels and dodgy effects are as annoying today as they've always been but, before you gripe too fiercely, we all ought to step back and appreciate the positive shift that allows pictures like Dark Knight and Return of the King to get "A" treatment they never could've dreamed of getting in 1976.
Here's one of Siskel & Ebert's vintage reviews to get you sucked into watching ten more on your favorites...
I tend towards the 'snobbish' in that my tastes are for the weird and obscure and challenging. But then I also like to sit down and watch something dumb or something genre too. I think the key is to not have too narrow a definition of what is 'good' or 'art' and to be willing to give things a chance.
Then you fall down the rabbit hole of watching silent films and C-grade action flicks in the same night of movie watching. It's less jarring than you might think.
Network came out in 1976. Enough said.
@Shadoestar said:
There almost never is, for anything. People are ruled by nostalgia.
It sure is taking a long time to kill.
Siskel (and every critic) needs to understand that personal taste isn't inarguable fact.
Sometimes I want to see amazing performances. Sometimes I want to become enraptured by characters with complex issues. Sometimes I want to watch something that takes me a lot of time to figure out and understand.
Sometimes I want to watch some robots fucking punch each other. I don't really give a shit why anyone else watches movies.
But that's the entire point of reviews, period. There is no such thing as an objective review, because you can never account for every taste possible without coming off sounding wishy-washy.
Critics write what they feel and attract fans with similar tastes.
It's the same for TV shows. Even Sanford and Son was another American remake of a British TV show.
"Enjoyment of your “good old days” is rarely shared by people who were actually of age at the time"
This was one of the great themes from Midnight in Paris, my favorite movie this year. To think that someday, someone might look back at the 2000s as the good old days of cinema.
wowowowowow to much VIOLENCE thats just weird
I hate anyone going to far in either direction be it snobishness or Transformers is the Best Picture ever.
My taste lean towards action popcorn stuff but thats because its summer atm come fall all about the oscars and thinking stuff.
Well, 2011 does feature More Sequels Than Any Other Year Ever.
Is the problem new? No. But is it getting worse? Absolutely.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, everybody loves Robocop.
Actually, for me, if you can write well and make your tastes known (and are actually expressing YOUR tastes so that there isn't wavering from review to review) then I'm happy because I'll be able to extrapolate from your review and point-of-view whether I will likely (since there's no such thing as a sure thing) enjoy the film/TV show/play/band/video game or what-have-you.
The best Siskel and Ebert reviews were always when they disagreed. You always got the impression they were about to start cursing at each other when they had to cut to commercial, and that tension made it clear that they had very distinct opinions, but still could respect each other.
I always like it when historical documents like Siskel's reviews break down the facade that is nostalgia. God I love that shit.