4 ms·
I think if you're giving original opinions about movies it guarantees that you're going to be on the wrong side of history eventually. His reviews aren't any le
by havblue 2y ago
I think if you're giving original opinions about movies it guarantees that you're going to be on the wrong side of history eventually. His reviews aren't any less interesting even when you disagree with him.
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoI'm not really convinced he's on "the wrong side"—we're entitled to strong opinions about the role of film in society and this is either value-oriented or subjective. But I emphatically do admire his willingness to stake his claim without ambiguity. > His reviews aren't any less interesting even when you disagree with him. 100%
- ddellacosta 2y agoAgreed. I disagree pretty vehemently with him wrt Blue Velvet but he's one of the few reviewers I trust(ed)
- ascagnel_ 2y agoI think Ebert didn't grasp what Lynch was going for with the Dorothy character, because I don't think anyone else in Hollywood was thinking like Lynch at the time. Blue Velvet challenges you as a viewer to look at the abuse Dorothy suffers and to be a witness -- and that's hard to do as a viewer because it is ugly. Ebert did what a lot of people did and attempted to defend Isabella Rossellini, who had signed on to the movie knowing full well what would be required. Lynch made two other movies in that same "the audience needs to bear witness and empathize" theme (Fire Walk With Me, Lost Highway) before Ebert caught on with Mulholland Dr.