re: Siskel & Ebert pan Full Metal Jacket

While its good to have a critic whose tastes line up with yours (for me, that's Matt Singer or Sean O'Neal), I also think its good to have some critics who you don't agree with but have a consistent worldview and good writing style to challenge you. I don't share the same aestehtic as Stephanie Zacharek or Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, but I enjoy their writing, and sometimes I come around to their way of thinking on a movie. If nothing else, they do a good job of making me think of my own preconceptions and biases.

Criticism is subjective, sure, but its about critical thought. And their are objective truths beyond "this is good" or what you like. There's how the movie is made and what the symbols are trying to convey.

What is so great about Ebert is not just that he was a funny and insightful writer, but that even when I disagreed with him, he made me think. Take his BLUE VELVET review. He doesn't deny its "good" per se, but he challenges Lynch on why he sets up the regular townspeople as strawmen while the scenes of sexual masochism are played in horrific straight realism. Lynch's real world is obviously fake, which weakens his argument.

LINK

Now, I love BLUE VELVET and think its an absolute masterpiece, but I can't say that Ebert's criticism are wrong. Lynch does stack the deck, and the movie might be an in joke (I agree with those who say nothing happens after the camera goes in the ear... its all fantasy). Reducing criticism to a consumer review cheapens both film and good criticism. It's about wrestling with the nature of the work, which Ebert did. His review of BLUE VELVET is an important part of wrestling with the film now.