One had a better day than the other, though not the one you'd expect... Richard Roeper- who, strangely, shares an agent with Phil Jackson- signed a new contract yesterday to remain co-host of "Ebert & Roeper" for two more years. It's a seat that Roeper- who isn't a particularly talented writer or commentator, and doesn't know a whole lot about film either- does not deserve and never has.
As for his partner, Roger got the tear-down treatment Thursday from Elbert Ventura of the New Republic. In a piece that gives Ebert quite a bit of praise both at the beginning and end, Ventura concludes that Ebert relies too much on "schtick," and treats the profession of criticism as a way of dispensing "consumer tips."
It's a provocative, but wholely unconvincing critique. Like those who bash Steven Spielberg for being too in touch with his inner child, Ventura inexplicably treats Ebert's greatest strength as a debit. Ebert's unrivaled ability to bring virtually unlimited cinematic knowledge to the layman -not to mention, his honesty- is his greatest contribution to cinematic criticism. Ebert inherited many of these attributes from Pauline Kael- so it comes as no surprise that Ventura has something negative to say about her, too.
I may not always agree with Ebert, and you could certainly make the argument that he's slipped in recent years. But he's still clearly the most authoritative- and prolific- film critic in America.
Posted by Stephen Silver at July 1, 2005 12:42 AMEbert is one of the best..however Roeper got his gig is just distgusting...RIP Siskel.
Posted by: A at July 1, 2005 09:51 AM