Cinematical

It's always interesting (and happens not enough) to see a discussion about film between a maker of film and the critic. I read Ebert's review on the film before I read the replies. Maybe if he had put the ideas in the reply into the review, the writer & director would have had no way to respond. I wonder if they're going to take out another ad.

Reply

i haven't seen "chaos" yet, but this reminds of the famously very negative review ebert gave to david lynch's "blue velvet" (one of my all-time favorite films). In that review, he strongly critiqued what he felt were degrading and humiliating sequences involving rossellini

from the description above, it's clear ebert is following along the tried and true path of ethics-based critique. and there's nothing wrong with ethics-based critique (see, for example, the brilliant work of martha nussbaum and the somewhat less interesting work of wayne c. booth) -- in fact, it's hard to argue that it doesn't hold a legitimately valuable place within the wide spectrum of critical/analytical tools.

that said, i think ebert is treading a very fine line when he ventures into this territory. his columns are just that -- columns. and the nature and length of the newspaper column doesn't lend itself readily to the meticulous and rigorous logic that the ethics-based critic must employ (we're not talking morals here, after all; we're talking ethics, the path to understanding what the good life might be).

for example, what does it mean to argue that it is the artist's "responsibility" to provide optimistic or hopeful options within his or her films? what does that say about the options available for the artist when he or she sets out to create a film? and what are the ethical imperatives that would permit a film critic to make the sort of demands on art that ebert is making? i'm not saying the critic can't make demands, but i need to understand a lot more about the hidden premises that hold up ebert's ethics of film.

well, that's my two-cents on the subject . . . :-)

cel

Reply

"for example, what does it mean to argue that it is the artist's "responsibility" to provide optimistic or hopeful options within his or her films?"

I don't think that's Ebert's exact intention; I think, rather, that he means not that there needs to be a hopeful message but rather that, if you're going to show that much evil, you must also show that some good can exist. I think Ebert means it more as a balancing of extremes than as requiring a sort of moral for every story.

It's a valid point, though; terror can and does bring out the good in people (see: the attacks on the WTC). Often, too, a movie is that much more effective for showing a balance; *American History X* is so effective because of Edward Norton's growth and redemption.

Reply

"cel's" comments on my piece about "Chaos" deserve a response, I think. He upbraids me for engaging in "morals based" criticism when I "only" write a newspaper column. I saw the movie, wrote the review, received the response from the filmmakers, and replied to it. What would he have advised? Turning the letter over to an experienced academic?

"cel" hasn't read my response to the filmmakers carefully. He thinks I believe "it is the artist's 'responsibility' to provide optimistic or hopeful options within his or her films." More accurately, what I wrote was: "I believe art can certainly be nihilistic and express hopelessness; the powerful movie “Open Water,” about two scuba divers left behind by a tourist boat, is an example... I believe evil can win in fiction, as it often does in real life. But I prefer that the artist express an attitude toward that evil. It is not enough to record it; what do you think and feel about it?"

I do not require optimistic and hopeful thoughts and feelings, although they might be useful and heartening. I do recoil from art that replicates evil without comment. I can imagine such a film having artistic merit, but "Chaos" is not that film.

Our argument, in any event, is not about what I said but about my impertinence in saying it. I believe that a writer for a daily newspaper can try to engage large issues when that seems appropriate, and that the attempt might be more admirable than simply adding to the pile of celebrity gossip that passes for movie journalism. My writings on "Chaos," however imperfect, have the advantage of appearing in print while the movie is actually in theaters. "cel" may have to wait months for his approved experts to complete their thinking on the task

Reply

Oh, how awkward, in composing my response I was slipped by Ebert, revealing I misinterpreted the intention. But I still agree with him.

Reply

I agree with Roger. Just because the artists in question were fairly successful in depicting "pure evil" does not mean the they have accomplished anything whatsoever.... Any "serious" film has to have a clear and thought provoking message to receive a "thumbs up" from me. The message that there is "pure evil" in the world and that it sometimes wins out over the "good" of society has been done...over and over and over...
To those who praise the movie "Chaos" because of its realistic portrayal of evil, shame on you for having such low movie standards.
"Blue Velvet" is a brilliant movie because it shows a deep understanding of the complexities of the terms "good" and "evil."

Reply

Just a heads up: Ebert is best known for thumbs up/thumbs down style reviews, mainly because that is marketable not only by himself but also by advertising companies wishing to promote their films. But Ebert has always been a more indepth reviewer of films than simply a soundbite or thumb motion. And, in my opinion, a very good reviewer of films.

Reply

Hmm... I was hoping Roger might use this as an opportunity to ammend his Blue Velvet review, which I've always taken issue with (It's one of my favorite movies too). I've always wondered if he got over his initial disgust and rewatched the film.

Reply

Hmm... I was hoping Roger might use this as an opportunity to ammend his Blue Velvet review, which I've always taken issue with (It's one of my favorite movies too). I've always wondered if he got over his initial disgust and rewatched the film.

Reply

i appreciate the response from "roger ebert," though it appears that i am being "upbraided" for the "impertinence" (to borrow his words) of questioning the appropriateness and utitlity of a 571 word film review column for pronouncements of such ehtical and emotional magnitude :-)

we may quible over the wording in the last paragraph of my initial comment: i say he is essentially arguing that it is the film-maker's responsibility to provide optimistic or hopeful options; in his open letter in response to the film-makers, ebert argues "what i [ebert] miss in your film is any sense of hope" and further that what he "objects to most of all in 'chaos' is not the sadism, the brutality, the torture, the nihilism, but the absence of any alternative to them." however, the questions (in all their epistemological glory ;-) essentially still remain to be answered. they are not, in the end, at all limited to film reviews, but extend to any exercise in which critic and artist dialogue over the nature and use of art.

in any event . . .

ebert is clearly horrified by this film; and i have no real problem with that. however, i find it instructive that the explication for his reaction to the film appears largely in his open letter to the film-makers, and not within the body of his review. one may have the temerity (i hope) to wonder whether this explication would ever have seen the light of day in the absence of the film-makers' initial letter to him, or if we would have simply been left to rely on ebert's initial review and trust in the underlying principles upon which it is based (after all, he "urges you [us] to avoid it ['chaos'].").

cel

Reply

It is interesting to me that Ebert, who habitually praises the most hopeless and nihilistic euro art-house films on the market, should take such strong exception to a film whose only apparent sin is to combine hopelessness and nihilism with the photography of physical violence.

This man has no difficulty watching the sort of movies where "no one ever really knows anyone", where the individual is an impotent pawn in the grip of society's fist, or where characters compete to raise emotional cruelty to an art form.

He does not demand of these films that they provide an "alternative", nor does he rebuke them for trafficking in something far more subtle, and thus more genuinely disturbing, than mere murder.

Show the graphic death of one or two people, and you are a grind-house hack.

Show the abstract death of all humanity, and you are an artist.

What bullshit.

Reply

I think Ebert's original intent with his review of "Chaos" was to acknowledge the movie's existence and hope/assume that anyone familiar with his writing or his opinions on film would realize that his recommendation to avoid it wasn't based on the simple fact that it was a violent horror film. And even if you didn't know that Ebert was a strong supporter of Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left," it seems clear enough to me that Ebert, in his review, isn't asking that the movie have a "message" or a little angel sitting on its left shoulder to balance the devil on its right. By saying "the movie not only denies the value of life, but the possibility of hope," he's asking the filmmakers simply for a little perspective, a point of view that might possibly justify us as viewers putting ourselves through such a nightmare. Wes Craven's film, whatever you think of it (and I don't think highly of it, as Ebert does), had one. Tobe Hooper's "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" had one. David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" had one. Hell, even Dee Snider's "Strangeland" had one, though it wasn't one that necessarily paved the way for artistic enlightenment (or a coherent approach by the filmmaker, for that matter). Without this point of view, we might as well load up a greatest hits collection of those Iraqi beheadings the filmmakers self-righteously use to justify what they've done with their movie-- it seems to me that Ebert's point is that "Chaos" has as much artistic or social value as the raw footage of those horrific crimes. Ebert says on his Web site that writing about "Chaos" or not writing about "Chaos" wouldn't much affect whether or how many people go see the film, and I suspect he's right. So he dealt with it in a way that felt responsible to him, in a way that could not inadvertantly further sensationalize the content of the film by which he was so sickened. Perhaps Ebert could have delved deeper into the feelings churned up while watching the film-- perhaps he will. Also, perhaps he never would have gone any further if not for the prompting of the letter from the filmmakers. I find these "perhaps" fairly irrelevant, however. I think Ebert did his job as a reviewer and chose to handle his further duties as a critic (there's a difference), in regards to "Chaos," with honor and respect to his readership and also to the intent (and subsequent rationalizations) of the filmmakers. Sometimes a skunk is just a skunk.

Reply

This subject has spurned an awful lot of heady discussion but I think Mr. Ebert just thought it was a lousy movie and the filmmakers used a cheap ploy and artifice to sell the movie. Kudos to him for calling it as he sees it.

Reply

This subject has spurned an awful lot of heady discussion but I think Mr. Ebert just thought it was a lousy movie and the filmmakers used a cheap ploy and artifice to sell the movie. Kudos to him for calling it as he sees it.

Reply

Trailer looks dumb: http://www.onlyamovie.com/trailer.html

Reply

Sean, I'm not sure that's an entirely fair assessment of Ebert's critical toolbox. After all, he gave a very positive review to The Devil's Rejects while decrying the apparent purposelessness and claustrophobic POV of War Of The World.

Reply