How Déclassé

I was thinking about 24 and realism (see post below) in part because of a comment made over at Ed’s place. Apropos his review of the new Harrison Ford thriller Firewall, Ed has called Roger Ebert “unsophisticated” and “both anti-cultural and anti-intellectual.” Why? Because Ebert would have the gall to suggest that plots mustn’t always add up. Says Ebert:

Need a thriller be plausible in order to be entertaining? One of the most common routines in the filmcrit biz, one I have myself performed many times, involves demolishing the credibility of a plot as if you have therefore demolished the movie. I think there’s a sliding scale involved: If the movie is manifestly impossible while you’re watching it, then that can be fatal (unless, of course, it is a movie intended to be manifestly impossible, like a James Bond thriller). If however, the movie holds water or at least doesn’t leak too quickly, I’m not very concerned about whether you can tear it to pieces after you leave the theater.

It’s hard to understand what’s so objectionable about this. According to Ed, a poorly plotted thriller might be entertaining “in a base or déclassé sense . . . But should we prop up such a lead balloon as high art?” First, where in the above quote does Ebert mention high art? All he’s talking about is what it takes to be entertaining. Even Ed admits that Firewall might be entertaining—emphasis on “might.” After all, he hasn’t seen the movie, insists he won’t see the movie, yet presumes to take forceful issue with Ebert’s review of it, calling the movie “formulaic” and “derivative” and Ebert’s review of it “baseless.”

It’s weird to see a guy like Ed champion (no pun intended) the cultural and the intellectual by bashing a film he hasn’t bothered to see. It’s equally weird to see him name check Susan Sontag in the same paragraph he extols the campy merits of Cabin Fever, or to put himself in the position of having to defend his calling the Jodie Foster flick Flightplan terrible by reminding us that it’s a movie “which I have seen.”

Entertaining is entertaining is entertaining. It doesn’t have to be high art.

Comments

[ed]

Thank you very much for the thoughtful response. However, I think you may have misunderstood my point somewhat.

The objection involves defending low art or camp, as defined by Sontag, that is without any redeemable value. I never suggested that "low art" as a whole was completely without value, but that movies which function as successful camp have specific qualities that are in fact distinct and therefore defensible as art. ("Cabin Fever" was cited as an example.) I was suggesting that Ebert's defense of a movie like "Firewall," which he himself acknowledges as implausible, laden with plot holes and utterly routine, struck me as somewhat hypocritical for a cultural arbiter to let pass.

I believe plausibility to be a major component behind an artistically successful film -- whether entertainment or artistic or both. Even if the logic behind a fictional universe is utterly different (such as "Brazil" or "O Lucky Man!" or "Being John Malkovich" or "Suspiria" or even "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"), if a film can make you believe in its laws, its impulses, its sensations and the like, then it has succeeded. When such a fantastical impulse is denied, whatever its intentions, it short-changes the audience and does the medium of film a great disservice.

[Brendan Wolfe]

Thanks for the reply to the reply, Ed. Now a reply.

You write that "if a film can make you believe in its laws, its impulses, its sensations and the like, then it has succeeded." I have no quarrel with that. I don't think Ebert does, either. The operative words in Ebert's critique, I think, are "while you're watching it." He's saying, is he not, that some movies convince you at the time. "24" is like this, as I've written. Only after the fact do you cock your head, squint your eyes, and go, "Hey wait a minute."

Also, I think your disquisition on the subject of low art & camp, however interesting, is not applicable here. All Ebert says is, "Need a thriller be plausible in order to be entertaining?" He doesn't say "in order to be art" or "camp" or anything else. He just says entertaining.

I would argue—based on numerous viewings of, say, "Sliver"—that, to be merely entertaining, a thriller doesn't even have to be good.