An Embarrassing Movie Show

An Embarrassing Movie Show

I'm sure that most people reading the headline above would assume I'm going to write about the recent Oscar telecast, but that's not the case. Yes, the Academy Awards show was pretty sorry this year, but let's face it, how often have you watched a good Oscar telecast? So there's no need beating a dead horse.

No, the show I'm referring to in this post is Ebert Presents at the Movies. When I read that Pulitzer-prize winning film critic Roger Ebert was going to produce a new movie review show, I was excited to see what he would do. Given his condition (he lost part of his jaw due to thyroid cancer), it was clear that he would be naming new hosts for the show, while his input would largely be that of a producer, along with his wife Chaz.

Well, the show has been on for a little over a month now and sad to say, it's a disaster. I had seen a few clips of the new hosts - Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky - reviewing a few films and my first thoughts were same old, same old. Of course, you can't base your opinion on a few clips, but I thought this show might be a little more edgy or interesting.

Well, I decided to watch the show last Friday and let's just say that I survived it. That's the best I can say, because I have a lot of negative things to say and it saddens me to write that. Roger Ebert has been a superb film critic for more than 40 years - how many film critics are household names? - and he certainly has shown a lot of courage and determination in his physical battles over the past few years. Yet, truth is that this show is really bad.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the hosts per se; Lemire has been film critic for the Associated Press since 1999, is quite knowledgable and seems relaxed before the camera. Same for Vishnevetsky of the online film website Mubi who brings some nice energy to his delivery. As with any young film critic (he is 24), one wonders what he brings to the table with older, more classic films (especially as he was born in Russia), but he is certainly well spoken on recent film trends.

The problem is that these two hosts are just a little bit boring; worse, they have no chemistry together. We've seen critics discussing films before and it's almost always the same. Here the two sit on a set made to look like a movie theater, complete with red crushed velvet seats, and we even get the tired over-the-shoulder shot of the two of them watching a clip of the movie they will be reviewing. This is so artificial as to be laughable. 

Then there is the realization that neither host is very enthralling. They do their job, but without a lot of passion. Remember the discussions and arguments that Ebert and his original co-host Gene Siskel had when discussing a movie? When those two disagreed, that was entertaining and it made for great television. But even when they both agreed on a film, their chat was interesting, as both of them had assembled a nicely organized and well-thought out analysis of the film. This was intelligent television that was based on doing a job as well as possible rather than doing as much as possible.

By that last sentence, I'm referring to the fact that with this new show, there's too much going on. After three reviews by the hosts, we were presented a new review by Ebert himself. As we viewed film clips, Ebert's wife Chaz read his review in a voice-over narration. As she finished, we were given a brief (two to three second) shot of Ebert in his office behind his laptop looking at the camera with his thumb pointed up, a sign that he recommended the film. To me, this quick glimpse of Ebert was unfortunate, as he was shot from about 15-20 feet away in a darkly lit setting; seeing him in this moment made his appearance a bit ghoulish, I'm sorry to say. 

This is really sad, as the producers (Ebert himself along with Chaz) probably believed that no one would watch the program if viewers were subject to Ebert's physical condition. While I can understand that (television is almost always about glamour to some degree), showing Ebert in this light is rather strange. I'm sure they didn't intend it this way, but the momentary image of Ebert pushed to the back of the frame is reminiscent of a freak show.

After that, there were two brief clips about current issues in the movies. One was from Jeff Greenfield, who I've admired over the years for his insight into politics among other topics. This piece was a what-if? look at how the Oscars would differ if the studios ran negative campaigns for Best Picture; in Greenfield's essay, the producers of The King's Speech and The Social Network would be jabbing each other's work for flaws. Interesting idea, to be sure, but it didn't have much depth beyond the surface level. Jeff's done much better work.

The second piece, about the creator of the Oscar-nominated Exit Through the Gift Shop was remarkably dull and pointless; I looked on the show's website to learn of the host of this piece, as I couldn't recall his name, which tells you how much of an impression this segment had on me (I still can't remember who was the creator of this piece, even after looking at the site.)

So for a solution - how about this? Delete these segments and review more movies or go into more depth on the movies you do review. I'm all for something different in a movie review show, but these segments add nothing. Deal from strength and create some depth, some structure and please, make this watchable. The talent is there, but it's been wrapped up in a delicate little package that wants to please a younger, more hip audience as well as an older, more conservative viewership. When you try to please everyone, you please no one.

I don't remember who first said it, but the worst sin of all is to be boring. Given that definition, this show has committed a lot of sins. If it doesn't get rehauled real soon, it will die a quiet death.