ABC News has announced new plans for their "At the Movies" TV show.
As most of you know Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper left "At the Movies" supposedly because the show was to undergo a change and focus more on the business aspect as well as reviews. The new critics would be Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. Many viewers didn't like this change and decided not to watch the show. And apparently their plan worked. They will now be replaced by New York Times' film critic A.O. Scott and Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips.
I'm glad the show is going to get new hosts. I saw a few tapings of both Ben's and was disappointed. I wasn't sure what gave anyone at ABC the impression these men understood the history of cinema. I wasn't the only one.
The problem I had with Ben Lyons on the show was he is simply too young. He has much more to learn about movies. Now, I know what some readers will say. Wait a minute Mr. Udvary, you are only 26! What the Hell are you doing by saying Lyons is too young. The difference, I feel, is if you read my blog, I think I have proven I've seen more than merely current releases. I go out of my way to write about D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, only recently I discussed King Vidor. I review international films to and talk about Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, Claude Chabrol and Miklos Jancso. I have serious doubts Lyons knows who these people are. Mankiewicz might but should he be a movie critic? Host of an entertainment show? Sure.
But what about A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips? Strangely, what I think about Lyons can also be said of Phillips. Since 2006 he has been the movie critic of the Chicago Tribune. I use to enjoy reading the Tribune because of Michael Wilmington, whom I thought was the best Chicago film critic (including Roger Ebert). Wilmington displayed a rich knowledge of cinema. It seems like the guy has seen every movie. How they could replace a man with all that knowledge for Michael Phillips, was both troubling and puzzling to me.
I don't want to engage in personal attacks here against any of these film critics. With the newspaper business in the state it is in, I'd hate for the culture to lose film critics. I appreciate their opinions even when I disagree with them. I know nothing about Lyons and Phillips. I've never met them and quite frankly I wouldn't want to. So anything I say has nothing to do with them personally. I'm only commenting on their reviews.
Phillips strikes me as too young. He is too green. He hasn't proven himself to me these past 3 years. I don't think he knows anything about the history of cinema. I get the feeling I've seen more movies than him. Which is why I wouldn't want to meet him. What would we talk about? I think all he knows about his modern movies.
I'm going to tell you a secret about my reviews and what I do to prepare before I write. I do no preparation! I don't plan what I'm going to write ahead of time. I sit by the computer and start writing. I have no idea what the next sentence will be. Everything on here, every review, was off the top of my head. The only thing I do before hand is check spelling. If I'm writing about an international movie or don't know how to spell someone's name, I will check that. But, as far as knowing who directed a particular movie or what year it came out, that is all information I have in my head. If you have a conversation with me I can talk about all the directors I've written about on here. I don't need to do a google search. I get the feelings these critics do.
A.O. Scott on the other hand is not a bad guy. He is not my favorite critic for the NY Times, Stephen Holden is, but Scott at least seems to possess a knowledge of film history. I do think however he is one of those people others describe as "pretentious" and "snob". He doesn't have a common man's touch. But does a critic need that? Yes and no. More on that later.
It will be interesting to hear Scott's views every week on the show. I'll watch the show again, but, only for Scott's views, not Phillips. In a perfect world, Scott will put Phillips in his place and make Mr. Phillips realize he should stop writing reviews. Mr. Phillips was at first a theatre critic by the way.
Now about that common man touch. Critics aren't suppose to reflect public opinion. I think my reviews are a pretty good example of that. I usually like things the mainstream doesn't. And I'm fine with that. But on the other hand, a critic should understand and take into consideration whom the target audience is and address that. If I watch a movie and don't like it, that is fine, but, I should also explain, who the audience for such a film is. For instance, I don't review comic book movies on here. I don't like them. I'm not the target audience however. If I did review those movies I would acknowledge that.
If this new version of "At the Movies" works, will it change anything for film criticism? I use to watch "Lyons & Bailes' Reel Talk" instead of "At the Movies" but that show is now cancelled. What will happen if the show is a success? Will we get more shows? I wrote to the Reelz channel a while ago about producing my own show. They liked the idea but didn't want me. However, we do need more shows and more film critics. There is a big audience out there seeking intelligent conversations. The problem with the critics being put on TV now is, they are mostly TV personalities. Not true professionals with a deep passion for film. That is why I think Lyons and Mankiewicz didn't work. Producers want people with a lot of TV experience, what they need is more people with film knowledge.
So if anyone is interested my phone number is.....
Seriously though, I hope Scott and Phillips have success with their new show starting in September. I hope they engage in thoughtful debates and try not to merely review mainstream movies about men in capes.
Posts
