Sometimes a little of the bitterness shows through.

Lord, yes. Remember (gah) Dave Pallone?

For every Pauline Kael, there's a Roger Ebert: he writes very nice crit, but what, precisely, is his screenwriting cred?

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, IIRC.

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, IIRC.

Yup.

So, there we are. Failed frustrated very mediocre film (in this instance, but it holds true for fiction as well) writer, as critic.

Fall's my favorite, but we get ripped off of leaf changing at this altitude.

I think Ebert was already a critic when he wrote that film. From his comments about it, I don't think he meant it to be anything but a trashy fun way to make a buck.

The whole "failed X" thing for critics is very strange to me. Of course *some* are, but others are just writers who are lucky enough to write about something they love. I mean, would you call a baseball writer a failed pitcher? It's weird.

I mean, would you call a baseball writer a failed pitcher?

Some of them, yes. And if Ebert can write serious (or at least, non-trashy) films, I'd kinda like to see him do so, because I like a lot of his crit, and I'd like to think he can practice what he preaches.

And since I've written book reviews for a living, I'd be the last person to say that all critics are failed, bitter writers. But some of them sure as hell are, and some of them, good writers or not, are just power trippers.

I'd kinda like to see him do so, because I like a lot of his crit, and I'd like to think he can practice what he preaches.

I'd like to see it too, but I don't think it's an obligation, or that it necessarily matters whether he could do it or not.

But really, he's a bad example because he's *not* the kind to gratuitously trash someone out of bitterness. If we were talking about some of the commentators whose reviews of Lost in Translation were 99% based on how jealous they are of Sofia Coppola, I'd agree.

I read his reviews more because I like the way he puts sentences together than because I actually agree with what he says especially often. I think a lot of people who complain about him have seen him more on TV, which I've literally seen maybe three times.

I'd be the last person to say that all critics are failed, bitter writers. But some of them sure as hell are, and some of them, good writers or not, are just power trippers.

Completely agreed, especially about the "power trippers" bit.

some of them, good writers or not, are just power trippers.

I think the power issue is really the distinction, for me. A baseball writer is not necessarily a failed pitcher. Some people get over these things and find new things they really want to do. Some people, on the other hand, want to live out their former glory or consider themselves failures if they cannot continue to play. The danger is when this second group of people gets the power to make decisions that affect games, lives, whatever. Being a baseball writer does not make you able to change the game in the immediate way that an umpire can.

I had a similar experience in high school with a few teachers. Some of them are trying to relieve high school since those were the best years of their lives (often these seem to be PE teachers...) Others, like one of my english teachers seemed to want to relieve high school and this time be "popular." She sucked up to the rich popular kids, gave them better grades than they deserved, made the class discuss their vacations, and was lenient when they didn't do their homework. My point is, I'm just wary in these situations because one person or one review that is negative can be discouraging. I know you all have thicker skins than this, but my mom actually quit writing a few years ago because she was so hurt by a few people in her class. Sigh.

LJ, that's a good point, and it's very true, about Ebert not being the kind to gratuitously trash. I think what I'm remembering is something Lillian Hellman said, about the theatre critic for the NY Times at the time she was writing her memoirs - she said that crit had reached a point where the only effect was negative. That is, a good review no longer brought people to the theatre, but a bad review did damage.

I'd like to think he can practice what he preaches.

I think it's a gift in and of itself to know it when you see it, miss it when you don't, and be able to explain both clearly.

Doing? A separate gift.

Signed,
Coached Improv For Years, And Can't Improvise