In Memoriam 1942 – 2013 “Roger Ebert loved movies.”

RogerEbert.com

Thumb colette poster

Colette

Knightley gives one of her best performances as a girl with spirit and talent who becomes a woman with ferocity and a voice

Thumb fahrenheit eleven nine

Fahrenheit 11/9

The messiness of Moore’s film starts to feel appropriate for the times we’re in. With a new issue being debated every day, is it any…

Other Reviews
Review Archives
Thumb xbepftvyieurxopaxyzgtgtkwgw

Ballad of Narayama

"The Ballad of Narayama" is a Japanese film of great beauty and elegant artifice, telling a story of startling cruelty. What a space it opens…

Other Reviews
Great Movie Archives
Other Articles
Blog Archives
Primary eb20050707editor50707003ar

Why movies aren't for literalists

Alien autopsy: Martians as metaphors

Xenu-phobia: Scientology in 'WoW'? People invariably see what they want to see in movies – and some critics have wondered if there might be indirect references to Scientologist mythology in “War of the Worlds.” (more)

Roger Ebert's review of "War of the Worlds"

Watching a film like Steven Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds,” a piece of exceptionally well-crafted imagery no matter how well you think it works, it pays to remember that every moment – every 24th of a second, if you will – represents an awful lot of thought and work and care and craftsmanship ... as well as happenstance and constraints and unintended consequences, off-screen and on-screen.

Advertisement

Any movie is a highly evolved and complex synthetic organism, the result of weeks or years of labor, and the product of chance and circumstance as well as artistic vision. By the time it reaches its final form in the marketplace (only to be superseded by the further revised DVD version a few months later), it has been through countless evolutionary phases, the result of thousands upon thousands of conscious and unconscious decisions by hundreds upon hundreds of people. In some cases, there’s an Intelligent Designer at work (usually the director, but sometimes the producer or the writer or an actor or studio executives, and generally a combination of them all), but even the greatest filmmakers are hardly omniscient or infallible.

Movies are also the product of innumerable unforeseen spontaneous mutations – accidents, mistakes, oversights, coincidences, and circumstances either propitious or adverse. Weather, personality clashes, personnel changes, scheduling limitations, health problems, labor disputes, disagreements over the endlessly rewritten screenplay (or the set design or a performance), budget battles, footage that doesn’t cut together … all of these things and many, many more affect the eventual state of the film that you see. In that sense, a finished movie is more like a snapshot – a fixed image of an evolving form at a particular moment in its arrested lifespan.

But although they may be an expensive commercial products, it’s worth keeping in mind that films aren’t refrigerators – the simple sum of its parts and specs that perform designated tasks in ways that can be scientifically measured and verified. A movie is an experience – and whatever outside knowledge or ideas or experience of your own that you bring to it makes for legitimate critical discussion, because that’s what the filmmakers put into making it: their knowledge and ideas and experiences. A movie’s purpose is to evoke (or provoke) a response from you, virtually any response but indifference.

Advertisement

Anything that’s up there on the screen – images, words, sounds, motion, color -- is subject to interpretation. It’s all about seeing patterns, making parallels and connections.

So, it doesn’t really matter if the filmmakers intended something to be in the movie or not. It doesn’t matter if something is “faithful” to the original source or not (yes, the “War of the Worlds” Martians were described by H.G. Wells as using tripod machines; but, on the other hand, Wells’ 1898 novel was set in Victorian England instead of 21st Century New Jersey, so where does that get you?) All that matters is how each of these things functions within the world of this particular movie.

The next time somebody tells you something is “only a movie,” remember: they’re just being hopelessly naïve (unless, of course, you are in fact delusional and can’t tell the difference between movies and reality, in which case you really ought to see someone about that). The picture may have taken you two hours to watch, but years of peoples’ lives likely went into creating what you saw, so it’s worth paying close attention. There’s probably more packed in there than you might think.

Popular Blog Posts

Video games can never be art

Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to ...

"You Were Expecting Someone Else?" Why a Non-White James Bond is the Franchise's Logical Next Step

Not only would Idris Elba make a great James Bond, the franchise has been building towards casting an actor of color ...

Grace and Nature: On Criterion’s Release of The Tree of Life

On the new Criterion release of Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life, which includes a new 50-minute-longer extended cu...

Jonah Hill, Emma Stone Star in Netflix’s Daring, Brilliant Maniac

A review of the phenomenal new Netflix show starring Jonah Hill and Emma Stone.

Reveal Comments
comments powered by Disqus