Ted Rall for April 10, 2013

Transcript:

No doubt, critic Roger Ebert had a remarkable passion for film. His rebuttal final cancer years couldn't crush his enthusiasm for the form. But he had awful taste. More than any other film reviewer, Elbert reinforced the hollow sentimentality and arrogant exceptionalism that compose the nasty side of the American character. Establishmentarian and politically unsophisticated. Ebert was a sucker for the Steven Spielberg brand of sappy watered-down Capra movies, false odes to fictional nobility that reinforce the toxic narrative that Americans (and their government) try to do the best they can. Ebert was predeceased by his erstwhile sparring partner, "At the Movies" Gene Siskel. Siskel gave "thumbs up" to movies that challenge the artistic and political status quo. Ebert belittled groundbreaking genre work by experimental directors. Ebert wasn't that smart, I once spent hours with him discussing "Citizen Kane." he disagreed when I said it was boring, that "Kane" is unwatchable now. But he couldn't articulate why I was wrong. He kept pointing to the film's historical importance, which I didn't dispute. A lot of film critics are sharper than Ebert was. Now that his death has opened up space in print and on the air, it would be good if other, more audacious voices were allowed to be heard.