[ AUTHOR ]
[ TITLE ]
[ LEGALESE ]
January 21, 2003
Chicago Sun-Times, January 19, 2003:
Roger Ebert publishes what is (to the best of our knowledge) his
first ever review of a Tarkovsky movie:
The author, in an otherwise thoughtful and well-written review, finds fault with Tarkovsky's work and
(surprisingly) suggests that Harvey Weinstein et al. might
have been able to improve upon things... by the use of scissors. Mr. Ebert did not return our
request for further clarification. For the record, we do not consider Tarkovsky's
oeuvre to be perfectTarkovsky himself would be the first to admit sobut we hardly
consider Mr. Weinstein (however sensitive a soul he may be) even remotely qualified to improve upon Tarkovsky's work.
We pause for a moment, and reflect upon what
Andrei said in 1973 about the then recent Cannes Film Festival:
Interviewer: You took your film to Cannes. What did you think
about the other films that were shown there?
Tarkovsky: I was astonished by how low the standard was. I don't understand.
On the one hand everything I saw was highly professional, on the other it was
utterly commercial. For example, they would treat a subject that was bound to
be of concern to everybody: the problem of the working-class movement,
or the relationship between the working-class and other sections of the
population. And all of it was done with such an eye to the audience,
with such a desire to please... One really had the impression that all
the films had been edited by one and the same person. But in film the most
important thing of all is to be aware of the inner rhythm. So, what can
only be individual had become commonplace, hackneyed. It is extraordinary.
Even Fellini's film about Rome, the most interesting film of allit was shown
outside the festival properis a sort of game of give-away played with the audience,
the editorial rhythm is so slick that one feels offended on behalf of Fellini.
I remember pictures of his where the shots, the length of the shots,
and their rhythm, were tied to the inner state of the character and the
author. But this picture has been made with an eye for what is going to please
the audience. I find that repugnant. Anyhow, the film tells us nothing
new either about Fellini himself or about life. [ more ]
January 22, 2003
A brief follow-up to yesterday's column:
Our alert readers were quick to inform us that Roger Ebert actually has reviewed
an additional Tarkovsky film, namely The Sacrifice. The review is, in our mind, not particularly
well-written, but you may wish to check for yourself.
Another reader called our attention to the fact that Jonathan Rosenbaum
in his review of Tran
Anh Hung's excellent movie Cyclo also mentions the name of Harvey Weinstein, but not in a positive light:
[...] And at Cannes this year an even more prominent critic from
the New York Times told me she thought Harvey Weinstein would have
"improved" Dead Man if Jim Jarmusch had allowed him to recut
the picture. I think it's obscene to grant critical approval to any
distributor who proceeds in this fashion [...]
Since Roger Ebert appeared unwilling to comment further on his
own Weinstein remark, we thought it reasonable to
ask Jonathan Rosenbaum to comment on it instead.
Mr. Rosenbaum had not yet had occasion to read
Ebert's review in full, but promptly provided us with the following
while on his way to the airport:
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:47:42 -0600
It's too bad. I suspect that Roger may live to regret having made
such a statement, though maybe I'm wrong in supposing this. I wonder
how Roger would feel about Weinstein recutting his favorite Woody
Allen and Spike Lee movies.
> "And at Cannes this year an even more prominent critic from the New
> York Times told me she thought Harvey Weinstein would have "improved"
> Dead Man if Jim Jarmusch had allowed him to recut the picture. I
> think it's obscene to grant critical approval to any distributor who
> proceeds in this fashion."
That was Janet Maslin I was referring to, by the way. As an
expression of artistic and journalistic corruption, I think it speaks
for itself. If Roger said something similar about Tarkovsky's work, I
can only say I deeply regret it. But I also realize that the
mainstream valorizing of Weinstein that's been going on for years
makes such a conclusion logical and unsurprising. Furthermore,
without suggesting any conspiracy theory, I don't think the fact that
Disney produces Roger's TV show is entirely irrelevant to such a
conclusion especially because Miramax, owned by Disney, already
determines which of the films it controls that Roger can review on the
show by deciding what clips to make available.
Mr. Rosenbaum also touches upon some of these points in his book Movie Wars.
Tarkovsky-related Rosenbaum film reviews accessible online:
[ One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich | In Space, No One Can Hear You Sweat ]