On Saturday evening, 10:35 CST, the long running, movie review show "At the Movies" will show its final reel. The legacy that was started by Chicago bred critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert will come to a definite end. There's a lot of reasons why people claim this show is going away, and if you're name is Armond White, you're happy as hell. Suffice it to say, I'm not Armond White, and I've been upset about the news ever since it was announced a few months ago.
When Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune and A.O. Scott of the New York Times took over from the "Bens"-Lyons and Mankiewicz- last year, there seemed to be a collective cry of joy. I've written before about why they weren't terrible, just simply the wrong guys for the job. Still, I had faith that Phillips and Scott would add so much to the show that was missing in that short time: a sense of intellect and professionalism that was respected. And they delivered. At least I can take comfort this time that their removal has less to do with perception and qualifications and more to do with the general state of film criticism.
A show like "At the Movies" was never going to have a huge audience; anything that airs that late on Saturday night isn't nabbing huge numbers. For ABC, it's a calculated move to go with the trend of disowning the traditional form of embracing film critics. Phillips and Scott do admirable jobs, and a loyal reader of the former's print reviews can attest to that. In the end, just because we won't get televised reviews anymore, we are not lost.
For the present time, both of these men are still writing for they're respective newspapers, and even if you don't live in Chicago or New York, you can always find the written work online. Not only do you have that, but because of the internet, the field of interesting perspectives on film is wider than ever. If you need one to recommend, mine probably is the /Filmcast. Three guys and a guest get together every week to talk shop about a particular new release. It's certainly a more laid-back presentation than the show, but I'd argue it still provides the same amount of intrigue, passion and even humor that I found in the previous show. I still run to listen weekly with as much excitement as always.
But even with all those other options out there, there's one thing they don't do that "At the Movies" could. Most sites only review one film a week, and it's usually the major release. The television show would often review five or six movies a week, big and small. Often times people would get to hear about smaller films that have trouble getting the attention their big-budget competition would receive. I can't tell you the countless films I've seen thanks to the efforts of this show. I think this is the element that will be most missed. I can handle not seeing two people I like on the television every week, but I'll miss the opportunity to notice a national spotlight on those films. Still, newspapers write about this, so it's not a total loss. But images mean a lot in this world.
I'm sad the show is leaving, not only because I've been watching it for years, but also because a side not is this a great Chicago institution going away. In the end, however, the memories will still be there, and I am grateful for what the show has given to me as just not only an ammeter critic but as a filmmaker too. So to close it all, I want to say thank you. Thank you "At the Movies." Thank you Michael Phillips. Thank you A.O. Scott. Thank you Richard Roeper. Thank you Gene Siskel. Thank you Roger Ebert. Thank you scores of guest critics. I'll even thank the Bens. All of you did fine work on your own terms, and continue to do so. "At the Movies" will not be replaced, nor forgotten. Thanks for the insight, and, in spirit inyway, I'll see you at the movies.
No comments:
Post a Comment