Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roger (Bush hater) Ebert interview
The Progressive magazine ^ | August 2003 | Matthew Rothschild

Posted on 07/27/2003 2:36:08 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last
To: Roscoe Karns
Q: If you were putting on a progressive film festival, what movies would you show?

Ebert: It's a good question, because a movie isn't good or bad based on its politics. It's usually good or bad for other reasons, though you might agree or disagree with its politics.

Rog forgot that movie about the man who was on death row trying to get his conviction overturned. At some point it is revealed to the audience that he really did commit the crime. Roger thought that this was a horrible thing because it "validated" the death penalty advocates position. He gave it ZERO stars (the lowest he can go) because he absoluted hated the politics of this film. He liked the acting. He liked the direction. He hated the message.

THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE / ZERO STARS (R)

"The Life of David Gale" tells the story of a famous opponent of capital punishment who, in what he must find an absurdly ironic development, finds himself on Death Row in Texas, charged with the murder of a woman who was also opposed to capital punishment. This is a plot, if ever there was one, to illustrate King Lear's complaint, "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport." I am aware this is the second time in two weeks I have been compelled to quote Lear, but there are times when Eminem simply will not do.

David Gale is an understandably bitter man, played by Kevin Spacey, who protests his innocence to a reporter named Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet), whom he has summoned to Texas for that purpose. He claims to have been framed by right-wing supporters of capital punishment because his death would provide such poetic irony in support of the noose, the gas or the chair. Far from killing Constance Harraway (Laura Linney), he says, he had every reason not to, and he explains that to Bitsey in flashbacks that make up about half of the story.

Bitsey becomes convinced of David's innocence. She is joined in her investigation by the eager and sexy intern Zack (Gabriel Mann), and they become aware that they are being followed everywhere in a pickup truck by a gaunt-faced fellow in a cowboy hat, who is either a right-wing death-penalty supporter who really killed the dead woman, or somebody else. If he is somebody else, then he is obviously following them around with the MacGuffin, in this case a videotape suggesting disturbing aspects of the death of Constance.

The man in the cowboy hat illustrates my recently renamed Principle of the Unassigned Character, formerly known less elegantly as the Law of Economy of Character Development. This principle teaches us that the prominent character who seems to be extraneous to the action will probably hold the key to it. The cowboy lives in one of those tumble-down shacks filled with flies and peanut butter, with old calendars on the walls. The yard has more bedsprings than the house has beds.

The acting in "The Life of David Gale" is splendidly done but serves a meretricious cause. The direction is by the British director Alan Parker, who at one point had never made a movie I wholly disapproved of. Now has he ever. The secrets of the plot must remain unrevealed by me, so that you can be offended by them yourself, but let it be said this movie is about as corrupt, intellectually bankrupt and morally dishonest as it could possibly be without David Gale actually hiring himself out as a joker at the court of Saddam Hussein.

I am sure the filmmakers believe their film is against the death penalty. I believe it supports it and hopes to discredit the opponents of the penalty as unprincipled fraudsters. What I do not understand is the final revelation on the videotape. Surely David Gale knows that Bitsey Bloom cannot keep it private without violating the ethics of journalism and sacrificing the biggest story of her career. So it serves no functional purpose except to give a cheap thrill to the audience slackjaws. It is shameful.

One of the things that annoys me is that the story is set in Texas and not just in any old state--a state like Arkansas, for example, where the 1996 documentary "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" convincingly explains why three innocent kids are in prison because they wore black and listened to heavy metal, while the likely killer keeps pushing himself onscreen and wildly signaling his guilt. Nor is it set in our own state of Illinois, where Death Row was run so shabbily that former Gov. George Ryan finally threw up his hands and declared the whole system rotten.

No, the movie is set in Texas, which in a good year all by itself carries out half the executions in America. Death Row in Texas is like the Roach Motel: Roach checks in, doesn't check out. When George W. Bush was Texas governor, he claimed to carefully consider each and every execution, although a study of his office calendar shows he budgeted 15 minutes per condemned man (we cannot guess how many of these minutes were devoted to pouring himself a cup of coffee before settling down to the job). Still, when you're killing someone every other week and there's an average of 400 more waiting their turn, you have to move right along.

Spacey and Parker are honorable men. Why did they go to Texas and make this silly movie? The last shot made me want to throw something at the screen--maybe Spacey and Parker.

You can make movies that support capital punishment ("The Executioner's Song") or oppose it ("Dead Man Walking") or are conflicted ("In Cold Blood"). But while Texas continues to warehouse condemned men with a system involving lawyers who are drunk, asleep or absent; confessions that are beaten out of the helpless, and juries that overwhelmingly prefer to execute black defendants instead of white ones, you can't make this movie. Not in Texas.

What a pompous ass.

61 posted on 07/30/2003 12:49:31 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Q: Some people say the last prejudice in Hollywood is the depictions of Arab Americans or Arabs or Muslims. Would you agree with that?

Ebert: Yes, I've written about the demonizing of Arabs, and at my Overlooked Film Festival at the University of Illinois I showed a film called "Maryam," which is about an Arab American family and how the attitudes in the community toward them change during the Iranian hostage crisis. I think once you get over here, we're all in the same boat. However, what's interesting is it's now going on 60 years since the end of World War II, and the Nazis are still the only dependable villains because nobody else can be demonized now because we're so politically correct. I like it when people are just bad because they're bad. And it doesn't have to do with the bad Arabs, or the bad this, or the bad that.

So Roger, does this mean that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar? That just because a villian in a film is a minority, it doesn't mean that everyone who is a member of that minority is a bad person?

This from a man who gave a bad review to "The Rescuers Down Under" because the poacher (McLeach, voiced by George C. Scott) was shown as a 'tanned' Australian.

There's one reservation I have about the movie. Why does the villain have to be so noticeably dark-complexioned compared to all of the other characters? Is Disney aware of the racially coded message it is sending? When I made that point to another critic, he argued that McLeach wasn't dark-skinned - he was simply always seen in shadow. Those are shadows are cast by insensitivity to negative racial stereotyping.

62 posted on 07/30/2003 1:54:40 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 6323cd
Yes, separated at birth...and both became fat, lying, limousine-leftist pussbags. Nature IS stronger than nurture.
63 posted on 07/30/2003 1:58:48 PM PDT by quark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Good, meaty article about Roger Ebert, the Shrill Shill at Frontpage.com
64 posted on 08/01/2003 3:04:12 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: x
Reed nails Ebert good. Thx for pointing me to the piece.
65 posted on 08/01/2003 4:29:55 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: x
Good link thanks
66 posted on 08/02/2003 1:49:57 PM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: x
I didn't see that article (or your post) until today when I came here to mine my post about Ebert's death penalty rant for an article on Leni Riefenstahl and propaganda.

I noticed this in the Frontpage Article:

-- His likening of the Bill the Butcher character in “Gangs of New York” – a cleaver-waving, mass-murdering thug – to Katherine Harris. Ebert’s point, made on “Ebert & Roeper”: Both Bill the Butcher and Harris used whatever means possible to take and keep power. Even the Democratic National Committee comes up with more sophisticated insults disguised as insights.

I hadn't read Mr. Ebert's Gangs Of New York review (and I just saw the movie last week). Bill the Butcher is a tool of the NYC DEMOCRATS if that detail escaped Mr. Ebert. Pot calling the kettle black. Tammany Hall ring a bell to anyone? Democrat political corruption? I saw part of a documentary on New York (I think by Ken Burns) and he tried to make the case that Boss Tweed (and the corruption) was good for New York.

Ebert's print Gangs Of New York review does not contain the Katherine Harris comment. It also neglects to mention the corrupt party in the story.

67 posted on 09/09/2003 1:21:41 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson