Roger Ebert couldn’t stand this curiosity quote
The art of film criticism is often a strange journey, one that requires a willingness to evolve alongside the very entertainment it seeks to judge. For one of the most influential voices in cinema history, this evolution took a sharply ironic turn when examining the world of 1990s comedy and its cast.
Legendary critic Roger Ebert, known for his uncompromising standards, navigated a landscape of increasingly ridiculous cinematic trends. Initially, Ebert found himself deeply unsettled by certain figures in Hollywood, particularly the pervasive influence of actors who seemed to prioritize spectacle over substance. This skepticism was well-founded, especially when looking at the comedies that dominated the era.
A significant point of friction centered on Adam Sandler. For a long time, Ebert struggled to reconcile the mass appeal of Sandler’s films with his critical sensibilities. This tension persisted as he observed the revolving door of comedic talent that defined the decade. While some films eventually offered a glimpse of appreciation, it was later works, like Punch-Drunk Love, that finally provided a softening point for the critic.
The friction extended beyond Sandler. Ebert famously applied his sharp scrutiny to Sandler’s circle, noting how the critic’s voice could be used to dissect the entire ecosystem of comedic actors. He approached film not as a passive viewer, but as a connoisseur examining the craft behind the performance.
As the decade wore on, Ebert’s focus sharpened, particularly when evaluating the comedy landscape. He expressed a clear disdain for the trend of actors prioritizing formula over quality. He mused that while the comedic scene was populated by stars like Jim Carrey, Eddie Murphy, and Bill Murray, others—like Sandler—represented a different category entirely.
The dynamic shifted when considering the performers who occupied the lower rungs of the comedy spectrum. Roger Ebert admitted that while he remained skeptical of the content, he had to acknowledge a certain, almost transcendent, level of failure in certain performances. He noted that the quality of the output did not always match the hype, a sentiment that allowed him to categorize performers with a degree of detached irony.
This perspective allowed Ebert to observe the comedic ecosystem with a refreshing detachment. He recognized that in the endless cycle of Hollywood experimentation, some talents exist outside the conventional markers of success. He even recognized the impact of figures like Pauly Shore, whose work, though often deemed inept by mainstream standards, possessed a unique, almost unforgettable effect on the screen.
Ultimately, Ebert’s journey illustrates the power of critical discernment. Rather than simply condemning the material, he adapted his view, recognizing that film is a vast spectrum. He moved from outright aversion to a more nuanced understanding, arriving at the conclusion that in the business of cinema, one becomes a true connoisseur. It is this ability to categorize and appreciate the spectrum of talent, good and bad, that makes criticism a living, evolving art form.
Buy on Amazon
Credit
