A lot of people may hate me for this, but if I didn't, I'd be relegated to the valedictory and hypocritical crowd. I'll also be rambling a bit at the start but production trivia will not be part of this, at least in my usual brand.
A while back I discussed The Critic, an animated series that aired on ABC and Fox in the mid-90s. Checking out some episodes, I thought the show was okay, but over the years, ironically while Jay Sherman's age upped his cynicism, my cynicism drove me to hate this show, along with my disillusionment with reviewers in general.
To sum up, I felt the show had been rendered a product of its time, it does for cinema what Family Guy does for cutaways, haphazard references that often pale in comparison to shows that also do it and sticking to what's obvious, plus the characters we're meant to root for don't give us a lot to work off of, especially when it comes to representation.
You're telling me that people who care for vision in cinema are fat balding pigs who may be gay? Plus can't go five minutes without over-indulging on food and enforcing gay stereotypes (Mike Reiss is secretly part of the Westboro Baptist Church and wants to convince others to feel ill toward gays by making them act obnoxious. Queer Duck may very well be their equivalent to Pepe the Frog.)
Plus Margo can prove that even if you're not over the top, you can still come off as condescending (she gave a bland presentation on female equivalence, and was only there for the sake of her horse), plus I imagine she'd pop a circuit if someone brings up the idea that most of the girls at the Debonaire party came on their own volition.
I brought up how The Critic laid the genesis for the surge of internet reviewers, notably influencing the Nostalgia Critic, and how it had a negative impact on many involved. If Doug Walker never saw this show, I imagine 5 Second Movies would've been his birth and death, and MrEnter wouldn't have taken that influence and would've remained in relative obscurity (had to bring him up because his style back then was clued by the anger.)
Though what went over my head (or I never had a good reason to bring it up) is what influenced this show. Siskel and Ebert. For the record, they've been dead for more than a few years so it's not like I'm poking fun at those who haven't made it under yet.
Referring back to the Nostalgia Critic, the uninformed may think I'm slowly turning into MisAnthroPony's A-Log, but bear in mind that the Nostalgia Critic did a retrospective on Siskel and Ebert at the Movies and the implication of his influences is made clear.
I never saw much of Siskel, but admittedly, if I had to choose between both, Ebert was brave enough to go against popular opinion. He gave a warmer review to Speed 2, he was among the fresh reviewers of The Odd Life of Timothy Green, so if anything, he was no pussy, though based on what I recall Siskel was looser on At the Movies. So they both had balls, but they had a bad impact.
I love reviewing, but I hate the kind of people I'd be associated with. Perhaps my hangup with reviewers stem from my hatred of being lectured. I just want to talk about stuff I like or hate. My favorite reviewers are either funny or casual or informative, so even if I disagree I can at the very least see them as respectful, even reviewers who're willing to go against popular opinion (which is why I still like RalphTheMovieMaker), whereas complete idiots like the Nostalgia Critic, Chris Stuckmann and others get by on spoon-feeding non-offensive content and common opinions and lecturing us on what we can and can't like while crying about gross out or something being too scary when they champion for material that isn't neutered for children. (they'd claim to enjoy the first season of The Real Ghostbusters when they actually grew up with the bastardized later editions.), also those reviewers who use ill-fitting political jokes.
Essentially, I feel like a libertarian in an authoritarian sea, and the critic spiel is going to fit in more to the actual review than you'd think.
The episode
Just know that the episode is less "Siskel and Ebert and Jay and Alice" and more "mostly Siskel and Ebert, more Jay and sometimes Alice", even the title feels clunky. Sure, it fits with the witty pun motif many episode names have for shows the world over, but this feels like an elevator-pitch name, if not the last thing added to the episode.
The episode takes off at the Oscars, where we go into the second half of the show's humor, one is movie references, the other is bare basic jokes. An issue I have with the show is how either the punchline is determined before it's made, or that the joke would be lost on the viewer (an issue with shows meant to be intelligent is that it comes off as condescending at best. A key reason why I like lesser shows is that they ironically give me more to think about in why they came out as they did, whereas with shows like this, you're spoon-fed a perspective, people fall for what's obvious, because they can't be bothered to look deeper when it comes to more suspect material.)
Its movie references are also shallow at best, near Family Guy levels of either coming out of nowhere or being telegraphed, but hear me out, this show is themed around cinema, Family Guy is a general sitcom, so at the very least the unexpected movie references can spice up the show, to varying degrees, but how many of them would you have expected. Fair warning, if I ever talk about more episodes from The Critic, I will bring up Family Guy very often.
The Oscars have a section dedicated to movie critics, and ladies and gentlemen, here's the payoff to that reviewer rant. It's a rare case where the idea and execution are equally terrible. It's a glorification of movie critics, asspats on the house.
Blast off, it's critic time, and the vibe's like a fascist nation. (advocates of a certain belief, i.e. critics and what they believe to be an objective fact on the movies they review. This being a glorification of them, our supposed voices, because "Free thinkers are dangerous". System of a Down for the win.)
Ordinarily, when one portrays themselves in a show beyond a cameo, they'd poke fun at themselves or be over the top, it worked in that episode of The Simpsons where Art Spigelman, Alan Moore and Dan Clowes played themselves, and that was a later episode. Here, either the deprecation gets ran into the ground or the writers have the mentality that led The Simpsons to getting some hot fudge from Paul McCartney and Richard Geere.
You may be thinking, well perhaps the critics are being played in name only, the writers are just big fans and want to do this as a form of flattery. Well guess what, Rex Reed played himself in his appearances on this show, and was one of the few to poke fun at himself (even though I think he missed true flaws, did he ever sell out?) Along with Reed, Gene Shalit played himself (even playing a parody in SpongeBob Squarepants), and yeah, Siskel and Ebert appeared as themselves in this.
I bring up McCartney and Geere's involvement in The Simpsons because I have a theory. Wanna know why Lisa Simpsons became a vegetarian? It was at the insistence of McCartney in order for him to appear in the episode. Wanna know why Lisa became a Buddhist? Because Geere... well I don't know his religion, but I believe he insisted Lisa say Free Tibet.
My point is that the writers on this show likely had to do a similar level of ass-kissing to get Siskel and Ebert on board. They played a big role in how the show was shaped. To sum up Siskel and Ebert's influence on the show, Jay is essentially an amalgamate of both reviewers physically, along with a lack of courage in going against the grain and complaining about things that people already complain about. Why else would Jay only enjoy Citizen Kane and foreign films nobody gives a crap about?
Anyway, after a corny musical number (a cardinal sin apparently), well, what do you get when you mix Jay Sherman's "It stinks!" quote with an unfortunate timing? Him popping out to finish his number as a speech is being done in regards to To Kill a Mockingbird. This was well into the second season, if you didn't see it coming, you're probably a fan of Tom and Jerry, as your memory span us just as short.
Onto some more ass kissing, we go into a historical lecture on Siskel and Ebert. I won't go into whether or not it's factual, but I will say it has a similar feel to those flashback-type deals. They do treat film criticism like it's on par with eating your fruits and veggies, without film criticism... I dunno, Donald Trump or something?
Backfire aside, what's the conflict here? Jay feels inferior to other critics and slowly begins to lose sight in what he believes in? He become disillusioned when he learns Siskel and Ebert don't have the same refined taste he does? Do Jay and Alice become part of At the Movies?
It'd be too easy to say none of those things happen, but the truth is, the latter does happen, sorta. The true drive behind the plot is that Siskel and Ebert split over differences in opinions (and this has been going on for years in their show, without conflicting opinions no decision or belief could have any weight to it.) Their disagreement stems from a different opinion on Jack Frost... alright, not only did that come out well after this episode aired, this highlights another issue with the show as a hole.
They're too afraid to cover actual movies.
For every episode, we see parodies of movies that've existed long before, often based on puns made from the movie titles, case in point, Star Trek: Generation-X, Scent of a Wolfman, and in the case of the duo killer in this episode... it's a parody of Rain Man based around a snowman, with only fractions of what the actual movie is about.
With that kind of movie, I'd consider the premise of a snowman trying to survive to be predictable, and this is coming from someone who likes Jack Frost (non horror version), but here, they talk about it as if it's legitimate, then they fight and go all Nightmare at 20000 Feet, along with the most over the top "flying coach", joke I've seen so far. When Family Guy did it, we got comedians out of it, prankster pilots, and Quagmire before he became Brian of the opposite extreme.
Anyway, I'd complain about how the media reacted to the split, but given how long they've been together I can't be too mad about it. This leads to a call to action, where either critic hosts partner applications, we'll get to Jay's application soon.
Right now, I'd like to go into another theory on how much of an influence Siskel and Ebert played on the initial crop of web reviewers.
On Ebert, when showing someone the kind of movies they'd review, they immediately go for the most outlandish kind, family films starring action stars. Now sure, of these the only one I liked was Jingle all the Way, but that's too obvious, when it comes to complicated films they'd blow a gasket.
Along with being a parody of the aforementioned family comedies, this is yet another movie parody, this time of Mr. Mom.
Rather than throw a curveball and have someone give a light critique or piss off Ebert by saying they liked it, catching the viewer off guard, we get an Indiana Jones reference, guess which one? It was nice we got a cameo of a young Doug Walker out of it.
Onto Siskel, we get someone doing a warm review of a Tim Allen movie (those should go without saying), and channeling his inner douche, Siskel tells him "You're satan, aren't you?" It'd work as a one-liner if the two worked together on the show, a dynamic would've been established by then, a cynic against an optimist, but when it comes to a hiring process, it looks bad on Siskel's part. What? You want him to say he wants to castrate Tim Allen? Or something equal? You can see where the attitude of many internet reviewers stems from. People already hate me, what's one more bitchy tangent?
But the joke's real downfall is the payoff, what would you expect? The guy to say that he isn't Satan, just a contrarian? The guy to turn out to be Tim Allen himself trying to score some positive buzz? Or that he's actually Rex Reed, to continue with a running gag with the guy.
Turns out the guy is actually Satan. Remember, if you don't whine about family movies, you're Satan. I hate that mentality, and I mean the mentality.
So after that, Jay attempts to get in on the deal, doing a repetitive "Hey guy" spiel, I never caught that movie, so for yet another strike, assuming your audience heard of every movie you reference.
Jay winds up going to Ebert first, and I'm gonna find myself picking apart the jokes the most often, better than summarizing the plot and calling it a day. Apparently celebrities send robot copies to public events, I can't be bothered to remember the name of the celebrity used for this, but the joke is ran into the ground when William Shatner's brought into the mix. We all know of Shatner's uncanny acting, so Jay assumes he's a robot too, but he isn't. Twist of the century. Is it time for another Family Guy comparison? Family Guy featured Shatner fairly prevalently, but they gave him more of a character, it's just an awkward performance for a character.
Also in another episode, a good chance to lampoon Shatner's rendition of Rocket Man is ruined when they have him perform an entirely different song. Family Guy prevented another wholesale gag by having Stewie do it, and its appearance was unexpected. Just know I'm going by classic Family Guy here. When shows utilize similar gags, you gotta do comparisons.
Here's where things go sour. We learn that Siskel and Ebert are entirely dependent on one another, and things get creepy. Siskel dresses Jay up as Ebert, Ebert refers to Jay as Gene (Siskel). Okay, I can understand if they were friends off the show, but this is desperate at best, creepy at worst. It makes them look pathetic, especially since they can't sing that good. Yes, we got another music number in this. Duke is the highlight to it, as well as the entire series.
The sense of humanity is lost when you realize many people lived and died by their opinions, but then again I never grew up with them, or any movie critic. Or maybe I'm just stupid.
So we finally get the Alice in Siskel and Ebert and Jay and Alice (sure she was around but had as much of a purpose as Janine in The Real Ghostbusters, after the neuter.), as she helps Jay to get Siskel and Ebert back together. Through the power of Woody Allen (they shied away from discussing Victor Salva working with the Coppolas, and they were casual over Woody's relationship with Soon-Yi, if you aren't hard you're too casual with it.)
And Woody Allen only got them to be in the same building, Jay feigned an interview offer to get them to criticize a blatant reference to Sleepless in Seattle. It started with a disagreement on a movie, and ended with an agreement on a movie. Moral of the story, never dispute opinions on movies people deem bad, otherwise it'll lead to a breakup and you being called Satan in most cases.
But that isn't the end. It would've been easy to have them voice themselves, but we gotta end the traditional way. The two do a review of the episode, and it's quite vanilla. You'd think the show would be willing to poke fun at itself, but no, these guys take themselves very seriously. The writers are as pretentious as the very show they write, no wacky movie reference could ever change my mind.
Jay rolls down in a reference to a gag done in the episode (I'll give you a hint, it's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory with the joke being a reference to a certain scene, one that forever lives in infamy, and one that nearly every show has done.)
All else I can say at this point is that the animation got worse at this point, though was never good to begin with, and it had always been ugly, though given what I call ugly it's best you take what I say with a grain of salt.
Conclusion
For perspective, The Critic lasted for two seasons, being one of many shows to not have the staying power of The Simpsons or Family Guy, and one of the few to go beyond one. This. Mission Hill deserved more seasons, The Oblongs, Clerks: The Animated Series. Those had some imagination and non-artificial wit to them.
Then again I think the only reason this show managed two with a third being considered was because the show's next stop was Fox, where creators Mike Reiss and Al Jean were still working on The Simpsons and brought Jay Sherman on, the one where pretentiousness wins out over innocence. If a tragic film centers on and is made by the same person, it's pretentious and in some cases may lack true authenticity.
I should stay as far away from film festivals as possible.
As for this episode, this is one of three that broke my interest in the show. It's essentially a masturbatory fest for movie critics, given that they played themselves and didn't poke fun at themselves, it tries to make Siskel and Ebert look humble, but instead made them look pathetic, ignoring their impact on their viewers, or maybe they knew all along and were doing it for the hell of it.
Now fine, you can do stuff like this, but there're better ways to do it, and it could've given Jay some extra layers to his character if done right. Jean and Reiss didn't make The Simpsons successful, the characters in this show and the jokes they used exemplified how quickly The Simpsons would sink if they did the writing from the start, why else did they stick around for the later seasons?
And those Family Guy comparisons feel more and more justified, the show had a similar mindset to it, right down to how the jokes were played, but what saved one is the context behind it (and better writing.) I'm just saying, at least Mike Reiss would fit write in given his obsession with repetition and flamboyantly gay characters (I wouldn't be surprised if he created Jasper.)
Lastly, there's the matter of film critics in general. If any critic relies on objective classics, it's clear they lack backbone. A true critic would at least have some bad films they enjoy and are willing to defend. It makes them look more human, it shows they're passionate about the topic of film, it shows that they have opinions that aren't approved by the majority. On the latter, the objective classic ones basically pedal out harmless content with no fresh or challenging perspectives, anyone who speaks otherwise is mocked and dislike bombed on YouTube.
That fascist remark is starting to make more sense.
I have my own opinions, I do reviews as a hobby with no expectations of being seen, though I don't mind it. I wouldn't call them great, but I have fun doing them. These kind of reviewers seek only clout and attention, I would say it could be viewed on the flip-side, but those opportunities are severed.
You could make the case The Critic was a product of its time, but was it ever in-time for longer than a few months?
This is Armond White, speaking from a guy writing reviews in his bedroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment