Ebert gets two thumbs up for art of reviewing

“If you’re writing a review, you’re basically writing a plot synopsis.”

A professor of mine recently uttered this debatable statement. His opinion of reviews wasn’t necessarily contemptuous, but he seemed to think that “reviewing” a work was analogous to writing a Spark Notes outline. Admittedly, if it’s a poorly-written review, it does resemble the latter. A particularly vapid review of The Wizard of Oz would be “Dorothy goes to Oz and defeats the Wicked Witch.” Whoops, spoiler alert.

But a review, a real review, doesn’t just iterate the main plot. It explores why that plot exists. It plumbs the depths of meaning and significance, and explores how commonly-consumed entertainment reflects on the consumers. I cite Roger Ebert’s review of the same classic film:

“The elements in ‘The Wizard of Oz’ powerfully fill a void that exists inside many children. For kids of a certain age, home is everything, the center of the world. But over the rainbow, dimly guessed at, is the wide earth, fascinating and terrifying. There is a deep fundamental fear that events might conspire to transport the child from the safety of home and strand him far away in a strange land. And what would he hope to find there? Why, new friends, to advise and protect him. And Toto, of course, because children have such a strong symbiotic relationship with their pets that they assume they would get lost together.”

Now that’s a review. It doesn’t just say “it was good,” but shows why the reviewer deemed it so. Good is not universal, and so the reviewer’s challenge is to communicate the quality they see that others might not. He must defend the merits of meat to the vegetarian. He must condemn gouda to the cheese connoisseur. He must do so in language understandable yet educated, so to earn the jaundiced respect of audience members who will likely have an alternate opinion, or none at all.

Ebert, author of the previously-mentioned review, did just that. He was an eminent reviewer whose scholasticism and global engagement didn’t stop at the movies he so carefully reviewed. I’m sure Ebert would have a few respectful words in response to my professor’s comment, but sadly, he cannot give them now.

Ebert died, at 70, on April 4 after a lengthy term with cancer. Have you ever given a movie “two thumbs up?” That was Ebert. He and his televised reviewing partner, Gene Siskel, lent their thumbs to review countless films, and got the whole country talking about them too. Ebert not only reviewed films, he began conversations about them. A real review not only provides a intelligently-articulated opinion and analysis, but leaves room for others to chime in. Ebert didn’t just tell readers about the film, he engaged them.

So rest in peace, Ebert, and thank you for teaching me about what every plot synopsis dreams to achieve: the art of the review.