|
||
In Defense of Ben Lyons
I must make a huge disclaimer here before we get started. I co-hosted The Young Turks with Ben Mankiewicz for five years, he still co-hosts the show with me from time to time and we have been very good friends for many years. Ben Mankiewicz now co-hosts At the Movies with Ben Lyons. Now that I've said all that, this isn't about Ben Mankiewicz, it's about Ben Lyons. Here is my simple message to all the haters - get off Ben Lyons' ass.
Seemingly every other movie critic in the country has made it their life mission to take down Ben Lyons. We are told that he's too young, doesn't know enough about movies and sucks up to celebrities too much. First, I got news for you - the whole entertainment industry is built around sucking up to celebrities. You think Ben Lyons is uniquely responsible for this? Are you mental? Have you watched any entertainment "news" in your life?
Second, I don't give a damn how old he is. I just care if he does a good job of reviewing movies on TV. Third, yes he reviews movies - on TV. That means he has to be good on TV - and he is. He's personable, engaging and comfortable. In an ideal world, the best print film critics would make the best movie reviewers on TV. We don't live in that world (just as many of the best political writers and sports writers are disasters on television).
Fourth, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn that he doesn't have Roger Ebert's encyclopedic knowledge of film history. Who does? (Other than Roger Ebert). I just want to know whether I should see Benjamin Button this weekend. The two Bens will give me the information I need and entertain me while they do it. In fact, I think Ben and Ben have made this show watchable for me now in a way that it never was before.
Why? Because I couldn't relate to the previous hosts. They have been reviewing movies for centuries (don't get me wrong, this is nothing against them on a personal level - I actually like them and have tremendous respect for Ebert). But for them, the cinematography and shadowy lighting is enormously important. God bless them for it, but I mostly don't care. And I suspect I'm in the vast majority.
How this movie compares with Frank Capra's body of work is a lot less relevant to me than whether my wife is going to be able to sit through it. I trust Mankiewicz because he is about my age, he has my sensibility and roughly my taste in movies. As they say in the business, he is in my demo.
What I have been surprised to find out is how often I agree with Ben Lyons. I'm going to reveal some inside information here, but Mankiewicz doesn't always love costume dramas - and that kept him from liking movies like Braveheart and Star Trek as much as I did. Well, I love those movies. I can't get enough of Gladiator. And Lyons is not above it. Even more, I love the enthusiasm he shows for the movies he likes. And he's not afraid to say he likes movies that regular people like (by the way, regular people is not a euphemism for dumb people; I've got two Ivy League degrees and I still loved Old School). Other critics might be disdainful of that, but the viewers are not.
Look, let's keep it real. Are some of these other critics jealous of Ben Lyons because he has landed such a prestigious and well paying job (and one that makes you famous) whereas they are still working in print? Absolutely. I'm sure most of them love print, but here is a guarantee - none of them would have turned down the TV job.
Here is the critical thing that the critics are missing - these guys weren't hired to be the best film critics in the country, they were hired to be the best movie reviewers on television. And they are. They've got me watching the show every week. You know why? Because for 99% of America, watching movies isn't an exercise in showing off your intellectual elitism or waxing nostalgic about comparative cinema history. It's a movie. And Ben Mankiewicz and Ben Lyons provide smart, amusing and relevant opinions about movies that poor schleps like me might consider seeing. That's why we watch the show.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
See Tallulah Morehead's Profile
What an original defense. His being ignorant about the art form he critiques for a living is a GOOD thing! It's like saying an art critic who's reviews consist of "I like this one. It's purdy." is a good art critic.
Silly me. I always thought that a person who renders opinions for a living should actually know what he/she's talking/writing about. How behind the curve am I? Your defense is basically "I'm Joe the Moviegoer, I need Joe the Critic."
"he's not afraid to say he likes movies that regular people like (by the way, regular people is not a euphemism for dumb people)"
Then what is it a euphemism for? People with no trouble going to the john? What are "Regular people"? Am I an Irregular person? Is that like having "Main Street Values" as opposed to Elitism? As in an idiot should be president because a smart, qualified candidate is elitist?
Anyway, Ben Lyons IS useful to me in deciding what movies to see. If he really loves a movie, I know to avoid it.
1.) Someone makes a shiny thing.
2.) Someone else says, “I don’t like that shiny thing.”
3.) Someone else then says, “I don’t like the way you don’t like that shiny thing.”
4.) Someone else after that says, “Hey, don’t criticize the way that critic critiqued the shiny thing.”
5.) Everybody else says, “I can’t wait for Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2.”
I keep hoping they would bring Richard Roeper and friends back. :-(
I've responded to Cenk Uygur's piece on the cinema blog "Dr. Mabuse's Kaleido-Scope":
http://dr-mabuses-kaleido-scope.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-defense-of-ben-lyons-response-to.html
Cenk, you're kidding! Tell me you're kidding!
Ben Lyons called "I Am Legend", the best horror movie, ever. The boy can't be trusted to give a good review. Unlike you, I'd prefer to know if I should waste my money on a film, yet Lyons gives mediocre films pass after pass after pass. He isn't even fun to watch. Ben is, by far, better suited to give reviews.
Criticizing critics of any art has been a cottage industry since humans began creating artistic objects & things & other humans commented on an object of art. Check out an essay "English Bards & Scotch Reviewers" or something like that on your favorite search engine. That's the prototype for most criticism.
Critics take more pleasure from saying nasty things about other critics than the pleasure a critic takes in saying nasty thing about an artist &/or the works of an artist. You may not need to be nasty to be a critic & to get your opinion published but it doesn't hurt if you're meaner than a snake. There may be an even tempered, objective critic around, maybe a 100. But there are 1000's, if not millions, of foul tempered, biased critics being published everywhere.
If you want to be a critic & get published, it helps if you are in a foul mood constantly, hate the art form you are criticizing, & the only taste you have is in your mouth. Hating everybody & everything helps get you published.
Cenk, I don' think you've ever paid attention to Ebert's reviews. He likes good, stupid movies - for example, "The Rock" gets 3 1/2 stars out of 4. I find I can check out his picks and more often than not know I'll like his recommendations.
Ben Mankiewicz, on the other hand, has a vast knowledge about movies and related history - at least, that's the impression I get from his TCM appearances.
By the way, Ebert gave "Braveheart" 3 1/2 stars as well.
I miss Pauline Kael.
Cenk, it is nice of you to stick up for your friend (who I like on TCM) and you are correct that a lot of the hate of Lyons is jealousy. But you are wrong on a couple important points.
AT THE MOVIES isn't part of the entertainment industry. It is supposed to be critical of the industry. How can one be critical as well as hanging out with them? One of the major criticisms of Lyons is how he is always mentioning performers in a film, only to find out that they are personal friends of his.
You don't care about what goes into the making of a film? You don't care about how a film looks? Would it be okay if it is out of focus? Sorry, but shows shouldn't be dumbed down for that. That is enabling ignorance.
For all your believing Ebert is some pipe smoking elitist, he is the guy who wrote BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. He was a populist. He also happened to know about film.
Sadly, the ratings have dropped so much that you are probably one of the few watching. And then, all we will have on TV is Billy Bush and the rest of his celebrity suck up pals. Lyons can then be responsible for killing film criticism on TV. Many of these attacks are from people who see the writing on the wall. They don't want to see it go.
The criticism of Lyons surely stems from a combination of things, some of which you mentioned.
The unfair part comes from jealousy *and* a natural dislike of ANY new host of any show with beloved figures like Siskel/Ebert/Roeper (hell, just look at the youtube comments when Wes/R.J. or Michael Shure host TYT alone). Mix in the fact that the new hosts are of a different mold and the show is in a new format and you have a real recipe for harsh critici sm.
And yes, there is probably some constructive criticism as well. The problem is that it's hard to weed out because of the unfair stuff noted above.
Finally, there is the snowball effect. I'm referring to the fact that once an early impression is set (positive or negative), it just snowballs. Unfortunately that means that people who've never really even seen the show develop an unfavorable impression based on what they've heard.
Worse yet, if they do eventually watch the show they view it through a preformed negative frame of reference, paying extra attention to things that fit their preconceived notions while ignoring and rationalizing away the things that contradict it.
Uh, movie/film reviews shouldn't be built around "sucking up to celebrities" should they? The joy of watching Ebert, especially with his original, lamented partner Siskel (of whom Roeper was but a pale, pale, pale imitation), is that you could learn a thing or two by watching them, as well as be entertained.
Weak defense man, thankless as well. Lyons epitomizes everything that is wrong with contemporary film culture. Hail Ebert.
Exactly. It's like Ben Elton slagging a wayy-over-the-hill Benny Hill 20 years ago just to get some air time, seriously. Ben Elton sucks and so does Ben Lyons.
Cenk: Do you really not get that a film critic/reviewer is not supposed to hobnob or pose for pictures with the people he or she covers? I believe the French call it "a conflict of interest," and it calls their objectivity into question. Maybe Ben thought I am Legend was one of the greatest movies ever made because he got Will to pose for a picture with him.
Great defense of Lyons, Cenk! To paraphrase (and blurb this blog post of yours): "He's the George W. Bush of film critics, a regular guy you could have a beer with!"
No thanks, I'll stick with Ebert, who has "...about the best...reader...comments...you will see on a blog"
(Computerworld magazine), and whose reviews are usually a good indicator of what I will like. I guess being one of those non-regular (I'm not going to open the door by writing "irregular.") Ivy League elitists -- although with only one degree therefrom (that was enough to learn that the Ivies were more about networking than education) -- just suits me better.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
Yes, some of the vitriol directed at Ben Lyons stems from jealousy. Some of that jealously would be negated if Lyons wasn't so seemingly unprepared/uneducated about film. I didn't care much for having a president who knew and cared little about the issues and the world around him. As a film critic, it displeases me to see a man with little intellectual curiosity and integrity rise to the very top of my would-be profession.
As for critics not liking 'regular dumb stuff', tt was Roger Ebert's positive review of Role Models that got me to see the film, which I loved. Smart critics can differentiate between dumb fun' and just dumb. A good critic shouldn't just tell you whether they liked the movie, but whether you will. Lyons' obvious lack of film knowledge makes it impossible to discern whether or not I will like a movie based on his recommendation. I don't care much for critics who attempt to wax poetically about comparative didactic exetensionalism either, but that's not an age thing (its a defense mechanism against charges of intellectuality inferiority). Ben Lyons seems to go out of his way to sound as dumb and 'regular' as possible.
As for the I Am Legend quote, Lyons' mistake was not differentiating 'best' and 'favorite'. Recent movies that I proudly call my favorites - Shanghai Knights, Meet The Robinsons, Akeelah And The Bee, Frailty, and The Mask Of Zorro. Best films of all time? Nope, but I adore them absolutely.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
