A Eulogy for the Bens

Last Saturday night, and early Sunday morning, was the final show of the movie review show At the Movies the played host to Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. As common knowledge to most people, the "Bens" took over the show after Richard Roeper neglected to renew his contract with Disney, the parent company of ABC television, along with Roger Ebert, who had been out of commission from the show since his battle with cancer removed his ability to speak nearly three years ago.

Since that time, Lyons and Mankiewicz have endured many criticisms, including from myself, regarding their approach to film criticism. Mainly, the argument was against Lyons, who many regarded as an opportunistic quote-whore who suffered a conflict of interest by hobnobbing with Hollywood elite on the E! channel. Many also believed he lucked into this job because his father, Jeffrey Lyons, is also a well known film critic who has received similar complaints. Mankiewicz, on the other hand, has had some ill feelings, but mostly has been given a pass because standing next to Lyons makes him seem infallible.

But now their time has passed, and we will no longer see these two faces on the television. I'm not going to say that I will miss them, nor will I believe they will be broken up by this news either. Both of them still have very successful jobs on other channels, with Lyons on the previously mentioned E! Channel and Mankiewicz doing the daytime hosting on Turner Classic Movies. What I will say, though, is that this situation did not start off entirely their fault.

The show originated with Ebert and the late, great Gene Siskel, and their format was the rival to many film critics. Inherently born to disagree (Ebert wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times, Siskel for the Tribune), these two looked at each film on a case by case basis, constantly dissecting the qualities a film possessed and judging each film on that basis. What was so special about that was their discussions always felt as if you were leaning in on a conversation between two good friends. The format wasn't grand or too staged and the emotions felt real. That continued with Roeper after Siskel passed away and even to many of Ebert's temporary replacements until a back and forth rhythm was set between A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune.

But then, when Ebert and Roeper decided not to renew their contracts, the show was forced by Disney to deliberately move into a new direction, where the approach looked to seek a younger audience. The show was rebranded with a more "home video" type of edge, and the supposed high society aspect of film criticism was to be downgraded instead for more easily digestible descriptions. Because that was the starting off point to this show, it had no choice but to shy in comparison. The forces that be only thought it was the film clips that kept people's attention. Those who watch the show will generally have an interest for film to begin with, and those people are capable enough to understand what real film criticism is. The main fault lies with those that tried to force feed a change in style when it was not supported in the first place.

However, the new hosts did not help this problem. There have been many articles, essays, rants, and even an entire webstie dedicated to the bashing of Ben Lyons, and I repeatedly admit that I participated. I am not going to say that I regret those comments, and just because he has gotten fired from this position do I now find him a redeemable figure. I think Lyons is good at his job of making people feel comfortable in a laid back setting, which is why he's a great personality on E!. He can get those celebrities laughing with him, and it makes for a great interview. The problem here was that those who watch and read film criticism are not looking for jokes. It is a serious trade that should be taken as such. Lyons's methods are out of touch with a large group of people looking to take moviegoing seriously. For many, including myself, this is not just something you do on a Saturday night, and Lyons made critiquing movies seem like that.

The other major criticism of Lyons is that his work on E! should be ground for an immediate case of conflict of interest. Well, let's not forget that Siskel, Ebert and Roeper all talked with actors, directors and other filmmakers whose very films they were critiquing, and that didn't stop them from saying how they felt about a particular film. One image that comes right to mind is when Siskel was calling Judge Dredd one of the worst films of that particular year and actually broke form and "talked" to Sylvester Stallone right into the camera, reassuring him that he knows he can make a good movie, but this isn't it. Siskel knew Stallone personally, but their friendship didn't stop him from pointing out flaws. The show itself was owned by Disney, but that didn't stop anybody from giving thumbs down to a product they produced. You can have people who talk with celebrities and talk about their movies at the same time. The difference is that they were better at the latter, while Lyons takes the former.

Now, it's a little different for Mankiewicz. He doesn't spend as much time with celebrities and his appearances on TCM should only embolden his credentials, not to mention him also being related to Hollywood elite (his grandfather co-wrote Citizen Kane). However, I don't want to totally free him either. Mankiewicz had a way of only looking at the surface quality of a film and often times resented the notion of going deeper. I could talk about Rachel Getting Married (yes, it was full of unlikeable people, but that wasn't the point!), but the best example is his review of Synecdoche, New York. Now, I understand that this was an incredibly difficult film to comprehend, but it's meant to be confusing on the surface. It when you dig at it multiple times and show up to the film's challenges that you see an appreciation for it. The film has gotten some split opinions, but not one that I've heard from has dismissed the film solely for its strange qualities. Foolishly, I took his opinion and passed this film by. It's a mistake I sorely regret and have never fully forgiven Mankiewicz for.

But on September 5, we won't have that problem anymore, as the new hosts will be A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips. Now, I am very biased in loving this decision because I am a subscriber of the Chicago Tribune and have been actively reading Phillips's opinions for years. Now that my appreciation for films has grown a bit, I start liking more and more movies along with Phillips, so he is undoubtedly my favorite film critic. Scott is also very respectable and I enjoyed hearing his opinions on the show. These are two men who have made a living analyzing films and have make it their profession instead of vicariously enjoying it through a family member. Many will hope that the year long experiment will be quickly forgotten, but I should hope not. I won't miss the opinions these two gave, but I will miss the passion they inspired me and many others to look for professional criticism. They gave us a reminder that even in this day and age, listening to people acutely describe a film is still an experience worth having, and the powers at play listened to those pleas. I see noting but good times for Scott & Phillips, and I'm sure many agree. As for the Bens, I can only wish good luck in their old jobs, which I might add they do very well.