New Hosts for At the Movies: Possible New Golden Age of Film Criticism on TV

It was about this time a year ago when I wrote a cantankerous article here on Associated Content blasting the syndicated weekend show At the Movies for bringing in the two Bens (Lyons & Mankiewicz) in place of prior hosts Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips. This, after Roeper and Phillips were finding some chemistry after test hosting along with A.O. Scott following Roger Ebert's departure from illness. Despite the perhaps unfounded vitriol I spouted in that article, I gave the revamped At the Movies a chance this last season and realized that after watching the show for years prior, it was impossible to give it up completely.

I endured the blatant attempt to make the show hipper for a younger demographic where Ben Lyons played the part of a college-age movie reviewer with his feet up on the front balcony seat and still needing to learn vast amounts about the art of film. Then there was the slightly cynical Turner Classic Movie weekend host Ben Mankiewicz who seemed to be on At the Movies because he had the famous and infamous Mankiewicz name on his resume. The same seemed plausible of Lyons whose dad, Jeffrey, perhaps (or not) lobbied for his son to get the gig.

Then as time went on, I either became used to a slightly lessened "At the Movies" or the show finally found a rhythm that was acceptable. After tinkering with their format, particularly dropping that horrid group panel discussion via satellite, mid-season found me watching the show with lessened apprehension. While I never warmed completely to Ben Lyons' opinions, he managed to give a decent movie review by the time the show announced a hosting change. Ben Mankiewicz also seemed to find a sensible voice that sometimes surprised me, especially in wisely bashing hip fare Lyons automatically gravitated to.

So scratch that article I once did that ran the Bens completely into the ground. Even so, the show was still a far cry from what it once was when more seasoned movie reviewers actually wrote film criticism for a living as well as spending needed time in a makeup chair for television. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert personified astute film analysis on TV without care of catering to a populist sensibility. They were the only film reviewers on TV who dared pick a Top Ten for the best films of the year and place unconventional and generally overlooked films at the top of the lists.

Yes, who can forget the time Gene Siskel picked the underrated and much-maligned "Babe 2: Pig in the City" as the best movie of 1998? Similarly in '98, Roger Ebert unconventionally picked the obscure "Dark City" as his favorite of that year. Ironic that it was the last year the two worked together before Gene Siskel's death in Feb. 1999. But already in their early days, they were picking art films as the best film of the year rather than the choices a populist would. Most of that was maintained through all the guest hosts with Ebert and into the last year when permanent host Richard Roeper started working with Michael Phillips.

Roger Ebert apparently thought all was lost when the two Bens came in and the populist sensibility took over. As you may remember for those paying attention, Ebert even considered starting a rival syndicated show.

It's obvious by now that Ebert hasn't succeeded in shopping around a new show to compete with "At the Movies." Of course, I championed it in the earlier article despite knowing the realities of such a show being impossible to sell to syndicates when shows like it are dying out unless it reaches a younger demographic. That's why it's so surprising Disney is revamping "At the Movies" back to the format started by Siskel & Ebert. You might say it's out of desperation when ratings were plummeting once the Bens entered balcony stage left. Nevertheless, it's brave to consider bringing back a more serious form of film criticism when the average television viewer thinks about the latest outcome on whatever reality show if presumably their own problems.

This isn't to say that there still isn't a sizable enough audience who want to see more thoughtful film reviews every weekend. Truth told, though, most viewers to "Siskel & Ebert" tuned in to see a fight between the two over a movie and enjoying their frequently oddball chemistry together. Just doing dry film criticism without chemistry isn't going to raise ratings. It has to be argued that the real reason the ratings dipped on "At the Movies" is because the chemistry between Lyons and Mankiewicz was too friendly and never any compelling arguments standing up for or against a particular movie. No, they didn't always see eye to eye, yet there was usually a final pat on the back rather than an unresolved glare of vitriol you imagined was settled in a fight after the taping.

We've never seen A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips together despite both having experience hosting the show. If they can bring a more argumentative mix and bring the more thoughtful ways to their movie criticism that they bring in print, the show will be back to its golden days. When that formula works, all age groups watch with no consideration toward the age of the hosts. It was working well back when Siskel & Ebert were well into their 50's.

With the idea that "At the Movies" could be the only show left on TV with a cast over the age of 40, it should also bring that above-mentioned ability of picking obscure movies and placing them at the top of the heap as Siskel and Ebert did. Based on the writings of particularly A.O. Scott and similar writing abilities of Phillips, we may just get that. It's the old philosophy from the American Film Institute where picking controversial choices leads to heated discussion and, ultimately, good ratings...

Source:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/ao-scott-michael-phillips-to-take-over-at-the-movies/?hpw