Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Roger Ebert: SOLVED!


No, he's not a creationist, he's just terribly, terribly unfunny.

6 comments:

Chet Scoville said...

This was basically the same problem that I had with the New Yorker cover depicting the Obamas as terrorists: it's not satire if it's just an accurate account of what many people really think.

Red Tory said...

Sad, isn't it?

The Seer said...

I feel a certain amount of kinship with Mr. Ebert. Some of my attempts at satire . . . .

KEvron said...

sour grapes.

so ebert's satire wasn't the sardonic indictment of creationists we would have expected; rather, his ultimate point, as i took it, was something of an absurdist, "the gods, themselves" concession, and i think that point was lost on the polarized because it didn't satisfy their expectation. the mobilized don't have much use for wishy-washy appeals to patience.

was it funny? eh. does satire always have to be knee-slappingly hilarious? personally, i thought it was inventive and effective.

KEvron, "don't hate the payer...."

Red Tory said...

Point taken but Myers also cuts to the tragic heart of the fallacy underpinning Ebert's attempted satire.

the rev. paperboy said...

"terribly, terribly unfunny"? The man who wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" unfunny? Perish the thought!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065466/quotes

Oh, wait...you meant unfunny when he's trying to be funny, didn't you? Yeah, in that case, guilty as charged.