Roger Ebert's Dislike of 'Slapstick of Another Kind': A Cinematic Blunder or a Valid Critique?
In the world of cinema, few things are as polarizing as the reception of a film. Some movies become instant classics, while others are universally panned. One such film that falls into the latter category is 'Slapstick of Another Kind', a 1984 sci-fi comedy that has left a lasting impression, albeit not a positive one, on the legendary film critic Roger Ebert.
The movie, based on Kurt Vonnegut's semi-autobiographical novel 'Slapstick', was a misstep in the eyes of Ebert and his colleague Gene Siskel. The film's premise, involving intelligent twins with facial differences sought by the Chinese government, was met with scathing reviews. Ebert, known for his keen eye and sharp wit, found the movie 'offensive' and 'unfunny', a stark contrast to the satirical and political commentary Vonnegut's novel intended.
What makes Ebert's critique even more intriguing is the involvement of Jim Backus, a veteran actor best known for his role as Thurston Howell III in 'Gilligan's Island'. Backus' appearance in the film was brief, but it was enough to raise eyebrows. The question arises: was Ebert's dislike of the movie a valid critique or a personal bias?
Ebert's review was particularly scathing, criticizing the film's lack of humor and its insensitive portrayal of the twins. He pointed out the scene where Jerry Lewis meets his 'monsters' as a low point, suggesting that the movie failed to capture the satirical essence of Vonnegut's work. Ebert's disappointment was evident, as he wished he could walk out of the movie, a rare occurrence for him.
The film's reception was so negative that it didn't make the annual 'Stinkers of the Year' list, despite Ebert's initial harsh words. This paradoxical situation adds to the intrigue, as it suggests that Ebert's initial dislike might have been influenced by his expectations and the film's deviation from Vonnegut's vision.
In conclusion, Roger Ebert's disdain for 'Slapstick of Another Kind' raises questions about the subjective nature of cinema. While some may see it as a blunder, others might interpret it as a valid critique of the film's failure to live up to its source material. Perhaps, in the end, it's a reminder that even the most revered critics can have their off days, and sometimes, a movie just doesn't hit the mark.
