Roger Ebert Calls Kick-Ass Morally Reprehensible. Is He Right?

Yes,...I did. I simply disagree with the hierarchy of values upon which his assessment of the films artistic merits are based.

HAHA, Two Thumbs Down!

I just saw an animated gif of the girl in the movie...it contained Black men getting beat up by a snot nosed 11 year old girl...

Now I DEFINITELY am not going to see that stupid movie...

Great comment!

"the darker side of what it would be like if "superheroes" existed in real life" is what waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay campy early 60's MARVEL had just started to explore. Funny,....when it really reaches "films",.................still has power. I under STAN.

Because it doesn't have to be about Blacks and Latinos controlling everything!! IT should never be that way... it should be about EQUALITY and KNOWING your MARKET!! NO BIG CITY HAS AN ALL WHITE POPULATION IN THE US!! NONE!!!!!!!

"Control every aspect" and "equally represented" are two very different things. No one is asking for a coup-de-tat of American culture led by minorities, but to be able to see a wider variety race and ethnicity within a film would make films more realistic. In addition, Asian roles should not be given to white actors because it's disrespectful to the culture of origin. It's as if a black man would play Ronald Reagan in a movie; not only is it nonsensical, it's just wrong. I know you're supposed to suspend your disbelief in a movie, but the reality is that rising Asian actors are being cheated out of roles because of a possibly xenophobic view on predominantly minority casts portraying a high-budget, potentially high-grossing film.

In short, if this wasn't an issue there would be no discussion.

Blacks and Latinos don't control every aspect of American life because, outside of the POTUS, Whites in America do.

Try popping over to Washington St.

The discussion was pulled out of thin air by some guy who was angry that he wasnt watching a Tyler Perry movie. I think that in general movies are relatively fair on the proportion of blacks and hispanics depicted in those movies. How can yo usay that minorities are not targeted fairly in movies. There are countless black comedies out all of the time. Race issues will never be gone if someone is going to complain everytime they feel like bitching.

While it may seem like countless, there is only one available in theaters nationwide at the moment (Death at a Funeral). However, predominately black films are not the issue. If there was more of an equal representation of minorities in films on a star role or supporting actor level in films that appealed to all races instead of just minorities then there would be no race issue. If Kick Ass had a black guy cast as the role of a white teenager, would you find it strange or would you accept it?

You feel like the portions of minorities playing in movies are fair. I think it's a light spattering of minorities. In Kick-Ass (which I did enjoy watching, btw) there were only 2 supporting black characters, 1 small role black characters, and a few extras. These are vastly outnumbered main characters, supporting characters, and others that are not minorities. I am not saying there should be a mandatory number of minorities included in films, or that I cannot find enjoyment in predominantly white films. All I want is a more realistic representation, because New York and other big cities has more color than what is shown in most movies.

Finally, if the role that is cast is based off a historical minority, then a minority should play it. I cannot stress this enough. Imagine if W, the movie based on George W. Bush's presidency, was played by Wesley Snipes or Morgan Freeman. Would you go see it? Would you be upset? Could you suspend your disbelief long enough to enjoy the movie? This is what is happening to Asian roles; akin to what happened to black roles in Broadway and film before race relations between black and white people improved. Race issues will not improve again until we re-address the situation at hand instead of ignoring it because a black comedy is released every 3 to 4 months.

He's the expert...you're the novice.

Common,

I'm the one that brought up the race issue here. Why? because i like going to the movies. I like spending time at the movies with my significant other. But it's getting boring to see that every other movie out there is about white folks either, saving the world (kick ass) going out on a date (date night) saving history/world (clash of the titans) or a young girl, looking for love... (the last song)

I grew up in NJ/NY and maybe if this was the 70's i would understand why 80% of the movies would be of an all white cast. BUT it's 2010 and we still have the same bullshit.

I walk around NJ/NY and see a beautiful scene of cultures, blacks, whites, asians, latinos, mixed babies every day. When i go to the movies, is like living in the 70's...

Sorry, but that shit has to stop already!

KSirys has got a point. When Asian people can't even portray people from their history, cultural fiction, or fantasy roles because the roles are being filled by white actors there is an issue. The movie theaters still have an abundance of movies filled with predominantly white actors, and every time a movie is predominantly filled with Africans or black people, Latinos, or Asians it's categorized by race and put into a box if it isn't white-washed by Hollywood.

Sorry man, but seriously just get over it. It is an all white cast, product by all white people. It just happens. No one is trying to be malicious. Get over yourself.

so because it's a product by all white people it's ok? and get over myself?? do you even know how to apply that sentence to someone??

Asian people should get over Mickey Rourke being cast as Genghis Khan too?

reason is too simple...who make more money from boxoffice ?
Race is not important, money is!

I agree with you movies just like TV shows are completely out of touch with the true racial make up of the country and have been for forever....but again I ask why is that relevant to a discussion about Roger Ebert saying a movie is morally reprehensible because it features kids killing kids and being violent and not being held accountable for those actions--or even if you want to discuss race--why bitch about the racial make up of the cast--why not bring up the fact that lately ALL races of kids are killing, beating, and bullying each other in super high numbers-- but its only black or latino kids who make the news and who are profiled as being gang members or idiots or somehow deserving of being victims of violent crimes?

Well, because i do see whites, blacks, latinos and asians in the news committing crimes. I live in the East coast and our local news covers all of that... just because MSNBC or Fox or even CNN don't... i know it's happening because i see it on my news.

Anyways, this topic was about movies and this movie. Thats' why i brought up the race issue.

http://sense.ca

About the color thing, may I just say this: All of main characters are white for a reason. The main bad guy and his son are white because they are mafia dudes (aka Italian, and correct me if I'm wrong but Italians tend to be white). As for the main character, well he's probably white because this movie is aimed at white teenagers, and you want them to identify with the protagonist (not sounding like racism yet). Then you have his friends, and the fact is, for a nobody nerdy white kid in high school, he's probably going to be hanging out with other white nerdy kids, so giving him a black friend, wouldn't make that much sense. Call it racism, but the fact is that people are fairly likely to stick to their own kind, especially in high school, so this movie is just being realistic (and yes I know it's not a realistic movie, but one of the things I personally liked about it was how realistic it was about everything besides the superhero bit). I'm also not trying to say that the protagonist couldn't have black friends, or that he shouldn't, simply that him having white friends is more likely So look, all I'm trying to say, is that in this particular movie, it does actually make sense that all the leads are white, and please don't boycott a movie simply because some guy said it had too many white people in it.

And remember, at the end of the day this movie is not an attack on the black community, it's simply a movie trying to be funny, and casting in such a way that it's target demographic will identify well with it.

End of story, no racism. (Also, don't complain about such things if you haven't even seen the movie.)

Thank you.

PS: I would also like to state that there are bunch of minorities walking around on the street in this movie. Nobody is trying to say that everyone in NY is white. It is simply that the main characters happen to be white.

Voted down... you're probably from Oklahoma or some white town to think that white nerdy kids will or would only hang out with other white nerdy kids.

I (Latino) grew up around white nerdy kids, black nerdy kids, asian nerdy kids and the only thing in common, was that they were smart and found it easy to hang out with each other. Talk to each other and play with each other... not their skin!

Your logic of "white nerdy kids in high school are ONLY going to hang out with other white kids" is stupid. I'm sorry, but you haven't been outside your state if you think white kids only hang out with white kids.

My younger brother best friend is white and they are both super nerdy... and guess what? they are best friends because they have something mutual in common... being smart... not skin!

Excuse me, but I did not say that white nerdy kids, only hang out with other white nerdy kids. What I did say is that it is LIKELY that white kids would hang out with other white kids. I live in Southern California and my school is about 70% Hispanic and only 30% white. What I've noticed through personal experience is that while much intermingling does happen between races, and I don't notice any open racism. It is very common to see groups of friends who are all white, or all Hispanic. I do not mean to imply that there are not plenty of friends and groups of friends who are interracial, I simply would like to point out that single race groups of friends are something that occurs, and is not uncommon in the real world. Therefore I don't think that depicting such a group in a movie is racist.

In conclusion: I do not think that races don't mix in high school, they definitely do, however, a non-mixed group of friends is totally plausible, so having one depicted in a movie is not a distortion of reality, and if it's not a distortion of reality, then I don't see how it can be discriminatory towards any race.

The fact is, implying that the people who made this movie are racist is simply preposterous.

Oh, and one last thing? If skin color really doesn't matter to you, if you think that we are all equal, no matter what color our skin is (which is what I think) then why do you get so mad that someone made a movie that just happens to feature white people?

I'm only going to answer the last part of your comment, because everything else made sense and I agree with you.

So, why do i get mad? I actually don't... But, there are more kids in this country than adults and they are not all white. That's why. I would like to know that Latinos, Blacks and Asians are being portrayed properly in movies, not all, but in a good amount, to show all kids in this country, that they are being represented.

Also, I'm not going to lose sleep if a movie has an all white cast... i have DVD's, TV shows to watch.... shit, my favorite show has an all white cast... I'm good at substituting... =D

You missed my point, boy genius. I could care less about a movie with no Black people in it. I said I am not going to go see a movie with White children who decide to hold court in the street and get away with it, no questions asked, trial and execution...

Roger Ebert makes sound and analytical judgement in his movie reviews. I find his word reputable and reliable. He gave Kick Ass 1 star...I won't be going to see it, rent it, Netflix, download or whatever.

Why? Likely, because it sucks. Moral or no moral message, movies based off of comic books with 11 year old girls killing indiscriminately because they were trained by Nicolas Cage and it "looks cool" sound rather retarded to me.

I agree, he out of the blue says this movie is morally wrong when he's reviewed countless other films involving graphic subject matter?

+^d. I would think that it is fair to bring it up as an element,....but not as the primary measure of value,....or even one of the most important features. (Grandfather figures just don't appreciate the granddaughter types being "naughty",.....I think that sums it up)

emotions and morality is not part of critiquing art?

A movie like Audition isn't marketed to an audience of American white teens.. .

Usually critics will measure artistic value based on form and content- how something looks and what something means. Most critics agree that these two elements should be "beautiful" in one way or another. "Beauty" is tied to emotion, but not morality.

When you judge a work of art based on morality, you are judging whether the work is "right" or "wrong," which are not artistic qualities.

For example, another critique of art based on morals would be like giving Michael Angelo's David a 1/5 stars because you can see his junk, because exposing your junk is immoral to some.
This type of critique is dangerous, in that it leads to censorship.

How is beauty is any less subjective then morality? Most critiques are based on a technical assement and then how it delivers the message within the medium the artist chose. Art is ussually a medium for not only a technical astetic but also and ultimately ment to convey a message. Without using morality to play off of the subject matter of most art would be base and reduced to landscape and still life technical examples. Art works because it plays with the emotion like pupper strings..the technical aspect help tell the story..but..the emotional attachment has to be there.

?where did i say beauty is any less subjective than morality?
I don't think you read my post o.0

I'm basically just paraphrasing standard critical theory. Artistic Value (beauty, emotional response, thoughtfulness, etc.) of a work is determined by analyzing Form (medium, structure, etc.) and Content (meaning, message).

Now, Morality is a judgment of right (kindness, love, generosity) or wrong (greed, murder, selfishness), not high or low Artistic Value. A work can have a high Artistic Value, yet be judged as morally wrong. Morality is not a factor in determining whether or not a work has Artistic Value or not.
Consider Taxi Driver. It's a moral sewer, yet a beautiful masterpiece of high Artistic Value.

As a critic, Ebert should have separated his moral judgment from his artistic critique. He should have said although this movie has some artistic value, it is morally reprehensible or something like that. He thinly disguised his moral judgment as an artistic critique.

Ultimately, the point is that you can not say something is bad art just because it's violent.

I'm really scratching my head at your analyzes at what an art critique consists of. But emotional responses are captured by playing on the morality of the time. It's how Ron English is able to juxtapose images of capitalism next to children to deliver a message. Or else we'd simply be dissecting the hyper rendering alone. Morality changes with the times they're in and because of that art's themes have changed with it.

Ebert isn't blasting it simply because of use of violence, but how. He was extremely favorable to many much more extreme uses of violence in the past. It's the artistic use of violence to deliver a message. Takashi Miike not showing us a grissly murder with a cut away shot can ultimately cause the audience more psychological trauma then by showin you the death shot. Using this style of violence is just an appealing to the couch potato bros across the country...it's simply lazy.

Remember...Ebert is reviewing a movie targeted towards bros...this isn't I AM CUBA, nor Holy Mountain, nor The Bicycle Thief...masterpieces (sorry Taxi Cab driver is a fine film and a classic..not a masterpiece)...the thought involved is one dimensional and the emotion it hopes to engourage is just as flat. Reviewing a film like this one has to look at the reasons behind producing it...out of all the titles out there...why this? Then look at the target audience.. .or sheep.

That's right... because the movie is being portrayed in a big city where "only" white kids decide to do good... what happen to the Blacks, Asians and Latinos?? are we always going to play the evil and stupid parts??

But that's a different debate topic all together. This is about the little girl.....way to hijack a story.

The US is >70% white, of course there are going to be a lot of movies with all white casts. Actually, 7/10 movies should be mostly white, if you want to go by representation.

Let's look at what movies pop up when I google 'movies'

Kick-Ass = White
The Back-Up Plan = White/Latino
Death at a Funeral = Black/White
The Losers = White/Black
La Mission = Latino
Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married Too = Black
Hot Tub Time Machine = White/Black
Date Night = White

Asians are really underrepresented though. But at 5% of the population, it's not surprising that you don't see too many Asian American films.

That is taking the overview,...appreciated. (Asians are as you say, underrepresented if you look at the thing as a demographic sampling. Jackie Chan just CANT be in everything. )

If Americans watched more foreign films our stats would improve.\

+^d

70%?? are you crazy? you're barely hitting 60% and that's going down every year.

It's weird, the US census says White people are at 79.8%, which is the number I was looking at.
But, then lower down on the list it says White people not Hispanic - 65.6%

Maybe they count Latinos together with Whites so White people won't freak out about our population dropping, haha.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

lol... like i said before, ur barely at 60% and that's going down every year. Remember that Asians, Spaniards, Brazilians and people from other Latino countries consider themselves white because of their skin, not their race.

this movie was based on a comic about a nerdy pinkish kid.(if indeed you do know your colors) Who do you think reads comics about nerdy pinkish kids? the movie is just staying true to form. i think the problem might be with you? a little bitter maybe. i think you really like pinkish people. by the way im as close to white as you are to turquoise. im pinkish blue. and try my best to tan to no a vale . so it IS racist to call anyone white who is not drawn on a sheet of paper. do you think we wake up in the morning and say "Gee golly sure is good to be pinkish!" . well i got news for you, you freak of nature who can go outside without a shirt and not catch on fire.( you poor bastard.) i too would like to be different than what i am, or at least wish people saw me different. but i will give you this you are a great whiner.

WTF are you talking about??? bitter about what??? dude, YOU just showed everyone here you're the bitter one... it's sad, but get a life...

do you read what you write before you submit it?

or better yet, do you even read the article?

keep going... u'll make sense eventually

I haven't read the comic = more diverse then the whiteyville of the movie?

To be honest, I don't know... but this is not the 50's or 60's, where it was ok to have an all cast of kids, white.

Hollywood doesn't seem to understand that this country is diverse and yet, they keep pushing all these white films like we (the blacks, latinos, asians) don't realize what's going on.

Like i said, Roger Ebert should have given this movie 0 stars!

So we should use a diverse cast even if the original story doesn’t have it? Wow, as a latino, I find that very stupid.

I think the proper animal holder (KSirys got all worked up about how Kim Kardashian holds cats) has a point.

Just because the original story might have been all white doesn't mean it would have ruined the story to add a little color. Unless their whiteness is integral to the story, and I'm thinking that would be worse.

Hmm, now that I'm thinking about it, I bet there are people of color playing the roles of villains. You know what? Fuck Kick Ass.

Oh, I have no purpose in life. Well, I think that my worthless life and I can´t argue with that flawless argument. My two feet wish you good luck in your useless rant, you sir :)

Thank you... ;)

There was a Black guy and a wigger who bully/beat up Kick Ass..

no. it's not even a great comic book, heh.

They had black people in this movie...Even Interracial relationships. Remember the drug dealer who beats up the love interest of the lead....He was black. Seriously though, you need your own channel you got BET. Can you imagine if a white owned tv station was called WET? Grow up its not slave days anymore, I don't care if your white or black. It seems like you have some self esteem issues you need to deal with

lol... i'm not going to even bother... you sound like a 10 yr old, living in smallville... hahahahaha...

So everyone who has a different opinion from you seems to be attacked.

Real mature buddy.

Listen, i'm sorry... I'm truely am to everyone who thinks i'm just attacking... but I don't know how I need BET (i'm Latino) how a white station is going to help or solve any issue.

It's not about having a station for one race... it's about learning how to integrate our diversity!! Why are people here attacking and telling me, I tan good and I'm bitter... how does that help?? and i'm supposed say, Yes sir, you're right? FUCK THAT!

Everyone here has the right to their opinion, but as soon as someone starts with the, "you're bitter" or " you have BET" or "you tan better" seriously... WTF!!! I"m going to start attacking right back...

if you have an opinion, great! share it with everyone here... if not.. oh well..