Not-art Ebert on Hitman film News

Play Grim Fandango and shut up.

Ebert and his home spun definition of art really is more than a bit silly.

He should stick to writing purely about movies. That he does rather well.

How can you use a bad film as evidence that Games aren't an artform? Surely he should be aiming those comments at this genre of film tather than it's inspiration.

found Agent 47's "lonely self-sufficiency" intriguing
Story from the game

"Other scenes, which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors, an automatic weapon in each hand, shooting down opponents who come dressed as Jedi troopers in black. These scenes are no doubt from the video game.
More from action movies than the real concept behind Hitman (yeah shame they tended to do that a fair bit in the latter parts of the games).

Ebert is a TWAT.

Oh, please, not this debate again... We've discussed it enough this year, EG, move along, nothing to see here.

It's actually quite a positive review

Hmmm, I wonder why no-one pointed out that the ending of most 60s/70s Bond films was on the wrong side of games.... oh, wait, because it's more a cliche invented by movies as anything else.

Seriously, he's just being daft saying that, as if he wanted to have a sly dig at games and was waiting for a movie review to fit it into.

I read all this and then think: Finally a film in a no nonsense 80's style that doesn't have it's head so far up it's own arse that it comes out on the other end again. He clearly also isn't familiar with the idiots who dismissed film in the early days. History it seems, repeats itself with a good sense of irony.

I agree with him pretty much wholesale.

Thing is, he still sounds like a cunt and videogames are still brilliant fun and can be beautiful and emotive at times.

In the end, its all bollocks anyway.

"Is this art?" is an age-old question that will not be resolved by Ebert or EG, no matter how much they both bang on about it.

WOW this guy is lame....why do we need to read such drivel

I like him.

Oh ffs, not this again. Final time, eberts argument is based soley on his own definition of what constitutes art. A definition not supported by the vast majority of people. Or dictionaries.

End of story, can we stop paying any attention to him now.

"Then again, he probably hasn't got the "Little Rocket Man" Achievement in The Orange Box and he looks like he spawn-camps."

I can't help thinking this article would be dramatically more entertaining and insightful if it, say, included a link to an account of someone obtaining this achievement in order to illustrate just how hard it proves Ebert wrong.

Writing that the Hitman film indicates videogames can never be artistically interesting is rather like writing that a steaming pile of excrement indicates the impossibility of good cooking.

Mr Ebert. Your argument would be rather harder to maintain were you to actually PLAY SOME GAMES WORTH PLAYING.

Interesting reference to Le Samourai, it really is a fantastic film

Art is anything, non-living, created with the intention to stimulate an emotional response. If such a response occurs, then it is art, no matter what some third-rate hack thinks.

Well, the man certainly knows films. I wonder if he would concede that 90% of what makes it to the multiplex isn't exactly art either.

"Other scenes, which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors, an automatic weapon in each hand, shooting down opponents who come dressed as Jedi troopers in black. These scenes are no doubt from the video game."

Not when I've played it

Most films are not art, either. A painting hanging on a wall is not neccesarily art either. It's not automatically art if I splash some paint on a canvas and hang it on a wall. In my opinion, the medium itself does not make something art.

Most movies are just trash, and quite a few games are trash, also. Films based on games and vice versa are usually not art at all.

There is one interesting argument about games as a viable artform, but that is not the argument Ebert is trying to make. Perhaps games cannot qualify as art, as the spectator (player) has a lot more power (interactivity) than in any other art form. The artist has full control over a painting or a sculpture, he or she is in full control of the experession reaching the audience. Same for films, of course.

Games are fundamentally interactive; the "artist" (usually huge studios, really, similar to movies in that respect) give the audience a measure of interactivity with the "piece" no static art form can provide. So - if full artistic control over the experience, and thereby audience passitivitey, is a requirement for something to be art, then games cant be art - as you cant remove interactivity from a game and still call it a game...

He has a point with the film though.

What does it matter? He's not a game critic. Who honestly gives a shit if a film critic thinks games are art or not? I know I don't.

Now, the problem here is the chap almost certainly hasn't played a game for more than an hour in his entire life. Try Psychonauts, Grim Fandango, Deus Ex, Shadow of the Colossus, Thief, System Shock 2... any one of them, and THEN you can tell me to shut up.

I don't think it's his statement that games aren't art that annoys gamers the most, it's this respected critic's offhand dismisal of an important and growing genre that a lot of people consider increasingly valid and damn enjoyable. I've yet to hear a single justification of why games cannot one day become an equally important expressive and entertaining medium. Anyone saying otherwise isn't looking far enough ahead, or at how far we've already come.

It's rather like me complaining that movies aren't interactive and therefore boring, before even watching one through.

I don't think it's his statement that games aren't art that annoys gamers the most, it's this respected critic's offhand dismisal of an important and growing genre that a lot of people consider increasingly valid and damn enjoyable. I've yet to hear a single justification of why games cannot one day become an equally important expressive and entertaining medium. Anyone saying otherwise isn't looking far enough ahead, or at how far we've already come.

Indeed, and I'd second your changing the terms of the debate to decentralise 'art' as a critical category. Whether something is 'art' is in my view an increasingly counterproductive line of enquiry, for the term carries a lot of negative associations- inaccessibility, elitism, egotism etc. Let videogames be charming, provocative, intelligent, moving, whatever without having to be kept under glass.

Can people PLEASE get it through their heads that he is not saying "All games are shite, and the medium of videogames can never produce an emotional response or expression"

All he is saying is that videogames do not fit his definition of what constitues art. I agree with him, as my definition of art is similar to his. If your definition varies then you probably wont agree.

Also, its not about whether a particular film or game is shit or not, so stop listing 'artsy' game sin the hope it proves some sort of point. It doesnt.

Its the question of the creators vision vs interactivity that Olemak touched on that is the crux of this matter. The question really being 'Can an interactive medium ever be seen as being art, given that the artistic vision of the creator will always be influenced or diluted to some extent by the actions of the player, who is also the audience?'

I think interactive media can be just as easily art as non-interactive. After all, our response to a particular piece is always interactive: the author can not dictate how we will feel.

And comparing Hitman movie to Melville's seminal work is like shooting fish in a barrel with a thermonuclear warhead.

But I agree with Ebert that games aren't art yet, and I generally respect his opinions.

100% with you Node.

I respect the mans opinions, but I do think Ebert is wrong on a lot of levels. Videogames are not art? Asthetically, many games are coming dangerously close - like Okami, which was gorgeous and profoundly deep. And unlike what every non-gamer seems to think, not all videogame plots are about guns and violence. And if they are, you look to examples like the Final Fantasy series (FFXII I'm thinking of) that are written cleverly enough that bad guys have motives, good guys have reasons. Actually, on those grounds, games have come much, MUCH further than movies, because there is still a tendancy in the movie industry to go for a bad guy who has little background, or no apparant reason for his actions.

Art itself is a difficult thing to quantify since it lacks actual targets, goals or points that you can tick off on a list and say "this is art". Art lacks definition - it has no definitive form, medium, image or ideal. Some believe movies can never be an artform as art needs to be "tactile". Some argue things like Clarice Cliff can't be art because it was mass-produced. Some argue that art is dead today as there isn't anything new to provoke reaction. It's this complete lack of consistancy that makes a debate on art impossible - it has no definition as such, everyone has their own unique opinion.

But, if we want to use a definition - take Britannica Online, for example;
"the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others"

By such a definition you could argue games have been art for a long time. You could argue a lot of things are art under such circumstances.

Ebert knows his stuff but I think he may overestimate his importance in the grand scheme of things. He may also be over-confident in his own self-definition of art. He is a critic and a good one, but if he doesn't like videogames then he should abandon them now. If he wants to understand them, then he should debate about it - ask people for their input, suggest good examples etc. Until then, he really should lay off sly digs at a medium that he clearly has little to no appreciation for, and little understanding of outside the same old tired old clichés. It's exactly these two points that make his opinion look worthless to a lot of people, when everything else has a point. It does not take much to cheapen someone or something, even if without intention. Which I don't believe Ebert intends to either, that is, offend gamers or disregard games as a medium, even though he can come off that way.

Films of videogames are films nonetheless. They may have a link to their game counterpart but so far in this sub-genre, the links between them have had copious amounts of artistic licence heaped onto them. In the end, they are films - judge them as films, judge them on the format they are on. We gamers know that not all games-of-movies are shit (though we know a lot of them are) after all. I think in such cases you need to yes, appreciate where it started but judge it as a seperate entity. If it doesn't work in the context of a film, it isn't the games fault - it's the directors or writers for shoehorning it in.

I think the most interesting aspect of all of this is how some people seem to dismiss criticisms towards games without a second's thought.

It's like they pick up on the general tone of what was said and go BOO!!! until their nose bleeds.

If one was to take a minute to actually distinguish what Ebert is saying it might actually make a little bit of sense. Like someone said here, it's by his own definition of art, clearly, and that doesn't have to mean he's wrong, he's just right in a different way than he thinks.

I believe it's an interesting debate to have, but like someone also pointed out we've already had it plenty, and I have to say that these comments threads usually just sink after a while and it's impossible to keep track of the arguments with substance.

At the end of the day, I think there are two mistakes made here. One being the clear parallell between shooting and video game, which has become increasingly accurate the last five'ish years granted, but even so an unfair one. The other being that art adheres completely to his definition of it. I'm not a very broad minded guy when it comes to shooters though, I don't believe a shooter can offer anything resembling art. It's more of the natural extension of kids waving sticks around pretending they're guns. In terms of Bioshock and the like, the artistic quality is so detached from the core shooting it can't possibly be given credit on the basis of being a shooter. It could've been an adventure game just aswell and it would still be appreciated for the same things.

However, I think games through interaction and being part of what happens can be a powerful catalyst for emotions that you can't have through film, that in no way are connected to the usual dramaturgy or narration. I think games without a superficial story with emotional highs and lows are the most admirable in terms of video games as ART, and I think these completely escape Ebert simply because they escape mainstream.

If someone was to sit him down with something like Katamari Damashi and make him realise himself that he's essentially making something beautiful out of what we already are, through the game, without having that conveyed to him with actors or through a script, he would prolly feel different.

But throwing something story/cutscene heavy on him.. or even something *OBVIOUSLY ARTY BECAUSE IT'S ALL WHITE AND HAS FUNKY CHARACTERS* like Shadow of the Colossus is not gonna help. Then we're just falling back into existing definitions of art again. Like Will Wright a bit ham-fistedly tried to say, games shouldn't aspire to be art by any other artform's rules, and the "cinematic experience" road - while exciting in its own right - will never win any artsy points for gaming.

I think in a way games, becoming hollywood-ized have lost track of their own strongest qualities. In that sense, indirectly I think Ebert has a point. He just doesn't realise he's criticising a direction games have only had since they became proper mainstream and made waves among big name actors and what have you.

I bet Ebert has never taken an art class of any sort in his entire life.

The idea that interactivity somehow negates or dilutes artistic content is arbitrary and nonsensical. The best art has always been that which is open to interpretation by its viewer, art that suggests ideas but which does not dictate them.

When people look at a sculpture or painting, or read a book, or whatever they each form a different impression of that piece, based on their own tastes, interests and life experiences. Art isn't a matter of simple, unmistakeable ideas that pass directly from artist to viewer - it's a vague and highly interpretive form of communication, good at inspiring emotion but necessarily vague and open to interpretation.

So sure, interactive art - such as games - will show different aspects to different viewers, based on their actions. But this isn't a fundamental difference from static art, it's just accentuating an already present element. This isn't a limitation - it represents a whole new level of potential.

Art is anything, non-living, created with the intention to stimulate an emotional response. If such a response occurs, then it is art, no matter what some third-rate hack thinks.

How do Furbies fit into that definition?

I thought the guy who plays Lex Luthor in Smallville would have been ideally cast as Agent 47.

I thought the guy who plays Lex Luthor in Smallville would have been ideally cast as Agent 47.

I really wish there was a way to contact Mr Ebert to have a mature discussion with him about the points he raises about the game and the film and how together they prove games are not art. For one thing, he criticises how enemies pop up like target practice, thereby satisfying the game requirements of the movie. Well, that's incredibly innaccurate in this case. The game, as I believe it to be played most satisfyingly, does NOT involves bloodbaths (although they are of course perfectly legitimate if that's how you want to play it).

Hitman is about stealth, intelligence, subtlety, and the 'art' of the single required kill. The target practice of the film isn't there to satisfy a game requirement, but to satisfy a 'braindead action movie' requirement. Ebert should look within his choice of media before he wields his critical shit-stick to swipe at another.

"I really wish there was a way to contact Mr Ebert to have a mature discussion with him about the points he raises about the game and the film and how together they prove games are not art."

You can write to him on his website, you know...

Besides, he had a big series of articles on videogames and responses to them a while ago, before his cancer came back. He printed some letters, and responded to others. I'm sure you can imagine that the majority of the response from gamers to his views would have been... less than diplomatic.

This must be a slow news day or something. I fail to see why Ebert needs to be brought up again. As wrong as he is on this point, he is a great man - certainly the best living film critic.

" Who the fuck is Ebert and why should anyone care?"

Exactly my point as well. Stop posting what this twat is saying, no one cares. D:

I think he raises an interesting point, and thus I do care what he says.

I'll echo what someone else said though, I'd really like to have a proper discussion with him, sans the obligatory "FUCK OFF AND DIE!" replies of gamers who don't even want to understand what the discussion is about.

Actually, that Julian Eggbrecht guy (sp?) had some similar things in mind talking about games as an artform. Of course Lair was absolute tosh so nobody will listen to him, but nevertheless I thought what he had to say was incredibly insightful.

What Ebert says about art is in no way interesting since the definition of art he has decided to adopt has nothing to do with any established definitions. It seems like he has chosen it only to be able to exclude a medium he doesn't understand or care for.

He is, or at least used to be, a very interesting movie reviewer, but in this case he's just an old irrelevant man discussing things he doesn't understand.

So just because his definition is off what he says has no merit?

I rather think it does, it's just that his definition of "video game" is just the general trend of videogames lately. Something like Halo or Gears of War or GTA are on the forefront of videogames making the most noise, but are they really the essence of what you can do with the medium?

Because I reckon they aren't. They are good in their own right, but they borrow too much of the appeal of movies or other - like Will Wright put it - linear mediums.

I think Ebert would have a harder time arguing his point in the face of something like Tetris that has NOTHING in common with ANY other art form. Its appeal is purely derived from its mechanics and nothing else, and the things Tetris makes you feel could not in any way be achieved with a movie.

That's where I think games become art. Likewise, if a movie doesn't embrace its inherent qualities but rather hitchhikes on the appeal of other mediums, it's not making the most of what it could be and is far from art itself.

Personally I don't really care about what Ebert chooses to call it, I just find out what he means by the word and take it from there. If all we do is arguing semantics then we're not really getting anywhere in the real discussion, which I happen to think is pretty interesting.

Has the man actually gone through the trouble of defining what "art" actually constitutes for him before declaring something not that?

And yes, have him play Grim Fandango.

On the other hand, so many videogames are mindless, uninspired, unambitious cliché-laden fluff that I can't really blame him for his opinion.

This guy knows about art, he wrote the amazing and beautifully filmed Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens. It deeply affected me as a teenager.

Why does he even care? The discussion had pretty much moved on and nobody was paying attention to him, so why does he...
Ooooh, right.

Has it been pointed out yet that 47 strolling down a corridor shooting thugs is basically the opposite of what Hitman is all about if you're playing it as the devs intended? If so, here it is: 47 strolling down a corridor shooting thugs is basically the opposite of what Hitman is all about if you're playing it as the devs intended.

tl;dr Ebert is an ignoramus

What is love?

(hint: a warm gun)

"What Ebert says about art is in no way interesting since the definition of art he has decided to adopt has nothing to do with any established definitions. It seems like he has chosen it only to be able to exclude a medium he doesn't understand or care for."

Yep. His definition excludes more than just games, however. It actually excludes Shakespeare. You read that right. Shakespeare, or any other dramatist, doesn't control how their works are performed (at least, not after their deaths). Consequently, "Hamlet" is not art. Or maybe it's only art if it's performed well, or in line with Shakespeare's intentions with the piece, whatever they were. Maybe "The Merchant of Venice" is only art if Shylock is played as a comic character reflecting the inherent greediness of the Jewish people who gets what's coming to him.

And don't even get me started on music.

Ebert's position is indefensible. Lots of games from Infocom adventures onwards quality as art. The writing / direction of many games easily matches that of movies. That doesn't mean the majority of games are artistic but there are plenty that are. I find it quite absurd that he should think different or try and defend such a weak point. The only difference between a movie and a game is interaction and control of the outcome. Otherwise what's the difference? And why should interaction mean something is no longer art?

And this is the guy who writes the screenplay to Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. and spends much of his time reviewing mainstream crap. Blanket proclaiming that games cannot be art is as absurd as saying movies cannot be art just by looking at what he spends most of his time reviewing.

I think one thing most people would agree on is that Clive Barker really didn't help the "games are art" side with Jericho.

Can people PLEASE get it through their heads that he is not saying "All games are shite, and the medium of videogames can never produce an emotional response or expression"

I'm sorry, but that's what he IS saying. If you've read more of his comments you'll come to understand that his arbitrary definition of art is merely a front for his utter contempt of and bias against videogames, even though he knows absolutely jack about them.


I really wish there was a way to contact Mr Ebert to have a mature discussion with him about the points he raises about the game and the film and how together they prove games are not art.

Any discussion to be had with mr. Ebert might seem civil on the outside, but will reveal itself as a simple repetition of one thing: games can't be art because I say so (among veiled insults towards your person).

I don't get that impression from the few letters I've seen published on his site. He's frivolous and self-indulgent at times, which is par for the course where celebrity critics are concerned, but he's also generally receptive to considered rebuttals. eg.

[responding to the point that video gaming suffers where it mimics other mediums, and will eventually make its own, unique contribution to art]If or when that happens, I hope I will approach it with an open mind. This debate has taken on a life of its own. In countless e-mails and on a dozen message boards, I've found that most of the professionals involved in video games are intelligent and thoughtful people like yourself. A large number of the video game players, alas, tell me "you suck" or inform me that I am too old. At 63, I prefer such synonyms as "wise" and "experienced."

It's also worth noting the latter part of the quotation here (entirely ignored by most posters in this thread)- games will never become an art form - never, at least, until they morph into something else or more. Whether hedging his bets or a genuine sense of perspective, you decide...

"What Ebert says about art is in no way interesting since the definition of art he has decided to adopt has nothing to do with any established definitions. It seems like he has chosen it only to be able to exclude a medium he doesn't understand or care for."

+oo

It is very obvious that Ebert hates videogames despite knowing almost nothing about them, and therefore he is not to be taken seriously on this subject.

Art cannot be defined, therefore Ebert's activities are futile. But hey, every civilization needs someone storming the windmills.