Social Agenda of Roger Ebert

Rating: 8/10 (12 July 2002)

I often check Roger Ebert's Movie Reviews AFTER I have seen a film to see how I measure up with the expert. After a few years of this activity, I am convinced that Mr Ebert has a social agenda which is clearly reflected in his reviews. ie. Hart's War. Mr Ebert rates this a 3 star film. I would have rated it 3-1/2 stars. Not much difference you say? The difference is significant and can be measured by the last paragraph of Mr Ebert's review:
"The movie worked for me right up to the final scene, and then it caved in. [The writers and director] put the plot through an awkward U-turn so that Bruce Willis could end up as a hero."
After telling us how "awkward" this plot twist was, he goes on to say:
"How and why he does so, is ingenious . . ."
It is not important to my argument to know what that plot twist is. But it is of major importance to read how Mr Ebert would have improved(?) the plot ending:
"I would have liked it better if the far-off bugle had been playing under a black character at the end and not a white one."
So, it looks like Mr Ebert would have preferred the continuation of the racist message the film has portrayed up to that point rather than let a white man be the hero. But, of course, if they had done so, the result would have been "just another military courtroom drama" instead of "an ingenious one".
Make no mistake. Mr Ebert sees this as a film about racism, which it is, and resents the altogether too rare plot twist that makes this film a winner. He would rather we left the theatre moaning about the plight of the black man which has been done endlessly over the last half century and, perhaps, done better elsewhere (ie. To Kill a Mockingbird).