In Defense of Ben Lyons

I must make a huge disclaimer here before we get started. I co-hosted The Young Turks with Ben Mankiewicz for five years, he still co-hosts the show with me from time to time and we have been very good friends for many years. Ben Mankiewicz now co-hosts At the Movies with Ben Lyons. Now that I've said all that, this isn't about Ben Mankiewicz, it's about Ben Lyons. Here is my simple message to all the haters - get off Ben Lyons' ass.

Seemingly every other movie critic in the country has made it their life mission to take down Ben Lyons. We are told that he's too young, doesn't know enough about movies and sucks up to celebrities too much. First, I got news for you - the whole entertainment industry is built around sucking up to celebrities. You think Ben Lyons is uniquely responsible for this? Are you mental? Have you watched any entertainment "news" in your life?

Second, I don't give a damn how old he is. I just care if he does a good job of reviewing movies on TV. Third, yes he reviews movies - on TV. That means he has to be good on TV - and he is. He's personable, engaging and comfortable. In an ideal world, the best print film critics would make the best movie reviewers on TV. We don't live in that world (just as many of the best political writers and sports writers are disasters on television).

Fourth, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn that he doesn't have Roger Ebert's encyclopedic knowledge of film history. Who does? (Other than Roger Ebert). I just want to know whether I should see Benjamin Button this weekend. The two Bens will give me the information I need and entertain me while they do it. In fact, I think Ben and Ben have made this show watchable for me now in a way that it never was before.

Why? Because I couldn't relate to the previous hosts. They have been reviewing movies for centuries (don't get me wrong, this is nothing against them on a personal level - I actually like them and have tremendous respect for Ebert). But for them, the cinematography and shadowy lighting is enormously important. God bless them for it, but I mostly don't care. And I suspect I'm in the vast majority.

How this movie compares with Frank Capra's body of work is a lot less relevant to me than whether my wife is going to be able to sit through it. I trust Mankiewicz because he is about my age, he has my sensibility and roughly my taste in movies. As they say in the business, he is in my demo.

What I have been surprised to find out is how often I agree with Ben Lyons. I'm going to reveal some inside information here, but Mankiewicz doesn't always love costume dramas - and that kept him from liking movies like Braveheart and Star Trek as much as I did. Well, I love those movies. I can't get enough of Gladiator. And Lyons is not above it. Even more, I love the enthusiasm he shows for the movies he likes. And he's not afraid to say he likes movies that regular people like (by the way, regular people is not a euphemism for dumb people; I've got two Ivy League degrees and I still loved Old School). Other critics might be disdainful of that, but the viewers are not.

Look, let's keep it real. Are some of these other critics jealous of Ben Lyons because he has landed such a prestigious and well paying job (and one that makes you famous) whereas they are still working in print? Absolutely. I'm sure most of them love print, but here is a guarantee - none of them would have turned down the TV job.

Here is the critical thing that the critics are missing - these guys weren't hired to be the best film critics in the country, they were hired to be the best movie reviewers on television. And they are. They've got me watching the show every week. You know why? Because for 99% of America, watching movies isn't an exercise in showing off your intellectual elitism or waxing nostalgic about comparative cinema history.  It's a movie. And Ben Mankiewicz and Ben Lyons provide smart, amusing and relevant opinions about movies that poor schleps like me might consider seeing. That's why we watch the show.

Young Turks on You Tube

< Israel using cluster bombs and white phosphorus | Cenk...Gran Torino Rocked >
 Display:
I agree entirely. Very well said.

by Jeremydium on 01/05/2009 05:52:07 PM EST

The criticism of Lyons surely stems from a combination of things, some of which you mentioned.

The unfair part comes from jealousy *and* a natural dislike of ANY new host of any show with beloved figures like Siskel/Ebert/Roeper (hell, just look at the youtube comments when Wes/R.J. or Michael Shure host TYT  alone). Mix in the fact that the new hosts are of a different mold and the show is in a new format and you have a real recipe for harsh critici sm.

And yes, there is probably some constructive criticism as well. The problem is that it's hard to weed out because of the unfair stuff noted above.

Finally, there is the snowball effect. I'm referring to the fact that once an early impression is set (positive or negative), it just snowballs. Unfortunately that means that people who've never really even seen the show develop an unfavorable impression based on what they've heard.

Worse yet, if they do eventually watch the show they view it through a preformed negative frame of reference, paying extra attention to things that fit their preconceived notions while ignoring and rationalizing away the things that contradict it.

by ihavenobias on 01/05/2009 05:53:33 PM EST

You seriously dedicated a blog to defending Ben Lyons?  You mean the joker that sits next to Mankiewicz?  OK, he's not that bad and even with the abrupt camera changes, I still enjoy the show (though obviously due to Ben M's film critique).

by rev24 on 01/05/2009 06:19:28 PM EST

Sorry Cenk, but the guy doesn't give honest reviews. He tosses out movie-friendly blurbs designed to get attention for himself. A quote-whore. I Am Legend is "one of the greatest movies ever made"? He was so interested in getting his star-fuck on he didn't even bother graduating from college. Massive nepotism involved. (Father is Jeffrey Lyons, a former host of At The Movies, grandfather was newspaper columnist, etc.) He's the liberal version of Jonah Goldberg. With sites like Rotten Tomatoes why would anyone even watch At the Movies? Waste of time, even with Ben on the show.

by zuchora on 01/06/2009 01:01:04 AM EST

No big deal...

I'm just saying...

by NikoliV on 01/07/2009 01:12:14 AM EST

Let's cut to the chase.  Does anybody really seriously believe that Ben Lyons would be on this show if his dad, Jeffrey, wasn't a high profile critic with a lot of name recognition?  And his other biggest asset is that he sounds and looks like a boy bander moonlighting on "Dancing with the Stars." The producers of the show have obviously cast him as a foil to Ben, who comes across as more cultured. If that is all that is required of Lyons (to be a dweeby counterpoint to Ben that the kid demo can ID with) then he succeeds.

But I ask more from a critic, even if I don't happen to agree with them very often. I don't care how old they are.  I ask, "Are they intelligent and perceptive when they review a movie and are they effective, entertaining communicators? Do they occasionally give me an "ah ha?"

Cenk is setting up a false dichotomy here: egghead intellectual critics who talk about Bergman versus "joe the lunch pail critics" who speak to the tastes of the masses.  Some of my favorite critics (Pauline Kael, Janet Maslin, Ebert, Stephen Holden) have been my favorites because they have been perceptive on the level of "fine arts cinema" and are still very able able to recognize and recommend a good mass market potboiler if it works on it's own terms as an entertainment.

For me, Lyons comes across as an enthusiastic amateur who is not particularly insightful or entertaining, and who senses and resents the fact that a lot of people don't take him seriously, despite the fact he is on TV.  It's not that Lyons never says anything intelligent or that I never agree with his conclusions, it's that there are probably at least 1000 other critics who could do the job better that he does. He's been sent by central casting to play a role. He's not a top notch critic.  If the want a foil for Ben, they could do a lot better.

by Chowfun on 01/07/2009 11:42:16 AM EST

Though you have to admit the guy who obliterated Cenk's post (like your comment) in his NY Mag article was way out of line bringing Cenk's wife into the mix.  Technical foul = strike back!

by rev24 on 01/07/2009 01:22:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Could the gang at TYT stop claiming that Cenk was dissed by "The New York Times?" It was (as you note) "New York Magazine."  Not same thing at all -- I hope the error is unintentional.

And shame on Cenk for dragging his wife into his defense of the ridiculous.  He reads reviews to figure out if his wife will sit through a movie? Does he let her read the paper?  Does he allow her to wear shoes?

by Chowfun on 01/07/2009 03:59:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ana was the only one to mention the New York Times Magazine in referring to an email she received.  I think most likely she didn't have time to thoroughly check out the article before mentioning it since she received it during the show?  Also at the start of the Post Game, Cenk correctly identifies the magazine as the New York Magazine.

Interesting take on "the wife," but I'll take two steps away from that one.  

by rev24 on 01/07/2009 04:13:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"The New York Times Magazine."  I wasted a fair amount of time looking for the article there. Ana's reference to "the New York Times" article is still on the TYT home page. (I wasted time looking for it in the Times after I got the email from her yesterday as well.) Ana is a sweetheart, but that is exactly the kind of thing she needs to get right for TYT's credibility.

And, I like to choose when and where I waste my time.

by Chowfun on 01/07/2009 04:31:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: