Roger Ebert had my dream job. Sit in a darkened movie theater all day long,
well fortified with popcorn and soda.
Watch the magic on the flickering screen. Go home and write about it. Most importantly, get paid.
After more than forty-five years at it, Ebert was
so good at this supposedly easy job that he had become an icon, one of the last
of a generation of film critics that grew up in newspapers and magazines and
really knew movies—their history, their relationship to American culture,
their soaring triumphs and their crashing stupidities. Ebert’s opinions had continued to wield
influence despite the loss of his voice (and his ability to eat or drink) after
cancer and complications from various surgeries took part of his neck and jaw
in 2006. But a resurgence of the cancer
in recent weeks finally silenced the amiable critic. Roger Ebert died Thursday at the age of 70.
Ebert had snagged this cushy gig as a mere
youngster back in 1967, still in graduate school at the University of Chicago. He started at the Chicago Sun-Times as a part-timer in 1966 and got the movie
reviewing job a year later. His
good-natured rivalry with the reviewer at the other Chicago newspaper, Gene
Siskel at the Tribune, led to a television
show at the local PBS affiliate, SNEAK PREVIEWS (nationally broadcast on PBS by
1978). The bickering critics often disagreed
over films, but when they both gave a movie the “thumbs up”, you could be sure
it was worth seeing.
When Siskel died in 1999, Ebert (who was
a Gemini) continued his twin-reviewers formula with fellow Sun-Times writer Richard Roeper on AT THE MOVIES (in several
incarnations). Roeper has also been a
frequent contributor on Ebert’s website rogerebert.com.
Starting at the very beginning of his career
with a book on the history of his alma mater, the University of Illinois, Ebert
was a prolific author on a variety of subjects (rice cooking?) right up until 2011,
when he published his memoirs in Life
Itself: a Memoir. In 1975, he was
the first journalist ever to win a Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.
Ebert may have been “without question the
nation’s most prominent and influential film critic", as Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun-Times put it, but that’s not why most
of his readers followed him. It is
certainly not why I clicked on his website to decide between GANGSTER SQUAD or
BROKEN CITY on any given day or whether SNITCH was worth my time at all. I loved Roger Ebert because he loved movies, not just films. He always said beneath it all he was "just a fan."
Ebert wasn’t a snob. Some things he hated (teen slasher movies,
for example, and I’m with him on that one).
His favorite films were of the old classic school—LA DOLCE VITA, CITIZEN
KANE. But he was an equal-opportunity
reviewer. He watched everything and gave
everything a chance. He could surprise
you by liking something snootier critics wouldn’t deign to review. Maybe he came by that broader outlook in his
youth, when he spent time writing for science fiction fanzines.
I think the real secret to his success was that he
always took the movie’s audience into consideration. His reviews were relative, not
absolute. You can’t really compare 400
BLOWS with COWBOYS AND ALIENS. They are
apples and oranges, each tasty in its own way.
You can have good oranges and sour ones.
Nice, tart pippins and rotten, nasty mushballs. But not fair to try and sell an orange to
someone who likes apples.
He explained it this way, “When you ask a
friend if HELLBOY is any good,
you're not asking if it's any good compared to MYSTIC RIVER, you're asking if it's any good compared to THE PUNISHER. And my answer would be,
on a scale of one to four, if SUPERMAN is four, then HELLBOY is three
and THE PUNISHER is two. In the
same way, if AMERICAN BEAUTY gets four stars, then THE UNITED STATES OF LELAND clocks in at about two.”
I’ll miss Roger Ebert for another
reason. In this age of ubiquitous
"expertise", he knew what he was talking about.
He was a true expert in his subject.
Today, anyone can offer up an opinion on a movie. (I oughta know—I do it often enough!) Teenagers
whose movie memories extend to maybe 2005 are encouraged to review whatever
they just saw on the screen on Twitter and Facebook, in blogs and on
Amazon. Most of them have no context for
what they see—no history, little knowledge outside the narrow genres or
subgenres they like. Some of them have
so little respect for the medium they have to be scolded to turn off their phones
in the theater and refuse to believe watching a pirated movie is stealing. Forgive
me if I choose to discount their opinions, as loud and numerous as they are.
There are still a few old-school film critics
out there. I suppose as long as
newspapers and magazines continue to survive (which may not be long), these
lonely folk will continue to sit in the dark and watch the flickering screen,
then go home to write about the magic they’ve seen. And get paid.
Though none will do it with as much wit,
grace and warmth as Roger Ebert.
And in other movie news . . .
T-Rex in 3D? Oooh, aaaah ...EEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! |
As Jeff Goldblum’s Dr. Ian Malcolm says, “Oh,
yeah. ‘Oooh, ahhh’, that’s how it always
starts. Then later there’s the running
and screaming.” Which, if anyone’s still
asking, is my favorite line of his.
Information for this article provided by Wikipedia and "Beloved critic Ebert dies at 70," by Caryn Rousseau, Associated Press, April 5, 2013.
Information for this article provided by Wikipedia and "Beloved critic Ebert dies at 70," by Caryn Rousseau, Associated Press, April 5, 2013.
Cheers
Donna
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for chiming in! We love to see your comments. (All comments are moderated so spam can be terminated!)