I can totally picture that. I really loved the chemistry between the two of them.
I remember watching their show one Saturday in 1982, when they were reviewing E.T. I had barely heard of it as it had just come out, and I wasn’t (and am still not) into kids’ movies. But they both raved about it, said it was the new Wizard of Oz and just went on and on with one superlative after another. Hell, I turned off the program halfway through, got in my car, and immediately drove to the mall to see it. And asked “how high?” as my feet left the ground.
Ebert even mentioned me once(more than once, actually, but I got this one as a screen shot). I made a thread about it in 2010. I’m the Brian F. he mentions in the below screenshot(it’s on the bottom of the screenshot).
I feel bad for his wife Chaz. I remember how she teared up on Oprah when he switched his computer voice to match his actual voice. The two were a great couple.
I didn’t always agree with with his movie assessments, but I always read his reviews because he was a good writer. Occasionally his reviews even made me reassess a movie I disliked (or even ones that I liked).
Aw shit. I only sometimes agreed with him (the 4 stars he gave SYNECHDOCHE, NY is almost certainly attributible to painkillers), but he was a great writer and he has no heir as “greatest living movie critic”.
I recall an incident on his and Siskel’s movie review show where, I guess, they were responding to viewer mail. As I remember it, someone had accused Roger of being a racist (against blacks), apparently based on something he had said on a previous show. Roger looked at Gene and said something like, “Do you want to tell 'em or should I?” He then revealed that his wife was a black woman.
Anyway, so sad. The balcony is permanently closed.
Roeper was–and continues to be–an idiot. Siskel & Ebert was the original gold standard of the form and has never been equaled since. I think Roger’s critical acumen faded after Gene’s death–he was seriously out of his depth with quite a few of the guests who subbed in & out while they searched for a replacement. The decision to use Roeper was a clear case of slumming, imho.
But Ebert was, by all accounts, a class act and a good writer, even if he started liking more and more films to the end. I never used him as a barometer of what to view (he was notorious about getting plot or character details wrong in his reviews regularly), but he was a tremendous ambassador for classic and quality films, especially in the pre-internet age when you never heard about arthouse films except on At The Movies. He was a standard bearer for independent cinema and an avid proponent of film restoration and revisiting older films with passion and enthusiasm.
I was in attendance when he won an award from the San Francisco International Film Festival a few years ago (this was after he lost his lower jaw). He and his wife sat and listened as one filmmaker after another praised him (and ribbed him) for doing what he did best–loving movies and communicating that love to a larger world. He also was a moving chronicler of his own health problems, so that even after he could no longer speak, he never really lost his voice.
Just went to roger ebert.com - the “Movie Glossary” term listed on the front page was “Dead Man Talking”. Don’t know if that was a strange coincidence, or planned that way.
Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel started their TV show Sneak Previews in 1975, when home video was first taking off. This was an important time in the history of the movies - it allowed people to relate to movies in a way similar to how they relate to books. Before the VCR you could only see movies that happened to be in local theaters or on broadcast television. With the VCR you could watch what you wanted, when you wanted, and you could also collect movies. The increased choices made the role of the reviewer more important.
Siskel and Ebert not only helped people decide what they wanted to watch - they gave people guidance in thinking about movies. That is, they acted both as reviewers and critics. They provided more than a bunch of thumbs up and thumbs down - they gave us many hours of intelligent conversation (and argument) about movies - about their relative value, about directors and performers, about genres. And they did it with a complete lack of pretense. No art-house language, no fifty-dollar words where fifty-cent words would do, no insider jargon.
One thing I liked about Roger Ebert was that, even though I sometimes disagreed with him, I could usually get an idea of whether I would like a movie that he reviewed. He described things well enough that I could tell whether something would appeal to me even when it didn’t appeal to him. That’s a rare thing in a reviewer.
Another thing I admire about Roger Ebert is that he never gave up. He could easily have hidden himself away after his disfiguring surgery. That’s probably what I would have done. He continued to work up until the end. His death is a sad thing, but at least he died with his boots on.
Wow, that is quite a blow. I read his reviews with such dedication and fascination as a teenager. I later learned how to disagree with him, but in my earlier, formative years he was often so decisive in forming my taste in movies.
He was just such a good, clean writer, and seemed to have a large, generous spirit as well. I think everyone knew we wouldn’t have him around too many more years, but I really didn’t expect it to happen this quickly.
I think it was an example of the Lennon/McCarthy phenomena. When two talented people of equal stature work together they can form a respectful rivalry. Each is driven to reach his highest level by the wish to outperform the other.
They have to be talented as individuals, so there’s something to work with with. They have to be of approximately equal stature so one doesn’t overshadow the other. There has to be rivalry, so there’s the competitive drive (some friendlier collaborators will work together to cover each other’s weaknesses). And there has to be some respect - each has to see the other as somebody who’s talented enough to be worthy competition and they have to channel their competition into trying to outperform the other rather than attack the other.
I enjoyed his Great Movies reviews in particular, always a great read particularly after watching the film in question. I remain amazed at the sheer volume of output ,with a high average quality, that Ebert put out: reviews, articles, books, TV, DVD commentaries, blogs, Twitter. There are few people in any field who have used so many media so skillfully.
He was always fun to read, regardless of the subject:First, get the Pot. You need the simplest rice cooker made. It comes with two speeds: Cook, and Warm. Not expensive. Now you’re all set to cook meals for the rest of your life on two square feet of counter space, plus a chopping block. No, I am not putting you on the Rice Diet. Eat what you like. I am thinking of you, student in your dorm room. You, solitary writer, artist, musician, potter, plumber, builder, hermit. You, parents with kids. You, night watchman. You, obsessed computer programmer or weary web-worker. You, lovers who like to cook together but don’t want to put anything in the oven. You, in the witness protection program. You, nutritional wingnut. You, in a wheelchair. The pot and how to use it
