Has anyone else read this? I am about halfway through. Whether the subject holds any interest for you or not, any fan of good writing should seek it out.
Speaking of his regular London walks:
mmm
I’d like to. I know a lot of his blog posts made it into his book, as he worked on them simultaneously. He’s a very cool guy and an excellent writer, movie reviews aside.
I’m not promoting anything or advertising for anyone, but I figure some of you may want to see this. If you order from this certain place, you’ll get his book and he’ll sign it for you. Neat if you are a fan.
Again, I am in no way connected to Ebert or this store. Just a neat thing.
I was saddened recently when he said he regrets the cancer surgeries and treatments he underwent and if he had it to do over would have let nature take its course. Does he speak to this in the book?
And does he talk about his relationship with Oprah? I’ve read that they were a couple and that they were just friends and was curious which was closer to the truth.
Here is Ebert’s little write-up called, “How I gave Oprah her start.”
Also, does he really wish he let cancer take its course? He seems glad to be alive and content with his current situation.
[QUOTE=Mahaloth]
Also, does he really wish he let cancer take its course? He seems glad to be alive and content with his current situation.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think he’s saying he wishes he was dead so much as if he had known how much physical and emotional pain he was going to have to go through during the process he probably would have opted out. Now it’s done and he’s better, though obviously much changed physically and emotionally from the experience.
It’s a real treat - very much gives the impression of someone who’s lived a life far beyond the profession that’s defined him up to this point, getting the chance to finally tell the stories that his criticism just hints at from time to time.
I haven’t read his memoir, but I’ve read many of his film reveiws and interviews and essays and such. He is an excellent, excellent writer.
I agree with this even though I disagree with his opinion about as often as I agree with it. He can make me give a movie a second chance.
He DID win a Pulitzer Prize, after all. Yeah, I used to buy his big yearly books of movie reviews, pre-internet. They were fun to just pick up and leaf through every time. He has such a good way of pointing out things, and he’s pretty good at not spoiling. And where would we be without the thousands of movie cliches sent in by movie viewers?
As he very famously pointed out to Rob Schneider in quite possibly his most memorable review.
WRT to the above, Ebert trashed Schneider’s movie Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo. The review should be read in its entirety for full effect, but the punchline appears below for those who don’t want to read the whole review:
[QUOTE=Ebert]
…Rob Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times listed this year’s Best Picture Nominees and wrote that they were ignored, unloved and turned down flat by most of the same studios that “bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to ‘Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo,’ a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic.”
Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider wrote: “Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind … Maybe you didn’t win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven’t invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who’s Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers.”
As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.
[/quote]
I haven’t read the memoir, although I’d like to, so I don’t know if the follow-up to the Rob Schneider story is mentioned. But, basically, after all of his medical difficulties, Ebert received a bouquet of flowers at his house:
*"A beautiful bouquet of flowers was delivered to the house the other day… A handwritten note paid compliments to my work and wished me a speedy recovery.
The card was signed, 'Your Least Favorite Movie Star, Rob Schneider.
Despite my review, Rob Schneider was moved to make a kind and generous gesture, one person to another…
The bouquet didn’t change my opinion of his movie, but I don’t think he intended that. It was a way of stepping back. It was a reminder that in the great scheme of things, a review doesn’t mean very much.
[The flowers] were a reminder, if I needed one, that although Rob Schneider might (in my opinion) have made a bad movie, he is not a bad man, and no doubt tried to make a wonderful movie, and hopes to again. I hope so, too.
Thanks, Rob."*
Roger Ebert really is a wonderful person.
In the book, Ebert talks of how he never aspired to be a film critic, that it was thrust upon him. In fact, up until that point, he had not even seen a lot of movies. He speaks of all the catching up he had to do.
He says, again in the book, that he expected his film gig to last maybe five years, after which he would pursue his real dream job: as a regular columnist.
I like his movie reviews a lot, but until he started blogging (and, now, authoring), I never realized what an outstanding writer he is.
I am at the point in the book now where he just started working at the Sun-Times.
mmm