Charles Cassady, Jr. remembers Roger Ebert
Newsroom
gossip is rarely kind. Remember that fact when The Plain Dealer
finally folds; most of the other reporters around will be secretly
enjoying the loss with sadistic glee.
But
the uncomplimentary newsroom tale was told that when Roger Ebert made
history as the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize, it was
really a "fix" by the Pulitzer committee, who were split
over whether to give the honor to either Andrew Sarris or Pauline
Kael, both much longer established, NYC-based, each with their own
polarized cheering sections of readers. Rather than stir up a fuss,
gossip goes, the Pulitzer was just handed to the younger, relatively
unsung and non-controversial Chicagoan Ebert, the last person anyone
expected. That really rather sounds like the opening of PUTNEY
SWOPE
to me, but so goes the gossip.
One
cannot doubt, however, that Ebert sure earned that Pulitzer in
hindsight. From his groundbreaking television shows, done with and
without Gene Siskel, from his many books, from his own film festival,
he became a household name in popular-culture cinema criticism with a
common-man touch. Sure, I sometimes disagreed with his opinions, but
I noticed in particular that Roger Ebert possessed a keen knowledge
and appreciation of science-fiction, pulp and fantasy literature;
when movies in those categories came out, he weighed them with more
respect than other beat writers who just tossed them in the B-movie
trash heap or kiddie picture ghetto. (The olden-days Plain Dealer and
Cleveland Press critics, I do believe, would just walk out of such
fare about after 10 minutes. Then probably invoice the paper extra
for working over the weekend. No, no tears for the loss).
Thus
Ebert had the discernment to name DARK
CITY
the best picture of the year 1998 and hail SWAMP
THING
and the original HALLOWEEN
and the first EMMANUELLE
as genre masterworks. And got Mr. Siskel to concur. Yes, even on
SWAMP THING.
I
met Mr. Ebert once. He and Siskel came to Cleveland for a benefit in
Playhouse Square, and I was very last of a long line of local
reporters to speak with the pair. Ebert especially looked worn out
and gray. An ominous portent of the cancer that would plague him?
More likely just having a marathon facing so many damned Cleveland
media hacks. But in our short session we found out we had some mutual
acquaintances in published projects, we both adored using the fairly
obsolete Apple Macintosh SE computer on the job; and Roger Ebert
really lit up and we enjoyed a real conversation.
He
was a good guy, and if the aphorism uttered by so many Vietnam vets
and penitentiary inmates is true, he's in heaven now. Because he
already did his time in hell - watching all those movies.
Bob Ignizio remembers Roger
Ebert
I'm not sure exactly when I
first saw Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel on the PBS movie review program
Sneak Previews, but I know it
was fairly early in the show's run. They were still doing their “dog
of the week” segment, my personal favorite part of the show in
which they would single out an especially bad film, usually some low
budget horror or sci-fi film. Most likely it was 1979 or 1980, so I
would have been 9 or 10 at the time.
When
I started watching the show, my main interest was just in seeing the
clips from upcoming films that were part of the show. Soon, however,
I became fascinated with the spectacle of these two guys arguing with
each other about movies. I took sides early on, feeling that Gene was
a little more uptight and self righteous than Roger.
Looking
back that was probably unfair, but that was how it came across to me
at the time. And besides, Roger liked INFRAMAN,
a Hong Kong produced variation on the Japanese formula of having
robotic superheroes fight rubber suit monsters. It was kind of
validating to see this respectable adult, who people apparently
considered an expert on movies, giving the “thumbs up” to the
kind of trash I enjoyed, and which most critics would have dismissed
out of hand.
As
time went by, I begand to trust Roger's opinion even on movies that
were outside of my normal comfort zone. I'm pretty sure Gene liked
it, too, but it was Roger's review that got me interested in seeing
Japanese director Juzo Itami's 1985 arthouse comedy TAMPOPO.
I believe it was my friend Lee, also an Ebert fan, who suggested we
rent it when it came out on VHS as a change of pace from our usual
movie nights watching gory horror films. This was probably the first
time either of us had ever watched a movie with subtitles, and thanks
to Roger pointing us in the right direction, the experience was a
positive one.
There
were countless other movies like that, films I never would have
thought twice about watching if Roger hadn't piqued my interest with
a positive review. Because of that, I went from someone whose
cinematic diet consisted almost solely of horror, science fiction,
juvenile comedy, and violent action to a well rounded, open-minded
movie fan willing to give just about anything a chance. More than
that, watching and listening to Roger and Gene spar taught me to look
at movies more deeply, and to try and articulate the reasons I liked
or disliked a particular film beyond, “wow, that exploding head
scene was really cool.”
To
put it simply, watching Roger (and Gene) both broadened and deepened
the way I looked at movies, and without them I would probably not
have attempted to be a film critic myselff. Based on the many other
tributes I've read, I'm far from the only critic for whom this is
true. More importantly than those poor fools who thought that, like
Roger, they could actually make a career out of being critics are the
countless regular people who gained a deeper love and understanding
of film from Roger's work. And that's not a bad legacy to leave
behind at all.
Pete Roche remembers Roger
Ebert
I watched Roger Ebert with
Gene Siskel on Sneak Previews and At the Movies on a
fairly religious basis. In those pre-Internet days during the Carter
and Reagan administrations there simply was no other place a 12-year
old kid could see minute-long snippets of hotly anticipated films
like MEGAFORCE, RETURN OF THE JEDI, and INDIANA
JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM before their release. Seated alone
in the theater together, the two made it cool to be a celluloid geek
before anyone else—and way before STAR WARS prequels and
superheroes got people discussing characters and debating plotlines
months in advance of buying their tickets.
Like many, my opinions often
differed from Ebert’s on certain titles. It didn’t matter. The
important thing was that Roger got viewers thinking and debating
about movies. His printed reviews in the Chicago Sun Times and
verbal capsule summaries on television created buzz and prompted
dialogue—essential goals of effective critique.
On Ebert’s passing many
are citing him as the greatest film critic ever. I’d venture
further and suggest he was the greatest critic ever, period.
Certainly the most recognized. Ebert was the first (if most
unlikely) “rock star” of movie critics, a pundit who elucidated
the merits and enumerated the flaws of work in his chosen arena in a
manner that elevated and advanced the medium as a whole. There’s a
reason why Roger Ebert is a household name and water cooler god, and
it’s because of him that magazine readers and TV audiences are more
acquainted with the work of Leonard Maltin and Richard Roeper than
David Fricke and Robert Christgau. He could be droll and humorless
at times, but Ebert’s nerdy discourse always made for compelling
TV.
Long regarded by many
(including this writer) as the chubby, bespectacled half of the duo
who popularized the “two thumbs up” measure of approval, Ebert
seemed comfortable enough in his own skin—a couch potato physique
not uncommon to his sedentary profession. But the man gave new
meaning to courage when coping with cancer in the 2000’s,
approaching even the most mundane aspects of life with an Olympic
gold medalist’s optimism and stamina—and a child’s immutable
sense of wonder.
I’ve always admired
Ebert’s directness and economy of language in his published work.
The guy always picked—or omitted—precisely the right words to
impart his thoughts to the everyday reader in a way that never
condescended to them nor alienated them from the subject. He always
made the right comparisons, drummed up colorful analogies, and
offered insightful and entertaining superlatives without seeming
verbose or risking hyperbole. Writers know there’s always a
fancier adjective to describe whatever it is they’re talking about,
but Ebert preferred accessible language and wasn’t afraid to use
incomplete sentences or commonplace, one-word zingers if doing so got
the point across better.
He’ll certainly be missed,
but there’ll never be a “roll credits” when it comes to his
influence. From “Rosebud” to RAMBO, Roger Ebert’s been
my go-to guy.
See ya in the lobby, sir.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We approve all legitimate comments. However, comments that include links to irrelevant commercial websites and/or websites dealing with illegal or inappropriate content will be marked as spam.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.