In what can't really be called a surprise, especially after the events of the past few days, but is still immensely sad news, film critic Roger Ebert died today, at the age of 70.
Nobody under the age of 50 or so reviewing movies in America today can claim to be completely free of influence from Ebert's witty, insightful prose - even when I disagreed with his analysis completely, there wasn't another working critic half as much fun to read - and I will humbly admit that I'm probably more indebted to him than to anyone else I can think of; for demonstrating what a movie review can be, and how rich and personally satisfying it can be to think about and discuss cinema from a place of enthusiasm and delight, rather than from the dry place of academic film writing. I don't know if I can go so far as to say "Without Ebert, I wouldn't be writing movie reviews today"... but I also certainly can't say the opposite.
There will be many Ebert stories shared over the next few days, I am sure; here's mine. During the 2011 Chicago Film Festival, I was headed to the men's rest room at the 70 E Lake Street screening room, where the critics' screenings happened, and I almost knocked him over by opening the door too fast. Terribly embarrassed, I backed up, mumbled, "I'm very sorry, excuse me", and he nodded as he went by. The next week, the exact same thing happened again.
A year later, Ebert, or somebody claiming to be him with his screen name, placed an incredibly generous comment on my Statement of Principles, asking among other things to introduce myself if I ever saw him at a press screening. I didn't have the guts to mention that we'd already met. Okay, so it's not the best Ebert story, but it is mine.
American cinephilia has lost one of its greatest voices today, and he will be very much missed.
04 April 2013
9 comments:
Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.
Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.
Ebert was like my first film teacher. He opened a door into how I look and talk about movies, and I have enjoyed many of his reviews, commentaries, books(his Scorsese one in particular), and film writing. He didn't just do important movies, or good movies, he saw EVERYTHING, and he came at it honestly...even if that meant being one of the few people who loved a film nobody else did. Like you said, he had a real love and passion for cinema that you could see and hear in his words, and his influence on writing about film is hard to overstate, I think. I'm actually pretty upset about this...
ReplyDeleteBut he died doing what he loved, and his work will live on for future generations.
RIP Ebert. And thank you.
And for the record Tim, I get a lot of the same enjoyment reading your perspective as I do Ebert, and I think that's as high a compliment I could give to a film critic. You're gonna have to pick up the slack for one of the greats!
I thought Ebert was too easy on movies. I think the same thing about Harry Knowles, and it is ironic that I would link those two, since one writes so beautifully he has a Pulitzer and the other seemingly writes like he is deliberately being juvenile.
ReplyDeleteBut it underscores what I feel about film criticism: I can forgive you anything - your taste, your prose, your snobbery - if you genuinely care about movies. And that's actually more rare than you think. I can only read a handful of critics since most (like many on respected newspapers) only approach it like a job. They don't really like watching movies. But Tim, and Harry, and Devin Faraci and even Armond White (who is incredibly mean-spirited, but the guy feels passionately) and couple others...and especially Ebert.
Without any formal training, Ebert became the foremost critic simply by conveying that he really liked being transported by cinema, and that I think is what made him so enduring and so special.
Ebert's gone? Oh... I really liked his reviews too... In fact, they are midway (I'd say puberty stage) through having an effect on my own written film analysis's.
ReplyDeleteI only first heart of Ebert long after Siskel was gone, so I know very little of what it felt like to be enjoying their joint reviews, but I've gathered it was something very special. Not to be harsh of Roeper, but the Ebert & Roeper show wasn't nearly as much fun as the Siskel & Ebert show.
Oh insightful, there's a word that part of me. People often say I'm insightful, and I guess I am, but boy, was Ebert insightful. We've all wasted (spent would be preferable) hours reading film reviews and handpicking our favorites, and Ebert is one of those. For a wide niche, he has entertained without initially meaning to.
Of course he had his flaws; but I think they were flaws that strengthened him. He even acknowledged two of his running soundbites in his later years; his criticism of 3D, and his dislike of films that threw away their plot for an action-driven 3rd Act.
That hones it to his greatest strength; his reviews could be appreciated on many levels. The average reader, as I was at first. The young adult with thriving, developing English skills, as I still am. The cinema lover, as we all are. And those who enjoying reading witty reads, as a lot of us are. Sometimes I even alternated between some, or all, of the above midway through one reading.
Anyway, we all know why Ebert's reviews were legendary - sure, that's how we heard about them - so you don't need me to tell you all.
I never met him, as I'm from outside America, but I won't morn that.
R.I.P. Roger Ebert
This article was actually the first place I heard the news. Somehow the fact that my "other" favorite film critic was the one to tell me about the death of my hero made it a little easier to take, so thank you.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is interested, here is my necessarily imperfect eulogy.
It's the end of an era. I grew up watching Siskel and Ebert and they played a crucial role in developing my understanding of how different people can perceive different things about the same movie. Check out this video of them uncut, two legit guys:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmnYCSwt2Js
I found their back and forth super entertaining throughout my childhood.
Rest in Peace Ebert and Siskel.
He was, and I'm quite certain I'm not alone in this, the first film critic who I specifically read his work. Not just to find out "is it worth seeing" but just to read what Rog wrote.
ReplyDeleteHis blog the last few years only strengthened that position of him being my favorite film critic. Finding him to be not only a lover of movies (and, God, how he loved movies. Beautiful, high brow cinema, or cheap trashy pop-entertainment, he loved movies) but also a deeply intelligent thinker about the world, and with a worldview similar to mine own.
He has, of course, not been writing much lately, and, at the risk of sucking up to the blog owner here, Tim, you've really sort of taken his place as my go to film critic. And, I guess now, you take his place as my favorite film critic.
When celebrities you like die, it's always such a weird thing to express how you feel. You didn't know them, you don't have the right to grief that their family has... But I'm grieving his death, and through his blog, I do feel in someways I did come to know him. The world is a lesser place without him.
I want to echo here my own sentiment that what I appreciated most about Mr. Ebert as a critic, is what I find most compelling about your own work, Tim. Mr. Ebert was the only film critic (in the admittedly limited circle of critics whose opinions I sought in the early days) who I KNEW would see something I didn't see in a film. There was always an angle, a perception, a nuance, I would have never noticed without his prodding. Certainly his canon and mine would be widely different in many places, but I always counted on him to present the film to me in a provocative way. If your stop short of calling yourself a disciple, Tim, fair enough--I am grateful to be able to think of you as one...
ReplyDeleteVery sweet of everybody to compliment me so, but let's not lose sight of the fact that Ebert was well and truly in a class by himself. If I refuse to call myself his acolyte, it's only because I wouldn't want to pretend that I'm worthy of that title.
ReplyDeleteI'm still reeling.
Hey, I never said you were as good as him, just that you have the somewhat unenviable task of now being my favorite living film-critic.
ReplyDelete