Roger Ebert 1942-2013

[cinemabon]

Roger Ebert, probably one of the best film critics of my lifetime, passed away today, finally succumbs to cancer. He was 70. Ebert wrote for the Chicago Sun Times for as long as I can remember, going back to the 1970's. He partnered with Gene Siskel, his rival over at the Chicago Tribune, when the pair decided to go on PBS with the very first TV review show "Sneak Previews" telling viewers at the end "...till next week, the balcony is closed." The show opens where the pair sneaks into a movie theater after buying their favorite treats and heading up to the balacony so they can watch the film together undisturbed. They partnered for over two decades until Siskel died from surgical complications at the age of 53.

Roger Ebert was a respected journalist and film critic. He did his undergraduate work at University of Illinois main campus in Urbana and was working on his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago when the Sun Times offered him the job of being film critic. He is survived by his wife, Chaz Hammelsmith, married since 1992.

I often checked his column to see how he rated a film. His insights into the industry, his wit, and his gift for succinct reporting will be missed and I for one am very saddened with his passing.

[Chris Knipp]

Roger Ebert was not only the most visible film critic of recent times but also became a heroic figure in his ability to keep on a challenging schedule and review all the important new releases when he had reached the point due to his cancer of not being able to eat solid food or to speak. He was a truly brave and passionate man. I was just quoting him on ZERO DARK THIRTY, because I agree with his relatively unenthusiastic response, when I learned from an email from CriticWire that he has passed away. I can't say he was the greatest critic. That would be a falsification. I lived during the time of Pauline Kael, and Ebert lived during the time of his erudite fellow Chicagoan Jonathan Rosenbaum, and before Kael I was impressed by other great movie critics who came before her. But no one was more visible and more universally respected than Ebert, and his prolific work and his geniality as a critic have been an inspiration to me. He was the ultimate enemy of snark. Siskel and Ebert brought TV film criticism to the masses and though those thumbnail and thumbs-up/thumbs-down reviews didn't do much for film criticism, they did a lot for home film discussion and generated interest in the week's new films, an awareness that they were coming out every week and were worth debating and evaluating. There's an empty chair in the balcony now. It will be kept vacant in his memory.

[oscar jubis]

I admire and respect Roger Ebert for three main reasons (beside his obvious courage): for convincing American society that movies are an essential and important part of culture (his Pulitzer win in 1975 was proof of his success), for being willing to admit when he changed his mind about a movie or when he made mistakes, for writing prose as clear and direct as anyone in film criticism.

[Johann]

I love that he wrote two days ago that he was taking a "Leave of Presence".

He stayed himself to the last minute. He had a great career and made a big name for himself with his buddy Gene Siskel.
The balcony does indeed have a vacant seat.
Goodbye Roger.
Your writing stands forever for all to read and learn.

[Chris Knipp]

A the request of the editor Robin Yacoubian I wrote a longer personal comment on Roger Ebert for the British website Flickfeast.uk (http://flickfeast.co.uk/spotlight/roger-ebert-19422013/). I stole some of my ideas from you guys.

[Johann]

Toronto Classic rock radio station Q107 had a discussion of Roger Ebert this morning, and how prolific he was.
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone said no one could keep up with Ebert in the 70's when it came to drinking and writing.

Since his cancer diagnosis he tweeted almost 32,000 times and focused exclusively on his writing- which was done many hours of the day.
I still have his last e-mail from the Sun-Times, and he was a voracious film watcher right up to the last minute.
That's why I admire him.
He did not let cancer slow him down one bit.
If I ever have the same kind of illness I'd like to be that stoic and damn-the-torps.

His funeral is today in Chicago.
I'll be there in spirit Roger.
Brotha from anotha Motha...

[Johann]

They also mentioned on the radio that his ultimate desire was to one day only review the movies that he wanted to.

Roger, I live your dream.
I'm not paid or famous like you were, but as you guys know, Old Johann doesn't review anything unless he wants to. ;)

[oscar jubis]

I remember growing up thinking that there was no "cooler" job than reviewing films for a major daily newspaper (like the Chicago SunTimes). I now find it hard to imagine anything more disappointing that having to watch most of what gets released every week into mainstream or commercial theaters. What a waste of time!It must also be difficult to have a lot to say about a movie you love or admire and having such a limited space to say it

[Johann]

I actually commented on Ebert's Facebook page awhile back about how many crappy movies he must've sat through all those years.
Growing up I seriously thought he and Gene Siskel had the best jobs on the planet.
Getting paid to watch movies and say what you think about them. WOW!
To this day that's still a dream job.
But seeing all those shitty flicks...that's the downside...

[Chris Knipp]

Movie reviewing.

I think we'd need to hear from some people who've actually done this job. You obviously have to like writing, as well as movies. I find that writing about shitty movies can be a lot of fun. Not as many movies are truly horrible as may appear. Most are merely competent but mediocre. Festival films are generally in that category too. I think you get used to watching a lot of so-so movies, and it's your job, and it's basically a really fun job. Festivals are fun too, and you get to go to them. Every job has its element of drudgery.

Though cinephiles want to spend their time watching classics or masterpieces, I'm reminded of the San Francisco running guru Walt Stack who always said when bestowing ribbons to winners of road races, "Remember it's us slowpokes who make you hotshots look good." The same applies to movies. Knowing the general runs of films out there makes one appreciate the truly fine ones better and see them in a richer context.

I want to emphasize though: most movies are competent. They are not terrible. This is what makes rating them so hard sometimes. This weekend I'm going to see and probably write reviews of THE COMPANY YOU KEEP, TRANCE, and TO THE WONDER. I don't think that's such a grim prospect. Meanwhile I've just seen from the SFIFF a preview screening of THE PATIENCE STONE, and I have at home screeners of another six SFIFF festival films. I look forward to these and I think Roger Ebert approached movies in much the same way. If you have a sinking feeling when you walk into a movie theater, you're in trouble.

But movie reviewing is journalism and journalism is observing, not doing. The doing side is making the movies. But in the case of Ebert, he was a mover and shaker: he had his own film festival.

Obviously Roger didn't burn out. He just kept burning brighter, right up to the very end.