Slashdot Mirror
Film Critic Roger Ebert Dead at 70 Of Cancer
New submitter AndyKrish links to the BBC's report that just two days after penning a "leave of presence" in which he says "I am not going away," Roger Ebert — "arguably the world's most famous film critic" — has died of cancer. Ebert was a long-time film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, as well as (most famously along with Gene Siskel) for a string of television shows. In the course of dealing with persistent cancer that affected his thyroid and jaw, and which took away his voice, Ebert became a prolific blogger on movies as well as other topics, and drew on cutting edge technology to regain the power of speech.
I didn't agree with every review, but all in all he was damned good critic, and a significant part of his Great Movies list is a must-see for me.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
These really opened up a lot more films to me, beyond the Hollywood pap. Miss them both. Massive, massive props to them both.
Never dreamed I'd ever converse with either of them, but did tweet a bit with Roger. Great guy.
RIP, Roger
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
On a regular basis his reviews lept from discussion of the movie to discussion of life and the questions and problems that we face. His clarity of writing was combined with a clear and solid morality. He illuminated whatever corner of life he looked in to. He will be greatly missed.
There are maybe 5 or 6 modern writers whose ability to think and penetrate issues I am in awe of, since Mark Twain, and he is one of them.
Winston Churchill, George Will, and former radio talk host David Newman from WJR in Detroit.
I guess that's just 4. :(
All other reviewers are, to borrow one of Ebert's phrases, like little kids banging pots and pans on the floor of the kitchen.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Two Thumbs Up for Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
He addressed that very question in his last blog post. He was always one of us; a science fiction fan from the beginning, and an enthusiastic adopter of technology as it arrived. While he was on the wrong side of the question of video games as art, at least he cared enough to think about it and debate it.
From http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/04/a_leave_of_presense.html
"And gamers beware, I am even thinking about a movie version of a video game or mobile app. Once completed, you can engage me in debate on whether you think it is art."
I read in that good humour and an open mind, even at death's door.
And I do know of Anglophone critics, one that I follow is Robbie Collin.
If you know of Anglophone critics, then you know of Ebert. Instead, you just know a person that happens to be an Anglophone critic. Ebert was the giant of Anglophone critics. He was big enough to get his own TV show, and it was very popular! This is astounding when you consider other types of art criticism.
Really, all your post is doing is professing your ignorance. Yes, he was American and Americans are going to remember him the most, blah, blah, blah. But if you watch English language movies and you haven't heard of him, then you are sitting under a rock. If you own 100 good English language movies, his name and rating will probably be on at least 10 of them, if not more. Have you ever heard a movie referred to as "two thumbs up/down"? If so, then you've heard of Ebert.
I suspect if you talk to a Chinese or Indian film critic, they would know exactly who he was. In fact, he'd started to integrate foreign reviewers on his web site with his "Far Flung Correspondence", something I hope whoever takes over his job (I'm assuming Jim Emerson) will do.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Speaking of Winston Churchill, Ebert is author of the biggest burn since Churchill. Rob Schneider took out an ad about a generic critic ragging on his Deuce Bigalow, or maybe that animal man movie, saying, "Who does his guy think he is, some Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic?"
Ebert then writes, "Well, speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It seems that http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/ is melting under the pressure of people trying to read one last Roger Ebert review. I spent over a decade at university in Urbana-Champaign, and the Roger Ebert film festival was a yearly pleasure. I have especially fond memories of Ebert interviewing Werner Herzog on stage after a showing of Invincible.
Something of a lost art in every genre, from restaurants to sports radio. The critics have become hyperbolic bomb-throwers because vitriol sells more papers and attracts more eyeballs. Second, he was a film connoisseur and enjoyed the art AND the craft of film making. I remember one review where he slammed the director for being lazy with fake snow and just dropping it in front of the lens!
I worked my way through the AFI greatest list a few years back and I've gained a whole new appreciation for film and Ebert was one of the exemplars of how to watch and enjoy film. I believe this was his quote (paraphrased). You judge a movie by what it's trying to do and not against some universal standard.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Ebert had a plain common-man love for the movies, but he was, at the same time, a sophisticated critic.
I'll miss him.
I am very sure 1 chinese critic or indian critic will take his spot away easily.
. . . beautiful idea for a Saturday Night Live Sketch, with the Chinese critic and the Indian critic playing Siskel & Ebert . . .
Chinese Critic: "There was just too much missing from this plot. Take the hero, for example. His father didn't get killed by an evil tyrant. His son, our hero, didn't swear revenge against the evil tyrant. He didn't go to the Shaolin temple to learn Kung Fu. The Master there didn't tell him to learn sweeping the courtyard before learning Kung Fu. Just nothing of a plot was there."
Indian Critic: "I was waiting the whole time for half the state of Uttar Pradesh to sing and dance, but that scene never came. That bit with the Munchkins Ding Donging it was kinda sorta ok . . . but it just lacked the full gala of a real film."
Chinese Critic: "Yes, there is no reason for further discussing it . . . it is quite seldom that we agree, but we unanimously give two thumbs down to this 'Wizard of Oz' work . . . lest I dare call it a film."
Both Siskel and Ebert were good-humored enough to laugh at parodies of themselves.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
How many good journalists do we have to lose to cancer before we stop asking people to watch Hollywood carcinogens?
Unfortunate ad placement
That's a great point. Form is separate from content. The point of a movie is not just its content, but also in the stylistic presentation form it uses to deliver that content. I've seen movies that had a nice "story" behind it but with poor execution of the plot by the actors or timing and editing of the scenes. I've also seen movies produced and directed by music video directors and by Michael Baye that are beautifully styled and paced and so well lit and with gorgeous sweeping camera movements that actually go with the underlying scene and with good music that punctuates and emphasizes the action but the content of the plot and the storyline is crap.
.
When both form and content deliver something beautiful, it's a wonderful movie. I like Ebert's side commentaries and I also like that he was part of some schlocky movie writing in the 1960s.
.
Ebert wrote the scripts for Who Killed Bambi?, a 1978 movie about the Sex Pistols that ultimately was not made because the financiers did not like what was in the script. Ebert's screenplay for the movie is on his blog. Bizarre.
.
He also wrote the for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," a movie for which he wrote the screenplay in 1969.
When I first saw this I wondered what sort of demented hack could write such trash. Then I learned roger Ebert wrote it. So I decided that it was a work of genius.
The "thumbs" rating setup was just a gimmick. From what I remember of the show (and I'm old enough to have watched the earliest ones when they were new), they usually went in-depth into the movie at hand, often in ways that challenged the viewer to think it through. Also, their show began in the age before most of you even knew what an Internet was, and the only other way to get a sneak peek at the movie were the (incredibly over-hyped) TV ads or the (ditto) upcoming movie trailers at the local theater (when everyone was getting popcorn or whatever at the last minute).
Besides, the intelligent person would forget the whole thumbs up/down stuff at the end anyway, and listen to what they were actually saying about the movie before then.
Overall, it was hit-or-miss as to what they liked versus what I liked, but I appreciated the way they approached the subject, and in the way they explained how they reached their respective conclusions.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Not only did Mr. Ebert love movies, but he could WRITE. His reviews were not just excellent and insightful movie reviews, but generally good, to very good prose. This made reading his often lengthy reviews a delight, not a chore.
Did you know Mr. Ebert was also a great fan of written SF? I did not until he recently wrote a guest column for Asimov's Science fiction. It was a warm, charming essay that showed off his writing skills in a whole new light for me who had only ever read his movie reviews.
Anarchists never rule
So you're against how he attacked somebody immediately following their death. I see. Tell me more about his -- in your words -- "tastelessness and cruelty" he demonstrated by doing so...
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
He was big enough to get his own TV show, and it was very popular! This is astounding when you consider other types of art criticism.
He was also the first writer to win a Pulitzer Prize ... for movie reviews. That achievement, in and of itself, deserves respect.
Breakfast served all day!
Do you have any other candidates for "world's most famous film critic"?
He lost me when he, like many celebrities these days, used his position to air his infantile political views instead of movie reviews. In particular, his over the top cheering of that despicable tub of lard Michael Moore, and even worse, cruelly mocking kids who were suspended from school for wearing an American flag on Cinco de Mayo. His reviews were all right, a bit on the lowbrow side. RIP, whatever.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Maybe im a cold hateful bastard, but i have no love with ignorant idiots so entrenched in their own ideals and times that they cannot accept new forms of media and entertainment.
Yes you are. Some people don't like the same things you do. Some people have different opinions than you. That's OK. It doesn't mean they hate you and it doesn't mean you have to hate them. Just relax and like what you like.
I didn't agree with him on video games, either, and didn't agree with several of his movie reviews, but the man was a brilliant movie reviewer nonetheless.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
This behaviour displays a wanton disregard for the life and safety of those around him. Would you bite your tongue in respectful silence when Patient Zero is freshly planted?
From Snopes:
In what way was Dunn's behaviour any better than Dugas? Was is the first time he ever drove over the speed limit? The first time he drove bombed out of his mind? The first time he combined being twice the legal limit and driving at twice the speed limit? Somehow I doubt it.
Ebert's tweet was really aimed at the jackasses who knew about and enabled Dunn's behaviour and decided to tolerate it, not caring enough about public safety to have him arrested and jailed (which he certainly deserved), and not caring enough about Dunn himself to prevent his foreseeable death. As a former alcoholic himself, Ebert had some strong personal opinions about the behaviours of his fellow alcoholics and those around them, the same way a sex offender might be harsh in condemning another sex offender. In-group vitriol is 200 proof.
What has it achieved this respectful biting of lips? Self-centered assholes like Dunn still put the public at risk after forty years of public awareness efforts. I would have been much happier with the outcome if Dunn had redeemed himself to "former asshole" by seeking treatment rather than killing himself.
Somehow the polite grieving process and the social institution of denial has become joined at the hip. Ebert decided to fire a cap into this unholy union before the glue dried. As a result, every time someone criticizes Ebert for his tweet intended as true, the message behind his tweet is reopened for examination. We might even be saving lives here if the message finally sinks into the public consciousness that people behaving like Dunn aren't much better than people behaving like Dugas. Or is there a subtle hierarchy on acceptable ways to expose people to mortal danger without their consent? Not for me, there isn't.
And who are we protecting by our polite silence? The people who either meekly or gutlessly enabled Dunn to continue his reckless behaviours? Well, guess what? Gutless sucks. And meek sucks, too. The respectful silence just serves to confirm in people's minds that they did the best they could, without forcing them to confront the public sentiment that it damn well wasn't good enough. The true enablers in this story? The phony friends who hung around and encouraged his outlandish behaviour because they found Dunn to be funny or entertaining, but didn't give a damn about his well being or the well being of the babies and children and parents and sisters and brother who shared the same highways with the drunken, hard-driving Jackass.
If I had a family member who was a hard-living alcoholic and he hung out with a bunch of enabling carousers and high-functioning deadbeats who let him (or her) walk out of a pub shit-faced to hit the highway with death-wish testosterone or toxic depression, and someone of Ebert's status tweeted about it that "friends don't let friends drink and drive" my own reaction would have been an angry "Damn straight!"
Or maybe I'm wrong about myself, and in my grief over my dead family member I'd be grateful for the social courtesy of respectful
Giantbomb doesn't take money for video game reviews. It was founded by a guy who was fired for giving a bad review, and the fellow reviewers who left with him.
They review games they think are interesting or their community is interested in, if they aren't sent a review copy, they'll just go buy one at retail after release. They know they can't cover everything, so if a gaming company wants to "pressure them", they'll just buy their own copy to review. They know that means they won't have a review on launch day, and they're explicitly ok with that.
apparently you never actually read why he made that statement or held that opinion.
it wasnt about how entertaining something is. that's not what or how he defined "art".
if you actually listened to ebert he also considered very many books and movies to also "not be art". you must remember that he did view art in the old school way. people today think art is anything created. thus "entertainment" is a valid purpose for art. he didnt hold that view. he held a more traditional view that art should do more than just entertain because a monkey flinging poo can be entertaining, but it isnt art. he held the view that art should have some purpose, such as holding up a mirror to society, acknowledging things we'd rather not, or showing triumphs or defeats or other realities of the world, or simply to communicate an idea, a position.
he essentially lumped videogames into that same category (purpose entertainment, no more) because of hte fundamental nature of the medium. and by and large, most video games have no purpose beyond entertainment. they provide a cheap, entertaining thrill of mowing down nazis, conquering planets, saving planets, revenge, etc. Only a few have tried to aspire to be more than entertaining.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Quite correct. You have to realise that they were the head film critics for the two competing daily newspapers in what was at the time the second largest city in the USA. To make matters worse, Gene Siskel grew up in elite boarding schools and graduated from Yale, while Roger Ebert was the son of an electrician who graduated from Illinois. They were set up to hate each other from the get-go, and at first they did.
A large part of what made the early shows entertaining and informative was the arguments they had over the movies they saw. It was almost like they wanted to fight. So if they both agreed on something, it was almost reluctantly, and meant they couldn't find anything to fight over. Thus a "two thumbs up" became a really big deal. If a movie got that, a promoters job was pretty much done. Rather than burying you under positive review verbiage full of suspicious elipses, they'd just say "Two thumbs up!" - Siskel and Ebert, in the promotional material, and go cash their checks.
Over the run of their partnership we got to watch them acquire grudging respect for each other, and slowly that transformed into something more. When Gene Siskel died, it was almost like watching a death in a long-running marriage. Now that Ebert is gone too, we all have to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing is really and truly gone. Its hard.
I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone.