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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
And all movies have ends.
What about "The Never Ending Story"?
rewriting history since 2109
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
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