R.I.P. Roger Ebert

RogerEbertToday, Hollywood has lost one of its brightest stars, and it’s a man who wasn’t up on the big screen, and wasn’t behind the camera. Roger Ebert has passed away at the age of 70 due to cancer. Just a few days ago, he wrote on his blog that his cancer had returned, and that he was taking a “leave of presence” from his job as chief movie reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times. Not a leave of absence, as most people would; he still intended to keep working and writing reviews. But he intended to let other reviewers that he had hand-picked handle the majority of the reviews, while he would review only those movies that he wanted to review. He sounded as if he was looking forward to it, describing it as a lifelong dream. One supposes that after a lifetime of reviewing movies, no matter how terrible, that the idea of watching only those movies that actually sound interesting would indeed hold a lot of appeal. Sadly, it wasn’t to be. But perhaps it’s better in some ways that he goes out at the top of his game, after having had one of his most prolific review-writing years (he wrote in that blog post that he had written somewhere around 300 reviews in 2012.) We can remember him as the great writer and reviewer he was.

I don’t think it’s any exaggeration to say that Roger Ebert was the best-known movie critic in the world. Nor would it be an exaggeration to say that if somebody is writing reviews today and isn’t part of Ebert’s generation then they were probably inspired by Ebert. His show with Gene Siskel, At the Movies, was a mainstay on television for years, including after Siskel’s own lamented death, also due to cancer. I remember watching Siskel & Ebert when I was young. Weekend television was fairly predictable for me. I’d watch Saturday morning cartoons, I’d watch reruns of The Muppet Show, and I would watch Siskel & Ebert. It was, almost certainly, the first “grown up” television show I ever watched. It would be years, in most cases, before I ever saw the movies they were talking about. But they were fun to watch. They had intelligent debates — debates, not fights, and not simply “I like this, you don’t.” They stated their reasons. They had fun with it. People talked with their friends about movies as they walked out of the theatre; now here were two well-educated guys doing the same thing on national TV, and they talked about them the same way as everyone else. They discussed everything from arthouse films to popcorn blockbusters in depth, and they boiled it down to terms that even a grade-schooler could understand, with their trademarked “Thumbs Up” and “Thumbs Down” final say. They never dumbed it down, but it was always accessible.

This was just as true in Roger Ebert’s writing. He had an easy style to read, one that perfectly balanced erudition and casual speech. You could tell Ebert had a college education in writing, but you barely needed a high school education to understand him. He didn’t bust out five-dollar words (such as erudition — sorry) just to show off his vocabulary; instead he showed his wit with his turns of phrase. When you read his reviews, you knew where he stood. If he liked it, it showed through in his praise. If he hated it, he made it clear in no uncertain terms why. And his reviews were themselves a form of entertainment; in fact, the worse the movie, generally the more fun his review would be. He had no malice in his reviews — I always got the sense that he would truly love to see his most frequently-lambasted filmmakers turn out something great — but if he had to write a negative review, he made sure that it still provided some entertainment for his readers.

Like any critic, Ebert sometimes wrote reviews that I disagreed with. We’re no two of us alike, after all. But it was always possible to respect Ebert even when I didn’t agree with him, because he was always honest. You always knew where he stood on something, and why. He didn’t automatically praise arthouse films simply out of some view that, as a critic, he should respect the artistry; if he didn’t like it, he didn’t like it and said so. He didn’t bash popcorn films just because they were lowbrow; if he was entertained, he openly admitted it, praised the film, and said why. When he received a backlash from Transformers fans over giving Revenge of the Fallen one star (out of four), the fans said that he just wasn’t the right audience for giant robots fighting each other. Ebert’s response was to point out he’d given the first film three stars. He once explained his rating system as saying that it wasn’t what a film was about, but how it was about it — or to put it another way, if a lowbrow popcorn flick was a well done lowbrow popcorn flick it would get a high rating from him. He was a movie critic, but he wasn’t the stereotypical snob. He was a populist, writing for the masses, and reading a review from him felt like he intended it to be a recommendation from a friend.

When he had biases, he let them be known, turning them into a virtue of sorts through his honesty. He was open about not being a big fan of the superhero genre. So when he gave Thor a middling review, comic book fans who were regular readers of his knew that their own reception of it may be a bit better. Contrariwise, when he gave Spider-Man 2 his highest grade, fans knew that it must really be something special.

And at the risk of sounding schmaltzy, his personal life was also somewhat inspirational — and not in the typical Hollywood “oh, look at this poor suffering person, aren’t they wonderful” sort of way. Rather, it was the way he just kept trucking on. Cancer took his jaw. He didn’t shy away from cameras. Cancer took his voice. He kept writing reviews even if he couldn’t do television any more. Cancer took his ability to eat; he wrote a cookbook because he still enjoyed the smell of food. He embraced the internet with more enthusiasm than most men a third his age. He wasn’t just a prolific movie reviewer, but a prolific blogger as well, writing about politics, his life, and, of course, movies.

He probably did more for Hollywood than any one of its stars (and if he doesn’t get the “main spot” in next year’s Oscar tribute, something’s wrong). By making movie criticism a form of entertainment in and of itself, he increased the amount of entertainment people got from movies. He made it cool to not just watch a movie, but think about it. There’s little question, in my mind, that he’s the main reason there’s a major subculture of armchair movie critics on the internet.

Rest in peace, Roger Ebert. You will be missed greatly.

Advertisements

About Morgan R. Lewis

Fan of movies and other media
This entry was posted in News Commentary and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to R.I.P. Roger Ebert

  1. Scophi says:

    Indeed a great loss.

  2. ruth says:

    Great tribute, Morgan!

  3. Great tribute, Morgan!

  4. ckckred says:

    It’s sad to see Ebert go. Great tribute, he was one of, if not, the greatest film critic of all time.

    • Definitely one of the greatest. Almost certainly the greatest. I’d be hard-pressed to think of a more significant one. Siskel would be close, of course. Leonard Maltin as well. But after them, I don’t think anybody has had quite the same reach as him.

  5. Nostra says:

    Although I never saw any of his shows I have been reading his reviews since I started blogging, he was an inspiration and will be missed.

    • Hopefully the Ebert Digital company he started will put the archives of At the Movies online; I know the plan was to have all his old written reviews available, it’d be nice to have the video ones as well.

  6. vinnieh says:

    Excellent tribute to an amazing critic, I can’t believe he’s gone.

  7. Pingback: News Bites: Dory and the Dark Universe | Morgan on Media

  8. Loved it when he hated a film 😀

    He’ll be missed.

  9. Spikor says:

    Ebert lost a lot of respect from me, and then subsequently gained so much more, during that whole “Video Games will never be Art” nonsense.

    I was disappointed when I first read about it, because he always seemed so level headed and reasonable about stuff, and that kind of a whitewash of an entire medium didn’t seem his style.

    When he posted about what he meant, and how his impression of video games was what it was, and that with zero knowledge of the medium he should have reigned in the use of absolute terms, things made more sense. It wasn’t an apology, because he didn’t owe anyone one for an opinion, but it wasn’t a “F*** You, Video Gamers” either. It was even handed and reasonable, like he was.

    • Yeah, I thought the whole gamer reaction to that was waaaaaay overblown — and I say that as a gamer. If anything, my disappointment in Ebert over it was simply that he chose to address the question in the first place; I’ve long been of the opinion that “Is it art?” is a worthless question since we haven’t come to a usable definition after a few millennia. But like you said, in his posts on it, he came across as level-headed; he had a specific meaning of art that he was applying, and video games didn’t fit. Neither did all movies. And he wasn’t saying that video games were bad, just that they didn’t fit this definition of art.

      One thing I liked about the whole thing was that he was willing to poke fun of himself over it. In his “leave of presence” post, he mentions that he was thinking of writing a movie-themed game app for smart phones. “And then we can discuss whether it’s art”. Humorous, evenhanded, and reasonable. Just like you say.

      Never got the “he’s an old man and a technophobe” reaction from some corners on that debate. You’d think they’d realize that somebody whose only means of communication left to him was through electronics and the internet was pretty much the opposite of a technophobe.

  10. S says:

    Great post. A very deserving topic; a truly splendid movie reviewer and columnist. I agree wholeheartedly that a spot of respect is awaiting in Oscars 2014 for this movie champion. Fitting tribute here. 😉

    • Thanks, S. Yeah, the Oscars occasionally overlook someone they shouldn’t (you can always find a conversation or two about the “memorial snubs” each year), but I don’t think there’s much chance they’ll leave out Roger.

  11. Beautiful tribute, Morgan. I’m still in shock.

Leave a comment:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s