Yesterday, Roger Ebert, the greatest and most famous film
critic in the world, died at age 70 after a several-year battle with cancer. He
was also one of my inspirations as a writer.
I don’t think there’s any argument that he was the most
famous. His trademark phrase “Thumbs Up” was not only a badge of honor that every movie he awarded it to proudly displayed on ads and posters, but its use has long since
transcended just the film world. On a more “inside” level, the title of his 2000
book I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie,
a compilation of some of his most scathing reviews, became something of a piece
of in-the-know vernacular (like a meme before memes) among writers, especially online.
As for my other
assertion, there is no argument. He was the best.
Ebert was probably most famous for his weekly review shows, first
alongside Chicago Tribune critic Gene
Siskel, and later with his Chicago Sun-Times
colleague Richard Roeper. I was too young to catch any of the incarnations with
Siskel, but I did quite enjoy Ebert &
Roeper, with its succinct recaps and criticism of new releases, the humorous
drubbing of bad movies, and the entertaining but not-so-heated (at least by today’s
debate show standards) arguments when the two disagreed. But Ebert’s work which
I appreciated the most was his writing.
His reviews went above and beyond just telling you if a movie
was good or bad. They’d include thoughtful analysis of the film’s story,
characters, and themes, commentary on the issues it explored, discussion of the
actors and filmmakers’ other work, statements about the film industry (he made
no secret of his opinions on 3D and the ratings system), and even anecdotes
from his life if they somehow related to the picture. If it was a good review,
it would be very scholarly and fascinating, and yet easy to read. If it was
bad, you’d often be in for a very funny piece full of biting sarcasm and
scathing wit. A good critic might persuade or dissuade you from seeing a movie. Ebert would make you want to look up more about the actors, directors, or
subjects related to the film, even if his review made you want to avoid seeing it at all costs.
I admired Ebert’s craft, but that was not my favorite thing
about his career as a critic. What I liked the most was something so much simpler: he was always honest
and fair. Too often, many critics seem to jump on the bandwagon and lavish
praise on a movie just because it’s popular or highbrow and artistic, or they’ll gang up and pan a movie if
it has things going against it. Not Ebert. He was always honest about what he
thought about a movie, even if no one agreed with him. Remember Gigli,
the 2003 Ben Affleck/Jennifer Lopez vehicle widely derided as one of the worst films ever made? Well, Ebert gave it a not terrible rating of two-and-a-half out of four
stars (best I could tell, movies he gave three stars or more got a “Thumbs Up”). On the flip side, he gave negative reviews to much-loved pictures like Gladiator and Fight Club. Whenever new movies
would come out, I’d eagerly await his reviews because they were always his
unique and honest opinion, not just the general consensus put to words. Even
when I disagreed with him, I was always interested in what he had to say.
He seemed to give three-and-a-half and four-star ratings more often and to a wider array of movies than many critics, who generally save those for only the very best of the best. But this was because his sheer love of cinema left no room for any critical snobbery toward certain genres or stars. You could tell from his work that he really, really loved the movies, and his job.
He seemed to give three-and-a-half and four-star ratings more often and to a wider array of movies than many critics, who generally save those for only the very best of the best. But this was because his sheer love of cinema left no room for any critical snobbery toward certain genres or stars. You could tell from his work that he really, really loved the movies, and his job.
Ebert’s cancer battle cost him speech in 2006, but his
voice lived on in his writing, both in his regular reviews and his recurring
feature Great Movies, where he’d give longer, in-depth dissections of his
favorite titles (these were also collected in a trio of books). He also frequently interacted with his readers, and even found
time to write commentary on culture, politics, and current events. Sadly, his
voice was heard less frequently these past few months, as his health greatly reduced
his output. Now, that voice is silent, and the movie world will never be quite
the same.
Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for everything. Rest in peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment