Remembering Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel

As a kid growing up in suburban Chicago, there were three things that convinced me that I lived at the center of the universe: the Sears Tower, the Chicago Bulls, and Siskel and Ebert.

Gene Siskel, who died in 1999, and Roger Ebert, who passed away on Thursday, are two Chicago guys who managed to define two decades of film criticism. I can still remember hunkering down in front of the television with a bowl of spaghetti to watch them alternatively praise and trash the movies of the week. Their theme song still runs in my head when I see an old-school marquee.

Movie reviews were my window into all of that messy, weird, sexy and violent pop culture that my parents didn’t want me to see. Ebert always had a way of taking you inside a movie — and whether or not you intended to ever see that film (or could get your mom to take you to the mall), he could give you the experience of being in the theater with him. Listening to him talk about Toy Story, you might think he was rhapsodizing about Kurosawa. Before featurettes or red-band trailers or all the other little digital footnotes that today make up the movie-going experience, we just had movie reviews to tell us whether a movie was going to be any good.

Siskel and Ebert didn’t always like what I liked; they often panned movies I loved (particularly those I loved as a kid). Each argued his case, and the other was allowed to agree to disagree. These were critics who acknowledged that a person’s experience with a film was subjective. They taught me to mine every shot for evidence to make my case that a film was smart or stupid, fun or boring, and to argue my case fully. Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel weren’t afraid to point out even the smallest error, like the way that the shark’s point-of-view shots in the Jaws movies don’t make any sense if the shark is also visible from the surface. Before I took a film class or had even seen more than two R-rated films, they taught me how to watch movies, and how to talk about them.

Today, we all get to be critics. Anyone who wants to can broadcast an opinion about Iron Man 3 in lengthy prose, but criticism is now attached to content itself in the form of likes and comments. Think about how many times a day you click a thumbs-up icon to tell someone you liked her video on YouTube or Facebook. “Thumbs up” and “thumbs down” may be the least scientific ratings system ever invented, but it works.

As the business of criticism began to change, Ebert didn’t bemoan its demise. Instead, he invested in Google. He started a blog, which became his voice when he could no longer speak. He became an Internet celebrity on par with his fame as a TV celebrity. Next week, he was planning to launch Ebert Digital, a venture to build digital projects around his film criticism.

Everyone who works in a creative field could learn something from Roger Ebert. And really, it boils down to one word: adapt. The thing you care about — print books, newspapers, big-screen movies — might change or disappear, and ranting won’t bring them back. But you can apply your talent to the next big thing, explore it, imagine a future for it — and invest yourself in making it better.

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • Passage

    Nice work, Anna.

  • Siskel was missed

    with the death of siskel in 1999 there was the loss of humility and compassion and an honest point of view of movie critique,ebert i’m sad to say showed he was a bitter,hateful old man that had a narrow minded outlook of the world and tended especially in the last few years spew a lot of hate towards those that shared a different vision than himself! Without siskel to tone down his rival,ebert just didn’t have a hmmmm soul that would make me or many others care to listen to him!

  • Tiberious Rex

    sorry to sound mean spirited and classless but well i think ebert would like that as that was exactly his demeanor!!

  • Mike

    I couldn’t disagree more. From what I’ve seen the people who say things like this are typical right-wingers who don’t like it when anyone who disagrees with them says anything. I found his writing to be FULL of compassion, and erudite.

  • Steve

    Thank you. That was very nice. When I was a kid, I watched Siskel and Ebert often, and I thought Ebert was a bit of a prick. I had to grow up to realize that we could have differing opinions on something so trivial as a movie without that reflecting on the character of the person disagreeing with me. As he took to the Internet in more recent years, I learned more about Roger and who he was, what he thought and believed in. I looked forward to everything he wrote, blogged, reviewed, tweeted…. all of it. I came to know his as a distant friend I would never meet, and probably never interact with. I never did. The night before his death, I read his post about his future plans for the web and how he would approach life and communicating with us. I was glad to hear from him again, as he had not posted many reviews following his hip fracture. I have to say the news of his death the next day hit me rather hard. I will indeed miss this fine, beautiful mind. I will miss his words and thoughts. You gave a fine post mortem, Ms. Pinkert.