In Praise of Roger Ebert
The ninth annual Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival — Ebertfest ’07 — opens today at the University of Illinois in Urbana. Despite going through a prolonged battle with his health — cancer of the salivary gland, a tracheostomy, multiple surgeries, more procedures planned — Ebert will be there in person. And you know what? Through it all, he is still Roger Ebert, one of the world’s great cinephiles, a fine critic, and a courageous man: “I have been very sick, am getting better and this is how it looks. I still have my brain and my typing fingers… I’m not going to miss my festival.”
And that’s how it should be. It’s easy to dismiss Ebert as a celebrity critic who has reduced criticism down to multiplex-friendly pandering to the masses — what with his thumb up or down for every movie — but those who know Ebert’s work know that he is so much more than that, that in fact his famous thumb is but a popular gimmick, that in fact he is a profound film critic capable of genuinely brilliant analysis, an enthusiastic student of the cinema who genuinely loves movies, and a teacher of the cinema in possession of a wealth of learning.
I encourage you to visit his website regularly for all the latest news, and hopefully soon for more reviews, as well as for all his old reviews in the archives, his incomparable movie glossary, commentary on film and the arts, his reports from the world’s top film festivals (including the Toronto International Film Festival, which he loves, and which I, a Toronto resident, have had the good fortune to attend over many years), his Oscar-related articles, and — and this is my favourite feature — his Great Movies.
I may not agree with his review of this or that movie, but I always respect his opinion and I always learn a lot from what he has to say about any movie. Indeed, he is as much teacher as critic. (Consider his incredibly insightful commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD.) And this is especially true of the Great Movies, his compendium of reviews and analyses of many of the greatest films of all time. Many of my own favourites are in there — there are simply too many to mention — but collectively these pieces amount to a history of film, by film, that is truly astonishing in scope.
If there is one thing for which I must thank Ebert above all else, however, it is his promotion of in my view two of the very best directors of all time, Krzysztof KieÅ›lowski and Yasujiro Ozu. Both would be known and celebrated without Ebert, of course, but neither would be known and celebrated as well without Ebert’s efforts to introduce their films to American audiences, as well as to all of us who have been touched by Ebert’s criticism. Whether it’s The Decalogue or the Three Colours trilogy, Tokyo Story or Floating Weeds (for which he also provides commentary on the amazing Criterion DVD), we are all richer for what he has done.
Mr. Ebert, I wish you well.
It’s great news that you’re going to be at the opening of Ebertfest, and I know I speak for many of us cinephiles when I say I look forward to your return to what you do so well.
(See also Melissa’s wonderful post at Shakesville.)
5 Responses to “In Praise of Roger Ebert”
All of our best wishes to Roger. Ah for the good old days of Siskel and Ebert. You could get an absolutely accurate view of a film from the two of them, and when it was 2 thumbs up you knew it was good. Roger has carried the torch since Gene’s death with class and skill.
Ebert is not a good critical analyst, but he is a terrific writer- a manipulator of words, and a good teacher. He has done great comments on Kane, Floating Weeds and Dark City, among others.
However, Siskel was a far better critic. Ebert is too LCD and unable to move beyond his own biases. That he loves Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard says all one needs to know of his critical skills.
So, as a critic, he’s a wash, but as a historian he’s invaluable.
If you want real in depth crit, check out: http://www.cosmoetica.com/Cinemension.htm
Without Siskel, Ebert just ain’t the same anymore.
Epilogue- For 2006, I cannot fathom how Ebert placed, “A Prairie Home Companion over Blood Diamond”.
I have listened to dozens and dozens of the real APHC radio episodes with great joy. The movie barely measured up.
On the other hand, Leonardo DiCaprio played an excellent South African. Which I’m certain is one monster job few have attempted. Djimon Hounsou’s performance was world class Oscar stuff. Stunning performance IMO.
I am hoping that someday Djimon Hounsou will play John Garang de Mabior in a film about the Sudanese Civil war in South Sudan. What a terrific story that would make!
I truly thank you, Michael for this lovely article about Roger.
When I was a TV reporter (for 18 years at Global Television in Toronto) I had the opportunity to interview Roger Ebert several times during his visits to the Toronto International Film Festival. It was always a pleasure to speak with him, hear his views and see his genuine affection for TIFF.
Most of us have not seen Roger in a long time. Having covered the lives of celebrities for many years, seen their plastic surgery and other attempts to remain perfect, I find Roger to be nothing but completely brave to allow people to see him as he is now and to understand what he has been through.
I hope his appearances and lack of vanity will inspire others not to be afraid to come forward and be seen in public.
For all the “thumbs-ups” he has given and for all those he has encouraged in the film industry, I wish Roger the best and hope we get to meet again one day in Toronto!
Elaine