Film Critic Roger Ebert Dead at 70 Of Cancer 198
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.
Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews (Score:4, Interesting)
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
No reviewers worth reading, now. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Most world famous?? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a very sad day when Gene Siskel died fairly young, and now we've lost Roger Ebert as well. It's just movies, I realize
It isn't "just" movies - movies are a major part of modern culture. Once a society gets above the level of mere subsistence, culture is pretty much the entire point of human existence.
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Great Writing made him a better critic (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Exactly. When I'm curious about a film I've not yet watched, I almost always look for Ebert's review first. I also like reading his reviews after I've seen a movie -- even if I disagree with his conclusions, I feel like I learn something from his insightful and interesting commentary. It's really sad that he's no longer with us.
Re:Sad Day (Score:4, Interesting)
Siskel commented that Ebert may have been the better writer but that he was the better reviewer, to which I agree. Nevertheless I'm a big fan of his writing and appreciate his takes on Herzog and Scorcese, among others. It's rare I care at all about the
passing of a personality but for me this is a sad day.
Re:An entertaining, gifted critic. That's it. (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [radiolab.org] 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
Re:Sad Day (Score:4, Interesting)
Truth. Also, a good, consistent reviewer makes a great weather vane, even when you disagree with em. Ebert was a truly talented writer who always gave more than enough information for you to get a sense of your own (future) opinion, even if it was a movie you were likely to disagree with him on.
Plus he had that most essential quality: he genuinely loved movies and simply wanted to share that and them with everyone.
contrary to a lot of critics who simply want to flame everyone and everything, and dictate the opinion of the masses.