Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roger (Bush hater) Ebert interview
The Progressive magazine ^ | August 2003 | Matthew Rothschild

Posted on 07/27/2003 2:36:08 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns

[snip]

When we get down to the interview, I speak with Ebert about Michael Moore, our current political climate, Bush and religion, and progressive films he likes.Afterwards, I walk him back to his car. The license plate reads "Movies."

Q: Tell me what was your reaction to Michael Moore's acceptance speech at the Academy Awards.

Ebert: I heard him give the same speech the day before at the Independent Spirit Awards, where he stood up straight, and looked the audience in the eye, and took his time. It got a good response, although that audience was more receptive than the academy. But I have a feeling an acting coach could have analyzed his performance at the Academy Awards and said he was prompting the Academy to dislike his speech because he hunkered over the microphone, and he talked too fast and defiantly, as if he was trying to get it out before he was stopped. His body language and his verbal language all kind of sent the wrong message.

Nevertheless, I agree with what he said. I don't think Bush was legitimately elected President. But I was very offended as a reporter when Michael came directly back to the pressroom where I was, along with 300 or 400 other reporters, and lectured us, "Now do your job. Don't report it was a divided house. Only five loud people were booing."

Q: It didn't sound like only five people were booing.

Ebert: No, it wasn't five. I was just talking with Sean Welsh at the Wisconsin Film Festival, who directed "Spellbound." He was one of the directors Michael had invited up on stage, and I asked him very carefully about that, and he said, "No, it sounded about 50-50." But Michael immediately went into this spin-control mode. In one interview, he said it sounded like the stagehands were yelling at him, and that the boos started before he had really gotten into his speech, and that they were amplified. And then he said a lot of the boos were people booing the booers. This is like we're in grassy knoll territory now. I think he would have been better off saying, "Well, you know, the Academy wasn't ready for my opinion, and it was pretty divided: About half of the people booed me." Which is what it sounded like to me.

Q: I was surprised by the amount and the volume of the boos. Why do you think there was such a divided house?

Ebert: The Academy is paranoid about its image. I think they did not want America to feel that they subscribed to what they feared Michael Moore was going to say because he talked so quickly that they couldn't really assimilate what he was saying in time to do anything more than realize that he was going over the edge as far as they were concerned. I would propose to you that if Michael Moore had taken a deep breath, and looked straight at the audience, and said, "I am a nonfiction filmmaker during a fictitious Presidency," and stopped, I think he basically would have gotten a positive response to that. But his whole delivery was wrong. I think his delivery prompted the audience. They were not ready to assimilate that much that quickly. You know, they didn't boo anyone else, and there were several other anti-war speeches that were applauded.

Q: But they were much less explicit.

Ebert: Yeah.

Q: I mean, "Shame on Bush" is about as explicit as you can get.

Ebert: But by the time you got to that, the boos were already 30 seconds old.

Q: How do you think it played with the larger audience, the American public?

Ebert: I think it gave ammunition to Michael Moore's enemies. I think it played into their hands.

Q: We had a long discussion about this the day after at The Progressive. Some of us, like me, were just so delighted to hear someone get up and say that out loud--to say we're defiant, we're not going to accept this man and this man's illegal war--that it gave us a real sense of positive energy.

Ebert: You know, they say be careful what you ask for because you're going to get it. On our "Ebert & Roeper" program, we have an annual show where we pick the winners--who ought to win the Oscars, and then at the end of that show there's a segment where Roeper and I say what we would most like to see. So I wound up and said, "I'd like to see Michael Moore get up there and let 'em have it with both barrels and really let loose and give them a real rabble-rousing speech. I asked, basically, for that to happen. And then, when it happened, I don't think Michael Moore really sold it to that audience in a way that would have been more effective. So I'm in favor of people getting up there and saying it, but at the same time there is a way to communicate effectively so as to help your cause, and I don't think Michael found that.

Q: Adrien Brody from "The Pianist," who won best actor, gave a speech about how horrible war was and then essentially saluted his friend who is over there and wished the best for him. Brody got a lot of praise for his nuanced speech. On the other hand, I was watching with my sixteen-year-old son, who is just kind of awakening to progressive politics, and he said, "Why was that guy so ambiguous?" So I wonder whether a more explicit statement wasn't in order.

Ebert: You have to remember that the Oscars came on a day of reversals. Americans were taken prisoner of war. We had some casualties. We had some lost soldiers, and some helicopter crashes, and things were going badly. If the Oscars had been held three days earlier or a week later, everything might have been different. But Adrien Brody found the right note for that moment. I think you can say almost anything if you find the right way to say it.

Q: What do you make of the criticism of Hollywood celebrities for speaking out against the war--the Sean Penns, the Susan Sarandons?

Ebert: It's just ignorant; it's just ignorant.

Q: Why do you say that?

Ebert: I begin to feel like I was in the last generation of Americans who took a civics class. I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the First Amendment, don't understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don't understand that it's the responsibility of the citizen to speak out. If Hollywood stars speak out, so do all sorts of other people. Now Hollywood stars can get a better hearing. Oddly enough, the people who mostly seem to hear them are the right wing, so that Fox News can put on its ticker tape in Times Square a vile attack on Michael Moore, and Susan Sarandon is a punchline. These are people who are responsible and are saying what they believe. And there are people on the other side who also speak out, and it's the way our country works. You know, if you're good enough to be the best actor of your generation, which is probably what Sean Penn is, you're probably not dumb. And anyone who's ever heard Susan Sarandon speak for a while knows that she's pretty smart. I write op-ed columns for the Chicago Sun-Times, and people send me e-mails saying, "You're a movie critic. You don't know anything about politics." Well, you know what, I'm 60 years old, and I've been interested in politics since I was on my daddy's knee. During the 1948 election, we were praying for Truman. I know a lot about politics.

Q: When the Susan Sarandons and Sean Penns speak out, they do so at some risk to their career options, don't they?

Ebert: There's an interesting pattern going on. When I write a political column for the Chicago Sun-Times, when liberals disagree with me, they send in long, logical e-mails explaining all my errors. I hardly ever get well-reasoned articles from the right. People just tell me to shut up. That's the message: "Shut up. Don't write anymore about this. Who do you think you are?"

Q: It's the Dixie Chicks impulse. One of the members of the group said she was ashamed to be from Texas where the President is from. And so, in what I consider a brownshirt tactic, some rightwing DJs organized gatherings where people literally stomped on Dixie Chick albums.

Ebert: It wasn't just some rightwing DJs. The New York Times reported that it was also organized by a radio conglomerate that had received a lot of favors from the Bush Administration in deregulation. So that was not a spontaneous outpouring. It's a shame. It's a shame. The right really wants to punish you for having an opinion. And I think both the left and the right should celebrate people who have different opinions, and disagree with them, and argue with them, and differ with them, but don't just try to shut them up. The right really dominates radio, and it's amazing how much energy the right spends telling us that the press is slanted to the left when it really isn't. They want to shut other people up. They really don't understand the First Amendment.

Q: You yourself generated some controversy recently when you said Bush acts as though God is his football coach and is sending in plays from the sidelines.

Ebert: I said God doesn't send in plays from the sidelines. That was an interesting column, and oddly enough the mail on that one was about 10-to-1 in favor, and I thought it was really going to get me in hot water. It was about theology. You know, the Pope sent an emissary to Bush to say God does not want this war, and God does not endorse this war. Nor, for that matter, does God not endorse the war. Catholic theology believes that God gave man free will, and you can't give somebody free will and then send in a play from the sidelines. I think that's what I said. Catholic theology also accounts for the fact that there's evil in the world. People say, well, how could God let this happen. Well, what God did was set the mechanism in motion and then allow people to do the best they can under the circumstances that they're dealt in order to gain grace and get into heaven. I'm saying this not as a Catholic but as a student of Catholic theology. The Bush theory, of course, is that he has a personal dialogue with God: God talks to Bush, Bush talks to God. And Bush gets God's message, and Bush really believes that God's on his side. The problem with that is Bush then can't change his mind because God isn't going to change his mind. And so what we have here really is a rather alarming situation where religion in the White House has crossed the line between church and state. It's funny that there was so much disturbance about having a Catholic in the White House with Kennedy, and when we finally get a religion in the White House that's causing a lot of conflicts, and concerns, and disturbances for a lot of people, it's in the Bush Administration.

Q: And there's no arguing with someone who can just bring out the God card.

Ebert: To watch him on television, he is just so sure, so sure. His certainty doesn't come from political or military realities; it comes from apparently on high.

Q: With the hostility about free speech that we were talking about a little while ago, do you think we're entering into a New McCarthyism period?

Ebert: I don't know. I don't know that anyone is going to stand up in the Senate with a list, although there is, of course, a website with all the traitors listed on it. I mean, anyone can open up a website. The web is wonderful that way. I'm kind of glad the web is sort of totally anarchic. That's fine with me. I just feel that essentially the country is in the grip of some very bad information. I think a lot of working class people don't understand that their money is being stolen. I saw an interesting article that said 10 percent of the American public would put themselves in the top 1 percent in income.

Q: This is why Americans favor the repeal of the estate tax.

Ebert: Yeah, they all think they're going to leave a big estate, and they love Bush's theories because they all think they're going to get rich someday. But the fact is, most people are not going to be rich someday. And we've had a concerted policy of taking money away from the poor and giving it to the rich wholesale, and at the same time, we have the runaway corporations, and the greed. Look at [Richard] Perle's resignation; look what's really behind that. I feel ordinary people really should be angry. Yet a lot of them seem to be voting conservative and thinking that the conservatives represent them. And they don't.

Q: Why is that? You deal with people's perceptions in the movies and in your op-ed columns. Why do they have this odd perception?

Ebert: I think most people are more susceptible to prejudice than to reason. And the parrots of talk radio are just sending out the same stuff. When I look at my e-mails, I see the same Limbaugh rhetoric; apparently, people don't have any ideas of their own. And there's just this drumroll of anti-progressive thought.

[snip]


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: algorelostgetoverit; boycotthollywood; bushbashing; ebert; hollywood; liberals; lumpyriefenstahl; michaelmore; progressives; propagandista; rogerebert; rogerego; socialists; whatsthatthumbup
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

1 posted on 07/27/2003 2:36:08 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Well, you know what, I'm 60 years old, and I've been interested in politics since I was on my daddy's knee. During the 1948 election, we were praying for Truman. I know a lot about politics.

Well, I've been interested in the space program ever since I sat on my daddy's knee & watched the Apollo missions, but that doesn't make me a rocket scientist.

2 posted on 07/27/2003 2:39:29 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Wow. Where does one start with this idiocy?
3 posted on 07/27/2003 2:46:05 PM PDT by Trust but Verify (Will work for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
I still like Roger as a critic, despite myself.

I think it is hysterical that he was taken in by the premise of the film The Hurricane.

4 posted on 07/27/2003 2:50:25 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
From everything I've seen so far, "progressives" have to be about the dumbest people on the planet. They all seem to have an overblown ego, think they are the only ones who have a right to say anything, and we poor peons have to just keep quiet and let them run the world (straight into a hole).
5 posted on 07/27/2003 2:57:23 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
What a bloated idiot.
6 posted on 07/27/2003 3:05:40 PM PDT by Tuxedo (In Stereo Where Available)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
The guy(?) is an arsehole, and his reviews suck. His partner(?) is waiting for him, patiently, with many thumbs up.

FMCDH

7 posted on 07/27/2003 3:08:25 PM PDT by nothingnew (the pendulum swings and the libs are in the pit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
To watch him on television, he is just so sure, so sure.

Indeed. Wouldn't we all be better off if President Bush just ran around saying, "I don't know what to do!" I'm sure the Democrats would be sympathetic and helpful.

Or, the President could go on TV and say, "Osama bin Laden may have had a point. Maybe it is out fault. You know, the other day I was discussing nuclear war with my daughter and she pointed out to me that maybe the world is safer if North Korea becomes a nuclear power. I'm not sure, but I'm concerned. Very concerned."

8 posted on 07/27/2003 3:39:55 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
I've read one Ebert review in my life. It's moral relativism prevents me from reading more. His opinion, in my estimation, is worthless.
9 posted on 07/27/2003 4:18:40 PM PDT by Paul_B (Do you think that's air you're breathing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul_B
Brody spoke out against war and he starred in a World War II movie. I suppose we should have just given Hitler and the Japanese the keys to the city. LOL!
10 posted on 07/27/2003 4:24:30 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Ebert's ignorance is astounding, but when he got to that giveaway line about taking from the poor to give to the rich which reveals the totally clueless, it's was all I could do to keep from vomiting. Ebert has permanently put himself among the ranks of the stupidest people in the world. But then again I didn't think he was too bright before this collection of idiocies.
11 posted on 07/27/2003 4:28:31 PM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
"progressives"

Noun: People who are liberals, but are afraid to say so in public.

YES, they are not only habitual liars, they are also cowards.They would rather climb a tree & lie, than stand on the ground & tell the truth.

12 posted on 07/27/2003 5:16:31 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
And here I always thought "Progressives" supported Wallace in 1948.
13 posted on 07/27/2003 5:18:35 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
Start here. 'Sean Penn must be a pretty smart guy'. Or 'Bush wasn't elected.'

Consider that Roger lives off of Hollywood. I would expect not much different from him. He couldn't survive if he was known as a conservative. In this interview, he's defined 'liberal elitism'.

Btw, his weekly show has been relegated to 3 AM in Phoenix. Sorry, Rog. its over.

14 posted on 07/27/2003 5:20:14 PM PDT by chiller (could be wrong, but doubt it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Ebert is a joke, a shill for the Hollywood establishment. Don't count on him to ever go out on a limb against their projects.

Metacritic is a good movie review site. You can see how reviewers stack up against each other.

15 posted on 07/27/2003 5:26:25 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Roger Ebert (real name Reinhold Timme), screenwriter of such immortal soft-porn epics as Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens, displayed his learning in American history not long ago when reviewing the Civil War film Gods and Generals. In the film a character has the nickname Buster. Ebert (or Reinhold, as I like to call him) stated authoritatively that the historical accuracy of the film was flawed because the nickname Buster didn't exist until Buster Keaton invented it in the early 20th century.

Not only was Reinhold unaware that Buster Keaton got his name from the famous late 19th century cartoon character Buster Brown, but he also didn't know that the nickname Buster was popular as long ago as the boyhood of Abraham Lincoln, when sod-busters on the frontier frequently nicknamed their sons Buster.

16 posted on 07/27/2003 5:41:41 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Ebert: I begin to feel like I was in the last generation of Americans who took a civics class. I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the First Amendment, don't understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don't understand that it's the responsibility of the citizen to speak out. If Hollywood stars speak out, so do all sorts of other people. Now Hollywood stars can get a better hearing. Oddly enough, the people who mostly seem to hear them are the right wing, so that Fox News can put on its ticker tape in Times Square a vile attack on Michael Moore, and Susan Sarandon is a punchline.

Hmmm. Let's see here.

Looks like Ebert ain't too happy that some Americans neglect their First Ammendment rights. However when he finds a group that actually uses its First Ammendment rights (namely, Fox News), he's even more unhappy. May he continue to suffer from such unhappiness.

17 posted on 07/27/2003 5:46:07 PM PDT by Vision Thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I love it when liberals say money is being taken from the poor and given to the rich. Someone should explain to Ebert that when you cut taxes you are not giving money to anyone, you are simply allowing them to keep more of what is rightfully theirs in the first place. They say this because they know it creates an image in the ill-informed of the government actually giving money to the rich.
18 posted on 07/27/2003 5:50:36 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Ebert: There's an interesting pattern going on. When I write a political column for the Chicago Sun-Times, when liberals disagree with me, they send in long, logical e-mails explaining all my errors. I hardly ever get well-reasoned articles from the right. People just tell me to shut up. That's the message: "Shut up. Don't write anymore about this. Who do you think you are?"

Roger outs himself as a liar because he has never written a statement that a liberal would disagree with. And his criticism of the right's ineptitude at writing an email is a joke. I doubt anyone on the right could match the dreck of Roger's turns at screenwriting Russ Meyer's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens.

19 posted on 07/27/2003 5:55:58 PM PDT by CaptainK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Ebert: To watch him on television, he is just so sure, so sure. His certainty doesn't come from political or military realities; it comes from apparently on high.

By sticking the word "apparently" in there Ebert avoids what otherwise would be a flat-out lie. Bush has said repeatedly (the accusation is old by know in the WH) that he never prays for "certainty" from "on high" or a specific course of action, but only for strength and wisdom.

20 posted on 07/27/2003 5:58:20 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I don't agree with Ebert politically, of course.

But I buy his movie yearbooks every year. I find his opinions on the movies generally insightful and thought-provoking (when he stays out of politics, that is.)

His book "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie!" is hilarious, and his "Big Little Movie Glossary" is great.

I guess I realized a long time ago that I would not always agree with people I liked. Many of the musicians and actors I enjoy don't agree with me politically. But I won't stop watching them, unless they start inserting their stupid opinions in their art. It's the same with Ebert.
21 posted on 07/27/2003 6:12:53 PM PDT by mansion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: x
Here is a good movie review search engine.
22 posted on 07/27/2003 6:40:31 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: driftless
"Ebert's ignorance is astounding, but when he got to that giveaway line about taking from the poor to give to the rich which reveals the totally clueless, it's was all I could do to keep from vomiting. Ebert has permanently put himself among the ranks of the stupidest people in the world. But then again I didn't think he was too bright before this collection of idiocies."

"Naivete in children is charming. But, in an adult, when coupled with ignorance, it is indistinguishable from stupidity."

Montaigne


23 posted on 07/27/2003 6:43:41 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
And we've had a concerted policy of taking money away from the poor and giving it to the rich wholesale,

Okay Roger. Just give us the name of the Republican that gave you your wealth, and/or the name of the poor people he stole it from. We'll arrest the Republican, give your money back to the poor people he took it from, and possibly arrest you as an accomplice if you don't cooperate.

and at the same time, we have the runaway corporations, and the greed.

Hey, if you don't like it, then quit your job. Because if you haven't noticed, you work for one of those.

You deal with people's perceptions in the movies and in your op-ed columns. Why do they have this odd perception?

Ebert: I think most people are more susceptible to prejudice than to reason. And the parrots of talk radio are just sending out the same stuff. When I look at my e-mails, I see the same Limbaugh rhetoric; apparently, people don't have any ideas of their own. And there's just this drumroll of anti-progressive thought.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Physician, heal thyself.

24 posted on 07/27/2003 7:47:09 PM PDT by lowbridge (You are the audience. I am the author. I outrank you! -Franz Liebkind, The Producers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
I agree with what he said. I don't think Bush was legitimately elected President.


25 posted on 07/28/2003 12:15:02 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
But I was very offended as a reporter when Michael came directly back to the pressroom where I was, along with 300 or 400 other reporters, and lectured us, "Now do your job. Don't report it was a divided house. Only five loud people were booing."

I see. When he does this in a "documentary", it is worthy of being called one of the year's best movies. When he does this to a critic (someone who is not a reporter, but a reviewer) he felt insulted???

26 posted on 07/28/2003 12:16:55 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
I would propose to you that if Michael Moore had taken a deep breath, and looked straight at the audience, and said, "I am a nonfiction filmmaker during a fictitious Presidency," and stopped, I think he basically would have gotten a positive response to that.

If laughter could have been seen as a positive response...

Not laughter at his statement about the presidency, but laughter at Mickey Moron. Laughter that he actually believes that his films are "nonfiction".

27 posted on 07/28/2003 12:19:55 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Q: What do you make of the criticism of Hollywood celebrities for speaking out against the war--the Sean Penns, the Susan Sarandons?

Ebert: It's just ignorant; it's just ignorant.

Q: Why do you say that?

Ebert: I begin to feel like I was in the last generation of Americans who took a civics class. I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the First Amendment, don't understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don't understand that it's the responsibility of the citizen to speak out.

And we here in flyover country see that the entertainers are ignorant. They have a soapbox because a casting director somewhere put them in a movie because they could read someone elses' words without stammering and looked good for the camera. They do not have a soapbox because they proved their political accumen and thus know what they are talking about.

These are useful idiots aiding and abbetting ruthless dictatorships (whether it be Stalin's, Saddam's, Castro's, or others). They kept quiet about Bubba Clinton's military manuvers because to quote Jannine Garafolo (sp?) "It wasn't hip to protest Clinton".

Axis Sally, Lord Haw Haw, and "Tokio Rose" spoke out with antiAmerican sentiments from foreign lands too. All were prosecuted for treason, 2 did jail time, one was executed.

Acts of reason and sedition by traitors may be seldom prosecuted but we are entitled to call them what they are.

Mr. Ebert should go back to civics class and realize that we have a freedom of speech too (we are not saying anything false). Our boycott is no worse than Hollywood's blacklist (of conservatives and non-union workers) that persists to this day.

Mr. Ebert has been showing his own true colors since Gene Siskel died. He is a movie critic, not a political commentator.

28 posted on 07/28/2003 12:30:21 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Ebert: I begin to feel like I was in the last generation of Americans who took a civics class. I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the First Amendment, don't understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don't understand that it's the responsibility of the citizen to speak out.


No, Roger. You're a member of the first generation of Americans to STOP taking Civics classes, because YOU certainly don't understand the First Amendment or the idea of Free Speech. You have a right to say what you like, and I have a right to say that you're a complete loon and a deeply stupid man.

If Hollywood stars speak out, so do all sorts of other people. Now Hollywood stars can get a better hearing. Oddly enough, the people who mostly seem to hear them are the right wing, so that Fox News can put on its ticker tape in Times Square a vile attack on Michael Moore, and Susan Sarandon is a punchline.


Read the First Amendment, Roger. It says "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press". It DOESN'T say "Freedom from being Insulted". Nor does it say "Freedom of Liberal/Progressive Speech" and "Freedom of the Liberal/Progressive Press".

What IS a violation of Freedom of Speech? The government banning speeches like the one Michael Moore gave at the Oscars. Michael Moore getting arrested, tried, and jailed, for simply stating his mind. THAT is a violation of Freedom of Speech. Protesting him, boycotting him, is NOT a violation of Freedom of Speech. That's an example of people demonstrating THEIR Freedom of Speech.

Of course, you only like Freedom of Speech when it applies to people who agree with you. You like the free-flow of ideas when the only ideas being spread are yours. But the moment someone stands up and disagrees with you, you scream oppression. You're a hypocrite, Roger.

And yes, I have the Right to say that.
29 posted on 07/28/2003 12:33:25 PM PDT by Green Knight (Looking forward to seeing Jeb stepping over Hillary's rotting political corpse in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Ebert: I begin to feel like I was in the last generation of Americans who took a civics class. I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the First Amendment, don't understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don't understand that it's the responsibility of the citizen to speak out. [ snip ] And anyone who's ever heard Susan Sarandon speak for a while knows that she's pretty smart.

I see. Mr. Ebert, you are aware that Susan Sarandon played a vocal and prominant part in the movement to prevent Dr. Laura from getting a tv show. Susan Sarandon thought that she should fight to keep Dr. Laura from being able to speak on tv. So much for championing "free speech". I guess that Mrs. Sarandon is so smart that she can speak for all of America. < /sarcasm > < /retch >

30 posted on 07/28/2003 12:34:15 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul_B
MY "rule of thumb"...(pun intended)...since watching Siskel and Ebert, and now Siskel and Roeper, is that if both of them give a "thumbs down"....I'm the first in line, money in hand.
31 posted on 07/28/2003 12:34:47 PM PDT by crusher999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
The right really dominates radio, and it's amazing how much energy the right spends telling us that the press is slanted to the left when it really isn't.

The press (newspapers, book editors/publishers, librarians) and television broadcasters (as well as the radio news divisions they own) are liberal and admit to voting overwhelmingly liberal. It is "talk radio" that "dominates" (but does not exclusively control) radio discussions.

Of course, Americans paid with tax dollars for Mr. Ebert's first broadcasts (on PBS).

I'll bet that Mr. Ebert has some tin foil fillings so no one sees his defenses against the VRWC.

32 posted on 07/28/2003 12:39:06 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Q: With the hostility about free speech that we were talking about a little while ago, do you think we're entering into a New McCarthyism period?

Ebert: I don't know. I don't know that anyone is going to stand up in the Senate with a list, although there is, of course, a website with all the traitors listed on it.

Mr. Ebert, is the list of offensive entertainers misrepresenting the words of any of these political neophytes? It is that "free speech" thing you've been going on about. We as consumers do not need to finance those who make us wince. Since the lamestream media loves celebrities, such statements (and any backlash) are usually glossed over. The internet serves as an "alternate" media.

33 posted on 07/28/2003 12:43:48 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Q: This is why Americans favor the repeal of the estate tax.

Ebert: Yeah, they all think they're going to leave a big estate, and they love Bush's theories because they all think they're going to get rich someday. But the fact is, most people are not going to be rich someday.

Mr. Ebert, they do not oppose the estate tax for that reason. They do not agree with the concept of an American government that can take money that has already had it's taxes collected (as income, interest, capital gains, etc) to redistribute it as it sees fit.

We are not a socialist nation (from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs). That estate does not belong to the government. Peddle your class envy someplace else, like Cuba.

34 posted on 07/28/2003 12:47:19 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
I feel ordinary people really should be angry. Yet a lot of them seem to be voting conservative and thinking that the conservatives represent them. And they don't.

Mr. Ebert, some Americans (believe it or not) are social conservatives and not just fiscal conservatives.

This means that they question why the liberal agenda is being advanced in the public classrooms at grade schools, high schools, and universities. Why private companies are being made to bow down to political correctness on everything from homosexuality (a bedroom practice) to environmentalism.

35 posted on 07/28/2003 12:50:20 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
When I look at my e-mails, I see the same Limbaugh rhetoric; apparently, people don't have any ideas of their own.

Mr. Ebert, come to Free Republic. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others get their talking points from US!

36 posted on 07/28/2003 12:51:51 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
another example of Hollywood beginning to believe their own press...the guy should stick to reviews. He needs some help in that dept.
37 posted on 07/28/2003 12:52:07 PM PDT by jonalvy44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
The New York Times reported that it was also organized by a radio conglomerate that had received a lot of favors from the Bush Administration in deregulation

I think Eberts needs to be fitted for a tin-foil muumuu.

38 posted on 07/28/2003 12:54:49 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chiller
Consider that Roger lives off of Hollywood. I would expect not much different from him. He couldn't survive if he was known as a conservative. In this interview, he's defined 'liberal elitism'.

Michael Medved is a conservative and a movie critic. He has had some backlash at times though. I know someone that thought Mr. Medved and his brother savaged Ed Wood's movie skills just because he was a (heterosexual) transvestite.

Michael Medved also has a radio show, but I don't know if it is syndicated. I only heard him on the air when he filled in for Rush or I listened to his Seattle broadcasts on the web.

39 posted on 07/28/2003 12:56:44 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns

Separated at birth?

40 posted on 07/28/2003 12:58:54 PM PDT by 6323cd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chiller
Btw, his weekly show has been relegated to 3 AM in Phoenix. Sorry, Rog. its over.

His cliche style of reviewing (thumb up or down, like a Roman emperor) has made him a footnote. Just something to put on the movie poster or tv ad ("Thumbs up!!! - Roger Ebert").

Unfortunately his hit/miss ratio has been terrible and without Gene Siskel to make Rog feel guilty, Mr. Ebert willingly gives a Thumbs Up!!! to trash like "2 Fast 2 Furious".

41 posted on 07/28/2003 12:59:55 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Don't forget that Mr. Ebert began his review of Gods & Generals by saying the Republicans/Conservatives would like it because there are no speaking roles for black actors until a couple of hours into it.
42 posted on 07/28/2003 1:01:46 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
MAÎTRE D:
Ah, good afternoon, sir, and how are we today?
MR. CREOSOTE:
Better.
MAÎTRE D:
Better?
MR. CREOSOTE:
Better get a bucket. I'm going to throw up.
43 posted on 07/28/2003 1:01:55 PM PDT by TomHarkinIsNotFromIowa (Feindhammer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
Rog also wrote part of Russ Meyer's UP! and the unfilmed trainwreck of a script that was the Sex Pistols' Who Killed Bambi.
44 posted on 07/28/2003 1:03:05 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mansion
Roger's "zero star" review for Blue Velvet (see his "hated" movie book) shows that I have disgreed with him for a long time.

Steve Roper is even worse and has said that he doesn't like the Little Rascals short films and wouldn't mind seeing them tossed on the scrapheap of history (they're racist, don't you know).

45 posted on 07/28/2003 1:05:26 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Rog also wrote part of Russ Meyer's UP! and the unfilmed trainwreck of a script that was the Sex Pistols' Who Killed Bambi.

Ah yes, Ebert was responsible for the scene in the movie where Sid Vicious tries to have sex with his mom (played by Marianne Faithful). Class act, that Rog!
46 posted on 07/28/2003 1:05:59 PM PDT by GodBlessRonaldReagan (where is Count Petofi when we need him most?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TomHarkinIsNotFromIowa
Here is Mr. Creosote, seen reading the latest diatribe from Mr. Roger Ebert:


47 posted on 07/28/2003 1:09:18 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Using Ebert and Moore as a guide, apparently they are all fat ugly idiots as well.
48 posted on 07/28/2003 1:09:40 PM PDT by wazoo1031
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: x
Thank you for the referral site:

I guess the extent to which the Don's of Hollywood have bought out this meathead is proportional to his weight gain over the years.

Postmodernism sucks, does'nt it!

49 posted on 07/28/2003 1:12:00 PM PDT by Helms (SHUT UP, YOU MONKEY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: weegee
If indeed they take their talking points from FR, we need, some of us, be allot more positive.

We are at war and are and with economic consequences to boot.

Stay on message,...stay positive.

50 posted on 07/28/2003 1:17:01 PM PDT by Helms (SHUT UP, YOU MONKEY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson