...But He Sure Was a Fine Movie Critic

ClashDaily.com ^ | 4/9/2013 | Steve Pauwels

[IChing]

Okay, I’d suspected just-deceased Roger Ebert – iconic, Chicago Sun Times film-critic/tv personality — skewed left in his politics. It wasn’t until the brash snipings of his last couple years, however, that his overt Liberalism became splenetically clear to me.

For quite a while, the garrulous Chicagoan’s weekly film-review program, in all its various iterations, was must-see TV for me. From 1975-1999, he and late cohort Gene Siskel held forth on all things cinematic. Their trademark (and trademarked!) “thumbs up/thumbs down” verdict on specific movies’ artistic/entertainment worthiness became a vital factor in the ticket-buying decisions of multitudes. Moviefone’s Gary Susman designated those digits “the most powerful thumbs in showbiz.”

Upon Siskel’s untimely death, Richard Roeper stepped in to the seat across from Ebert, and they continued trading silver-screen opinions until complications from Ebert’s thyroid cancer treatments interrupted in 2006. At that point, facially disfigured and suddenly mute, Ebert limited himself to written film notices — in which capacity he served prolifically — until his unexpected passing last Friday, aged 70.

Because I tuned in so faithfully to catch Ebert’s musings about the day’s cinematic offerings, and further found myself regularly agreeing with his film reflections, I actually came to develop a bit of long-distance affection for the guy. I looked forward to keeping company with him for thirty minutes each week, staying up, via the little screen, on his latest big-screen cogitations.

This, mind you, made his recent, much-bandied-about outbreaks of Leftist hogwash all the more irksome (and disappointing) to me.

Nonetheless, Ebert stirred in me an ever-deepening appreciation for the discipline of “film criticism” — “the notion that movies matter enough for us to keep talking about them long after the house lights come up” (Susman).

[apillar]

I loved Siskel and Ebert back in the 80’s. I never missed their weekly movie review show, they had good chemistry. It was a pity when Ebert started to show his commie red colors, because Ebert seemed to the one that came across as the “every man” to Siskel’s more “movie snob” persona. By the late 1990’s Ebert had turned from movie critic to political hack and his columns and reviews were filled with attacks on the right. I stopped paying attention to him around that time.

[Naplm]

He was a hateful bastard...

[InterceptPoint]

Read Ebert's review of Atlas Shrugged if you really want some insight into how this Leftist thinks - or, actually, fails to think.

Here is the link: Atlas Shrugged Review by Roger Ebert

[cripplecreek]

How does one become a fine movie critic anyway. After all, they really only give opinions on movies.

[IChing]

I learned when he died that he was the only person to ever receive a Pulitzer for film criticism.

I agree with everything the author says, btw, although I’m learning even more disturbing things about Ebert’s politics each hour, just about.

[DCBryan1]

good riddance to the gun grabbing commie!

[x]

No. He wasn't. He recommended a lot of trash. He was basically Gene Shalit, but he built up a reputation as some kind of cineaste or connoisseur of film which made it painful when he gave his seal of approval to something worthless. Somebody said he was a "if you like this sort of thing, you will like this thing" critic. I guess so, but that's more of a reviewer or a consumer guide than a critic.

Ebert would give stuff with big stars a big thumbs up even if it didn't deserve it. Then he'd recommend something very artsy and dull, or savage some very obvious piece of trash to try to save what was left of his reputation with the film crowd.

If it was just that he wanted to please and serve his audience, that might have been okay, but he very definitely wanted to ingratiate himself with Hollywood and Disney. He understood what buttered his bread and didn't want to lose his privileges.

Politics? Well of course Ebert liked left-wing stuff, and anything that had a lot of African-Americans in it. But it wasn't so much political opinions in his reviews that rankled, so much as his constant twittering about every stupid idea that passed through his head. You could just agree to disagree with somebody else. Ebert went out of his way to pick fights.

[GeronL]

nothing but another hateful mean-spirited leftist

[Hardastarboard]

something very artsy and dull

My Dinner with Andre' comes to mind.

[gundog]

Doesn’t even present himself as a great movie critic. I guess Rex Reed is nothing but a bitchy old queen.

[Resolute Conservative]

I was always amused by people who gave a sh)t about someone else’s opinion on subjective items like food and movies.

[WorkingClassFilth]

I agree. The fat guy with popcorn stuck to his sweater was far more reliable for me than the blazer bedecked Siskel. At times it almost seemed like Siskel was tossing about his bon mots and big city sophistication just to keep up with Eberts instinctual grasp of a movies heart and what will appeal to average Americans.

[TalBlack]

Took me all this time since hearing of his death to remember that Roger Ebert wrote the screenplay for “Vally of the Dolls”. As I recall, it sucked. You’d think a guy who had spent so much time contemplating film could have done better.

[x]

... Ebert seemed to the one that came across as the “every man” to Siskel’s more “movie snob” persona.

That's not my recollection. Siskel dressed better and had better manners, but Ebert was the movie snob who'd put Siskel down if he didn't agree with him.

Movie reviewing was Siskel's job. Movies were Ebert's life and he didn't deal with disagreement very well. As time went on, Ebert got more populist and down-market, though.

[driftless2]

I assume most film critics are out and out hard leftists. I've read too many glorious reviews of leftist-slanted flicks in my life not to get that impression. But since I've seen few new movies in the last twenty years, it didn't make any difference to me. I actually liked Siskel and Ebert's show when it came out in the '70s.

But even though I agreed with a good percentage of the movies they liked, they liked a lot of stuff I didn't and vice versa. I remember in particular when they touted the French-made silent movie of Napoleon (which looked like an insomnia cure) and panned another movie I liked. I then realized many of the "elite" movie crtics were easily taken in by snooty artifice.

[AZLiberty]

Most people who want to be successful in a public position choose their beliefs according to what's favored by the "In" crowd. This is even more pathetic in adult life than it is in high school -- and far more destructive.

The rest of us grit our teeth and keep our mouths shut, except in safe places such as FreeRepublic. This long but awesome American Spectator article, America's Ruling Class -- and the Perils of Revolution, describes the phenomenon to a T. Towards the end, the article suggests that the self-evident failures foisted on us by the ruling class will cause the people to rise up and throw off their chains. I think it's more likely that those failures will be used as an excuse by the ruling class to further tighten the screws.

[driftless2]

Sure enough I checked Ebert’s reviews of the biggest, overrated snoozefests of the past thirty years like “Cries and Whispers”, “Diva”, and “The English Patient”, and Ebert loved them.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

What do they say, opinions are like sphinter muscles, everyone has one. But not all opinions are equally valued. If I a question about my health, I seek a medical professional, about a mortgage, I ask a banker or mortgage broker.

Literary, movie and art criticism is like that, a developed talent. We seek out those who have discernment, and who convey what they see and make it seem easy and obvious to us. The mark of a true pro is the ability to make it look easy. Ebert was one such.