“I respectfully and totally disagree with you, Gene.” Those would be the first of many firm words, directed at film critic Gene Siskel, I would hear from Chicago Sun Times film critic Roger Ebert. At the time televised, entertainment in my home consisted of the three major networks, the UHF channel reserved for reruns and the publicly supported PBS. Roger and film critic Gene Siskel were arguing about a film, which one I couldn’t recall, and I marveled at this because to date I had never seen this. Film reviews and criticism were reserved to the always annoyed Rex Reed and the heavily mustached Gene Shalit. I’d never seen people disagreeing about a film and it was interesting. I can’t say that it was Soprano’s-like appointment TV for me. It was more like I wasn’t old enough to go out and my Saturday nights consisted of regional wrestling, Miami Vice and in between them, At The Movies as a transition. But as a teenager, I would find myself delaying my weekend evenings in the NOLA streets to take in their half hour of discourse.
I liked to hear both of their opinions but from the start Roger always seemed to look at all films more objectively, while performing this ostensibly subjective task. If he disliked a film he could always give you some kind of bright spot within the opus, for he respected the art form and all filmmakers efforts. Roger felt if he was going to criticize filmmakers he had least needed to attempt to be one. He would go on to scribe the sequel to Valley Of The Dolls, which was appropriately titled Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Roger himself would give the film a patented “thumbs down”. That is why so many filmmakers respected Ebert’s opinion. He had danced with devil, been in the trenches or whatever hyperbole or analogy used by filmmakers likening themselves to Gulf War veterans. Roger was passionate and seemed to embrace the new films, new filmmakers and new advances in the medium as much as he welcomed new works by seasoned filmmakers. Plain and simple Roger just dug film. He’s said before and I’m paraphrasing, “Film is about a visceral feeling. Be it a big budget film or small independent film. It makes you feel.” And with this train of thought Roger had no problem embracing the big budget film, which I think your more erudite film critics knocked on him. But it’s also this train of thought that which made his embrace films from all points of views. I recall when Spike Lee’s SHE’S GOTTA HAVE IT opened in theaters, I didn’t know what to expect from Siskel or Ebert from this film I had already seen five times. Roger raved about this film as being a refreshing point of view of black culture from black people instead of white people. He would champion many black films in the future, one being the controversial DO THE RIGHT THING. Roger has always championed films starring people of color as just films, as all filmmakers want, and not some celluloid aberrations. You could see his passion as he stood in defense of Asian American director Justin Lin’s debut feature, BETTER LUCK TOMORROW at the Sundance Film Festival. A Caucasian man complimented the film, but questioned it's negative portrayals of Asian Americans. Ebert defiantly yelled across the theater in the Q & A, "What I find very offensive and condescending about your comment is that nobody would say to a bunch of white filmmakers, 'How could you do this to your people?' This film has the right to be. And be whatever the hell they want the characters to be." That is who he and he didn't give a damn what your color was.
His partner in crime, Gene Siskel would sadly leave us in 1999 due to a brain tumor. After his death, Roger would have others fill in for Gene, but he would never find that same healthy debate. Gene made Roger good and Roger made Gene good. It was like any classic battles, Russell and Chamberlain on the court, Brady and Manning on the field, Steve Harvey and tasteful clothes in public. But with Gene’s death, Roger’s sun would shine brighter as a critic. And as the years progressed and film critics speaking at length with the filmmakers regressed into five minutes at press junkets, Roger stayed true to the form. Roger said, “I’m glad I don’t live in Los Angeles. I wouldn’t want relationships with the filmmakers, because it makes it hard to review their films.” Roger would be stricken with cancer in the last few years. He would literally lose his voice and some of his jaw but it did not slow him down. His voice became even louder, via his website and Twitter account, as he was still reviewing over three hundred movies a year. As evidenced by the reaction and outpouring to his death, he will be missed and remembered. I toast you Roger Ebert for seeing black films as just films with black people and being one half of ground zero of film debate.
Now Follow Me! Follow Me to Freedom!
Sunday, April 7, 2013
THE BALCONY IS TRULY, CLOSED
“I respectfully and totally disagree with you, Gene.” Those would be the first of many firm words, directed at film critic Gene Siskel, I would hear from Chicago Sun Times film critic Roger Ebert. At the time televised, entertainment in my home consisted of the three major networks, the UHF channel reserved for reruns and the publicly supported PBS. Roger and film critic Gene Siskel were arguing about a film, which one I couldn’t recall, and I marveled at this because to date I had never seen this. Film reviews and criticism were reserved to the always annoyed Rex Reed and the heavily mustached Gene Shalit. I’d never seen people disagreeing about a film and it was interesting. I can’t say that it was Soprano’s-like appointment TV for me. It was more like I wasn’t old enough to go out and my Saturday nights consisted of regional wrestling, Miami Vice and in between them, At The Movies as a transition. But as a teenager, I would find myself delaying my weekend evenings in the NOLA streets to take in their half hour of discourse.
I liked to hear both of their opinions but from the start Roger always seemed to look at all films more objectively, while performing this ostensibly subjective task. If he disliked a film he could always give you some kind of bright spot within the opus, for he respected the art form and all filmmakers efforts. Roger felt if he was going to criticize filmmakers he had least needed to attempt to be one. He would go on to scribe the sequel to Valley Of The Dolls, which was appropriately titled Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Roger himself would give the film a patented “thumbs down”. That is why so many filmmakers respected Ebert’s opinion. He had danced with devil, been in the trenches or whatever hyperbole or analogy used by filmmakers likening themselves to Gulf War veterans. Roger was passionate and seemed to embrace the new films, new filmmakers and new advances in the medium as much as he welcomed new works by seasoned filmmakers. Plain and simple Roger just dug film. He’s said before and I’m paraphrasing, “Film is about a visceral feeling. Be it a big budget film or small independent film. It makes you feel.” And with this train of thought Roger had no problem embracing the big budget film, which I think your more erudite film critics knocked on him. But it’s also this train of thought that which made his embrace films from all points of views. I recall when Spike Lee’s SHE’S GOTTA HAVE IT opened in theaters, I didn’t know what to expect from Siskel or Ebert from this film I had already seen five times. Roger raved about this film as being a refreshing point of view of black culture from black people instead of white people. He would champion many black films in the future, one being the controversial DO THE RIGHT THING. Roger has always championed films starring people of color as just films, as all filmmakers want, and not some celluloid aberrations. You could see his passion as he stood in defense of Asian American director Justin Lin’s debut feature, BETTER LUCK TOMORROW at the Sundance Film Festival. A Caucasian man complimented the film, but questioned it's negative portrayals of Asian Americans. Ebert defiantly yelled across the theater in the Q & A, "What I find very offensive and condescending about your comment is that nobody would say to a bunch of white filmmakers, 'How could you do this to your people?' This film has the right to be. And be whatever the hell they want the characters to be." That is who he and he didn't give a damn what your color was.
His partner in crime, Gene Siskel would sadly leave us in 1999 due to a brain tumor. After his death, Roger would have others fill in for Gene, but he would never find that same healthy debate. Gene made Roger good and Roger made Gene good. It was like any classic battles, Russell and Chamberlain on the court, Brady and Manning on the field, Steve Harvey and tasteful clothes in public. But with Gene’s death, Roger’s sun would shine brighter as a critic. And as the years progressed and film critics speaking at length with the filmmakers regressed into five minutes at press junkets, Roger stayed true to the form. Roger said, “I’m glad I don’t live in Los Angeles. I wouldn’t want relationships with the filmmakers, because it makes it hard to review their films.” Roger would be stricken with cancer in the last few years. He would literally lose his voice and some of his jaw but it did not slow him down. His voice became even louder, via his website and Twitter account, as he was still reviewing over three hundred movies a year. As evidenced by the reaction and outpouring to his death, he will be missed and remembered. I toast you Roger Ebert for seeing black films as just films with black people and being one half of ground zero of film debate.
Now Follow Me! Follow Me to Freedom!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment