Best Film Critic Ever Dies—04.04.13
Tribute to Roger Ebert
June 18th, 1942 — April 4th, 2013
Post Created by jk the secret keeper
Roger Ebert 1942 — 2013
A Few Words About Roger Ebert
By Jennifer Kiley
I am too speechless to say anything but I will try. Roger Ebert’s death took me by surprise Thursday. That the cancer had returned and he was going for further treatment was the last thing I knew. And that he would write about his favorite films in the future. Others would take over the watching and reviewing of the majority of the films in the near future. Roger would return. But now he will never return with his brilliant words and observations about films and life. Whenever I wasn’t sure about watching a film, I would look to Roger for his guidance by scanning his reviews of the film in question. He was always fair, direct and honest about the way he evaluated a film. Some films that others turned away from Roger did not.
I was grateful to discover a great film many times because I trusted Roger and doubted those who dismissed the films in question so easily. Roger would go into great depth as to the reasons he felt a film was worth the time to view it. He always came up right in his recommendations. I have fallen in love with films that other people have shunned as boring or unwatchable and Roger praised as brilliant. I must admit that I favoured Gene Siskel when the two worked together. And like Gene and Roger, my partner and I would have the same debates over the same films. She would favour Roger’s views and I , Gene’s. But all that changed when Gene died so suddenly.
Roger gained my focus but there wasn’t anyone who could replace Gene. I started listening more to Roger. I started following him online by reading his reviews at the Sun Times and also reading his journal. Also, I loved following him on Twitter. He always left the most amusing comments and leads to fantastic reading material. Then he moved over to Facebook and I followed him there and continued to follow him on Twitter. I was hopeful when he tried to resurrect the PBS Review show after he had his cancer surgery and couldn’t speak except through a computerized voice and do a special review. I was so pleased but then it went away so suddenly, also.
Only a week ago, I wondered about whether I wanted to watch a film. It had received negative reviews by many reviewers. Then I thought of Roger. What would he say about this film. I never did find out but I am going to watch it because someone that had the spirit of Roger in her words recommended it as a film that stood out for its difference and how it treated life and women. I used that reviewer’s words in the post on that film and I definitely want to see it. I think Roger Ebert would approve. The mantle unfortunately has been reluctantly and unfortunately relinquished. I won’t be able to turn to Roger on any future films that come out but I will still be able to refer to the ones that he had already reviewed. He left a great legacy for all of us. I say Good-bye Roger. You were a great gift to us. Now it is time for you to be out of pain and to R.I.P. and look for your old partner Gene Siskel. Tell him you kept his secret to the end.
A statement from Chaz Ebert on April 4, 2013
Chaz Ebert issued the following statement Thursday about the passing of her husband, Roger Ebert, a day after he celebrated 46 years as a film critic:
“I am devastated by the loss of my love, Roger — my husband, my friend, my confidante and oh-so-brilliant partner of over 20 years. He fought a courageous fight. I’ve lost the love of my life and the world has lost a visionary and a creative and generous spirit who touched so many people all over the world. We had a lovely, lovely life together, more beautiful and epic than a movie. It had its highs and the lows, but was always experienced with good humor, grace and a deep abiding love for each other.
“Roger was a beloved husband, stepfather to Sonia and Jay, and grandfather to Raven, Emil, Mark and Joseph. Just yesterday he was saying how his grandchildren were “the best things in my life.” He was happy and radiating satisfaction over the outpouring of responses to his blog about his 46th year as a film critic. But he was also getting tired of his fight with cancer, and said if this takes him, he has lived a great and full life.
“We were getting ready to go home today for hospice care, when he looked at us, smiled, and passed away. No struggle, no pain, just a quiet, dignified transition.
“We are touched by all the kindness and the outpouring of love we’ve received. And I want to echo what Roger said in his last blog, thank you for going on this journey with us.”
Roger Ebert Dies at 70 After Battle with Cancer
BY NEIL STEINBERG
April 4, 2013
Roger Ebert loved movies.
Except for those he hated.
For a film with a daring director, a talented cast, a captivating plot or, ideally, all three, there could be no better advocate than Roger Ebert, who passionately celebrated and promoted excellence in film while deflating the awful, the derivative or the merely mediocre with an observant eye, a sharp wit and a depth of knowledge that delighted his millions of readers and viewers.
“No good film is too long,” he once wrote, a sentiment he felt strongly enough about to have engraved on pens. “No bad movie is short enough.”
Ebert, 70, who reviewed movies for the Chicago Sun-Times for 46 years and on TV for 31 years, and who was without question the nation’s most prominent and influential film critic, died Thursday in Chicago.
(for the whole story click on the following link)
Roger Ebert Dies at 70 After Battle with Cancer
Roger Ebert’s Journal
A Leave of Presence
By Roger Ebert on April 2, 2013 9:37 PM
Thank you. Forty-six years ago on April 3, 1967, I became the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. Some of you have read my reviews and columns and even written to me since that time. Others were introduced to my film criticism through the television show, my books, the website, the film festival, or the Ebert Club and newsletter. However you came to know me, I’m glad you did and thank you for being the best readers any film critic could ask for.
Roger Ebert on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Typically, I write over 200 reviews a year for the Sun-Times that are carried by Universal Press Syndicate in some 200 newspapers. Last year, I wrote the most of my career, including 306 movie reviews, a blog post or two a week, and assorted other articles. I must slow down now, which is why I’m taking what I like to call “a leave of presence.”
Siskel & Ebert – Special Tribute Show to Gene Siskel, part 1 of 3!
What in the world is a leave of presence? It means I am not going away. My intent is to continue to write selected reviews but to leave the rest to a talented team of writers handpicked and greatly admired by me. What’s more, I’ll be able at last to do what I’ve always fantasized about doing: reviewing only the movies I want to review.
At the same time, I am re-launching the new and improved Rogerebert.com and taking ownership of the site under a separate entity, Ebert Digital, run by me, my beloved wife, Chaz, and our brilliant friend, Josh Golden of Table XI. Stepping away from the day-to-day grind will enable me to continue as a film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, and roll out other projects under the Ebert brand in the coming year.
Siskel & Ebert – Special Tribute Show to Gene Siskel, part 2 of 3!
Ebertfest, my annual film festival, celebrating its 15th year, will continue at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, my alma mater and home town, April 17-21. In response to your repeated requests to bring back the TV show “At the Movies,” I am launching a fundraising campaign via Kickstarter in the next couple of weeks. And gamers beware, I am even thinking about a movie version of a video game or mobile app. Once completed, you can engage me in debate on whether you think it is art.
And I continue to cooperate with the talented filmmaker Steve James on the bio-documentary he, Steve Zaillian and Martin Scorsese are making about my life. I am humbled that anyone would even think to do it, but I am also grateful.
Siskel & Ebert — Special Tribute Show to Gene Siskel — part 3 of 3!
Of course, there will be some changes. The immediate reason for my “leave of presence” is my health. The “painful fracture” that made it difficult for me to walk has recently been revealed to be a cancer. It is being treated with radiation, which has made it impossible for me to attend as many movies as I used to. I have been watching more of them on screener copies that the studios have been kind enough to send to me. My friend and colleague Richard Roeper and other critics have stepped up and kept the newspaper and website current with reviews of all the major releases. So we have and will continue to go on.
At this point in my life, in addition to writing about movies, I may write about what it’s like to cope with health challenges and the limitations they can force upon you. It really stinks that the cancer has returned and that I have spent too many days in the hospital. So on bad days I may write about the vulnerability that accompanies illness. On good days, I may wax ecstatic about a movie so good it transports me beyond illness.
I’ll also be able to review classics for my “Great Movies” collection, which has produced three books and could justify a fourth.
For now, I am throwing myself into Ebert Digital and the redesigned, highly interactive and searchable Rogerebert.com. You’ll learn more about its exciting new features on April 9 when the site is launched. In addition to housing an archive of more than 10,000 of my reviews dating back to 1967 we will also feature reviews written by other critics. You may disagree with them like you have with me, but will nonetheless appreciate what they bring to the party. Some I recruited from the ranks of my Far Flung Correspondents, an inspiration I had four years ago when I noticed how many of the comments on my blog came from foreign lands and how knowledgeable they were about cinema.
Siskel & Ebert — Sleepless In Seattle
We’ll be recruiting more critics and it is my hope that some of the writers I have admired over the years will be among them. We’ll offer many more reviews of Indie, foreign, documentary and restored classic revivals. As the space between broadcast television, cable and the internet morph into a hybrid of content, we will continue to spotlight the musings of Pulitzer Prize-winning TV critic Tom Shales, as well as the blog “Scanners” by Jim Emerson, who I first met at Microsoft when he edited Cinemania. The Ebert Club newsletter, under editor Marie Haws of Vancouver, will be expanded to give its thousands of subscribers even bigger and better benefits.
For years I devoutly took every one of my tear sheets, folded them and added them to a pile on my desk. The photo above shows the height of that pile in 1985 as it appeared on the cover of my first book about the movies published by my old friends John McMeel and Donna Martin of Andrews & McMeel. Today, because of technology, the opportunities to become bigger, better and reach more people are piling up too. The fact that we’re re-launching the site now, in the midst of other challenges, should give you an idea how important Rogerebert.com and Ebert Digital are to Chaz and me. I hope you’ll stop by, and look for me. I’ll be there.
So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I’ll see you at the movies.
Siskel & Ebert Review Fargo
QUOTATIONS by Roger Ebert: FILM CRITIC & Much More
“Your intellect may be confused, but your emotions will never lie to you.”
“Every great film should seem new every time you see it.”
“If a movie is really working, you forget for two hours your Social Security number and where your car is parked. You are having a vicarious experience. You are identifying, in one way or another, with the people on the screen.”
“No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.”
“No matter what they’re charging to get in, it’s worth more to get out.”
― Roger Ebert
“It’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it is about it.”
― Roger Ebert
“Every scene should be able to answer three questions: “Who wants what from whom? What happens if they don’t get it? Why now?” ― David Mamet
“I don’t believe in learning from other peoples pictures. I think you should learn from your own interior vision of things and discover, as I say, Innocently, as though there had never been anybody.” ― Orson Welles
“A good movie can take you out of your dull funk and the hopelessness that so often goes with slipping into a theatre; a good movie can make you feel alive again, in contact, not just lost in another city. Good movies make you care, make you believe in possibilities again. If somewhere in the Hollywood-entertainment world someone has managed to break through with something that speaks to you, then it isn’t all corruption. The movie doesn’t have to be great; it can be stupid and empty and you can still have the joy of a good performance, or the joy in just a good line. An actor’s scowl, a small subversive gesture, a dirty remark that someone tosses off with a mock-innocent face, and the world makes a little bit of sense. Sitting there alone or painfully alone because those with you do not react as you do, you know there must be others perhaps in this very theatre or in this city, surely in other theatres in other cities, now, in the past or future, who react as you do. And because movies are the most total and encompassing art form we have, these reactions can seem the most personal and, maybe the most important, imaginable. The romance of movies is not just in those stories and those people on the screen but in the adolescent dream of meeting others who feel as you do about what you’ve seen. You do meet them, of course, and you know each other at once because you talk less about good movies than about what you love in bad movies.”
― Pauline Kael
“Well anything thats interesting in a film, or in a character (all your passion, your sex, your anger, your rage, all that) comes from that part of you that you want to hide and push away, and you want to deny all those things most. So if you can sort of visualize a version of your shadow. And if you sort of invite him or her to the party. And if you can really understand that this is where you’re going to let that shadow come out (this is where its home) Its really just understanding that its your job to get vulnerable.
And most people who have the exact opposite; most people go through life and they try all their time not to feel all those dark things. We have to go feel them, but its an opportunity too. I think to think of it that way, that just gets you into flow and that unclocks your subconscious, so you get out of your head and into your heart. Thats what I do, I just try to remember that the part of you thats going to do a good job is the part of you you want to most deny.” ― John Cusack
“It is an example of what films can do, how they can slip past your defenses and really break your heart.” ― David Gilmour
“I think that is what film and art and music do; they can work as a map of sorts for your feelings.” ― Bruce Springsteen
“I want to thank anyone who spends a part of their day creating, I don’t care if it’s a book, a film, a painting, a dance, a piece of theater, a piece of music – anybody who spends part of their day sharing their experience with us – I think this world would be unlivable without art and I thank you.” ― Steven Soderbergher
“I’m lucky enough to be able to make films and so I don’t need a psychiatrist. I can sort out my fears and all those things with my work. That’s an enormous privilege. That’s the privilege of all artists, to be able to sort out their unhappiness and their neuroses in order to create something.” ― Michael Haneke