Gene Siskel and I were like tuning forks. Strike one, and the other would pick up the same frequency. When we were in a group together, we were always intensely aware of one another. Sometimes this took the form of camaraderie, sometimes shared opinions, sometimes hostility. But we were aware. If something happened that we both thought was funny but weren't supposed to, God help us if one caught the other's eye. We almost always thought the same things were funny. That may be the best sign of intellectual communion.
Gene died ten years ago on February 20, 1999. He is in my mind almost every day. I don't want to rehearse the old stories about how we had a love/hate relationship, and how we dealt with television, and how we were both so scared the first time we went on Johnny Carson that, backstage, we couldn't think of the name of a single movie, although that story is absolutely true. Those stories have been told. I want to write about our friendship. The public image was that we were in a state of permanent feud, but nothing we felt had anything to do with image. We both knew the buttons to push on the other one, and we both made little effort to hide our feelings, warm or cold. In 1977 we were on a talk show with Buddy Rogers, once Mary Pickford's husband, and he said, "You guys have a sibling rivalry, but you both think you're the older brother."
Once Gene and I were involved in a joint appearance with another Chicago media couple, Steve Dahl and Garry Meier. It was a tribute to us or a tribute to them, I can't remember. They were pioneers of free-form radio. Gene and I were known for our rages against each other, and Steve and Garry were remarkable for their accord. They gave us advice about how to work together as a successful team. The reason I remember that is because soon afterward Steve and Garry had an angry public falling-out that has lasted until this day.
Gene, Thea Flaum and I during an early taping
Gene and I would never, ever, have had that happen to us. Unthinkable. In my darkest and moodiest hours, when all my competitiveness and resentment and indignation were at a roiling boil, I never considered it. I know Gene never did either. We were linked in a bond beyond all disputing. "You may be an asshole," Gene would say, "but you're my asshole." If we were fighting--get out of the room. But if we were teamed up against a common target, we were fatal. When we were on his show, Howard Stern never knew what hit him. He picked on one of us, and we were both at his throat. [see YouTube below]
We both thought of ourselves as full-service, one-stop film critics. We didn't see why the other one was quite necessary. We had been linked in a Faustian television format that brought us success at the price of autonomy. No sooner had I expressed a verdict on a movie, my verdict, than here came Siskel with the arrogance to say I was wrong, or, for that matter, the condescension to agree with me. It really felt like that. It was not an act. When we disagreed, there was incredulity; when we agreed, there was a kind of relief. In the television biz, they talk about "chemistry." Not a thought was given to our chemistry. We just had it, because from the day the Chicago Tribune made Gene its film critic, we were professional enemies. We never had a single meaningful conversation before we started to work on our TV program. Alone together in an elevator, we would study the numbers changing above the door.
Making this rivalry even worse was the tension of our early tapings. It would take eight hours to get one show in the can, with breaks for lunch, dinner and fights. I would break down, or he would break down, or one of us would do something different and throw the other off, or the accumulating angst would make our exchanges seem simply bizarre. There are many witnesses to the terror of those days. Only when we threw away our clipboards and 3x5 cards did we get anything done; we finally started ad-libbing and the show begin to work. We found we could tape a show in under an hour.
Our first "Sneak Previews" set: Not a very wide screen, and the fake rail supports are painted pop bottles (All photos clickable)
People started recognizing us when we went out of town. "Life is going to change," Gene said. Joe Antelo, the producer who brought us into syndication, took us to NATPE, the convention of syndicated TV shows, and forbade us to walk around the floor unless we were together. "Together, you're an advertisement," he explained. "Apart, you're tourists." People would ask, "Aren't you those two guys?" Once when we were on an elevator, some ladies started whispering to each other and when we got off, Gene looked back and said, "We're those two guys."
Both of us were obsessed with our newspaper jobs. That was our identity. TV was part-time. We were competitive, but not equally competitive. Gene was the most competitive man I have ever met. Everything was an opportunity. At PBS, the camera crew played with one of those toy gambling games where you threw little metal pigs on the floor and bet on how many of them landed on their feet. Something like that. I never understood it. They gambled for nickel stakes.
One day Gene said, "Let's make it more interesting," and suggested raising the stakes to a quarter. Then he started to win. There was no way he was cheating. Gene had taken the pigs home with him and mastered the game. Another time on an airline flight, we were sitting next to each other playing gin rummy, and for once I succeeded in making the right play and Gene threw his cards down on his tray table so hard they flew all over the aisle. We never played gin again.
Gene had only scorn for games of chance. We went to Vegas a lot and I never saw him play a single one. He would gamble in only two ways: Poker and horse racing, where it didn't have to be blind luck. He said he was a net winner. I found that unlikely. His horse-betting buddy was Johnny Morris, the Chicago Bears star who worked with him at Channel 2. Morris was also said to be a gifted bettor. I was told by a third party that they were both, in truth, successful. I reported this to Gene and asked him what his rules were. "Roger," he said, "there is only one rule: Never play a hunch."
We win a Chicago Emmy award
In Vegas, I played the $5 poker tables but Gene was over in the more talented section of the room. At his bachelor party, he swept the tables with his winnings. At my bachelor party, he was a big loser. I asked him what went wrong. "What went wrong," he said, "is that your friends don't know how to play poker. A good player can never win against someone who makes a bet just for fun."
He had season tickets for the Bulls going back to the 1970s, and told me they were a "good young team." When Michael Jordan joined the team in 1984, Gene began to follow Jordan and the Bulls with a passionate intensity. He and Marlene even bought front row tickets--not cheap, but more important to Gene than a car. He was a fan, but not a mindless fan. He became a student of the game. He looked in basketball for the kinds of "tells" a poker player looks for. He said Jordan was better at reading another player's tells than anybody else in the game.
He asked the coach, Phil Jackson, "Why does Dennis Rodman almost always miss the first free throw?"
Jackson said, "Why do you think?"
Gene said, "For some reason, he thinks he has to."
Jackson nodded thoughtfully.
"He didn't tell me what he thought," Gene said. "A good coach would never do that."
We kept leaving titles behind: "At the Movies" stayed at Tribune when we went to Buena Vista
Gene was formidably well-informed. It was a sort of armor. He made it his business. He knew the best restaurants, but that was child's play. He knew fine art and antiques. He knew things like the best tuna-salad sandwich in Los Angeles (the Apple Pan) or the best Italian beef sandwich in Chicago (Mr. Beef). We agreed that Father & Son made the best thin-crust pizza in Chicago. We agreed that deep-pan "Chicago style" pizza wasn't worth the time of day. Gene knew the safest family cars, and those were the only ones he drove. He knew the best school for his children. I never thought of buying a place to live without asking his advice. When Chaz and I were looking at a house, we asked him to check it out.
He walked through the house briefly and said, too quickly I thought, "Don't buy it."
We asked why not. "I don't like the skylight," he said.
What's wrong with it? "From their windows," he said, "your neighbors can see you walking to the bathroom."
He was a bachelor when I first met him, living in an apartment that was said to resemble a bachelor's nightmare. I never saw it. Few did. When he got serious about Marlene and realized he would sooner or later have to take her there, he asked his sister to clean it up "just enough so I can have a cleaning person come in." I gather it wasn't filled with rotting Kentucky Fried Chicken or anything. It was simply filled with everything he had ever brought home and put down, still there wherever it landed, and had never been dusted. He and Johnny Morris made a bet once with a TV set as the wager. When Johnny lost, he got a giant old console set and had it delivered to Gene's apartment. The delivery guys dumped it inside the door. It was never moved, and from then on the door never opened all the way.
The Gene Siskel Film Center has wonderful programming here
There was always a little of the Yale undergraduate in Gene. Tim Wiegel, his roommate there, later a sportscaster, told me Gene was famous for wearing a Batman costume and dropping out of trees. He studied philosophy, considered law school, decided to take some time off first. "I told my dad I thought I'd like to try a job in newspapers," Gene said. "He said he'd give me a ride downtown. We had always been a Sun-Times family. For some reason, I never knew why, he dropped me off in front of Tribune Tower." Less than a year after walking in the door, he was the Tribune's film critic.
He got his second job, as the movie critic of the CBS Chicago news, because the newscast was bring reformatted to resemble a newspaper city room. Van Gordon Sauter, the executive producer, recruited Gene on the theory, "Don't hire someone because they look good on TV; hire them because they cover a beat and are the masters of it." Gene speculated that was the reason for the success of our show: We didn't look great on TV, but we sounded as if we might know what we were talking about.
Gene met Marlene Iglitzen when she was producing the CBS news in Chicago. "We fought like cats and dogs," she told me. She moved to CBS in New York. He started to see her in New York, and when she was visiting her family in Chicago he would bring her to screenings. I don't recall him ever bringing any other dates to screenings. She was the one. I remember once we were all in a car in New York, and Gene said he wanted to show me the holy place where he had proposed marriage to Marlene. I think this was on Second Avenue.
"There it is, right on the corner," Gene said, taking Marlene's hand.
"The Pizza-Fotomat?" I said.
"My darling Gene," Marlene said.
He had discovered the right woman. I am going to violate a confidence. Thea Flaum was the person who formed our show on PBS and guided us through our rocky first years. She said to me not so long ago, "You know Gene could sometimes he difficult to deal with. Well, you both were. Marlene is a smart woman, she worked in TV news, I wondered how it would work for her being married to Gene. Rog, after I saw them together for awhile, I came to the realization that in the most important ways they were the same person."
Across State Street from the Siskel Center: I am with Will Siskel, Chaz, Mayor Richard M. Daley, Marlene, and Maggie Daley (Sun-Times photo: Jean Lachat)
Marlene kept her name. "When I introduced Marlene Iglitzen to Mel Brooks," Gene said, "Mel asked her, 'What was it before you changed it?'" They had two daughters, Cate and Callie, and a son, Will. The girls were flower girls at our wedding. They followed Gene to Yale, and Will seems to be headed there. The Siskels threw a party for us before Chaz and I were married. I remember the party before Gene was married. There was a mentalist who told me everything in my own wallet. This was astonishing; I knew my wallet had been in my pants during the whole party.
"How does he do that?" I asked Gene.
"I don't know, but I'll tell you one thing," Gene said. "He couldn't tell me what was in my wallet."
Once we were invited to speak to the Harvard Law School Film Society. We walked into their Mock Trial courtroom armed with all sorts of notes, but somehow got started on a funny note, and the whole appearance became stand-up comedy. Separately or together, we were never funnier. Even the audience questions were funny. Roars of laughter for 90 minutes. I'm not making this up. I don't know what happened. Afterwards Gene said, "We could do this in Vegas. No, I'm serious." He was always serious about things like that.
That night we had dinner together in a hotel in Cambridge, and had our longest and deepest philosophical discussion. We talked about life and death, the cosmos, our place in the grand scheme of things, the meaning of it all. There was a reason Gene studied philosophy: He was a natural.
He spoke about his Judaism, which he took very seriously. His parents had started one of the early synagogues on the North Shore after World War II. "I had a lot of long talks with my father about our religion," Gene told me. "He said it wasn't necessary to think too much about an afterlife. What was important was this life, how we live it, what we contribute, our families, and the memories we leave." Gene said, "The importance of Judaism isn't simply theological, or, in the minds of some Jews, necessarily theological at all. It is that we have stayed together and respected these things for thousands of years, and so it is important that we continue." In a few words, this was one of the most touching descriptions of Judaism I had ever heard.
Marlene with Cate and Callie
In early 1998, I began to notice that Gene sometimes got things out of order; strange, for a man who was always alert and precise. We emceed an awards show with a dozen categories, and Gene asked me to brief him every time we went onstage. In April of that year, we were the guests of honor at a benefit gala for Chicago's Museum of Broadcasting. It marked the 23rd anniversary of the show. "Why the 23rd?" I asked Chaz. "Why not the 25th?" We decided maybe the museum needed the money.
That night, Gene addressed a lot of his remarks to his family, seated at a table right in front of the stage. He told them things they should be sure to tell Will when he grew older. He mentioned some of his values. He spoke of their education, and the importance of finding a job you love. I took quiet notice of that. Not long after, Jay Leno brought his show to Chicago. In the limo going out to the Rosemont Horizon, Gene said he had an unbelievable headache. Backstage, they found a darkened room and a cool cloth for his eyes, and gave him some Advil.
We were supposed to judge a contest of Jay lookalikes. "My headache is too bad to focus on it," he told me. "You do it and I'll agree with everything you say. You can looked amazed. We can make it a shtick."
After the show, Stuart Cleland, our executive producer, said, "Gene, I'm taking you to a hospital." Gene refused. "Nothing doing. I'm going to the Bulls game." His team was in the playoffs. Chaz and I watched the game on TV, and saw Gene in his usual seat on the floor. A day or two later, we heard that Gene had gone into Northwestern Hospital for some tests. We flew to the Cannes festival, and Stuart called us in France: "Gene is having surgery." We wanted to call and send him flowers. "I don't know where he is," Stuart said. "He didn't tell me."
Gene with Spike Lee on the Bulls sidelines during a 1996 game against the Knicks
We later found out it was Sloan-Kettering in New York. There was a statement that Gene had undergone tests and was recovering after a procedure. Gene took some time off (together we chose Tom Shales of the Washington Post to sit in for him). When he returned to the show, he was obviously ill, but we never discussed his health, except to agree that he was recovering--recovering from what, was never said.
I understood this at the time, and understand it better now. Gene was a competitor. He knew all about odds, and they were against him. But from that summer through the following February, he continued to attend screenings and do the show. He was often in his seat at Bulls games. What he went through, only Marlene knew. He spoke to his family about his illness, but to no one else, not even his best friends. He was unhappy when the Tribune ran an item saying his recovery was "on schedule." He asked, "What schedule? Whose schedule?"
Before his final shows, the studio was cleared so that his nephew could help him walk onto the set and take his seat. No mention was made of his illness. He taped his last program a week or two before his death. His pain must have been unimaginable. But he continued to do his job, and I never admired him more. Our eyes would meet, unspoken words were between us, but we never spoke openly about his problems or his prognosis. That's how he wanted it, and that was his right. In a way, we had that our talk on that night in Cambridge. We talked about what mattered.
We once spoke with Disney and CBS about a sitcom to be titled, "Best Enemies." It would be about two movie critics joined in a love/hate relationship. It never went anywhere, but we both believed it was a good idea. Maybe the problem was that no one else could possibly understand how meaningless was the hate, how deep was the love.
¶Siskel & Ebert on Howard Stern's TV Show:
¶Remembering Gene, Part One:
¶
Remembering Gene, Part Two:
¶
Remembering Gene, Part Three:
¶
Is it sad that I remember "At The Movies" during the late 70's despite the fact that PBS in my area was affected by "southern flying planes and tall trees" in my north-central Ohio town.
When I moved to Lake Co, IL in the mid 90's I was influenced by the decisions of the movie critics of the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times. When Gene died it felt like a part of me that went through OH-MI-WI-IL through the years also passed as it was something that had carried over for 20 years.
I still look toward that Roger Ebert endorsement of a movie and still think after all this time that Tom Skilling does not know anything about weather.
Ebert: No one knows anything about the weather but he's good at it.
Roger-
A more moving, effective memorial could never be written. I'm actually teary eyed after reading this. Well done.
Is there any book of Gene Siskel's that gathers a collection of his written criticism? I can't seem to find any. It would be a tragedy if his memory as a print film journalist were to be erased.
Ebert: Unfortunately, there isn't. I believe he had offers, but didn't get around to it.
Nothing better than knowing that this life mattered.
I was interning at the hospital and i saw so many variations of illness, how everybody lived and reacted to it. It is not so much about mortality or immortality, but a hope that I mattered to somebody.
I especially like the title, Remembering Gene, because i have a hunch it's continuous.
thanks for sharing.
One of my favorite memories of watching Gene on your show was when he discussed "Titanic" after it had been out for some time. He identified it as one of the first "big pictures" in the lives of his kids, who were probably pre-teens at the time. He then went on to say that movies were bigger than television (talking about the big event films of his time, when he was the same age as his girls).
This to me seems to sum him up perfectly. First, he avoided going for the obvious quotes to grab headlines, but talks about how the movies can amaze and change us. It wasn't just that "Titanic" had Leonardo DiCaprio, but that it was a real MOVIE --- big and powerful for a young audience that hadn't really had an event movie like it. He recognized how special it was for his own family and for a new generation. He was dead on in that regard. Second, he views movies as MOVIES --- not simply television on a bigger screen, which sadly is a trend that has grown since his passing. When yet another TV show is transformed into a big-screen movie, most critics do the routine job of comparing it to the old show and then to other TV-to-big screen films. Not Gene. He evaluated it as a movie and only a movie. The last film he named as best picture, 1998's "Babe: Pig in the City," won his affection because it lived up to the most important criteria for him in selection his number one choice, which was "(a) movie that best expresses the joy of filmmaking and expands the possibilities of what a movie can be."
My grandmother and I loved to talk about the movies you and Gene reviewed on "Siskel & Ebert." She never went to the theatres, but still had to keep up on movies! She died exactly a week after Gene did, while on vacation in Hawaii, and had Gene's clipping in her small pile of news articles, books, etc.
So much has changed in filmmaking and film criticism, good and bad. I remember Gene being really excited by computer animated films; whenever one comes out, I just imagine how much he would have loved seeing it. I really would have loved to have seen his reaction to the whole blogosphere of film criticism. I see him as a bit of a traditionalist, but eventually my hunch is he would have embraced what is so essential for art's survival --- its continuing discussion and analysis. This is all the more sobering as film criticism seems to be dying in print; it's up to all of us to keep it going online, in living rooms --- wherever we can.
It's a shame Gene died so suddenly, and so young. So many good films have lost their chance to have Gene as their champion. I remember the news articles revealing he had a brain tumor, and his statement was pure confidence and protection for his loved ones, saying that people survive these types of things in real life, "not just in the movies." Dying at 53 is too young, and I hope the Siskel family is holding up well despite their tragic loss. Few of us could strive for the courage he obviously displayed under similar circumstance.
That was very illuminating.
I've always used my relationship with my identical twin brother as a yardstick against which other friendships and bonds could be measured. I've always said we have the sort of relationship that is pretty much inseperable, like a couple married for 30 years who have become completely accustomed to living a conjoined life. We fight, sometimes very badly, but I know very well that nothing we would ever do would separate us permanently.
Occasionally, I'm foolish enough to think it's a position unique to twins, but a story like this makes it obvious that is not the case.
What do I know for sure?
I know that both you and Gene, along with Richard in recent years, have given me a passion for films that will never go away. I've learned more in a movie theater than I ever did in my college classrooms. I've learned who I am and what I care about in life, in large part because of this wonderful art-form. I owe a great deal of who I am and what I believe because of that education -- and I thank you for it.
Maybe someday, I can teach you that "The Village" wasn't what you thought it was.
TC
Many thanks for this Roger. God knows I would have loved to be with you guys in that hotel in Cambridge.
And yes, God bless Gene.
I only wish there was a way to donate money directly to your blog, Roger. Please assemble these writings and publish them as a collection. This is moving, and intriguing, and exciting stuff.
I have discovered a new favorite pastime: Checking your web site, and feeling the joy as I see a new blog post has been uploaded. I turn off the TV, pour myself a beer, and spend the next 10-15, 20 minutes reading every word. And then reading through the comments. And watching your YouTube links. And looking for your reactions to comments.Re-reading the more playful phrases. Experiencing my own sense of elevation as I relish this chance to read something so thoughtful, and inspired.
I almost feel as if I'm living out your memories. I read about Gene here, about Steak & Shake, about your favorite European memories, and my mind is taken some place else. While so much on the web is about short, terse and surface, you take my mind somewhere deeper. It's clear that Gene still inspires you to do fine work.
You've mentioned that being unable to speak for a long period of time has made you a better writer. This journal is the only proof I need to see, to know that the claim is true.
Cheers to you, from the corner of South 3rd and Driggs in Brooklyn.
Ebert: I think I'll zoom down on Google Earth, and wave back.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you imposed that moustache on Gene!
For all the love we show our dogs for that unconditional companionship, you clearly illustrate how beautiful it is to have a meaningful human relationship. I just wanted to say that I'm sorry for your loss. Gene's take on Judaism might be the best I've heard about any religion. Thank you for these reflections. You two will always be quite a pair.
A beautiful tribute, Roger. Thank you so much for this.
I was a lover of film since I was a little kid, and when I started watching "Siskel and Ebert" when I was ten it opened a door to other means to discuss film than just saying you liked/disliked something, and here's why. I found ou could talk about the film itself, how it makes you feel, think about what it's designed to give to you, not just what you take from it. It was from here that I realized it wasn't just me watching a screen but me and the screen communicating. It was a dynamic, illustrated by the dynamic of Siskel and Ebert.
Thanks to the internet I was able to read the newspaper reviews of Siskel and Ebert. Thanks to Gene's TV Guide gig, that he did through 1998, I got to read a little more of him. He wrote about films with a very personable manner. I remember in writing about "Clueless" that one of his daughters adored the movie, and that seemed the make the movie more lovable to him.
I think the last newspaper review of his I read was a favorable, three-star review for "She's All That". I'm not sure if that was his last newspaper review but it was the last one I remember reading. Even with all that Gene was going through at the time he still found something like "She's All That" not only enjoyable but something to be enthusiastic about. I completely understand his whole-hearted enthusiasm for "Babe: Pig in the City" and "The Thin Red Line" in the face of everything but "She's All That"?
No one could ever tell him what is in his wallet, and I could never tell what exactly he'd think of a movie until I saw/read about it. But once I found out what he thought I understood why he did.
Wow. Very moving and enlightening. It affirms some of the things I had always assumed; that Siskel and Ebert worked because it was based on deep understanding between the two of you.
Sometimes the best, most complex relationships require nothing more than acceptance and understanding. I lost a good friend some years ago, and we knew we shared many great moments without ever talking about them. Now, years later, I still feel that silent understanding, it still exists and his memory is with me daily. A great tribute Roger.
You are fortunate to have the memories and the experiences that spanned them. All loss in life is a signal that we had something to loose in the first place. A back-handed reminder of our good fortune.
I recall the many years of watching you and Gene Siskel together on television together as well as the interviews with Gene Siskel and his family after cancer had made itself known in their lives. I remember scensing where things were headed despite Gene Siskel's stated intent to stay engaged with the world.
I couldn't care less about any supposed love/hate relationship or what have you. Watching the two of you I learned to think about films, about having opinions, and stating ones opinions in conversation with others. Despite his early departure I feel fortunate for the little bit I received. You are more fortunate.
Thank you, Roger. Your stories about Gene remind me of a wonderful remembrance-slash-anecdote about him, published 10 years ago by Aaron Barnhart, the TV critic at the Kansas City Star and a former Chicagoan. Aaron's story really shows the generous spirit of Gene Siskel.
You can find it at:
http://tvbarn.com/old/2000/gene-siskel.html
Thank you for posting the tribute video. I haven't been able to find it elsewhere. I always ejoy looking back at your old reviews.
One of my favorite moments from the show is when you both were naming your picks for the worst films of the year. Gene had picked Pee Wee's Big Adventure, and said how poor the humor was. You had been on vacation the week Pee Wee was reviewed, but on the basis of the one clip Gene showed, you wanted to see it. Gene was outraged.
Something interesting I have found regards Genes opinion of Return of the Jedi. In the original review from 1983, which I've seen online, he was very impressed with it. In a review you both did with the Star Wars rerelease in the 1990's, he said it was the weakest of the three films, but only because the others were a lot better. But Rottentomatoes claims that Gene gave it a negative review. I've attempted to find his actual review to reconcile these conflicting records, but I've been unable to find any archive of his printed reviews. Considering his prominence as a critic, I think that is a shame.
I fondly remember watching your show as a kid which, for me, came on right after Saturday morning cartoons. It was fantastic hearing such passionate discussions about movies, most of which would never come to my small town.
I agreed most with Mr. Siskel's reviews and thinking that "Mr. Ebert didn't know what he was talking about." Mr. Siskel seemed to be more open to the movies I was enjoying then as a teenager. His death was the first time I felt a real sense of loss when it came to a person I didn't know personally.
After his death, I found myself agreeing with you, Mr. Ebert, more and more often. I wondered if I had changed or if his death had affected the way you see life in movies. I've always liked to think it was a little bit of both.
Thanks for this great memorial. I miss the show.
Roger,
Thank you very much for sharing these stories. I was watching your show 10 years ago this month, and I remember your voice catching a bit at the end when you said, "And until next week...the balcony is closed." I believe it was just a few days later that I read about Gene's death, and I've always wondered: did you know at the time that that would be the last show aired while Gene was alive?
Thanks again for such a wonderful tribute.
1999 was such a great year for American movies; Magnolia, American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, Toy Story 2, Boys Don't Cry. Always get to me that he missed that year.
A couple of questions for you Roger.
What movies in the last decade are you saddest he missed out on?
Didn't you discuss the first Star Wars: Episode 1 teaser in 98?
Ebert: What do I know for sure? He would have loved "Almost Famous."
That was beautiful and I'm crying!!! Thanks , Roger!
Roger,
What a lovely and thoughtful remembrance. Not only of Gene, but of film criticism and television lore. I love the detail about the wallets and of how quickly Gene sized up the house, the skylight, the neighbors with the alertness and authority of the keen-eyed reporter that he was.
The way you've structured these memories, reading this piece feels not unlike watching a movie. From antagonism to love and respect, it's all so, well, cinematic.
Any thoughts on casting the film of your lives? Who would play whom, and who would direct?
Gene is greatly missed...can it really be a decade? Fondest memory - his obsession with all things "Saturday Night Fever". RIP!
What made S&E so special wasn't necessarily the chemistry (they had that), but how they held not just a great love for cinema, but for the [i][b]sheer experience[/b][/i] of going to the movies. That sadly is what is lacking in most critics today, especially with the current hosts of AT THE MOVIES.
I mean yes you two supported and championed arthouse fare that were recognized more widely because of your "Thumbs Up." I mean you both held an intelligent rational discussion of THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST when the religious right protested a greatly spiritual drama that they never bothered to watch. Plus it's great critical respect when Siskel a Jew named CHRIST his #1 movie for that year.
But also you both were unabashed in your giggling and excitement whenever you caught genuinely fun entertainment.
Take your TV review of SUDDEN DEATH, that Jean Claude Van Damme actioneer. It's not that special or well-made or even a good DIE HARD knock-off for that matter, but it's good dumb popcorn. You both were in such joy as you talked about Van Damme using a meat slicer to dispose of a thug.
In fact, that's what I admire about Siskel the most. One year UNDER SIEGE was on a Top 10 list, the next year DIE HARD 2 made the cut. The guy seemed to intellectually respected the action genre, and had no qualms at all of honoring worthy achievements in that field along with the critical "approved" or those that won awards.
I mean this was the same chap who gave thumbs up to the B-sci-fi trasher CLASS OF 1999. He didn't care if people didn't like his verdict, for on the flipside he was one of the rare mainstream media critics back in the day who didn't like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
Mr. Ebert, would you feel honored if I amend my earlier statement above to argue that "Siskel & Ebert" was a popular because you gentlemen were so much fun to watch, regardless if we the audience actually ever bothered to check out your recommendations?
Ebert: Hey, I liked "Class of 1999" too.
God, What I would have given to have known that man.
Roger, this moved me to tears. I miss him often, as well, and I didn't even know him! Thank you for sharing your personal memories and this beautiful tribute.
I was mostly in tears as I read this wonderfully written article and great remembrance episode. When he died I was even more happy that you two decided to guest star on "The Critic." At the time we didn't have the internet and that recorded rerun I had was a bit of a time capsule for me. A way to remember you two. Now thanks to the extensive library on atthemovies.com has made it easier to relive some of my favorite moments on the show (minus some of the Oscar specials and top ten lists). I wish that his newspaper reviews were easily accessible as well, but I haven't had much luck in Googling them. Oh well, thanks again for the lovely tribute.
I want to share a story with everyone about how Gene touched my life and changed it forever.
It was November of 1992. I had just turned 16 and I was at that stage in my life where people start to think about their future, such as where they want to go to college and what they want to do for a living. I was having dinner with a friend in a small diner in Hoboken, NJ. I was telling my friend that my parents wanted me to go to college very badly because neither of them had gone. It was really important to them and it was pretty much all they ever talked about. I told my friend that I felt a tremendous pressure to go to college because I didn't want to disappoint them. At the same time, I hated school with a passion and even though my grades were excellent, I didn't really feel that college was for me.
My friend and I talked for a while, then he had to leave. After he was gone, a middle-aged man in the booth next to us approached me and told me that he had overheard my conversation. He asked if he could sit down and talk to me and I told him he could. This man told me that the decisions I would make in the next year will change my life forever, for better or for worse. He said that right now I am building a road to my destiny and after I start upon that road, it is nearly impossible to go back, build a new road, and start over. He said that I need to live my life for myself and not for my parents, that if my parents truly love me, they will understand and support any decision I make, provided it is well thought out.
He told me that college was a great time in his life, but that college is not for everybody. He advised me to make a list of careers and decide which ones I wanted most. If those careers require a college degree, then college would have to be a consideration. When I read your essay about Gene and watched the videos above, I began to cry because I remembered one thing he told me very vividly as if he told it to me yesterday. He said, "Choose a job that you love." That's right, years before he made that speech to his daughters and the Chicago Museum of Broadcasting, he made the same speech to me.
In the end, I decided not to go to college, despite having scholarships from two Ivy League schools. I felt that if I despised school as much as I did, there is no way I could possibly make it through another four years. It turned out to be the best decision of my life. I started my own recruiting/headhunting firm. Now I am 32 years old with a six figure income and my mortgage is completely paid off.
I spoke to the man in the diner for 30 minutes. He told me his philosophy of life and the time flew by. Then he stood up, shook my hand, told me, "Good luck", and left. I sat there for a while thinking about what he had said. I then called the waitress over to pay my bill. To my surprise, the waitress told me that the man had paid my bill. She asked me, "Don't you know who that was?" I said no and she told me it was Gene Siskel, of the movie critics Siskel and Ebert. I had heard of Siskel and Ebert, but I was not much of a movie fan, so I had no idea what he looked like. Since then, I have become a big movie fan, that is why I am on your site, Roger.
Looking back, I can trace all the success I have had in my life to that 30 minute conversation that I had with a complete stranger on a cold, rainy night in a small diner in Hoboken.
Wherever you are now, Gene, I just want to say thank you.
This was a great piece. As you know, I only watched the memorial show a few days ago on YouTube, and this is an excellent companion to it. I found it especially moving that you two never talked about Gene's illness.
Dear Mr. Ebert:
What a lovely tribute to Gene you have written. And the You Tube videos are a joy. I laughed repeatedly -I'm still chuckling. It's hard to believe that it is almost 10 years since he died. I miss him, too.
But I, and many others, miss you as well. I do hope things go favorably for you and your better half this year. If you haven't already, (I will look in your archives as soon as I send this to you, perhaps you could review that documentary on John Cazale that played at Sundance earlier this year. Here's hoping it plays in Boston (or at least on IFC or Sundance Channel).
Sincerely,
Dee Luther
I must ask you Roger after watching your tribute to Gene on your show, which was so eloquently done by the way, how on Earth did you make it through each take (I imagine many retakes)? Your grace and composure is quite compelling considering your friendship with him.
Ebert: What helped me was that I did not (could not) actually watch the video of Gene, which I was familiar with, but which was edited into the show in post-production.
I admit that I was one of those people that thought you guys really detested each other. I started watching At The Movies when I was a kid, and remember vividly seeing a review you guys did where you argued so much it went to commercial. Even young I thought 'How big an argument could it have been that TAPED it had to be sent to commercial?'. I only learned on your site that you guys really like each other and were that close. I think that's great. Like The Band sang, 'Why do the best things always disappear?'.
Ebert: We really liked each other, yes, but that argument would have been real.
See? Now this is what I’ve been talking about! That is, to a certain extent inside various posts scattered about here and there. You can genuinely respect a guy without being a sycophant about it; it doesn’t mean you don’t like him. You can “get him” and at the same time it’s like “WTF?” You don’t like Harold and Maude? Time to draw a balloon! Chuckle!
You can agree to disagree while at the same time looking to score a point and it’s okay. It’s all good. And why I loved your relationship with Gene Siskel, such as I saw it from the outside, because neither of you were afraid to openly say what you really thought! You weren’t afraid to be yourselves, or dislike a film or passionately disagree if the other guy did; it was freedom of speech in practice not just in theory.
And what made “Siskel and Ebert at the Movies” so special. Two guys with differences united by how much they both truly loved films – not the perks or freebies they could have scored if they pandered to a studio. And while not as confrontation as Harlan Ellison or as nuts as Hunter S. Thompson, why you both nevertheless contributed by way of example to encouraging Americans to “think” about what they were viewing or reading.
I think that will be the enduring legacy of “At the Movies” and not just how much fun it was to sit on the sidelines and watch you and your foil verbally joust with one another. That’s what I took away from watching you and Gene “At the Movies” at any rate. I was challenged to think for myself. And so I did.
And gosh, what a nice thing to give the world, eh? At the very least, you both made me curious enough to go see films I’d otherwise never have discovered, and that’s worth its weight in gold. Or chocolate; haven’t decided yet.
All I know is that I miss Gene Siskel too.
P.S. I still remember when you guys got your hands on the very first consumer camcorders. They only filmed in B/W and the picture quality was grainy. Was it a Kodak? You both made these little shorts and aired them on a segment of “At the Movies”. Yours was inspired by “Rosebud” – Citizen Cane. And Gene’s was this tribute to you! “I love Roger Ebert. Roger Ebert is the best film critic EVER…” words to that effect. I confess I liked his better because it was so damned cheeky and when you saw it, along with his obvious glee, that you didn’t kill him; anymore than Herzog could bring himself to blow-up Kinski’s house. Now that’s love.
Ebert: You left out a tiny detail about Gene's "I love Roger Ebert" film.
Years before Conan O'Brien, he used a big blow-up of a photo of me, cut out the lips, and inserted his own lips saying what a great critic I was. :)
At least that's what I recall. The process was called Pixelvision.
To this day there hasn't been any duo more enjoyable then watching Siskel and Ebert review films. I loved you both growing up and you helped me grow my passion for movies.
Thanks for posting this heartfelt blog Roger.
Emmanuel
Motivatorman
Wonderful article. One of the reasons I think your TV show was so effective was because the audience believed what they were seeing was true.
When I would go into a video store the one thing I would look for on the front cover was two thumbs up from you guys. I was very seldom disappointed when it had that stamp of approval.
One of the best blog entries ever, hands down.
For the record, I never actually thought you guys hated each other. You can't snipe at somebody the way you two did unless there's a deep, respectful relationship underneath it all.
I wouldn't see movies the way I do if it wasn't for "Siskel and Ebert."
I remember seeing footage of that speech he gave at the end of that above show, and I wondered if he knew back then that his time was almost up. It was sorta a sad thought, but also an encouraging one, since he managed to do so much in between that speech and his death.
I attended a funeral for someone I'd never met (an in-law's in-law) on the day Gene Siskel died, and tried to split my respects amongst both of the departed (but to be honest, Gene took the lion's share.)
Why 23? Michael Jordan is why.
The two of you come around once in a lifetime during the best and not too best of times. TV reviews now are never the same, you two had too high of a standard. My wife and I always felt guilty whenever we watched a movie that was not two thumbs up.
I only saw Siskel in person once and I really only heard him. I was in line at a sub sandwich place downtown, I think Fontana's, and I heard him order behind me. He didn't just name the sandwich, he was very specific about what he wanted and not too much meat. I didn't want to turn and stare, so I just kept going through the line, but that voice was unmistakable. And I'm sure he knew that was the best sub downtown.
Roger, a tremendous tribute to your great friend.
I went to a special screening of the re-mastered "Wizard of Oz" in November 1998. Gene was there. After the show, I saw Gene being helped to his car. He just looked so weak. But I'll always remember the great "battles" you guys had on the air. And when both of you were ripping into a really bad movie. Sometimes those were the best and funniest shows of all.
Thanks for the memories.
Ebert: He wouldn't have missed that.
Lovely, Roger, you brought Gene back. Loved how Gene was always casually imparting wisdom in five words or less, the master of show not tell. Once in an elevator I asked him to describe the difference between watching movies in theaters and on television. "We look up at movies," he said craning neck in worship mode. "We look down at TV."
Two of many debts of gratitude I owe Gene Siskel:
1. His deep appreciation of Saturday Night Fever made me re-examine that movie and find its strengths.
2. My boundless enthusiasm for Dr. Strangelove--I never get tired of it--finds a defender in Gene Siskel. Watching him gush over it makes me feel that, if I am crazy, at least I'm not alone.
Here's to Gene, and his Purity of Essence.
p.s. My requisite tearing-up-while-reading-Ebert moment came when Gene spoke of his Judaism. His father's words echoed my mother's (also gone ten years) on our Catholicism, the need to live for today, to maintain bonds, and to do the right thing. Thanks again, Roger; I always thought of the two of you as the Mean One and the Nice One--and it appears I was only half right.
What a beautiful piece. You guys were like Uncles to me growing up. And I owe a lot of what I know about film to you guys.
Wonderful post.
I was born in the 70s and raised in the 80s, and Siskel & Ebert At the Movies was a part of my life as much as Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers. During that time, my family did not have cable television, so you guys were on the big 5 channels that we received and my parents and I would watch whenever we could. It was a real treat, and while I don't specifically recall any one review or show over any other, Siskel & Ebert, the men, are revered in my generation as the Lone Ranger, Tarzan, and Sally Star was in my parents' generation. Above the professional satisfaction and accolades you must feel Roger, the generational significance must be as satisfying to you. Whether people like you or dislike you, you (and Gene for that matter) are beloved and thank goodness we have the miracle of the internet to share your show with our children.
And the internet also gives me the privilege to rub elbows with you too. To get a chance to banter with one of your childhood heroes is a wonderful thing.
'Or perhaps, we give the people who come here a chance to forget for a while, for a few short moments, the harsh world outside. Our theater is a little room of orderliness, routine, care and love. I don't know why I feel so comically solemn this evening. I can't explain how I feel'
Oscar Ekdahl
Roger, Thank you. I shall always be grateful that I had the experience of watching you and Gene develop that friendship before our eyes. And, yes, you were fun and funny together.
The chemistry of Siskel and Ebert is what made your show so special and fun to watch, not just for the movie reviews, but to watch your verbal interplay. My earliest memory is when you both reviewed Saturday Night Fever and you were incredulous that Gene had bought the white suit. It is rare to find a show that has matched that chemistry. Thank you for a great article.
This is the first time I´ve ever written to you Mr.Ebert. Big fan and all that, anyway I remember your programs during the 80´s and 90´s. Almost never missed them. I remember Gene´s passion, you were more laid back. I remember you liked Burt Reynolds "Cop and a Half" and he called you Santa Claus for liking the film. Also I remember very well how he liked "Armageddon" and you did not, that´s funny. I don´t know if it is disrespectful but when I heard of Gene´s passing for some reason my only thought was "What was the last movie he saw? Did it suck? Did he like it?" Well, it saddened me greatly because he was so young and I always wondered what movies after 1999 he would´ve loved and what he would´ve hated. I read your reviews religiously on the internet. I hope you´re well and best wishes.
Sorry for any grammar or composition mistakes, I´m from Puerto Rico, English is not my native language. Bye and thanks.
W
Ebert: You write it perfectly.
"The reason I remember that is because soon afterward Steve and Garry had an angry public falling-out that has lasted until this day."
A personal recollection of how well you and Gene worked together: I still remember vividly (almost word-for-word), parts of an interview you and Gene did with Garry soon after Steve and Garry broke up. My sister and I (on our way to Woodfield Mall) were laughing uproariously at the good-natured hard time the two of you were giving Garry about the break-up of their duo, and were comparing it to your own relationship. Garry finally had enough and declared, "Okay, let's take some calls," to which one of you replied, "Take some calls: that's the oldest cop-out in the radio business!!!"
That interview convinced me that you and Gene could have easily hosted a very funny (non-movie-related) talk show of your own.
In short, I didn't know Gene, but I miss him just the same.
Thank you for this chance to see behind the scenes and really get a feeling for the special relationship that you had together. I have many fond memories of watching Sneak Previews with my parents on lazy weekend afternoons as a child, and it was great to see what made the chemistry work so well.
I really enjoy reading, and look forward to all of your journal posts! It's like listening to really good talk radio in the car; Sometimes you get home and have to keep listening in your driveway so you don't miss anything. Other blogs I might skim over, but I find your style of writing so interesting I devour every word. Thank you.
Lovely article, Roger. You have given Gene a great tribute.
Since 1992, I watched "Siskel and Ebert" every single week without fail. I think I learned to love watching the movies from you and Gene and Richard. When The Balcony Archive went live two years ago, I watched every single review that was posted there starting from "Touch and Go" back in 1986 up to the present (yes, I have a life, leave me alone).
The legacy of Siskel and Ebert is that you guys fought all the time, but this isn't true. Watching the evolution of the show, I noticed that more than half the time, you guys agreed. I think it is the fights that we all remember. The best moments on your show, for me, were when you guys agreed on a great film.
You and Gene, I noticed, had your own personal styles. You, Roger, were willing to give a movie a pass if you enjoyed yourself even if the movie, as a whole, didn't work. Gene was a little more strict, it seemed that he had to enjoy the entire movie from beginning to end to give it a pass. I think that conflicting style worked because if both of you had been strict than the show would have been a little tough to sit through. You guys were proof that everyone watches movies in a different way.
I remember watching "Siskel and Ebert" one afternoon (my local station sandwiched you guys between Baywatch and Bob Villa) when my mother came through and stopped to listen. You two were disagreeing about a film and my mother said of Gene, "That one always seems kinda pissed off". I explained that it was easy to see Gene that way because he loved movies so much that it seemed to anger him when he saw a bad one, that he was offended because that filmmakers didn't try to make a good movie.
Classic moment:
During a review of "Firestarter" when Drew Barrymore toasted some agents at her grampa's farm. Gene said, "I don't know if you noticed but the chickens got out of the way before the CIA did?"
Dear Roger,
What a wonderful tribute to an extraordinary man. Isn't it funny how people come into our lives and change our lives forever? I think the most striking memory I have of both of you from the show and your reviews is the passion you both showed for the movies. You both seemed to really care about the movies whether they be great or unbearable. After watching the two of you speak about a great movie, you would want to go see that movie, even if you had no intention of seeing it before the show. It's like watching a chef cooking something you think I probably won't like that but by the time he's done your mouth is watering and you are willing to give it a try. It is beautiful when someone has the opportunity to express their passion for something whether it is the movies, literature, music or a peanut butter sandwich. Thank you for all the wonderful blog entries.
Hi Roger,
First, I just want to let you know how much your journal means to me. Whenever I see there is a new posting, I get so excited simply because I know I'm about to read something intellectual that will no doubt be moving as well...it is always a highlight of my day and a refreshing brake from all the nonsense that clogs the internet and newspapers.
I think it's evident to everyone who reads your journal how much Gene meant to you, with the ways you quote him quite often and reference him a lot with stories and anectdotes. Do you ever find yourself watching a movie and thinking to yourself "Gene would have liked this" or "I wish Gene could see this film"...do you ever imagine what a discussion over a particular film would be like?
There was no one like him. Roger will appreciate this story:
In the 1970s, a bunch of us Tribune people -- including Gene, the only non-drinker -- played low-stakes poker two or three nights a week. Always competitive, Gene had this annoying habit of announcing, every couple of hands, exactly how much he was up (usually) or down (occasionally).
Last time I saw him, on a rare visit to the 5th floor of the Tower and obviously frail, he spotted me in my cubicle, walked over, grabbed a Tribune from a nearby stack, tucked it under his arm and looked at me:
"Up 50 cents."
He smiled and walked away.
Turned out, that was goodbye.
My special edition DVD of "Pulp Fiction" includes a special episode of Siskel & Ebert devoted to that movie and the films of Quentin Tarantino. I think I will watch it tonight.
Thanks Roger, for sharing your special memories.
Rog,
This is a beautiful article, one of your best. The videos were an especially nice touch. It makes me sad that we lost Gene so early, and it also makes me sad that, now, we've lost your voice. Now the show truly can't go on.
But, after meeting you and your wonderful wife Chaz last night, I realized that I may not get to see you every Sunday morning on the show anymore, but I will get go read where your voice has always shined the brightest.
Thanks for the autograph and kind looks last night. And I hope you enjoyed your Steak 'N Shake.
Yours Truly,
Sean Dugan
Hi Roger. As memorable as the clips you provided was the final episode of Siskel and Ebert, co-hosted with Desson Thomson of the Washington Post. It was easy to see that the show must have been hard for you to do that day, if only because of his reaction to you.
We sometimes ask ourselves where we were during some significant point in our lives: 9/11, watching the election of President Obama, among others, and I remember exactly where I was when Gene had passed. You both gave me 25 years of joy watching your shows, and inspired me to use critical thinking skills that I use today. Thank you, and know that the philosophy of having your faith live in future generations extends not just to the immediate family, but to your many viewers and readers.
In 1994 or '95, my family was given gala passes to one Toronto International Film Festival gala of our choice. I, realizing what many festgoers seem to forget (namely that most of those films would be released theatrically soon enough) suggested that we see something better: an evening with Siskel & Ebert.
It was wonderful. I had no idea that, sadly, it would be a once-in-a-lifetime event for us, but we had so much fun, and the audience enjoyed it a great deal. Gene and yourself had developed such great comic timing, and had wonderful insights, that it was worth giving up whatever films were playing at that festival.
Your repartee aside, a highlight of the evening was when you guys played clips from your show, and clips of others poking fun at your show. But we laughed hardest when you played a recent clip from the underrated animated series "The Critic." I was a fan of the show, and had seen it, but much of the well-heeled audience had never even heard of the show. Too see them laughing, and watching you two laugh along with them, was a moment to treasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHfMpq7H9qQ
Mr. Ebert,
Thank you for sharing this bit of your dear friend's life. I grew up in a tiny blip called Fouke,Arkansas, and I discovered your show on PBS when I was eight years old on a public television station. I consider that one of the turning points inm ylife. I never missed a show, and i learned more about criticism from you and Mr. Siskel than from anyone else. You taught me to ask questions about what I watch and to not accept the least a telented person can do. I thank you, and I thank Mr. Siskel.
I also loved that you guys gave "Q" a positive review.
Roger, I hope at some point you'll be able to write about the philosophical conversation you and Gene had about life and death and the meaning of it all.
I've split plenty of guts laughing with you and Gene over the years, but I'd also like to learn from your most serious of conversations.
Perhaps that evening remains too personal to write about. If so, I understand.
When/if it's ever possible to share that evening by writing about it, I know all of us would benefit from your and Gene's take on the big picture.
In any event, today's was a lovely piece. Thank you so much for sharing it with us.
Chet
You are so fortunate to have had your "deepest philosophical discussion." In the end those moments are the real meaning of life. A true tribute to a friend. No one could have said it better.
Good morning sir:
I attended your book signing last night for "Movie Yearbook 2009" at the Borders on Michigan Ave. It was great meeting you, again. I made sure to keep a look out for this article after your wife made the announcement during the signing. This really was a terrific read.
I was probably 9 or 10 when I'd started watching you and Gene review movies on TV. I may have just been sitting near the TV when my dad turned on the show. I'd continue following the show and enjoyed catching any TV appearances (especially during highlights of Bulls games with a shot of Gene in his courtside seat). Since Bulls tickets were so hard to come by, even more so during the '96-'98 run, I didn't see an actual game until the '97-'98 season. I don't know which was better--seeing Jordan lead a fast break or seeing Gene cheer on the team during the game.
I was 18 when Gene passed. It's still a weird thing about life that one minute someone is there and the next they're gone. It took a while for it to sink in that I wouldn't see another Siskel review or see the two of you debate a movie on TV. As a fan, I thought it was touching to see how many people paid their respects to you when you were covering the red carpet at the Oscars in '99 (I can only remember Tom Hanks...oh, that swell guy).
I've always cited the movies "High Fidelity" and "Almost Famous" for the spark to not just talk about music but to actually write about it, too. So, in my junior year at DePaul, I joined the newspaper and wrote about music. Then I discovered a little radio show called "Sound Opinions" hosted by Mr. DeRogatis and Mr. Kot that provided a great avenue to learn from journalists who didn't just have strong opinions...they loved their jobs.
I'm 28 now, and I've come to realize these past few years (from when I had the chance to meet you for the first time around '04-'05) that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing if not for you and Gene. If growing up with the original-non special edition-Jar Jar free "Star Wars" Trilogy ignited my imagination as a kid, then "Siskel & Ebert" helped me find my own voice when it came to expressing my opinions.
It was great to watch the complete 3 part "Remembering Gene" special. Thank you for including that with the article. It really added something extra to the overall piece. I came across one of the segments on YouTube. Will there ever be a DVD collection of the TV show in all its different incarnations? With THX sound quality...of course.
I can see it now. When Roger reaches the pearly gates Gene will be right there waiting for him. After the initial hugs and greetings they both will find a nice place to sit so they catch up on everything.
Right after sitting down there will be a long, quiet pause. Then Gene will look at Roger and say "You want to know why I didn't like Almost Famous?"
What always loved it when you guys could laugh at a particularly bad movie. This is one of my favorites especially the deadly baked beans:
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=FX
I have fond memories of watching "Sneak Previews" on weekends with my father. I'm pretty sure you and Gene were the first film critics I ever paid attention to. Thank you for sharing your memories of your partner, and for instilling in me a love of film.
You and Gene were the first film critics I ever paid attention to, and I have fond memories of watching "Sneak Previews" on weekends with my father. Thank you for sharing your memories of your partner, and for instilling in me a love of film.
I appreciate the tribute, but somethings just don't leave your mind, once you've seen them. I started out liking Gene's reviews much better (We were a Chicago Tribune family), but after the show went off the air, it was pretty clear Roger's writing was just better, more articulate and personal. And Gene began to seem like a miserable, insecure man. How could I have missed that? His Ebert insults on the Letterman show came through as nothing more than malicious, unpleasant nastiness. I no longer recall a single thing Siskel said about movies, but many of Ebert's remarks are alive in my mind... amusing & observant.
Ebert: Now, now. Gene's "insults" didn't bother me, and he knew they didn't bother me or he wouldn't have said them. See my blog entry "Siskel & Ebert at the Jugular," and the attached YouTube clips, to get an idea of the fun we had with insults.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/siskel_ebert_the_jugular.html
Roger-
My wife and I miss Gene AND you, and, now, Richard Roepert. Your show was always must viewing for us, a way to avoid going to see the wrong movie and be tremendously entertained by you guys as well.
The show has substituted for you, but they sure haven't replaced you.
Keep writing. We'll keep reading.
I saw you and Gene on Regis and Kathy Lee in, I think it was 1991. My family decided they didn't want to stand in line that morning so my sister and I could get tickets for Shakespeare in the Park's Othello with Raul Julia and Christopher Walken, but instead wanted to go to a taping of R&KL!
Oh, we were so mad!
Bruce Jenner was a guest and after he taped his segment he stood behind the cameras, near our seats, and his persona completely changed. He was grumpy and, with plenty of interesting language, wondered how quickly they could they ditch this place. He seemed so happy and excited when the cameras were on but he was as about excited to be there as I was, apparently.
Then you and Gene came on and I felt a whole lot better about missing out on Shakespeare tickets. I had watched you guys for years and it was a thrill to see you live. You taught me a respect for film that has lasted to this day.
I don't remember what films you talked about on that specific day but I remember how even though you would argue, you seemed to truly respect each other and when the cameras weren't rolling I noticed how there wasn't a shift in persona, a veil that dropped, but that you two remained friendly and respectful to each other and everyone around you.
You have reached so many people with your passionate love of film and I think the two of you have contributed so much to the industry and to film culture. You got people thinking and discussing and debating film - a whole world of people! And you did it through respectful, intelligent and lively debate and both of you will always be remembered for it.
To this day I tell my friends about how my ridiculous family wouldn't let me see Raul Julia as Othello with Christopher Walken as Iago because they wanted to go see a taping of a talk show!
"Oh! How awful!" They respond.
"But I did get to see Siskel and Ebert." I respond.
"That's pretty cool!" Is always the response.
Ah, the hilarious argument over whether it was pronounced "Coop" or "Co-op."
Ebert: That was at Harvard. I think I was the one who had it right.
Thanks for sharing these wonderful stories about Gene. I loved watching your show!!
I had the privilege of meeting Gene at a conference in 1982 in Chicago. We chatted idly about films as we waited to meet someone we were both in a line to meet - Jim Henson! Gene seemed almost as excited as I was, even though he'd met many more directors than I had. Much as Gene was a professional critic, he never stopped being a film fan.
For a couple of ink-stained wretches, you guys did OK in the matrimonial department. Your wives are hot!
"...you both think you're the older brother." My favorite line. Whether you write about rice cookers, evolution or relationships there is always this warm and glowing heart behind every post. That's why when you appear in my RSS reader I always read you first. With that said I think Brent scooped you on this one.
I once heard a country song, whose lyrics included a line saying something like: a friend is someone who has your back even if they know you’re wrong. Now I’ve never seen the show, nor read anything more of Mr. Siskel than right here, but it seems that if one of you were in an argument, and the other disagreed with that point of view, that disparity in opinion would quickly be out in the open. Do good friends really have to agree all the time? Are arguments really just “obstacles” two friends have to get through so that they can stop the fight and always be happily in accord? Or are the strongest friendships the ones in which discord and agreement come and end with similar ease?
Another touching story, Roger. Perhaps what really shone through all the time, the two of you spent together,both on and off the screen,could be described as passion. You both were passionate about the movies,and about doing the 'right thing' as critics.
Then, of course you were passionate about each other.You could 'read' each other's minds.Your souls knew each other,and you both 'gave' all you could, to your legions of fans.
Roger, you are still giving,all you can, and Gene, is still a very big 'part' of who you are.At least, thats how I see it.
Your writing is profound,full of truth,and always reaches my mind and heart. Many thanks..and woof-woof to you.
Cheers
Gary
The show was great back when it was the both of you because the chemistry between you were so fun to watch. Whether you agreed or disagreed, it was always amusing to see you two spar, or join in on either uplifting or bashing a single film.
Certain reviews stick out in my memory, for some reason. I recall one episode where you guys reviewed the comic book film "Spawn" (1997). He had trashed the film as junk but you had some thoughtful reasons why you through the film was good, and it was a nice example of the kind of dissenting dynamics you engaged in when disagreeing. In another episode where you both agreed on how bad a film was ("Patch Adams"), Gene ended his review with "I'd rather turn my head an cough than see this movie again," to which you erupted in laughter. You followed that up with, "Earlier I said 'Stepmom' was sentimental, well, 'Stepmom' is hard-boiled compared to this film," to which Gene responded equally with laughter. On another occasion when you reviewed the film "Godzilla" (the awful 1998 version) and were pointing out two characters in the film who were obvious jabs at the both of you, you very appropriately and level-headedly dismantled what was another silly and unnecessary part of the film, without personally losing your tempers at the filmmakers.
My husband and I began watching Siskel and Ebert when you started on PBS. Well, my husband more than me. He loved the tension between the two of you when you disagreed: That feeling that commercial breaks might have become an opportunity to "take it outside." I confess that part made me a little uncomfortable. (I leave the room during Seinfeld episodes when the characters are just a little too embarrassing.)
While we wouldn't let a "thumbs down" keep us from seeing a movie (sometimes that might be WHY we would see a movie -- I LOVED Ishtar. Really.) a "thumbs up" from either of you would make us consider one more seriously, especially the art house movies that don't get much play in the media. And we loved that you would consider a movie for what it was -- and not let knee-jerk reactions get in the way of an intelligent discussion.
Thank you so much for sharing your memories of Mr. Siskel. I have tears in my eyes. Your partnership -- and your friendship -- was rare, and we were privileged to have seen a part of it.
Nora
(Almost Famous is a cult classic, and a must for people who want to understand 20-somethings.)
Thank you for sharing your memories of Gene. What a beautiful relationship you had (and have as today's piece and all of these posts prove that someone is always part of your life - even if physical space is no longer shared). Your writings on Gene and times shared with him made me think through the years, the series of special moments, shared with my close family and friends. Thank you. The only thing missing is to hear Gene's side of times spent with you, which I know would be equally moving.
Thank you for a wonderful article. My dad and I would watch the both of you when I was in grade school and all these years later I still remember the both of you reviewing small movies like Better off Dead (where you showed a clip of a garbageman falling into garbage) and bigger ones like Prizzi's Honor and the like.
I am glad to read how close you were, and how wonderful your friendship was actually, because I remember growing up how everybody assumed the two of you really hated each other and that made me sad, because it was so clear on television that you were meant to be close friends, meant to share not just with the audience, but with each other.
I still look to your reviews first after I have seen a film, there is nothing I like better than a late afternoon movie and some of that was born in a living room watching you guys dissect movies a few minutes at a time.
I would have loved to have known what Gene Siskel thought about the great movies of the last decade, of Grizzly Man, Munich, The Gleaners and I, Millions and many more.
Thank you for talking about friendship without making it simplistic. It demands that we step aside, that we acknowledge the greatness of an other, that in the end, all other judgments of friendship are meaningless save that we appreciate and respect - and that this is the path to love. You have a clarity in writing which is rarely equaled. I enjoyed this article a lot. Thanks for everything Mr. Ebert.
Dear Roger:
Great tribute for Gene! I still remember the shock I got upon hearing about his death first thing on the radio, 6 a.m. news. I still miss him. The passion the both of you had for the movies has been passed on to me. Nothing beats seeing a movie on the big screen. Nothing was better than listening to you and Gene either arguing about(Free Willy) or agreeing about (Fargo) films. A great combination of love and knowledge of cinema along with rivalry as well as being fearlessly opinionated made for a great entertaining show. I check your website every week and always go to the review archives at AT THE MOVIES to hear you and Gene.
Thanks For The Memories
JAWS THE REVENGE - Michael Caine comes out of the water and he's dry!
I always loved the show, and the chemistry was so perfect all others like it paled in comparison. No one could replace Gene- and, of course, no one could replace Roger.
Every Friday evening, my best friend and I would get together before hitting the town club-hopping and mate-seeking, and do our own version of Sskel and Ebert- except it related to the latest music rather than film. It was great fun, the part of the evening I most remember, and made it all worthwhile even though most of the time out there we never did score with the ladies.
Siskel and Ebert inspired us to have intelligent, passionate discussions and analyses of the best and worst pop music of the time. We were conscious of our roles- and of course, ever-more appreciate of the TV show as a result.
Thank you for your lovely remembrance of Gene Siskel. Whenever you do write about Gene, or the show, it brings back a flood of great memories.
The impact that "Sneak", "At" and "And the Movies" had on pop culture is inescapable. And that brings me to my question.
Roger how do you feel about this impact that your and Gene's work - specifically on TV - has had on the "everyone's a critic" nature of our modern world? I mean, 50,000,000 bloggers can't be wrong... and where do you think they got the idea they could be critics anyway?
Thanks again.
Ebert: He would have been thrilled. He felt people were far too uncritical about unworthy movies which had "taken two hours of their lives they can never get back again."
Thank you for this wonderful tribute to your friend and colleague. I never missed your programs and started to read your columns as a kid in Chgo. I had a love of film that took me to the Art Institute as a teenager and I even thought I wanted to be a film critic when I grew up (this is only interesting or different because I grew up in the Cabrini-Green projects). After many twists and turns, I became a lawyer, residing in LA. One night following a film, I pop into the Apple Pan for a burger and Gene Siskel was sitting across from me. He was absorbed in his meal and I was absorbed with him and his focus and concentration on his food. Thank you both...you can't imagine the lives you have touched and changed because of your love of cinema.
Ebert: See the previous comment about the Apple Pan. Gene would have been severe about my bad reporting.
Roger, you were always my favorite of the two. Gene seemed more hard-edged, you seemed gentler.
After reading your generous and loving tribute to Gene, though, he might have just sneaked ahead of you in that competition for my heart. He probably would have liked winning.
Hi Roger. Charlie Siskel here, one of Gene's nephews. I have always loved hearing your stories about Gene. And this is such a funny and moving piece. But there is one glaring error I think Gene would insist on correcting publicly: It's the best TUNA sandwich, not chicken-salad, at the Apple Pan in LA. (His secret was extra pickles.) Gene introduced me to the Apple Pan when I moved to LA and at least once I flew a tuna sandwich back to Chicago for him. I don't remember whether that was my idea or his, but if it was mine I'm sure I only came up with it by thinking, "What would Gene do?" Thank you for telling so many wonderful stories about your years together. I could hear them all and read them again and again.
Ebert: Charlie, you're right! Of course you're right! It comes back so clearly now when you mention the pickles. Gene would have been unforgiving about such a basic reporting error. He must have told me "tuna" about a thousand times. I will correct it in the blog entry but leave your comment here, and put it in boldface to make amends.
THANK YOU for this wonderful rememberance of your friend.
10 yrs later I some times still refer to your show as the Siskel and Ebert show before I correct myself.
Your friend is stil missed by millions who never had the pleasure of meeting him.
And those millions look forward to your return to TV
BE WELL
LOUIS
You two were the first and only "real" people I got attached to on television. Watching you both week after week and reading all your articles (I couldn't have been happier when your archives were published online), I felt like I got to know you both. I could argue at the screen and nearly always predict correctly what movies each of you would like. The occasional surprises made me laugh. One of my favorites was when Gene liked Armageddon, but couldn't really defend his opinion; he liked it in spite of himself. I always had fun watching you guys. This blog reminded me that I miss Gene Siskel.
Ebert: You know, recently I've been wanting to watch "Armageddon" again. I was surprised how many people singled it out in comments about my entry on the movies that generate the emotion of Elevation.
Very, very nice.
What I do find amazing: what are a the odds that a particular TV station, from a particular city, would be able to select the two correct people for a new type of show, the right people without which the new format itself would have never been such a success?
A wonderful piece about a soft spoken, unassuming man. The two of you did so much together, but my favorite is that break up/makeup show you did on "The Critic" with Jon Lovitz.
This is a moving piece of writing. I didn't know your friend, and was too young to watch much of him on TV, but your words made me miss him, and made me appreciate the dynamic that existed on your show.
In regards to the amusing letters regarding Fanboys on your home page right now: What do you think Gene would have thought about Fanboys, or maybe just the camping out for movies? Do you hear his reviews for films he wasn't alive to review? You must have known him well enough to know what he would love and loathe in a movie theater. Who would he have picked for the best picture Oscar this year?
Can't remember the movie, but Gene liked it and you didn't. In the middle of his positive review you interrupted him, looked at the camera and said, "And this from the guy who liked Halloween 3!" All these years later I still laugh when I think of it.
I love this article.
I am curious how you review a movie today, having worked with Gene. Was he the half that pushed you to review better? Did your reviewing of movies drop down a notch after his death? How are your movie reviews today, different, because of Gene?
I expect that an opposing viewpoint can sometimes foment a profound crystallization of one's own point of view. I believe Siskel & Ebert's conflict helped viewers figure out movie choices with unparalleled clarity while witnessing an entertaining exchange.
Again, thanks for such a terrific article. This might seem belated, but I am sorry for your loss.
One of my great joys in life was watching the two of you, first in Sneak Previews then At The Movies and finally in Siskel & Ebert. Intelligence is so missing from television. I could FEEL the intellectualism and passion in your shows. The both of you have impacted my life. I still look to you as THE critic and hope you return to television...in the meantime, I'm a regular visitor to your website. It goes without saying, I miss your team, the team the both of you made.
The news of Gene’s death made me incredibly sad. Watching the two of you discuss cinema was very influential as I developed my own views of it. While it wasn’t actual communication with either of you, I would often wonder, “what did Siskel & Ebert think of this thing” once I left a movie. Then I’d reconcile what the two of you said versus how I felt and frequently was forced to see something I had missed. You weren’t just celebrities on a T.V. sitcom or in a movie who would be gone once the ratings or box office performance meant you were no longer important. You were guys who helped me think, and I knew part of that would be gone when he died.
Ebert: It's not too late if you're here. Gene and I agreed going the show away from the coasts was a big help in many ways.
I never wanted anything like I wanted to live in Chicago. Siskel, Royko and Harry Caray were all gone when I finally arrived in 1999 and I can't help but think I got here too late.
What an outstanding tribute. Everyone in the world should be so fortunate to have a friend such as you, Roger. I am most, if not all of us do, whether we know it or not. Perhaps it's because so few could ever express the relationship so beautifully.
We watched Sneak Previews on PBS before dinner on Saturdays in my home in North Carolina. Your endorsement was one reason Dad took the whole family to see Raiders of the Lost Ark, one of the all time great moviegoing moments of my childhood.
Years later I remember reading a MAD magazine parody of Ghostbusters and the Karate Kid that starred both you and Gene "reviewing" the films and pointing out their flaws and cliches while insulting each other. Even to an 11-year-old it was apparent they'd hit your relationship right on the head while still giving their own informed, intelligent and witty "two thumbs up" to you both.
The most touching story I remember about Gene Siskel was that he gave a speech at his daughter's Bat Mitzvah soon before he passed away. I think the article I read said he had to be helped up to the "Bima" and needed assistance to stand but he made his speech to his beloved daughter. I always tear up when I think of that. He was truly a "Mensch" sorry for all the Jewish references here but I think they are universal.
I was going to write about my boyhood memories of watching your show with Gene, but decided against it. I was going to write about my life-long love affair with the movies and of my fondness for your and Gene's reviews, but decided against that too.
So I decided to say simply this: if I had to be trapped somewhere, anywhere, with only a small number of people I'd want you and Gene there. Being trapped, we might not have the ability to watch cinema, good or bad, but we could still talk about movies we'd seen and loved, or hated.
Heartfelt and sincere thanks to you both for doing what you loved, so much better than anyone else, and for sharing it with us.
Thank you for this, Mr. Ebert. I was 16 when Mr. Siskel died. I cried when I heard the news and sent you my apologies. I know it must have been rough for you and his family.
I say this without hesitation - you are one of the finest writers we have today.
Roger -
A quick story about Gene that you might like. I was on a date about 12 years ago at the Frontera grill and was seated directly across the aisle from Gene and Marlene. My date quietly said "every time I come here, he's here." After gathering courage from a few margaritas, I wrote on a tortilla this fact and speculated that perhaps he was stalking my date. The waiter delivered the tortilla-gram to Gene. He read it, took out a pen and wrote on the flip side.
The waiter brought it back after he left. It said "I AM stalking her. Now you both die!" It was signed Roger Ebert.
Ebert: On an 8x10 photo, he once forged the signature of the child star of a movie I liked and he hated, with the inscription: "Mr. Ebert, your review made me want to go on living after the mean things Mr. Siskel said about me." Gene mailed it to Chicago when he was in Los Angeles.
Dear Roger,
First time writer, longtime reader blah, blah, blah.
I am struck by a remarkable ability of yours that permeates throughout all your blogs; you appear to have an uncanny ability to recall multiple quotes verbatim. I can barely recall what I just said half the time. As a movie critic, have you developed a habit of writing down all quotes you hear of import or interest or does your ability to recall these quotes just come naturally?
Ebert: Some things you remember.
If it's the latter, I smell an infomercial.
The guy at the Trib was right. If this doesn't irrigate your tear glands, there's something wrong with your eyeballs.
Just be grateful you had such a friend.
Unbelievably moving tribute. Thank you so much. It meant a lot to someone who has so enjoyed your comments and thought-provoking analysis of films over the years. I learned a lot from you guys about how to watch movies and how to get more from the experience. I still miss your shows.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Gene. I began watching your show with Gene in 1977 and watched it regularly with enthusiasm until his death. (I have saved a copy of your tribute show) For some reason 2 episodes have stuck in my head. One involved your shared enthusiasm for Hoop Dreams. I believe it must have been your acadamy award show but you were critical of the lack of recognition for Hoop Dreams and at one point you both shouted out in unison "But it wasn't as good as Hoop Dreams" Your shared passion about the movie came through loud and clear.
The other was an exchange when Gene made some flippant remark about your weight. You responded that his comment hurt your feelings and he responded something like "If it bothers you- it will never happen again." We knew it was a taped show but somehow that exchange had a spontaneity and sincerity and the nature of the remarks left a lasting impression.
I was too young to watch the show when he died, but I remember my uncle, a great film buff, being very sad that it had happened. Too bad the Academy did not see it fit to include him in their montage of those who passed away.
Also too bad: that he missed Spirited Away.
That having been said, the official website does not have some of your reviews, like Do the Right Thing or Godzilla. Also the search is kinda wonky. If you choose to see what movies you reviewed by director, for example - say Kieslowski - it wouldn't give you the full list (in this case, Red), whereas if you browse you can find it.
Anyways, great tribute. I am NOT looking forward to your own.
Ebert: But Whoopi Goldberg mentioned him herself, after the montage.
LOL is overused, but you gave me five, honest: mastering the game of standing pigs, the Batman costume, marriage proposal site, TV blocking the door, "We're those two guys," delightful to mentally hear in his dead-serious-deadpan-but-with-a-twinkle. Those go up there with your speculation of how he orders at MacDonald's: "I'll have the following . . . " And of course was misty-eyed mystified at your wrapup--truly a Socko Finish.
That's a LOT of Transportation for one piece of writing. THANKS!
Watching you and Gene do "Peas Porridge Hot" gave me the biggest explosion of joy I've felt all day.
That's significant because today is my birthday.
Thank you for the present of sharing your past.
Ebert: We used that to warm up before almost every show.
RE: Eric Haynes
[i]"I can see it now. When Roger reaches the pearly gates Gene will be right there waiting for him. After the initial hugs and greetings they both will find a nice place to sit so they catch up on everything.
Right after sitting down there will be a long, quiet pause. Then Gene will look at Roger and say "You want to know why I didn't like Almost Famous?"[/i]
Nah, I think Gene will look at Roger with a puzzled expression and say "The Honeymooners? Are you serious?!"
I have tears in my eyes, what a fantastic tribute. I hope his children have a chance to read this.
I started reading your 'blog only recently, after you posted your Q&A about creationism (I came via an evo-devo blogger, Pharyngula). I grew up in Chicago in the 70s and 80s but was not allowed to watch television, let alone see movies, so for me, your name and Gene's names were just part of the local popular culture of the era. Anyway, I began reading your 'blog without much expectation of anything - and with every column, I find myself profoundly cheered, educated, moved, or some such - in other words, stimulated to THINK! Keep on keeping on, you have a new fan.
Thank you so much for remembering Gene Siskel. I grew up listening to the both of you. You wrote a lovely memorial, one that honors his death and more importantly, honors his life. Reading about him again makes me feel like he's still here, still sitting in some theatre, watching films and giving his opinions. I so enjoyed Siskel and Ebert, I still miss it but I am also grateful for your online reviews.
You are the only movie critic that I ever read. Its not because I always agree with you, but its a matter of integrity that I believe both of you provided throughout your show. I can't believe it's been 10 yrs.
Hello Roger:
Me and my mom were huge fans of you and Gene Siskel from when you guys first started on PBS' channel 11 in Chicago and made certain to tune in when you two were featured on a talk show together. We roared with laughter when you two would get into it on the show, one defending why their pick of the movie was a gem while the other protested, incredulous at their choice. Even remember the skunk you guys had on the show for ' the stinker of the week ' :-D
Mom doesn't have a tv anymore ( that's a story in itself ) but I still watch for your reviews online or in the paper when I have the chance. Seperately you guys were great and together you guys were phenomenal. I find it doubtful that any comedy writer could have made the barbs you two traded any funnier than they were. :-) You two had a special kind of connection that is very rare whether as work collegues or in private life as friends or associates. You can't fake that since the eyes are truely the window of the soul.
I remember watching the last several tapings of you and Gene together although I distinctly remember there were a number of episodes towards the end where you were there but Gene was not, physically and still photos were brought up on the screen as he did his review I would guess on speakerphone. I just remember how sad I was and how stunned I was when I heard that Tim Wiegel had later passed having the exact same illness ; always haunted me if there was ever a connection there.
You have been in my thoughts and prayers especially these past few years facing your own health challenges which initially shocked me. Please know how much joy both you and Gene brought to us all...you also saved us from wasting our money on awful movies, lol ;-)
Take care and thanks for sharing your memories of Gene and keeping his spirit alive. :-)
What I loved about Siskel & Ebert was that in spite of their disagreements, they always respected each others opinions. No shout downs, no screaming interruptions and no personal insults. The world needs more of the civility you both practiced. Thanks.
I loved your show, and hunted it down every week (had to, because the times tended to change on the affiliate I watched). I'd loved movies since I was a little kid, and your show was made for me. I mean, two guys who loved movies like I did, and actually knew something about them too? Funny, to boot. I was in heaven.
On the whole, my tastes tended more towards Gene's than yours. But I reveled in the give and take, and also in the impressive knowledge you had (have).
I remember the day I heard Gene had died. I was stunned. He'd been sick - everyone knew that. But I assumed he was on the mend, even though I could see that the light was gone from his eyes when he came back to the show. (Because he'd always had a light in his eyes - you could tell how much he loved movies, and his job. Most people have light when they are children; most of us lose it as adults.)
I was so very sad for his young family, and for you. But for the rest of us, too, because we would never again have his unique take on movies, and because we had lost one of the special people who have a light in their eyes as adults.
Roger:
Film (and the arts) are important to me. One cannot possibly watch every film or read every book one would like. How to choose which films (or books, etc.) to devote our limited time to is important.
There are two reasons why I choose you, and most passionately chose Gene Siskel, as a reliable influence on which films I will spend time with.
First, both you and Gene knew what you were talking about.
Second, I never felt that you or Gene compromised your opinions for personal gain or to "get along" in the industry. It's harder and harder to discover opinion regarding film which is not from an independent and honest frame of mind. I get an uneasy feeling with many "critics" that behind their opinion (and laced within it) lurks the need to please or not offend, and to possibly get rich doing it.
I miss having the honest debates and humor you both created.
Hi, Roger:
Linked to your great piece on Gene through Daily Kos. Glad Markos had the good sense to provide the link.
I'll tell you a story about Gene that maybe you didn't know. He and I were among the class of 1969 at the Chicago Tribune, starting in what they called the Neighborhood News department then. He was a lot of fun and hard working. Sometimes we would come in early and find him asleep at his typewriter. He got in trouble once after calling up the mayor of one of the suburbs on his beat in the middle of the night for a comment on something. The Tribune was a force in the burbs and the Mayor was honored to be called, even if it was 2 a.m., or whatever. At the end he asked Gene when his story would appear and Gene told him something like "a week from Wednesday." The mayor apparently went berserk and called up the top people at the paper to complain the next day. Gene survived of course.
Gene went on to write a twice weekly column in the Neighborhood News section before being tapped for the movie job.
Really sad . . . . now Mr Beef is gone too
rmk, akron
One of my favorite memories of Gene Siskel is watching him give a review of "Cujo" on Channel 2 news. Gene said the dog was not horrific enough, and he demonstrated with a stuffed toy dog, which he used in a simulated attack as he said, "No Cujo. No. No."
I do recall a Tonight Show episode when Joan Rivers was guest hosting and Kate Capshaw was on first, plugging her move "Power". Well, Gene hated Kate in "Temple of Doom" and I guess Kate read or heard about Gene's review of that. When you guys came out, Kate moved to the other side of Ed McMahon so that she did not have to sit next to Gene on the famous Tonight Show couch. Joan picked up on that right away and Gene then turned to Kate and said she did well in "Power". Very memorable. I also used to watch you guys when it was Sneak Previews on WTTW, then S&E & The Movies, At The Movies, and finally simply S&E. You guys had the best movie review show. Many have tried to duplicate but it can't be done.
Here's what I've often wondered: did anyone ever mix up Gene Siskel with Gene Shalit -- and if so, how did he react?
More seriously, I'm interested in hearing about Gene and your professional relationships with other critics during his lifetime. You were a dyad, I recognize, but there were others out there; how did he react to them, if you can say?
I'll tell you what I appreciated about your show(s) -- it was one of the few times I could remember where one could watch two experts debating the subject of their expertise every week. You could have been two plumbers, in some sense, and your intercharge would have been interesting; the fact that you were talking about something as culturally accessible as movies just made your expertise that much easier to enjoy (as well as, I suppose, more marketable to syndicators.)
By the way, Gene Siskel also gave me career advice in a diner: "Plastics."
I never had the chance to see the show while Mr Siskel was on it, but I've always had a good time looking over your respective top ten lists for each year. At times when I run out of suggestions for movies from history to look at, I turn to that list. By now I've seen most of the titles you have, but it's still fun to compare them and wonder. Why on earth didn't Gene include "Chinatown" in it's year? Or what would he have thought of his choices later on in life? Did he ever change his mind much about any particular films?
A comment above mentioned that Genes print work needs to be put out. I couldn't agree more. It would be a real shame, because something tells me that like you, he was at heart a great writer. I guess there's always microfiche.
I had the opportunity to work with both Gene and Marlene at CBS2 and loved working with both of them. Gene was particularly good to me when I was laid off at that station, calling Thea Flaum personally to try to get me work at WTTW. Although that job didn't come to pass, I've never forgotten what a smart, funny man he was.
This is a well-written essay, my favorite out of your blog posts so far. I don't know if your newspaper publishes any of your blog writing, but this deserves to be in print. Many elderly readers of the Sun-Times or Tribune may not follow the Internet, but would surely appreciate this piece.
I know Gene Siskel only through television and your stories, but he seemed to me to be a very particular man. I can easily picture him sending back a restaurant meal that he deemed not up to par when others might have shrugged and finished the dish.
My strongest memory of Siskel and Ebert was the episode where you reviewed "Casino". Gene gave it a thumbs down. You were flabbergasted, and noted that he had given thumbs up to many inferior movies that year. But Gene held fast to his review. "Casino" is a wonderful movie, but there is no denying that it is patterned after the same formula that Scorsese innovated in "Goodfellas". For Gene, this similarity represented laziness on Scorsese's part; he was essentially making a sequel to "Goodfellas", when he should have been innovating anew. Gene held Scorsese to a higher standard; Scorsese is a master filmmaker and therefore Gene expected more out of him.
I end with some questions; please answer if you have the time.
1. Are you planning to write a book about your relationship with Gene?
2. Are any studios interested in a movie about your relationship?
3. If such a movie were made, who are your picks to play yourself and Gene?
I think Kevin Spacey or Paul Giamatti might be able to pull off a decent portrayal of Siskel. Thinking of an actor for your role is more difficult.
Ebert: The Sun-Times actually gave this two pages in today's paper.
I met Gene Siskel one morning at The Apple Pan in Los Angeles. He was all bleary-eyed and desheveled, but said hello anyway. I wanted to argue with him regarding his review of Raiders of the Lost Ark, but he didn't look like he was in the mood. So I just stood there, waiting in line for pie and coffee. I wish I had argued.
Hi. Here are a top ten favorite moments of mine, from your shows and appearances on other shows:
10. Sneak Previews review of the movie, "Why would I lie." I was born and raised in Spokane, WA and for the first time growing up we had a chance to see a movie filmed there. I actually enjoyed it, and I could not wait to hear the review of the film on your show. Boy were you angry, Roger. That was the first episode of your show where I heard the phrase, "Idiot Plot." You both hated the film, but hey, I couldn't help myself, I liked it. I have not seen it since because I am afraid I would be embarrassed about liking it all those years ago. Idiot Plot: Gene always seemed jealous that you coined that phrase.
9. Sneak Previews episode where you take the viewers with you to see a screening of the film, "The Black Marble." I thought about that episode when I saw the films, "My Dinner With Andre" and "The Secret Policeman's Other Ball." Although you disagreed over whether to see The Black Marble or not, the debate was interesting and inspired me to want to see and discuss a film intelligently with someone.
8. Siskel and Ebert review of Babe II - Pig in the City. Gene's last favorite film of a year.
7. Siskel and Ebert review of North. I heard you weren't too fond of that one.
6. The Tonight Show and Siskel and Ebert special episodes discussing Colorization and Hail Hail Black and White. You both did more to stop desecration of great films than anyone, and without such advocacy I think colorization would have been around longer.
5. Sneak Previews Take 2 episode on Women in Danger films. This was the first time I could recall anyone on T.V. or in the media express anger against essentially immoral film making. The message Gene used to describe Friday the 13, "Young women, if you act this way, you are asking for trouble." I wish parents would be more careful than to send their kids to such films; there are so many better things that they can see.
4. Siskel and Ebert special episode on Spike Lee, and a special episode on the new black cinema. You both did so much to promote black filmmakers when Hollywood essentially ignored them. My favorite film of that genre, by the way, was Menace 2 Society. I do not know if I would have seen it without watching your show.
3. Siskel and Ebert and the Movies special on Vietnam War films. Gene started by saying something similar to this: "Platoon, depicting war as hell. Rambo, showing war as fun." Great episode and I will never forget how appalled he was to see chewing gum sold to kids as if it were shrapnel.
2. All of your disagreements -- the good ones. At the Movies best picture of the year, 1982, and Sneak Previews, best picture, 1979. Exactly how did he not recommend Sophie's Choice and Apocalypse Now? Disagreements over a Cop and a Half and a bunch of other films were interesting. In 1980 your disagreement over the film "Tattoo" was nothing short of vicious. You both actually softened up over time.
1. "Up next on Siskel and Ebert and the Movies, the greatest documentary ever made." That was your introduction to Shoah. I will never forget hearing that and doing a double take to make sure I heard you correctly. Yeah, I heard you correctly, and for me it was the best example of film advocacy I heard over all your years on the show. A runner up for best advocacy was your support of Dark City. It is your advocacy of great films that make your show so terrific.
Thanks for the memories, and inspiring me to be a fan of great movies.
It seems to me that with you and Gene Siskel, there was a true and on-going discussion of the movies. Now its become, with the new show, a quick little parade of non-substantial thoughts. Am I wrong, or there something else to it? It all now seems so dull without you and Roeper...
Roger: I was excited as I could be when I heard you and Gene were going to premiere a show about movies. When it debuted on WTTW, I was glued to the set. When it was over, I couldn't wait for the next one. It's hard to imagine nowadays, but there was so very, very little of that sort of thing on television at the time. You guys created an oasis for film lovers. Many years later, I found myself at U of C downtown, in one of your great film classes. I learned a lot there, and moreover-it was fun. It was in the same spirit you-and Gene-brought to your tv show. Thank you for sharing your memories.
I watched Siskel and Ebert even before I saw a lot of movies every year. I watched from I think it was from 1995 because I remember a discussion of the Oscars with FOrrest Gump and Pulp fiction. I was like 13 or 14. I also saw the appearences on Letterman. I think that may have come first. Watching you on Letterman and then watching the show. Great arguments and thoughts were on display always. I loved the show and even now watch the post Ebert Roeper show with the Bens.
You and Gene together were the Walter Cronkite of movie reviews. There will never be another Siskel & Ebert. Thank you for a wonderful essay and for all your work.
I am attracted to, and affected by, movies in a way that I have never before been able adequately to explain. A similar sensibility in my spouse is one of the firmest ties that bind. I work in a rather dry profession with some humorless people, and I fear I am more like them than I would prefer. But I find comfort to see the incredulity in their faces when I try to explain why I would enjoy few things more than getting on a plane to stand in the freezing cold at midnight in Park City hoping for a wait list ticket to see a movie in Japanese about cloned astronauts.
It wasn't until I read this moving piece about Gene Siskel that it really occurred to me how formative Sneak Previews and At the Movies were for me. Your journal brought back a flood of memories long forgotten. Our antenna always worked better for UHF than VHF, and PBS just happened to be on UHF where I grew up. After Saturday morning cartoons, my option was basically news, or Gene and Roger. Not a hard choice. And it is there that the film sensibilities I have to this day were formed: A love of movies and a genuine desire and intention to find something good in each of them (which I believe comes from your side of the aisle) mixed with a profound disappointment that my two hours has been wasted if I am unsuccessful (from Gene's side). An avid reader of your books, web site, and now journal, I never had put 2 and 2 together. Until this column.
To think if I had better rabbit ears my diversion of choice might have been baseball cards, or oil painting, or model trains, or woodworking.
This is such a touching tribute to Mr. Siskel and I loved that you included the clips from the "Remembering Gene Siskel" show that was aired back in 1999. In the ten years since his passing, what movies have come out that you believe he would have really loved? Based on his love of "Fargo", I always thought he would continue to love the Coen Brothers' work, especially "No Country For Old Men". Thank you for all of your writings and reviews. Over the years, your reviews and writings about the movies have helped to develop and shape my love of the cinema.
What an amazing reflection on an amazing relationship. Too often we miss out on the fact that two men can have just as strong, or even stronger a bond than two women without all the chatter (no offense to women!!). This story is not just a story of Gene, but an even greater insight into you and how you "fell in love" with this loving, but difficult man. A true bond has many layers and nothing demonstrates this clearer than your essay. My mother used to have a saying, "I may not always like you, but I'll always love you." It seems you and Gene subscribed to the same theory. Thank you for giving us a small peek into you both.
I remember when Gene gave thumbs up to "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" You really ripped into him on that weeks show, and you continued ripping on him a week later on the next show for giving the movie a thumbs up.
"Good memory." Gene said to you. I thought that was hilarious. I enjoyed "Halloween III" too, by the way. Gene could always appreciate good, cheesy entertainment.
What a great tribute, Mr. Ebert! I must say as wonderful as you are as a movie critic, and as Mr. Siskel was, there was something about "Siskel & Ebert" together that was unbeatable....call it "Siskel, Ebert and Magic"....what I like to call 1+1=3.
Roger, thank you so much for your hilariously moving portrait of your career w/ Gene.
I hope you'll take this with the affection intended. I mention it mainly because I didn't see that anyone else had in the comments.
For me, one of the sweetest homages paid to you and Gene was when, on the Saturday Night Live (SNL) News they announced that you and Gene had legally changed your names to "The Fat Guy and The Other One". That let me know that it wasn't just me who thought you two were something special!
I'll also always remember the SNL (circa 1985?) when you and Gene appeared on the show and gave a critique after each skit. That was when Christopher Guest and Billy Crystal did a short "documentary" movie featuring them as aging former Negro League baseball stars. It included references to "Smelt Night" and cameos from several then-current NY Yankees and Manager Yogi Berra saying they'd be making millions of dollars if they were still playing. I thought it was brilliant, which (IIRC) you confirmed, but Gene brought back to earth by referring to an actual NLB documentary he'd seen at the time and some of the heartbreaking times the old stars were living through.
Or, hell, I may have you two confused....
On another socially-related topic, a feminist group I ran with used you and Gene's reviews of the slasher movie genre as a subject for one of our monthly meetings. I've always appreciated "Halloween" and Jamie Lee Curtis a bit more as a result.
Anyway, thanks again from Oklahoma for your wonderful work!
Thanks for the piece. I always knew we could "Read" or "Trust" you guys when it came to movies.
I also wanted to know if the Harpo Marx horn as a wedding gift story was true. I believe I saw it on Letterman a long time ago, but I could be remembering things wrong.
Thanks for everything.
Ebert: Yes, I gave it to him, and he gave it back to me.
I met Gene when I was 10 years old. I had won a contest to write for the Chicago Tribune's Kid News section, and I got to write a movie review for the paper. I went to the press screening of "Jack Frost." I remember absolutely nothing about the movie, but I'm sure my 10 year old brain thought it was good, despite having seen it since and thought pretty much what you thought about it, Roger.
Anyway. I met Mark Caro in the city and we walked to that tiny screening room in that building downtown. I met Michael Wilmington, and when I walked into the screening room- gasp! There's Siskel and Ebert sitting right behind me! I was star struck. During the film, all I could think about was how there were so many famous critics sitting around me, and all I wanted to do was meet you two.
After the film, I was milling in the lobby, waiting for Mark to get out of the bathroom, when Gene came out of the screening room. I made eye contact, got a sudden surge of adrenaline, and introduced myself. He was very nice, took my compliments about the show, and asked what I was doing there, so I told him. I forget exactly what he said next, but I remember the gist:
GENE: Ah, so you want to be a film critic when you grow up?
ME: Um, yeah. I love watching movies and writing about them.
GENE: Well, keep at it. One of these days Roger and I will be gone and we need people like you to step in our place.
And then he had to go, so he said goodbye, lovely to meet you, and left. That moment, I knew I wanted to be in the movies for the rest of my life. Gene was just the one who gave me that extra push in the right direction. And here I am, 11 years after that day, writing movie reviews for my college newspaper.
Thank you for this memorial. I hope that somewhere in heaven, Gene is looking down at me and remembering the 10 year old kid with a dream.
Yours and Gene's initial show on PBS gave a big boost to my developing teen brain, for its thoughtful content (obviously), but also because it got me tuning into PBS. As well as devouring "Sneak Previews" every week, I found myself getting interested in the shows that immediately preceded and followed your show (the British sitcoms and dramas, the various science shows and documentaries, etc.), which lead to seeking out PBS fare on other nights. You opened up to me the wide world of programming beyond network TV and cheap UHF channels (remember those?). Great post, thank you.
I remember the day like it was yesterday. I heard the alarming news of Gene's passing on the news, while I was eating dinner. I could not finish another bite.
Growing up on in the Englewood area of Chicago's South side, movies helped me escape the harsh realities of the world that I was living in. Roger and Gene became surrogate friends to me at that time. The Friday newspaper movie reviews were always a must read and At the Movies on Saturday night was as routine to me as waking up in the morning. I had the opportunity to meet Gene downtown Chicago on Michigan Avenue on one hot summer evening. When I approached him, the conversation was as inviting and welcoming as any conversation with a close friend. I miss my friend Gene and I will never forget him. Thank you my friend Roger for the beautiful piece.
Your moving reflections on you're late colleage makes me anxious to see the latest movie critic program you plan on presenting with Richard Roeper. There's been a huge vacumm of serious film critizum on TV since the orginal ATM format has changed. I'm sure Gene would approve of any show featuring the concept that the two of you perfected for over two decades. My hope is that even with your own limitations, you can find the time to give your opinions on the new show as well. And if not,we know you're influence will be a key componet the new show. Good luck and stay healthy.
The description of Gene's bachelor pad made me smile, because it sounds a lot like mine.
Many many thanks for this thoughtful piece on one of my favorite people. I was at Yale with Gene (and Tim Weigel) for 3 years and followed their careers with great interest, keeping in touch at reunions and visiting with each when they visited Orlando. Gene was usually here in Feb/March and would attend Orlando Magic games, where I then had front row seats and we'd kid about that. We chatted at length during half time of NBA All Star Game in 1992 in Orlando Arena (recently called the "best all star game ever" because it was Magic Johnson's return after retiring with the HIV diagnosis.) We discussed Gene coming to Court with me some day in the future, he said "if the tv show hadn't worked out I was going to try law next" and that he'd like to watch a trial. Sorry that never happened, but I told him we have many many great trial lawyers but just a few great film critics. We were both fortunate to have been befriended by John Hersey as Master of Pierson College during our Yale days, and we'd go to movies to escape academic and social pressures that we both found hard to handle at that age. Again my deep appreciation for this memory.
Great tribute. This is not so much related to Gene, but this piece made me remeber what a truly amazing news town Chicago used to be. I can still picture that wbbm channel 2 news set that Siskel worked on. Bill Kurtis, Walter Jaconbson, Johnny Morris etc. To describe it as a newspaper on TV was perfect. As a young person growing up, you could see these people cared deeply about their profession and they looked like they had fun. I really miss those days. I also miss personalities like Steve and Garry, etc. It just reflected Chicago's vibrancy in a way present personalities don't.
Dear Mr. Ebert:
Thank you for sharing so many personal memories of a unique relationship.
The undepinning of literature and written film criticism seems, to me at any rate, to be what elevated your show above all others since. There are any number of verbally facile people equipped to argue fiercely on a subject. Such pairings are often little more than rhetorical knife fights.
What made Siskel and Ebert so valuable to me was that you were both very smart, educated, well-read, and besotted with movies, all kinds. You could both appreciate and deconstruct anything from Bergman to Bey.
This made your arguments resonate with authority and why both of you could debate with such skill. It was not mere entertainment. The Circus Maximus could claim to be entertainment. It was a genuine effort to educate the layperson about cinema, without being pedantic. Your commentary on the "Dark City" dvd opened a number of doors for me, despite my assumption that I had understood that fine film very well after watching it several times. A humbling experience.
I am so grateful that you are continuing to write your reviews and I deeply regret that Mr. Siskel never got around to collecting his own written work. But then, he struck me as a man who cherished the work before, but lived for creation and discovery, the element of surprise. He was an apostle of the future tense. And so he shall ever be, to me. Shantih to you both.
Hello Mr. Ebert,
I remember seeing you and Mr. Siskel when I was just a little kid. Watching movies, reading and listening to your reviews helped me polish my English pronunciation and grammar. Now, about 20 years after I first saw your show, I am paying dues as a reporter and occasional film critic in Mexico. The thing is, shows about film are not as popular here as they are or were in the US, even less so on a local scale. Do you have any advice for us local aspiring film critics? I read your Rule Book, it is as funny as it is true.
Saludos desde Mexico.
I used to watch your and Gene's show on PBS every Sunday (I think) on cable up in western Canada, rarely missing an episode. Often I would skip opening weekends of movies to wait for your reviews. I sided with one or the other or sometimes both of you and I loved your chemistry together and the humor that flowed when arguing. The not so subtle put-downs and insults I found hilarious, a real intellectual sparring match. It was such a sad time when Gene died. The show was never the same without the two of you together. Watching it was like putting on your favourite pair of old jeans, very comforting and "feel good". I miss you guys and have found myself thinking of the both of you many times over the years so I can only imagine how often you think of Gene. It's so sad when great things come to an end. You wrote a lovely tribute. Take care Roger. I hope you are well.
Long time admirer of both you and Gene Siskel. I used to work at the Sandburg Theater in Chicago (The former Playboy Theater). I met you on several occassions, (most notably when you came to interview Arthur Penn during a retrospective of his films). Often I worked in the ticket booth and I would see Gene Siskel walking down Dearborn, but he never came to the theater. It always puzzled me. In a time before VHS, revival theaters like the Sandburg were the only places to see classic and foreign cinema. Was his appreciation of films different from yours in the sense that he saw it more as a journalistic venture while you were more the "fan"?
I watched your show from early on in your PBS days. Your piece made me teary. I shall spread the word about this great tribute.
I don't think you've ever addressed this but I have the impression that in the beginning, a lot of people in Hollywood hated the idea of a national film review show, one where on Monday morning in the office they'd have to talk about what you two had said about their films over the weekend. In the 1970s, when you were still on PBS, I lived in San Diego where your show aired on Saturdays at 6 PM. But in Los Angeles the PBS station aired it Sunday nights at 11:30 or midnight. I always wondered if it was because the Hollywood people who donated to PBS made it clear they disliked the show. The real nadir though was ten years ago. The day it was announced that Gene had died, Entertainment Tonight went to a premiere and interviewed people coming out, springing the news on them and asking their reaction. A movie producer made it clear that he thought the show had lowered the level of film criticism nationally. What a way to react to someone's death.
Thank you for helping us get to know Gene better. My whole experience with Siskel and Ebert at the Movies was as a kid, watching some of the only sanctioned TV in the house - cartoons were verboten, and has to be snuck.
I remember watching with my sick mother when I was home from boarding school, and you guys got into an argument over The Phantom, with Billy Zane. In the end, he made me feel like only the most insufferable git would pass up such a fun movie, which is what I was rapidly becoming, and exactly what I was planning to do!
It's funny, and I've never put my finger on it until now, but I can honestly say that Gene Siskel helped me become a better person that day.
The Gene Siskel Cymbidium I bought years ago bloomed this month. It is an orchid hybrid from Geyserland they registered in 1999. It is beautiful award winning deep red flower with multiple spikes. So nice to look at and remember the fun shows. I really miss him too.
Carolyn
Hi Mr. Ebert,
I was a kid in the 80's and my early memories revolve around things like Star Wars, the New York Giants, and my mother's TV-room (that's what we called the living room). And I remember watching your show, appreciating you and Mr. Siskel's commentary and occasional flare-ups. Years later, thanks to the internet, I have run into you again, and just wanted to express my affection and gratitude to you and Gene. For whatever reason, you are a part of that strange mixture of my early memories--good early memories--and like the good films we watch or good books we read, have become a small part of my sense of self. And as so often happens, reflecting on Gene's life, death, successes and challenges helps one remember the strange beauty of life.
In his wonderful little book The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis speaks of "affection", the kind of love one has for something or someone familiar and comfortable. In I feel like something like that is what many persons like me have toward people like Gene, who we knew from a long distance and remember with affection. Take care.
Wonderful piece of writing. A lot of memories came rushing back through your words and the videos. I hope one day to add a volume of Gene's writings and words to my collection alongside yours. Hope you are feeling well. I miss you guys.
Peace.
pjnoir
I have a Single Degree of Separation story for you. I believe that as a direct result of your enthusiastic championing of "My Dinner with Andre," it played at the Lincoln Plaza Cinema for a full year. And on the last night of its run, you and Gene hosted a final screening of it, with a discussion afterwards by Andre Gregory and Wally Shawn. I was in the back row of that dinky theatre, but I was there! (It was here that they revealed that the movie was shot in a closed-for-the-season hotel, with no central heating, and while they were on-camera cursing the false security of The Electric Blanket, they were both wearing one under the table!)
What's struck me, after all these years, is that I can't think of any critic nowadays, of any medium, who has the passion and power and following to urge people to take a chance and check out a "My Dinner with Andre" or a "Hoop Dreams" or a dozen other deserving films, and that we trusted you. We took chances. We saved our money on dreck and lobbied our local theatres to maybe bring in that new Herzog or Wenders for a week.
And damn, you guys were funny.
We had a satellite dish back in the days when satellite dishes were the size of, well, satellite dishes. Every week when my mom came home with satellite guide I would search for Siskel & Ebert. It amazes me now thinking of how much I loved movies even then.
To Brent (above poster, in bold): I would give anything to have had that kind of advice when I was 18. Gene was right: It is very difficult to "build a new road and start over."
Nice tribute.
It was great to see you do a blog on the tenth anniversary of Gene's death (which is tomorrow as I write this). I have missed him myself and remember when I heard the news of his death. I was at a rehearsal for my first community theater show "Fiddler on the Roof" and the director mentioned it to somebody. I got home and saw on the old Prodigy (where Gene worked) that he had died. Next day your show aired and it mentioned in a crawl during the credits about Gene passing away the day before. I wondered how the show would be without him and it went well when you added Richard Roeper. Too bad you guys left the show. I even wrote to Gene on Prodigy once after seeing you and he on Letterman's old show and I mentioned it seemed like when you answered that you'd been together 16 years, you weren't happy about it so why do the show? I told him that he and Roger really opened my eyes to the world of film and made me appreciate all types of films, not just the blockbusters. He wrote back thanking me for the compliment and said he did get along with you. It was just that you frustrated him sometimes as he was sure he did you. I even have a little game where I try to pick Gene's favorite film of the year since he died, using what he said the last time about how he did it. See if you agree with me:
1999: American Beauty
2000: Wonder Boys
2001: Shrek
2002: Adaptation
2003: Lost in Translation
2004: Sideways
2005: Crash (would've agreed with you then)
2006: United 93
2007: Juno (once again agreement)
2008: The Dark Knight
Lovely piece. I only wish you'd mentioned your and Gene's voice appearance as yourselves on "The Critic". You know—the one where you sang. I love that episode and it would be great to hear your recollections of it.
Ebert: Our musical duet is in Part 2 of "Remembering Gene."
What a wonderful tribute, Roger. Thanks for all the memories. You two helped instill an affection and respect for the art of filmmaking to an entire generation. No matter on whose "side" I was in regard to any particular film, I always learned something about the craft and about art, in general. After you two discussed a film, I knew EXACTLY if I would like it or not. There are a lot of film reviewers out there but not too many film critics, especially entertaining ones on television. And what made it entertaining was your fierce competitive spirits and your mutual love of movies.
By the way, I thought that you had found another "Gene" when you did a show with Boston critic Joyce Kulhawik because she seemed to be able to push your buttons as Gene did. I really enjoyed the edgy banter on that show and must admit was disappointed that she didn't end up across the aisle from you. But you can't have everything, I guess. Thanks, again, to you and Gene for so much!
Just wanted to correct something. When I was making the list in that game of mine, I couldn't really think of a good 1999 film so I picked the one that won Best Picture. But a better suggestion came to me as I read all the responses. So for 1999 I will say that Gene would've picked Magnolia as the best film. That was a great film, by the way, I agree with you on that.
When you mentioned Steve Dahl and Garry Meier it made me think of when you and Gene guest hosted their show for 4 hours back in 1986. It was a fun and memorable show. I remember you objecting to the point another dj on the station made, when he said that, together, you and Gene represented "the same tonnage" as Steve and Garry. I remember Gene getting really excited about playing some Motown songs and relating a story about lifting Mary Wells onto a stage when he was in college. At one point early in the show, Gene offered you a hundred bucks to reveal your weight on the air. You declined and fired back with "your hair doesn't weigh very much though." You guys had a laugh about being out of material when you resorted to the hair and weight jokes. Really good stuff.
The special show detailing a day in the life of Roger and Gene, where cameras followed you guys as you went to a screening of The Black Marble, was one of my favorites shows.
Thank you so very much Mr. Ebert.
As a young Chicago boy growing up lonely on the Westside I cannot adequately express to you the thrill I got from finding S&E (in all its forms) in my TV guide and then drinking in every moment of the fascinating, fun and occasionally furious conversation about one of my most beloved subjects.
It is no stretch to say that S&E was a godsend.
Now my silly confession.
As that young boy I always preferred your opinion (and newspaper reviews) to Gene's although I certainly never found his take less than compelling but as time went by I came to appreciate the real genius of Gene in all his many forms and that feeling grows to this day. Your piece moves and helps me in that continuing appreciation.
So happy to see and hear Gene even once more
and he will always be missed.
Thanks again.
Roger,
Never having met Gene (damned Yalie!) -- and you just briefly -- I can only appreciate as a spectator his part of the intellectual, professional and personal compatibility that you two enjoyed. I envy that, a "soulmate" of sorts with whom shared in-depth, wide-ranging, intelligent discussion, on subjects both personal and professional, is the norm. While I always tended to be more in accord with your opinions, I loved the interplay between you two. Thanks for the honest and heartfelt writing, and yes, like everyone else posting here, Channel 11 was a regular early Saturday night necessity for me in the mid-to-late '70s/early '80s for me -- at first just for the clips, later for the clips and the creative and intelligent discord and accord.
rb
Thank you, Roger, for this beautiful tribute to Gene. The love you guys had for each other was always evident, even in your shouting matches. The passion you had for great movies was clearly a bond, and it created a bond with your viewing audience. I would love to have a DVD of great moments from your shows--it would be interesting to see how your opinions of certain films when they were new compare to those films' reputations today. Thank you for your brilliant writing--you truly understand that a critic's job is not necessarily to criticize, but to illuminate. I hope you are feeling well and will continue to bring your wit and insight to us for years to come.
Roger,I hope you are doing well,and I miss seeing you and your reviews on tv.The same goes for Gene,who I cannot believe has been gone ten years.There is a tremendous void in television without "At The Movies",there have not been any movie review shows that could touch yours and Gene's program,and as a working stiff here in Galveston who loves movies(they have been a great comfort and distraction after hurricane Ike),I must say I miss the old show terribly.I always prided myself in forming my own opinion on if a film was worth watching or not,but whenever possible I tuned in to Siskel And Ebert to see what both of you had to say,and if both of you said it was a bomb I usually took that to heart,and two thumbs up usually had me checking out a great film.Thank you Roger for the memories,and who do you like to take home the trophies Sunday night?Who wins between Mickey and Sean?It should be a fun night at the Oscars.Take care.
Hello sir. You may not get around to reading this comment as I am a couple of days late getting to your post and there are many more before me, but I want to try and share something briefly with you nonetheless. Around the same time that Gene Siskel had fallen ill, in 1998, my oldest and dearest friend since childhood was diagnosed with cancer. He was only 28. I believe our dynamic throughout his illness was not dissimilar to what you describe as yours with your friend Gene. We never talked about his prognosis or the possibility of death -- we simply continued on in our usual way, hanging out and giving each other a hard time as though nothing had changed. This seemed to be what my friend was comfortable with, so I followed his lead. Rarely was there ever even the smallest breach in this pattern, but one instance does stand out in my mind. It was the day Gene died. My friend and I had both been fans of your show since a very young age. Whenever a new movie came out that we were interested in, we talked about the movie, saw the movie, and then talked about what Siskel and Ebert had said about the movie. It was something we shared well into adulthood. When the news broke that Mr. Siskel had passed away, my friend called me. We had both been crying, and both admitted it. We didn't talk out loud about the parallels -- we were simply mourning the loss of Mr. Siskel. But the added dimension of my friend's illness naturally hung in the air, and in retrospect I now know that we came as close that day to acknowledging our emotions about his situation as we ever did. It is a profound memory for me, and very clear to me still. My friend was "lucky," by the way... he lived for several years after that before finally succumbing to his illness in 2005. But that day in 1999 is still one of the days I remember most -- a small gift of closeness at a time of great sadness. Thank you for your remembrance, and all your wonderful years of work before and since. I look forward to many more to come.
back in the 80's i was teaching high school english, what we now call "language arts." there was a gray-haired, rather rotund english teacher named bob with whom i'd talk about movies on a daily basis, through lunch, after school, etc. because i was thin and rather bald, other teachers would hear our conversations and had renamed us "siskel and ebert." we even tried to tape a segment of our own movie review show for the school news, but we couldn't figure out how to get film clips. today it would be rather simple i suppose.
one of our most heated battles was about apocalypse now. bob greatly disliked the movie because of how angry he was at marlon brando's character for his perversions and at martin sheen's character for not finding a way to help other than murder. as bob's argument cooled, he asked why i was smiling. i said, "bob, if a film has you so emotionally affected, regardless of how positive or negative, then it did its job. you can say you didn't like how it made you feel, but you can't say it wasn't a good film."
when i left that school, bob gave me a copy of your 1990 movie home companion. i scanned what he wrote to me and posted it here:
http://brainsnorts.blogspot.com/2009/02/because.html
i haven't seen him since the day he gave me the book. i'm not proud of that.
Ebert: But you were right.
About 25 years ago my elderly mother was visiting me in Chicago, and we happened to be in the McDonald's across from WBBM-TV2 and saw Gene Siskel sitting in the back of the restaurant alone, having a sandwich. My Mom, bless her heart, just had to go up to Gene and say "You are so much more handsome in real life than you are on television." He smiled his little self-depreciating smile and thanked her, and I tried to avoid feeling two inches tall after Mom really made him think of how "ugly" he must have been on television. He was kind and very approachable to a little old lady from Pittsburgh, and you had to always love him for that.
I'm another one of those kids who grew up in the 70s and 80s, and you two were a weekly staple. My week wouldn't be complete without seeing what you had to say about the new shows coming out. What I remember about the flare-ups and all of the other things is that, no matter what, there was that obvious respect. It was two intelligent people who knew their stuff having intelligent dialogue. I miss that. While I hate sounding like a fuddy-duddy, I sure do long for the days that the two of you were together, doing what you did best. Even if they really didn't deserve it, films always got an intelligent treatment from Siskel & Ebert. I honestly think that the fading of your format has a lot to do with the saturation of the market with that material that probably didn't deserve the thoughtful, insightful analysis that the two of you provided. It would be fun to see what he thought of what Pixar has become. At least there's still a studio out there that knows how to get it right. While I may not have always agreed with your own reviews, you hit this one out of the park. Well done.
Best wishes in your own fight,
Gerry
Our local t.v. station used to keep changing the times that you and Gene's show was on. At one time, they had it on at 5 a.m. on Sunday mornings. I used to set the alarm to get up and watch your reviews, then go back to bed. The love of both of your "work" was evident, even then, or I wouldn't have watched. Do I remember where once Gene talked on the show from his hospital room or during recovery? I've been moved by the account of his courage. Often, we never know what another human being carries inside him/her, or the courage.
What a nice, warm remembrance for a cold Chicago day.
I had the pleasure of meeting you at one of your anniversary appearances in the 90s at the Music Box. I didn't meet Gene, but found myself standing right behind him outside after the program was over. He was busy telling a story to his friends, and I just didn't want to interrupt him.
My main memories of that occasion were how gregarious he was and how nice he smelled. I can't expect that you would ever have noticed it, and I don't know if it was a one-night thing for him, but I always wondered what he was wearing that night, and if he always had such good taste in fragrances.
Two quick comments: I recall one time on your show when, after a clip was played Gene appeared to get a bit choked-up over a review of a film called "The Stone Boy". Is my memory accurate? Secondly, what's stopping Gene's estate or the Tribune from issuing a posthumous collection of Gene's reviews? They could at least make them available on-line. From a very young age, my intense love of movies and intelligent criticism was honed by your program. Thank you so much for that gift.
I just read this interview of you and Gene by Richard Roeper.
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/1440147,roeper-ebert-siskel-interview-021909.article
A 7 minute argument over the details of a toin coss? Really? :D
Ebert: Oh, yeah. Let's say we're flipping to see who goes first but we both really want to go second. Gene calls heads and it's heads. Does that mean he goes first, or does it mean that as the winner he gets to choose?
Work on the Features Desk at the Tribune (where I spent about 20 of my 27 years there) would come to a fairly abrupt halt if Gene and then-TV critic Gary Deeb were in the area, so hilarious was the badinage that would ensue, with ethnicity, wardrobe choices, physical characteristics and excerpts from each other's recent pieces usually the topics du jour (few if any holds barred). Gene would usually fire the first volley at Deeb (he of a fairly substantial pompadour in those days) with, "Hey, Gary, take off your hat!" And it would go on from there, each trying to outrag and outinsult the other.
My favorite memory of Gene was him dictating to me his review of "1941" from, if memory serves, the space museum in Washington after the movie's premiere. He was on deadline, didn't have his review fully formed, so I in effect wrote part of it. When he saw me back in the office a few days later, he said, "Double byline, double byline!"
Fast forward about 20 years later, about January 1998, about 6 months before I retired. A fairly gaunt Gene made a rare office appearance and saw me before I saw him. He yelled out, "Double byline, double byline!"
I never saw him again.
You bring back a few memories. It's strange though. I remember the original show but not a single episode or argument or film or wonder dog. What I remember is seeing Gene Siskel on channel 2 and thinking "Hey, that's the guy from that movie show." And when the local New York news announced he passed away my heart skipped and I whispered "My homeboy."
That was beautiful. Thank you for putting it together, Roger.
One of my memories is your comment to movie makers to keep the dialogue from being compromised by the background music.
They haven't listened and these ears of mine wish they would listen to you.
Miss you and send you healthy vibes.
In the review of "Welcome to Mooseport", you had a funny introduction. You started the review with an anecdote about a very good poker player friend who lost money at bachelor parties because he played too well. It never occured to me that your friend was Gene Siskel. It should have. Unless you have two good friends who were great poker players.
I always loved it when you two would be on the late night talk shows and would do funny stuff like that with Letterman. I also liked when you would forget that it was Letterman's show or Carson's show and would make it Siskel and Ebert again. You also had to defend your unpopular ratings and then redo your debate from the show, but with more bald and fat jokes.
It would be incredible if you guys could put up video of you guys off of the show doing funny things like this. Maybe a "Best of Siskel and Ebert" with the best reviews, the late night shows, and of course the Howard Stern show.
Oh what a fantastic and contentious friendship you two have, bringing out the best in the other, like two striders in a crowded marathon, goading and inspiring the other, in self congratulation and inadvertent encouragement, stretching to be more personal, genuine, effusive, insightful, frank, sharp. You paced one another at encapsulating the emotion, the moment and the films of our times and to win by being mommy's most marvelous, grinning in the sunshine. It became a two-person race and we, the planet, watched on t.v., during the late 20th century, admiringly.
How desperately short one life, and our lives, look, in retrospect.
thank you Roger--------------joe
Ebert: Thank YOU, Joe.
Oh, and Joe? Thanks for the house.
Mr. Ebert,
You and Gene Siskel contributed to my intellectual growth and development when I was an adolescent. I watched your show almost religiously from a very young age. I remember watching your reviews of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Dragonslayer," "Excalibur," "Blade Runner," "E.T.," "The Road Warrior," "An American Werewolf in London," and dozens, if not hundreds, of other movies that were iconic in my imagination and remain important to me today. Other films that you and Gene championed over the years ("Do the Right Thing," "GoodFellas," "Pulp Fiction") added to my appreciation of movies that existed to do more than simply sell popcorn. I didn't feel that a movie had officially "arrived" until after I'd seen it reviewed on your show. Didn't matter whether you both loved or hated the film or were split on it, your words of praise or condemnation helped form my own ability to make critical judgments. This was something I picked up by watching Siskel & Ebert (and later by reading your own Movie Home Companions), I didn't learn it in the classroom. I tried to value what you found praiseworthy in a film, and to at least try to understand what you found disappointing or even vile. I remember when the Dead Teenager genre first became popular back in the early 1980s, on the release of the original "Friday the 13th." You and Gene vilified those movies due to their heinous depictions of women and mindless bloody violence. Now, this was crucial to me, because I was a teenager myself at that time, and of course all my friends were going to see these movies. I held back. Your reviews were important to me. I understood that there was something deeper and uglier at work in these films, something nastier than just decapitations (which my friends cheered and talked about at school next Monday morning). I did, of course, see some of those movies later on cable, but I knew not to get too enamored of them, and I did recognize in them all the things you and Gene warned about. I think you guys did me a service back then, a big favor, and I thank you for that. I know I'm rambling, but I just wanted you to know that your work, and Gene's, reached me in a very profound and long-lasting way. You taught me that trash can be fun, but that it is also, at the end of the day, trash. You also taught me how to recognize and appreciate the good stuff. Thanks, to you and Gene both.
Ten years, has it been that long? I swear. I sure miss that guy and I sure miss Siskel and Ebert at the Movies. Growing up, it was the only show that my family really watched together. You guys would review the movies and then we would review your reviews. And it was such a reliable show. You could really count on it. I can't remember ever tuning in and discovering that it wasn't on for whatever reason. We'd play little games trying to guess who would like or not like a certain film. My brother developed a theory that any movie he had never heard of would get a thumbs up. I told him that the fact that he hasn't heard of it is probably why they're sharing it with us. A lot of the time a big film would get reviewed a week or two before it's release, which was always a treat. Sometimes all five or six movies would get two thumbs up! I always thought a bunch of balloons should've fallen from the ceiling when that happened.
I've never been able to find it, but what was Siskel & Ebert's top 10 movies of the 70s?
I read that 5 of them were films with Jack Nicholson.
Which, obviously, would be:
The Last Detail
King of Marvin Gardens
One Flew over the Coo Coo's nest
Five Easy Pieces
Chinatown.
So what were the other five?
Young and Australian and so deprived of "Siskel and Ebert" except as folklore, this works like a posthumous introduction to Siskel instead of a reminiscence. I thought I knew Ebert well through his reviews but this blog has deepened my understanding of him in ways I didn't expect. I take Siskel's advice; the only job that would satisfy me, that I would hate to be deprived of, is to be a novelist. The rest is just fine detail.
Thanks Roger and Gene for saving me so much money and time by not spending money on bad big movies you warned about in your reviews and shows and opening my eyes to great cinema. You have both helped to enrich my life with a finer appreciation of film. Roger, I hope you are doing well and I have been a big fan of yours since you gave a favorable review to "The Wild Bunch" which I read while I was hustling the Tribune, the Sun Times, the Chicago American, and the Daily News at the racetrack in my teens. Times change and we all move on but its great to reflect on the good memories you and Gene have provided.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I have written in before and I will spare you the length of my earlier posts but I just wanted to say how much I loved reading this beautiful, insightful memorial to Gene Siskel. I have watched you on television ever since I was eight years old in 1977 and my love of movies, how I think about them and how I watch them is enormously attributed to the work of yourself and Gene Siskel.
The words "thank you" feel too meager to say but I hope you can gather the fullness of their meaning.
Very sincerely,
Scott Collins
Roger: I always felt that during Gene's illness when you did the show by yourself in the studio with Gene on the phone it was one of the most moving displays of friendship I ever saw on television.
What a wonderful memorial to an old friend. It must have meant a lot to you to write it, and I feel privileged that I got to read it.
What a lucky man, to have a friend like you who remembers him so lovingly after all of these years. I hope to be so lucky someday!
I hope you are well. Thank you again for writing such a wonderful piece for us to read.
Although I had never watched the TV program before he died, I remember hearing about Gene's death at school and how everyone seemed to be talking about it that wintery day. The amazing thing is, I was in grade school at the time! A school that only went up to grade 7. I was always taken aback by how much influence and love was afforded you and Gene even in the younger audience. Looking back now at the invaluable resource of the At the Movies TV website and watching those reviews, as well as the hilarious bickerings that have surfaced on YouTube, I can feel the charaisma that was so a part of Gene Siskel, even posthumously. Thank you for sharing your wonderful words and memories about him and for helping us to not only never forget him, but to better understand who he was and will always remain in the hearts of his friends and family.
After Gene's surgery and recovery, he was slow and had to reach for words. I remember him doing a reply to one of your film reviews and he struggled. Even in his struggling I could see his enthusiasm. Normally, you would be interjecting your comments with gusto or hostility, and always with the knife of intelligence. But this was different. The camera would cut to you and there was patience and love in your eyes. There was understanding, and I could see and feel you trying to will his mind to focus, his voice to speak.
It was a sad yet sweet moment that I've tucked in a prominent place in my memory. I rarely hug a man, but I'd have hugged you then.
Very nice tribute. Just reaffirms my choice of being born in Chicago a good one. From the "Front Page", through Mauldin, Royko, Siskel and Ebert, it has been a good town for serious, but with humor, journalism.
I also lived in Danville; you should recognize that.
Bron
Ebert: Been there many times. They have an excellent Steak 'n Shake.
Thanks to the archive of "Siskel & Ebert" clips, I could feel that you and Mr. Ebert were passionate about movies. Too bad Mr. Siskel passed away so soon. I had not even heard about him when he died, and now I know he was very good critic just like you after watching many review clips. And you have told us about how funny and smart he was. Your writings about Mr. Siskel are always interesting, and, like "Remembering Gene", are very touching tribute to him. "You may be an asshole, but you're my asshole." That's something you can say to your closest friend only.
P.S.
Last night, I watched "The Secret of Moonacre" in the multiplex. It was as shabby as "Inkheart", and I was bored and disappointed with thin characters, weak storylines, and, above all, the lack of fresh images. I was alone in the dark, and there was no one who could share my disappointment. Sometimes it's terrible to watch the movie alone, and you need someone with whom you can discuss.
I began reading the movie reviews of Siskel and Ebert when I was growing up in Chicago during the late 1960s. Although I've lived in different parts of the country since then, I followed their careers via television and the Internet. Roger Ebert is one of the great writers of his generation; he is always a pleasure to read. But Gene Siskel always had the humanity (and I loved his appearance on the Larry Sanders Show with John Ritter -- classic).
Thank you for this essay, these words that serve as a window on one of the most influential relationships in modern pop culture. I would strongly urge you to publish this essay in book form, with more photos, and use it as a fundraiser for the Gene Siskel Film Center.
So many prominent opinion makers have been exposed as hacks by the relentless competition of the Internet, but the years of work by Siskel and Ebert holds up. You guys are *still* ahead of everyone else on "Kingpin".
Dear Roger,
As I look through the different sites such as Facebook and MySpace there is an area for "Heroes". I for one, say that you are one of mine. Your passion for the majesty of film is so very apparent in the words that you write in your reviews. Unfortunately, since I am merely at the age of 24, I didn't get to see much of Siskel, but I do see that IN YOU it's easy to tell what kind of a wonderful man he was.
Thank you, and I leave you with 2 questions: 1. Who are YOUR heroes? and 2. I'm moving to Chicago in the fall. As an actor, what area(s) would you suggest living in?
Ebert: Malkovich told me: "In New York, actors go to auditions. In Chicago, they go to work. The NYTimes and WSJournal have both called Chicago the best theater town in America.
Where to live? Your first home should be temporary, while you get the lay of the land. Look for a place near the elevated tracks. Some less-expensive areas fairly close in are Rogers Park, Wicker Park, Bucktown, certain parts of Lincoln Park. As you meet other actors, ask them where they live. Maybe email a few theaters, like Organic, Wisdom Bridge, Body Politic. The DePaul theater school might have advice. Also Columbia College of Chicago.
I'm sure this article was not easy to write for you, and I think that is a great thing. I think it is important that we remember, and not just with our minds but with our hearts. I think the most beautiful part of the videos you posted above is one little part, where you turn your head and speak in the direction of Gene's chair. I could be putting to much significance to that, but it felt just like you were talking to him again. My earliest memories of the you and Gene are one time when my dad was watching S&E, and I saw that a Winnie the Pooh movie got One Thumb Up, One Thumb Down (I could be miss remembering, but that is how I see it). The other is something that I really need to know if I am makeing it up. I remember watching an award show, and you received an award dedicated to Gene. You said a few words, looked up to heaven, and said "Here's to you". Did that really happen? It seems so vivid yet so blurry. Anyway, both you and Gene have done more to my understanding of film than I'll ever be able to truely grasp. God bless, and thanks.
I don't quite know what to say, but I'm going to try anyway since it seems like the both of you have been in my life or thoughts in one form or other since my dim but fond memories of Sneak Previews on PBS when I was growing up in Hawaii.
Thanks for a wonderful reminiscence of a unique friendship we are all the better to have witnessed.
I hope Gene enjoyed that tribute Roger!
When he died I felt as though I had lost a dear friend. I watched your following shows of course with the guest hosts and Richard was an unbelievably good choice but nobody could truly fill Genes shoes. The two of you had a special magic together that is very rare.
I usually agreed with your opnion of films but enjoyed both of you equally. Two sides of the same coin!
One show I remember in particular was one where Gene talked about having bought Tony Maneros outfit from Saturday Night Fever.
I guess it was one of his favourite films because he could have identified with the character when he was young. This struck me as odd as I had a more intellectual view of him as the kind of guy who would sit around with his college buddies arguing philosophy.
I suspect a lot of young men romantisized about being Tony.
Television is not the same without the two of you on it.
your shows and watching TV will never be quite the same without them.
Mr. Ebert,
Thanks for your words about Gene Siskel, and for evoking many memories of watching you two and watching the movies you discussed.
Also: thanks for your diligent responding to writers on this blog!
Roger. In an above post, you reply to the following question:
Is there any book of Gene Siskel's that gathers a collection of his written criticism? I can't seem to find any. It would be a tragedy if his memory as a print film journalist were to be erased.
Ebert: Unfortunately, there isn't. I believe he had offers, but didn't get around to it.
Well, then, Roger, you should coordinate with Marlene Iglitzen to produce a book, "The Best of Gene Siskel." It would be a fine tribute to Gene, and a great gift to film lovers everywhere, to have a collection of Siskel's best movie reviews, interviews, commentaries, etc., back in print. The book could even include some of his articles about the Chicago Bulls, poker, and other subjects, and a collection of memories from his family, colleagues, and associates like the one's we're reading here.
And now, a memory of my own. In his senior year (1991) at Dixie Heights High School in Erlanger, KY, my younger brother Richard took an Honors course in English literature. It was taught by the great Leondus Beach, by far the best teacher that Rick and I ever had.
As part of the course, Mr. Beach spent the entire month of January walking his students through the mysteries of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet." After the play had been read, each student was required to do an essay and a class presentation on "Hamlet."
My brother Richard teamed up with his friend, Andy Lawther, to do a joint class presentation. Together, they did a "Siskel & Ebert" review of two different film versions of "Hamlet."
Richard, who is tall, thin, and has brown hair, played Gene Siskel. Andy, who is short, stout, and wears horn-rimmed glasses, played Roger Ebert.
For their class presentation, Richard and Andy sat together on a pair of chairs (representing "The Balcony") in front of the class. They reviewed two film versions of "Hamlet" -- the 1948 version starring Laurence Olivier, and the 1990 version starring Mel Gibson (which had just come out on video that year).
As part of their presentation, they showed clips from the two film versions of "Hamlet" on the classroom TV. They then talked about how each film version interpreted Shakespeare's text, and how the actor playing Hamlet interpreted the role.
Their reviews went something like this.
[On the 1948 Laurence Olivier "Hamlet"]
Andy (as Ebert): "I give this version of 'Hamlet' a Thumbs Up. I think Laurence Olivier's performance is the classic 'Hamlet.' I think this is the version of 'Hamlet' that every high school student should see."
Richard (as Siskel): "I give it a Thumbs Down. I think this version is the *dated* version of 'Hamlet.' I think Laurence Olivier is overacting. He is way over the top with his performance -- especially at the end of the movie when he mounts the staircase with his sword, and pounces on Polonius from above, like a wrestler going off the top rope."
[On the 1990 Mel Gibson "Hamlet"]
Richard (as Siskel): "I give *this* version of 'Hamlet' a Thumbs Up. I think Mel Gibson is perfect here in his role as Hamlet. I think *this* is the version of 'Hamlet' that every high school student should see."
Andy (as Ebert): "I give this version a Thumbs Down. I think Mel Gibson is completely miscast in this part. And I think Glenn Close is way too young to be playing Hamlet's mother."
[As the debate continues, the arguments between "Siskel" and "Ebert" get more personal.]
Richard (as Siskel): Look, Roger, I don't know how you can give these films such bad reviews. I don't know how you can even *see* these films to review them. When we sit down in the movie theater, the first thing you do is put your feet up on the seat in front of you. How can you even *see* the movie screen with your feet up like that?!"
Andy (as Ebert) [Holds up a 'peace sign']: "Well, it's better than you, Gene, doing that stupid 'bunny shadow' on the screen every time the projector comes on! I am *so sick* of you doing that!"
Richard (as Siskel): "Well, if that's the way you feel about it, take *this!*"
["Siskel" reaches under his chair, pulls out a custard pie, and smacks it into "Ebert's" face. After wiping custard from the lenses of his glasses, "Ebert" reaches under his own chair.]
Andy (as Ebert): Oh, yeah?! Well, two can play at that game! Take *this!*"
["Ebert" pulls a seltzer squirt bottle out from under his chair, and sprays "Siskel" in the face with it. After a moment, "Siskel" calmly turns to the class, his face dripping with seltzer water.]
Richard (as Siskel): "Well, that's our show for today. And until next week, the balcony is closed. [To "Ebert"] You gonna be here again next week, Roger?"
Andy (as Ebert): "Yeah, sure, I'll be here next week, Gene. Wouldn't miss it. Oh, and one more thing, Gene. [Licks custard from his fingers.] Could you make it a banana cream pie for next week's show? Custard's not really my favorite."
Mr. Beach gave Richard and Andy an "A+" grade for their "Hamlet" presentation.
Ebert: I trust they spoke trippingly on the tongue.
Stanley dancer: Thinking of an actor for your role is more difficult.
Well, there was that Russ Meyer biopic idea from last year where the name Philip Seymour Hoffman was bandied about. And Michael Lerner played Roger Ebert in Godzilla, you might remember...
Re: Mick and the Tortillagram
That is a brilliant anecdote.
“You left out a tiny detail about Gene's "I love Roger Ebert" film. Years before Conan O'Brien, he used a big blow-up of a photo of me, cut out the lips, and inserted his own lips saying what a great critic I was. :)
At least that's what I recall. The process was called Pixelvision.” – Roger Ebert
OMG – that’s right! I forgot to mention Gene was speaking behind a photo of YOU while singing your praises!
Funny I didn’t remember to add that…? Mind you, I’ve able now to look up the camera and it was the Fisher-Price PXL2000 (aka: PixelVision) which they’d introduced back in 1987.
Whoa. 22 years ago! Time flies, eh?
And I’m trying now to find Gene’s “I Love Roger” movie, wanting to see it again – ‘cause dude, that was seriously funny. :)
However I couldn’t locate a clip of it via the “At the Movies” archive; just video reviews for 1987. And much to my surprise given they seem to have everything else on the planet, YouTube doesn’t have it either.
Gee - I hope it wasn’t "intentionally" lost?
A few of my own Siskel and Ebert memories:
I remember watching "Sneak Previews" oh so long ago because my mom watched it. We were living in a small town in Oregon and I could tell she missed living in a big city that had movie theatres. She always made a note of the movies you two recommended.
My favorite review of any movie on your show definitely is "The Doors." I saw the movie before seeing your review. I was fascinated about how you both seemed to like the movie and then suddenly you were giving it a 'thumbs down' because it was too realistic! Over the years since then, I've realized that some movies can be really good but there's still something about them that makes me pull back from them. Most recently, "Slumdog Millionaire" is that kind of movie. Overall, a very good movie, but thinking back on it, it is still very difficult for me to get past the first 30 minutes or so because of the brutal reality of the young kids' lives. I was almost on the verge of walking out because it was becoming too much for me, but I figured the movie must soon become the warm experience that movie critics were talking about. And I'm glad I stayed!
Years ago, when laserdiscs were coming out, I bought the "Halloween" disc because it included your segment on why "Halloween" was good and the other slasher movies were bad. And every so often, I will look up "Siskel and Ebert" on youtube.com just to randomly search for old clips.
And now, I still am hoping to see you on Letterman or Leno to talk about your Oscar picks!
Chad
I'll always remember a little skit my brothers did as a parody to Siskel and Ebert. They played Lean Pencil and Larger Thanbert. I know, sophomoric.
But reading this and viewing the videos made me remember that. I do not think that you can understate how incredibly influential the show was to our pop culture, and how so many things become throw-away garbage. It stood the test of time, and as a fan of the Siskel and Ebert years, I would like to thank both of you for showing me personally how great movies are, and how great they can be.
I was really moved by this and hearing the jingle has brought out many memories of these two insightful and wonderful men I admired growing up in the early eighties. I truly loved their show! Growing up in Little Village and witnessing the gang violence that took many of my friend's lives away was a nightmare for me. My only escape was going to the movies and watching "At The Movies". As a kid, I always knew that I wanted to make movies for a living because I always had such a love and passion for them. Once at Columbia College to study film, I felt as if I was taught these film subjects before more so in my screenwriting class. I understood what my film teachers were talking about. That's when I realize how much I've gathered and learned about movies from Ebert and Siskel.
As a teenager I would bump into Ebert a couple of times and say hello and that's all I could ever muster out of my mouth but I never got to meet Siskel himself. I would have fainted if I had met them both together in downtown. Ebert and Siskel were my teachers, my role models and I was so happy they lived here.
I never knew until he passed away how much he meant to me as if I've lost an uncle in my family. I couldn't accept the fact that he was gone and Chicago hasn't been the same without him. Siskel was one of us and Chicago will always and forever remember this remarkable man. Thank you so much Mr. Roger Ebert and I know some day you'll review one of my movies at the theaters. God Bless You!
two thoughts:
if there was ever a movie create on the life of Gene Siskel, i believe Nicholas Cage would the ideal actor to play him. he just looks like him!!
in the 3rd video clip, Siskel said to find a job that you love. a job that you would hate to be taken away from you. i hear this all the time in college, but it means such much more coming from Siskel for some reason. i'll definitely take it to heart.
I remember watching "Sneak Previews" with my dad many years ago before he passed away, and how we appreciated Gene's and your own comments on the movies. You talk of your friendship with Gene, and I'm quite sure you had a great friendship with him - - but that friendship really gave rise to the thing that Dad and I really liked, which was how you both could disagree on a movie and not be intimidated by that process, how contrasting your personalities were, and how the same movie could be reviewed completely differently.
My dad and I got a lot of valuable information watching the first version, Gene's and your version, of "Sneak Previews". I have not got that kind of information since with any other version of the show - - not with the same clarity or intelligence. You guys were perfect contrasts who worked well together - - you were not just a great team, you were the BEST review team, and that success has never been duplicated since.
I've always wanted to thank you and Gene for changing the way I see movies.
Specifically, it was a review you and Gene did for a movie called "Bye Bye Brazil" that interested me. At that time, the only movie in Tulsa that would show independent and foreign films was downtown, by the ice skating rink (it was called "The Cinema"...horrible name). I had my dad drop me off at the time since I was 15; I remember him telling me "Now son, if you get tired of reading this movie, you know my office is only six blocks away".
It may not have been the greatest film ever made, but it was my first foreign film, and it enlightened me that good quality movies ARE made in countries where languages other than English are spoken.
You were truly blessed to have such a friend with whom you could be totally yourself, to say whatever was on your mind and to be fully accepted for who you were and loved no matter what.
It's funny. I often go straight to your blog, and I clicked on this entry and read it. Today being Friday, I went to rogerebert.com first, and there it was, in the upper right corner. A link to this blog entry, the first paragraph, and Gene's picture. And it hit me.
So I came here to submit this comment, and was surprised to see the same photo, even larger than the other. How did I miss it yesterday?
Gene's personality seemed to leap out of that photo on rogerebert.com, and I had a second-long montage flow through my head of scenes of Gene, finally resting on one where you and he disagreed about a movie, and he kind of rocked forward, then back, looked up at the ceiling and was visibly looking for the best way to say what he wanted to express. His left hand was doing...something.
And the thing that I remember from that image was his passion. He didn't jump up and down on his seat, but he was passionate about what he was doing. He was passionate about movies, he wanted them to be good. In retrospect, I can still hear his voice when he talked about movies, and when the movie was bad there was always an undercurrent of sadness, even anguish; conversely for good movies there was always an undercurrent of rejoicing.
It's a limited understanding of a man who was far more complicated than what we saw every week. Thank you for fleshing it out a bit.
Love the story of Gene jumping out of trees in a Batman costume. He always seemed to be a fan of the old Batman movies. I wonder what her would have thought of Chris Nolan's bold reinvention of the Batman franchise, especially transforming Chicago into Gotham City?
Ebert: I have a feeling he would have loved it.
I am Chinese. I am learning English. I have read every word you write here, I love you and your wonderful articles.
Ebert: I am happy I have received many interesting messages from China.
You know, I've always had this curiosity, as I'm sure many other of your fans have too, of just what exactly your relationship with Gene was like in the 'real world.'
For the first time, I think I've finally got an inkling. I hope that was your intent.
Mr. Ebert, once again, a great article. Friendly rivalries are often some of the most complex and rewarding relationships one can have. By the way, did it ever bug Gene that you have a Pulitzer? And if so, how much did you enjoy bringing it up with him?
Ebert: I was not hesitant about bringing it up.
Gene always said it came to my house addressed to "Occupant."
Hi Roger,
Just a note to add my name to those remembering the sad event 10 years ago today. My favourite S & E moment was in 1987, when you split on Full Metal Jacket and Benji the Hunted on the same show. Not only was it funny, but I had just moved to London, Ontario, where the show was available, from Edmonton, Alberta, where the show was unavailable for a couple of years because of changes in syndication.
My favourite special shows were Hail, Hail, Black & White!, They'll do it Every Time (all episodes), and the one on trailers (the first show I saw in London in '87).
One correction from your 500th show: the first (I think) takeoff on S&E to appear on TV was on SCTV in late '80 or early '81, shortly after Robert Altman's Popeye had come out. They satirized it as "Henry," "after the comic strip of the same name." Dave Thomas was Ebert, Joe Flaherty was Siskel.
Best wishes.
Ebert: Once Flaherty and I were talking at the Toronto Film Festival and a kid came over and said, "Siskel and Ebert! Can have your autographs?" I wrote, "See you at the movies! Roger Ebert." He wrote, "Eat shit and die. Gene Siskel."
Thanks so much for this beautiful piece. You and Gene have enriched my life for many, many years. Your online work continues to do that.
When my son entered Pierson College at Yale almost three years ago I was so pleased to find out that Gene was a Pierson Alum. (As a product of all public schools I had no concept of the Yale system.) It is many degrees of separation but one that I am happy to remind my son about.
Stanley Dancer asked what actor could play Roger Ebert in a movie, for me that's easy: Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
Ebert: He might be too good for me.
I am writing to you as a fan of the show you and Gene hosted for more than 20 years. I started watching you two in my early 20's and one thing I noticed was that Gene was better at explaining why he liked or disliked a movie on the show than he was at explaining in print. I can only guess that you noticed that, too. After his death, I have to say, I felt that the show lost much of its glow. This is NOT to say that Gene was better than you, but it was evident that you were very good together. Thanks for the tribute to your late buddy.
p.s. How are you feeling on this tenth-anniversery day and do you still believe that you will be back on TV one day?
This a beautiful piece, written by a beautiful man for a beautiful man. I remember "discovering" Sneak Previews on KERA in Dallas (buried, as I recall, on Sunday nights at 11:00 or 11:30 p.m.). And I also remember the challenge in those days to find your show as it changed titles, local stations, and times. I would be overjoyed to locate it and then heartbroken to find that, next week at the same time, it was a M*A*S*H rerun.
I have to say that Gene was my personal film critic. What I mean is that I determined rather quickly that if Gene liked a film, I liked a film. During the early days of PCs, I maintained a file of films to see that I updated weekly as a result of your "thunbs up"; it had two columns: Siskel and Ebert. And I formatted the films with two positive reviews in bold. That file is still on my hard drive, and your piece made me realize that its last revision is now a bit more than ten years old.
I have tried occasionally to watch copycat film review shows, but I have determined that the mold was broken after you two invented it. Thanks for your continued writings on film, and thanks most of all for giving the world the gift of watching two geniuses teach us all how to watch movies.
Gene and Roger had rare and beautiful chemistry. Instantly recognizable, their bond made watching them a joy, transcending even the funny banter about movies.
The loss of that, from Gene's premature passing, saddened me, along with others. It isn't often in life we stumble across something that works, and works well. I miss the show. I miss Gene. And, Roger, I congratulate you for carrying on despite your own health struggles.
Thanks for adding to our memories with poignant remembrances.
Mr. Ebert,
Thank you for your wonderful blog about such a great man.
I remember watching you guys in the late 70's not even a teenager, but fascinated with your opinions on movies.
As I got older, I started to get upset when you didn't like a movie that I just knew had to be good. In later years it was the way to find those buried treasures that never seemed to arrive in my town.
Today, I'm a sportswriter and the film critic for my local paper. It's a dream job that I absolutely love and I have to thank you and Gene for helping me find this profession. By watching your magnificent work on a weekly basis I began to realize that it was possible to achieve my boyhood dream of being involved with the movies, just in a way I never could have imagined.
I'll never forget the moment I first heard of Gene's passing and how hard it hit me that he was gone. even now it's hard to sit here and express my deep admiration for Gene and yourself.
You both were true inspirations.
My girls were rasied on you both as well as movies and TV and books.
They are now 39 and almost 41 and would probably agree they are better for it all.
Thank you so much,
Muriel
As an aging boomer, I count being able to watch you and Gene give true insight into the importance of film right up there with the Beatles and being part of social change movements, among the joys of my life. It is painful to watch the current crop of commentators try to match the knowledge, skill, humor, intellectual rigor and true love you and Gene brought to us weekly. On a different note, I worship on Shabbat eve with a small group of fairly liberal feisty film loving Jews. Thanks to your article, we will be sure to include Gene in our weekly prayers in memmory of the departed
Thanks for the remembrance, Roger. My personal favorite Gene Siskel moment came from a show broadcast shortly before Gene died. You were both panning the amazingly dumb Robin Williams vehicle "Patch Adams" when Gene remarked, "I'd rather turn my head and cough than see "Patch Adams" again." Knowing what Gene had been going through over the preceding months, I found the line both funny and poignant.
What a wonderful tribute. I went into a deep funk when Mr. Siskel died, and I had never even met the man. I can only imagine how painful it was for those who knew and loved him. Your early syndicated show was like a new world for me, growing up in Ferrum, Virginia (pop. 500 with no cable and 35 miles from the nearest first-run movie theater); I savored every minute of each show. It instilled in me a love of film that inspired me to go to Sundance five times and seek out lost treasures that I otherwise would have known nothing about. Thank you for your work and for your touching tribute to your friend.
Thank you for a very interesting read, Mr. Ebert. I recently began watching clips of your show online. Specially hilarious were Gene Siskel's jabs at movies like Jaws:The Revenge ("Why don't they just move to the Mid West away from sharks?") and Poltergeist III ("Why didn't they just say Carol once, as a joke?"). It was also interesting to see the differences in the way both of you reviewed movies.
A question for you. Did both of you review "The Usual Suspects" on your show? Having read your print review online, I searched for the video at your show site but was unable to find it. I am strongly interested in what Gene Siskel would have had to say on the film (I disagreed somewhat with your written review).
In the comments above, Jim Szantor tells the following great story about Gene Siskel: "Fast forward about 20 years later, about January 1998, about 6 months before I retired. A fairly gaunt Gene made a rare office appearance and saw me before I saw him. He yelled out, "Double byline, double byline!"
This seems consistent with some of the other stories, but isn't it also interesting that it evokes the most endearing story about Paul Newman in Roger's journal piece soon after Newman's death?
When I was eight all I wanted in the world, more than friends and family, were books and movies. My father beat me and my mother was clinically depressed and the only people I invited into my world were Mr. Ebert and Mr. Siskel on Sneak Previews. To see such passionate, sometimes vitriolic discourse on cinema was, for lack of a better word, hopeful. When Mr. Siskel died, I sobbed for hours, as so many did, so many who had never even met the man. Love to his many family and friends.
The only thing missing from the video tribute was the 'commercial' for Big Ass Ham that the two of you did for Letterman. (Do I remember correctly that your collective 'wife' was played by Letterman producer Jude Brennan?)
I remember one year in the late '90s when Tom Snyder (on CBS) was doing a live post-Oscars episode of The Late Late Show. The panel in the studio consisted of Gene, David Steinberg and Bonnie Hunt, who along with Tom were going to interview the winners via a remote hook-up. The only trouble was that no winners seemed to be available. (I don't remember why. Maybe ABC, which televised the ceremony, was being proprietary with the winners.) Tom was indignant at first, but it turned into an hour-long conversation about movies. It was much more entertaining than the ceremony. I remember Gene and Bonnie as being especially funny. It was one of the best hours of television I ever saw.
When Gene passed, it felt as though I had lost a family member. Thanks for the wonderful remembrance.
Is the Howard Stern incident you reference the appearance on the Channel 9 Show (which is available on youtube in 2 parts, if you search for 'siskel ebert stern')? Watching the two of you fence with Howard gave me a good laugh, and there is no doubt in my mind that the two of you came out ahead.
Ebert: I was thinking of radio, but the TV show is a great example. I have added the video link below the entry.
It was fun to watch to watch the two of you together. As much as we miss Gene "the movie guy", I am sure you miss Gene your friend so much more. I think a version of immortality would be to have a friend who misses me as much as you do Gene. Thanks for sharing. Two thumbs up on this review of a special person.
The quality of the man is gagued by his friends. Roger your friend was Gene and to remember him on the 10th anniversary of his passing says a tremendous amount about you. Siskel and Ebert was never missed in my house. Others come and other go but you 'are the best'.
Thank God we still have you available on line. Your voice rings true and we never head to the movies before we check out your opinion.
America and myself have been lucky enough to have tuned in PBS so many years ago to find you both. As I remember sitting through the credits and listening to IZ sing Over the Rainbow/What a Wonderful World I remember how good life is and how lucky we are to have your work in our life.
Thank you.
DearER,
Today is 20th. And I found your tribute to Gene today only. Incidental? Coincidental? Was the way both of you met for the TV show coincidental? It was destined I suppose. For today to arrive. No?
Mr. Ebert,
What a wonderful piece about Gene. I want to thank you for taking the time to allow us to share these memories and feelings. I met Gene once at Mia Francesca and he couldn't have been more cordial, whereas Oprah, at an opposite table, oh well...
I hope you're feeling well. We miss the televison show...
Aaaaaaahhhhhh! After I clicked over (via someone's unworking link earlier in this thread) to the ATM archive yesterday, I searched for the review of Magnolia just to see the opinions on a movie that some have speculated Gene would have liked, and Roger's expression as Ms. Kulhawik talks about what a mess she thought it was is absolutely priceless; at one point, he just sat there looking at her with his mouth agape.
I can remember watching "At The Movies" some 20 or so years ago (I'm 36 now) and my earliest memories were of frustration over how the two of you could dare tear apart that movie I loved! THEY DIDN'T LIKE WEEKEND AT BERNIES!?!? LOL. Yet, I couldn't stop watching. But, something happened year after year after year...I learned how to properly watch movies and not just become some blind consumer. This is SO valuable to me now because it has enabled me to spot, for the most part, obvious cliches or predictable plot points that I would have never noticed before, and focus on what it is for me that makes truly great films magical. Don't get me wrong, I still love the occasional dumb popcorn movie it's just that now I do so with a more discriminating eye.
And for that I want to thank you both. Seriously. If not for you or Gene I'm sure I would have never discovered SOME of my all-time favorite films-
Boogie Nights
Chinatown
Blade Runner
Runaway Train (best. ending. ever.)
The Godfather (I/II)
The Empire Strikes Back
Jaws
The Matador
Auto Focus
and a million more!
Once again, thank you both.
Rest in peace, Gene.
As a former staff member at both the Body Politic Theatre and Wisdom Bridge Theatre,I was glad to see you recommend them to Aaron the aspiring actor who is contemplating a move to Chicago. Alas, neither exists anymore. And the third theatre you mentioned, the Organic, has relocated out to DeKalb, the last I heard. Aaron should go to the League of Chicago Theatres website,www.chicagoplays.com,and click on the "Theatre Links" tab. It will lead him to links for the websites of over a hundred current theatre companies. He'll be able to see which ones seem to do work that might interest him.
Ebert: My illness has curtailed my theater-going and I am sadly out of date. Thanks for the information.
I miss Gene a lot. And I am often wondering what he would think of new movies.
You're relationship was classic and hasn't been rivaled yet in any form I am aware of.
I remember watching him review "The End of Violence," Wim Wender's 1997 movie. He was one of the few critics who liked it. I enjoyed this film and liked how he stuck up for it. "What do they know?" he said! :)
He had a passion and a warmth. I love watching you guys on old reviews on the At the movies site (the only thing it's good for now). I wish his written reviews were available on the web.
Anyway, take care. I miss you, too...
My Mother had a term she used often. It was "Found Family"; people you loved like family, even though they weren't related by blood.
It was always clear to me that you and Gene were "Found Brothers".
The arguing was part of it, along with all the other things that brothers do.
God bless you, Mr. Ebert...
Vandevere
Dear Roger Ebert,
"Thanks for the memories"? :)
From SNEAK PREVIEWS forward to the very end, reading
every line of these words, including every comment left
here, it is all as profoundly touching as it is illumin-
ating not just about one man but two who traveled in each
other's shadows.
My passion for reading had always been what fueled my
love of film; I consumed both rapaciously.
It was, for me, a wonderful journey all those years,
looking forward every week to each Siskel & Ebert
film review show -- always just a tad too short, as
good things always are.
When I began reading this poignant post by Roger about his
late friend, Gene Siskel, something kept gnawing at the back
of my head, the same kind of emotional pull I'd had decades
before coming out of the threatre after having watched Peter
O'Toole and Richard Burton play against each other in what I
had felt up to that time was the greatest love story between
two men I had ever seen: BECKETT. I don't know why BECKETT
struck me as a love story over everything else. It still does.
And reading Siskel & Ebert here, I'm left with the same
feeling, a rare glimpse about an extraordinary friendship
between two men. We are so rarely exposed to that happystance.
So, Roger, I thank you for this naked honesty of yours. I
really am moved.
I never had a good/better/best when it came to judging the
quality of either Ebert's or Siskel's actual Reviews. I took
away something from each and compared each of their points
of view with my own and whether or not I would go to see a
particular film, or not was never based upon either of
them. It was just good fun watching them debate each other.
As I experienced them from the comfort of my chair, they
were much like a matched pair of book-ends, both holding the
books in the center together, yet the books at either end
were worth reading, if for entirely different reasons.
Book-ends never question each other as to why they are
holding up the books between them, do they?
I couldn't conceive of one without the other. So when Gene
Siskel became ill and it was clear that his days were
numbered, it was with a heavy heart that he quietly slipped
off the radar on my television set. I wondered. What will
Roger do without Gene? What would O'Toole have been without
Burton? How does one fill those shoes?
The simple answer is that one doesn't try to. But things
have never been the same since, that is true for me. But
they never are. I miss both.
Yet - I smile at the thought of both of them. And think
happy thoughts, for all those memories so eloquently
written here, not only by Roger but by all the
people who have so warmly responded. Amazing! I rather
suspect that it's only a beginning.
You are in my prayers, Roger.
Au revoir et merci beaucoup,
Montreal
Canada
Mr. Ebert,
What a moving tribute. My favorite memory of Mr Siskel was how passionate he was when he found a movie he considered great. He would promote that movie with this huge smile on his face. He almost glowed. If you didn't think it was great, I know the camera cut you two off in mid argument. If you two agreed, it was gold. I'm sure my memory is selective, but I can't remember a single movie you two agreed on that I didn't enjoy.
I also seem to remember him once giving the advise that you should find work you love. Life is too short to just do a job you have no passion for. Great advise then and now.
All my best wishes and prayers.
I learned so much from you and Gene. Most of it intellectual: that movies were worth thinking about; that rational minds could differ and both still be right; that a well formed opinion was of greater value than a mere whim, even in the arts; and so much more. But also I appreciated the personal lessons: that disagreement needn't mean the end of a relationship; that a good friendship has room for occasional anger and disappointment; that common goals and common values count for more than beauty or history, and so much more.
Thanks
Mr. Ebert,
Just giving you a heads-up that I am writing Siskel & Ebert - the musical! It may or may not have that exclamation point. I'm afraid I have to take a few liberties to improve the story line. That is, I have imagined what was probably going on behind the scenes and all that. Hope you don't mind.
If you can give me your OK here, and assure me that you won't sue for using your likeness and all that, I'll move forward.
Warmest regards,
Brian
I thought Wisdom Bridge was defunct; am I wrong? I remember seeing Mamet's Speed-the-Plow with William Petersen there (on Howard, before their move to Skokie) in the early 90s.
...a couple hours later...
For some reason when I tried to post this earlier, I couldn't; it wouldn't even Preview. Thanks to commenter Terry McCabe for confirming my suspicion re: Wisdom Bridge.
I knew I wouldn't get to the end without getting tear-y, because I knew you would write a beautiful tribute to your friend and colleague. I was okay until I got to his explanation of Judaism, and, although I am not a Jew, you were right to say it was the most touching description. It's hard to believe it's ten years since he passed away. Thank you, as always, for your eloquence, affection, and respect.
Mr. Ebert,
Your tribute is beautiful; lovely and dedicated to the dear memory of a good friend.
Gene Siskel and you taught me about movies. I didn't know it then, but you were two guys who really knew what you were talking about. There are thousands of movie critics out there; but there was only one Siskel, and there is only one Ebert.
You taught me how to appreciate good movies, and how to detect not so great ones. You taught me through which lenses to analyze films, and actor's or actresses performances, and sometimes just to sit back and enjoy them.
I was a child when I started watching your show, you were my companions on Sunday night. Meanwhile I have become an adult with a career of my own, but those lessons you taught me are still with me.
I was shocked when Mr. Siskel died in 1999 and saddened when you became so ill. But you carry one with a strong spirit that is also reflective of Gene Siskel.
Thank you for all the wonderful reviews! You have inspired me and enriched my life.
I think the thing I appreciated the most about Gene was that when he reviewed a movie, he never forgot about me. That is, he never forgot about the average person who, when they had the money and the time, wanted to go out and see a movie that was worth that same money and time. He let me know when a movie was appropriate to take a date, my children, or my mom to.
I knew that he had forgotten more about the movies and the movie business than I would ever know, but he never made me feel as though he was talking down to me. He respected our intelligence, and our taste, even when it didn't agree with his own.
Thank you Roger for a great tribute.
RIP Gene. And thanks.
I miss Gene... A worthy tribute, Roger. Be well, my friend.
Mr. Ebert,
Like many who are leaving comments, I was very moved by your tribute to your colleague and friend. I'm also "boiling over," if you will, from the comments. Just lovely stuff.
Y'know, while I was reading all of this, "The Stars Fell on Alabama" (the Ella/Louis version) was playing in my head. So melancholy and sweet.
Hope you are well; hope you get better.
Robert Sims
Another wonderful piece Roger...
All one has to do, to understand the value and power of true friendship, is be directed to read the blogs you've written about Gene. They illustrate how there are bonds we make in life that run deeper than blood. These are the bonds that stay with us and not even death can sever. I know as I read these blogs that Gene is still there with you, by your side. And the friendship you shared is something you will treasure forever.
No one who has ever had a great friend in life (and some of us are lucky to have had several) could ever mistake your relationship as anything but deep and real friendship. To think that just because you argued you didn't truly love and respect each other is to have no understanding of this basic principle. Watching those outtakes on YouTube reminds me of every single time I've had a couple of beers on poker night and, after one of us has begun to have an exceptionally lucky evening, the others begin to rib on him mercilessly. That's what friends are for... To take you down a notch when your head's getting too big.
Gene Siskel is missed by those who enjoyed his work. But that's nothing compared to the pain of those who actually knew him and shared in his love and friendship. Please keep writing these blogs. They never get old and are the most moving tribute any friend could ever hope to receive. I am pretty sure that Siskel is smiling right now.
I wonder... Would he have liked Magnolia? I consider that to be the best film of the 90s. I know you loved it. As did I. A part of me kind of hopes he would have gone cold on it... I would have been thrilled to watch the two of you at each other's throats on that particular film. (Though, you probably would have agreed on it.)
Ha. In that 1996 interview with Siskel and Ebert, I can really see Siskel's analytical and competitive side coming through. How many times did he qualify with, "not envy?" Ebert was more poetic, talking about Siskel's three great kids, how it would be great for anybody and then relate back to how much it changed Siskel. And Ebert was unafraid to say that he envied Siskel for it; less guarded, more vulnerable. I can see why Ebert won the Pulitzer.
I was very sad when Siskel died. I thought it was wrong that the Academy didn't honor him, though Whoopi did.
Great elegy.
Beginning with the show syndicated on PBS, I watched the two of you because I could almost always tell, from what each of you said, whether ** I ** would enjoy a movie. You know far better than any of us the ways in which your likes and dislikes either concurred or complimented - I only know it worked for me.
And although I had been going to non-first-run movies for years, watching the two of you was the start of my vocabulary for film. Before then, I didn't understand that I might not care for an otherwise well-made film simply because there was no one I * liked.* And I began to appreciate both the things that the films did well, and the films that did them without my noticing it.
I didn't start reading your reviews until I had free internet access, and I have never stopped. (Well, everybody has to eat . . .) I miss the television show very much. Everything passes, but I don't have to be happy about it.
In the meantime, thank you for a gracious and enlightening memorial. Be well.
Terry Anastassiou
San Francisco
Hi Roger,
Thanks again. Few have had the privilege of the friendship that you two have had, yet many -- especially myself -- have benefited from that friendship of yours. There is an old Arab proverb: "A friend is someone who speaks the truth to you. A person who always agrees with you is no friend."
Very respectfully,
Omer M
Thanks Rog, Really enjoy your nostalgic journeys and especially your tribute to your friend. We miss him too,even the small experience of Gene we shared as the audience. P.S. You have a great audience here too!
I wish I could find that taping of the howard Stern show. That'd be fun to hear.
Ebert: I've added at the end of the entry a YouTube clip of Gene and I on Stern's TV show.
Roger, I absolutely love your commentary tracks on the special edition DVD's of Citizen Kane and Casablanca. After reading your touching tribute to Gene, I was left to wonder what films he would have felt so strongly about that he would have agreed to do his own commentary track. He would have been inundated with requests I'm sure. Perhaps something that appealed to his devout Judaism such as Shoah or Schindler's List? I'm interested to know if there were any particular films you know of that stand out in which he not only felt passionately about but also possessed an encyclopedic knowledge of (such as your knowledge of Citizen Kane for example)?
Ebert: In "Saturday Night Fever," he could show you where the camera and crew were reflected in a mirror.
I'd like to see CBS and Disney pick up that show "Best Enemies." I don't really watch any shows on television. I only watch educational things on television, or a few comedy shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, late night talk shows, but I would watch that show.
I remember when I was spending the night at my friends house about 12 years ago when I was in seventh grade, and your show came on and my friend said "look these guys just get paid to argue with eachother", and he changed it to your show for only about two seconds and changed the channel. I really wanted to watch it--it was killing me to want to watch it. I can't really remember if I watched the show that much, but I remember being very shocked when hearing about Gene's passing. That same friend liked Gene more. (If he liked him, why couldn't we watch the show!?) I'll just calm down (I'm slightly hyperventilating)...I still have your reviews, Roger (and I'll probably read them all). And I really wish I had Gene's reviews. And that blog entry made feel like I know about him more as a person. It was humbling. Sorry about your friend.
Thank you for sharing such a wonderful tribute, which I know must be especially bittersweet for you. I remember growing up in Michigan and watching your show and feeling like it was such an escape. Siskel & Ebert came to personify Chicago for me, and your show came to symbolize what I loved about the movies. When I graduated from high school I left my small town behind and went away to college at the University of Chicago. After my first year I spent my first summer in the city, in 1997. One night I had just finished dinner with a friend of mine and we were walking down Rush Street and turning on to Oak and she stopped cold and gasped. There, about 20 feet ahead of us, was Gene Siskel. Without the Ebert! It was my first "celebrity sighting" in the "big city," and I couldn't believe it was someone I had watched for so many years. I remember he was with his wife and children, and my friend and I (we were both film students, of course) were so enthralled we followed them for half a block, pretending to look in every shop window along the way while we debated furiously about whether we should go up and talk to him. In the end, not wanting to disturb his time with his family, we managed to exercise some self-restraint and make our way home. I never regretted not approaching him, because I didn't think it fair to interrupt a family outing, but I did regret that I had only gotten to see one-half of you.
Eventually, ten years later, life and its other plans took me away from Chicago. In the final weeks of my last summer there I began to take a tally of all the things I had always wanted to see and hadn't done. My time there felt incomplete, without closure -- much like my desire for both halves of a Siskel & Ebert celebrity sighting. My last week in town, I was making a tour of my favorite restaurants one last time, and one night my fiance and I found ourselves strolling up Rush Street. We were reminiscing as we walked and as we passed Gibson's I pointed out to him where I had seen Gene on the other side of the street that first heady summer. He grabbed my elbow and hissed -- and I kid you not -- "Well, don't look now, but there's Roger Ebert." I thought he was joking, but I looked up, and there you were, sitting at a sidewalk table with your wife. Once again, ten years later, I stopped dead in my tracks. For a split second, I thought about approaching you. I thought about telling you how my celebrity sighting was now complete, how my time in Chicago was now so neatly bookended by the two men who had opened my eyes to it in the first place, and had taught me how to love film along the way. But then, I saw the way you looked at your wife, and I knew that much like ten years ago, I would be intruding on a couple so clearly enjoying each other's company. So I walked on, feeling bittersweet, yet comforted by what I was sure was the sign that my work here was done, my time in Chicago finally complete.
My fiance couldn't believe that after all that I wasn't going to talk to you, but it was only fitting. So thank you, Roger -- not just for sharing your love of the movies with us, and your love of Chicago, but for sharing your friend with us as well. And thank you for finally capping off for me those ten years of memories...that all started with Gene.
Ebert: We would have enjoyed your story.
Thank you, Roger, for your tribute to Gene. I was raised on At The Movies, and cried when he died. This may be construed as a trite observation, but I could feel Gene's affection for you simply by the way he said your name on the show: "Roger". There was affection and intimacy between the disagreements and occasional insults that came through - I think fans of the show kept watching, perhaps unconsciously, because of this affection. As a kid, people would talk about their favorite TV shows, and I was always proud to say mine was "Siskel and Ebert".
I am glad you noted the brief but touching tribute Ms. Goldberg gave to Siskel on the Oscar telecast shortly after his death. I was angry when it was missed in the memoriam (I waited for it - not sure if that counts as morbid) and possibly swore for the first time in front of my parents when they did not show him. He along with yourself have done a lot for the motion picture industry and in some small way have made it better. I choked up when Ms. Goldberg delivered what was needed. I still think the world of what she did. I think even more of what you and Gene did for me and my family when it came to enhancing our cinematic experience. Thanks for this Roger and thank you Gene.
Donnie
Roger, I once wrote a letter to you via email. You had just written "The Great Movies" -- it was 2002, I believe. My message was to thank you for the book, and the thoughtful reviews included in it. I've been a fan of Siskel & Ebert since PBS days. (Am I that old? Yikes.)
I asked you of all of the films you chose, which one's Gene might have considered GREAT movies. You replied to me, via email, to my surprise "Gene would have approved of 'Hoop Dreams'".
Today, as I'm reading this lovely tribute you've written for your friend, I realize I haven't watched "Hoop Dreams" in years. Tomorrow, I'll get a copy and remember Gene as I see it again.(Also I'm recalling the outrage both of you voiced when "Hoop Dreams" was ignored by the Academy for Oscar consideration. Such a tragedy.) This remains a life affirming, big-hearted film these many years later.
You are a life affirming, big-hearted guy Roger. I won't tell anyone though. It might spoil your tougher-than-nails persona. Gene would certainly smile about this, eh?
thanks for the memories....
Roger,
I have been so grateful for your beautifully written movie reviews for so many, many years. With the newspaper industry in freefall, and wonderful reporters and writers leaving the business every day, I appreciate your perspective all the more.
Like your reviews, this piece about Gene seems honest and forthright. Friendship is wonderful. It also is complicated. Once again, you've shown us. You are one of the most astute writers about the human condition I've ever encountered.
Be well and keep writing.
Ten years have passed, and still the memories of both of you discussing the movies are still vivid in my mind. If the mark of a man is their influence on others, both of you have made a hugely significant contribution. I am one of many whose interest in movies were sparked by "At The Movies" and "Siskel & Ebert". I am glad that I can thank you personally, and hope that Gene realizes how much he was appreciated. Thank you as well for a wonderful tribute and insight into the chemistry you shared.
Take care and be well :-)
In a word, genuine. Your tribute, the relationship you describe, and from what I read here and what I saw on TV, Gene. It's the reason why so many of us are so touched by this article and why so many of us enjoy your opinions. Not an ounce of fake found the airwaves through your shows. Thanks, so much, for sharing.
-Tom
Like many Siskel & Ebert viewers, I believed that their on-screen combativeness was largely an act. Then, in 1982, I was invited to a dinner hosted by the Madison (Wisconsin) Repertory Theatre at which Ebert was the honored guest -- he was participating in a fund-raiser for the theatre later that night. I was the office assistant at The Rep and was invited along because I had a reputation as the resident movie maven. I wasn't sure that Ebert would even be interested in talking shop at dinner, but he engaged me in a delightful conversation about the current films. That is, until I mentioned their most recent show. I made a comment about much I appreciated an observation about "Tootsie," that Jessica Lange's character brought to mind the famous "Some Like It Hot" line: "I always get the fuzzy end of the lollipop." There was a stony silence. Then Ebert grumbled: "That was Siskel!" After which, he didn't look at me or speak to me again for the rest of the evening. It embarrassed me in front of my bosses and some of our board members. Oh, and, P.S. ... I KNEW it was Siskel.
But the truth is, I trusted and depended on Roger's and Gene's movie reviews so completely that I couldn't hold a grudge -- I continued to watch them religiously. And after reading this moving tribute to Gene, I more fully understand what happened that evening.
As a lifelong movie buff, I genuinely miss their wonderful repartee, especially now, at Oscar time. I think of Gene often and I sincerely wish Roger good health and best wishes.
Ebert: I can't believe I was such a complete jerk. I'm sorry.
Dear Mr. Ebert
Every genre of entertainment had it's roots and its pioneers; you and Gene were those pioneers. It was a type of entertainment we had never seen before and it made stars out of those that just worked their careers on a whim never knowing what fate would bring. It's a good example to us all to stay with what we love and see what good fortune it brings.
Gene Siskel's contributions to that genre were just like yours. A passion for the subject (film) and first rate chemistry with his co-host. While he seemed more difficult to impress and seemed like you were about to go fist to fist, no disrespect to you Roger, but Gene stayed on top of his game and held nothing back; I wish I had his nerve.
My experience with the Siskel & Ebert franchise did not date back to the siskel/ebert era. Recently I have watched clips of the old shows and realized what made the show work. I learned about film in a film class in high school in terms of how to write reviews; I thought I knew how to judge films with a personal taste until I saw how subjective the topic was watching you. So while my experience with you guys lacked quantity, it had plenty of quality.
Gene seemed liked a great guy to be friends with. You seemed to do everything together, taunt each other and love each other just like Best Friends Forever. Gene also seemed very shrewd with not just film but for everything in life; working in the newspaper business made him informed of everything from The Chicago Bulls to good food, an attribute very few people have. Gene's family life looked very fulfilled with Marlene and the three children; though I thought he would understand children's films better as a result. So to cut a long story short, not many duos are just as close outside set as they are on the set; Gene and yourself were close on both sides. I often wonder if your relationship with Richard Roeper is the same.
Death is always a sad time by those who are affected by it. Anyone in Gene's life when it happened was affected deeply, I would think personally his children were more affected by this than the show or you. We all know the your lives or the program would not the be same again. With the continuation of the series, the spirit of Gene was kept alive even though we knew it wasn't the same as we still kept up with the movies.
Gene Siskel was one of a kind. He was passionate about everything around him and didn't hold any thoughts back. 10 years seemed to just fly by and know that it is here we can see his impact. I thank you Gene whereever you are and Roger I know you are trying to well with your're condition and I thank you too.
Two thumbs up,
Matt
You were both great on the Saturday Night Live special where you reviewed the SNL Short Films. I distinctly remember the audience's reactions to both of your verdicts and the fact Gene was playing off the crowd so well - and using them against you also.
I just have to say thank you, Mr. Ebert. Thank you for this blog entry and thank you for the movies, which I feel is a gift you and Gene Siskel gave me with your television reviews. I am smarter, wittier, more compassionate, better informed, and a better writer for having loved the movies. They have been the great love of my life.
I had written some scattered reviews before, but I started seriously writing film reviews on February 23, 1999. I was 15-years-old and knew nothing, but I wrote them anyway; I did it as my own private tribute to Gene Siskel. Now I'm 25-years-old, know slightly more than nothing, and I'm still at it. As yet, I have not made a living from it, but if I hadn't been doing it for the last ten years I don't know what I'd have been doing or where I'd be going, or if I'd even want to go there.
There are times when I look back on some of my favorite films of recent years and think of Gene Siskel: "American Beauty," "Mulholland Drive," "No Country for Old Men," "WALL-E," "United 93," and so on, and so on. How I wish he could have seen them, if only so I could know what he thought of them.
Dear Roger,
This entry is a gift to us all filled with memory, humor and above all truth. How lucky you were to have had both a professional and personal relationship with Gene. I love the surfaces that you touch here which grounds the man in the real stuff of life. Who knew until now, how intense and broad and loving this friendship really was in real terms. Life is so much more complex than one might imagine.
The words and memories of loss of your great friends bears witness to real emotions without the patina of intellectual discourse to disguise your intense love for these men, like Studs and the others.
Right now I am filled with the memories of those great shows. Wish there was some means to sit back and watch you and Gene again in full bloom.
THANK YOU for writing this wonderful tribute to your friend and partner. His death was a great loss to everyone.
Judy Shuster
My grandmother passed away fairly recently. I remember thinking to myself: "I'm glad she's dead". Because I didn't want to see her suffer any longer. She was a real trooper and a person of integrity. Full of love, she stuck it out as long as she could; but sometimes we have to surrender to our circumstances and accept things. I remember being there with her, watching her try to ingest something as simple as a glass of water. She couldn't of course. I remember feeling so helpless, so unworthy of any use. I couldn’t help. I began to go into a kind of animalistic numbness.
It seems that for all our pain and suffering, our intellectual discussion and deep thought, there is always something about us that is purely animal. Just waiting to get out. When things get tough, we cannot often sort out what is more rational. There have been moments throughout my life when I would just lie there in bed and thought to myself, I am at peace; I need nothing else. I live for moments like that, but life is often made up of the places where we are trying to get from point A to point B, and we can often benefit from the occasional "quiet moment" of reflection.
It seems I've been watching a lot more classic movies lately thanks to many critics and movie lovers like yourself and Gene. I was getting into a rut where I was only watching "new stuff". So I revisited Godfather Part I and II, Notorious and stuff like that. Gene Siskel always reminded me of the kind of power film making can have on a person. It seemed he was always a champion for deep thinking. Being aware of your surrounding and appreciating beauty and hard work when credit is due.
I just saw "Gandhi" again recently. What a film. I felt I was falling in love with it again for the first time. It is a slow movie but it is also brimming with life and excitement. It is as much a thriller as it is a love story. A love story of Gandhi and his wife, the love story of Gandhi and his country, his people. His life inspires me. I recently had a tough day and I asked myself: How would Gandhi behave in this situation? I don't think he would be so easily fazed. What is most moving about the film is there are periods where he is allowed to show emotion, moments when you know he is simply a human being. You can tell he’s a man of intellect, of integrity; that he’s strong. He also has doubts and fears, like anybody.
I am currently researching to direct a documentary. I have found that in my struggles to get it made, there is as much joy as there is pain. There will always be those people you come across, who are trying to prevent you from reaching your goal. Whether from their own stupidity, selfishness or greed. I’ve never understood those kinds of people. I know they are just people, but they make mistakes too. I say to hell with them, but don’t hate them. You yourself are separate from your surroundings and you can maintain your personal humanity and dignity, no matter the environment or situation. I find that the older I get the less I tend to care about “what others think” and focus on the task at hand. I say, never do anything you don’t want to do. Life is over when you start doubting, or changing your behavior to suit the needs of others, who may or may not care about you at all. Life is also finished when you loose respect and faith in yourself; faith in your neighbors. Human beings were meant to strive for tolerance, to accept and love their neighbors and selflessly give as much as humanly possible; I just don’t believe we were ever fully equipped to actually tackle such things. I am content in simply being me and doing my best; continuing to strive to do better. Thank God for our loved ones, our close friends, our heroes and our guardian angels. Without them, I’m not sure if we could even exist.
Thanks for remembering your friend on this day. Wherever he is, I’m sure he’d greatly appreciate it.
IVE BEEN WATCHING THE SHOW SINCE I WAS A KID. I FOUND THIS ESSAY VERY HEARTFELT AND TOUCHING ! THANK YOU BOTH FOR MANY YEARS OF GREAT WRITING AND WONDERFUL ENTERTAINMENT.
Wonderful blog entry Roger.
Ever since childhood--I'm only 23-years-old, btw--I've been a fan of "At The Movies," and both your and Gene's reviews and also read your and Gene's reviews enthusiastically in the paper and TV guide--and believe me, reading was a massive feat for me back then. And since my parents or anybody else I knew for that matter weren't as into movies as heavily as I was, I always took comfort in knowing Those Two Guys, who were old enough to be my parents, loved them as much as I did.
Till this day I have no idea who's the better critic--you or Gene. There were times, I admit, when Gene liked a movie that I loved and you disagreed with him, and I'd think, "Gene's better. How could Roger not have liked such-and-such?" But then I'd see a review in which Gene loved a movie that both you and I hated and I'd say, "Roger's the best." After watching free video archives of "At the Movies" via the net I've concluded that you're both equally talented, top-of-the-line critics. Nobody, I mean nobody can compete with you guys in my book. And nowadays if I see a review on TV or in the newspaper and it's not from you I don't even bother reading it.
Take care Roger. I always enjoy your reviews--even the ones I disagree with.
Two words for Roger: "DEAN SPANLEY". :_-)
Ebert: The 2008 Peter O'Toole film, or what?
I miss him like no one I've never met.
" "What was important was this life, how we live it, what we contribute, our families, and the memories we leave." " Siskel
It's great to have such honest symbiosis with another human being, the security of an unshakeable relation which has room even for streaks of hate. No man is an island, much less complete in himself--we exist only in relation, with an individual, with humankind, with the universe, in the present and in eternity. Having lost a nonegenarian mother in law yesterday ( February 20)---how numbered are the days and months and years----"no life?"----I saw life taking flight right in front of me....."Tis' strange, tis' passing strange !"
I agree with Mr Siskel's above quote. A faith which keeps you thinking about itself or about life rather than helping you to live better and being a source of vital life force is debilitatin, incorrect or weak.
Here is my little Gene Siskel memory. Probably not quite right, but I had a very brief encounter with Mr. Siskel and it certainly made an impression on me.
At the time, I was living at 868 W. Buena Ave, a couple of blocks north and east of the Sheridan (red line) subway stop. I often walked south a mile or so to the area of Belmont and Clark. There was a game room there, and plenty of cheap food joints, and I was poor and looking for a cheap time.
One day, near that area, I saw a guy come out of a dry cleaner carrying a white suit. It caught my eye. It took a second or two and noticed the guy carrying the suit was Gene Siskel.
Gene Siskel! So that must mean...
I asked: "Is that THE suit?"
He said: "Yes."
And that was that. He walked his way and I walked my way but I got to exchange a word (literally) with Gene Siskel and set Travolta's "Saturday Night Fever" suit with my own eyes, in person, in Chicago.
I thought your favorite thin crust pizza was Pats. Don't they have a quote from you on their menu saying as much ?
Ebert: I love Pat's. Gene and I agreed on Father and Son's. Gene never tasted Pat's. It wasn't an entry about pizza, so...
("Well, then, Roger, you should coordinate with Marlene Iglitzen to produce a book, "The Best of Gene Siskel.")
I must agree with Mr. Lindsay. I enjoy reading your books and haunt your web presence as often as possible, and it's a shame that there isn't a cohesive collection of Gene's work available.
Fogelberg and Weissberg were wrong - you two were truly the "twin sons of different mothers." God bless you and Gene.
Hey Rog,
Great article but even better is the fact that you mentioned Apple Pan with regards to Gene Siskel. I've been going there for over a decade now and it's the lone holdout on Pico Blvd. The neighborhood and business district may change (for example the Westside Pavillion shopping center built in the 1980s and remodeled and expanded over the ensuing years), but the Apple Pan stays the same except for the prices of course.
The tuna salad does represent the epitome of a cafeteria or commissary tuna sandwich circa the 1950s, but even better are the Hickory Burgers laced with an indescribably delicious smokey bbq sauce and Tillamook cheddar. Mmmm, now I have to have one right now. And the pies are better than anything served up at the highfalutin restaurants on the LA scene. Pies such as coconut cream, chocolate, and pecan are worth going out of your way for if you happen to be anywhere within the state of California. Although if you happen to be in pie-haven Midwest, the argument may be moot.
At least I learned one new thing about Siskel, and that's his love of great food, even junk food. And I can definitely relate to that.
Ebert: He was also nuts about the Tadich Grill in San Francisco: "Sit at the counter."
I love your posts on Gene. My favorite television during the 80's and 90's were your shows and David Letterman. And when you two were on his show I was in heaven. One of my favorite Letterman jokes was when somebody would ask him why he had two chairs next to his desk. He would just point to the chairs and say "Siskel and Ebert".
There is a book waiting to be written about you and Gene and the shows. With transcripts of the better debates, please.
Roger, thanks for the wonderful tribute to Gene. Reiterating the other comments, the passion shown in the work you and Gene have done in your lives have clearly had a tremendous impact on many people. Personally (and apart from insightful movie reviews), I found (and continue to find) this passion infectious...and, by way of small example, made a point of getting a TiVo when it first came out to be sure not to miss your shows each week (and also to catch all of your appearances). Regrettably, the TiVo/DVR is not as important to me as it used to be. Although I never had the honor of meeting Gene, his passing had a profound personal effect on me...perhaps because I was attending Yale at the time as an older graduate student (and Gene always seemed so youthful and energetic). Accordingly, I have always remembered his message to his daughters (that you shared again) about finding "work" in your life that you absolutely love. One can only hope to make such an impact on others as Gene and you have done with your lives and through your work.
Dear Readers:
Thanks to a tip from a reader, I have added a YouTube clip from Howard Stern's TV show. It's from the late 1980s. You can see Gene being supportive, and playing the situation perfectly. It's with the other video clips.
I can't believe it has already been 10 years since Gene passed. The memories of watching you two on TV for so many years will not be forgotten anytime soon.
I'll never forget Gene's touching review of the documentary Shoah. If my memory is correct, I am almost certain he had tears in his eyes. The classic 'At The Movies' episode where you reviewed: Police Academy 2, Porky's III, Friday the 13th Part 5, and Missing In Action 2. Aroma the educated skunk sat next to Gene for the entire show. His simmering outrage directed at the Porky's sequel in particular was priceless. It was so much fun seeing both of you guys trying to one up each other while lambasting a stinker. Gene always made sure he got in the final word. Classic. It would be great of the Tribune company could put seasons of 'At The Movies' on DVD. Oh well. The memories of early S&E television incarnations will live on.
It is unfortunate that other attempts to copy the formula pioneered by yourself, Mr. Siskel, and Thea Flaum pioneered have tuned out to be such a disgrace. Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips have come the closest to capturing that magic. I have not given up hope they will return to the airwaves sometime in the near future.
Great read, thanks for sharing some of your memories with us once again.
Off-topic, Roger, but how do you feel about movies being digitally altered from their theatrical or later home video releases? Your response brought to mind a scene in Backdraft in which Ron Howard (in his ever-present baseball cap) and crew could be seen reflected in the storm door glass of the house on Merrimac (a block or two down the street from Hef's alma mater, Steinmetz High School) where Kurt Russell's character's estranged wife and son lived. In the DVD I have, the reflection is gone -- I believe they CGIed in a screen, rather than the actual glass -- whereas I specifically remember it from the VHS release.
What an extraordinary interaction with Howard Stern. And you STILL gave "Private Parts" a thumbs up.
So here's my question: You discussed Stern's act, but was the entire scenario all part of the ruse? If so, you deserve an Oscar for the look on your face during some of those questions. Still, Gene was right: If you were anything less than a flaming liberal, you'd have stormed out. As you noted in your review of Talk Radio, "What good is freedom of speech if you have a fear to offend?" You demonstrated that mentality with ease, despite Stern's abrasive behavior (which you surely must have known you were in for). That was an exceptionally well-played session, and I actually think you and Gene emerged unscathed by simply going along with it all.
Ebert: Unscripted and unrehearsed. I've always admired Stern; he's the smartest man on radio, and there is a subterranean level to his material that has, if you look for it, a bed-rock morality. Sometimes you have to look very hard.
Roger, I've been thinking of you and Gene right now. It is so hard to believe that 10 years of Gene in heaven have passed by so fast. Last year, my ill father died on February 3rd and on February 20, 2006 (a bad day for you and me), I saw him fall down and he went downhill afterwards.
I do remember the day that Gene died. I was sick in bed recovering from the flu. I never knew that Gene was so ill at such a young age. My mother had a benign brain tumor a decade before Gene had his, and I fully thought that he would be just like her. No. I thank God that my mother is still here right now, and I was crying that very day.
Roger, I still wish you good health and cheer as always and I shall send more sincere well wishes to you, Chaz, Marlene and her children, Chaz's family, and Richard Roeper. You and Gene are the real dream team of movie critics and websites like yours and YouTube are holding you guys holy. No "imitator" could ever come close to you. Right now, guys like Jeffrey and Ben Lyons are just of no help, and you know that. They are only smudging the work of you and Gene, don't you think so? To see them picking Oscars at Disneyworld would be unbelievable.
Back in 1999, I had no internet, so I couldn't blog my condolences to you, Chaz, Marlene, and their families. 10 years later, technology has been far advanced and your website has gotten bigger and better. And now, having fans blog messages on your own website is a great help. I use it to write about all my fondest memories of you and Gene when I was a teenager and young adult. Now I am 40 and I still have those precious memories. Watching you two always makes me feel young again.
I love you very much. Keep hanging in, Rog. We do need you.
With love from a fan,
Jill
Movies, like paintings, are arguably an art form. It's a very subjective topic that you guys exploited well. While I may or may not agree with you on some movies, your opinions were always very well backed up.
-Matt
Gene . . . thanks for the memories . . .
Thanks for the heartfelt comments. I remember thinking that the occasional friction between the two of you only reinforced the warmth and connection between you. You two guys were always fun to watch, and the comments about the movies actually was secondary to just seeing you interact with each other.
What I remember most is how much damn fun your shows have always been, but particular the formative,commercial free, PBS years. Been watching some old Jack Benny shows on my local affiliate. They gotta have the old Sneak Previews in a vault somewhere.
Always wondered whether you guys ever waxed philosophic. Found the Cambridge moment you shared quite interesting. Couldn't help but wonder when pondering the nearly quarter million words recently expended on it, if you two ever discussed the nutcase creationists.
Finally a word about the Oscars show. I don't think I've missed a single one for the last 50 years. And I won't miss this one. For all its perennial shortcomings, there are always moments I look forward to. Jerry Lewis is one this year. Richard Jenkins is another. Just saw "The Visitor." Always admired the Academy's ability to nominate lesser known actors for exceptional performances in lesser known films, especially in the Best Actor/Actress category. This year's nomination of Mr.Jenkins is a good example. Can only imagine what the nomination itself must mean to that gentleman.
Looking forward to your take on this year's show. And always the best to you and yours.
Roger,
Wikipedia informs me that the producers of the 1999 academy awards ceremony refused to include Gene in the memorium montage for deceased stars and contributors. For god's sake, why?!
Ebert: You have to be in the Academy. It's a list of deceased Academy members.
I enjoyed reading about Gene's personal side. The way he lived and acted. You've given us a very small glimpse, but each glimpse feels powerful and true. I myself, don't remember Gene clearly from the TV show, but I do remember how evenly matched you were. It was very sharp and not for the faint-hearted movie fan. I love to see people confidently expressing a point they believe in...as long as that point is backed up with some kind of logic. Since you both fell into that category, I was often in the unfortunate position of agreeing with both of you, even when you diverged.
I also remember a real expertise. Of course, back then you took it for granted that journalists and critics knew what they were talking about. If you paid close attention you could have learned a thing or two about a thing or two. Now-a-days you get the confident talk, but not as much logic or expertise.
I'm just remembering your commentary tracks for Floating Weeds and Citizen Kane. They are two of my favourites along with Michael Jeck's Seven Samurai. It would have been wonderful to listen to the two of you doing a commentary together. I wonder which movie you would have picked? I wonder which movie Gene would have picked on his own? Any thoughts on that Roger?
Roger, thank you. Just, thank you.
-Ralphie
Ebert: Ralphie, did you ever shoot your eye out?
I've been only once to the Tadich Grill, but yeah, I sat at the counter. Ordered grilled fish, i believe sole with their crusty sourdough bread, and some fast, wedges of steak fries. Great old school joint and been there for years. Alas, I don't know anything about Chicago save for the fact that Lem's BBQ serves up some mean ribs, and Hot Doug's serves some gourmet Chicago dogs to rival even the Vienna Beef outfit, and Lou Manati's serves up some good deep dish stuffed crust.
In SF, the Swan Oyster Depot, which is only counter seating is a sight to behold. Yes, it's touristy. But how can you beat Crab Louise, freshly shucked local oysters, and clam chowder along with more of that infamously famous SF sourdough bread, local anchor steam on tap, and freshly grated horseradish sauce and mignonette to top of the oyster.
"He said it wasn't necessary to think too much about an afterlife. What was important was this life, how we live it, what we contribute, our families, and the memories we leave." Siskel
I agree. The question of aterlife as a purely intellectual level is valueless as well as unanswerable. However the stance one holds about the nature of life and death is of utmost importance since it determines the gravity and seriousness of ones life here and now.To quote President Ikeda once again:
"The French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-62) decried people's tendency to avoid thinking of their own mortality: "This negligence in a matter where they themselves, their eternity, their all are at stake, fills me more with irritation than pity; it astounds and appalls me." (2) His dismay at people's irrational indifference toward death drove him to use such strong words.
What is death? What becomes of us after we die? Failing to pursue these questions is like spending our student years without ever considering what to do after graduating. Without coming to terms with death, we cannot establish a strong direction in life. Pursuing this issue brings real stability and depth to our lives.
Many views of life and death have been articulated over the ages by religious leaders, philosophers and scientists. Without going into a detailed discussion, I think it's fair to say that human knowledge has not advanced sufficiently to either definitively affirm or deny the possibility of life after death. Science takes as its object of investigation phenomena discerned with the five senses; what happens after death is beyond its purview. Its basic stance disqualifies it from speaking on the matter one way or the other.
No view of the nature of existence can offer direct proof of what happens after death. It seems, therefore, that rather than trying to compare the relative merits of different views, it is far more fruitful to ask how a particular view influences people's lives in the present- whether it makes them strong or weak, happy or miserable.
Buddhism teaches that life is eternal. It encourages us to use this existence to thoroughly polish the eternal entity of our lives. Eternal happiness, it explains, lies precisely in making such efforts.
With the view that life continues eternally over past, present and future, accomplishing human revolution becomes the ultimate purpose. When we polish and revolutionize our lives, then life is joyful --- and death is joyful, too. We will also experience happiness in our future lives. What else can we call eternal?"
Gene Siskel was an expert needler, often at Mr. Ebert's expense. My favorite all-time moment from the TV series was during the early 1980s. The critics disagreed about a movie, although Mr. Ebert was captivated by the performance of actress Kathryn Harrold.
Mr. Siskel was not impressed. His response was something like this: "If you like her so much, Roger, why don't you call her up and ask her for a date?"
Ebert: Gene later forged a letter to me, saying, "I know he was kidding, but seriously--let's have coffee sometime. Affectionately, Kathryn.
Roger,
Though I thoroughly enjoyed this post (as usual), I'm actually writing because I was trying to access your previous entry "Well Here's What I Think" concerning The Reader. Everytime I click on the link which says it will allow me to continue reading that entry it sends me here...perhaps it is a problem with the link? I'd love to read the entry so if someone could check into that at some point I'd really appreciate it! Thanks so much! Keep writing :)
Ebert: The software was undated Friday and is sometimes acting up. Then it fixes itself. Aie, aie, aie.
There's so much to say about Gene:
A critic of bigotry and racist portrayals in movies, Siskel took a stand several years ago when Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan appeared on the Arsenio Hall talk show. Upset that Farrakhan appeared and feeling that the interview failed to press him on his anti-Semitic record, Siskel and Ebert decided not to appear on the show and wrote a column explaining their reasons in the Chicago Tribune. Siskel also produced a video chronicling Jewish stereotypes and anti-Semitism in Hollywood. His rabbi, Vernon Kurtz of Beth El, recalled Siskel and his wife told her that the two most important values in life were family and Judaism. "Judaism has taught me right from wrong," he told his daughter.
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/990226/siskel.shtml
Religion should teach you right from wrong... and to respect the knowledge gained through science.
You know that survey that James Lipton always gives the guests on "Inside that Actor's Studio"? If you've seen the show, you've probably taken the survey yourself even if it was only in your mind.
When I get to the last question, "If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you get to the pearly gates?", my answer is that the scene looks like the closing moment of "Casablanca" with me and God walking off into the Heavenly clouds. God puts his arm around me and says "Let's go catch a movie".
I would like to think that's how it was for Gene. I imagine God and Gene watching "Saturday Night Fever" and discussing it at length.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, like a lot of others have said, that brought back a lot of lovely memories.
Those David Lettermen interviews were hilarious then and they still are. I was totally cracking up!!! :-) I think another great book idea would be the "Best of Siskel & Ebert: Comebacks."
Thank you for such a moving tribute to Gene. Thanks for the memories.
I remember the PBS years, the "At the Movies" years with great fondness. I became a movie buff watching your show and I came to learn what is junk; what separates a good movie from a great movie. When videos came out I would look for the "Two Thumbs Up" review on the jacket.
It is clear from the comments on this blog, on this post and every post, that I am far from alone in this, but Roger, I hope you do not tire of hearing: you and Gene taught me to appreciate movies. We were a Tribune household, so it was Gene's print reviews I read, but starting around age 10, I never, ever missed Sneak Previews and its successors. (One of Chicago's great unappreciated attractions is its Museum of Broadcasting. One of the museum's great attractions is its fine archive of S&E broadcasts.)
At the time, I loved the Dog of the Week -- no, not the cute puppy, but watching the glee with which you'd unload on some future pile of ukulele picks. (Oddly, the main one I remember is a Richard Pryor obscurity called "Adios Amigo." One of you -- I think it was Gene -- acknowledged going to see it to fill his Dog quota, and being startled to discover that even in this Z movie someone had rushed into distribution to capitalize on Pryor's name, Pryor was so funny that it didn't really qualify.)
The DotW may have brought me into the tent, but I was quickly mesmerized by the passion and insight you brought to every show.
Thank you for such a detailed view of Gene's personal side. I, too, miss him like no one I've never met. One thing I've always wondered: at what point did rivalry and wariness morph into friendship and love? I recall someone reporting it was your support of Gene when the Trib kicked him upstairs and limited him to a "flicks picks" column instead of full reviews; true?
This comment is too long already, but I can't let the mention of Gene's Tom Snyder Oscar-night appearance go by. I remember that show vividly -- one of the funniest late-night shows I've ever seen. It was one of the years Tom Hanks won. They interviewed Hanks live over a remote hookup, then switched back to the studio, where Gene launched into a long and passionate explanation of why Hanks is so good. "He disappears completely into a role. You never, ever see him reach for an effect. He just becomes the character."
(Beat) Bonnie Hunt: "And he's a jaguar in the sack."
I thought Snyder was going to dissolve into a small puddle.
Roger, I never for a moment believed that there was any animosity between you and Gene, in spite of the rumors fueled by Inside Edition, Hollywood Today and their ilk. I didn't even consider your repartee to be serious one-upsmanship. I figured it was just endless intellectual dissection and analysis as we routinely do in science and academia, as there is always something more that can be rejoined to any remark. Your give and take was just part of the process in the asymptotic convergence towards the truth by two intellectuals. Your reminiscences in this memoir suggest that perhaps you both wanted to get to that truth first (and so there was vigorous competition), but never to hold the other back. I think Gene would have been pleased at how you have carried on since his passing and in the face of your own tribulations. I think he would have been very moved by this memoir. I have always been proud of how well you both reflected upon my native city and state. The very best in at least one major endeavor of the mass media did not have to originate in New York City or the West Coast.
Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for these wonderful memories of Gene. This article is for everyone who wants to learn about a timeless/famous friendship. The relationship may have had it's fair share of ups and downs, but it was a real professional relationship that many people like me wish we had. There probably couldn't have been, or will ever be a more realistic, deep, and truthful partnership quite like this one.
I have never read a piece/article better than this.
We miss you Gene.
I always thought the greatest and most satisfying contrast between you and Mr. Siskel on television was in terms of verbiage. You see it in that Howard Stern clip. You, Mr. Ebert, have always been very adept at extended and detailed ruminations on the subject of film. It's why I find your Great Movie reviews and DVD commentary tracks to be some of the most consistently high-quality essays on film out there.
But Mr. Siskel's gift was in being able to condense his opinions into some incredibly pointed statements, ones that were sometimes more incisive than his opponents in debate had time to process.
In that Stern clip, you seem to be playing the role of spokesman for yourself and Mr. Siskel, speaking up first and more forcefully whenever the two of you are addressed as a pair. And you certainly earned that jab about the phony and the real Howard Stern being the same character.
But it's Mr. Siskel who offers maybe the best, most concise observation about Howard Stern that I've heard when he says, "You smiled every time you said the word 'taboo.'" It's just a wonderfully observent rip on Stern that nobody in that moment seemed to recognize as an assessment of the cynical nature of Stern's character (at least the one he presents on the surface during his radio program). While you were trying to use an extended argument to point out Stern's nasty habit of bating what he perceived to be his guests' worst motivations, Mr. Siskel clearly sat there and observe Stern's behavior so he could deliver that perfectly cutting remark. It's the kind of put-down that's made for TV.
It's that contrast that I've always used to try to explain why I more often agreed with you after I read your opinion in print while I usually agreed with Mr. Siskel's opinion on television.
And I couldn't help but feel shocked when I read that it's been 10 years since Mr. Siskel passed away. It certainly doesn't feel as though he's been gone that long.
By Titania Quin on February 21, 2009 4:34 AM
Two words for Roger: "DEAN SPANLEY". :_-)
Ebert: The 2008 Peter O'Toole film, or what?
Titania: yes, the 2008 Peter O'Toole film. Sorry, I did not intend to sound too obscure - the comment was meant for your "Blackie come home" post (the website or my browser were not working properly when I uploaded it). I found the movie very moving and (spoiler warning!) your story about your childhood dog brought it back. It has recently been released in DVD in the UK -have you heard of a USA release?
From Edinburgh, getting addicted to your Journal -as well as to your reviews.
I spoke to you and Gene twice when I wrote for my college newspaper in Orlando. I remember Gene giving me one of the best compliments I ever got, and I was a college student! Both of you were great interviews and I found myself not wanting to stick to script and ask the questions I wrote down. Rather, I just wanted to talk about a mutual love we all three shared: the movies. Gene was an inspiration for me as well as yourself. You both have made me appreciate the medium of movies more than I ever have and for that I am forever grateful. I believe that we are meant to meet certain people along our paths and experience a richness only they can offer. It helps to make us better. Thank you, Roger, and, where ever he may be, thank you Gene...
The one thing I remember about Gene's reviews is how he frequently wanted the movie he was discussing to be about something else, such as a minor character or plotline he found more interesting. "I would've liked the movie more if it had been about such and such," I remember him saying on many occassions. I always smiled when he said this.
I have good memories of watching your early PBS show with my mom. I especially looked forward to seeing the clips, and remember breathing a sigf of relief when the two of you liked Return of the Jedi.
I miss the naiveté of those times. You can watch huge chunks of a movie on Yahoo before ever going to a theater and read hundreds of reviews by cynical Internet geeks weeks before release. It's diminished the wonder of going to the movies. I also believe many critics today seem more interested in elevating themselves above the material they're discussing.
Thursday, I saw "The Reader" without ever having even seen a trailer for it. I took off work early in the middle of the week and caught an afternoon show by myself. It was a cathartic experience. I know this has nothing to do with Gene...
I remember discovering SNEAK PREVIEW on my local PBS affiliate in 1979(I was 13). I was so impressed that Gene Siskel had picked the underrated TIME AFTER TIME, a film my father and I loved, as one of his top 10 for the year. I remember that Ebert also admired it, though he didn't rate the film as highly as Siskel did. From that day forward, I always sought out the opinions of these two guys, especially on weekends when a particular favorite was released.
Both of these gentlemen gave me a greater appreciation for the cinema, and for that I'll always be grateful.
Roger:
As they say, long-time reader, first-time poster.
Thanks so much for the wonderful remembrance of Gene Siskel, and for posting the "Remembering Gene" clips. I recall seeing that tribute on television and being especially fascinated by the excerpts from the early days of your show together. I believe you've said that the tapes of many of those old PBS shows are long gone. That's too bad; I started watching in 1981 and would love to have seen anything going back to 1975.
My Gene story: I never met him, but...
During the mid-1980's my sister had occasion to travel to Chicago and, while she was there, took a tour of the Chicago Tribune. When she got back from her trip, she told me that during the tour, Gene Siskel had appeared and said a few words to the visitors. My sister offered the comment that "my brother is a big fan of the show."
"You mean he LIKES a movie critic?" was Gene's response.
Indeed I did, and still do like both of you, because in your enthusiasm for the movies, I saw reflected my own growing love of the medium.
Then came the piece de resistance. My sister handed me a newspaper page. It was a movie review written by Gene, for a movie he didn't even like, but it hardly mattered what movie it was for, because hand-inscribed at the top, it said, "Best Wishes, Gene Siskel."
I still have it, but with my later marriage and move out of the house, it was relegated to a box of newspaper clippings that is now in my attic. Reading your article has reminded me of it and made me want to find it again.
Because of the dialogue on Siskel and Ebert television programs, not only did my love of movies increase, but the way I went to movies changed. Before I met my wife, I would attend films with my family, and afterward we'd have long Siskel-and-Ebert-like discussions about what we'd just seen. Sometimes we'd disagree, a lot of times we were on the same page, but there's no question about WHY we discussed the films that way. It was a direct offshoot of your dialogues with Gene.
Things are different now. My mother had a stroke four years ago and is homebound. We don't go to movies as a family anymore. I have a wife and family of my own, and a lot of my film viewing is now on DVD. But the education I got from the two of you still accompanies me every time I sit down to watch another one. Today I read your reviews and blogs, and I use your Great Movies list as a scorecard of sorts. (I'm 44, and admit that I have still only seen about 90 of the movies on that list).
I'll never run out of new frontiers in cinema to explore, and a lot of that is due to you...and Gene of course.
Thanks to both of you for that gift, and all the best.
What a beautiful post! Thank you SO much for sharing. Others have commented so beautifully that I don't feel like I can add anything unique to what has already been said.
Appearing on television creates that weird affect of people feeling like they know you without ever having met you. When those people leave us, it's like losing a friend. The three "television" passings I will always mourn are Jim Henson, Gene Siskel and Peter Jennings. The world just isn't the same without them. I hope their families and friends know that we television viewers are out here wishing them well as they cope with their loss.
Wishing you the best too, Mr. Ebert. Thank you for this wonderful blog.
These are some of the most intelligent and high-minded comments I've ever read. Fitting because they're from fans of one of our country's best writers. I'm a lifelong fan of you, Mr. Ebert, and it's unfortunate that I've not enjoyed movies as much in the last 10 years. However, I do apply what I've learned from you and Mr. Siskel to my everyday life. One person wrote in to say you and Gene were like his/her uncles, and I feel exactly the same. I watched you argue, agree, defend each other, and laugh. Even as a musician, I strive to make my music enjoyable, informative, intellectual, and spiritual. These are values I learned from your writing and from your show with Gene. Like I said, I haven't enjoyed going to the movies the way I used to. I'm overly critical. Seeing the clips, reading the tribute, and reading the comments from these great fans makes me realize how much I miss Gene Siskel. The tremendous legacy this man left is in your friendship and in the touching comments from your readers. Thanks to both of you for positively influencing my life.
On your last appearance on Howard Stern's Radio Show before he went to Sirius, you told a story that had a dirty word in it and it was bleeped out. We never got to hear the punchline of the story and Howard told Gary to remind him to have you tell the story next time you came in.
When you finally went on the new show they forgot to ask you to tell the story again! But it didn't matter, Jon Stewart joined you on the show that day and it was a hilarious segment.
Those are the kinds of memories I have about you on the Howard Stern Show and it saddens me that you may never be able to go on his show again and rag on Jon Stewart again.
From Marksfriggin.com:
"Roger Ebert Visits. 02/23/06. 8:30am
Howard had the guys bring in Roger Ebert while Jon was still there. He figured since he's into the movies and Jon is hosting the Oscars, he'd have him in. Roger made some comments about the movies that Jon has appeared in and how bad they were.
Howard asked Roger if Jon is taking a risk by doing the awards show. Roger basically said he's got nothing to lose because he's not as famous as someone like Chris Rock.
The guys spent a few more minutes talking about Jon's acting ability or lack thereof. Roger seems to think that Jon is great at what he does on The Daily Show because he's so natural doing that. He's not that great when it comes to acting though."
Great stuff. Finally, here's a part of that interview that just about sums it up perfectly.
"Roger said that he and Gene were never better than when they were ganging up on someone else. Howard said that Roger and Gene were great together because they were so honest."
Thanks for the great radio memories!
You and Gene Part One:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmnYCSwt2Js
Part Two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUMZjy8rXE4
Holy crap. You seriously did this all time? Haha. I think he owned you on that one.
You comments make me laugh and cry at the same time. I've watched every one of your shows (except for 5) until Richard signed off the air this year. I realize the 10th anniversary of Gene's death as a close friend died of a brain tumor just weeks before Gene. And, as my cancer has returned on my 10th year anniversary, I find myself being equally reflective of my friends and enemies. I think often now of my own death and the odd thing I think on is what movies I would miss should I die. Thank you for your column, your strength, insights, reviews and memories.
I can't believe howard said those things, and that woman robin was laughing alongside him the way she did. He is not funny, except in the most ironic way. I saw Private Parts, but haven't heard much of the man's show. Thank goodness because had I in the past, who knows what kind of trash my head could be filled with by now. What a travesty of a human being. I feel sorry for him.
It must have been shocking for the two of you to be on television in that situation. Of those times when I double take and think, "I cant believe what I'm hearing." It occurs to me that his is a comedy that will only age with time and be forgotten, but that the criticism of you and Gene is the kind that will last and continue to influence writers, critics, the film audience, and film-makers for years on down the line.
I was only 10 when Gene died but I remember being upset. Gene Siskel was one of the first people that I watched regularly on television whose death had an impact on me. I really enjoyed the show, and continued to enjoy for some time until you had to leave for your own health reasons.
Roger, I dig you blog and your reviews, and I enjoy that we see eye to eye on most of the movies we're both seen, though we've never met and probably never will.
Dear Roger,
I consider the series you and Gene did together to be among the best of my lifetime. I was born in 1971, and it seems I had been watching you both, starting with you two on PBS ["Sneak Previews"], for as long as I have viewed television … up until Gene's death, of course, in 1999.
Thank you, Roger, and the "Sun-Times" — and for the reminder of these memories — for this wonderful tribute to Gene on the 10-year anniversary of his passing.
Sincerely, Dave
I was pretty young when Gene died (only 15), but throughout my childhood I remember the joy that watching At the Movies brought me. It wasn't just that I watched the show because an older family member did, or that it was the popular thing to do for kids my age (believe me, it wasn't). It was the seemless blending of two TV hosts with a biting wit, critque, and of course, the films themselves. Something innate inside me has always appealed to sarcasm, skeptiscm and intelligence; things which Gene Siskel seemed (to me atleast) to have in spades.
It was hard for me to track the show consistently as a child and I frequently missed episodes. However, the times that I was so lucky to catch the week's show were truly wonderful. Since Buena Vista posted all of their reviews online, I have literally sat and watched every single segment of the show up until 1999. Eventhough all of those movies are over 10 years old, I am still intensely drawn to any review by Gene Siskel. He was an articulate, funny genius and I sorely miss his commentary as an adult. Looking back, I know in my heart that he was one of my role models.
I will admit that I have always preferred Gene to Roger, but since Gene's death, Roger has continued his legacy with great stewardship. I have an incredible amount of reverence and respect for both of them and I wish Roger the best of luck while dealing with illness.
Thank you again for writing this article Roger. After reading it I felt that I was obliged to write this comment and share my memories of Gene Siskel and the joy he has brought me.
Some of the most fun in watching and reading film reviews is when the films are truly wretched and the critic is given the opportunity to lambast it. The thing that Gene impressed on me more than anything else, however, was his GLOWING reviews. When he was reviewing a film that met his high standards of quality, you felt as if he was channelling from some great muse. He would becme so reverent in tone that you would think that he had had some great epiphany, and that he was basking in the glow of some penetrating light that was so deep in it's illuminative power that the experience of watching the film was truly transcendant. His whole demeanor would change as he spoke with utter respect and gratitude about some film he saw that shone like a beacon in a vast sea of mediocrity.
It is this deep reverence for what the experience of a truly great film can be, a demand for excellence, and a distain for half-hearted mediocrity that will stand out for me as the hallmark of what Gene stood for.
You are truly one of the great writers and critics in the history of cinema, Roger. You were made all the more great by having the honor and the privilege sitting next to Gene Siskel for all those years.
Ten years ago my husband called me at work. He prefaced his comments with, "I have bad news." He was calling to tell me about Gene Siskel's death. I hope that At The Movies and Sneak Previews and every reinvention thereafter will become available on DVD, because it will be a legacy to Roger and Gene and a gift to fans like me.
Little did I know while flipping channels on a black and white 15 inch Magnavox TV on a boring Thursday night in 1978 would I stop upon and develop a lasting kinship with two unlikely movie connoisseurs who have profoundly influenced...and enriched my life.
Has it really been 10 years since a former master control operator for the ABC affiliate in Huntsville, Alabama (that would be me) had the sad task of loading up/playing the feed tape of the Siskel and Ebert episode that served as an amazing eulogy/tribute to Gene? I remember being so moved by those 22 minutes, that I stayed after quitting time to dub a VHS copy for myself, and proceeded to watch it at least three more times in the days that followed.
As an on-line broadcaster who shares his love of film and home video nowadays, rarely does a week go by when I don't think of you or Gene while writing copy or doing pre-production...and I'd like to think that in some small way I'm carrying on the tradition of sharing wonder when a movie like "Return Of The Jedi" reduced Gene to childlike emotions he couldn't help but convey...or on the flip side of the coin, not holding anything back when a film robs me of precious time (or as Gene used to so hilariously state, "took two hours of my life that I'll never get back").
Roger, thanks doesn't even begin to say it...and I would be alternately honored and humbled if you and all my fellow Ebert readers would stop by my on-line movie podcast (www.thedvdmarquee.com) which you've influenced more than you'll ever know.
Finally, if by chance the Siskel family is reading these comments, bless your hearts for sharing your husband and father with us.
He was a gem.
I refused to see any movie unless I had seen your PBS show. I did not read your reviews but had to see the intensity of either you or Gene to get me excited enough to spend good money to see a good movie.
After watching your show for years, I finally met Gene at the Arlington Park racetrack. I had been invited to the private suite of Phil Georgieff, the track's announcer. Gene was there thumbing through the program waiting for the races to start. I pretended I did not know who he was. We eventualy struck up a conversation about the horses on the card that day and compared notes as to possible winners. I had won two really nice ones and Gene had the winner in a really nice pay off. He began to follow my bets as he was convinced I was pretty good. Then it happened. To goad him a little I slipped in something about, "What was that movie about the shipwrecked horse and the little boy who goes on to win a horse race?" Gene immediately replied, "The Black Stallion". I said, "No,you are thinking of 'Black Beauty" with Audry Hepburn." He sort of chuckled and said, "You mean Liz Taylor" and I said, "Wow, you need to get out more and see some movies I think".
Phil Georgiff turned around and said teasingly, "You know he's right, Gene, stick to the ponies you know about and don't bet so much." Phil knew I was kidding, I knew Phil was kidding, but Gene just looked at us like dunces.
From that day on, when I ran into Gene at the track, he would look at me and just shake his head. He never did reveal his passion and I always admired that.
I fondly remember an SCTV skit (was it Joe Flaherty and John Candy?), about Gene and yourself. It's been a long time, but I recall it ending with the two of you rolling around in fisticuffs on a Men's Room floor arguing about Babette's Feast...
To this day I cannot think about that without breaking into a grin...
Thanks for sharing the memories.
Arch
Chicago, IL
I fondly remember an SCTV skit (was it Joe Flaherty and John Candy?), about Gene and yourself. It's been a long time, but I recall it ending with the two of you rolling around in fisticuffs on a Men's Room floor arguing about Babette's Feast...
To this day I cannot think about that without breaking into a grin...
Thanks for sharing the memories.
Arch
Chicago, IL