The plague of movie trivia

You wrote: "The reason "Jeopardy" is one of the longest-running shows on TV is that anybody but a dunderhead can sit at home, observe the letters as they fill in the blanks, and usually provide the answer more quickly than the contestants can."

Not to be a show off, but are you sure you didn't mean to say "Wheel of Fortune"? "Jeopardy!" remains the flagship of quiz shows.

Ebert: See, even if you know something you have to look it up.

That's a nice picture of Charlie Sheen in Hot Shots Deux. Or Threeux.

I know you meant Wheel of Fortune there, but Jeopardy often uses puns and leading answers that make the questions easy to come up with. Sometimes they're tough, but often they reward someone clever enough to put the puzzle together more than someone with a lot of facts in their head (though it sure helps).

Trivia can be interesting, and knowing a large volume of it can make you interesting to hang around, but you're right: it's how facts connect together, not the facts themselves. Otherwise it's just so much effluvium.

I was expecting you to go back to the root of the word trivia when reading this entry. Too easy a target?

Ebert: Fixed.

The one line that stuck with me from "A Beautiful Mind" is J.F. Nash's bitter complaint that he had to share the cover of Fortune with "these hacks...these scholars of trivia!"

Dear Mr. Ebert,

While on the subject of trivia, I have a genuine question for you? Why does it seem that Stanley Kubrick never stuck to one genre? He's made comedies (Dr. Strangelove),experimental (Clockwork Orange),horror(The Shining), and even space opera (2001). Was this because he just wanted to make really good movies despite their genre, or was this a personal goal of his to make a movie in each genre?

I cry fowl that Lloyd is somehow lesser to Keaton and Chaplin.

Roger, you make a very convincing argument about movie trivia. Yet I never looked at trivia in that sense. Rather than a test of information I find it a fun activity of trying to go back in our memories to specific films out of many that we've seen. When you ask someone a trivia question it helps you see how many films that person has seen, how accurate their memory is, and how passionate they are about film in general.

Your approach of asking those five questions first are thoughtful yet also in a way unfair. Only film critics or other people really interested in films can answer those questions correctly. And I don't think people need to establish themselves as "cineastes" before asking you a trivia question. Like I said, trivia is for fun and can be used as a means of observation between many people.

is knowledge then intelligence? einstein disagrees, he says true intelligence is not knowledge, but creativity.

Sadly, I doubt many people could name Buster Keaton, either.

And sadly, I missed the New Wave question (for some reason I thought Melville was among them...but the fact that I know Melville still makes me something of a cineaste, right?).

Ebert: Indeed. But he started some years before the New Wave.

I think you're selling parenthetical dates short. They are, above all, an important safety procedure. If I wrote "I really liked 'The Lady Vanishes' (1938)," people would say "Yeah, that was a great movie!" But if I wrote "I really liked 'The Lady Vanishes'" someone might think I meant "I really liked 'The Lady Vanishes' (1979)," and travel to my house and beat me up.

"The reason a quiz show based on movie trivia has never been successful is that no viewer can be expected to know any of the answers. If they do, the answers are too easy."
I think the game Scene It? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scene_It%3F) has been fairly popular (although only the original version really rings true to the idea of movie trivia - the other versions are just gift gimmicks for the holiday season). I've only played it once, though, and my experience was that most of the questions were from recent movies or ones considered to be widely seen.
You know, now I want to bump up "Some Like it Hot" in my Netflix cue so my husband can see it too.

It is such a relief to finally have a well-thought out reasoning for something that can really trouble one (i.e. me). "The fatal flaw in the concept of trivia is that it mistakes information for knowledge. There is no end to information." This is something that I will try and remind myself as I go through life, especially college, because it is so easy to get caught up in the error of thinking that one is only worth what they know. The best part is that it seems to be so elementary and familiar. (Phew)

Sometimes the distinction between Information and Knowledge matters little...for example...what is the name of a certain Korean film I randomly picked out from a Blockbuster shelf when i was 15 years old and hungry for everything...a movie about a Monk and a boy and a lake?

The answer: Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring.

That small bit of Information was sitting pretty on your website when I loaded it up today. That small bit of Information has managed to plaster a giant smile on my face. I hadn't seen that movie in about 10 years and I couldn't for the life of me recall the title...Now, thanks to your Knowledge of that small bit of Information I can get my hands on the film again and for that I am infinitely thankful.

"The reason "Wheel of Fortune" is one of the longest-running shows on TV is that anybody but a dunderhead can sit at home, observe the letters as they fill in the blanks, and usually provide the answer more quickly than the contestants can."

As soon as I look up dunderhead, I will know what to feel like next time I watch "Wheel of Fortune."

"Some say the entire universe is made from it, when you get right down to the bottom, under the turtles."

Don't be silly, it's turtles all the way down! (somehow I feel like I've said that already on this very blog)

Ebert: Here's a bit of trivia: You did.

Knowledge is a summation of facts that leads to a conclusion. Trivia is an fact, in and of itself, which is unattached to a conclusion.

Reading this I was reminded of the numerous high-IQ kids that can name every capital city in the world. How exactly does that show intelligence? The funny thing is that every parent of a high-IQ child does the same thing. I'm telling you, there must be a book. "The way to prove your kid is a genius". It would probably be quite short.

Why would someone who meets Roger Ebert want to ask a trivia question? Why not ask "Has there ever been a time when you started writing a review and at some point you decided you changed your mind about the film and started all over again?".

I have a couple of trivia questions for you, see if you can answer them:

1. Who was the first person to win a Pulitzer for film criticism?

2. What famous film critic said his all-time favorite film was "Saturday Night Fever" and once owned the white suit that John Travolta wore in the movie?

3. What famous film critic was born on the exact same day as musician Paul McCartney?

Don't worry about answering, you'll probably be stumped on all of these. Just Google the answers...

Ebert: Wasn't the suit mine?

Sorry, cannot resist, and this of all days I am guiltfree on non-resistance: what do FRANKENSTEIN, CRUMB, and the as yet unmade THE LIFE AND TIMES OF GARY IN PHOENIX have in common? Hint: no answer is acceptable after midnight, Mountain Standard Time.

:o)

GiP

What question did they bother you with today?

Before he retired from radio, the Gary Burbank show on WLW would sometimes play Sports or Consequences. Questions came from callers and answers from whoever he had available in the studio to help answer questions. It was goofy and fun. They would put parameters on things like no baseball questions before 1927. Very often a question would be deemed minutiae and a sound effect followed blowing it up.

One of my favorites...a caller would say "Can you answer whatever it was" and Gary would say "Yes" and the caller was cut off to great hilarity with a chorus of " We don't, we don't, we don't mess around."

I always get excoriated by my girlfriend for not knowing, then forgetting when I'm told, the identity of the Korean Godard, it's all relative!
Jim

"As soon as I look up dunderhead, I will know what to feel like next time I watch "Wheel of Fortune."

I wasn't surprised by the definition, but never mind; I'm still trying to figure out what the hell those categories mean on that show. But why would I want to "clutter my memory with useless facts" trying to figure out the rules of game shows, especially "Deal or No Deal?" I guess the real million dollar question is why is knowledge of the movies important over information?

The answer: to transcend both of them in unity.

Now you know whoever asked you a trivia question most recently is going to feel really bad about themselves.

I'm quite the trivia moogle wherever I go(most of my friends know me as WIKI) but you're definately right that breadth of information is nowwhere near the same thing as breadth of knowledge, and especcially not breadth of wisdom. Whenever somebody is impressed with whateverrandom fact they ask me for and ask me where I get it all, they are all surprised by the lame answer of: "I read books." I love the webernet and all, but it's the biggest offender in replacing the factual with the factoid and the factlet.

You think you have it bad. Try being an historian. For us, the trivia questions are boundless.

I cry fowl that Lloyd is somehow lesser to Keaton and Chaplin.

I don't believe that the implication was that Lloyd was "somehow lesser to Keaton and Chaplin", merely lesser known.

I would argue that trivia is of use to those who can not discuss films by their actual value and instead turn to superficial elements to give themselves the appearance of knowledge and insight. Is all trivia useless? Probably not. It depends on your definition of trivia.

Is it trivia to know that the role of Sam in Casablanca was almost a woman? Perhaps, but it can also lead to an interesting discussion of the role of women in cinema in the 1940s. I think that trivia can be interesting if it is trivia worth knowing.

That being said, I wish that more stars, directors and screenwriters would give interviews about their works as literary pieces rather than as movies. I get tired of hearing "what it was like to work with someone" on talk shows.

I'm fairly sturdy with info that could be called "movie trivia," though I don't sit around talking about it, and I don't know anyone else who really does.

My actual strength, for some Godforsaken reason, is running times. Starting when I was a kid, I built this mental catalog of how long all the movies were. I used to pace around the local video store and look at the back of the boxes. To this day, I'm still interested how long all the new movies are.

I've always acknowledged that this is useless information and has no application to life in the real world. On the other hand, it did somehow teach me something about movie structure -- that comedies are best at 95 minutes, that war movies are free to be longer than two hours, dramas can be long, and so on. I learned early on that all genres have their mandates, and length is often one of them. If the filmmaker breaks a "rule" and gives us a 140-minute comedy, he has probably made a movie that could be improved through trimming. A 90-minute historical drama is sure to feel rushed and underdeveloped. Many movies are kept short -- or cut shorter -- so that movie theaters can pack more showtimes in a day and sell more popcorn.

Other boys memorized sports stats; I memorized movie trivia, including running times. I don't get their interest and they wouldn't have gotten mine, but we each learned more about what we loved: sports and movies. Fine, I guess.

Roger,

You claim, as so many do, that Griffith is credited with "codifying" the language of the cinema with "Birth of a Nation", but I believe a recent discovery in New Zealand may have substantiated 40 year old theories that this is not exactly the case. Buried somewhere near fifty feet beneath a tree in New Zealand, an airtight chest was found during the construction of a new building that contained over a hundred films by Alice Guy, who was pioneering narrative cinema before even the turn of the century. By 1905 she was already using close-ups for heightened effect, eye matches, and even lap dissolves.

An excerpt from "A Short History of Film" by Wheeler Dixon and Gwendolyn Foster:
"In 1896 [Alice Guy] directed "La Fee aux Choux (The Cabbage Patch Fairy), one of the world's first films with a plot. Described as a picture postcard that springs to life, the film tells the story of a woman who grows children in a cabbage patch ... One of the most famous works [Guy] directed during her early years was "La Vie du Christ (or "La Naissance, la vie, et la mort de Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ", 1906, and released in the United States as "The Birth, the Life, and the Death of Christ). Made specifically to compete with the Pathe release of the same name, it was an ambitious production that had a lavish budget, large crew, and hundreds of extras, in settings designed and executed by Henri Menessier. Guy managed to skillfully incorporate the use of numerous extras to give added depth to her work, the same way that the American director D. W. Griffith did many years later in "the Birth of a Nation (1915) and "Intolerance" (1916), with one subtle but telling difference: most of the onlookers in this version of the Christ tale are women and children."

Dixon and Foster go on to say of Griffith:
"Between 1908 and 1913, [Griffith] directed roughly 450 short films, mining not only cinema's technical and narrative past but also Victorian literature and drama to create a style that owed much to his literary predecessors yet was deeply popular with the public. In addition, Griffith was not shy about touting his accomplishments, creating a public image as the sole narrative innovator in the industry and the inventor of cinematic grammar, which he manifestly was not."

I have taken (and am taking) classes taught by both Dixon and Foster, and both of them seem convinced that Griffith was directly and intentionally damaging to Alice Guy's place in history, so much so that when Guy tried to get many of her films preserved in the 20's the Griffith-devotee who accepted her films turned around and burned them to preserve Griffith's reputation.

That "Birth of a Nation" receives credit for "codifying" the cinema I will not argue. It is the film we look to and it is the film we recognize as such and perhaps that's all it takes. If you find this to be merely trivia then I apologize for the hypocrisy, but I find this really quite fascinating and thought you should know if you didn't already.

Ebert: This is fascinating. Why were the films buried?

Thank you, thank you, thank you THANK you for this one, Roger! Thank you!

Thank you!

I'm thanking you extra to make up for those people who will read this, realize that there's no point in trying to beat Roger Ebert in a trivia contest after all, and stalk off.

Now. Do you happen to know how many drawings Winsor McKay made for his 1911 animated short, "Little Nemo"?

No, no... I really want to know. Just asking... curious... was wondering... somebody asked me the other day... don't know, myself...

Thank goodness I knew the answers to the four questions. I have seen Some Like It Hot a couple of times, but that kind of trivia has a habit of not registering with me.

A question formed in my mind as I watched State of Play, which I loved, last night. The question is also in connection with your recent blog entry on District 9, which I severely disliked, and the unpopular critic.

Can someone be very passionate and knowledgeable about the movies, yet constantly in opposition to the majority of the public AND the majority of critics, and still deserve to be taken seriously as a critic? Apart from Mr White, Dave Kehr also springs to mind. He obviously knows far, far more about film than me, but he certainly has some biting comments about popular works.

Daniel Noonan,

Have you noticed Ang Lee moves genre to genre in a similar way to Kubrick? He's made everything from a Chinese action drama(Crouching Tiger), a comic book movie(Hulk), and now a movie about Woodstock.

Not mention the other kinds of films he's visited.

I have a bigger problem than remembering movie details. I have a problem remembering some movies, period.
Has it ever happened to you that you hear the name of a movie, and aren't sure whether or not you've already seen it? Has it ever happened that upon seeing the movie, you still weren't sure whether or not you'd already seen it?

I always wonder what the phenomenon means exactly. Is it due to our mind erasing the memory of a bad film experience? Is it due to the film being reminiscent of other films? I love Michelle Pfieffer, but I really have no idea whether or not I've seen "One Fine Day," "Up Close and Personal" or "Story of Us" because I confuse them all. The same thing happens to me with Sandra Bullock movies. But I can't imagine anyone not remembering whether or not they've seen E.T or Wizard of Oz- I mean, c'mon.

Last year, I was trying to complete my Todd Solondz experience and saw "Storytelling." I thought to myself, "Now was it just that I meant to see it and didn't, or did I see it after having meant to see it for quite some time?" The dvd quoted you as having seen it three times already, so I figured it couldn't hurt either way. After about 10 minutes, there was a scene that reminded me I had already seen it and reminded me to remind myself not to ever see it again. Now, Palindromes, on the other hand, is one I know I've seen, and I'd like to see again. How can someone forget a movie in which a young woman keeps changing form and sings and dances with the lovable and physically deformed Christian pop group "The Happy Sunshine Family"?

Sometimes people name a movie to discuss with me, and I have to tell them that I just haven't gotten around to seeing it. They gasp and say, "How can you love movies like you do and not have seen "The Matrix?" "The Usual Suspects!" "Titanic!" (I will stop there with dropping titles, so as to maintain some dignity.)

"I don't know. But I've seen Jean Epstein's 'The Fall of the House of Usher,' if that helps."

If we didn't call it trivia, but "some piece of minor information we thought you might recall because you watch films for a living and are known to be a lover of movies and have seen a lot of them," would it make you feel better about it?

Would it be trivia to run into you at a party, be talking about movies, and I ask you what the name of the book "Blade Runner" was adapted from if I was drawing a blank on it?

It could qualify as trivia to ask about directors from the French New Wave. It could definitely end up on Jeopardy. I used to work on a trivia quiz show on college radio. I would have asked that question on the show. I also would have asked, "which film, directed by D.W. Griffith, is notable for codifying the language of the cinema and for its savage racism?" (I'd phrase it that way to provide extra clues to the listeners.)

"Hey, Roger...There's some company James Bond uses as a cover...He always says he works for them...Universal something...You happen to recall what it is?"

Any question about movies can be called "trivia" because movies are not essential to any of our lives in the same way that, say, water and food are.

You're right that the Tarzan question is bogus....That's not even really trivia by any meaningful definition, it's a game of "gotcha!" And juvenile.

But yeah, general movie "trivia?" Personally if I ran into a film critic at a cocktail party and we were hanging out and talking about movies, and some question that might qualify as trivia came into my mind, I would be inclined to ask it.

Are you saying that if you're ever the critic in that situation I shouldn't bother asking you?

[[No one ever asks you a trivia question they have the slightest reason to believe you will know the answer to.]]

Really?

I guess I'm not getting it; I guess I'm not understanding what the article is really about. Do you actually run into people who play "gotcha" film trivia with you because you're a film critic and it would amuse them to know some obscure fact about movies that you have no reason to care about, let alone know?

If so...Damn, that's quite horrid.

-Nighthawk

I don't think Mr. Ebert was implying that Harold Lloyd is lesser to Keaton and Chaplin, just that he is less-known.

"For some reason we film crickets like to follow the titles of films..."

Did you actually play with Buddy Holly or is this a typo/auto-correction problem.

On the other hand, this would be a nice collective noun for film critics. I hope it catches on!

Ebert: A term popularized on David Poland's Movie City News.

You may have just tapped in to a problem of mine. My mind is practically an encyclopaedia of movie trivia, to such an extent that no one will play "Scene It" with me, and I'm known as "the one to ask the trivia questions to." This always kind of bothered me, and your essay kind of put into words my feelings on the matter. So thank you, I guess. Here's hoping you're the only one who realizes how truly trivial my talent is.

I have great disdain for the trivia spouting elitists. Often I'm asked many silly trivia based wringers concerning my vast knowledge of film, of which, I have no doubt, have been constructed to outwit me, while my new adversary tries to "demonstrate their superiority." I revile (with my eyes only) these freelancing smart asses, and offer an answer if they first! can answer me this question (last seen in one of author Tom Robbins' delightful narratives): If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long would it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle? This stumps them, superiority changes hands, and the "dill pickle" part gets us to a local deli. Without fail. Don't scoff, just re-direct, and revel in your victory.

Damnit Roger, I was just about to go to sleep. Now I'm going to have to email you the essay on There Will Be Blood that I've been working on, it is'nt even close to being complete. It was almost a frame by frame breakdown of the film and I'm only about 10-14 minutes into it. I'll email you my rather shoddy notes as well which are themselves not complete. I hope you can make some sense out of them. Given this entry I feel obliged to send you what short rough drafts I have and not a much, much lengthier discourse on the film. Hopefully you can find some value in them. I do think that I saw this film differently than you did, I can only hope that my reading benefits yours if only in the smallest, most insignificant way.

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

I was curious about your list of New Wave directors...Would you consider Jacques Demy part of that same bunch? I know there was the Cahiers De Cinema crowd, The Left Bank directors and others associated with the "movement", so some people tend to stretch the boundaries of who was a New Wave director, but I would have included Demy...I'm very biased towards him though - love his films.

Varda has an anecdote in "Plages D'Agnes" about how she was asked if she knew any other directors that could make a cheap but popular film like "Breathless". She pointed to Demy and he made "Lola".

I submit that trivia with strangers is not worth your time because debating one's professional expertise with amateurs is boring. As a systems engineer, I find it astonishingly dull to discuss things like climate models with most people, because they don't understand the first thing about them, or what it means to attempt to model a hybrid dynamic system in simulacrum.

Your closing paragraph reminded me of this quotation by literary critic Harold Bloom: “Information is endlessly available to us; where shall wisdom be found?”

I wonder at which point a piece of information becomes Trivial when it comes to movies, most of which rarely rise above triviality.

I suppose knowing that Yakima Cannutt was the Lead Stuntman on Ben-Hur is trivial, that his son doubled for Charlton Heston is even more trivial, but that no stuntman in fact died during the filming of the Chariot race isn't trivial, because so many people seem to believe someone did.

I have heard that in "It's a Wonderful Life", on the night of Harry's return to Bedford Falls when George visits Mary, the offscreen sound of Uncle Billy falling on the Trash Cans was a happy accident, caused by a technician knocking over a table. Trivial? I suppose, because its not key to the movie, even if its true. Delicious? Absolutely.

Maybe something is trivial ONLY if it is a fact known only in and of itself, and not as part of a larger knowledgebase. I happen to know Mt. Kilimanjaro is the tallest mountain in Africa. That's trivia to me, but to a Geologist specializing in that continent, it isn't.

Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for the greatest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer.
-- Charles Caleb Colton

Is it Planes, Trains & Automobiles (your trivia question #4)?

re: I cry fowl that Lloyd is somehow lesser to Keaton and Chaplin.

I know there's a chicken joke in there somewhere.

With respect, I'm ignorant of Harold Lloyd. I enjoyed the clip of "Safety Last". I can't help but wonder what percentage of that film clip was stunts versus special effects. Did the actor work from such heights? If so, how did they film him from such angle away from the building? What actual safety devices were used for the shooting? Were the special effects that good? Terrific stuff. Thanks.

Ebert: I gather he was actually up there.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050703/REVIEWS08/507030302/1023

If you're going to go around telling people that Elmo Lincoln is the second Tarzan, be prepared for someone to claim that Lloyd is the secone great clown since he starred in a movie before Keaton did. "Hey man, you said third great, not third greatest. No fair dude."

I've always found Trivia, the Roman goddess, far more interesting than trivia questions in lower case. For one thing, Trivia's as murky and morally ambiguous as her chthonian counterpart, Hecate. Even her name suggests Hecate's triumvirate of faces, and shows how disturbing and alien the Greco-Roman gods really were.

When I was about ten, I loved reading my dad's trivia encyclopedia. It included a definition of teeth, which I memorized, because I thought it would be funny to have an answer if anybody asked what teeth were. Twenty-nine years passed, and nobody ever asked. A couple of years ago, I had this conversation with my then-three-year-old son.

Son: Teeth are plastic, right?
Mom: Actually, teeth are the modified papillae of the mucous membranes of the mouth, heavily impregnated with lime salts.
Son: (Silence.)

Trivia is the best!

P.S. I have no idea how accurate this definition of teeth is.

Ebert: Sounds about right to me. :)

Did someone just ask you a trivia question that broke the camel's back?

WHAT?? You don't consider Louis Malle a member of the French New Wave?

...it's the only question of your quiz that I missed. Four out of five New Wave directors isn't so bad though, right?

Ebert: Nope.

"Malle is sometimes incorrectly associated with the nouvelle vague - his work does not fit in or correspond to the auteurist theories that apply to the work of Godard, Truffaut, Chabrol, Rohmer, and others, and he had nothing whatsoever to do with Cahiers du cinema. Nonetheless, his film Zazie dans le métro ("Zazie in the Metro," 1960, an adaptation of the Raymond Queneau novel) did inspire Truffaut to write an enthusiastic letter to Malle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Malle

He was certainly good enough. The New Wave is descriptive, not an evaluation.

But can't it be argued that you need information before you get any true knowledge? You can probably find millions of people around the world obsessed with useless facts and information, whether about movies or space travel or the flight patterns of Canadian geese, but who don't have any real knowledge on the subjects. But people with true knowledge, whether about movies or space travel or the flight patterns of Canadian geese, are filled with useless facts and information.
I get that by this stage of your life, where you are an established film critic with a life time of work under you belt and a respected name in film circles, it's easy to write off the people who come at you with useless facts. But I think that maybe they're just at a different stage of the game than you. This doesn't mean you're a better person or on some higher plane than they are, just that you managed to turn information into knowledge, and do something with that knowledge. It's not that the people who enjoy their useless information are doomed to some world of ignorance that should be shunned. They just haven't translated their facts to knowledge.

I'm a teenager so I devote my days to taking useless facts and trying to gains some knowledge from them. But that process doesn't stop once you graduate from high school or college. For some people it never stops. But there's nothing wrong with that. They're just still playing the game we all had to, or still have to, play.

Or maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better about my devotion to IMDb trivia pages and weekend box office totals. Who knows?

No Demy or Marker, Mr. Ebert?

I don't think he was ranking Lloyd behind Chaplin and Keaton--that would just be crazy talk. He was just asking who the third one was in the way that you would ask the name of the third musketeer.

Of course, if he wanted to offer more of a challenge, he should have asked who the fourth one was. . .

I'm not a big fan of movie trivia, either, but I ask one movie question to every girl I meet.

"What did you think of Transformers 2?"

It's a 'filter' question for me. If she says she loves it, then I know we can never be together. Saves me a lot of time, actually.

Ebert: An excellent test.

Trivia contests aren't always run by people with all the right answers. One night back in the mid-90's, at a local bar's weekly trivia night, a question came up asking which film included the line, "badges? We don't need no stinking badges!" Both "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" and "Blazing Saddles" were offered as possible answers, but the people in charge said "Blazing Saddles" was the correct answer, apparently oblivious to the idea of one film making reference to another!

You have a problem with a certain type of person, not trivia itself. An occasional game of Trivial Pursuit or the rare viewing of Jeopardy! can be entertaining. One interesting thing about Jeopardy though is that it seems most contestants are lost when asked a question which requires them to actually think, especially if it's a math question. There are of course people in the world who have a fantastic memory but of only average or sometimes well below average intelligence.

Ebert: Trivial Pursuit is fun. Trivia questions are a champ's game.

(dons prognosticator's turban)

I have a theory that trivia will become less important to future generations. We're becoming increasingly dependent on the ability to pull out a Blackberry or iPhone in any location with an internet connection and simply look up the correct answer. Don't know where you're going? Why bother asking a local? - just look it up on Google Maps. Notice how nobody's published a "definitive filmography" of any actor since IMDB sprang up? Therefore, I think the trivia of the future will be the ability to find things quickly rather than to pull random facts of the top of one's head. Research over memorization.

Ebert--

If you're ever in the mood for pointless trivia, see how you do on this:

http://www.sporcle.com/games/afitop100.php

Its a fill in the blank of AFI's 100 greatest movies (07 list). I know that you don't care for such lists, but I figured I would pass it on. . .

The answer to question #3:

No. Black and white is, of course, superior....

Ebert: You have the correct meta-answer.

It is a fact that Lloyd is lesser known than Keaton or Chaplin, which was obviously the point.

On Dan Noonan's question, I've read several Kubrick books and a few Kubrick bios, and don't recall him ever announcing that he had any sort of private goal to work in as many genres as possible. That said, Kubrick was a voluminous reader of both fiction and non-fiction, and had similarly broad taste in films, and his muse evidently had a broad map to wander in. It's fairly common knowledge that Kubrick was keen at different points to make NAPOLEON, A.I and ARYAN PAPERS/WARTIME LIES, but the worthwhile Taschen hardcover on the director notes some others. Kubrick friend Anthony Frewin comments that the dark horse candidate among all unmade Kubrick films was a 19th century H.Rider Haggard novel, THE SAGA OF ERIC BRIGHTEYES, which reportedly haunted Kubrick for more than 20 years, and for which the director produced numerous treatments. (Hitchcock had a similar dream project, MARY ROSE, for which Universal head Lew Wasserman cared little.) Steven Soderbergh has mentioned in interviews that he respects Kubrick's genre hopping and hopes to match it throughout his own career.

I'm not a particular fan of movie trivia for its own sake, but the history of cinema is fascinating in its broad strokes and its particulars.

I might have guessed Marx brothers.

Ebert: Not silent.

Dear Roger-
I applaud the distinction you make between information and knowledge. I share your dismay as well. I have the university students in my class on the legacy of Edward R. Murrow read the last few pages of a dialogue between Socrates and a his pal Phaedrus. I am abbreviating here and paraphrasing a bit: Socrates says to Phaedrus that information without soul is meaningless; and information that doesn't inspire (one's self and others) is a disgrace. Most students get that, and appreciate it. You may be surprised, however, to hear that a small fraction are actually enraged by Socrates' remarks, and any approach in a classroom to foster understanding, knowledge, and wisdom over mere rote memorization. Surpised me, anyway. BTW- I do also enjoy a good round of trivia sometimes, if it is played in the spirit of delighting one another with undiscovered gems and insights.
Best-
Paul Mark W.

I can think of precisely one reason why movie trivia is not useless. My local pub, The Fox and Hounds, has Trivia Wednesdays where, thanks to a collective knowledge of meaningless factoids, my friends and I have won a free round of beers. Of course, we're then destroying the very brain cells that carried all that valuable information, so I guess it all evens out.

PS: Beneath the information, it's back to turtles.

Is he saying Lloyd is third best, or third cronologically, or third in terms of reciepts?

James :?

Ebert: Neither. Just the one most people can't name.

Greetings Roger and fellow readers!

Once upon a time, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I was a sports broadcaster here in Nova Scotia's beautiful Annapolis Valley. Accordingly, I can relate to the plague of trivia as being detrimental to one's general disposition.

While I had a solid command of knowledge in my chosen field, I could not escape the occasional person who would conjure some obscure fact and subsequently make themselves feel good by "showing up" the expert.

My own sense is that while it might be a pleasant enough way to pass time with friends, trivia is a trivial pursuit in the truest sense of the phrase.

Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada

Ebert: Amazing how many Nova Scotians among the readers.

Roger: "I know the answers. Not everybody can be expected to. Therefore, I am smarter than you? No, we just know different things."

When I was a teenager, I heard a song that goes "Whatever you're doing, however you're doing it, you're living your life," and it got me to thinking. We all live in the same world, and see the same things, but do we really? I know that there are fish in the sea, but doesn't a fisherman see more than me? A fisherman can tell all types of fish, and how they move, and how to gut them. A marine biologist knows these things and more, but while his eyes are looking at different things, and while his mind is learning different things, what is going on with the fisherman? What is he looking at, and learning, different from the marine biologist? Patience? I don't know.

Many of us look down on homeless people, but what have they learned in their lives that we'll never have a clue about? A homeless man named Charles once showed me a dumpster behind a Dunkin Donuts in West Palm Beach. He knew the exact hour when the donuts would be thrown out, and which bag contained the fresh ones, and which bag contained the stale ones. He knew which donuts had blueberry inside, and which ones had cherry inside. Is this useful information? It is, if you're a homeless man named Charles in West Palm Beach.

We all live by the same system of time. There are 24 hours in a day. If you want to spend your life staring at dirt, go ahead. But when I stop by to say hello, I hope you have some great things to teach me about that dirt.

Hi Roger,

There is trivia, and then there is the trivial.

Trivia is basically a tool of small talk, isn't it? Other pleasantries in that toolkit would be riddles, anecdotes, comments on the weather, cliches, etc..

One "bit" of trivia on its own is pretty useless. But, it can be delivered as a witticism, a pickup line, a "thing that makes you go hmm," or, yes, a chance to give the illusion of superior intelligence.

Trivia also works as light seasoning (like other elements of the small talk toolkit). An author speaks about something substantive, and lightly seasons the discourse with bits of trivia to highlight a point. In the case of your above blog entry, the bit above about Tarzan is, for you, an anecdote, yet for me it becomes a bit of trivia about Nava.

Then, of course, we have the anti-trivia. The first example would be incorrect bits of information (if not outright lies). Some of these are urban legends. I'm hesitant to share any examples out of fear that it might spread, but I'm thinking of someone who told me that the first James Bond was Fred Astaire. (That's not true, is it?)

The other anti-trivia would be the odd jokes that are disguised as trivia questions. Consider this scenario:

Omer: Hey Roger, with Inglorious Basterds in the theaters, can you tell me the name of the first English language film that misspelled a word in the title?

Roger: I don't know the answer. So what is it?

Omer: How the heck would I know?

Roger: The fatal flaw in the concept of trivia is that it mistakes information for knowledge. There is no end to information. Some say the entire universe is made from it, when you get right down to the bottom, under the turtles. There is, alas, quite a shortage of knowledge.

Omer: Yeah, yeah, whatever. Stop condescending me, you socialist leftist rich guy with unlimited healthcare.

Now, is this all trivial? For others yes. For me, no.

Omer M

I was on the "College Bowl" team for the University of Washington for two years ('85, '86, long after it stopped being televised) and once passed the preliminary exam for "Jeopardy!", so I do not dismiss trivia out of hand.

Sometimes trivia is a shorthand through which two lovers of the same movie can converse — whether it's recalling lines from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" or picking out the details of the original "Star Wars."

At some point, a person collects enough trivia that it reaches critical mass. Then it becomes a cultural awareness, allowing the person to connect the dots and appreciate a piece of art for its influences — for example, seeing in Jackie Chan's action comedy the nods to Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd and even Fred Astaire.

Trivia, if properly cultivated, can become the building blocks that create a well-informed cineaste.

i lost my respect for jeopardy when i learned that the contestants get to preview a list of approximately 200 questions before the show. i don't know if it's 200 total or 200 per category. what i do know is they've seen all the questions ahead of time. i don't know if what they see also includes the answers. anyone? anyone? bueller?

I admit that I have been that person who dishes out the obscure trivia questions. I admit that I do it a lot. I admit that it gets annoying, even to me. So, I guess my question is, how would one go about changing themselves from being a trivia enthusiast (aka information hoarder) into someone who knows real, useful knowledge? Would you even consider movie knowledge useful, or is it all just information?

I know someone who has watched many movies--but with whom I can't have a conversation about them. All he knows is "information." In any given scene in a Western, he can point out the location--and I don't mean the big stuff, like Monument Valley, but an outcropping of rock in a shot--and then mention other movies that feature that same rock. And that's all he has to say about that. (trivia: Forrest Gump reference).

OK, I love trivia, too--the trivia I know. Personal favorite: the imaginary movie See You Next Wednesday appears on marquees and posters in a number of John Landis films, an apparent tribute to 2001. (It's the last thing Frank Poole's parents say to him in their birthday message.) Fun, but who cares?

Although recent movies like "Mon Meilleur Ami (2006)" and "Slumdog Millionaire" were good movies with themes revolving around quiz shows I particularly liked "The Quiz Show (1994)". Excellent performances by Fiennes, Turturro and Scofield and a superb script by Paul Attanasio. Among many great lines a favourite of mine is from Herbie Stemple (Turturro): "You know why they call them Indians? Because Columbus thought he was in India. They're "Indians" because some white guy got lost."

As a great quiz show Jeopardy is hard to beat and I think you have to be well read, intelligent and knowledgeable to do well on that show. Definitely not so with "Who wants to be a Millionaire?", "Who's Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" or most other current quiz shows.

Perhaps Harold Lloyd isn't considered up there with Chaplin and Keaton because he maintained a firm hold on the distribution of his films and so they where not as well known to the public. Once silent films lost favour with the public he was forgotten. I'd put the special effects and timing in that great clip of "Safety Last" up against any modern film.

I enjoy the trivia that suggests how a film I enjoy might have been altered by a change in casting (Ronald Reagan for Bogart in Casablanca) how Providence or blind luck puts the right cast together at the right time. It those tidbits of revelation that add tot he fun of my love for the medium. It is certainly not for oneupsmanship or bragging rights. As much as I admire and respect you Roger, now and then I will view a film that you completely admire and I will absolutely loathe it. Not often but when it does I would love to be able to bump into you and buy you a beignet and coffee (Ah, the tube, I'm sorry, it is the thought that counts)and find out why the film worked for you and I just did not "get it".
peace to you.

All facts out of context are trivial. That and tedious.

But a well-constructed trivia question has the same power to illuminate that an brief essay or poem possesses: the capacity to change perception by the arrangement of elements within an economical form.

The answer to "Who led the Three-I league in doubles in 1936?" leads no one anywhere. The answer to "Name the only two men to manage a pennant-winning American League team between 1949 and 1960" strikes sparks that light the way to further paths of inquiry (I apologize for not having a cinematic trivia question to offer up, but I've not yet had occasion to write those and "What Oscar-winner once boxed the World Heavyweight Champion in a professional prizefight?" is somewhat interesting but hardly illuminating).

It's all about mise-en-scéne.

Ooh! Ooh! I've got one! I've got one! Now, everybody keep this to yourselves so you can be the Top Movie Trivialite on your block!

There's this old psychic I know, see. Lives a couple dozen miles from here. Before he started making real money, he wrote for Laurel and Hardy in their later years. He even showed me his pic with Stan and everything.

So here's the thing, here's what you can ask:

What did Oliver Hardy say whenever he answered the telephone at home?

"Who the hell is this!" Then he'd slam the receiver back down in its cradle. He hated the telephone.

[Ebert: "I knew that."]

Psychics don't lie when they're not on the clock, you know. If this counts too, the psychic's favorite dish was meat loaf.

I am here to verify that the story Tom Dark heard about Oliver Hardy is true.

That meat loaf is my favorite dish is not true. It was just the special of the day at Zia's restaurant.

Coincidentally, I just received "Safety Last" in the mail via Netflix and am going to screen it for my friends later this week. I'm completely unfamiliar with Harold Lloyd, but have a decent grasp of Chaplin and Keaton, and thus am looking forward to not only being able to more truly brag that I know the answer to your second question, but to ensuring that a few of my friends do as well.

I just have a quick question, out of curiosity. Wasn't "The Great Train Robbery" the first movie structured around a plot?

Fair enough. But trivia has turned into quite a subculture. I know people who begun relationships with people they meet at those trivia nights that local bars and restaurants. (Sometimes the relationships work out--sometimes not.)

I think part of the reason it's so popular isn't just because people like to show off their repository of information. It's the figuring it out that's fun.

If it's a trivia question about sports, for instance, few would know off-hand which famous baseball owner once was an assistant coach at Purdue University. (It's George Steinbrenner). But the mental exercise of making a list of possible answers in your head, and narrowing it down with your general knowledge of the topics can be kinda fun. One of my all-time favorite questions: What four universities have graduated presidents and Superbowl-winning quarterbacks?

Roger, when you wrote your Great Movie review for Safety Last! you hadn't seen any other Harold Lloyd films and you weren't all too crazy about him, especially compared to Chaplin and Keaton. I am rather fond of Lloyd and was wondering if you have further explored the Lloyd canon (11 silent feature and numerous shorts). Have you seen The Kid Brother? Now that is a truly great film. The shot of Lloyd climbing the tree higher and higher to continue to wave goodbye to his sweetheart is pure poetry.

Greetings Roger!

I thought a follow-up might be in order to your observation about the high proportion of Nova Scotians that visit and enjoy your site. I've compiled a list, some serious and some not so very serious, of possible reasons that might help explain this phenomenon.

- Nova Scotia has the highest ratio of universities in Canada. Film courses are a regular staple, thus likely inciting the populace to seek out stimulating sources of film criticism.

- Roger was one of the first to champion the enormous talents of beloved Nova Scotian actress Ellen Page, who garnered an Academy Award nomination for her remarkable performance in Juno.

- Many people are employed in the creation of film and television projects. I think the 2008 number was something in the range of 150 million dollars spent here.

- Further to one of the previous points, the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design (known as NASCAD) has quite an array of film courses and Dalhousie University has a great theatre school that the film community draws upon.

- The highly successful Atlantic Film Festival unfolds every year in Nova Scotia's capitol city of Halifax. I read that the festival enjoyed 92% capacity last year! This year's greatly anticipated event occurs in September.

- By paying homage to one of America's great personages it's one way to collectively make up our opting to join the British during the American Revolution.

- Film clubs are a recent addition to the cultural landscape. Here in the Annapolis Valley, the Fundy Film Club resides in Wolfville (which is also home to Acadia University). Canadian, international, and documentary films that are absent from the Hollywood-driven multiplexes are regularly featured.

- Lastly, we Nova Scotians are especially active on the social networking site Facebook. One small manifestation is that yours truly shares the four star and great movie reviews with all my friends, thus driving people to these writings.

So, in 3000 words or less, this might in part help explain why Nova Scotians are crazy about Roger!

Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada

Ebert: Ever see Ellen Page in "Hard Eight?" She is an actress!

I've often wondered how, you being in the public eye(microscope), can manage to keep your cool. I take pride in my restraint, but often find my patience tested with fanboy trivia, whenever a film discussion gets going.

Roger maybe you can give a "Declaration of Principals", and this could be right towards the top of the list.

Good one, Roger! I love that your mind has moved on to "the plague" of "trivia" ;-))

My guess as to the movie that codified movie making would have been Citizen Kane, if only because some form of that phrase appears right after the comma that separates that movie and the beginnings of its hyperbolic praise.

In fact: ``Citizen Kane'' is more than a great movie; it is a gathering of all the lessons of the emerging era of sound, just as ``Birth of a Nation'' assembled everything learned at the summit of the silent era, and ``2001'' pointed the way beyond narrative. These peaks stand above all the others.

Can I claim dispensation?

Ebert: A term popularized on David Poland's Movie City News.

I think the first usage of "crickets" for "critics" may have been Mel Brooks, who once quipped, "Critics can't even make music by rubbing their back legs together."

"Ebert: This is fascinating. Why were the films buried?"

Alice Guy's films were buried, I believe, because the nitrate film required such a specific environment to survive, and burying the films provided a consistent temperature and humidity that apparently was ideal, since most of the film recovered was still in decent condition. What really blows me away is that the chest remained air tight for that long.

The number of people who consider Alice Guy to be the true pioneer of narrative cinema is growing, but I think it will be a long time before Griffith is dethroned, if it ever happens at all.

Just for fun, here is a little bit of trivia. Trivia is Latin for "Place where three roads meet." The Romans would build rest stops at such places that included signs listing trivial information about the local area. I would suggest that they did this so that travelers wouldn't take too long a rest...the sleep inducing boredom of the trivia would push them to move along.

An interesting study on the quest for knowledge was done by author A.J. Jacobs, who set about to become the smartest man in the world by reading the Encyclopedia Britannica. He failed miserably. The book is called "The Know It All" and I highly recommend it for trivia fiends.

I am sending this before reading the answers in your article, should they actually appear.

(1) What is the name of the film that codified the language of the cinema?

Birth of a Nation

(2) Who was the third great silent clown?

There are three I know of, Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton, who were great silent clowns. But I'll say Keaton.

(3) Is color intrinsically better than black-and-white?

This is more opinion than fact. But since I'm familiar with your opinion, and happen to agree anyway, NO OF COURSE IT ISN'T.

(4) What movie set key scenes on board a train going from Chicago to Urbana, Illinois?

I really don't know. I happen to live in Urbana-Champaign though, so perhaps I should.

(5) Name at least five directors of the French New Wave.

Stumped. I know of one I believe to be New Wave, Jean-Luc Godard, though I confess I didn't know it off the top of my head.

If you were on "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire", what three people would you have as your "Phone a Friend" lifeline?

1) Who is the film critic who broke his promise to me and STILL does not have his review of "The Gambler" (1974) on his site?

2) Why does this same critic not have his review of Herzog's "Nosferatu, The Vampyre" (1979) on his site?

Mr. Ebert,

I wonder if some one has asked you a movie trivia question in response to your question. For example

Ebert: Name 5 directors of the French New Wave
Myself : I will if you name 5 directors of kitchen sink dramas.

I am an amateur quiz buff and used to devour MasterMind when the programme appeared on BBC and of course its most common catch phrase "I have started so I'll finish.". It is fascinating to find there are many trivia topics that is interested in.

I am interested in trivia about the Second World War. You might be interested to know that the operation for cancelled Allied Invasion of mainland Japan was named "Downfall", which is also a movie about Hitler's last days in the bunker; a god send to anyone wanting to about anything from Obama's policies to even Roger Ebert.

PM Wadleigh:

"I must first know myself, as the Delphian inscription says; to be curious about that which is not my concern, while I am still in ignorance of my own self, would be ridiculous."

In another translation, it says "...would be disastrous." I prefer that one. For one thing, people can get irritable about knowing themselves before they step on their accelerators.

Joe and Jerry borrow Nelly Weinmeyer's car to drive to Urbana, the site of their gig at a U of Illinois dance. But they never get the car -- and they never head to Urbana. After Toothpick Charlie's demise they're headed to Miami and the Seminole Ritz. Unless that train is somehow routed through Urbana (something the picture never says) there ain't nothing in Some Like it Hot that even hints of such a thing.

Ebert: See what I mean?

Not one argument for Harry Langdon as silent clown #3 among the whole lot of you? For shame. Surely the canon cannot be so closed as this.

Oh drats! I didn't see this new entry! Or I'd have posted my reply to Indian Idiot (H.W.) in here and not the AA thread - as it's FULL of really cool Tarantino trivia! :)

Trivia and the amount of it one can gather-up, can be the measure of how well a film was layered. Like a fine wine, the more notes you can taste, eh? Which isn't the same thing as cluttering up the script with obvious references but rather, planting them like seeds so upon subsequent viewings, they reveal themselves to you over time and upon catching one, makes you smile.

Case in point: In "Inglourious Basterds" the plan the German actress and British double agent were supposed to set in motion, was called "Operation Kino".

KINO International; Tarantino was giving them a nod. :)

And I like that; it's like finding more chocolate Easter Eggs in the grass after you thought you'd scooped them all up.

I am an admirer and follower of your work. Not only do I agree with almost all your reviews (I forgive you for your Fight Club review), more importantly I like or dislike the movies for the same reasons you do. I trust your review more than any others when deciding which movies to donate two precious hours of my life. However, I have to ask if the answers to some of the questions you pose in your article aren't themselves trivia?

Imagine a person who grew up on a desert island that had no contact with society but instead had only a DVD player, a television, some way to generate electricity and a DVD copy of every movie produced. Suppose this person watched every movie in chronological order. Would it matter if this person knew which of the directors he watched were considered part of the French New Wave? Could he not understand the impact and artistry of such movies without knowing which rather arbitrary compartment society has chosen to put them in? Shouldn't movies, like all art, stand on their own? Should I need to know about the impressionist movement to appreciate a Monet?

One man's trivia is an essential fact to someone else. Four of your five questions are actually trivia and no more should be used to judge someone's movie acumen then who was the Key Grip on Transformers 2. The color vs. black and white question is a good one and the answer though subjective, does speak to the artistic sensitivity of those who respond to it. Aren't the others, deep down, interwoven with arbitrary film art sensibilities?

You said on this site after Cannes that Inglourious Basterds inspired you to think about the direction that the movies were going. Was that what the Mad Magazine article was about, or, if not, is there any chance that you could discuss this in an article? Cheers

Okay, I know that this completely flies in the face of the entire point of the article, but arguably Stellan Sven Windrow who was replaced by Lincoln when he got drafted is the first Tarzan. He doesn't appear on screen first, but his scenes were shot first, and he is in the movie in tree-swinging scenes and other long-distance shots. It's a matter of chronology versus continuity that depends on exactly how the question is phrased.

Maybe, this isn't beside the point after all. People like trivia because they like to be right. Facts seem like solid trustworthy things compared to subjective arguments over whether Demy or Rivette is really New Wave or whether The Great Train Robbery is as important as Birth of a Nation, but a fact is only as reliable as its source, and an answer is only as precise as the question.

Does it make me a cineaste if I could answer all of them, including the gold-plated trivia, except the French new wave question?

I often wondered, as I am but a kid of 27 years old, how do I know what I should have seen to be a knowledgeable film fan? I have attempted to watch many of the great films that you speak of, as well as the new films coming out, and sometimes venture into foreign films, and it seems a bit overwhelming.

It kind of feels like walking into a library with the sole goal of knowing about literature. Which one of the 100's of thousands of books would you start with?

Would you consider compiling a list, not of the best films, but of the films you see most important in the history of film... in other words, the films a true cineaste should see?

Ebert: No one list, or one book. Maybe you could start snooping around among my Great Movies, which are not a listing but a collection.

"Some say the entire universe is made from it, when you get right down to the bottom, under the turtles"

I just have to ask, and maybe I'm entirely off base, but is this a subtle reference to Terry Pratchett's discworld series? If not then never mind (but I'll explain if you wish).

Ebert: Someone in the audience once so explained the universe to Stephen Hawking.

I am proud of the fact that when it comes to knowledge about the movies, I tend to be smarter than the average bear. Let me put it another way: I could easily go to a party and carry on an in-depth conversation about the art of the cinema without making a fool of myself.

So it is with some embarrassment that I admit that until a few minutes ago I had never seen "Safety Last". That's strange because it is part of my routine to spend one night a week watching a silent film (usually Monday).

Awareness should be brought to Harold Lloyd. Based on this film and the others that I've seen, the man was as good as Keaton and Chaplin. Maybe you should dedicate a blog entry entirely to Harold Lloyd.

What is amazing is just how caught up I got in the story of "Safety Last". I found my heart rate going up and my hands were sweaty as Lloyd's The Boy was scaling that building. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that I could see that this was really a city street and this looked like a real building. I know it is just a simple comedy but I found the stunt work to be more involving than all the explosions in the world. At the end, when he is swinging on that rope I felt my stomach tighten. That's a reaction you can't manufacture.

Hello Mr. Ebert

Another interesting post, that did strike a little bit of a nerve with me. I always enjoyed knowing different bits of movie trivia, because I found them to be extra interesting. But instead of asking movie questions with my family, we do this instead. Saying a really obscure quote from a random movie everyone has seen to see if they can name it. It always puts a smile on someone's face when they get it or not. We normally do 80's movies that are constantly showing on TBS, TNT, or AMC.

I would assume random strangers asking you movie trivia questions would become annoying, but take it as a compliment. People just appreciate your movie knowledge, and want to see if you like games relating to movies.

But my real question is, how good are you when asked about the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon?

You forgot to mention the greatest movie trivia game of the last 20 years Roger.

The 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon!!!!

Lets see if you and us readers can give it a go?

Link Harold Lloyd to Kevin Bacon in the fewest number of moves????

In your distaste for trivia, you should invoke T.S. Eliot:

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

But then, for all we know, T.S. Eliot may have been a ferocious movie trivia buff in his day.

Trivia is just for fun. If the stranger next to me at bar had some interest in movies, I used to told them some funny trivia. My usual weapon of choice was about "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Jaws: The Revenge", and most of them found it funny because probably they had seen the latter on cable TV. Also, if they knew more than I thought, I told them about Maurice Micklewhite. By the way, a month ago, I watched so-called climax of that movie while doing exercise at campus gym. My God, his shirt is not wet! Where can I buy that?

Knowledge is useful information. I check IMDB trivia after watching movies, but I seldom find something useful for my personal reviews. Most DVD commentaries are full of trivia, but best ones are full of knowledge. DVD supplements of "Fight Club" providing technical information makes me a little sad that they did quite a lot for this noisy empty wagon(There is a saying in South Korea: "Empty wagon is more loud"). One of my friends attended summer lecture on movies, and he learned a lot about technical aspects of "Barry Lyndon". I sensed sad tiredness from "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia", and your story about Sam Peckinpah confirmed it.

I cannot deny that I have a fun with trivia, but it cannot beat knowledge.

P.S.

1. Thanks for sending Great movies review to me earlier. "Great movies" 1 & 2 are translated in South Korea, but I find too many errors in them. In case of your review for "Duck Soup", hilarious translation error reminds me of funny line from "Auntie Mame". "Karl Marx... is he one of the Marx Brothers?" The translator, apparently not so knowledgable, was confused like that.

2. I also mistook Louis Malle for French New Wave director. Probably because of "Elevator to the Gallows".

3. In contrast, I never thought of Alain Resnais as French New Wave director. I wonder whether "ghosts" in "The Shining" talk with each other like "Last Year at Marienbard".

"Have we met before?" - "Er.... didn't you have an axe at that time?"

Socrates taught that ignorance doesn't lack knowledge, it clings to false knowledge. Think of a person who can't learn trivia, then of another person who can't put the trivia they know in proper perspective. Putting aside the question of who is more knowledgeable, which one is more mentally capable?

There's a website I used to love that allowed readers to share their favorite books and upload trivia questions.

I loved the questions even if I didn't know the answer. It allowed me to learn about a book I hadn't read yet, or learn about something I missed from a previous reading. I really enjoyed it until I realized half the trivia data base had been hijacked by Twilight and Harry Potter lovers, the Transformers 2 of literature.

In other words, I like trivia if it can teach me something. A question on where a boom mike can be seen in a film, is silly, but a question on what the French New Wave is isn't. And that's because I have no clue about the FNW is. But I will wiki it right now...

"It's a 'filter' question for me. If she says she loves [Transformers 2], then I know we can never be together. Saves me a lot of time, actually."

This is fairly ridiculous to me, and it makes the same mistake a lot of people make, which is to confuse taste with intelligence or worth. I was dragged to see the movie again by some friends (only 'cause I hadn't seen them in two months...I promise) and they all enjoyed it. Three of them were intelligent, sunny, charming women, and the guys weren't too dumb either. A psychiatrist once told me his favorite movie was "Top Gun." You know, if you haven't seen "The Seven Samurai" you can't compare it to every "Transformers 2" that you watch.

Maybe you've missed out on some solid relationships that way.

The head is nothing without the heart. The heart is nothing without the head.

Ebert: Robert! Y=ou're back!

I have trivia to thank for quite a neat sum of money - I am one of the grand prize winners of the German "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?". But still, people who walk around with bits of trivia that aren't "attached" to anything are annoying. More knowledge, less information.

I'd argue that there's one thing that's even more fun than seeing a deflated trivia expert who has been answered correctly: a trivia "expert" who provides an accepted, but wrong, answer to a question and is then corrected, preferably by an authority he/she respects. I find this highly amusing, and if I'm a bad person because of it, so be it. Muhahaha.

Ebert: Seems to me the tougher answers on "Millionaire" are a cut above trivia.

I've always enjoyed knowing that Yakima Canutt was the first actor to play Scarlett O'Hara. (They filmed the burning of Atlanta before they got Vivian Leigh to sign on; he drove the wagon.) To me, this ties into the greater story of how that movie got made and how the studio system worked at the time and how Clark Gable was regarded and all. Plus, I think that Yakima Canutt might just be the coolest person in movies ever. Trivia is a dot in a pointilist landscape.

I knew Truffaut and Godard...but could you recommend a film or two by the other new-wave directors, if you don't mind my asking? I'd like to look into them...

Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990530/REVIEWS08/905300301/1023

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031123/REVIEWS08/311230301/1023

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19860801/REVIEWS/608010301/1023

It may be getting off the topic a bit, but doesn't it seem as though we as a country are focusing on trivia too much these days?

I hate to start a debate about our education system, but this blog made me think of the idea of our educators "teaching to the test". Our kids are being taught to learn the facts, but are they being taught to use those facts to create an argument, or to extrapolate certain facts into making theories or understand the "why" of things?

I don't know the answers. I am happy with my public high school education and my university education from the great University of Michigan. But I have a lot of friends who "know" a lot of useless things, yet don't know much about much. It's scary, and it's why Transformers 2 was a hit.

One of the first things taught in teaching methods classes in the hierarchy of learning. Good teachers strive to teach concepts which students evaluate (the highest level), as opposed to just remembering (the lowest).

I liken trivia to the people who come up to me during breaks and ask me to play a song I've never heard of, then enlighten me by reciting the lyrics.

On another note, I was very happy the editors of The South Bend Tribune finally got a backbone and endorsed citizenship of our mutual neighbor, Ibrahim Parlak. I wish Parlak (a model citizen, businessman and Michigander) the best.

I remember when Jeopardy was hard. Only Lawyers and teachers were on. Then they decided to make it easy so the home audience could play along. No more Russian Opera subjects.

I am a huge fan of movie trivia and trivial movie games. For instance, I can spend too much time on sites such as www.flickchart.com, a site that has a pointless exercise in film comparison. It does, however, make me and my friends examine why we like movies.

I think of trivia as a celebration of its subject. Little reminders of the things we love. For Instance: I had a friend ask me who played Leon's handler in Leon: the Professional. Danny Aiello. Which reminded me of the nearly forgotten Two Days in the Valley, the first of the good Pulp Fiction inspired movies. When I watched it again, I had forgotten about James Spader, Keith Carradine, and Charlize Theron. Spawning new conversations with my friends.

That being said, I agree; if someone takes trivia too seriously, as confirmation of intelligence, they have proved their worthlessness in the subject.

i don't know enough to say whether a black and white or color film is superior, but i do know enough to say that - today - it takes superior talent to make a black and white film than a color film. my favorite b/w films are the old horror movies such as those by james whale. frankenstein, bride of frankenstein, son of frankenstein, dracula, the invisible man, the wolfman, etc. those films would look silly in color.

when johnny carson asked mel brooks why he made young frankenstein in b/w instead of color, brooks said, "i forgot the crayons."

keep in mind that it may be unfair to judge/compare/contrast black and white versus color films because a great majority of b/w films were made as such because there was no practical choice. although it was possible to make a color film in the late 1800's, it wasn't true color nor worth the expense. disney made color animated films in the 30's and 40's, but it wasn't an everyday event. up until the late 40's, only slightly more than 1 of 10 films was made in color partly because of the cost and also because the Technicolor company had monopolized the process. that prevented some producers from using color even if they wanted to. in 1950 a federal court ordered Technicolor to share the process. shortly after, eastman kodak developed their own color system, and then all hue broke loose. in just a few short years, 50% of all films were made in color.

probably the most controversial of the colorized films is casablanca. is there any way to know if michael curtiz would have chosen to film in color if the cost and effort were equal? while it is a superior film, it was a very rushed film, quickly made and released shortly after the allied invasion in north africa during world war B. is it possible that this film would have been made in color if the process and cost were equal and the producers weren't in such a hurry? i'm not suggesting that the film would have been better in color. however, i am wondering if the film would be equally regarded today if it were shot in color and we had never seen it in b/w. there's no possible way to know.

perhaps when color became so available, studios were rushing out crappy films simply to exploit the color and thus the crappiness of those films has unfairly tainted the world of color film.

my favorite hitchcock film is rope, which was his first color venture. i have no reason to believe i would have liked it more if al had shot it in black and white.

I completely agree with Friend of the Balboa Theater that a good trivia question has the ability to illuminate, just like a good poem. I like the question "Who is the only actor/actress to win an Oscar for portraying another Oscar winner?" This makes you think. This question was given in Ken Jennings' book "Braniacs".

I can name every best picture winner, and as a result, when my friends get bored they start rattling off years. I, like a robot, supply the best picture winner for the corresponding year. They get a big kick out of it. One of them insisted on filming me naming them off and posted it on youtube, another time they had a waitress name years and me tell her the winners (I've never seen a woman so turned off.)I'm starting to feel slightly used, I do like the recognition though...

On the topic, may I ask you if you have seen the British T.V show Q.I? Hosted by the inimitable Stephen Fry, and starring the cream of British comedians, it is perhaps the best show on T.V. And yes, it is a trivia show. What makes it great is that it never takes itself or its topic seriously. It treats its trivias as...well... trivial...sorry...couldn't help it.

for my money cash cab is a, truer test of knowledge than jeopardy. No chance to study. No choice of catergories. plus ben baileys hosting WHILE DRIVING A CAB IN NEW YORK

Trivia questions are even useless to the people who enjoy giving them. What they want is to let you know that they have all this information, but as you said they reveal that this is probably the ONE piece of information they have on the subject. Save your trivial knowledge for when it comes up naturally in discussions and you look like a genius instead of annoying the hell out of people.

Trivia tests are an occupational hazard for film critics and for people with relatives who are competitive about facts. The wood is not birch but beech, you inform me? The color is not ivory but creme, you say? This character quirk is clearly unalterable and perhaps genetic. So, to mix it up, I sometimes purposely give an incorrect answer or misspeak just to delight my interlocutor with the opportunity to correct me. Seeing their pleasure dispels my frustration and keeps life rolling on.

Ebert: ' Some say the entire universe is made from it, when you get right down to the bottom, under the turtles. There is, alas, quite a shortage of knowledge. I think I will recite this paragraph the next time I'm asked a trivia question.'

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was the first person of any notoriety to take trivia (data) seriously -- after all, any old rationalization to end the Dark Age. But, didn't he pile heaps of facts out to try and get at something -- the idea of 'hypothesis' was still out of his grasp.
Would Scientific Method have been devised were it not for his contempt of BS, as with Aristotle and religious nonsense?
In our age of 'Politically Correct sensitivity', are the turtles feet awash in tears!? Hmm, Sounds like a scene in 'Alice in Wonderland'.

I have to say that Gene and yourself looked intrinsically better when you did your own B&W show. I love B&W, but I think shooting in this format is an acquired skill. I can't recall any modern film that comes close to the way 'they used to do it'. With the exception of Shindler's List. Sadly, it seems B&W is reserved for the flashback or dream sequence.

I would venture to say that there is a type of useful trivia, especially in cinema. Things like, naming the film that has the longest time span in a jump cut, to me, isn't very useful. However, knowing that Kubick made specific departures from the story elements that Clark was incorporating in his work, helps to clarify, at least to a certian degree, what HE thought was important.

I think there is a place for trivia. But, in agreement, people who use it to "prove" they are more enlightened or knowledgeable than the person they're posing the trivia to(I've been guilty from time to time), probably do suffer from ego-centric issues.

Dear Roger --

Certainly the game of gotcha that you describe is obnoxious, and I can only imagine that in your position, having someone spring a trivia question on you out of the blue would be intensely annoying, the informational equivalent of the guy who supposedly punched Harry Houdini in the stomach without warning, albeit without the fatal consequences. (Talk about trivia -- and that story may be apocryphal for all I know.)

But speaking as someone who just got back from a cruise on which I won the three trivia contests I entered, leading to people complaining they should break up my team ("They're the '27 Yankees!") even though I had different teammates every time, I admit feeling a bit defensive. Knowledge, it seems to me, breaks down into two categories, facts and processes. Someone who possesses a wealth of factual information (or data) but no sense of the forces that create and change those facts is indeed a kind of idiot savant. A current commercial for a search engine showing people spouting randomly associated phrases in response to a question is a good parody of that. But someone whose understanding of process is disconnected from facts is equally crippled.

As a university professor, I encounter students all the time who think that just because they can Google something and get an answer (thousands of answers, some even correct) in .13 seconds they don't need to *know* it. Every time I mention a poet's name or the title of a novel, I see them rapidly typing on their laptops. When I tell students that they only really take ownership of a poem when they can recite it pretty accurately from memory, they look at me as if I'm from some other planet. Yet they almost all can quote scenes from their favorite movies and lyrics to scores of pop songs without straining. But if we admit that information is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge, let alone wisdom, can we also agree that merely having a tool to access information is something even less noteworthy? Socrates complained about books being a substitute for real knowledge, but he lived in a simpler age. I can imagine what he'd say about Google.

I'm not even entirely clear on how to make a distinction between worthwhile knowledge and trivia. As my profession more or less requires, I'm something of an expert on Keats, Dickinson, Melville, Browning, Calvino, and a few others, and I can get into a conversation about Shakespeare without embarrassing myself (every time I see "Hamlet," my lips move along with the actors, and I know if they skip a line anywhere in the play -- but as someone said in a Robertson Davies novel, "Every schoolboy can quote Hamlet.") However, I can do the same with Stanley Donen's original "Bedazzled" (with Dudley Moore, Peter Cook, and Raquel Welch, a film that never fails to make me laugh helplessly, and which provides one of the best insults ever: "You fill me with inertia"), and bouncing around in my head are thousands of bits of data that would equally qualify as trivia: movies, episodes of "The Simpsons," "The Prisoner," and "Star Trek" (various series), song lyrics from the 1960s to the present, recipes, partial biographies of most of the World War I flying aces (my favorites: Werner Voss and Georges Guynemer) and the capabilities of their planes, and so on.

It's been said that if learning 95% about any subject requires X time, learning the next 4% requires an equal time, and the next .9% after that X time as well, and so on. Yet if I had the choice between knowing 95% of several topics and being the foremost expert on one, I think I'd pick the former, and that it might even be more productive.

Perhaps all of the mental flotsam I've gathered is worthless, but as best as I can figure out, the process of thinking -- for me, anyway -- is a kind of neural pinball game. I don't know how much so-called original thinking ever occurs. Rather, I think what gets called originality is almost always the making of a new connection between two or more unexpected points. Take music: ragtime, jazz, blues, and eventually rock came out of the mixing of west African rhythms and harmonies with European instrumentation and ideas of melody. Keats, whom I mentioned before, had medical training that manifests itself constantly in his poetry and in his letters in which he talks about poetry -- read "Ode on a Nightingale" and look at the references to "palsy" and "numbness" and "hemlock" and "fever" and "embalmed darkness" and even the word "dissolve," which he means in the chemical sense.

I suppose what I am saying is that I'm glad I'm fortunate enough to have a memory that latches on to stray bits of knowledge (though only of certain kinds -- my wife had to buy a basket for me to put my keys in, because I seldom know where they are otherwise). The thrill of an unexpected connection is always pleasurable, and sometimes offers real insight because it allows one to see a subject from a different perspective. Someone who knows a wide range of trivia is generally a polymath, able to make conversation and engage with many people with different interests, and that seems a valuable thing. With the abundance of information now in the world, the danger is that people become so specialized that they live a profoundly circumscribed existence. In the words of Robert Heinlein (with whom I agree about almost nothing else), "Specialization is for insects."

We all walk around with hundreds of release years in our memories. This is not the convenience it might seem, because the year always has to be checked on IMDb anyway.

This is certainly more than triviality. Dates are important since the box we live in has time in it too. I dont need to be accurate but I will not be comfortable without knowing the decade( early, mid or late) to which a film belongs---as much as one may like to know the dates of ones life, history or the centuries in which literary figures and scientists lived. Dates are milestones which lend orderliness to the labyrinth of the mind. Most people are reluctant to remember dates regarding it more as a burden than a convenience. I love dates, or at least years further lengthening to decades or centuries or more as one moves backwards.

Roger,

Funny you should mention silent clowns. We watched Tarsem's audacious The Fall--twice--this weekend. (And thank you for your review; it convinced me to watch it. For those of you who haven't seen it, imagine blending The Princess Bride (1987), The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988), Big Fish (2003) and Tarsem's own The Cell (2000)--which Roger, perceptive fellow that he is, called "one of the best films of the year.") It ends with a montage of actual silent stunts and daredevils--Keaton stoically watching a house fall on him, actual trains colliding, cars narrowly missing other cars and trains, Lloyd opting for safety last, etc. My children--sixteen and twenty-one--were astounded that it was all live, all real (more or less). Suddenly, knowing these performers was not trivial, but a glimpse into the reckless heart of greatness.

Speaking of trivia, I believe little Harry Langdon appears in the montage. A scene from Tramp, Tramp, Tramp (1926), I think, Langdon in the midst of a tornado or hurricane. Is he the 4th clown, with Chaplin's innocence, Keaton's impassivity, and Lloyd's haplessness?

Personally, I love movie trivia! Though I certainly can't answer ever single film question, I would compare myself to one of those obsessed sports fanatics who can name who played second base for the Chicago Cubs during the 1986 season (not a question I could come even close to answering). I’m also not as erudite as Scorsese or Tarantino when it comes to some of their genre specific love of film.

I don't go out of my way to memorize movie "facts", but I do enjoy film to a similar extent to the sports fan. I once got the “Silver Screen” add-on card set for “Trivia Pursuit” only to have no one want to play me. I strive to see every four or five star film, and love the language of film, directors’ influence on other's work, and the creativity of storytelling film provides.

Anyway, I've been following your work for years, Mr. Ebert, and could answer most of the questions you proposed. Anyone who has read most of your work could easily answer the first three questions. Question 4 threw me though but I suspect it was something you personally noted having grown up in the greater Chicago era. I also could only recall 2 of the 5 directors in question 5 (Godard and Truffaut immediately came to mind, though after seeing the answers I really should have remembered Rohmer as well). Could that qualify me as at least half a cineaste?

I still don't get it, honestly...I don't get this entry.

I mean it only makes sense if Ebert is running into people on an at least semi-regular basis who ask him stupid, pointless movie questions with the sole or primary intent of tripping him up on some meaningless movie fact, such as "who played Mrs. Vorhees int he original Friday the 13th." Or, "Hey Roger, do you happen to know who the 2nd camera grip on 'Manos the Hand of Fate' was? I do! Ha!"

And, dude, if you are running into people who treat your working as a film critic as an excuse to pull that? Heh. Kinda...Well, sucks.

I am reminded of an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" wherein Data was practicing "small talk" and was instructed to hang out with this high Starfleet Official. The two spent an entire dinner party discussing...nothing, but rather exchanging obscure trivia about the universe in an attempt to outdo each other.

Is that seriously what your social life is like?

-Nighthawk

@Paul J Marasa,

I always thought the See You Next Wednesday was a play on the euphemism "See You Next Tuesday," especially given the apparent softcore movie that the main character goes into toward the end of American Werewolf.

My wife says she can't play Trivial Pursuit because nothing she knows is trivial.

By Joe C. on August 30, 2009 9:41 PM
The answer to question #3:
No. Black and white is, of course, superior....
Ebert: You have the correct meta-answer.

Just recovering from the heady visual melodies of eight and half, second view after two years, IMHO B& W ain't inferior.

I know where you're coming from on this one. I write about film, have a vast knowledge of the medium and have watched enough movies for my parents to tease me that I had a "wasted childhood." So, I often meet people who give me the old nugget, "You may watch a lot of films, but then tell me..." and then throw out some obscure question about some obscure piece of trivia, which, I likely WON'T know. And that's because I'm interested in the films themselves, and not what Art Carney drank at the Russian Tea Room on some random day in 1974 or who was originally cast in some movie or another.

I have several hundred questions I would love the opportunity to ask you. They would all require your knowledge, understanding and most importantly your opinion. Alas, it is not to be. But if we both live long enough, and you keep writing in your journal, you will probably get to them all eventually.

Roger,

I am also fairly annoyed by trivia challenges, especially since I am specifically lacking in this area. Many times I wish I was a smarter person, though I feel I am to some extent "intelligent" and have an academic interest in several areas, including film. Yet, the funny thing is that one of the weak points in my intellectual acumen encompasses the area of "facts". Fundamental it would seem, but I feel that it's not as bad as it sounds. I am horrible with names, need to hear a date or title or reference repeatedly to have it stick. Yet, I heard at one point in High School from a teacher that memorization is the lowest form of learning. But I also heard it said that a more intelligent person has to hear a fact about half as many times as a less intelligent person. Which one was correct? Both I suppose. But in conversations (and in posts on this board) I typically get titles, names, dates etc wrong. I know what I'm talking about and feel I can make intelligent deductions, reasonings and insights, but I have always had a weakness in regurgitating even basic information. (i.e. I watched 3 movies this Saturday, "Three Easy Pieces", "M.Hulot's Holiday" and "Permanent Vacation". The only characters name I remember is M. Hulot. I'm not even sure I can remember what "M" stands for. Monsieur I think?... this sounds pretty bad, but I could tell you how they made me feel as well as why I think they are brilliant and significant films) Thus you could see that I agree probably even more robustly. though I admit, I probably couldn't care less about Wheel of Fortune (the worst "long running" game show in my opinion), but admit that when I rarely get a Jeopardy answer correct I have a obscure pleasure and validation. Though a Physics major on the show would probably do better than me even if the category was "Films".

I actually enjoy trivia, and I am guessing you do too. Your complaint seems more about format than content. If I said to you: "Did you know that the voice of ET is the electronically altered voice of Deborah Winger?" , it's a SHARING thing. If I say "Whose voice was electronically altered to provide the voice of E.T.?" I am WITHHOLDING in order to make myself seem superior. Which, I admit, I am not above. Although now, after reading your column, I will feel like a shitheel. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

I am one of those people who loves film trivia. I'm slightly obsessed by it. For me it enriches a film, provides backstory information and an ongoing log of cross-reference information. I believe it is very possible to enjoy a film on two levels, it's presentation to us "as is" and all of the levels of production, behind the scenes stories, and yes, trivia that goes along with it. "Ben Hur" is an excellent example. Rather than lord it over anyone, I find it generally fascinates people when they are interested in hearing it, otherwise I keep my mouth shut.

But I'm sure you'd agree that the gathering of information is often essential to the acquisition of knowledge. In Yoda syntax: "To know the truth, research the facts you must."

That being said, my ability to name every best picture winner of the past 30 years has proven utterly useless. And I "know" just as much as I would if I couldn't.

Roger I love reading your posts, all your writings for that matter. I have a question, in the Harold Lloyd movie "Safety Last" was that done with trick photography? Was Harold "really" climbing that building without a net or tricks? Also is it true Harold was missing the thumb on his right hand?

Ebert: Found on the web:

Keaton's fellow silent comedian HAROLD LLOYD received greater damage in 1919 when a supposedly-fake prop bomb went off in his hand, blowing off his right thumb and forefinger. Lloyd's condition was kept secret from the public, and he was fitted with prosthetic digits which he used in the rest of his films. The phony fingers didn't keep him from doing his own stunts -- including dangling from the face of a clock 12 stories up in a famous scene from the 1923 movie Safety Last.

Many posters (indeed, the first few) commented how they felt as though there was a mix up between Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune in your blog. Rightly so, I guess it makes more sense that way. As I read the blog the first time through, I had thought you meant that reading the question on the TV screen at home is abundantly easier than hearing Trebek's question with the lights shining on you at their studio. As one would guess, contestants don't see a screen with big, bold capital letters as the question is being read to them. Try it. It's much harder when read to you.

Merv Griffin agrees with you about the success of "Wheel of Fortune." I can't find it now, but I read something recently in which he said the secret to game show success was for the audience and contestants have different motivations (I want to solve the puzzle, but they want to earn more money and so delay solving). Wheel of Fortune makes its audience feel smart.

Not sure how this applies to "Jeopardy!" Maybe I feel smart while watching it because I only have to know the answer while sitting on my couch, but a contestant has to know it under pressure and buzz in first. Some contestants do poorly just because they can't figure out the signaling device.

10/11 pretty good movies along the lines of plays or movies.

'Body Double' 1984 -- A highly underrated 'hero' too. Sipowicz!
'The Freshman' 1990 -- What star gave her a husband a birthday present to visit a Komodo dragon at the zoo -- and what happened?
'The Producers', 2005
'42 Street', 1933
'SOB', 1983 William Holden's character and friends; too far gone for AA.
'The Libertine', 2003? --' in France the King would have had his head on a pike!'
'Sound of Music', 1965 Adeiu!
'Ed Wood' 1994, Great trivia somehow reminds me of 'Rocky Horror' 1975, too
'Get Shorty' 1995 -- A movie trivia buff ... and gangster; Travolta
'Coraline' 2009 -- priceless Scotty audience, and 3D
'All that Jazz' 1979 -- and zip it up...

I can understand that trivia questions posed to you are typically in the form of a challenge. But I go for trivia on occasion because it is a fun part of talking about the movies. What actress played Cousin Eddie's daughter in the first National Lampoon Vacation movie? This was not a fact I remember from watching the movie in the past, but it is now a fun question for those who love the TV show 30 Rock. Who was the desk clerk at the Cook County tax assessor's office at the end of the Blues Brothers? And who was the guy to give Jake Blues his personal artifacts when he left jail? Fun trivia, that if you didn't know, would make you want to see the movie again. True, it is not a substitute for broader knowledge of the history of cinema. But neither are such disciplines mutually exclusive.

Trivia is how I know who I am going to be friends with too, if I quote a line from Goodfellas or Caddyshack or Glengarry Glen Ross and the person I am speaking too either finishes the line with me or knows the line then I know I am speaking to someone with whom I am simpatico.

Trivia: (n.) Whatever I consider unimportant.

Here are a few of my favorite obscure facts about famous films, and where there led me. You tell me how trivial they are:

1) You're on record as thinking that the psychiatrist's explanation scene at the end of Psycho is unnecessary and spoils a "perfect" film. You've overlooked a key fact: the Production Code was still very much in force in 1959, when Hitchcock made the movie. The scene is there, simply, because without it Hitchcock wouldn't have been allowed to make the movie at all. And that, in my wholly unsubstantiated opinion, is why Hitchcock sent the scene up by casting the least likely psychiatrist in movie history, tough-guy Simon Oakland. The way Oakland snarls out the shrink-talk is so totally counter to the way such scenes were (and are) usually done - well, I thought it was kinda funny, but hey, that's me. (sometimes I wonder how it would have looked if Hitchcock had made Psycho about ten years later, when Oakland had packed on about 50 more pounds and added an couple of layers of smoker's rasp to his voice.)
I"ve read that after he shot this scene, Hitchcock said to Oakland, "Thank you, Mr. Oakland. You just saved my picture."

2) I'm a lifelong character actor buff, and the uses of type-casting have always fascinated me.
2a) Last time I saw The Manchurian Candidate (the Frankenheimer version - you know, the good one), as I watched Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) dispatch the only two 'liberal' characters in the story, it occurred to me that these two men were played by actors - Lloyd Corrigan and John McGiver - who were typecast throughout their careers as comic bumblers. You don't suppose that Frankenheimer was trying to tell us something...
2b) Same picture: I always get a kick out of Khigh Dhiegh as Dr. Yen Lo, the Chinese brainwasher. Mr. Dhiegh developed a whole career out of this part, culminating in his long-term recurrence on Hawaii Five-O. Imagine my joy at learning that Khigh Dhiegh was in fact African-American, born Kenneth Dickerson. (Next time you watch Manchurian, listen to his speech, which carries the tones of his native region: New Joisey.)

3) I thought it was generally known that Harold Lloyd lost fingers on his right hand when a prop bomb went off at the wrong time. This happened early in his career, before he made most of his classic films, and while he did do much of his own stuntwork, Lloyd had the services of one of Hollywood's legendary stuntmen, Harvey Parry, to do the long shots (which is where most of the climbing happened). Kevin Brownlow's famous BBC documentary series, which channel 9 ran at ridiculous late-night hours years ago, had a detailed breakdown of some Lloyd stunt scenes, showing when it was Lloyd (if you could see his face) and when it was Parry (long shots and climbing). Parry narrated these sequences, also revealing some of the secrets of the set-ups, which unfortunately I can't recall in any detail. None of this was bandied about during Lloyd's lifetime, at his request.
(Sidebar: Why are Laurel & Hardy so totally neglected on these studies of silent comedy? It can't just be that they made a successful transition to sound, because Harold Lloyd did too.And before anyone else chimes in, Lloyd retired voluntarily when he got rich.)

Given time, I can come up with bunches more of these - and if this trhread stays active long enough, I probably will.

About Wheel Of Fortune: If you'd ever actually seen the show, you'd know that the object of the game is not to be the first to solve the puzzle - it's to accumulate the largest amount of money by adding letters to the puzzle. It works like this:
1) Figure out what the puzzle says;
2) Get control of the Wheel;
3) Add letters for the money amounts on the wheel slots (if you hit $5000 on the wheel and you know there are five Ts and one C to be revealed, which will you take?);
4)Hope like hell that you don't hit Lose A Turn or Bankrupt.
What I'm describing here is a game involving both luck and strategy - and that is why it's so successful after all these years.
If Merv Griffin had ever made a movie game show, it would likely have succeeded. He knew how to make a game.

Oh, and Friend of the Balboa Theatre: Casey Stengel and Senor Al Lopez. (I know I'm not the first, but what the hey.)

I agree about trivia, but only bad trivia questions. I thinkt here are some good ones out there, which use trivia as a sort of Trojan horse to pass on worthwhile facts.

Such as (fingers crossed on this one that you like it): Which famous novel had its name changed due to the film Stalag 17?

Answer: Catch-22, which was originally Catch-17. I can't imagine it without the mirror-image irony of its title numbers, but we have William Holden and Billy Wilder to thank for it.

Hi, Roger:

I agree with you that trivia as a guessing game serves no purpose. I have long given up on these games of one-upmanship, trying to prove one's "superior knowledge" with the parroting of odd facts from movie history. (Comedian Mark Russell described the game of "Trivial Pursuit" as "a game where nothing happens...v-e-e-ery slowly.")

Movie trivia should only be used sparingly, to enhance a discussion of the merits of a movie, or of its actor or director. For example, if we are discussing whether or not Harold Lloyd deserves to be included as one of the "Great Three" clowns of the silent era, I can say that I believe Lloyd's climb up the side of the building in "Safety Last" is on par with Chaplin's collapsing cabin in "The Gold Rush," and Keaton's train chase in "The General." All three comedians took an environment that would normally be used for thrills only, and created an innovative mix of thrills and comedy from it.

In terms of Harold Lloyd's building climb, I can spice up the discussion with a little trivia: In 1921, a few years before he made "Safety Last," Lloyd was involved in an on-set accident in which his thumb and index finger were blown off by a prop bomb he was holding. When Lloyd returned to work following the accident, he wore a white glove to hide his damaged hand. He made the building climb in "Safety Last," dangling from ledges and clinging to the clock, using only eight fingers. This makes Lloyd, in my opinion, every bit as daring as Keaton or Chaplin in creating his own form of physical comedy.

(I could also tell you how Lloyd filmed the building climb to make it appear more dangerous than it really was, but I believe that is sort of like revealing the secret of a magic trick. It spoils the effect. The info on how he did it is out there on the web, if you wish to look it up.)

Incidentally, I am one of those who believes there is a fourth "Great Clown" of the silent cinema. I believe Harry Langdon -- the long-forgotten baby-face comedian -- should be included with Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd. The clip below gives a little bit of insight into Langdon's talent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDFGm8isguM

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

Who said it? :)

To your black and white comment. I believe that it is artistic choice, but in most instances I do not mind. There are some films in black and white that are astounding examples of cinematography, and there are some in color, but most on either side are not.

Mr. Ebert I think you for this article because of Harold Lloyd, I never heard of him up until now. Can't wait to see some of his films. Being a Chaplin fan I enjoy the classic comedies, especially Gold Rush. You always know something that I do not and that is why I read your articles.

One other thing I think if I ever met you in person I wouldn't ask you trivia. I would ask you who you think the greatest director was of all-time and for you to tell me a few movies I never heard of before. I would also thank you because you are my first teacher of film. I have read you since I was fourteen and now I am 21 and I think for my age I understand entertainment better then many.

Love (and muchly agree with) the article! You realize, of course, you are courting the following sort of query, however, by its very posting: Doesn't the 1918 film actually show the infant Greystoke onscreen before the appearance of Gordon Griffith...and wouldn't that make him, not Griffith(whatever the child's name might be -- the IMDB lists no "infant Tarzan" credit), the "first" onscreen Tarzan? It's been awhile since I've looked at the movie, so I resist the temptation to adopt a hoity-toity attitude about this detail. But, if true, it might help Nava out in his dispute with McHugh! (Though it might deflate one more expert's face in the process)

In your review of “The Devils’s Rejects” (2005), you mention the characters name themselves after Groucho Marx characters (Otis P. Driftwood,Rufus T. Firefly, Captain Spaulding.)

“The critic is such a Groucho fan that he knows Groucho played God in Ottopreminger's "Skidoo" (1968), something I also knew, but I bet you didn't.”

Trivia is an exercise in the basics, the fundamentals of comprehension. We must first know before we can compare. Much like a pun acts as a building block for comedy, other aspects must still be incorporated – timing, delivery, set up, and reading the audience.

From your reviews over the years, your constant references and comparisons of films explain why (usually) the remake or the newest addition to a specific genre fails to measure up. You have taught us how to think critically about cinema and certainly why stuff that ”blows up real good” may not always be the most entertaining. By posting where and how to find discussion and debate on a film or genre instead of just giving trivial answers to questions, you have opened our minds to the possibility of thinking for ourselves.

Trivia can be used as a tool in some small way by us laymen to communicate with someone of your appreciation and knowledge. It is a not always futile exercise that helps us to develop our own vocabulary in trying to define for ourselves – “What is art?” Or perhaps more appropriately – “What is worthy art?” Would Quentin Tarantino be as good a writer/ director as he is today without his vast knowledge of foreign and domestic movie trivia?

When someone is trying to one up you on a piece of trivia, they are much like a piano student trying to outplay their teacher on the scales. Childish yes, but it is just a step on the way for them to learn rhythm, harmony, passion, creation, and interpretation – not just how to recite stuff “real good.” Sadly, most of them just want to show off, “I knew something ol’ Roger Ebert didn’t!”

However, there are those of us who take the time, who click on the links, who search the web, who rent the movies, who delve into the history. There are those of us who do indeed take some initiative to decide for ourselves when a bloated budget CG summer crap-stravaganza fails to measure up to the hype. There are those of us who can learn and evolve beyond just trivia, much in thanks to you.

Otis P. Driftwood – “Night at the Opera”
Rufus T. Firefly – “Duck Soup”
Captain Spaulding – “Animal Crackers”
(I’ve seen Marx brothers’ movies, but I still had to look up the names)

When Trivial Pursuit first came out, I kicked major butt. My family wouldn't play with me after a while. I really thought I was smart! I read all the time and devoured all types of magazines, so my knowledge was random and really pretty awesome (or so I thought).

However, the older I get, the less I know. This is because (1) the older I get, the wiser I get--I ain't so smart. (2) I realize what a tiny fish in such an infinite universe I am. (3) Too much information out there! Jeez! (4) Menopause does a hell of a number on a woman's memory.

No big deal; I don't participate in the trivia fests that sometime occur when people get together. However, I do have one problem. When someone proudly presents a piece of trivia and I know they are wrong and I can prove it, I just don't want to jump in there and contest them. Just don't like arguing anymore--I've become too mellow. I don't get any pleasure out of proving someone wrong, either, when they are obviously so darn proud of themselves. (Now I'm talking about friends and loved ones of course--or friends of loved ones. If it is a mule-headed jerk I would love to prove them wrong, but I don't waste time spending any more time than I have to around mule-headed jerks--life's too short.)

My bigger problem: My younger brothers used to call me "Glass Head", because I am so transparent--people can see right through me. When someone gives a goofy bit of trivia that is wrong, I think my eyes bulge out and my mouth hangs open. I must look like a fish, and people say, "What's wrong, what's wrong?" And I stammer and say, oh nothing, I must have choked on my spit or something. But throughout the rest of the conversation I am horrified that someone I'm fond of could be so dumb. And I hang out with really smart people, so the shock factor of catching one of them in a dumb statement makes things worse.

I know, weird. But normalcy has never been a big deal to me. So if any of you ever meet me in person, you know whatever I say to you is the truth--old Glass Head has never been able to lie and get away with it.

The derivation of "film cricket" is not David Poland, but Homer Simpson — who said "I wish I could be a film cricket" when Jay Sherman, the Jon Lovitz character from "The Critic," made a guest appearance to serve on the jury of the Springfield Film Festival.

I know this because it's how I chose the name for my blog, The Movie Cricket, when I launched it in January 2006.

Ebert: Of course. Maybe that's where he got it...

I admit to being in possession of much more trivia than most people ever need. Now, my run on Jeopardy! was back in 1988 and again in the 2003 10th Anniversary Tournament, but I know we never saw any list of 200 possible questions. Maybe things have changed since then.

But I think I can be pleased to say that when I met you and Gene, way back at the Chicago International Film Festival gala in your honors, I at least tried to come up with something clever to say that wasn't trivia, something along the lines of, "So, are there any new directors already being called 'the next Tarantino?' " The answer was, IIRC, "I'm still waiting for the first Tarantino." But at least I knew better than to act the total geek by wanting to "stump Siskel & Ebert."
But still, I agree with the previous posters who noted the difference between amassing worthless facts for no reason, and using those facts to connect the dots and gain insight. Knowing that Ronald Reagan was almost cast in "Casablanca" should give you some awareness of how the studios made movies in those days (probably EVERY leading man at Warners was under consideration at one time or another); "Casablanca" was originally just something to fill the release calendar, that it rose above the hundreds of studio product that year can be gleaned from some of the trivia attached to it.

Last weekend, during the hoo-hah about the Woodstock 40th Anniversary, the voice-tracked DJ who programs WLS-FM played a Credence Clearwater Revival song and announced "This band was paid ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for their appearance at Woodstock!" (the jock read it like it was all caps) So what? Did he mention that fact because $11,000 seems paltry today? What did the _other_ bands playing Woodstock get? Were CCR considered headliners? Dr. Hook sang, via Shel Silverstein, that "We sing about beauty and we sing about truth / At ten thousand dollars a show," just three years later. And back in the 1930's the entire Glenn Miller Orchestra got to split a fee of $200 per concert. My rambling point again, is that some trivia facts can be fun, but they need to have some context.

And one would hope that a good quiz show writer would rephrase the Elmo Lincoln question as "Who was the first actor to get star billing as Tarzan?" or something like that. After all, how many movies must there be in which the character played by its putative star appears first as a child or baby? Of all the indignities heaped on Klinton Spilsbury for his turn in "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" (1981), you'd hate to see him pushed aside for Marc Gilpin, who played John Reid (the Ranger) as a boy (and who is the younger brother of Peri Gilpin, who played Roz Doyle on "Fraiser," one of which's producer was Christopher Lloyd, who it turns out is NOT the same Christopher Lloyd who was on "Taxi" and who also played Butch Cavendish in… "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" (1981).)

A trivial mind is a terrible thing…

Nice to see the clip of the young Tarzan. I would always say Elmo Lincoln was the "first", not thinking Gordon Griffith played him as a child.
Sort of like answering Kent Allard to "what is the Shadow's secert identity, insterad of Lamont Kranston.
Ken

I really liked your post.

I am known as the "Trivia Queen". I know random facts about cities, streets, history, science, showbizz, movies, literature. Does that make me a stupid person because I know a lot of random facts? No, I am solely a person that reads everything she finds and look on Google (and Wikipedia) anything she might have a question about.

Did I know any of the answers to your question? Nope. Will I remember them? Probably. But I knew nothing about French New Wave, so I googled it. I think trivia is there to entertain and make us think about the rest.

Lisa

I fared not too well on your quiz, and here I thought myself at least a moderately informed cineaste. I guessed "Battleship Potemkin" instead of "Birth of a Nation," drew a blank on the French New Wave, and was defeated by the more esoteric Chicago-to-Urbana question (though I've seen "Some Like it Hot"). But I knew Harold Lloyd, and if anyone answers #3 wrong, I don't think they even belong in a movie theater.

On the plus side, I don't ask a lot of useless trivia questions -- though I can quote more than my share of lines from TV's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" -- and I do quite well when I watch "Wheel of Fortune." As for the French New Wave, I'm going to have to get on that, stat.

I realize by posting the following comment I have completely missed the point of this blog post, but...

I have a suspicion David Poland borrowed the term "film cricket" from the 1995 Simpsons episode "A Star Is Burns." You can thank Homer for the malaprop.

"The reason "Wheel of Fortune" is one of the longest-running shows on TV is that anybody but a dunderhead can sit at home, observe the letters as they fill in the blanks, and usually provide the answer more quickly than the contestants can."

I graduated from college, albeit not a very prestigious school, with honors and am at law school now. So, while I wouldn't necessarily say that I am far above normal intelligence I would like to think that I am at least average or a little bit above average intelligence. I can not for the world figure out the fill in the blank problems on wheel of fortune.

To me personally, Jeporady is much easier to understand. I guess I am a 'dunder-head' or at least am based on my ability to answer Wheel of Fortune questions. :)

Sam E.

To Rollan Schott's point about Alice Guy's films, I have long believed that D.W. Griffith receives a disproportionate amount of credit for establishing the basic grammar of cinema owing to the fact that the vast majority of his films remain extant, while the vast majority of the films of his contemporaries are lost. Because of the chemical instability of nitrate film stock, something like 90% of all the silent films that were made are permanently and irrevocably lost. We tend to talk about Griffith's innovations, I think, simply because we have the evidence in front of us. If we had more films by his contemporaries to look at, I'm sure we would need to revise the prevailing sense that Griffith single-handedly revolutionized cinema storytelling like Moses coming down from the mountain with close-ups and cross-cuts on stone tablets. Griffith was an important innovator, make no mistake, but he almost certainly wasn't the cinema Prometheus that he is made out to be in the textbooks.

I couldn't agree more with your interpretation of movie trivia as a complete waste of time. On an unrelated note, I host a weekly movie trivia podcast that I am sure you would all enjoy, Roger especially.

celluloidering.com

Ebert: Can't wait.

I think there's a reason that Dungeons and Dragons has long-separated "Wisdom" and "Intelligence" in its games. One denotes a store of knowledge; the other denotes that you understand how best to use it.

I know sometimes that seems like a bit of cliche, but my girlfriend and I play Trivial Pursuit all the time, and I usually lose. That said, she is consistently amazed at the way I will come up with accents, spoof-songs, drawings and faux-personalities off the top of my head.

For a creative person like me, I've always been more prone to create than to dwell on the creations of others. The five questions above don't excite me; they daunt me. I respect the dead, but the knowledge you speak of borders on obsession.

Think it's difficult to keep track of filmic obscurities now? Just wait until 400 years pass, and it's become an actual art form with a history to it ... no one will know everything. Film will have to be studied by era, or possibly be subdivided even more, just like literature today.

As one of the featured panelists of a well-liked but short-lived trivia game show on television, I suppose I should be defending my vast array of arcane and useless information and my ability to summon it quickly when challenged. But truth be told, you are absolutely right - information is not the same as knowledge. What does rattling off the directors of all the FRIDAY THE 13TH movies have to do with the price of beans in Boston? Therefore I make it a point to not go around dropping ridiculously difficult questions to people for the selfish purpose of making myself appear "smart" because just as unfairly, the old canard of "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" can be, and in fact has been, thrown right back in my face. Thankfully, I am able to answer your five part quiz, which means that I have some ability to actually apply my arcana to an understanding of what makes great film, and do my best to convey *that* to other people, to explain why Scorsese's use of pop music is so dramatically effective rather than just recite all the songs featured in MEAN STREETS. Thank you for the humility lesson.

Ebert: How do you train for something like that? It seems to me a hopeless task.

Did you ever think that these people admire and respect you and would like nothing more than to have a conversation with you about the movies? Having nowhere close to the knowledge of the cinema that you do, they could be looking to somehow impress you so that that they might engage you on some level in a dialogue, which is I guess, preferable to the Chris Farleyesque “I really liked your review of Deuce Bigalow…, that was great” or something along those lines.

Of course I could be wrong.

Ebert: I'm pretty engageable.

I've found that you don't even have to have seen a film to know the answer to a question regarding it. Even people who have never seen The Empire Strikes back knows it's secrets.

I find that movie triva is a great way to see what is really important and what isn't when it comes to cinema. I also strive to learn interesting facts, but it's all in good fun. It almost doesn't matter that someone who hasn't seen The Empire Strikes back knows that Darth Vadar is Lukes father. What matters is there's no good excuse for not having seen it.

If there is such a thing as a good trivia question, it is one that invites discussion. I guess that's why I like question number 3 so much.

Roger -

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the train ride was going from Chicago to Florida in Some Like It Hot.

Joe and Jerry were originally booked to perform at a dance in Urbana, but witnessed Spats killing Toothpick Charley and his gang at the garage where they were picking up a car to drive to the Urbana gig.

After they escaped the garage, they decided to pose as "Josephine" and "Daphne" and take the job earlier offered jokingly so they could get out of town undetected by the mob on the train to Florida with the rest of Sweet Sue's band.

Regardless, it's a great movie and one I cherish as it was introduced to me and my brother by my late grandparents.

Ebert: Caught!

Some (not all) of the comments above imply that only shallow-minded people enjoy exchanging trivia questions and answers. Not necessarily true, and many intelligent folk enjoy this as a harmless and amusing pastime.

The point is that they do so by common consent. Walking up to a specialist in any field, whether film or physics, and expecting them to answer pointless questions is a sign, not of mental vacuity, but of simple arrogance.

"Link Harold Lloyd to Kevin Bacon in the fewest number of moves????"

Harold Lloyd was in Sin of Harold Diddlebock with Lionel Stander

Lionel Stander was in 1941 with John Belushi

John Belushi was in Animal House with Kevin Bacon.

I am mortified to admit that I didn't even have to look any of that up.

Ebert: That's my boy.

He's at efilmcritic.com

there is a blopper in the movie "Inglourious Basterds". In the bat scene after he kills the german soldier he says he "went yard" .Ive been a baseball fan since 1941. that term was never used by anyone in baseball during the 40's 50's or 60's. the saying is recent when a home run is hit.

While I don't personally agree with your hatred of trivia, I fully understand where you're coming from. I find it no fun at all to ask questions that only I would be able to answer. Anyone can do that about anything as long as the fact is obscure enough.

If I'm sitting around with my fiance, I'm not going to bombard her with James Bond questions that I know she will never be able to answer (The answer to a previous comment's question is Universal Exports...and that's without Google) I derive pleasure from the question AND answer portion of trivia. It's more of a conversation starter.

I also like to pose trivia more in a "Did you know...insert interesting fact here." That way I'm not engaging in a one sided conversation intended to boost my ego. Sometimes the person knows exactly what I'm talking about and we can discuss it further in depth, other times they're interested in the silly fact and we can discuss it in depth, still other times, they consider the fact to be the definition of trivial and we talk about something else.

Trivia is fun, Roger, at least it can be.

Roger,

Apologies if I'm repeating anyone else here but there remains a TV show in the UK which pits university teams against one another on general knowledge questions. It's called University Challenge. It's still fairly popular but not as big as any of the awful reality TV shows we have now. My interest in the show has never been regular since I never know the answers to the questions and their quick fire nature makes it near impossible to retain anything.

I must say thanymoreany of your blog entries worry me since you regularly complain about the hatred and fear of intellectuals in the US. Your blog, being my only view on this phenomenon in the US, makes me think that it is worse in the US than here in the UK. Here, people readily call intellectuals nerds or geeks but when they talk within their field of expertise I think people listen. In the US, if people don't listen to intellectuals then who do they listen to? and why?

Trivia is a strange topic. If I was talking to a friend, I would have a blast throwing out movie trivia questions that they couldn't answer. But if I got a chance to talk to Roger Ebert, why would I bore him by asking trivia questions? I would want to analyze and discuss movies, not ask questions that someone would only know the answer to if they looked it up thirty seconds before.

By Jerry Roberts on August 31, 2009 6:30 AM

I am proud of the fact that when it comes to knowledge about the movies, I tend to be smarter than the average bear. Let me put it another way: I could easily go to a party and carry on an in-depth conversation about the art of the cinema without making a fool of myself.

Oh yeah? Well... what did Oliver Hardy always say when he answered the telephone at home?

I am a little surprised that you actually encourage questions about movies in for you "Answer Man" section, and yet you don't like trivia questions. I suppose I'm wondering what's the difference.

The problem with trivia in a certian field (such as film) is that it often misses the point of the field, and doesn't represent what the field is all about so much as it represents what laymen apparently *think* the field is about. Mathematicians experience this when people ask them to multiply two large numbers together, as if that is what math were all about. Linguists also experience it when people ask them how many languages they know, which is akin to asking a biologist how many organs they have.

In your comment on one of the posts you mention Ellen Page being in "Hard Eight." Was this a typo? I'm a big Paul Thomas Anderson fan, and I actually watched the film again pretty recently, and the only female role I can remember is Gwyneth Paltrow's.

Ebert: Whoops, "Hard Candy!"

Daniel Montgomery wrote on August 31, 2009 2:27 PM

"On the plus side, I don't ask a lot of useless trivia questions -- though I can quote more than my share of lines from TV's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"..."

"Oooo, Buffy. Can I get you a soda pop? I think I'm in looove..." :)

Joss Whedon was to TV what Tarantino is to film; he was always referencing something, eh? From Shakespeare to Bleach Blanket Bingo.

As for Harold Lloyd, I've seen every film he's ever made - I used to watch them on TV when I was a kid. I can sing the "Hooray for Harold Lloyd" song and everything! I also later watched all the extra bonus stuff they added to some DVD's. And saw how they shot "Safety Last" - which was ingenious.

On the roof of an actual office building in downtown L.A. with a good view of the surrounding architecture, they constructed a fake building facade to precisely match the one they were on. Harold climbs THAT. And because of how the camera was set-up, you're tricked into thinking he's actually hanging off a clock, many many stories high ( in truth, more like 25 feet ) but because you can see "reality" in the background.

There was a mattress to break his fall were he to loose his grip, but because they needed to place the fake facade really close to the edge of the roof (to sell the depth perception) had he slipped, there was a 50/50 chance he'd have bounced right off the roof and fallen down onto the street below. So there's the element of risk.

They also explained how he was able to get his fingers in between tiny hidden groves in the fake stone facade so he could climb it with his prosthetic fingers.

I thought it was very clever of them and it never fails to delight me whenever I see it! For it was risky but in a really smart way. And I think it shows how you don't need to use CGI to create an amazing illusion. Not if you've got brains. :)

Richard Voza,
I don't know where you learned that Jeopardy contestants are provided with a pool of possible questions, but I don't think it's true. My daughter was a contestant a few months ago, and she didn't get any advance prep whatsoever.

A bit off on a tangent here, but I had to get it in before I went home:

In your old B/W show you used Blazing Saddles as an example of a comedy that would have been improved by being in B/W. I always felt that you shot yourself in the foot with that one. Reason: it was clear from the opening titles that Mel Brooks intended Blazing Saddles to be in color - or, to be precise, TECHNICOLOR. It was part of the satire - the vast postcard vistas, the highly colorful costumes, all the outdoor shooting - exactly like a wide-screen color western. Why do you think the Technicolor process got a larger screen credit than anyone or anything else?
You also goofed on your choice of scene, picking an outdoor daylight scene. As someone must have have explained to you at some time, the major difference between B/W and color photography is they have to be lit differently. B/W requires more contrast. This is why you can always tell when a movie has been filmed in color and then had the color removed. It isn't real B/W at all; it looks darker. It also looks phony. The gag is a funny one, but it would be funny regardless of process, whether B/W, color, negative solarization, or when Olsen and Johnson did it on the live stage in one of their revues.This is when I decided that that the whole colorization flap was just too silly to bother with. (Also when you used terms like 'vandalism' to describe it. Breaking someone's windows, setting fire to their lawn, desecrating a sacred site - that's vandalism. Adding color electronically to anj old film - which in no way affects the original negative - is a bad idea, but it falls far short of 'vandalism'.)

I supose that the foregoing means that I am not a 'serious film lover' I think I can live with that. It is possible to take certain things too seriously.

Richard Nanian wrote: I'm not even entirely clear on how to make a distinction between worthwhile knowledge and trivia.

The difference is context.

How to tell the difference between a coral snake and a king snake is trivia, unless you notice one a foot from your leg.

If you want to think about the great clowns of silents, you have to include Fatty Arbuckle, Charley Chase, Colleen Moore (a Chicagoan!), and Harry Langdon, to name but a few. Especially Moore, for so few of her films survive. It is with this preamble that I offer the following:

Everyone who loves cinema is dismayed by the number of films we lose each year. Ferdy on Films, etc. and The Self-Styled Siren have decided to do something about it by rallying the film blogging community with a fundraising blogathon devoted to film preservation. We have chosen The Film Foundation as the recipient of the funds.

The idea of the blogathon is for each of the participating blogs to write about some aspect of film preservation - from a wishlist of films for restoration, a showcase of recently restored films, a memorial to lost films, or anything else that will educate people about the need for this work and encourage them to go to The Film Foundation site to donate. Complete details will be posted on Ferdy on Films and The Self-Styled Siren as the two host blogs (there may be a couple more).

The dates for the blogathon are November 8-14. I'm writing to ask you to support the fundraiser by writing and posting an entry on your blog during that time devoted to this important topic. Please contact me at ferdyonfilms@comcast.net for details.

Thanks, Roger, for your consideration and all you do for film.

I'll second Jennifer Morrow's thoughts that "crickets" for "critics" might have originated from Mel Brooks.
Sometime back in the 70's, Mel did a Playboy interview. (The following is greatly paraphrased.) The interviewer asked Mel what he thought about critics. Mel replied, "Oh, I love them. When you're out in the country at night time and you hear them making that music by rubbing their leags together...just wonderful." The interviewer responded, "I think you're talking about crickets. I asked what you think about critics". Mel came back, "Oh. They're OK; but they can't make any sound by rubbing their legs together".

Dear Mr. Ebert

Your piece spurred me to again read Lawrence Durrell's wonderful little essay entitled "The Worldly University of Grenoble", originally published in 1959.

Indeed, trivia is child's play: at its best it may perhaps test one's skill but often, as you indicated somewhat acerbically, it represents nothing more than a poorly disguised form of boasting. Just as sarcasm is the lowest form of humour, trivia might be regarded of as being the lowest form of knowledge. Durrell suggested that knowledge in its highest form is ideas, and something even more elusive that he referred to as "imaginative daring". Tell me, which directors, writers, and actors can, in your experience, be deservedly described as being imaginatively daring?

Ironic, isn't it that these individuals are most likely to appear as the subject of trivia questions!?

Regards

Gosh, Tarantino, Kevin Smith and a whole bunch of others would hardly be where they are without trivia (and a deep love for films) would they? Semi-jocularly.. I think that'd be sad. Just saying..

I take it you thought that email was all gibberish Roger? Oh well, at least I now know I can write all gibberish..

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

Ebert: Hmmm. Is what they do trivia?

To me the best movie trivia is a fact that reveals something maybe unexpected about the movie itself.

My favorite (that surprisingly few friends, even movie buffs get), is "What is the first line spoken in 'The Godfather.'?"

The line ("I believe in America.") is not what you might expect in a film about the Mafia, but it is certainly consistent with everything I've ever heard or read Copolla say about what the story is about, to him.

I enjoyed the blog entry.

t.

PS: Your choice of "Birth . . ." over "Battleship Potemkin" surprised me until I looked up their respective dates of production! I remain an amateur.

Having seen all the movies of this summers "French Film Festival" on the Dutch national television I can name two directors: Malle & Truffaut. I loved the festival initiative, made me see some French movies I've never even heard of before. From old classics like Jim & Jules or les Amants to new ones like la Vie en Rose or La tourneuse des pages. But seeing how I'm only 24 I don't mind that I'm not able to answer most of these questions. I've still got time to pump my head full of even more trivia.

Ebert: I wonder when American national television will have a French film festival?

Jerry Weaver: Glad we agree. The answer to your question is Cate Blanchette, right?

Mike Doran (aka Lowbrow Crank): You're right about Stengel and Lopez, and also about being the first (not that this matters at all). Nor will you be the last as I intend to keep asking people that one. (Note to Mr. Ebert: not you, governor.) The point, though, was that this kind of question leads to another: "You mean Stengel won ten out of twelve pennants?—what did he know that the other managers didn't know? (Or did Casey explain it all when he quipped, "I couldn't have done it without my players.")

Among the more supple-minded, that question in turn might lead to a discussion of Stengel's use of platooning, his disregard for set lineups and rotations, and his use of seemingly unorthodox but ultimately sound strategies. Which might lead to a discussion of how organizational behavior affects production in general or to a cinematic corollary in particular: what effect did the director’s attitude toward the use of actors have on the films of Hitchcock? Or the films of Altman? Or Eastwood?

In _A Study in Scarlet_, Sherlock Holmes is quoted as saying that one might infer the possibility of an Atlantic from a drop of water because "life is a great chain." You can certainly use that chain to ensnare victims in a game of "Gotcha," but you could also follow its links to see where they lead and to a much greater reward than the momentary ego stroke.

("Gotcha" is a tricky business anyway: consider poor Johnny Ringo who asked, "How come I've got to run into a squirt like you nearly every place I go these days? What are you trying to do? Show off for your friends?" and the fate of the man who finally took his measure by trickery....)

@ Conor
''I'm not a big fan of movie trivia, either, but I ask one movie question to every girl I meet.

"What did you think of Transformers 2?"

It's a 'filter' question for me. If she says she loves it, then I know we can never be together. Saves me a lot of time, actually''

I have not seen "Transformers 2," only the first. I thought your post came off rather glib. I don't mean any offence but to judge someone on if they loved "Transformers 2" does not seem very nice, even though that person hopefully would be able to love deeper, better films. Again, I mean no offence and I not attacking your freedom of speech but if you genuinely will not be with a girl who does like "Transformers 2" then say up front that you hate that movie and will not be with someone who doesn't; and if you are joking, then the joke does not strike me as very funny. My sincerest apologies if you are offended.

Sincerely,
Andrew Davies.

Ebert: I would also think twice.

Might I submit, however, the notion that mutually recognized triva among enthusiasts (of anything) can successfully serve a useful function as a bonding and recognition mechanism?

Playing "Stump The Critic/Expert" is very obnoxious.

Playing "let's see if share an interest, and do it by playfully testing each other for a shared body of knowledge, a mutally overlapping (never identical!) canon" is something else entirely.

(Trivia: who was the publisher of Stymie? Who was Harry Warner, Jr.? What was Yandro?)

There's also the function of trivia as shibboleth.

(Personally, I'm pleased that I got three of your questions right, missed #4 and kicked myself reading the answer, but could only name four French New Wave directors off the top of my head, and refused to cheat.)

RE: "I lost my respect for jeopardy when i learned that the contestants get to preview a list of approximately 200 questions before the show. i don't know if it's 200 total or 200 per category. what i do know is they've seen all the questions ahead of time. i don't know if what they see also includes the answers. anyone? anyone? bueller?"

I was recently a contestant on the show, and this is not at all the case. We were allowed to watch (from the studio audience) the episodes that taped earlier in the day before we competed, but there was absolutely no repetition of material or categories and no coaching or provision of material to any of the contestants.

They're pretty strict about anything that would enable contestants to cheat or to find out any questions/answers before competing -- no internet access or cellphones in the studio complex, and once you're in the audience contestants even have to be escorted to use the bathroom.

"I might have guessed Marx brothers.

Ebert: Not silent."

Untrue!

[...] (they had previously made — but not released — one short silent film titled Humor Risk [....]

It's a lost film, but they did work in silent films, even if we can't see that work.

This is possibly the irritating sort of trivia. :-) But it's been mentioned in the better biographies of the Brothers.

Ebert: If it wasn't released, how would they qualify (collectively) as one of the three great silent clowns?

I actually like movie trivia, although, or probably because I rarely know them.
There are certain movies that I absolutely obsess over, but by and large, I'm no "cineaste" by any means, so I enjoy learning about new movie tidbits, especially when they're all trivial--like the stuff you can indulge in for a moment, and forget the next for the triviality it is.

I happily admit that I didn't get any of your five questions right (well, I did answer 'no' to question 3, but for a different reason--does that count?). Heck, I didn't even understand two of the questions! But, I wasn't going to waste anybody's time with trivia questions anyway, so I'm still qualified to take up your time, yes? Like with DEEP and PROFOUND questions?

I feel much relief after reading this. I was never good at trivia, and your rationale frees me from the guilt I felt thinking I was missing a few 2 by 4's in the mental lumber department. It also shows me I need to read up on cinema overall more, to broaden my understanding.

Here's a trivia question for you Roger. Jack Lemmon was a marvelous raconteur, and loved telling the story of a time he had to visit a Beverly Hills hardware store for some supplies. Lemmon said that he got his items, and went to the checkout counter. The customer service guy looked at him, then began staring over Lemmon's shoulder. When Lemmon asked him how much he owed, the clerk ignored him, and continued staring over his shoulder. Lemmon began to get insulted at being so ignored, and finally turned around to see what the clerk was staring at. What did Jack Lemmon see?

Answer to follow.

Hint: It's related to a recent posting of yours.

Answer: Klaus Kinski holding an axe.

I apologize for being off-topic, but I've been wondering if we might expect an audio production (e.g. podcast) from you in the near future with the aid of a personalized synthetic computer voice. I recall from a previous blog post that you had inqured with a software company (from the UK, I believe) regarding the feasibility of producing a customized voice. The examples they made available were quite remarkable.

After reading this I went looking for your VIEWER'S GUIDE TO "CITIZEN KANE" but was unable to find it. I remember it had some interesting "little known facts" (I won't use the T word) about the film that you brought to light and I kept an eye out for when I saw the film again.

That phrase I just quoted reminds me of the "Cheers" character Cliff Clavin. Now there's a demonstration of your point about information and knowledge. To himself, Cliff was a wealth of information. To others, he was mainly a pointless bore!

As for the release dates, with more and more remakes and title duplication as time goes on, it is helpful in finding the film you seek. (I just Googled "Planet Of The Apes" and the first listings for both 1968 and 2001 were from IMDb.) Let's see what happens in December when I'm looking for "A Christmas Carol".

Okay, some music trivia. Well gee, Mark McD... let's see... when Creedence Clearwater got $11k at Woodstock, Janis Joplin was pulling about $7k per show. Ten Years After were also getting $7k after their appearance at Woodstock. It was the standard fee for most college venues, where they earned their bread and butter.

Generally a hit band would get whatever their manager could arrange for them. Musicians live as hand-to-mouth a life as there is, and the union is largely a mob joke; failure of record companies to pay them is not. I met Little Richard when he was living with his mom in Riverside, CA, broke. He said he'd never been paid for the songs that fired up Rock'n'Roll more than Elvis did. I've met a few like that.

I also met the notorious stoner Matthew Katz, who'd managed Jefferson Airplane, It's a Beautiful Day, Tim Rose, and other psychedelic icons we thought were rich. Like other cheap hucksters of the day, he signed naive kids lock, stock and barrel. When I met him in 1980 was trying to enlist more naive kids to live on a bus and wander around pretending to be those bands for $250/week. That's about what you'd get playing a dirt bar, and from what I hear, still is. Incidentally Billy Joel was paying his sidemen the same rate at the peak of his own career, so I heard.

I watched Dr. Hook get booed off the stage at the Saratoga Performing Arts center. Venue of 5,000 people, tickets $7, seating allowed to swell twice that size now and then. People were sick to death of hearing "Sylvia's Mother" on the radio, and rumor had it, it was a payola scheme. Their fee, like everybody else's was probably between five and ten grand.

At that time -- early 70s -- the individual musicians of the resident New York Philharmonic were paid $300/week, as I recall; may be wrong, but they sure as hell weren't affluent. They supplemented their incomes with lessons.

Back in the Swing era, Artie Shaw was pulling in $15,000 a week, the highest rate in history. He quit at that peak, declaring "I couldn't see playing 'Begin the Beguine' every night for the rest of my life."

Back in Berkeley CA we'd have a 50 year old jazz bassist named Walter sleep on our kitchen floor every now and then, and take a bath and so on. Otherwise he lived in his car. Walter was a straight dude, not screwed up on the usual things, just loved his craft stubbornly. He'd toured with Taj Mahal, for one thing. For a much more legendary thing, one night I went out to watch him play with Pharoah Saunders and Yusef Lateef.

Not far away, coincidentally, were 2 bands that supposedly had sold 12 million records each: Green Day and Counting Crows. A third band in the neighborhood, Metallica, probably did sell what they said they did. For the other two I learned that those claimed sales were in fact the number of copies distributed to record stores, not what people bought.

I think this kind of trivia is a bit more edifying than what Paul McCartney's favorite food was... spaghetti? Bangers and mash? Fish and finger pies?

Ebert: Even more trivial: What is the incorrect form of "bangers and mash?"

I feel blessed to have had movies be a major part of my life for well over forty of my forty-eight years, having been first hooked on them by being shown the film "The Golden Age of Comedy" and then being given a copy of the book "The Movies" at a very young age. I pored over this book so often that I had it practically memorized which made answering trivia questions like the first three that you asked like water off a duck's back. (That I was lucky enough many years later to meet and "adopt" one of the co-authors of this book, Eileen Bowser, and her husband Bill, as ersatz godparents was the icing on the cake.) I am grateful to Matt Holland for clarifying my problem with question 4 and I still believe the correct answer to question 5 is: Varda, Varda, Varda, Varda, Varda.

Dear GB, who asked RE which film critic has no online reviews for Gambler, Herzog's Nosferatu (despite a number of requests)

Guess what? I have read both of these reviews and they're GREAT! Best reviews ever;)

Why don't you buy his book - I did.

Ebert: Good advice, Matt!

Had never heaed of Lloyd. We thoroughly enjoyed the amazing and hilarious clip--my funniest after Chaplin's Circus.

It amazes me what sparks you to write a blog post, and how thoroughly you cover whatever topic was sparked.

Random thoughts:

- While I enjoy a movie trivia challenge, not often. I prefer a more personal game my younger brother and I play - which is to work a movie quote into a relevant situation. It's not about superiority, but shared experience. It's win-win. He's pretty good at it.

I'm trying to work in "Put up your hands and all of your flippers."

- Movie crickets! Regardless of it's origin, you gave me a good belly laugh using it. Thank you for that.

- B&W equals "Young Frankenstein" to me. That was a pivotal movie in my movie-going experience.

- "There is no end to information": True. It's been true since the first cell. Matter, energy, and information - which brings us to Intelligent Design...but, for another thread...

Randy

By Peter Sobczynski on August 31, 2009 4:19 PM:

"Link Harold Lloyd to Kevin Bacon in the fewest number of moves????"

Harold Lloyd was in Sin of Harold Diddlebock with Lionel Stander

Lionel Stander was in 1941 with John Belushi

John Belushi was in Animal House with Kevin Bacon.

I am mortified to admit that I didn't even have to look any of that up.

Ebert: That's my boy.

(Seething with jealousy:) But... but... what did Oliver Hardy always say when he answered the phone at home?

{Peter Sobczynski) is at efilmcritic.com

(I looked him up. Ebert's right. The kid's good!)

Great journal entry, Roger! One of my favorites! What a shame you didn't publish this in your paper.

Don't you agree that some things are both knowledge and "trivia"? What kind of film buff DOESN'T know basic facts like, say, what film won Best Picture in 1939?

1) Who is the film critic who broke his promise to me and STILL does not have his review of "The Gambler" (1974) on his site?

2) Why does this same critic not have his review of Herzog's "Nosferatu, The Vampyre" (1979) on his site?

Thank you, Roger. I've been wanting to read that for a while. I consider that film on a par with Murnau's classic. Watching them one after the other is a great thrill.

Ebert: Even more trivial: What is the incorrect form of "bangers and mash?"

Mangers and bash?

Ebert: Nope. Bangers and mashed.

Found this in the rather obscure "Movie Trivia for the Cineaste" by the well respected Prof. Henry R. Quail.

Who is the greatest full time film critic turned screenwriter?

Sorry Roger, but the award went to Frank S. Nugent.

I actually have a teacher who frequently says "If you want to know anything about history, just watch movies." So knowing dates of film releases is actually more important than one would think.

But on the subject at hand, one of the reasons I hate organized sports on television is because it's based almost entirely on statistics, trivia, and useless knowledge. Hell, most football games have trivia questions between commercial breaks. Granted, I have a pretty wide knowledge of film and film trivia (the trivia sections at IMDB are a treasure trove of interesting information) so I shouldn't really judge, but jeez, sports requires far too much useless knowledge for my taste.

Sometimes it is fun to whip out trivia when you're watching a movie, though. I know my friends appreciate it when I tell them that the CGI for the anaconda in Anaconda cost $100,000 a second, or the amount of movies that use oranges to symbolize oncoming trouble in films as a Godfather reference (Children of Men being the most recent example I can recall), or that several jokes in Paul Thomas Anderson films are based on typos he made in the script, or....

Well, I hate to take up too much time of a busy, busy man, but just a few observations.

Matt Holland: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the train ride was going from Chicago to Florida in Some Like It Hot."

Ebert: "Caught!"

So, does this mean Ebert isn't even worthy of talking to himself, since he got the question wrong? Of course, as another line in the movie goes, 'Well, nobody's perfect.'

I find it interesting that you consider not being able to answer someone's silly trivia question "admitting defeat and demonstrating their superiority." Perhaps don't take it so seriously? If someone offers a piece of trivia, perhaps use that opportunity to gain a bit of information, which could potentially lead to a greater knowledge and understanding on the subject. After all, isn't knowledge simply the gathering and comprehension of information. Without obtaining information, we could never achieve knowledge.

And, just because one piece of trivia might seem frivolous to one person doesn't mean that piece of information is completely worthless. I couldn't care less that Obama was born on August 4 (according to Wikipedia), but in order to get a biography of the man, you would have to have that piece of info. "One man's junk is another man's treasure," as the old saying goes.

It's always amazed me how we can label anything as "useless information." Who gets to decide what is useful and what is useless? Some people probably couldn't give a hoot about the French New Wave, but know everything there is to know about Transformers 2. Are they somehow useless? It seems to me no. If anyone feels that is the case, I suppose that's for them to live with. Of course, we would all be a bit better off if we didn't flaunt everything we know, acting like everyone else should be just like us if they want to be better off. "A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly."

Peter Sobczynski wrote on August 31, 2009 4:19 PM

"Link Harold Lloyd to Kevin Bacon in the fewest number of moves"...

Harold Lloyd was in "Sin of Harold Diddlebock" with Lionel Stander
Lionel Stander was in "1941" with John Belushi
John Belushi was in "Animal House" with Kevin Bacon.

Holy cow, dude! You did it in just 3 movies! The best I was able to do, was 4...

Harold Lloyd was an uncredited Crowd extra in the chariot race in the 1925 version of BEN-HUR with Lillian Gish.
Lillian Gish was in THE COMEDIANS with Gloria Foster.
Gloria Foster was in THE MATRIX with Laurence Fishburne
Fishburne was in QUICKSILVER with Kevin Bacon.

And I had to look it up!

Ebert wrote: Even more trivial: What is the incorrect form of "bangers and mash?"

You mean the slang version? It's London Cockney rhyming slang for "to urinate" - ahem. I assume the frackin' spam filter will let me say THAT word at least.

GASP - OH MY GOD! The 11 o'clock News is on and they've just reported that Disney bought "Marvel Comics" today for $4 BILLION U.S. Reasoning? "The Comic book powerhouse will help Disney gain footing with young male audience. Disney will also be able to monetise Marvel's brands across its entire ecosystem from TV to parks, movies, consumer products and video games."

Goodbye Spiderman - as you're about to be marketed to DEATH! Sigh.
Yeah; killed beneath a flood of stupid corporate bangers and mash!

Okay, I'm over it, moving along... here's one for you! Or anyone who'd liked to play too.

Aside from Alfred Hitchcock, what else connects the following three films?

Stage Fright (1950)
Strangers on a Train (1951)
Psycho (1960)

P.S. I watched "Stage Fright" last night. It's not a great Hitchcock movie, but I still really like it! Alistair Sim is wonderful, and there's something rather appealing about Michael Wilding - and no, not because he was briefly married to Elizabeth Taylor; chuckle! Maybe it's the sound of his voice? Anyhoo, I like him.

I wish I could find his earlier film "Spring in Park Lane" - a 1948 romantic comedy film directed by Herbert Wilcox. It's impossible to locate; not on DVD.

Mangers and bash?

Ebert: Nope. Bangers and mashed.

Dooooooooooooooh...

Okay, now I've got one for you. What did Oliver Hardy always say when he answered the telephone at home?

Ebert: "Who the hell is it?

I find it as much fun talking about movie trivia as taking part in a jargon filled business meeting. And that it's classified as general knowledge by the culturally plebian adds that final blow of insult to injury. I am reminded of Hector (not my compatriot, but the one from "History Boys"): "There is nothing general about knowledge. Knowledge is specific."

I understand and agree that many of those who quote trivia, especially when posed to professionals within the given field, are usually intending to trip up who they ask. They want to prove their intelligence or superiority and there is no quicker way to do that than by making someone with an established reputation look a fool by comparison.

I do often wonder since reading your blog if there is some misconception behind that. That perhaps it's not always an attempt to appear superior but to appear to be an equal. An attempt to impress or prove that they are worth notice.

There are better ways to interact with a person you respect than to stump them with trivia, but I find that people seldom do what's better over what's easier.

Here's one to make you cringe.

In 1996, I'd lay on my bed in my dorm room at SUNY Purchase College with my eyes toward the ceiling. My roommate would lay on the other side of the room with my Roger Ebert Movie Guide book, 1995 edition. He'd open to random pages and name a movie. My job was to guess the correct number of stars. His response was usually, "You are really sick, you know that?"

The benefit of such nonsense revealed itself in time. Recently he told me, "Roger's a really good writer. I remember reading parts of all those movie reviews you guessed the stars for."

You use IMDb to check yourself? Is it reliable? I'm an amateur so I don't know.

I'm sometimes a bit irritated when a junior assistant checks my writing against Wikipedia - as if anonymous "scholarship" is more reliable than my two Master's and Ph.D.

Ebert: IMDb knows more facts than I do.

My responses for question #5 were: Truffaut, Godard, Varda, Chabrol, Rohmer. I didn't think Resnais should count for the same reason Melville shouldn't as he was very active before the New Wave started. Night and Fog may well be his masterpiece, and that was made in 1955. I do apologize if someone already said this.

I know this must be a sign of a diseased mind, but when I saw a couple of your readers mention the Kevin Baon game, and another wrote that Francis Bacon was the first noted person to take trivia seriously, I invented a new trivia game called “The Six Degrees of Sir Francis Bacon.” I even went so far as too figure out that:
In The Private Loves of Elizabeth and Essex, Sir Francis Bacon was played by Donald Crisp, who appeared in Trent’s Last Case with Edgar Kennedy, who was in The Sin of Harold Diddlebeck with Harold Lloyd.
And:
In Love is the Devil: Study for a Portrait of Francis Bacon the title role was played by Derek Jacobi, who was in The Medusa Touch with Richard Burton, who starred in Exorcist II: The Heretic with Linda Blair, who later appeared in Chained Heat with Edy Williams, who was in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls which was written by Roger Ebert.

Ebert: And it starred Charles Napier, who starred in many films by Jonathan Demme, and now you're really off to the races.

Thanks for championing film wisdom over film minutiae. A critic justifies him or herself when they can write about what a film means for an audience as a whole.

I like to know a lot of movie trivia, but I try to use it for good and not lord it over people. When we play movie trivia games, I'll often have a handicap. I usually hang out with friends on Sunday afternoons and we'll watch movies(or football during football season). The other day, we were watching a movie with Campbell Scott. My friend asked me who he was and I mentioned a couple of his films and that he was George C. Scott's son. When his wife came in the room, she made a statement that she always like him and my friend was able to tell her that he was Scott's son.

The only time I've ever really lorded my knowledge over anyone is with know-it-alls. One time, we were talking about Shawshank Redemption and this one know-it-all said that he thought it was too bad that Shawshank came out the same year as Schindler's List or else it would have won Best Picture. I proceeded to tell him that Shawshank came out in 1994, not 1993 and told him all the Oscar nominees for Best Picture in both years. At the end, he still asked me, "Are you sure?"

I don't think critics need to know all the trivia for movies, but there was one time a few months ago that you said you hadn't seen How Green Was My Valley. Now that shocked me. I'm not saying it is an all time classic, but it did win Best Picture(defeating Citizen Kane in the process) and it was directed by John Ford, one of the all time great directors.

Great post. I can relate, both as a film buff (I have to admit I could never call myself an expert, though I like to think I'm above trivia-baiting) and an historian. Tell the average person you're study, teach, and write history for a living and they'll immediately ask you "a history question," usually something like, "Y'know what the name of Mack's Diner useta be, right? Dan's! But Dan hadta sell it to Mack." But of course.

Here is the true movie trivia question by Meryl Streep "Name One Masterpiece Of Cinema That I've Starred In"

Here answer is None.

I my self would argue that The Deer hunter is masterpiece and she is very crucial part of it.

Shoot. Having just read your review of Herzog's Nosferatu, I'm loathe to call this trivia. Maybe a sidebar? I co-programmed a repertory theater in New York City many years ago and we showed the never-before-seen, original English-language version of Nosferatu (it's clear it was dubbed into German). We received so many complaints from people who felt cheated. It was no longer an art-house film from Germany. It was a now, somehow, just a horror film, and few people were interested.

I drove by a Southern Baptist church yesterday which had a reader board advertising its "trivia" night. I guess they feel the bible is trivial.

Ahh ... I remember trivia. It was one of those things we did when we were kids and thought that we now knew all there was to know in the world. We'd ask the questions, and we'd beg others to ask us. But wasn't the urge to engage in trivia strongest when we were actually least informed about a given subject, when we wanted to impress others (and ourselves) with the sudden mastery we imagined having? Come to think of it, that was about the time we started making lists. Yes, when there were lulls in classwork, we would crowd together and make lists of the greatest baskteball players in the universe, the greatest movies ever made, the places in the world we most wanted to be right now. Eventually, these lists became more specific: The ten finest episodes of "Seinfeld." The ten worst performances in a war movie. That led, I think, to the trivia. Yes, that's right, now that we knew which were movies of the highest quality, the ten greatest in every conceivable category, in fact, I could dazzle with my knowledge of Best Supporting Actor winners, Cory answered with a remarkable handle on the Cy Young Award winners, Josh could name the entire roster of the San Antonio Spurs, and Adam could tell us the capital of Ecuador. There was always the bell, or the teacher's growl, or an outburst of laughter, or a bit of teenage trash talk, that stopped us from going too far, from exposing any truly atrocious deficiencies in knowlege that any of us had. We ended up, I think, even.

I do not understand how it is possible to compare legends and then placing the great harold Lloyd at third.
This comes from a man who is against most public polls.
If it ain't a any such poll derived opinion, is it not egotistical to pose a question of who you think stands anywhere in any contexrt?

Ebert: I was only suggesting he's the one many people don't think of.

By Andrew Davies on August 31, 2009 7:51 PM
@ Conor
''I'm not a big fan of movie trivia, either, but I ask one movie question to every girl I meet.

"What did you think of Transformers 2?"

It's a 'filter' question for me. If she says she loves it, then I know we can never be together. Saves me a lot of time, actually''

I have not seen "Transformers 2," only the first. I thought your post came off rather glib. I don't mean any offence but to judge someone on if they loved "Transformers 2" does not seem very nice, even though that person hopefully would be able to love deeper, better films. Again, I mean no offence and I not attacking your freedom of speech but if you genuinely will not be with a girl who does like "Transformers 2" then say up front that you hate that movie and will not be with someone who doesn't; and if you are joking, then the joke does not strike me as very funny. My sincerest apologies if you are offended.

Sincerely,
Andrew Davies.

Ebert: I would also think twice.

I would not.

I don't know what the original poster meant by that comment, but taking it at face value, what is wrong with using film preferences as a factor in deciding whether you are compatible with someone? We do it with everything else, looks, height, weight, occupation, most of them hardly an accurate reflection of qualities that are most important in sustaining a relationship. At least one's taste in film is a closer reflection of one's values and perspective of the world in comparison to those previously mentioned factors, and I would argue that there's nothing wrong with not wanting to date someone because they like Transformer 2.

Of course, this is in the context of first meeting someone. Presumably if this comes up when you know each other better, you would spare a few minutes talking about why you like or doesn't like the film, and then go from there. But sometimes, when nothing has been spent, every little thing counts.

Personally I haven't seen Transformer 1 or 2, but that's not the point here, is it? It's so difficult for people to state an opinion these days without needing to back it up with some sort of reason. Everything somehow needs to be justified or PC. I say not everything needs to be reasonable or logical. Quirks are good. Take it or leave it at your own will and revel in your choice.

oops, gone on a rant...no offence Andrew, you are of course entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine :)

Oh and if Conor was joking, I thought it was pretty funny.

Funny, you have always been one of my favorite trivia questions, especially since that new version of Up (- the !) came out. I can't tell you how many small dollar bills and beverages have come my way due to your productive past! Thanks Roger!

Ebert: Someone in the audience once so explained the universe to Stephen Hawking.

For the (trivial) record, Hawking never claimed that this was something that happened to him. He claimed that it was an incident at a lecture by Bertrand Russell.

However, it's been bugging me ever since, because I'm sure that I heard that story somewhere else before Hawking told it in A Brief History of Time. In fact, I remember thinking that Hawking's version was inelegant. But for the life of me, I can't remember where I read it first.

Can anyone help?

Quick reply to the Balboa Theater guy:

In another thread I mentioned the recent trade paperback reissue of Bill Veeck's Hustler's Handbook. One of its chapters, written in the wake of the 1964 World Series, addresses the Yankee phenomenon of the 50s-60s, and accurately forecasts their collapse (which happened the very next year). Great story, well-told by Veeck and his editor Ed Linn.

More movie stuff when I can think of it.

(Can't wait, can you?)

"Had never heaed of Lloyd. We thoroughly enjoyed the amazing and hilarious clip--my funniest after Chaplin's Circus."

You know, I didn't care for "The Circus". It is a personal choice but thought it was his weakest film. His best, for me, was City Lights because it offers all the multitudes of his gifts. It is a romance, a comedy, a drama, an action film and a social commentary. And that ending . . . wow!

Yea I agree that trivia isn't an indicator of knowledge, but that's not the point, the point is that it's supposed to be fun my dear sweet Roger! I dunno, I find playing trivial pursuit or watching Jeopardy to be thoroughly entertaining. And sometimes you can and do learn interesting tidbits... and I do think a lot of those trivia game shows are based on both luck and experience, ergo Slumdog Millionaire.

Btw, the whole mention of the French Wave cinema thing made me wonder why Louis Malle wasn't listed, and as it turns out per quick search via wikipedia, he wan't considered part of that movement. Darn! 'Le Feu Follet' is like one of my faves.

Yeah it's annoying but we all have a little too much pride in what we know. I can certainly see how your profession would lead you to come into these sort of annoying people more than others, but at least you aren't William Shatner. Can you possibly imagine the inane questioning he has had to endure over the years? (As a matter of fact I bet that's really him in Halloween, killing Trekkies. Hey, did you know they used a Captain Kirk mask for Michael Myers in that movie? Huh? Didja?!)
:D

"Don't you agree that some things are both knowledge and "trivia"? What kind of film buff DOESN'T know basic facts like, say, what film won Best Picture in 1939?"

A more difficult question is "What film won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1938?"

Can you answer that without looking it up?

Hint: Jimmy Stewart, Frank Capra, Moss Hart.

I'd choose Mabel Normand as the fourth silent clown, although her career was winding down at the time the others were peaking. Arbuckle (who did a lot with Normand and also with Keaton) is also in there.

There is a scene in "The Extra Girl" where Normand is leading a vicious lion by a leash under the impression it's tame. It anticipates a funny scene in "Bringing Up Baby" by about 15 years and is equally funny.

My favorite Lloyd film is "Why Worry?" where he's gone to a tropical paradise to relax, and wanders around the capital joyous at its peacefulness, totally unaware there's a revolutionary coup going on right behind him.

A decent sign of intelligence is once upon the realization that you don't know the answer, you find the wherewithal to seek it out and quench any sort of bubbling curiosity.

That is either an independent thought from my own mind, or a subconscious rehash of a fortune cookie.

Roger, what they do certainly is'nt trivia, but trivia certainly played a part in them getting to where they did. Tarantino especially seems to have encyclopaedic knowledge about the most outlandish things. People like them remind me of Spinal Tap, you know that they are so good at making fun of the whole rock band thing that they actually in many ways exceed the rock bands they're poking fun at, besides being very good musicians themselves. Careful observation of the trivia of various bands is probably one of the reasons Spinal Tap are who they today are, they probably also love rock music a lot as Tarantino and Smith love films. The point I think as you rightly point out, is what sort of trivia someone is interested in and that trivia alone is not what makes a cineaste.

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

My group of friends have this running trivia game where one person names two actors and the other person names the actor that has stared in a movie with both of the named actors.

As an example Tom Cruise, Woody Harrelson. One of the correct answers would be Demi Moore as she starred in a few good men and indecent proposal.

The funniest connection I've ever heard: Kiko the Killer Whale and Shaq.

I think there's a useful distinction to be made between trying-to-outsmart-someone questions and what I think of as trivia. Here's how Frank Ferry (the guy who founded the biannual trivia contest at Williams College) put it:

We don't deal in minutia, which may be defined as useless facts with no emotional value. Trivia concerns something you know but can't quite remember.

An example from a series of questions about movie props: what movie features a smoldering copy of "Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care?" A lot of people reading this probably know the answer without thinking about it—but it's the kind of question where you can picture the answer, remember the image, remember how old you were when you saw it, but not... quite... come up with the name of the movie. If you're not smacking yourself in the head when you hear the answer, it's not a good trivia question.

"Hard Candy." I probably should've figured that out. I definitely prefer the easy-going, improvised feel of "Hard Eight" to the cold, slightly calculated vibe "Hard Candy" gives off (probably hard to avoid due to the subject matter), but you're right; Ellen Page was excellent in it. As was Patrick Wilson.

Roger:

In regard to your trivia question #4, there is not, and has never been, a passenger train that goes between Chicago and Urbana. The train station is in Champaign.

Ebert: Nobody's perfect.

sometimes i think that trivial pursuits can benefit society much more than "useful" pursuits, such as creating crap in the world we don't really need (like apple peelers)or buying and selling crap for a profit (stocks, housing, etc.). It's fun and leads to good conversations. True, you're probably wasting your time but at least it's not being destructive.

Also, I'm kinda intrigued that all the new wavers you mentioned (except Truffaut of course) are still making films. Why do they have such longevity? most of them must be in the 80's, Rohmer in his 90's. Wow

Although I enjoy film trivia sites, primarily as a respondent to questions, I think that you perhaps overlook the extent to which we take in this information with no attempt to retain it. How many of us know the lyrics to songs that we hate or don't care about?

Still, the only flaw in this post is that you neglect to mention the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game, which persists in spite of the fact that very few well-known actors have a Kevin Bacon number above two. See http://oracleofbacon.org/help.php to test the Kevin Bacon theory and see the actual numbers.

I think that most blog readers could sit for a good while trying to name actors that will score above two on the Bacon scale.

P.S. I did quite well on the quiz - 4 out of 5, and still wouldn't consider myself above-average among the blog commenters.

trivia: what was the name of sweet sue's band?

"Ebert: If it wasn't released, how would they qualify (collectively) as one of the three great silent clowns?"

How the four of them would qualify as "the third great silent clown" (singular), the phrasing of your original, is just as good a question.

Answer: in the future, someone will create a single clone made of the DNA of the four of them, mixed into a single man, who will then make silent movies, and send them back in time to us.

If you won't buy that answer, well, okay, then. [stomps off in a huff]

[comes back, considering how to work that into a movie pitch]

Ebert: IMDb knows more facts than I do.

And gets more facts wrong; it's a wonderful resource, but like all things humans create, fallible, as you know. It's highly useful, but not completely reliable. But what (in life, not movie references) is?

IMDB is probably about 96% or so reliable, though, I'd guess.

"I apologize for being off-topic, but I've been wondering if we might expect an audio production (e.g. podcast) from you in the near future with the aid of a personalized synthetic computer voice."

I'm not seeing the advantage of Roger bothering to go to the effort over his just writing. Text is far faster to read for most of us than listening.

Though I suppose if you're used to listening to podcasts while driving or jogging, or somesuch, there could be some use. Thus, audiobooks. I'm just a text person, though, myself.

"That phrase I just quoted reminds me of the 'Cheers' character Cliff Clavin. Now there's a demonstration of your point about information and knowledge. To himself, Cliff was a wealth of information. To others, he was mainly a pointless bore!"

See also the characters on tv's The Big Bang Theory, who are all geeks and trivia buffs. Sheldon being the particularly annoying one.

Also, one of the characters on the tv show NCIS has a a main personal "trait" (lazy substitute for characterization, really, but never mind) a constant propensity for working old movie references and quotes into his conversation.

I'm a little startled at how many people at Roger Ebert's journal have never even heard of Harold Lloyd. Among other sources, I'd commend TCM to them. For, you know, a gazillion films, as well as Harold Lloyd.

"Ebert: I was only suggesting he's the one many people don't think of."

Obviously, you are correct.

"I find it interesting that you consider not being able to answer someone's silly trivia question 'admitting defeat and demonstrating their superiority.' Perhaps don't take it so seriously?"

I don't think Roger was so much "considering" as reporting his experience. I trust him to be an accurate reporter.

"Can you possibly imagine the inane questioning [William Shatner] has had to endure over the years?"

Not so many as to keep him from being in the very charming Free Enterprise, speaking of movies filled with trivia and trivia buffs.

"Ebert: Nobody's perfect."

A title used for at least four fiction English-language movies!

Your blog reminds me of that paradox about the more questions you ask the less you know about that thing. Ha! There's a trivia question! Name that paradox!

But isn't trivia subjective? I mean, it might be trivial for the average citizen to know what types of camera lenses Kubrick used on Barry Lyndon, but not to somebody studying the craft of filmmaking, and certainly not to a cinematographer asked to reproduce that look from the film. I suggest that trivia is only trivia when it is treated merely as the answer to a "gotcha!" question. The content of the alleged trivia is not innately trivial.

For example, knowing the inner workings and fine print of the bankings, loans and mortgage industry is probably regarded as trivia, but I ask you how trivial is it now in hindsight after it has hamstrung our economy, closed banks and foreclosed homes?

(One could also argue that it is still your "job" to know these things. Are these things trivial because they won't save a person's life? Otherwise a medical student would never be asked to name the artery in the left big toe on the grounds that such information is trivial, so why should we expect a person to know this if he or she could "look it up" on the internet, like any movie factoid?)

Instead of treating trivia buffs as challenging your superiority (certainly your livelihood was never in jeopardy based on your inability to answer any particular question), why not just take the trivia as "hmm - I didn't know that, thanks for letting me know!" Otherwise it makes you seem defensive or simply hateful of things trivial. As a teacher I often must remind myself that I don't know everything and students will surely know some things that I don't, so the healthiest (and true) attitude would be to say "I've never stopped learning, even as a teacher, and I probably learn as much from them as they do from me."

Then there is the matter of "the devil is in the details." Often it is those details, and our knowledge of them. Presumably YOU (yes, you, Ebert) conduct your masterclasses there you dissect a film frame by frame because there is much to learn and appreciate in such an exercise of such detail, when most people take in a film 24/25 frames per second, and only one viewing. What do you hope to point out or learn if it is destined to be the fodder of trivia and memetically inhabit the realm of trivia you so loathe when put to you?

Oh, and in response to the question about (almost all of) Kubrick's films being in different genres, the only director I know who explicitly stated doing this intentionally (and thus far has remained true) is Ang Lee. Now, if correct, is THAT trivia?

Is the guy who posted as "Andrew Davies" the same Andrew Davies who's also a screenwriter?

If so, I loved "Wives and Daughters" and also "Pride and Prejudice" - the latter giving rise to the Darcy wet shirt scene which was later paid homage to, in "Lost in Austen" - a four-part 2008 British television series for the ITV network, written by Guy Andrews. :)

Also: Stage Fright (1950) Strangers on a Train (1951) Psycho (1960) all feature small parts played by Alfred Hitchcock's daughter Patricia.

Note: imo, when you want to know something about a man, ask the women in his life. So years ago, when I was going through a Hitchcock phase, I read articles featuring Patrica Hitchock; chuckle! Which is also how I know her Dad's favourite film was "Shadow of a Doubt" and apparently because he loved bringing menace to a small town.

It's the stories that often go hand-in-hand with trivia, which for me, makes it so much fun. As some can be funny or poignant and in and of themselves, a different kind of movie for being snapshots of life behind the camera.

The way Quentin Tarantino is "always there" in his movies, in the guise of a character's facets or some such. Which according to him, are often very personal works.

Meaning there's subtext underneath the subtext! :)

A Paradox:

1. Roger Ebert has claimed he dislikes trivia, specifically when asked about movies, and would like people to stop asking him such questions.

2. The fact "film critic Roger Ebert dislikes being asked about movie trivia" IS a piece of trivia.

Therefore, Ebert should expect to continue to be subjected to trivia, because if his viewers were to adopt his view of trivia, they would be unaware of the trivia that Ebert dislikes it. If he is upset at ongoing trivial questions, he cannot reasonably be upset with the public who ignored that one piece of trivia.

Ebert: Trivia is in the eye of the beholder.

Poeple tell jokes because they're funny. People ask about trivia because it's interesting. The problem is, you generally can't tell if someone will appreciate the joke or the odd fact until you have committed yourself to asking them. A rule of thumb...they won't.

My favorite trivia question is "How may golf balls are on the moon?" My favorite movie trivia question is "Which movie did Clint Eastwood ask the question 'Do you feel lucky?' in?" The answer is not Dirty Harry.

IQ is not intelligence. A good memory is not intelligence. To think so is to make the mistake that the blind men did when they tried to figure out what an elephant was like.

Me: Okay, now I've got one for you. What did Oliver Hardy always say when he answered the telephone at home?

Ebert: "Who the hell is it?"

Dooooooooh! No! No! It was "Who the hell is this?"

(Bounding up the stairs to snatch First Prize. Laying awake nights scheming how to milk this any further.)

PS, three days and still chuckling at your "busy, busy man" line. Give us an essay on how to be funny one day, eh? All day long I read lugubrity.

Roger,
I think trivia knowledge is an indicator of an agile and searching mind.

Do you think that the fact that a film is good have something to do with personal taste? I mean, something is good or bad because the thing itself is or because I like it or not like it...
Because always that i'm talking with somebody and they say, for example, "I really like Transformers" and I say that is bad and I didn't like it, they say to me "well, that's your opinion" or something like that (Trying to say that a film is good or bad depending on if I like it or not).

PS: Sorry for my bad grammar!, my native language is spanish.

Francisca.
Santiago, Chile.-

What future bad girl played the Virgin Mary in "The Song of Bernadette"?

OOPS! Clint Eastwood didn't ever say "Do you feel lucky." But in Dirty Harry he did say "...you've gotta ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?" I'm sorry. I was thinking of the line "Go ahead, make my day" which he said in the movie Sudden Impact. I'm sorry. I seem to be at that age where I talk first and think at my convenience.

Ebert: Even more trivial: What is the incorrect form of "bangers and mash?"
Mangers and bash?
Ebert: Nope. Bangers and mashed.
Ehrm, yes, well. If “Bangers and mashed” is the – “the”, not, mind you “a”, but “the”, incorrect form - all well and good, but that brings up another question: Does this mean that:
1) all other variant forms are actually correct (given that only “Bangers and mashed” is ‘incorrect’)? So, for example, “Bungers and meshed”, must be correct, by exclusion?, or:
2) there is only one correct incorrect form (“Bangers and mashed”), and all other variant forms are not merely incorrect, but incorrectly incorrect? That is, only one incorrect form of Bangers and mash, i.e. “Bangers and mashed”, is correctly incorrect, by your criteria?
3) You really meant to write: “What is the most commonly encountered incorrect form of “Bangers and mash?”
The last would be logical and unassailable. It might even be a fact.
But is it trivial? Mais, monsieur Ebert ... given your avowed aversion to the trivial, surely you must treat this whole issue as an important question. N’est-ce-pas?

Ebert: Mais non!

Tom Dark, if the tone of my post rankled you somehow, I'm sorry. But you did what that DJ didn't do, provided a context for what bands at Woodstock were getting paid. It is miniscule compared to the headline bands that get guaranteed a $1,000,000 per venue, as long as the suckers, I mean fans, pony up $350 per ticket, compared to, I think, the $15 all three days of Woodstock were ticketed at.

I don't doubt your figures on Artie Shaw, but would that have been postwar? My quote on the Miller band was from my recollection of a copy of an account sheet for one date in the 1930's, showing a total of $200, that was printed in the book accompanying the Time-Life big band collection from the 70s. I think I'd have to demur to your expertise on this one.

Trivia about "what things cost back then" is usually not enlightening. Sure, you could've seen "Gone with the Wind" for 75¢ when it first came out, but how many people could afford even that back in 1939? There was a trivia nugget going around that Marlon Brando had a total of ten minutes' screen time in three consecutive movies: Superman (1978), Apocalyspe Now (1979) and The Formula (1980), for which he got paid more than Clark Gable made in his lifetime. What does that prove? The studio heads that paid out that money also made more than Louis B. Mayer did in his lifetime (I'm just guessing, here).

(I had a rant, Tom, about how your stories about the plight of musicians proves the need for the pending legislation requiring radio stations to pay into a fund for compensating recording artists, but that's going off topic. Would love to discuss it at a more appropriate venue.)

But seriously, folks:

Over time I've come to believe that those of us who become sciolists do so mainly to get some kind of distinction among our families and friends.
In my family I was the one who read TV Guide cover-to-cover, and who read the credit crawls (this was back when they really crawled). Thus, when Mom or Dad went dry on the name of this or that character actor, up went the call: "Ask the Professor (me)."
In the 60s and 70s, when many actors from as far back as the 30s were still active in TV, I first learned the principles of cross-referencing: old movies, new movies, TV - all part of the same pool. I got as many reference books as I could afford, and subsequent advances in home video helped me to form a home archive of sorts - not scholarly, really, just stuff I liked, or that caught my attention, or was strange enough to make me think I'd need proof if I told someone about it - such as the time Eldridge Cleaver appeared on To Tell The Truth with two impostors and stumped the panel. Or when Athol Fugard acted on a week's worth of One Life To Live. Or one of the old episodes of Checkmate that was directed by James Wong Howe (Sid Caesar was the guest star). Stuff like that. That's how I got warped, and I remain so to this day.
Once I had occasion to write to The Armchair Detective about a tape I'd gotten of an early Ellery Queen episode from the DuMont days, circa 1951. The magazine printed my letter, and when the subject came up in conversation, my father asked to seeit. I handed him the magazine, he read the letter, and when he handed it back, he gave me the biggest compliment he ever could:
"Hey, you're as full of shit as I am."
Believe me, from Dad, that was a compliment. Anyway, he was smiling.

Here's how to amswer the Silent Clown question:

Chaplin was first.
Keaton was second.
Harold Lloyd was third and paid $2.40.
*rimshot*

I used to work at tourist attractions in Memphis and was driven crazy by all of the Elvis fans who would ask me trivia questions that I KNEW they knew the answer to. They just wanted to see if I knew.

My favorite quote from my favorite teacher: "I don't care if you know on what date Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. What you need to know is if it was signed before, during or after the Civil War. And why."

And just to brag, I once won the grand prize at a trivia contest during a Chicago comic book convention by stumping 500 people with this question: "On Leave it to Beaver, what was Lumpy's father's name?"

Ebert: Just today I was asked:

"My father wanted me to ask you for the name of a movie that took place in World War 2 and had a flashback to a kid named Rusty."

I'm sure someone here will know.

by Jerry Roberts on September 1, 2009 12:18 PM
"Had never heaed of Lloyd. We thoroughly enjoyed the amazing and hilarious clip--my funniest after Chaplin's Circus."

You know, I didn't care for "The Circus". It is a personal choice but thought it was his weakest film.

You're probably right and I'm an inch from re-viewing the canonised City Lights.

I was simply recording the unprecedented belly spasms of laughter three of my family experienced in Circus which left me with a feeling of gratitude to the noble comedian. I'm not likely to dilute this by a re-view.

Speaking of trivia, I wrote something in March of this year in my blog and along similar lines that I hope you'll enjoy. Here it is:

http://mmcilvain.blogspot.com/2009/03/trivial-pursuit-we-are-fast-approaching.html

Mike Doran (aka Lowbrow Crank)--

I'm an admirer of both Mr. Veeck, my all-time favorite baseball franchise owner and promoter extraordinaire and Mr. Linn, whose piece "The Kid's Last Game" was a wonderful warts-and-all counterpoint to John Updike's "Hub Bids Kid Adieu." However, it's been a while since I've read _The Hustler's Handbook_, so I can't comment on the chapter you cite.

The connection I was laboring to make was generational: Casey Stengel (1890-1975) and Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980) were contemporaries and innovators in their respective fields who tended to treat the performers whose work they orchestrated more like elements in the process than as the professionals they were. Stengel wanted players who could execute (Casey was fond of saying that a player who couldn't execute should be "disappeared"--long before the rest of the world got around to using that verb in a transitive form.) Hitchcock, a creative autocrat, wanted actors who could take direction, as Ingrid Bergman remembered in _My Story_:

"He is a magnificently prepared director. There is nothing that he does not know about the picture he is going to do.

Every angle and every set-up he has prepared at home with a miniature set of what is being built in the studio. He does not even look into the camera, for he says, 'I know what it looks like.' I don't know any other director who works like this. Of course he wants everything primarily his way, but if an actor has an idea, he is willing to let the actor try it. Sometimes I thought I got through, and that Hitchcock was going to change his set-up. But as a rule he used to get his way by simply saying, 'If you can't do it my way, fake it.' It was a very good lesson for me, as many times in the future when I couldn't win a battle with a director, I'd remember Hitch's words and, 'fake it.'"

Hitch's willingness to "let the actor try it" is reminiscent of Casey's instructional on turning the pivot: "There are four basic ways to turn the double play and if any of you know of a better way, show me now or forget about it."

Each man had extended periods of success, an occasional stumble, and a brief decline that did nothing to tarnish the greater body of their work.

Today, we have a different breed of baseball manager, one more attuned to individual player needs and sees him as a collaborator rather than as a cipher in the athletic equation. Tony LaRussa and Terry Francona come readily to mind. And we have parallels in Hollywood, directors who are more actor-oriented and allow a for lot more leeway in onscreen performances, men like the late Robert Altman and Clint Eastwood. These men also enjoyed long-term success using systems that seem at odds with those of Stengel and Hitchcock.

The germ of the idea was in the hook of the trivia question; the harvest would be in the discussion of the results and how they were achieved.

I agree. Movie trivia should not be used to try to "stump" someone, especially a movie expert. If the expert does not already know it, it's probably not worth knowing. The best response remains, "Who cares?" Bar bets are excluded, of course.

However, movie trivia does have its value when it enriches the movie, makes you want to watch that movie again, or is just plain interesting by itself. For example:
1. Interesting (for me): The sound effects in Hollywood are recycled hundreds of times. That punch in the face sound, the Wilhelm scream (everyone knows it), and that knife swipe sound when a knife appears, are the identical recordings used over and over. The thunderstorm in Frankenstein (1931) is the SAME STORM heard in Scooby Doo, Airplane!, Gilligan's Island, Back to the Future, and Jurassic Park.
2. Dumb trivia meant to stump everyone: What was the exact date and location of the thunderstorm recorded for "Castle Thunder," the thunder and lightning heard in Frankenstein and every other movie with a storm until the invention of digital sound effects? How long was the unedited storm?

Trivia shouldn't be used to stump but to amuse. Here is my favorite piece of useless trivia (non movie related): What does it smell like on the Moon?
(I won't give the answer. Google it yourselves.)

Trivia is coming down like snow flakes. It's 'good' in a predictible way but it's not 'all good' .
There are 8 billion people on the planet, and it's a disservice to multitudes of creative people to maintain a 'manageable' system as it exists from Hollywood: the pyramid for them to climb for success, let alone quality is unfair; we're only getting the 'selected' or the opportunists -- as in the USA, of the top 10 best sellers, or weekly array of four to six at the stadium seated cinema.
I propose each state of the union have a independent writing and movie industry subsidized by the tax payer. Break up this Movie TRUST of crap. Where's a Teddy R. to take out and bust up this ever encroaching corporate megalith of crap?
I do hope the so-called greats of today's cinema become eclipsed by thousands of creative people, now that affordable techniques draw near in digital electronics...just as Surat wanted Pointillism to open painting up to the masses -- Movies have become 'good' and 'cleansed' I want some real trash to complicate things so the best, like of Speilburg or Tarantino can have some respectable competition of differing views.
A new Dark Age does loom if people can be convienced this heap of crap that's so slick is worth including with the minutia greats of the 20th century. I suspect it's like the deluge of 'Mannerism' that plagued painting after the Renaissance. Sure, there are those that will ask, 'how different is it now than the studio system of 1950'? Well, then it was a population in this country of less than 100 million -- now it 300 million, with committees and mathematicians who figure on markets and ticket sales etc. It has become too inbred, too much a conflict of interests.
One only need recall the number of fantastic works of art from ancient Greece, a culture of less than a few million. Nobody is going to tell me 'genius' or some kind of special intelligence exists only as it is fed to us from THESE industries. We have growth but no expansion of those deemed worthy of the CVS top 10 book shelf, or the neighbor hood multiplex.
Oh well, run for your lives! What the heck... FIRE!

Ebert: The only best-seller I've read in 10 years was the "Da Vinci Code," and I bitterly regret it.

By Gene De Lisa on September 1, 2009 6:09 AM

You use IMDb to check yourself? Is it reliable? I'm an amateur so I don't know.

I'm sometimes a bit irritated when a junior assistant checks my writing against Wikipedia - as if anonymous "scholarship" is more reliable than my two Master's and Ph.D.

Ebert: IMDb knows more facts than I do.

Excuse me, DOCTOR, but wikipedia says you have ONE Master's.

Roger, while I'd hate to correct you, I have to clarify your comment that "it mistakes information for knowledge". I think more accurately, it mistakes knowledge for intelligence. A person who wins Jeopardy is not necessarily intelligent, but does have lots of knowledge. Intelligence is the critical, analytical process of the brain. A very intelligent person may not necessarily know lots of facts and figures.

I consider impressing people with knowledge of trivia as more of a fun thing. And it can actually become embarrassing to do too well with trivia. "Yes, I do know the shoe size of every character on Gilligan's Island."

Ebert: Well, you're correct.

To Josh in Des Moines--

I recently recommended several films to a student who seemed serious about the cinema. They cover several genres, styles, countries, and eras, and include some of the undeniably most important filmmakers. I hope you find some great stuff to watch!

THE APARTMENT ... One of the great humanitarian statements in the cinema, communicating hilariously an audacious message that we should above all else value one another as human beings. Billy Wilder's finest comedy. (What's this "Some Like Hot Weather" everybody is talking about, anyway?)

BICYCLE THIEVES ... You will love this movie for what it says about us.

BREATHLESS ... A good place to start for Jean-Luc Godard; there is much else to be seen and loved.

CITY LIGHTS ... Charlie Chaplin's signature work.

DO THE RIGHT THING ... A landmark in the cinematic discussion of our differences and similarities. Who can say this film isn't on a par with some of the greatest films out of Europe, Asia, and the Americas during the last century?

HANNAH AND HER SISTERS ... Everything that Woody Allen is, is here.

HARLAN COUNTY, U.S.A. ... A Barbara Kopple documentary. You will want to live in this movie.

LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD ... I consider it one long poem. But I'd love to know what the hell you think.

LATE SPRING ... Yasujiro Ozu is the most important filmmaker you may never have heard of, and this is right up there with anything he did. Also check out "Tokyo Story," "Floating Weeds," "Early Summer," "Equinox Flower," "Tokyo Twilight," "Good Morning," and all the others too.

Fritz Lang's M ... One of the most endlessly fascinating films I've seen.

MAGNOLIA ... Roger Ebert and David Bordwell have written about Paul Thomas Anderson's movie in such a way that convinces me it truly is the masterpiece I sensed it was.

NETWORK ... I'm just assuming this is required viewing for every introductory screenwriting class.

THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER ... The long-lost companion to "The Wizard of Oz," and possibly its superior.

THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC ... Carl Theodor Dreyer. The most emotional movie experience I've ever had. My companions and I sat speechless for some time after the movie was over.

RAGING BULL ... Scorsese is a genius, and this film shows his boldest strokes.

RASHOMON ... What a storyteller that Kurosawa was! And what a nice little tutorial this is.

SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE ... Nearly three hours of talking, but oh! what we see!

SECRETS & LIES ... Nearly three hours of talking, but oh! what we see!

SHANE ... The movie that gets straight to the point of all great westerns: Man wants to own, and not to be owned.

STROSZEK ... You should watch more Werner Herzog, but why not start here? "Aguirre" and "Fitzcarraldo" await.

3 WOMEN ... Robert Altman's best film. That's saying a lot.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY ... Poetic meditation on life, and enthralling!

VERTIGO ... Hitchcock's most meticulous achievement. It will floor you when you realize what is really going on.

Oh, there's so much more to say. And what to watch first? Why not start with A? "The Apartment." No better place to begin.

P.S. - You definitely should come back here and read Roger's reviews after you see each movie.

Then, view again.

My favorite "gotcha!" trivia question has always been:

In how many movies did Boris Karloff play Frankenstein?

Some people will try to count them up. Others, who think they've fooled me, will triumphantly say, "None! He always played Frankenstein's *monster*!"

The correct answer, however, is: one, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, in which Karloff played a descendant of our dear Victor.

As you say, the question proves nothing except that I'm aware of this thin moment in cinema, for FRANKENSTEIN 1970 was dreadful.

I'll agree that such silly trivia questions don't prove anything meaningful and that there's really no need to ask someone some obscure movie trivia question(s) to try to find out whether they really love movies as much as you do. I have a simpler litmus test that I use with my fellow Americans over the age of about 25-30 (since it wouldn't really correctly guage the younger generation), just ask them this simple question and you can learn if they REALLY love and pay attention to movies or are just a casual moviegoer or standard-issue 'movie liker'...

THE QUESTION:
"Did you ever own a laserdisc player?"

Even though they never reached mass popularity as a video format, a laserdisc player was probably owned by just about anyone above the poverty line in the US who was really into movies during the laserdisc era. Noone who REALLY loved movies was content to watch (the vast majority of post-1953 films) on pan & scanned VHS tapes when they could see them in their correct aspect ratio without the compositions butchered. Many of my friends back in those days were (near-minimum wage) theater or video store employees in their 20s and many of us had LD players, I can recall at least half dozen or so off the top of my head from my regular hangout crowd. Sure, the average movie was about $40, but quite a few video stores rented the discs in our area.

Luckily, the dvd era helped teach a lot more people the basics about aspect ratios, though I still cringe whenever I'm in a Best Buy and hear someone grabbing for the "FULLSCREEN" version of a modern film. Sometimes you'll just hear an audible groan or muttering from me, but I've often tried to correct those poor confused people. I commend director Soderbergh for giving a failing grade to one of my father's favorite cable channels, AMC (Always Manglig Cinemascope).
[/rant]

Ebert: I bought my first laserdic player in order to play the first 12 titles in the Criterion Collection, which I bought from the ompany's founder in his own home.

Just bragging...

By Joe Young on August 31, 2009 11:07 AM: @Paul J Marasa, I always thought the See You Next Wednesday was a play on the euphemism "See You Next Tuesday," especially given the apparent softcore movie that the main character goes into toward the end of American Werewolf.

Works for Am.Werewolf, but it keeps showing up in other Landis things--it's even the name of the movie Michael Jackson sees in the "Thriller" video. And the beat goes on: in the second Hellboy movie, he stations himself above the marquee of a theater where you-guessed-it is playing.

Besides, I know what a C-U-Next-Tuesday is, but what's a "CUNW"? On second thought, don't tell me.

Roger,
I saw Inglourious Basterds last week and wanted to bring up something you said in your review:

"A character at the beginning and end, not seen in between, brings the story full circle."

I've been turning it over in my head and I worry that I might be missing something. But I read online that there were some scenes that were cut from the final print of the movie. Is this where the phantom character resides or will I have to go and (gladly) watch the movie again?

Ebert: Shoshanna.

Ebert: The only best-seller I've read in 10 years was the "Da Vinci Code," and I bitterly regret it.

I love this man. I. LOVE. THIS. MAN.

Mark McDermott sez:

Tom Dark, if the tone of my post rankled you somehow, I'm sorry.

---?Huh? Heck no it didn't. I had an operation that made me sound gruffer than I am. I thought I sounded too dweeby before that, but now I'm not sure it was a good idea.

...I think, the $15 all three days of Woodstock were ticketed at.

---That's right. I was 18, lived about 60 miles away, somebody who had a car invited me, and I didn't feel like going. I could jump the fence at home and see all those same acts for free. Plus, the other touted benefits... the only difference was mud. Lots of mud.

I don't doubt your figures on Artie Shaw, but would that have been postwar?

---1941 I think. Artie had his famous clarinet made into a lampstand next to his reading chair and it stayed there 'til he died at age 90 a few years ago.

My quote on the Miller band was from my recollection of a copy of an account sheet for one date in the 1930's, showing a total of $200, that was printed in the book accompanying the Time-Life big band collection from the 70s. I think I'd have to demur to your expertise on this one.

---It was probably correct. Shaw was an anomaly. Your average Joe was doing okay on $20/week in those days. Musicians worked their butts off for it. Incidentally, Johnny Carson's Tonight Show band members were paid $250/week according to a drummer friend who auditioned for them in 1980.

---I once played in a band where two of the members had been in 60s bands that had had HUGE number one hits, "Gloria" and "Time Won't Let Me." the former wound up sleeping on a friend's lawn and the latter lived with his dad and owed the IRS $60,000. The latter showed me a 6 inch scar he'd got from a girl clawing him while he was trying to duck into a limousine.

---We were paid $300 each a week at a chi-chi club in Newport Beach. A strange woman there took a shining to me, who was always accompanied by two great big detectives when she'd wear a 60 carat diamond ring. Later she'd wait for me outside a biker bar in a limousine. No, I didn't do what you'd think. It is unhealthy to indulge crazy rich people very far. Thus, no vote from me for Bush.

Trivia about "what things cost back then"

---As of a few years ago, the dollar was worth 5 cents its 1905 value. Prob'ly less by now.

(I had a rant, Tom, about how your stories about the plight of musicians proves the need for the pending legislation requiring radio stations to pay into a fund for compensating recording artists, but that's going off topic. Would love to discuss it at a more appropriate venue.)

---They're called "performance rights societies," non-government, publicly owned, formed when Glenn Miller and the rest of them went on strike in the 40s because radio stations paid them nothing. BMI pays 12 cents per airplay, I forget what ASCAP's rates are. You don't actually get that 12 cents per airplay unless you're 'way up in the charts. Otherwise they divvy up the leftovers the way whaling ships used to do.

---Did you know, Mike, that when Oliver Hardy used to answer the phone at home, he'd shout "Who the hell is this," then hang up on them?

I don't mean to be rude, Roger, but aren't you amazed at the number of *your* readers who don't know who Harold Lloyd was and can't even name one French New Wave director?

I knew who Harold Lloyd was and IDed the clock image without ever having seen a single movie of his when I was 13 years old. And have named a long list of New Wave films and their directors when I was 14!

How was I so knowledgeable about film history at such an age? I read your site and books when I was 13, that's how.

You and Leonard Maltin were my teachers and my guides. Your Great Movies book and the new entries you made to it and which I read voraciously online in middle school and later high school were my checklist and my starting point when I first started watching old movies (indeed, discovered that they even existed).

Discovering your Great Movies articles literally changed my life and opened a new world for me. You did an amazing thing for me with them. They were my big introduction to the world of film.

Back to the topic, like a quiz or test given to students, the very idea of trivia is to test knowledge. Apply your education to a test. Some trivia is not at all reflective of knowledge but a lot is. Memorizing useless things like what film won what award in 1961 is an example of stupid and useless trivia that reflects no knowledge of the subject and material.

However, if you can't instantly answer, say, who directed Some Like It Hot or can't say where the line "It's the stuff dreams are made of" is from, you just don't know film and haven't made a good study of it.

Jon Stewart was once asked about the difference between education when he was young and education now. He said that there are different types of education now and offered this example: "When I was young, they drummed finding Brazil on a map into our heads. Now, they might not do that in geography class and kids can't find countries on maps but they teach things that weren't talked about 30 years ago, like the colonialism of Brazil and the history of racism and slavery. They teach concepts, not facts."

To which I say good point, Jon- but if someone can't even find Brazil on a map, they sure as hell don't know the revisionist and modern history of it. You have to have a building block to form the rest of the tower.

Ebert: I wonder when American national television will have a French film festival?

Answer: When all Americans become socialists, so probably never :-D

Ebert: Just today I was asked: "My father wanted me to ask you for the name of a movie that took place in World War 2 and had a flashback to a kid named Rusty." I'm sure someone here will know.

I'm sure I'm going to regret this - (i) would this film be somewhat reminiscent of "It's a Wonderful Life"? & (ii) could this person's father have been born sometime after..oh, I don't know..1943, in an "ecstatic place" and be somehow related to a drugstore?

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

Ebert: How do you train for something like [a trivia game show]? It seems to me a hopeless task.

In the specific structure of the game show I appeared on, "BEAT THE GEEKS," training was not an issue. Myself as a "Movie Geek" as well as a "TV Geek", a "Music Geek", and a changed-weekly fourth category Geek (James Bond, STAR TREK, toys) comprised a panel challenged by contestants. The contestants got relatively easy questions (asked to identify a picture of Spike Lee) whilst we got ridiculously difficult questions (asked to identify a picture of director Spike Jonze, and give his birth name - Adam Spiegel), and if we did not know or answered wrongly, we would be eliminated from play and the contestant would advance further.

This created an interesting dynamic I have never seen in any other TV game show, past or present. Ostensibly, we Geeks were supposed to be villains, smart-alecks preventing ordinary people from winning money and prizes by showing off the factoids we knew. However, based on all the emails and message board posts we read, the viewers at home were so dumbfounded by the strange details we could rattle off that they actually enjoyed seeing us answer correctly, and were upset when contestants actually beat us. It's the only time I can recall when the viewing audience was rooting against the people who would normally be their surrogates in the game.

As such, none of us ever "trained" for the show. Either we knew the data or we didn't - we got paid the same rate, no "bonuses" for preventing any of the prizes from getting awarded. Which was fine by us; if we always won, there would be no suspense in watching the show, right? It was a great job - go hang out with smart, funny friends, show off how much useless detail you could recall, and at the end of the day you got lunch and a paycheck. And somehow, all of this was made in a way that TV audiences found it entertaining, at least for a little while.

Ebert: Just today I was asked:

"My father wanted me to ask you for the name of a movie that took place in World War 2 and had a flashback to a kid named Rusty."

I'm sure someone here will know.

Best guess:

"They Were Expendable" (1945) - Dir. John Ford. Rusty Ryan was played by John Wayne.

You're not wrong about trivia.
But you might be about TV quiz's. I'm English, and the English descendant from 'College Bowl', 'University Challenge' is still running, after a brief hiatus in the mid-90's, racking up 1400 episodes and still receiving considerable press coverage. It's incredibly hard, and I still remember the time I knew 8 questions in a row. It was awesome.
In addition, 'QI', standing for quite interesting is filming it's 7th series, and is entirely based around questions that are impossible to answer. It's hosted by Stephen Fry and points are awarded for being interesting, because the questions are too hard. Trivia has a market, but yeah, it's information, not knowledge.

I posted this recently over in the Jim Emerson blog about "Inglourious Basterds", but here it is recycled:

What director used his knowledge of cinema that on the surface looked like flaunting trivia?

Answer: Jean-Luc Godard's "Histoire du Cinema", a 4 1/2 hour length movie that is filled with clips from other movies that is in itself a whole new movie about how history was shaped by the movies.

(typo: I meant flaunt, not flout)

Ebert: The only best-seller I've read in 10 years was the "Da Vinci Code," and I bitterly regret it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't expect you to have read 'Deception Point'[?] then; one of Brown's forerunners to the 'DaVinci Code'.
It was interesting in that it had nothing to do with religion, it fitted very nicely as a template over the 'Code' with plot twists and double crosses, but most interestingly; WAY over top with 'suspension of disbelief'.
The man is a genius.

Defenders of movie trivia. Detractors of movie trivia. This entry reeks of cine schism.

Answer to my cineastic potpourri question: August 30, the day of the post and my reply, is the birthday of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, author of FRANKENSTEIN; R. Crumb, subject of CRUMB; and your humble narrator. Belated birthday wishes warmly welcomed!

Mr. Ebert: Your entry here reminds me of a time when I was with my twin sons, who at the time were runners on the York High School (Elmhurst, IL) cross-country team. we had gone to Oak Brook borders because Michael Johnson, the Olympian gold-medal winning sprinter, was there sigining copies of his book. Along with my kids were man of the local high school runners, including a larger contingent from York. One of those kids, when he got to the table to have his book signed, asked Mr. Johnson how fast he ran the mile in. Now, this was obviously a bit of a ranking question: could the York runner beat Michale Johnson, an Olympian, in a mile run? Mr. Johnson looked at the young man and said "I don't ever run a mile."

I adore you, Ebert. For anyone interested in Harold Lloyd, I found "Speedy," one of his full-lengthers, to be exceptionally wonderful--including a cameo appearance by Babe Ruth. And it is beautifully shot.

Dear Mr. Ebert:

In response to the person who thought apple peelers are a useless invention, I'd say that person has never made an apple pie from scratch or had to use the peeler for preparing large quantities of a vegetable or fruit. They are very useful although a paring knife can be used instead if you're in a hurry, tired or inexperienced, an apple peeler is better.

As for trivia, I think there's a difference between using trivia to show superiority over a person and using it to make conversation or use as a game. Trivial pursuit as a game depends on sharing the same culture to a great extent and I've had Asian friends who didn't like playing because they were at a disadvantage in regards to trivia about American culture. Sharing trivia or playing games on a fair social turf is about bounding now about oneupmanship. I played seven degrees of Kevin Bacon one time during jury duty. It was pleasant and instead of each competing against each other, we worked together to get an outcome.

Too often people confuse memorization of facts or trivia with the ability to use facts to come to some kind of conclusion or to bolster an argument. I agree that some teachers find it easier to make students memorize facts rather than concepts. To know information is not a sign of intelligence or knowledge.

That sort of reminds of the argument about what dog breed is the most intelligent. Often the basis for the findings are obedience trials. Obedience trials often go counter to the traits for which specific breeds were actually developed (such as pulling at the leash when sled dogs were bred to pull at loads). If you ask a dog to go over a hurder, is the smarter dog the one that goes over or the one that goes around?

In humans, we wouldn't consider obedience a sign of intelligence. Sometimes the most intelligent dogs are the ones that think outside the box.

How does that work with humans? With humans what seems intelligent during one era can seem ridiculous in another. For that reason, instead of attempting to prove intellectual superiority via trivia, we should be humble before the future and attempt to simply learn what another person has to teach.

I have to say that perspective came from a play, Glen Berger’s "Great Men of Science, NOS. 21 & 22."

Trivia questions are a bit like quotations taken out of context and offered as platitudes or aphorisms. Not surprisingly there's a certain Voltaire quotation, the blunt irony of which never ceases to amuse me.

Repeating it, however, would be missing the point of the joke.

My laserdisc collection includes all five volumes of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection," "The Compleat Tex Avery" (the non-Droopy cartoons STILL are not on DVD), plus the Harold Lloyd talkie "The Milky Way," the pricey "Special Editions" of "Snow White" and "Nightmare Before Christmas" ($100 each!) and a Japanese pressing of "Song of the South" that I got just because it's an embarrassment to Disney.

Hey, Roger,
Is there any reason why your review for "The Cove" is unavailable? I saw it last night at a film festival screening, and wanted to re-read what you said about it. When I entered the film's name in the search window, it popped up, but I was directed to a "cannot be found" page when I clicked on the link.

One of the film's producers, Fisher Stevens, presented "The Cove" at the screening, and, during the Q&A, said that, domestically, it's withering on the vine. I know that you have championed films about which you felt strongly in the past; "Juno," "The Hurt Locker" (which is coming here this Friday, finally!), and "Sita Sings the Blues," to name more recent examples.

This is a film which I feel deserves to be seen by everyone who trucks their kids off to SeaWorld every summer. If the children who clamor to pet Shamu saw this film, they'd burst into tears every time a commercial for that place came on the TV. Of course, the main goal is to get it seen in Japan, where millions are being fed mercury-contaminated dolphin meat without their knowledge. Sadly, not a single Japanese distributor will touch it.

On a happier note, though, Ric O'Barry was in Taiji for what has traditionally been the first day of Dolphin Season, news agencies in tow, only to see not one cetacean being rounded and penned up in the cove. So, some sort of progress has hopefully been made.

Ebert: Works for me:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090805/REVIEWS/908059989

To John Lester:

The trivia question you're compaining about is actually kind of clever. The correct answer IS "Blazing Saddles," because Blazing Saddles misquotes Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Much like people think "Play it again, Sam" is in Casablanca, the actual Sierra Madre quote is "I don't have to show you any stinking badges!" So if the question was which movie had the "We don't need no stinking badges" quote, Blazing Saddles is the only right answer.

If only I could have been in that mid-90s bar to help explain it, you wound't have carried 15 years of resentment. :)

And I agree with a lot of the other posters, there is a difference between telling others trivia because it's interesting, or trying to stump people or prove your intelligence. That could just be because my head is full of useless movie and music trivia. Before the internet became so prevalent, I was always getting calls of "What's the name of that song that goes..." and would get kinda annoyed, but now that the calls are coming less frequently I kinda miss it.

The best trivia I heard in a while was "What actor's characters have been killed by a "Predator" a "Terminator" and an "Alien?"

Bill Paxton. And sorry, Lance Henrikson doesn't count cause he was a robot in Aliens.

Trivia questions are a bit like quotations taken out of context and offered as platitudes or aphorisms. Not surprisingly there's a certain Voltaire quotation, the blunt irony of which never ceases to amuse me.

Repeating it, however, would be missing the point of the joke.

Express to the Balboa Theatre
To:Friend

Greetings:
The possible comparison between Casey Stengel and Alfred
Hitchcock is intriguing, but it's really only the beginning. I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you're somewhat younger than I am. I was born in 1950, and my memories of Major League Baseball in that are acute - in both the 'clear' and 'painful' senses.
In the Fifties, Baseball was the Yankees and everybody else. They had the widest network of scouts, the largest farm system, the most effective press management, and the richest owners - Dan Topping and Del Webb. Webb, as Bill Veeck points in both his books, was also Baseball's #1 politician, exerting subtle control over his fellow owners with fewer resources.
So where does Casey Stengel fit in? His first managerial stints in the Majors were with the Dodgers and Braves in the 30s, neither successful. Stengel had better luck in the hiigh minors, but when he got the Yankee job in '49, the general consensus was that Topping and Webb had made the biggest blunder in baseball history. The critics all said that Stengel's colorful, off-the-wall personality wouldn't mesh with the the famous Yankee machinelike efficiency. As it turned out, though, they were wrong: the Yankee's winning ways, which had begun in the 30s, were enhanced by Stengel's press-friendly antics. Those antics also took some of the edge off things for those of us in the rest of the country, who had to settle for second place at best or sub-.500 at worst. We still hated the Yanks, but Ol' Case was fun to look at and listen to.
None of this diminishes Stengel's skills as a field manager. The point is that he had a strong organization behind him - which he didn't have with the Dodgers, Braves, or later with the Mets. After he was forced out after the '60 World Series, the Yankees kept right on winning under Ralph Houk and Yogi Berra.
So what happened? Time Passed. The old scouts passed on, the minor leagues thinned out, the team on the field got old, but worst of all, the rich owners got bored and sold out to CBS.

Surprisingly, the parallel with Alfred Hitchcock continues.

When Hitchcock came to the USA, he entered wilingly into the studio system - indeed, he embraced it. He made it work for himself and everyone who worked with and for him. Hitchcock went from Selznick to Warners to Paramount to MGM to Universal, making gold at every stop. But he didn't do it alone - he had MCA and Lew Wasserman with him at all times. Wasserman functioned for Hitchcock much as the Yankee management did for Stengel: made the deals, assembled the teams, gave Hitch his head on the field (soundstage). Wasserman also helped make Hitchcock personally famous - by putting him on television. I know, he'd been doing the walk-ons all along, but the TV show established the Hitchcock persona - the public role he played for the rest of his life.
((Observation: look at pictures of Hitchcock at the beginning of his career in England, and at the end of his life. Then look at him on the TV show, which coincided with his biggest pictures. Could it be just coincidence that Hitchcock isn't nearly as fat on TV as he was early and late in his life?)
Ultimately Hitchcock fell victim to the passage of time, as Stengel and the Yankees did. There may have been an element of complacency - Wasserman had made Hitchcock the second largest single stockholder in MCA after himself - but old age and ill health tend to be inescapable.

Okay, baseball break is over. Now back to the movie stuff.

Do I lose credit for proposing "Some Like It Hot" as the answer to both question 3 and question 4?

Re the three great clowns of the silent era. I would not have picked Lloyd's name, although I knew that the lead of "Safety Last" was a great of that time. My first thought was Fatty Arbuckle...and I'm amazed no one else has mentioned him. Is it because of the rape charge that ended his career? Isn't it by now reasonably widely accepted that the rape charge was falsified, the evidence trumped up, and the prosecution the result of an ambitious DA trying to make a name for himself?

(I know. More trivia.)

I hate trivia.

It's not so much the answers but the exceedingly unpleasant way the questions are posed. "Name all the James Bonds," for instance, or "Who was Mr. Ed's sidekick?" The answers seldom involve the answerer doing anything aside from getting shed of the horrible bore that's asked such a question.

Jeopardy's watchable, strangely enough, because of the affectation of making each answer a question. I don't know why that helps, but it does.

It's not for nothing that our word for a drama is the same as our word for a children's activity: play. There is no play in trivia. It's all endgame. Name this or get out. Know this or be trumped.

A good game is one that inivites more people to play and a bad game eliminates both people and play as it goes along (thank you James Carse.)

You know what's worse than movie trivia? Sports trivia. The games are already overloaded with statistics. Sports reporting, particularly when it's done badly, is nothing but stats and trivia. When it's done well, it's like being seated next to an entertaining person who loves the game.

In that way, it's very much like good film criticism. It makes you glad you know that person's opinion whether it aligns with yours or not.

Trivias are called Trivia's for a reason.

I have personally never been able to figure out why anyone would retain useless information like; on which hand was the letter M drawn on in Fritz Lnag's 'M', rather than remembering the magnificence of the picture on the whole.
I have met quite a number of peole who excel in movie trivias of popular movies but somehow have never been able to appreciate artistic achievements of movies.The flim flam of popular movies gets stays in the minds of people rather than craft or meaning.
Quizes and Trivias only prove how much you love a particular movie but are in no way proof of how refined your artistic palate is.

But again, somehow these people too are movie buffs.

Trivia Question:

What is the etymological or historical origin of the word 'trivia'.

Miles Blanton

PS: This was a Car Talk Puzzler once a few years ago.

Ooh, ooh! Someone way earlier mentioned "Cash Cab", which airs on the Discovery network! It is awesome! That is one trivia game I would LOVE to play. And they do ask some movie questions.

In fact, on my one and only trip to New York City last year I tried to find the cash cab! A New Mexico hayseed chasing cabs, then when it wasn't the cash cab, "Never mind!" Never did take a cab in New York.

The contestant that won the most money (that I saw anyway) was a retired librarian. The cash cab picked her up leaving an art museum and took her home. She was a little bewildered at the concept, but she won the whole kit and kaboodle. Didn't miss one question. Go librarians!

(P.S. Although I didn't find the cash cab, on my FIRST subway ride, I sat across from the character actor William Sadler! I was so impressed! He was going over his lines for something. Again I was the hayseed, kicking my companions and hissing "Look, an actor!" behind my hand. Poor New Yorkers with the goofy tourists. And they were all so nice to us! I love NY.)

In a turn of remarkable irony, a DVD was released yesterday through Kino that chronicles many of Gaumont studio's early films, many of which I believe were among those found in New Zealand only months ago. One of the four discs in the set is dedicated entirely to Alice Guy. Information on the release can be found here. http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/38146/gaumont-treasures-1897-1913/

Ebert: Kino is a very important company.

http://www.kino.com/

Jamie wrote on September 1, 2009 11:04 PM

Roger, I saw Inglourious Basterds last week and wanted to bring up something you said in your review:

"A character at the beginning and end, not seen in between, brings the story full circle...."

Ebert replied: Shoshanna.

For me, one of the creepiest scenes in that entire movie, takes place at a café where Pvt. Frederick Zoller has brought Shoshanna to meet Joseph Goebbels. As smitten as he is breathtakingly clueless, Zoller wants Goebbels to change the venue for the propaganda film about Zoller, and use Shoshanna's cinema instead for the premier. And for thinking THAT'S how to impress her.

Ie: you're a Jew hiding in plain sight, sitting at a table surrounded by high ranking Nazis while some clueless idiot arrogantly and high-highhandedly takes charge of your life while expecting you to be delighted in return, and hopefully reap some gratitude on your part, later on. Can you imagine?!

And just when it can't get any worse, Col. Hans Landa glides into the room like a shark. The very Nazi you'd barely escaped from when he'd ordered his men to shoot your entire family like rats beneath the floorboards of a Dairy farmer's house.

The others then leave, leaving you behind as Col. Landa wants to "chat" about something. He orders strudel - which you don't want. You play along however and start to eat it, only to be asked by way of polite command to wait for creme fresh - which you also don't want. He dictates when and how you get to eat the thing you never wanted in the first place but don't dare refuse! He also has the waiter bring you a GLASS OF MILK. (This scene is a parallel to the scene at the Dairy farm.)

When he's done fishing for information, Landa stubs his cigarette out onto his serving of strudel before getting up to leave with a smile on his face. Does he know anything..?? We don't know, but once the coast is clear, Shoshanna's mask shatters and we see now all she was feeling without showing it at the table.

No blood, no gore, no explosions and yet, just like Martin Scorsese's "The Age of Innocence" - that scene is one of the most violent things Tarantino has ever shot.

Note: if you read the subtext in between the lines of this scene, you'll also see a connection between the cigarette in the strudel, and the deal Col. Landa makes for himself in the end.

Strudel is a famous German dessert and to a certain extent, what apple pie is to America; a metaphor for the flag. When he stubs his cigarette out into the strudel, he's showing both his contempt for the French who made it, but also that he's not so patriotic a German, that he'd drawl the line at metaphorically p*ssing on his national dessert.

At least this was the scene that made another to come, resonate so strongly for me. "Yes! Of course!" I thought to myself. "Of course he's able to make that self-serving deal; it's all STRUDEL to him in the end."

The French, his own countrymen... all the same. Expendable.

And yet Christopher Waltz manages to enjoy himself so much as an actor, that you just can't help but smile at the horror of his Col. Hans Landa, while conversely not smiling at the same time.

I think that's what I love the most about "Inglourious Basterds" - it's duality. How's it's more than one thing at the same time.

It's like HBO's Dexter. :)

Roger,

Why so bitter & regretful that you read THE DA VINCI CODE?

Just curious...

Also, if you're willing, I'd love your opinion: I have two free (gold) movie passes (good for any show, any time) burning a hole in my pocket. Of the movies currently in theaters, which should I use the free passes on? HURT LOCKER? OTHER?

Ebert: I could have been reading something else.

"The Hurt Locker."

Respectfully,

De@con Godsey
Omaha, NE

Wow, what a strange coincidence: I was just reading your review for Quiz Show (one of my top ten favourite movies) and then saw this blog entry. I have to say this, Roger, you're a man who stands by your convictions. You raised quite a few of these issues in your review as well. I agree wholeheartedly. I have quite a few random pieces of trivia in my head, but I hardly think that they make me more intelligent than, say, someone mapping the human genome. I just have more of a talent of sucking up useless pieces of information.

I agree that most trivia is useless without the appropriate context, but I still love it. There's almost nothing I enjoy more than trawling books or Wikipedia or some other source of almost useless infromation. :)

Just a few weeks ago, I learned from reading a book I own entitled '1001 People Who Made America', that John Hinckley Jr, the man who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, was inpired by the movie 'Taxi Driver'. After viewing the movie repeatedly, he became obsessed with Jodie Foster, and only committed the crime in order to impress her. I'm not sure how well known that fact is, but I found it very interesting, even if I will probably never need to know it.

Methinks somebody around here takes himself/herself a tad too seriously. Meaning, like, every single poster in this thread.
*It's not trivia unless ... unless WHAT? YOU say it is?
*It's actually 'trivi-AL' because ... because WHAT? It's 'beneath; you?
Movie trivia, sports trivia, whatever, is the same as a crossword puzzle or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and really it's the same as free-throw shooting or Poker or tiddlywinks; it's all a form of exercise (brain or otherwise) and all a form of competition.
Who around here got appointed Circuit County Judge of My Tiddlywinks Game's Unimportance?

Rog, a reader says: Tarantino, Kevin Smith and a whole bunch of others would hardly be where they are without trivia ...

And Ebert answers: Hmmm. Is what they do trivia?

And I answer: OF COURSE WHAT THEY DO IS TRIVIA. As with us all.
It's just movies. It's just fun. As the kids say, "Chillax.''

The twist to this entry: 100 years from now, the answer to 100 movie trivia questions will be "That Ebert fellow'' who ... ironically, hated movie trivia questions.

rog, you hating the natural evolution of your craft to "movie trivia'' would be like Alexander Graham Bell hating the IPhone.

Here is a piece movie trivia I assume to be true based on what I've heard from you an others: Who is one man that would never be stumped by any bit 'o' trivia that came his way?

A: Martin Scorsese (and he would be able to put that trivia into some context too).

Every interview I've seen of him seems to prove this. And every interview where his name in mentioned it is usually in a sentence talking about his knowledge of cinema. Just last week I say DiCaprio on Charlie Rose and that exact thing happened.

I hope the preserve his brain the cinema vaults so in later generations someone will pen the book, "Everything I Needed To Know About Cinema I Learned From Scorsese's Brain"

Hi Roger, I was wondering about your thoughts on the new "At the Movies" with Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott. Are you happier with this new recent change? Sorry, I was unsure as to where to post this question since Movie Answer Man only deals with your thoughts on films.

Ebert: As both were co-hosts earlier, they're quite an improvement, woudn't you agree? It's a shame that Ben Mankiewiz got caught in the crossfire.

lets hope you don't respond to the person asking you the trivia questions with language likes this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkwVz_jK3gA

Ebert: Shoshanna.

Waitaminnut- so you're saying that Shoshanna posing as Emanuelle doesn't count?..

*thinking*

Only we (and Marcel) know who she really is and at the end is the first time she reveals her true identity since her family was killed at the start!

*slaps hand to forehead*

OK, this is truly trivial. One Marx Brother could qualify as a silent clown if "silent" is not restricted to the first quarter of the 20th century: Harpo Marx, of course, who always worked silent (save for his horn and harp) and who made most of his movies during the 1930s when Chaplin was also still working silent (save for sound effects and gibberish).

Ebert: Isn't that sort of a loophole?

"Ebert: Works for me:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090805/REVIEWS/908059989"

Many thanks. I think that today was an off-day on all counts. Until I was able to re-read, then Facebook post, that review. I can still hear that awful chatter recorded by the hydrophone in my head.

Mike Doran (aka Lowbrow Crank)--

First, I want to thank you for a most pleasurable exchange. It's a real treat.

Second, you're all of two years older than I, give or take a few months, so we probably remember pretty much the same presidents, the same ballplayers, and the same movies. Certainly I remember the juggernaut that was the New York Yankees and while I won't compare the sharpness of my recall or of mental agonies with yours, I'll say this: many may have been aware of baseball's Hatfields and felt lingering antipathy toward them, but we Bostonians are the real McCoys--after all, we started the bloody Pinstripe dynasty.

Third, you've raised a lot of interesting points, ones that lend themselves to further discussion still, and as sorely tempted as I am to discuss them with you (and with anyone else that might want to jump in), I believe you said it all when you said "back to movie stuff." Another place, another time, another forum: the subject was trivia.

Finally, I want to thank you for masterfully illuminating the point I was trying to make. A trivia question sparked our discussion, one that, as I have suggested, could keep going. Neither a "gotcha" question nor the rote recitation of some obscure bit of data, it enabled us to see things in a different light and, better yet, in the different light cast by others: your connections aren't the ones I was seeking, but they're both interesting and enlightening, and so, enriching.

Thank you again, Mr. Doran, and Mr. Ebert, I hope our tangent has swayed you a little bit on the use of trivia. In any case, thanks for the use of the hall, for the sparks your columns strike, and for the light they cast on many, many subjects.

"there is a blopper in the movie "Inglourious Basterds". In the bat scene after he kills the german soldier he says he "went yard" .Ive been a baseball fan since 1941. that term was never used by anyone in baseball during the 40's 50's or 60's. the saying is recent when a home run is hit"

Spoiler alert: Hitler also gets shot to shit in that movie! I don't know if I can say "shit" on here, but... that's what happened. His shit got owned.

By fish on September 2, 2009 8:46 PM

Methinks somebody around here takes himself/herself a tad too seriously. Meaning, like, every single poster in this thread.

---Now look here, fish, what did Oliver Hardy say every time he answered the phone at home?

(Rodge pays me $5 every time I work this in.)

ArtDog wrote on September 2, 2009 4:35 PM

"Ooh, ooh! Someone way earlier mentioned "Cash Cab", which airs on the Discovery network! It is awesome! That is one trivia game I would LOVE to play. And they do ask some movie questions."

Hey ArtDog! Nice to see you back! And yeah – Cash Cab! I saw the original UK series, then we got a Canadian version of it last year. I’d like to play that game too; you get to have fun and maybe win a little money while you’re at it. :)

"(P.S. Although I didn't find the cash cab, on my FIRST subway ride, I sat across from the character actor William Sadler!)" – ArtDog

I misread this and for a minute there, I thought you’d written "William Shatner", Chuckle!!

Mark McDermott wrote on September 2, 2009 10:36 AM

"My laserdisc collection includes all five volumes of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection," "The Complete Tex Avery" (the non-Droopy cartoons STILL are not on DVD)..."

Hey everybody! Let’s break into Mark’s house! Who’s with me?! Come on, let’s go...! :)

Rollan Schott wrote on September 2, 2009 5:21 PM

"In a turn of remarkable irony, a DVD was released yesterday through Kino that chronicles many of Gaumont studio's early films.."

Oooooo! This was news to me! I immediately went over to KINO’s site! Gasp - 75 movies! 3 DVD’s! Cool box set! $59.95 and it comes out Sept 15, 2009.

ALICE GUY disk 1

"Few individual artists have exerted as profound an influence upon the evolution of cinema as Alice Guy (later known as Guy-Blaché). With this collection of more than 60 films, culled from the world’s leading archives and carefully mastered, Guy may no longer be seen as a “woman filmmaker.” These films, produced by Guy for Gaumont before she moved to the US, reveal her to be an unqualified pioneer whose work stands alongside that of the Lumière Brothers, Georges Méliès, and Edwin S. Porter, in cinema’s rapid growth from an optical illusion to a storytelling medium to an art form. Among the highlights are a 19th-century serpentine dance, early “trick” films, experiments with hand-coloring and synchronized sound, comedies, social commentaries, and (as the collection’s centerpiece) a 33-minute religious epic: The Birth, the Life and the Death of Christ (1906)." - Kino

"Héroine" by Alice Guy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BOBQa7HGOE&feature=related

She’s only 4 years old and helps catch a pair of muggers with a skipping rope, and helps a man with a dog, and saves 3 drunks from getting hit by a train and everything! A 100 year old silent French film starring a pre-BUFFY! Awesome! And nowadays? We’ve got Hanna Montana; PUKE.

Note: Alice Guy also made a Vampire movie, too. Smile.

bill wrote on September 2, 2009 9:28 PM

"let’s hope you don't respond to the person asking you the trivia questions with language likes this."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkwVz_jK3gA

Ah HAH! So that's where the spam filter gets it from! I knew it. :)

Not exactly trivia, but since Some Like it Hot was mentioned, I think it has my favorite end line of any movie ever: "Well, nobody's perfect."

One thing that's not trivial Roger is your place in film criticism history. I can think of no other person, inside or outside the medium of film, who's writing career has had such an enduring consistency of vision; a consistency of vision that has always been symbiotic with technology and the ability to store information and to extract previous writings that would have been previously destroyed had it not been for computers and, perhaps, had it not been for the Chicago Sun Times and staff assistants.

I've always wondered why Pauline Kael's reviews aren't more accessible online.

Certainly an interesting discourse on trivia. I know a New York-based critic and fan of the Boston American League baseball club who can be extremely obnoxious on trivia subjects ... is it an occupation-related malady? Even so, interested readers should take a look at the couple of "GE College Bowl" or early 1970's "Jeopardy!" episodes on YouTube. Bet most if not all of you would be stumped, amazingly stumped by the questions [College Bowl] or answers to questions [Jeopardy!] posed ... and remember this was mainstream network television, not fringe programming or National Educational Television.

Roger,

I thought that Meryl Streep piece someone posted on here was very entertaining and humorous. What do you make of it? She completely dissed "A Prairie Home Companion." You have it on your great films list; it's strange to think that one of the main actors doesn't even like it.

This is very vague, but if there is a movie trivia genius in here, please help me. When I was a kid, in the very early 80s, my father brought me to a movie. I remember very little from it. There was a man and a woman in a shower together. I think their son (I feel like he was around 20) was kidnapped? Then I remember a dark place where bodies were hanging from the ceiling. I think. It wasn't horror smut; it was a gritty crime drama kind of movie, and something my father should never have brought me to see. I have wondered about this for years. When he took me home (he had weekend visitation rights), it took me 5 minutes to get the courage to get out of the car and run into my house. I think my dad liked Charles Bronson; I don't know if it could have starred him or not.

Ebert: Miss Streep was wrong about "Prairie Home Companion."

Ebert: Even more trivial: What is the incorrect form of "bangers and mash?"
Mangers and bash?
Ebert: Nope. Bangers and mashed.

So would Banged and Mashed be more correct? It just doesn't have a good ring to it - for a food dish, at least. On a side note, I think I may have just found a new name for the pub I've always wanted to open...

I think there's a line between trivia (knowing the name of the first boy to play Tarzan, information that has no real bearing) and information only pertinent to a certain sect (the name of the derby winners, useless to most people, but important for the job). Some information is always trivial, some only depending on the situation. For instance, using a recent movie example, the references Tarantino used in Inglourious Basterds (Jim Emerson posted on this), are to most people, just fun facts. But to Tarantino, who possibly may be made of 35mm nitrate stock, it is important to his being, the foundation for his style, his substance, his career. To anyone who studies film or film theory, this likewise becomes important in understanding and discussing postmodern cinema. Future directors or writers may learn how to take cues from other movies from Tarantino (or just attempt to copy his style, without the history). Therefore, the trivial knowledge becomes pertinent to the situation.

My favourite review of the book "The Da Vinci Code" is a single sentence from Mr Ebert's "National Treasure" review:

"I should read a potboiler like The Da Vinci Code every once in a while, just to remind myself that life is too short to read books like The Da Vinci Code."

Thanks to my project of watching as many of your Great Movies as possible, I came pretty close to passing your preliminary test -- missing #4 of course, and being able to name only the first three New Wave directors on your list. I've seen movies by at least two of the other four directors, but was too much of a doofus to remember their names.

Your posting reminds me a bit of your earlier diatribe against Twitter and Facebook. Just as I think that there are good Twitter and Facebook posts, I think there are good trivia questions. If I ever were to have the nerve to ask you a movie trivia question, I would consider the exchange a success not merely if you didn't know the answer, but also (and only) if I succeeded in arousing your interest in it -- some little connection in the history of movies that enriches ones appreciation.

Re:WW11 film with flashback to little Rusty.

Answer:Happy Land(1943)Irving Pichel

About turtles - I thought that sounded familiar, so I looked it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

So a story related *by* Stephen Hawking, but not as having happened to him (an illustration of infinite regression).

It's cute, but apocryphal.

Tinkering toward the trivial tis trifling.

A truly intelligent person is not someone who knows more of the right answers. It's someone who knows to ask more of the right questions. Mr. Ebert, when it comes to film, your are truly an intelligent person.

I think I get what your problem is with trivia.
There is only one reason to engage in the sharing of obscure facts in any subject:
TO HAVE FUN!,
Those who use it as a method of One-Up-Manship miss the point.
Watching old movies should be an occasion for enjoyment, not a club to be swung at those who know less than you do. Sadly, all too many people nowadays have a need to prevail at something - anything. Rattling off arcane info, especially at somebody who's supposed to be an expert, is just one of the many ways now available to all, thanks largely to the Internet.
So sharing fun is displaced by out-strutting the the local strutter. What a damn shame.

I don't think all movie trivia is mindless, though a lot of it is. I've always thought one of the more interesting movie trivia questions is: In their first scene together in Red River, why is Montgomery Clift able to outdraw John Wayne?

Roger,
You are correct. Life is too short to indulge people who've memorized one fact for the sole purpose of stumping someone whom they already know is smarter. It's sort of like one of my favorite lines from "Good Will Hunting."

"Maybe I don’t want to spend the rest of my life sittin’ around explaining shit to people."

I used to work at tourist attractions in Memphis and was driven crazy by all of the Elvis fans who would ask me trivia questions that I KNEW they knew the answer to. They just wanted to see if I knew.

I went to a backstage tour of the grand ole opry this summer and I pumped the tour guide with a bunch of trivia questions about Hank Williams, Johnny Cash and the darker/drunker side of legendary opry performers. Not trying to compete with the guides, merely curious. And disappointed to depart no more knowledgeable after the guides could offer no info that strayed from the shiny-happy-people scripted spiel.)...

Ebert: You should have asked the Elvis fans: What r&r star's favorite pastime was home movies about girls with their panties showing?

Rog,

I had a grumpy, old-school, but wonderful film history professor at Loyola University Chicago named Fr. Gene Phillips. He asked me once why I took his class, and I told him that your Great Movies I informed me that I had a lot to learn about film history, and I thought I'd start with his class. I've always considered myself a lover of the Movies, but I couldn't name five of the French New Wave directors, even after taking his class -- so I must have a lot learn, despite his expertise.

When I mentioned you, though, he said he met you in the 1970s, and that you were afraid he didn't like you much since you had given up Catholicism for a more secular perspective (his words, not mine). Do you remember Gene? He was named by Kubrick as his personal historian. He says "Hello."

Ebert: I remember him very well, love the guy, never thought he didn't like me. Say hi back to him.

The article credited to Meryl Streep is not really by her. It's an Onion joke article.
www.theonion.com/content/opinion/name_one_masterpiece_of_cinema?utm_source=c-section

Ebert: Owned! I sometimes make the mistake of believing posters.

Michael Mackley wrote on September 3, 2009 1:51 AM...

"I've always wondered why Pauline Kael's reviews aren't more accessible online."

It gives me great pleasure to share the following with you:

Here's a website where you can find 2,846 of her reviews ranging from early silents to the early 1990s when Kael retired -

http://www.geocities.com/paulinekaelreviews/

And here's a great short clip of Jerry Lewis talking about Pauline; this is how much respect she commanded as a Film critic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=freJCmbZa2E

Can you imagine a fan boy speaking that way about Roger?! Times have sure changed, eh?

Where are your movie reviews of "Le Trou" by Jacques Becker, 'Pepe Le Moko" by Julien Duvivier and Kurosawa's 'Throne of Blood"?..I was wondering how you could miss "Spring, Summer...." till it directly popped up in your "great movies" list!

Ebert: Circling to land.

Another of my favorite movie trivia questions: Who was the first movie star to become a princess? (And no, it's not Grace Kelly!)

Here's a trivia question:
Who said were his eyes to have come from the optician (meaning even if 15/15) that he'd return them for a refund, as an inferior product?
Or, is that a 'knowledge' question?

I recall a few nights playing "Trivial Pursuit" (or, more often, Pictionary) all night when I lived at Hawkesbury Ag. College. One question about "The last tycoon" provoked the response not merely "I don't know" but "Who cares?" It broke my literary heart.

Also in times of extreme loneliness and desperation (like now) I find myself indulging in online trivia through MIRC. Its taught me that no matter how good my general knowledge is, there is any number of endless facts, or categories of facts, of which I am completely ignorant. I know nothing about sports. Though one may fantasize about answering obscure questions, sooner or later you'll be stumped with a question on US rivers, or, "How many internet service providers are there in Azerbaijan?"

When