TIFF #5: The man who didn't land

It's so great to be a young filmgoer now because there are so many rising stars or stars who are already among the constellations.

As nearly all the great grandmasters of film have passed on (although I consider Miyazaki perhaps the last living grandmaster), we will live to experience the rise of a new generation of Fellinis, Kurosawas, Kubricks, Hawks, Bunuels and so forth.

I guess the spectrum would perhaps extend from Reitman (age 32) near the beginning to the Coen brothers (age 51 and 54) near the end. I wonder who will occupy the new pantheon?

By the way, if you don't mind my asking, what did you think of A Serious Man?

Ebert: See TIFF #6.

All of the reviews of Up in the Air have pushed the movie to the top of my must-see list for this fall. I would have seen it anyways, regardless of critical acclaim, due to Jason Reitman and George Clooney, but now I'll make sure to see it opening day as early as possible.

Off to track down a copy of Thank You for Smoking.....

You're capping another entry off with a dig at Transformers 2 and it's starting to make me want to see the film. Anything this memorably atrocious must be zeitgeist defining.

It is with great interest that I am looking forward to seeing this film. Shocking for several fans of "Juno" it is with a bit of awkwardness that I mention my indifference for Reitman's second hit feature film. I had gone to seen a preview of "Juno" with the hopes that I would fall in love with the film as much as I did for "Thank You For Smoking" (which ranks higher in my list of favorites than "Juno" would). Thrillingly for me as a viewer I up still riding high on George Clooney's performance in "Michael Clayton" and I am hoping his acting magic can be carried over to his performance in "Up In The Air".

"Anything this memorably atrocious must be zeitgeist defining."

It's not an entertaining film that could fall in the "so bad it's good category". It's just plain bad. I watch a lot of bad movies and have a great time. This is not one of those.

I have to admit, going to the movies has been hard for me in the last few years. It's so hard sometimes to find movies that are introspective, reflective and actually say something. I find good movies are like good literature and poetry, there is a meaning in it independent of what is on the page. It makes you think, it makes you laugh and it makes you cry.

The last movie I saw was District 9, and I was deeply moved by the story, which is a very human one, even though aliens were the stars of that movie. However, the people sitting near me didn't like it, they had thought it was an action movie and didn't like the the introspective.

I look at movies as art, and it is truly good to see that there are young and dynamic directors like Jason Reitman, who take film-making serious enough to talk about social issues and the human condition. It does indeed give us hope.

And might I say I am always happy when the Fall comes around. Good movie season is officially beginning and I cannot wait to see An Education, Bright Star, Broken Embraces, Informant!, Up in the Air, etc. And I can't wait to read your reviews of those movies!

More often than not, the wise men who speak of "story, story, story" either a) would have no problems obtaining funding themselves or b) have never actually tried to get a film or television project made.
Either way, I'm looking forward to this one.
Cheers,
-Jason

Early word on this film has been absolutely glowing, and I am pumped to see it. The trailer is incredibly intriguing and Clooney looks as good as he's ever been (like you said).

I read some very positive comments about A Serious Man earlier today, I am looking forward to reading your TIFF #6 article. This looks like it's shaping up to be a very exciting Award season.

I agree completely with your comment about how Reitman's films are all funny, but none of them are pure comedies. I think that hits the spot perfectly in terms of describing his films. It's a genre I really love and Reitman is proving that he's one of the best in the business.

Hey,Roger. Have you seen Ricky Gervais´s the Invention of Lying yet?. It seems like a really funny high concept comedy and it sure has an assemble of comic talents in it.Looking forward for this one.
By the way sorry for my poor English in the older entries.
Cheers!

can't wait for the chapter 6!

I've been trying not to read too much about Jason Reitman's latest film and ironically because I adored "Juno" so much.

I was basically in the dark - and so it revealed itself to me like an unexpected surprise, a package you hadn't expected to find under the tree and with something so wonderful inside!

And so I sorta read your entry with one eye closed; stealing peaks at only half the words and glancing briefly at others. Oh I knew you weren't going to review it with any great detail, but, well, safety first.

And so it's the buzz I've been listening to, instead. And what a happy bunch of bees they are, nothing but good things to say. Yourself included, the bumble bee from Chicago, Buzz, buzz buzz. :)

And so I know I'll be seeing it soon. It's on my list.

P.S. have you see the poster for the film and the tag line on it?

"The story of a man ready to make a connection."

I make those all the time as you know, and so if for no other reason than that, I want to see the film - just to see how life looks for those who don't, and what happens when they try.

I'm already rooting for him! :)

There are so many adjectives I would like to place here to properly describe my anticipation of Up in the Air and the appreciation I have for Jason Reitman as an artist. I am grateful for the continued positive reviews of someone who is not the next someone else, but has trailblazed his own path and is the now of Jason Reitman.

This was a very nice write-up.

I notice that a lot of people who write about film for a living turn in some of their best work during their "festival blogs". Is it because of the constant inspiration of seeing 12 hours of quality films, or because rushing to make a deadline on little time or sleep can occasionally inspire greater work than taking a few days to polish a piece?

Ebert: It comes perilously close to stream of consciousness.

It has been very interesting to me to watch George Clooney's maturation as a good actor during last decade. In one interview, he once said he would be never like DeNiro or Pachino, but, after that horrible "Batman & Robin", he began to choose films carefully and he finally won Oscar. And he goes on and did a wonderful job "Michael Clayton". The last scene had lingered in my mind for several days.

"Thank You for Smoking" was a pleasant surprise in 2006. I think its satirical message is, "If you can talk well like that, you can solve any hard situation.". Talk show with "Cancer Boy" in the movie is classic example. When you criticized Bette Davis stamp, I could not prevent myself from thinking about this movie.

"Juno" was salvation to me, especially because it was several days after watching that horrible Korean teen comedy movie "Jenny, Juno"(No, Juno(actually, Jun-ho) is the boy, and Jenny is the girl). The ways the movie(released in 2004) deals with teenager pregnancy and characters disgusted me as much as "North" did you. Oh, I hated, hated, hated that movie. In one scene, pregnant girl dreams about cute puppy, which probably means her baby. If the movie regards baby nothing but a pet, there is serious problem. Soundtrack also made me cringe, but thank God for Juno's wonderful songs. Some Korean internet users said about plagiarism when "Juno" was released, but that was blasphemy.

I hope "Up in the Air" will come to South Korea as soon as possible. As a detached observer myself, I am glad that good movies about people still remind me that I can feel something, although reading three Tom Ripley novels made me very uncomfortable.

P.S.

Thanks for recommending "My Sister's Keeper", which is released in South Korea this week. Coincidently, another tearjerker movie is released, and this Korean movie is about long love-hate relationship between mother and daughter. Think 'Terms of Endearment" in more volatile situation with reversed roles. It worked for me, too. Oh, by the way, I also like "9".

Just seeing the trailer for Up in the Air makes me want to see it. I thought Juno was great, but I will have to track down Thank You For Smoking. On a different note, your review of 500 Days of Summer (being an English major, I refuse--like you--to add parentheses around "500") led me to watch that film, which I really enjoyed. Thanks for alerting me (and others) to such a great film.

Very excited to see this movie next Saturday. I saw both Thank you for Smoking and Juno when they came out at TIFF and now look forward to every Reitman film.

PS. I feel I should mention that the new festival building is called the Bell Lightbox, not Lighthouse.

Ebert: Oops. Fixed.

Glad to hear this film has some of the same wit/charm as his past films. Clooney doesn't usually disappoint, and so far neither has Reitman, but this was perhaps looking a little too melancholy from the previews and clips....although, then again, they don't want to "Adventureland" the marketing.

Still, I may be a bit more piqued for "The Men Who Stare At Goats." Clooney as a buffoon = priceless.

I saw 'Up in the Air' at the Telluride Film Festival last week. Jason Reitman introduced the film, and had a Q & A afterwards. He is hilarious! And the film was excellent. It was interesting to hear Reitman discuss the conversations he had with Clooney prior to signing him for the role. According to Reitman, Clooney was drawn to the parallels between his own real life, and the life of his character in the film, and he wanted to "stare that one in the eye". Other films enjoyed in Telluride: An Education, Life During Wartime, A Prophet, Bad Lieutenant, Farewell.

George Clooney is not a film star, he is an actor. I am so glad he works in film, where we can all enjoy and appreciate him.

Clooney impresses me more and more each as the years go on. Originally, he was just 'that guy off ER' who happened to star in some good movies by offbeat directors: "From Dusk Til Dawn", "Out of Sight". Then he started to get into some better roles in serious movies: "Three Kings", "Syriana" and directed some fine films himself: "Goodnight and Good Luck", "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind". (He also had his 'idiot' trilogy with the Coen Bros which concluded with "Burn After Reading".) And now, after "Michael Clayton" and "Up in the Air" (and perhaps "Men Who Stare at Goats"), he's proven himself to be a real actor, an intelligent man (who is also very polite and friendly I hear), a star that tries to choose unusual movies to work on. I'd say he's the Cary Grant of his era but he's made his own niche and is now simply the one and only George Clooney.

Ebert,
What do you think or Armond White's contention that no one under 40 should be allowed to make a film? I find it ludicrous myself.

Ebert: I wonder what his age was when he decided that.

Great article, but I beg to differ on one point. You said of film-making:

You need to find the financing, of course, but that's not the hard part.

Perhaps financing a film is easy if you are a world-famous film critic or a scion of Hollywood, but I assure you, Mr. Ebert, finding financing IS the hard part for 99% of struggling film-makers.

There are many of us out there with great ideas and stories, but being a good storyteller does not make one a good salesperson. I would wager that more often, the opposite is true. Writers tend to be a sensitive breed, and we are easily manipulated. I have known several brilliant screenwriters who have come >thisclose

Few great stories can survive the financial black hole of independent film-making. When you have a crew of unreliable teenage volunteers from the local community college, and your surviving on a diet of coffee and donuts, you tend to lose the plot somewhere along the way.

Making a film is an endurance test. The more money you have, the easier the path to completion. I am fairly certain that Jason Reitman never had to worry about where his next meal was coming from when he was making his films. And besides, he doesn`t write his own scripts. So lets curb our enthusiasm a bit.

I've been a semi-road warrior in recent years. Usually to the tune of 8-10 weeks a year. That's small potatoes by some standards, but let me tell ya, any more and I would quit. Hotels and commercial zones and offices and long days and fast food and soul sucking air travel all add up to a modern day sensory deprivation chamber. You think a bad movie is 2 hours of your life you wont' get back? Try a week in a hotel in Mechanicsburg Pennsylvania (which is a lovely place, Mechnicsburgians - that's not my point).

Oh, and the irony of travel points is that the more you garner, the less you want to use them. It's like being rewarded with food based on how much you eat at a buffet.

I am looking forward to seeing this movie because of the interesting subject matter and the outstanding track record of Jason Reitman and George Clooney in serious films (serious and/or mature seem like a better descriptive for films like this than "adult", due to the mentioned invocation of pornography and the fact they move outside of age barriers and into reflective considerations). Having said that, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing how bad and evil blockbuster films are, and usually by holding up a particular film as this treatise's straw man (Transformers 2 here). There are a lot of awful films that didn't cost a lot to make, and I certainly wouldn't damn the entire independent genre because of those dogs. Put it this way: the "tentpole movies are like natural disasters" view loses some steam if the tentpole movie in question becomes this summer's STAR TREK or HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE.

There's something I've always wanted to tell you:

Mr. Ebert, "Once" is a better movie than "Juno".

I remember reading your reviews for both, giving them both praise, but you said something along the lines of Juno having won your heart and being the top movie for you in 2007...

Anyways, as enjoyable as Juno is...there was just too much contrived dialogue ("Honest to Blog" still hurts my brain) that took away the otherwise "great movie"-quality it had going for it.

Once had none of the pretension and all of the warmth.

You should amend your 2007-best movies list. There, I said it.

Ebert: Noted.

Seeing how you are in Toronto, would you mind running down to the Lulu Lemon store on Yonge and pick up a pair yoga pants my wife is having altered, and drop them to her sister's in Waterdowne? It's only about 45 minutes outside Toronto. She'll deliver them from there. Thanks. (If you're busy, maybe Chaz?)

Enjoy your Tim Hortons! A few urban legends revolve around Tim's coffee - one is that it contains MSG, the other that it contains nicotine. I'm pretty sure the latter is wrong. I'm a begrudging Tim Horton's drinker. Its success depends on one quality alone: ubiquity. I think a Tim Horton's shop opened inside a Tim Horton's shop recently.

Ebert: Lulu Lemon? I'm a regular. And have always wanted to see Waterdowne.

Yup, George Clooney is on a roll. I thought he was on fire in "Michael Clayton", and here he's just as good. Can't wait for the second Clooney picture now, "The Men Who Stare at Goats".

"Up In The Air" I thought was great, and also "The Day God Walked Away", the most powerful film I've seen in Toronto so far. It's one woman's moment to moment account into the terror of the Rwandan genocide. She's clearly in the role of the victim, but the film doesn't feel sorry for her, it just sees her unblinkingly. I hope it breaks out here and finds itself an Oscar nomination for foreign film, but I'm afraid it'll get lost in the shuffle.

A contrarian note to Adam, above:

"Juno" was a better movie than "Once."

The dialogue in "Juno" was fanciful and unreal, which lent a fairy-tale vibe to a movie about a serious subject.

The songs in "Once" were slathered with emotion like so much mid-grade barbecue sauce. I almost ground my teeth to the jawbone.

I submit, however, that our reaction to either element has more to do with some inherent resonance frequencies in our souls. A good movie can produce harmony or discord, depending on the viewer.

Greetings Roger and fellow readers!

I'm very much joyed to hear of the reception given Jason Reitman's latest film. I thought his 2007 effort "Juno" was the best film of that year.

Earlier this evening I viewed the 1988 classic "The Accused," featuring brilliant performances by Jodi Foster and Kelly McGillis. This remarkable film was first acclaimed at the Toronto International Film Festival, vaulting it into the consciousness of critics and viewers alike.

It is positively wonderful to see the enhanced role that film festivals the world over are playing in bringing important work to light.

The 29th Atlantic Film Festival opens in the Nova Scotian capitol of Halifax on September 17 and runs until the 26th. Among the many directors whose work will be featured are Atom Egoyan (Chloe), John N. Smith (Love and Savagery), Jennifer Baichwal (Act of God), Jane Campion (Bright Star), Adam Perry (Jiggers), Terry Gilliam (The Imagination of Doctor Parnassus), and Tze Chun (Children of Invention). There is also an extensive retrospective of German director Win Wenders planned.

Many of us are eagerly devouring your accounts of this year's TIFF in anticipation of our own celebration of film in Atlantic Canada.

Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada

Having spent close to 5 years living on the road and out of a suitcase in a previous job, I am very much looking forward to seeing "Up in the Air". For me, the best film depiction to date of life on the road is the opening scene of "Duets" where Paul Giamatti, who's apologizing for being late for his sales pitch meeting, learns that he's not only in the wrong meeting, he's also in the wrong city. Priceless, that scene is.

Roger,

Wait a minute. You didn't like Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. I am shocked. Shocked I say!

Glad to hear you are actually enjoying seeing these movies. Thanks for the reporting.

That Jason sure seems like a sweet kid.

Ebert: You're right:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071208/PEOPLE/71208001/1023

How can you say "Juno" wasn't a comedy, when I was a laugh-riot for much of the way? Also, are you going to talk about "Chloe"?

Roger,

I believe you made a grammatical error in this blog entry. You said, "All of his films are very funny, but none of them is a comedy." I believe it should be either "All of his films are very funny, but none of them are comedies" or "All of his films are very funny, but not one of them is a comedy."

I've been reading your work since I was twelve (I am currently nineteen), and I've never felt compelled to comment on a blog entry of yours until now.

Ebert: I'm staring at these choices and trying to figure out which is correct. I must have been daydreaming in grade school.

My argument would be that "is" agrees with "none." But I admit I don't know if "none" is singular.

Will a third party help us out?

Correct answer wins a shiny new dime if you send in a stamped, self-addressed envelope.

Hi Roger.

I'm thinking that my favorite on-the-road film about loneliness was "Lost in Translation". Does this one compare? Does Clooney convey loneliness as well as Murray did?

I have a mixed experience with Clooney. He's talented, no doubt. I just saw "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", which I believe he directed as well as acted in. He was great in "O Brother Where Art Thou". I'm just not a fan of his political movies.

to Josh, who said:

The dialogue in "Juno" was fanciful and unreal, which lent a fairy-tale vibe to a movie about a serious subject.

Juno's dialogue, unfortunately, was explicitly in the voice of 30-something writer Diablo Cody, who I am a big fan of. But, hearing her hipness coming out of 16 year old Juno was jarring. It's the strongest example in my experience of a writer being obvious in a character. Even as jarring as that was, great and important movie.

Randy

Why can't other actors hold Hollywood to the quality standards that Clooney does? All three of his films this fall (Up in the Air, Men Who Stare at Goats and The Fantastic Mr. Fox) are looking to be the smartest and most interesting coming out.

"Juno" was one of those movies that was, no other way to describe it, "mildly amusing."
I enjoyed it, then promptly forgot it. Not so its author, stripper-cum-screenwriter Diablo Cody. I'm from the Twin Cities, so her exploits are very familiar to me. Sadly, her story is all too familiar: Girl writes book extolling the virtues of her lover (think Howard Stern, in sexual reverse, lauding his ex-wife in "Private Parts"), then dumps him for the glamour of Hollywood. Maybe he was a jerk, but I can't help cheering for "Cody's" (fake name) failure.
But Roger, you never addressed my question from a previous post: Why were (drunken) Stephen King's books so much better than (sober) Stephen King's books? You mentioned exceptions to that rule, but you never addressed the King phenomenon.

Ebert: I haven't read most of them. Do other people agree?

I am so proud of Jason Reitman, and yet it still saddens me that he and his father and so many other Canadian directors either choose to or feel they have to work outside of their home country. And even when they do work here, it's either on an American production or on some art house piece that never gets seen by anyone outside of TIFF.

I'm sure it's of no concern to anyone outside of Canada, but there's something upsetting about the fact that a movie like Juno - with a Canadian director, Canadian stars, and filmed in Canada - is designated as an American film simply because that's where the money is from. Maybe it's all just technicalities, but it concerns me that we are losing the ability to tell our own stories, which is the very essence of culture.

Do other countries go through this sort of angst over their national cinema? Places like Australia and New Zealand, with similar populations and cultural backgrounds to Canada's, don't seem to have any trouble developing and maintaining robust indigenous film industries. What's wrong with us?

And don't even get me started on Canadian television...

On the way to Albuquerque's ratty 2 dollar theater tonight to see "Ice Age 3" with my 65 year old mother:

"Peter, you haven't seen Ice Age 1 or 2 but you want to see 3?"
"Yes. I'm not into all these computer animated animal movies, but Roger gave this one a very good review."
"Does Roger eat at all, or does he live every day with a feeding tube?"
"Feeding tube."
"How old is he?"
"Your age."
"Well, you can tell him that your mother doesn't agree with his thinking on almost everything, but I sure give him a lot of credit for the grace he's shown in handling his sickness. He sure has a lot of life in him."
"He's at the Toronto Film Festival this week."
"(Laughing) My goodness. Well I give him tremendous credit -he's something else."

Ebert: I hope she liked it.And you?

I haven't seen "Once", so I don't know if it is in fact better than "Juno", but I count "Juno" as one of my all-time favorite movies. I saw it twice in the theater, and cried both times. I cried in emotional congress with the characters, and I cried at the beauty of the movie, something I also do when I watch "The Quiet Man".

Ellen Page is a unique talent. I wish to follow her career closely. And at my age, I shouldn't be having crushes on young women, but I do.

With the films that hea has already made, I believe Jason Reitman is on track to have a better career than his dad. When I showed "Thank You for Smoking" to my parents, they were surprised by how much they liked it. On the other hand, my dad hated "Juno." The reason for this that he was a high school counselor for over thirty years and never dealt with a teen pregnancy that was ever as nice as the one in "Juno". As he put it, he never dealt with a pregnant teen that wasn't scared out of her mind. Also, he told me that he never talked to any parents that were as understanding as Juno's parents. His worst case scenario was when he had to deal with a pregnant teen's father, whose favorite pastime was grabbing women by the hair and bashing their heads against the nearest hard surface.

Regarding Stephen King's sober work being inferior to his unsober work:

I think that in his unsober work (from Carrie to The Tommyknockers), the premise was more important to King than the characters were. Post-Tommyknockers, the premise was still his starting point, but he was invested more in the people within it.

Put another way: for early King, the premise was the melody and the characters the rhythm; for later King, the reverse is true.

I don't know that he would have become as interested in humanity if his mental state had remained altered. But he did become more interested, and he grew the ambition to address that interest more than he had before. For that, and for his not throwing his gifts away into a narcotic haze - not to mention his personal life growing healthier - I'm glad he chose to straighten up and fly right.

I never realized Stephen King was a drunk, like me. All I know is his earlier books were much much better than the later books. Whether that was influenced by alcohol consumption or muse, I have no idea.

Ebert: Were you drinking when you read them? :)

It's interesting to see the Diablo Cody backlash still kicking two years later. It seems that people dislike Juno because they think all the characters are simply avatars of Ms. Cody carrying on a conversation with herself. Yet, to be fair, all of Quentin Tarantino's movies are just extended conversations between Q and himself. How many of you Cody-haters are the first in line for Tarantino films?

I look forward to seeing this movie. George Clooney has developed wonderfully over the years. He has the power to choose and chooses well. I lived in towns not too far from his parents' home of Augusta in Northern Kentucky for many years. I even helped in Nick's campaign for Congress. I share in an almost familial pride in George's success and achievements that transcends the role or the direction or the willingness to take a stand. He has come to represent the aspirations of many Kentuckians who are generally embarrassed by our state's manifestations of continuing reactionary politics, ignorance, and flagrant bigotry.

BTW I love that Vera Farmiga is in this movie. She had a smallish but meaty part in the HBO women's suffrage movie Iron Jawed Angels.

Did we see the same movie? I saw the screening at Telluride, and like many others there that I talked with, almost walked out of this crappy, weak "adaptation" of a fine book. To use a bad pun, the story was all over the road.

I'm a fan RE, but this time, you really got it wrong.

Just a quick question:

If Jason Reitman is saying that he premieres all his movies in Toronto, then how come all these people have already seen Up in the Air at the Telluride Festival a week before?

Thanks!

Ebert: It's part of Telluride's deal that they get a movie a week before Toronto if they don't announce their schedule in advance. It's sort of a "festival sneak." Jason said he would "open" his films at TIFF's Ryerson, not "premiere" them.

Adam is quite right. Once is a better film than Juno.

I rather liked Juno when I first saw it, and I still do, but having worked with teens for quite a long time, I have to agree with another previous poster that I have never seen a teen pregnancy handled without tears and fear.

I know it's a movie, but I felt it could have gone from good to great if we, the viewers, could see some panic and fear in Juno's initial reaction and then have her buckle up and deal with it, it could have been better.

Once, however, was perfect. :)

Anyway, just thoughts and opinions. I respect both movies and I really am looking forward to Up in the Air.

Roger, have you seen Diablo Cody's next movie, Jennifer's Body?

Brian

"I'm sure it's of no concern to anyone outside of Canada, but there's something upsetting about the fact that a movie like Juno - with a Canadian director, Canadian stars, and filmed in Canada - is designated as an American film simply because that's where the money is from."

I doubt it's of much concern to people in Canada (well, English-Canada) either. If it were Canadian-made, people in Canada wouldn't see it. Say what you want about us Canucks, but by and large, we don't care much about our own film and television. It's a shame really, but true. English-Canadians don't see movies from English Canada, and most of the only truly successful Canadian television series of late have been those that have also been picked up by US networks.

If "Juno" were a Canadian movie, it would play at the Cumberland Four and Canada Square for a couple weeks, Martin Knelman would write a column wondering why locals weren't seeing this great homegrown movie, and it would disappear.

I'm glad to hear you liked Up in Air, as Jason Reitman is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. I know Diablo Cody and Ellen Page got most of the buzz for Juno, but I was a huge fan of Thank You For Smoking and I saw Reitman's fingerprints all over the film. Cody's script could have been awkward in the hands of a director without such a flair for style and energy.(and some say it was awkward still) I know Cody's personal story is a lot more interesting,(it involves strippers) than Reitman's,(it involves being born into Hollywood royalty). Anyways I hope Reitman gets the credit he deserves when this film becomes a breakout hit, but why do I have a feeling the entertainment media's focus won't be "Amazing young director goes 3 for 3" but rather, "It stars George Clooney in one of his best performances"

I loved Juno and this one looks great. I can't wait to see it, although I'm sure I'll end up Redboxing it. I'm glad your having fun in Toronto. We have a film festival here in Syracuse, but it's still pretty small...it's only been running for less than a decade. But if you ever want to increase our publicity, we'd love to have you come next October.

As a longtime regular at Telluride, Roger, I'm sure you wouldn't want to slight the small mountain town in southwest Colorado. Two years ago, "Juno" was shown there before it reached Toronto and this year "Up in the Air" was also shown there earlier. Technically, they were sneak previews instead of world premieres, but Jason Reitman was there both times. In presenting "Up in the Air" to Telluride, he said something to the effect that he wanted to follow the same schedule he did two years ago because Telluride proved to be such a good luck charm for "Juno." Sounds like he could use a speech writer to change up his intros. I'm guessing "Up in the Air" will do fine no matter where he introduces it, though.

Ebert: Yeah, technically it's not a premiere.

Jennifer Smith wrote on September 13, 2009 1:41 AM -

"...I'm sure it's of no concern to anyone outside of Canada, but there's something upsetting about the fact that a movie like Juno - with a Canadian director, Canadian stars, and filmed in Canada - is designated as an American film simply because that's where the money is from. Maybe it's all just technicalities, but it concerns me that we are losing the ability to tell our own stories, which is the very essence of culture.

Do other countries go through this sort of angst over their national cinema? Places like Australia and New Zealand, with similar populations and cultural backgrounds to Canada's, don't seem to have any trouble developing and maintaining robust indigenous film industries. What's wrong with us?

And don't even get me started on Canadian television..."

Too late, Jennifer; smile.

It all comes down to money, Jennifer.

Someone has to pay the bills and in Canada, with only 35 million people, there simply aren't enough sources of revenue to go around. We also tend to be far more conservative-minded financially, and so you don't see as many financiers looking to invest their cash in a movie; they prefer a "sure thing".

As for television, same deal. Although that said, I did watch "Being Erica" on the CBC last season and enjoyed it very much. It was an interesting premise for a series and didn't look cheap with poor key-lighting. It was of course shot in Toronto, where the sun and the moon shine out that city's @SS! - not that I care. :)

It's certainly a far cry from "Blood Ties" - ever see that?! This is how bad the budget was for that series: it was filmed in Vancouver, standing in for Toronto! Yup; they couldn't even afford to shoot in Toronto. It was financed by "Lifetime" in the States. Ie: they were looking for a project to attract younger female viewers - but they wanted to go about it as cheaply as humanly possible. So they tossed some quarters at the Canadian production company, Kaleidoscope Entertainment Inc. while scoring some tax credits etc.

And because we're so FREAKIN' desperate to get work, they found people willing to do it for next to nothing. The series was about a Vampire who's the basterd son of King Henry VIII - "Henry Fitzroy" as played by Kyle Schmid.

Speaking for myself, my issue with Canadian productions financed with Government money, is often how corny or cheesy they feel, along with their notoriously bad dialogue. At least that's why I rarely watch Canadian Television. "Trailer Park Boys" a notable exception of course, but then it's not made for your parents and why it doesn't suck. :)

Note: Canadian police-procedurals SUCK. They're stiff clichés and boring. I liked Damian Lewis on NBC's "Life". It was off-beat and quirky. So too, "Reaper" and "Dead Like Me" and "X-Files" and "The Lone Gunman".

And I love Hugh Laurie on "House" and Michael C. Hall on Showtime's "Dexter" and Jared Padalecki & Jensen Ackles on CW's "Supernatural" (season 5 just started and they've added Lucifer to the cast! AWESOME! Is there a God? Let's find out!)

And I'm very intrigued by Swedish actor/director Alexander Skarsgård, who plays former Viking and Vampire Eric Northman on HBO's "True Blood" - as all his gestures are subtle and he doesn't telegraph. You have to lean in and pay attention; he's now my favorite on the show.

They all share something in common, moreover: razor smart writing with a subversive edge. And those of us who can do that, as writers or directors or actors, move to L.A. so as to get paid what we're worth. Meanwhile, Canadians watch Canadians earning an income in the U.S. But then, the U.S. shoots up here to save on production costs and they hire Canadian crews, so etc.

Basically, without the United States funding the Arts in Canada, albeit indirectly, we'd be screwed. I really do believe that. We're too cheap. Too Scottish. Too few. Too conservative.

Note: also, and again speaking for myself, you can take your freakin' cabin in the snow stories, and shove it CBC!! I don't care about "Canadiana" - Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Yes, I know about "The Rick Mercer Report" - that one, I am genuinely proud of but that's because he's always taking the p*ss out of us, Jennifer. :)

P.S. The series "The Tudors" is produced by Peace Arch Entertainment for Showtime in association with Reveille Eire (Ireland), Working Title Films (United Kingdom) and the CBC (Canada) and is filmed in Ireland.

That's an example of how things work, today. Ireland, England, Canada help foot the bill, and an American Cable Network shows the series. Then, via foreign distribution, etc.

I have read very few Stephen King novels, but the kitchen sink garbage pail mass of It made me pine for Maxwell Perkins and the tradition of strong editors. It seemed to me that King could just ramble at will and anything would go into print. Editors have a purpose and it isn't necessarily antithetical to a writer's goal.

"All of them are not here" -- Bob & Ray, Ask a Grammarian

Ebert: "All of his films are very funny, but none of them is a comedy."

---Correct.

Contender: "All of his films are very funny, but not one of them is a comedy."

---Also correct. "None of them" is a contraction for the original "no one of them." "Not one of them" would stress the point. Personally, I'd've wondered why Roger would've felt the need to stress that point.

---"None are comedies," "none is a comedy" just fine too, a matter of style.

Ebert: I'm staring at these choices and trying to figure out which is correct. I must have been daydreaming in grade school.

---You can thank Sister Mary Bartholomew, Sacred Heart Elementary School, whose rules have been more helpful than anything from college.

Ebert: Will a third party help us out?

Correct answer wins a shiny new dime if you send in a stamped, self-addressed envelope.

---Let me get my calculator. I'm not that good at math, but a sharp intuition suggests... something about the math here, and maybe the expenses... be back in a couple days...

I had the pleasure of seeing 'Up in the Air' today at the Elgin Theatre - it's quite something to hear 1,500 people laughing at the same time. (I'm going to have to see it again when it's in general release so I can catch the dialogue I missed.) The film was bright, funny and charming without being sentimental. And if this writing/directing thing doesn't work out for Jason Reitman he should consider giving dissertations on how to efficiently manoeuvre through airports. I'll never travel the same way again.

p.s. If you ever do make it out to Waterdown, take along someone who loves high tea. It's home to my favourite place for it: Tea at the White House. http://www.teaatthewhitehouse.com They also make great homemade soups and the scones are to die for. Ask for Gillian - she knows everything about tea and then some.

I sometimes think the negative responses to Juno are in part responses to its success--OK, and also the gushing adulation of some moviegoers and professional critics. The movie itself, though, is pretty harmless, a screwball dramedy with the female lead channeling both Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant. Meanwhile, the Keatonesque deadpan of Lost in Translation gets a free pass--while it too indulges in formula. I like both films, but let's not second-guess Up in the Air simply because of the director. Let's watch one movie at a time.

B. Baker wrote on September 12, 2009 11:08 PM:

I believe you made a grammatical error in this blog entry. You said, "All of his films are very funny, but none of them is a comedy." I believe it should be either "All of his films are very funny, but none of them are comedies" or "All of his films are very funny, but not one of them is a comedy."

Okay, I've done stints as a copy editor and this was driving ME crazy. First I tried checking my home copy of The Chicago Manual of Style. All they have to say on the subject of indefinite pronouns (none, either, both... etc.) is the following:

"When an indefinite pronoun is the subject of a verb, it is usually singular {everyone is enjoying the dinner} {everyone takes notes during the first week}. But sometimes an indefinite pronoun carries a plural sense {nobody could describe the music; they hadn't been listening to it} {everyone understood the risk, but they were lured by promises of big returns}.

USUALLY. Not very helpful. So then I tried poking around on the website of the New York Times, and here's what I found in their grammar, usage and style blog:

"None: Singular or Plural?

Many readers of The Times and After Deadline insist that “none” should be used only with a singular verb. They argue that “none” means “not one,” and so is inherently singular.

But most authorities, including The Times’s stylebook, disagree. Here’s our entry:

none. Despite a widespread assumption that it stands for not one, the word has been construed as a plural (not any) in most contexts for centuries. H. W. Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) endorsed the plural use. Make none plural except when emphasizing the idea of not one or no one — and then consider using those phrases instead."

The consensus seems to be the following: B. Baker probably has the edge here, but Roger Ebert is not entirely in the wrong. After all, even the Times says that you should "consider" using "not one" instead of "none" when you have a singular meaning in mind.

Not "use this."

"Consider."

Reitman's main talent is making smart movies that can make you smile. He knows how to blend satire and sugar like no one else, where he can make a movie both witty and sappy.

It's a talent few have.

Another screenwriter that shows up strong in his characters is Kevin Smith. I've been a fan since Clerks but sometimes he can get carried away in his 'skewed' view in his dialogues.

"None" is grammatically singular. This is a necessary result of the definition of plural: more than one.

"None of them are comedies" looks and sounds plausible only because it is a common error. But "none of them is a comedy" is correct.

Should I send my SASE to you in care of the Sun-Times?

I was at the Up in the Air "premiere" and I loved the film. I thought the story inspirational and the casting wonderful. Clooney never better, Jason Bateman always good but Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick were absolutely perfect. Reitman selects nice stories with much of value to say to a world in need of a makeover.

Jason Reitman is not your typical Hollywood director despite his pedigree. Two nice touches in this film that prove that: The closing song for the film was unsolicitely written by an unemployed would-be songwriter who sent him the song on a cassette. Not a great song but both the song and the songwriter had the heart and spirit that Jason felt was fitting for the film. The majority of the people being fired in the film were real-life people who indeed had been fired from their jobs. There words and emotions were most sincere and poignant. Two nice touches from a really nice family man who happens to be a great director.

Hi Roger, Regarding subject-verb agreement for the word none; "none" can be either plural or singular. Here is the rule from the website http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/sv_agr.htm

"On the other hand, there is one indefinite pronoun, none, that can be either singular or plural; it often doesn't matter whether you use a singular or a plural verb — unless something else in the sentence determines its number. (Writers generally think of none as meaning not any and will choose a plural verb, as in "None of the engines are working," but when something else makes us regard none as meaning not one, we want a singular verb, as in "None of the food is fresh.")"

Hope this helps, not that a lowly engineer like me should be giving grammar advice to a professional writer like you! B. Baker's post just inspired a quick google search. Much easier than getting off my duff and finding the old "Elements of Style".

Do I win a shiny dime? ;-)

Ebert: Just mail in the stamped envelope.

Marie Haws -

You raise some excellent points, but I'm still not buying the whole "there aren't enough of us" argument. Australia has two-thirds of our population. New Zealand's is just over 4 million. And I will bet money that most Canadians have seen more films from either of those two countries than from our own. Why? Because Canadians think Canadian films suck. I know this because I work in a video store and have watched customers physically drop movies back onto the shelf the second they realize it's "that Canadian movie". The situation has improved somewhat since 'Away From Her' and 'Passchendaele', but it's still a common attitude.

(I'm sitting here enjoying 'Cube' on Space as I write this, BTW)

Of course, most Canadian films do not suck. Ask Roger. They just suffer from the same budgetary, promotional, and distribution constraints as independent films anywhere, with no brainless Hollywood blockbusters to help subsidize them. Which is why I continue to be curious about how Australia and New Zealand cope with similarly small populations and limited resources.

Our television problem is far more complex and unique to Canada, but again there is the same attitude, fed by stereotypes generated by people who haven't actually watched Canadian television since The Beachcombers went off the air.

And yet I think back to the years before the CRTC's gutting of CanCon regulations took hold, and I remember shows like The 11th Hour, Wonderland, Made in Canada, Twitch City, The Newsroom, Da Vinci's Inquest, and what is probably the finest piece of television ever produced in any country: 'Slings & Arrows' Then in the space of two or three years they were all gone, replaced with a few British and South African co-pros and a dozen clones of American reality shows.

(and yes, I've seen Blood Ties - in the incestuous world of Canadian film and television, my husband is old friends with the author of the book series, and I kind of know one of the episode writers :)

These days, there's Flashpoint, The Border, TPB, Durham County if you've got pay cable, and Little Mosque if you like that sort of thing (I'm not big on sitcoms of any nationality). And that's it! I checked the schedule for new series this year, and as far as I can tell there isn't a single new Canadian scripted series this year on any network. Not even the CBC. Not. One.

See? I told you not to get me started on Canadian television :)

(FYI, there's an excellent article in The Walrus on these issues at http://tinyurl.com/nq2f2j)

So Roger, to what address do I send the SASE for my dime? And how will you verify that it is really me and not some imposter who is willing to spend $0.88 in exchange for a dime? Thx, Leslie

Ebert: I'll trust you.

Don't forget the 25-cent shipping and handling fee.

Roger, my accountant informs me that a Shiny New Dime from Roger Ebert could bring as much as $2 on e-bay provided we have a certificate of authentication. Of course, this value would increase over time, allowances made for the number of Shiny New Ebert Dimes distributed plus inflation.

Next we must calculate the expense of 2 stamps, 2 envelopes, state and city taxes and the incremental man-hours invested against that projected $2. Back soon.

The presciptivist grammarians have taken over the board. Whom are they? Who are they trying to teach lessons in grammar to?

Maybe they should cut one of our best writers a little slack for blog posts, which is generally edited much fewer then reviews nor essays. :)

Ugh, Roger. Jason Reitman as the future of cinema? What a bleak future that would be. I can't understand why he's so well-liked. He lacks the magic of a great director. There's no spark, no life, in his films. Juno had a little more life to it than Thank You For Smoking, but for me it was still just a series of assembled shots and pieces of performances. A Frankenstein's amateur art project. Not that it isn't extremely difficult to succeed at doing this with one's first two films, and I'm sure he'll get it, but let's be realistic, he's just another case of Hollywood nepotism. And unless he's truly great, that's the only way I can view him.

I wasn't in love with Juno, nor was I when watching "Up in the Air". Clooney was good, but he was riding a wave.. he wasn't actually doing anything new or remarkable for him. He was just.. himself. Vera Farmiga really stole it for me and I like seeing more interesting, mature women on screen.

Overall, the story was set in a depressing time, but I failed to see what the connection was to the actual plot other than to put Clooney's character into a depressing time. He could have been a butter salesmen and still had the same plot. Instead, he fired people.

For me, Reitman did that just to pull on our heartstrings and make us think we were watching something profound, instead of what it was: a guy who thought he didn't need baggage until he found someone worth carrying the extra load for.

Granted there is a twist, (one I saw coming), and the comedy was great with excellent timing, but the film itself being this amazing piece of work? Sorry.. only if the setting and plot worked closer together to reach that profound meaning the director intended, would I have found more value in it.

Otherwise, it's just another in the "meh" pile for me and an unlikelyness I'll get hyped about any Reitman film in the future.

Is it just me or does Jiminy Glick look a lot like a younger Roger Ebert ??

Ebert: Come on, I was never at fat. I was interviewed by Jiminy once, and you could see.

Okay Rodge (diminutive for "Roger"), I've had a conference call with my accountant, entertainment attorney and a really interesting numismatist who just happened to be the friend of someone I met in a coffeeshop yesterday.

Bottom line, I'm truly encouraged that we can hammer something out to all our advantages about this Shiny New Dime thing for services rendered. (According to the recent hit grammar book EATS SHOOTS AND LEAVES only one comma is necessary in the foregoing sentence.)

We're also thinking a spin-off sitcom about a black grammatician married to a white Ebonics instructor in Oakland. This one is just a pipe-dream, but if we can bring Clooney in, I see a 3-picture deal about a grammatical stickler who's a secret government assassin and a cannibal. Plus I can line up a ghostwriter for the instabook EBERT'S SHINY NEW DIME -- and a possible game show.

My attorney will be contacting your attorney to go over some papers. Just a formality, although it was the numismatist's recommendation that the dime be sealed after ascertaining your fingerprints alone are on it.

If you haven't got a good publicist I can recommend one right there in Toronto waiting for your call. Let me know and I'll set up the appointment. This is exciting.

(PS I've enjoyed all of Reetman's films so far. I wish Jiminy Glick were funnier, tho'. Maybe if he changed it to "Jiminy Crick.")

Ebert: Oh yeah? And where would be get my fingerprint sample?

I am truly thankful to be living in the age of the internet. For all the negative, immediate, misinforming characteristics -- it is truly a blessing to be able to have a larger canvass for both reviewers and readers to interact.

I love the way Roger and the Sun Times have embraced this and wish the Gene Siskel had been around to exploit this forum.

I really enjoyed your descriptions of "films for people who think" and "tentpole movies". They made me wonder about the rare movies that could be described as both. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) and Batman Begins (2005) come to mind. Almost makes me want to collect a fast food promotional cup for each "Great Tentpole Movie".

Tom Dark, Celebrity Grammatician wrote on September 15, 2009 10:31 AM:

Bottom line, I'm truly encouraged that we can hammer something out to all our advantages about this Shiny New Dime thing for services rendered. (According to the recent hit grammar book EATS SHOOTS AND LEAVES only one comma is necessary in the foregoing sentence.)

No, no, no, Tom! You bring in too many parties to start applying legalistic mumbo-jumbo, then they're all gonna start demanding a cut of the prize money for services rendered. Roger could end up having to pay a penny to the attorney for legal guidance, a penny to the numismatist for expert opinion, which would leave the winner of all Roger Ebert's Journal contest winners owed something like eight cents. And until the eight-cent coin enters into American currency, everything would just be a big ol' mess, dogs and cats living together, you know the drill.

And consequently, we would enter into the difficult question of determining whether or not the pennies would also be handled by Roger Ebert, and the existence of a Roger Ebert Penny could potentially devalue the Roger Ebert Dime...

Good God, man, don't you see what you've done?

Ebert: Marie, I would like to point out that the following whizzed right through the spam filter, just as you wrote it.

Do you suppose it singles out your posts for random whacks?

Note: I posted this last night, but it's MIA. I don't think there's any bad words? I saved a copy, so here it is again!

Jennifer wrote: (and yes, I've seen Blood Ties - in the incestuous world of Canadian film and television, my husband is old friends with the author of the book series, and I kind of know one of the episode writers :)

Chuckle; it is though, isn't it? As I used to work with one of episode writers too - Dennis Heaton and years ago, at an Animation studio in Vancouver. Which just goes to show you how small the Film/TV community in Canada really is, eh?

See? I told you not to get me started on Canadian television :)

Grin.

Note: in a perfect world, Roger would watch ONE TV series - Dexter! And he'd talk about that in here too. :)

Meanwhile, I loved Henry Fitzroy! They changed his parameters somewhat from the books as you know, and he went from being a writer to an artist; he inked his own graphic novels! And so we got to see his work set-up and the artwork made for the show; very cool.

He was also the perfect vampire. Ie: he didn't skulk around the city followed by a thick cheesy fog while struggling to resist the desire for blood etc. Nor was he channeling a cliché called "Byron" or "Lestat" alla mad, bad and dangerous to know. Ie: author Tanya Huff created a vampire who drank from the willing, kept a low profile, while sparing us of the tedium of having to endure yet another centuries old Vampire Hierarchy. She made hers "territorial" like big cats - one vampire per city less you attract too much attention for hunting on the same grounds. BRILLIANT! At least nobody else ever thought to do that.

And so I was disappointed with the production values. I know the crew tried and gave it their best, but it still looks cheap and it always bugged me. So too, female lead Vicki Nelson as played by Christina Cox; ie: who seems to tackle every part she gets as though it's a feminist take on Mickey Spillane. The whole hamfisted tough-as-nails swagger drove me nuts - as I kept wanting her to pull it back a notch, be more like Helen Mirren and not Michelle Rodriguez on ABC's "LOST".

But I digress...

Americans are great when it comes to promoting themselves. They toot their own horns and loudly. We don't do that up here. You have often have leave Canada and make a name for yourself somewhere else, before Canadians will prick up their ears at home. We're getting better about it, but even so.

David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, Guy Maddin, Sarah Polley, Jason Reitman, Norman Jewison, James Cameron - I know their names, but so too that most Canadians haven't seen a Guy Maddin film.

Fellini had a peacock in the snow (Amarcord) and Guy had horses frozen in a river. We have our moments of inspiration, too - but we don't sing about it, we don't brag. If anything, we're often self-defeating, case on point:

"Chloe" (2009) the Atom Egoyan film, did not open TIFF. Instead, that honor was handed to "Creation" and while you can make a case for it being due to the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, let the British do it; he's their dude. I wonder if the Festival wanted to cash-in on the "celebrity" of Creation (I.D. controversy) and thus picked it - not because they thought it was a great movie?

But here's the thing: Egoyan's film is reportedly highly erotic and graphic. Surely, that can generate a buzz if you're looking for one? Or was it "too" erotic for comfort?

There's a newly released clip from "Chloe" featuring Juliette Moore and Amanda Seyfried, which Roger's added to that entry.

Does that look cheap or poorly produced? NO. Badly lit? Nope. Is it well acted? I think so. Or did maybe someone "hint" it would be a good idea not to showcase a movie wherein one of its stars, Liam Neeson lost his wife/actress Natasha Richardson after she fell while taking a skiing lesson at the Mont Tremblant Resort in Quebec? That is was that - "bad publicity" - they didn't want overshadowing the Festival..?

As I wondered about that too.

Ever hear of a Canadian actor named Elias Koteas? I have. Most of my countrymen however have not; and I see him as akin to our Sean Penn! I remember Malarek (1988) The Adjuster (1991) Exotica (1994) Some Kind of Wonderful - he played Duncan (1987) and Crash (1996) The Thin Red Line (1996) Dancing at the Blue Iguana (2000) Ararat (2002) etc. Not all Canadian films but it's to illustrate a point.

I even remember him as a young Aristotle Onassis in a TV movie!

Clearly, I'm a geek. I'm a TV nerd and film buff and watch way too much stuff; chuckle! But it means I agree with you about our movies - they are better than we give them credit for! Our actors are very gifted. So too, our storytellers. However.. we want the same productions values Americans have been giving us, eh? I think that's part of it anyway. Also, that Canadians don't find themselves "as interesting" as the greater world around them. I could be projecting, though.

But it also hasn't escaped my notice that our humour tends be observational; we're invariably amusing ourselves with stories about other people. Canadians don't sit around talking about Canadians that much, city and hockey rivalries aside, eh?

And so if you make a film about Canadians in Canada, the first thought it "oh, great, Toronto again" - chuckle!

I'd like to see a Canadian movie filmed entirely in Halifax and about a woman who has to go back home upon the death of father - and choose between selling the pub he owned and loved, or converting it to another business, or making a go of it herself. The fact she's undecided, a cause of MUCH concern for the locals; as they love their beloved watering hole! So much so, they're not above playing dirty to secure it and thus a plot a hatched!

I like a nice black comedy. :)

And to make sure the film gets a distribution deal, we'll arrange for a CAR CHASE SCENE at the end. (Yes, I'm kidding.)

Note: before I forgot, I used to watch Da Vinci's Inquest, too. It was shot in VANCOUVER and didn't suck.

Are we too nice, Jennifer? Is that the trouble? There's not enough conflict for us to tap into? Or seething resentment and bitterness? Are we too content with less? Or too polite to openly gripe about it? I'm sure we could be a$$holes, if we tried.

What about Native Canadians? They've been treated terribly! One of their ghosts could rise and start killing off politicians - a cool horror movie; but then we'd be rooting for it, eh? Sigh.

Or maybe Native Canadian actor Adam Beach (used to be Law & Order: SVU) could play a photojournalist who takes the best shot of his career - only to lose his camera! And getting it back turns into this epic Canadian odyssey the likes of which will in time, become legendary. Grin.

Ie: I can think of so many stories that I think we'd watch as Canadians, that I'm often mystified - like you, that we see so few of them being told. I mean, if "I" can think up an idea - surely, someone who actually knows what they're doing can too?

Unless I was right; no money.

And without the money, we can't change how we perceive ourselves as Canadians. And until we change how we see ourselves, we can't get the money. A catch-22.

P.S. how do you feel about coffee? :)

By Jennifer Morrow on September 15, 2009 2:14 PM:

No, no, no, Tom! You bring in too many parties to start applying legalistic mumbo-jumbo, then they're all gonna start demanding a cut of the prize money for services rendered.

Buzz off, sister, this is a job for a top Grammatician. Don't make me pull rank on a second-string Grammarian like you. I heard about that fiasco with the Rex Reed Plug Nickel (cf "A Treasury of American Slang," W.W. Norton & Co., 1938). This deal will work. What're you doing for dinner tonight?

Don't listen to that troublemaker, Rodge (diminutive for "Roger"), I've got people working on that. If this is as big as I think it is, I know investors willing to put in as much as a buck in escrow. Also I meant to mention the exclusivity clause. Nice of those others to try to help out, but we can't have people horning in on a deal where you already got top grammaticizational consultation for free courtesy of Sister Mary Bartholomew.

About that numismatist's recommendation that the dime be sealed after ascertaining your fingerprints alone are on it:

Ebert: Oh yeah? And where would he get my fingerprint sample?

You think too much. My numismatist's brother-in-law is a very resourceful man. He can get a copy of your Kenyan birth certificate which includes fingerprints too. So no problemo.

Just a couple more things to iron out and I think we've got a deal.

(PS Sorry about that "Reetman" spelling. I meant to do that.)

Ebert: Don't you know the proper term for dime is ten-cent piece?

Dear Roger;

If I give YOU a shiny new dime, will you kill your Spam Filter for me?! It keeps kidnapping my posts!

Ebert: If only you would stop peppering your posts with all those four-letter words. It's most Un-Canadian of you.

Tom Dark, Grammatical Dealmaker wrote on September 15, 2009 6:17 PM:

Buzz off, sister, this is a job for a top Grammatician. Don't make me pull rank on a second-string Grammarian like you. I heard about that fiasco with the Rex Reed Plug Nickel (cf "A Treasury of American Slang," W.W. Norton & Co., 1938). This deal will work. What're you doing for dinner tonight?

You know what I think? I think you're setting a trap. I think you're trying to skim the profits. Roger, don't listen to this guy. One minute he's all smooth talk, claiming to have connections to the world's leading numismatists, and the next he'll be jetting off to Rio with a wallet full of Washingtons. I know a stinker when I see one, and you, sir, are the Harry Lime of the Dime.

As for the Rex Reed Plug Nickel fiasco, I'll have you know that I was set up. Ever since that incident with the Andrew Sarris Half-Dollar, I've had rival grammarians on my tail just itching for the chance to catch me in flagarante ellipsis.

Ebert: What about the Case of the Armond White $3 Bill?

Jenny, Babe, Babe, Babe, look. It's okay. I didn't mean any of that. I lost my head there for a second, that's all. We can talk about your cut over dinner, all right? Your friend Harry Lime, too. How about Chinese, you like Chinese? I also know a good Italian place where the meatball subs are outta this world.

I don't think Rodge (diminutive for "Roger") is going for it. I don't know how he found out about the Armond White funny money caper, but what he doesn't know is that we cashed in, baby. You go ahead and ask around: Tom Dark, Top Grammatician, always make money for his partners.

This Ebert Shiny New Dime (cf. Miriam-Webster "Middle English, tenth part, from Old French disme, from Latin decima [pars], tenth [part], from decem, ten; see dek in Indo-European roots.") or ten-cent piece or whatever you wanna call it, this could have us all hitting the bubble gum machines in real style for a change, sis. Imagine how good you'd look with a grape-flavored jawbreaker bulging out your cheek.

But you're gonna have to play ball with me. Roger needs to know I'm on the level. Just a word from you, then maybe Jerry's Kids get more than just a plug nickel in their gum machines. Trust me, okay? Myasthenia Gravis is nothing to snort at, and those gumballs don't look to me like they've been moving. Wouldn't you feel better with a few extra coins to pump in?

So. Have you still got that Andrew Sarris half-buck? Is it shiny? My numismatist could take a look at it, no charge... just 'cuz it's you.

Ebert: I've even got a Pauline Kael Susan B. Anthony.

I was going to try to attempt to add some intellectually stirring comments to this thread but then I started watching the Jimminy Glick interview (and the links to subsequent Glick interviews) and I found myself laughing with tears! Short has got that shtick down pat! He seems like he has an even greater handle on the character now then when he first unleashed Jimminy on an unsuspecting populace over a decade ago. Why don't we see very much of Short these days? When he is in the right project his genius shines. Maybe Jason's next flick could give him a really juicy bit part that could reintroduce short to whole new generation. I just realized that I'm ranting. I'll stop now.

Ebert wrote: Marie, I would like to point out that the following whizzed right through the spam filter, just as you wrote it.

Do you suppose it singles out your posts for random whacks?

I like that the noble failure of Jennifer's Body is going to force people who have been putting all the love and blame for Juno on Diablo Cody's shoulders to realize that Jason Reitman was as much if not more of an influence on that movie's overall feel than she. Maybe that's not fair, I would say that Juno was a perfect union between Cody & Reitman. If there is a god, those two will find another project to collaborate on somewhere down the line.

I got the impression from the out-takes, commentary and screen tests on the DVD that "Juno" as originally imagined by Diablo Cody was a slightly darker, edgier vision, and that Reitman was probably responsible for softening it (Juno's sexual history is abridged to "one"; and the profanity cut back). I note that he insisted, sentimentally, that no-one in the film use mobile phones, as if to preserve their innocence. He seems like a sweet guy.

Even the music by Kimya Dawson (chosen by Ellen Page) reveals some darker themes, the more I explore it.

Armond White was a long time ago, Tommy. Nobody's perfect, or even pluperfect. You can wine and dine me all you like, but three years in Signifier-Signified have put me on the straight and narrow. I've been an honest woman since then, picking up what few pennies I can from the occasional Latin conjugation gig. But you haven't changed one bit. So no, I ain't playin' gumball with you anymore.

And you oughta know that the Andrew Sarris half-buck is gone, long gone. I gave to a little old English teacher out in Kansas City. She was gonna use it to start a school for disadvantaged sixth graders who can't afford to end their sentences with anything fancier than a question mark. Some folks still got class in this world, baby.

I'm putting this here, even though parts may refer to other posts.

All the entries about Canada's kinship (or lack thereof) with the USA got me to remembering a sort of hobby I pursued back in the early '70s. Because of my interest in television's business end, I started to collect the TV magazines from cities all over the USA. This was a period before cable took root; just three commercial networks, plus PBS (which was still in transition from being "educational television") and a smattering of independent stations, mainly in larger cities. Also, this was before ABC achieved full parity with the other two nets in affiliated stations, so a number of cities had stations with dual afiliations and mix-and-match schedules. I was aided in my 'quest' by a number of out-of-town newsstands in the Loop (all gone now, sad to say). It was at these stands that I found papers from Canada, and started checking out their TV supplements. Actually, I had noted that a number of northerly US cities, such as Buffalo, Detroit, and Seattle, were close enough to Canadian cities such as Toronto, windsor, and Vancouver respectively, that they included the listings for the Canadian channels. Anyway, my curiosity thus piqued, I began seeking out TV logs from across Canada, and eventually had magazines from most of the major cities, from Vancouver in the west to Halifax in the east. Generally the easiest ones to come by were Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg; the toughest finds were Edmonton and Regina (and I don't recall ever finding one for Calgary). It was here that I learned that the Canadian networks- CBC,CTV, and the newly-launched Global - sometimes aired US shows before their stateside counterparts did. As a TV Guide reader, I already knew of the large number of Canadian actors who worked regularly on USTV - Lorne Greene, William Shatner, Arthur Hill, Barry Morse, John Vernon, Donnelly Rhodes, Gordon Pinsent, ad infinitum - and I had read that the cultural dividing lines were not dissimilar in Canada from those in the States; it surprised nobody that Toronto and Vancouver were and are often called on to double for NYC or Chicago in film and TV. I recall one producer (can't recmember exactly who *wince*)lamenting the fact that Hollywood wasn't making westerns anymore, so he could sell producers the Canadian Badlands as a potential location. I think the only out-and-out Canadian show I ever got to see was Seeing Things, about a Toronto newspaper reporter who had hit-and-miss ESP. It was a comic mystery, not unlike the current Psych or Monk. The production was ultra-cheap, but the writng and acting were pretty good, and I enjoyed it. If it were on DVD, I'd buy it. (And by the way, whatever became of Louis DelGrande?) What I ejoyed most about it was how everybody in it was almost defiantly Canadian; no effort was made to overexplain things for us in the Lower 48. I think my point may be that ther is a form of kinship between Canada and the US, which TV and film cross-production continues to promote, and we see that this is good.
"Canada could have had British government, French culture,and American know-how.
Instead it has British know-how, French government, and American culture." - Pierre Berton(I think)

Change of topic:
Were Stephen King's books better before he stopped drinking?
This question, or something like it, comes up with any writer who is prolific. It may simply be the old saw "Familiarity breeds contempt". This takes two forms:
1) "He's doing the same thing again and again, over and over."
2) "He's doing something different .Why can't he stick to the same thing?"
You see the problem.
Any really good writer writes to please himself. Some like to stick with the tried-and-true, others like to mix it up. Either approach is valid, as long as you have the talent.
In King's case, I wonder why the other key event in his life - his near fatal road accident - doesn't get cited as a career changer the way his non-drinking does.

About the Tel Aviv protest:
Everybody with a horse in the race read what they wanted to read in your post. This means you can expect hectoring hate mail from both extremes for the foreseeable future. Makes you wonder why you even bothered, doesn't it?

B. Baker wrote on September 12, 2009 11:08 PM:

I believe you made a grammatical error in this blog entry. You said, "All of his films are very funny, but none of them is a comedy." I believe it should be either "All of his films are very funny, but none of them are comedies" or "All of his films are very funny, but not one of them is a comedy."

All right, folks. Let's turn to the modern authority on grammar and usage, Bryan Garner. The book Garner's Modern American Usage is one of my all-time favorite books. Not just favorite grammar handbook, but favorite BOOK. 900 pages of pure delight, I tell you!

Anyway, here's what Garner says about "none":

none= (1) not one; or (2) not any. Hence it may correctly take either a singular or a plural verb. To decide which to use, substitute the phrases to see which fits the meaning of the sentence: "not one is" or "not any are"

He goes on to say that "generally speaking, 'none is' is the more emphatic way of expressing an idea." -- Point goes to Roger, who I believe was emphasizing the fact that NOT ONE of the films is a comedy (subtext - oddly enough) and thus used the correct form (without even knowing it!)

But Garner then gives us this: " 'None is' is also the less common way, particularly in educated speech, and it therefore sounds somewhat stilted. -- Half a point goes to Baker (only half a point because the contention that Roger made an error is wrong, but Baker's version is the more common one, and also not wrong.)

Just so youse other guys know, I'll make no attempt to claim the dime.

By Jennifer Morrow, Undisclosed Location on September 16, 2009 9:25 AM

And you oughta know that the Andrew Sarris half-buck is gone, long gone. I gave to a little old English teacher out in Kansas City. She was gonna use it to start a school for disadvantaged sixth graders who can't afford to end their sentences with anything fancier than a question mark. Some folks still got class in this world, baby.

So that's the way it's going to be, is it, "Jenny"? Dinner's off. I trusted you. I shoulda known better. And Ebert's got a Pauline Kael Susan B. Anthony. But now this Grammar dude Garner is trying to horn in, sending a proxy to do his dirty work. We coulda been contenders, kid. Now what's that old dame's e-mail?

Marie, what's up with the continuing coincidences? Yesterday a correspondent asked me what "Spotted Dick" was. Catt just came back from England and she knew, but she says "Toad in the Hole" is even worse.

Damn straight about Canada! I toured the SE provinces a long time ago -- there was a strip joint attached to every gas station. This gig we did in Kitchener had a big strip contest, won by a naked man in his 70s waggling his waggler to the music. He was even up against a ballet dancer, who was quite good, in gossamer or naked.

Then we did a couple weeks at that big pretty hotel in Guelph. One afternoon a lady dressed in a Heidi kiddie-show costume and her husband sat down to socialize with us. She'd just done her afternoon puppet show, she said.

Gee whiz, how nice these Canadians are! What a great family town Guelph is! Even free shows for the kids! Like Mrs. Falbo's Tiny Town, only for real. The lady made sure I'd come to see the show, even tho' I thought -- very nice, but boring for a grownup with no kids.

Next day I walked into a big room full of hooting lumberjacks with this loud boomphing disco music; a quick peek to my right, and there was Heidi, wiggling a puppet head to all the lumberjacks out from between her naked undulating buttocks.

We can be pretty naive about Canada sometimes, eh Roger?

Re: Ice Age 3 with my mother post

Ebert: I hope she liked it.And you?

Yes, she said "Well that was very good. No matter what you think about it, it's very obvious that it was well made and a lot of care went into it."

As I said, I am just not big on computer animated animal movies, although Ratatouille won me over. I enjoyed Ice Age 3 for what it is. Of the animation I've seen this year, I think that "Coraline" is the best, and deserving of the Oscar for best animated feature. I know it's going to go to "Up," but I'm still hoping.

Anyway, it's always nice to see a recommendation of yours with my mom. Next up: "Rio Bravo" on dvd.

I don't think Thank You For Smoking was "about" the promotional strategies of the tobacco industry. That would been a boring movie. It was about how individuals and groups can get people to not think for themselves, whether that is a smooth talking tobacco lobbyist or a politically correct liberal Vermont Senator. In fact, it's not really "about" smoking at all. I mean, no one smokes in the movie.....do they?

"Clooney's motivational lecture from 'Up in the Air'"

YouTube has removed it. :-(

The studio surely does a great job of promoting their films with these takedowns of short excerpts, which are quite reasonably arguably within "fair use."

There is one place where, honest to God, Canadian television absolutely kicks our ass: Children's programming.

Run back the clock and look at the prime examples of my adolescence... I was never a big fan of Saved By The Bell. Too silly, too trite. Escapist fiction for suburban youth. That's what American TV offered us, something that didn't respect us at all. Canada gave us Degrassi. Game, set, match. As Mike Doran said: "no effort was made to overexplain things for us in the Lower 48", similarly, no effort was made to talk down to us, or dilute the stories. Degrassi respected us, it believed we could handle the full measure of the stories it had to tell.

Even better: Canada continues to give us Degrassi, even if it's buried on a Nickelodeon sub-network Cox makes me pay extra for. That's not wholly surprising... Nickelodeon in the old days was very heavy with Canadian programming. The best kids' comedy of all time is still You Can't Do That On Television.

I can see how it would bother a Canadian that their countrymen go abroad to find funding and audiences. It bothers me every time someone goes to Toronto to shoot a movie ostensibly in Chicago. But if that's the only way to get it done, then maybe it's a means to an end. Maybe pride, coupled with that success, and some fresh blood amongst the local funding sources can pry open those wallets?

Side note to Marie: Please tell us more about your private Catholic school for girls! ;-)

Back in 1929, my great grandfather, John J. Murdock, helped found first real American indie studio, "RKO Pictures", that later went on to produce American classics "Citizen Kane", "King Kong" and "It's a Wonderful Life." "Up in the Air" in many ways for myself as a viewer, and myself, as film producer who spent 11 solid years living out of cabs, five star hotels, and forming only shallow passing relationships shooting all over North America including Toronto when SAG went on strike and because the Canadian dollar went farther,is really THE statement movie, so remarkably perfectly produced, for every false thing that happened to my America since 9/11/01.

"Up in the Air" deserves every single award it has been nominated for, and should be required attendance viewing for all film students.

I also think every corporate chief, every current media CEO, and maybe every single American should carefully watch this movie and then begin to process and maybe begin to move forward positively towards the values that we once held true as the American way of life in the 2010's and beyond.

Ebert: WheneverI see that RKO radio beacon, I expect a good film.