<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Roger Ebert&apos;s Journal</title>
      <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:43:58 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=3.21</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>When a movie hurts too much</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<div class=picture><img alt="wit.jpg" src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/wit.jpg" width="275" / border=1><br><br></div>

<p>The blog entry "In Search of Redemption" inspired an outpouring of reader comments remarkable not only for their number but for their intelligence and thought. It became obvious that many of us go to the movies seeking some sort of release or healing. Many of you mentioned titles that especially affected you; two of my most-admired films, "Hoop Dreams" and "Grave of the Fireflies," were frequently listed. You all had your reasons. Now Ali Arikan, a longtime contributor to this site, has written me about why he was so affected by a relatively unlikely title, "The Out-of-Towners."  His reasons were personal; he can post them below if he chooses to. But in connection with his explanation, he quoted the first paragraph of one of my reviews.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/07/when_a_movie_hurts_too_much.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/07/when_a_movie_hurts_too_much.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:43:58 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>In search of redemption</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<div class=picture><img alt="cw.jpg" src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/cw.jpg" width="275" / border=1><br><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/cw.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/cw.html','popup','width=438,height=292,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a>  <b>Kari Sylwan plays the maid who comforts a dying woman (Harriet Andersson) in Bergman's "Cries and Whispers." </b><br></div>

<p>	One of the most prolific and intelligent contributors to the comments section of the blog is Solomon Wakeling. I wrote in curiosity, asking to know more about him. He replied that he is a 24-year-old law student from Australia, and that one of his problems is, "I read too many books." There was one thing he said that I felt I needed to write about in the blog:  "I find your work is filled with an essentially humanitarian philosophy, dealing with concepts like redemption."<br />
</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/in_search_of_redemption.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/in_search_of_redemption.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:43:52 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Triumph over &quot;Triumph of the Will&quot;</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>I've just finished viewing Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" (1935) for the second or third time, and it will be a Great Movie published June 27. Whether it is truly great or only technically qualifies because of its importance  is the question. As faithful readers will know, I have been avoiding this particular opportunity with dread. I felt it would involve grappling with the question of whether evil art can be great art. Since moral art can obviously be bad art, the answer to the flip side would seem to be clear enough, but it took me a fearsome struggle to thrash out "Birth of a Nation," even though many more excuses (of time, place and context) can be offered for Griffith than for Riefenstahl.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/triumph_over_triumph_of_the_wi.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/triumph_over_triumph_of_the_wi.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:25:53 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>OK, here&apos;s the f***ing review</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<div class=picture><img alt="ypf7.jpg" src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ypf7.jpg" width="275" / border=1><br><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ypf7.html" onclick="window.open('http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ypf7.html','popup','width=500,height=330,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false">View image</a>  Ennis Ermer and Peter Oldring are roommates who co-star with Natalie Lisinska in "Young People F***ing." <br></div>

<p>In  my previous blog entry, I told of receiving a message from a reader in Montreal who wanted know how I would deal with reviewing a new Canadian film with the f-word in its title. Would my paper print the title? What were my thoughts? I now have an opportunity to deal directly with those questions, because Steve Hoban, the film's producer, has sent me a DVD, along with a bulletin about its June 13 opening date in Canada, and a U.S. release later this summer.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/ok_heres_the_fing_review.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/ok_heres_the_fing_review.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:43:11 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The movie named &quot;f-word&quot;</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>     I will be using a word generally considered offensive a little later in this blog entry, so it's only prudent to tell you now. It is not an uncommon word, and I imagine every single one of my readers if quite familiar with it but nevertheless it's one of the new words that still possesses the power to offend.<br />
</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/the_movie_named_fword.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/the_movie_named_fword.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:20:04 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Sex and the City Dog</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p> <div class=picture><img alt="sexdog.jpg" src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/sexdog.jpg" width="275" / border=1><br><b> Gidget Gormley, "the world's cutest dog," stars in SATC. </b><br></div></p>

<p>    In the Answer Man column for Friday, June 13, I write: "Oddly enough, searching the AM's Google Mail account for questions about 'Sex and the City,' I found that all the messages, <i> every single one, </I> dealt only with matters of masturbating female dogs. But surely I was mistaken? Surely with such a popular film there would be messages about <i> something </i> else, especially since it was a popular movie, my review was negative, and my hit-counting software indicated that tens of thousands had read it? Was the <i> only </i> thing they wanted to write me about was the leisure activity of Samantha's pet dog? Surely not. Then I had a brainstorm.<br />
</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/sex_and_the_city_dog.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/06/sex_and_the_city_dog.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:59:20 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>&quot;Iron Man&quot; and Robert Downey Jr.&apos;s quirky performance</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<div class=picture><img alt="ironm.jpg" src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ironm.jpg" width="275" / border=1><br><br></div>

<p>	When I caught up with "Iron Man," a broken hip had delayed me and the movie had already been playing for three weeks. What I heard during that time was that a lot of people loved it, that they were surprised to love it so much, and that Robert Downey Jr.'s performance was special. Apart from that, all I knew was that the movie was about a big iron man. I didn't even know that a human occupied it, and halfway thought that the Downey character's brain had been transplanted into a robot, or a fate equally weird.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/iron_man_and_robert_downey_jrs.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/iron_man_and_robert_downey_jrs.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 16:16:59 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>How Studs helps me lead my life</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<div class=picture><img alt="studs.jpg" src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/studs.jpg" width="275" / border=1><br>Studs Terkel won a Pulitzer Prize for listening to other people's thoughts, fears and dreams. (Sun-Times photo by Rich Hein)<br></div>

<p>I got caught in the Indiana Jones whirlwind and allowed an important anniversary to pass unremarked: On May 16, Studs Terkel celebrated his 96th birthday. One of the great American lives continues to unfold. If I know Studs, the great day passed with calls and visits from friends, and the ceremonious imbibing of one (1) gin martini, very dry. I hope he has eliminated the daily cigar, but I'm not taking odds. If you don't know Studs, there are few people you can meet more easily in print. He is the greatest conversationalist I've met, the author of a shelf-full of books in which he engages people from all walks of life in thoughtful conversations about their own lives. <br />
</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/how_studs_helps_me_lead_my_lif_1.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/how_studs_helps_me_lead_my_lif_1.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 17:34:09 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>I admit it: I loved &quot;Indy&quot;</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>	At noon Sunday, I attended a press screening of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I returned to my laptop,  wrote my review and sent it off, convinced I would be in a minority. I loved it, but then I'm also the guy who loved "Beowulf," and look at the grief that got me. Now Indy's early reviews are in, and I'm amazed to find myself in an enthusiastic majority. The Tomatometer stands at 78, and the more populist IMDb user rating is 9.2 out of 10. All this before the movie's official opening on Thursday.<br />
</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/i_admit_it_i_loved_ind.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/i_admit_it_i_loved_ind.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 18:29:27 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The ultimate mystery</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>        After the release of his "Standard Operating Procedures," the director Errol Morris writes me: <b>This movie seems to have incited controversy, almost as if I broke some sort of rule or series of rules. The ultimate mystery is people. They are often mysteries not only to others but to themselves.  Almost everyone wants to dismiss the bad apples rather than look at them,  as if there is nothing inherently interesting in their stories. Oh well. </b> The words "to themselves" hold the key. </p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/the_ultimate_mystery.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/the_ultimate_mystery.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 21:39:36 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>A new genre? The Twister</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>       David Mamet's recent "Redbelt" is an example of a kind of movie that needs a name. It's not precisely a thriller, or a suspense picture, or a police procedural, and although it occupies the territory of film noir, it's not a noir. I propose this kind of film be named a Twister, because it's made from plot twists, and in a way the twists are the real subject. <br />
</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/a_new_genre_the_twister.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/a_new_genre_the_twister.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 12:59:14 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>It&apos;s not what you do, it&apos;s the way that you do it</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>My previous blog item, "Hillary and Bill: The Movie," has inspired a lot of comments, and some of them utterly baffle me. They take it for granted that I am pro-Hillary, if not necessarily anti-Obama. I've read the item again and believe it is neutral, as it was intended to be. I'm a political creature, but I intend to keep partisan politics out of this journal, which will, and should, deal only with the movies in various ways. I think those comments do, however,  reveal something about how we watch movies.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/its_not_what_you_do_its_the_wa.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/its_not_what_you_do_its_the_wa.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 10:01:15 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Hillary and Bill: The movie</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>      I woke up at about 3:30 a.m. and went online to see if Obama had pulled a victory out of Indiana. He had narrowed Clinton's head to two points by midnight and later added a few more votes, but the story was basically about the same:  Clinton's winning margin was so small that it didn't much count, and Obama would be the likely Presidential nominee. Then I started wondering, in the vaporous midnight hours, about how you could make a movie of this primary campaign.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/hillary_and_bill_the_movie.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/hillary_and_bill_the_movie.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 08:33:03 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>A majority of you</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>	The Answer Man got a message the other day from a guy who wanted to know why the major critics all run with a herd mentality. He goes to Cream of the Crop at Rotten Tomatoes and on some films they all agree, with maybe a couple of holdouts. I've noticed this, too. </p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/a_majority_of_you.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/a_majority_of_you.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 08:36:05 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Fanzines beget blogs</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Fanzines were mimeographed magazines that were circulated by mail among science fiction fans in the days before the internet. They still are, for all I know, although now they're generated by computer printers. I first learned about them in a 1950s issue of Amazing Stories and eagerly sent away 10 or 20 cents to Buck and Juanita Coulson in Indiana, whose Yandro was one of the best and longest-running of them all. Overnight, I was a fan, although not yet a BNF (big name fan). It was a thrill for me to have a LOC (letter of comment) published on such issues as the demise of BEMs (bug-eyed monsters), and soon I was publishing my own fanzine, named Stymie.<br />
 </p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/fanzines_beget_blogs.html</link>
         <guid>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/fanzines_beget_blogs.html</guid>
         <category></category>
         <pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 08:15:26 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
