From Roger Ebert's remarks last night at the DGA Awards, where he was granted an Honorary Lifetime Membership in the Directors' Guild of America. They were delivered by Chaz Ebert:
Of course sometimes my reviews have not been favorable. Robert Altman once told me, "If you never wrote a negative review, what would your positive reviews mean?"
"That's true," I said.
"Unfortunately," Altman said, "in my case, all of your negative reviews have been mistaken." [...]
We are born into a box of space and time, and the movies come closer than any other art form in giving us the experience of walking in someone else's shoes. They allow us an opportunity to experience what it would be like to live within another gender, race, religion, nationality, or period of time. They expand us, they improve us, and sometimes they ennoble us. They also thrill us and make us laugh and cry, and for that gift, and for this honor tonight, I am very grateful.
Full speech, and news story, here.
What a great reminder that no matter how many times I disagree with Roger Ebert, no matter how many times I shake my head and think "Another four star review... for this??" that there's a reason he is, by far, the most influential film critic who has ever lived. First, he's a splendid writer. Second, he's an extraordinary ambassador for cinema. Without Ebert's passionate advocacy of the films in his Great Movies list (as well as many others), I would not have nearly the same involvement with cinema as I do now.
He occupies a status no other film critic has ever held. And he's proof that power does not always corrupt.
He mentions me in his speech!
OK, not me, not by name, but I was at most of that's week's Cinema Interruptus, and I did call into question his two-star review of the movie, the one where he wrote that Tyler Durden sounded "like a man who tripped over the Nietzsche display on his way to the coffee bar in Borders." I even brought handwritten notes -- about Nietzsche, the Roman warrior ethos, and (strangely) the phrase "predator posing as a house pet" from the dialogue -- which I nervously stammered through once I'd built up the nerve to ask for the microphone. When I was done with my little rant, there was a smattering of applause, and he said something like, "One thing I love about Boulder is that there are so many smart people here." Looking back, his response was extremely kind. I wasn't generally very confident then and hadn't really spoken in front of a crowd before, so it was one of those big little moments. I've been a fan ever since. Having read more of him now, I'd be a fan even if that day in Boulder had never happened.
One of the saddest moments for me, in regard to film, is when Roger Ebert writes a negative review for a movie I love. Not because I need him to approve of everything I love (though, I admit, it would be nice), but because I know he'll never write one of his excellent Great Movie essays about the film now, and I'll have to settle for his also excellent but generally less in-depth print reviews.
JE: His Great Movie review of "After Hours" (adapted from his Scorsese book) is wonderful. And if you haven't read his review of Steven Soderbergh's "Che," do. I think it's one of his recent best.
This is such a great honour for Ebert. I only wish someone puts the directors' testimonials on YouTube.
I once wrote Mr. Ebert regarding an early Kurosawa release by The Criterion Collection. He got back to me, saying he had contacted them, and was waiting on their response. The exchange was published here.
That was a nice surprise. But even more gratifying: his next Great Movies essay was on Seven Samurai. I'd like to think I inspired him to give that film the "Great Movies" treatment.
I've never taken a (formal) film appreciation class, but the informal one that I've eagerly attended for decades by reading everything Roger has written is, I think, far more educational and insightful. He writes with reverential tone about Pauline Kael, but for my money Roger Ebert is THE authority on intelligent film criticism. I only hope I can continue the education by reading his work for decades to come. An award richly deserved.
"but because I know he'll never write one of his excellent Great Movie essays about the film now..."
Keep your chin up, it is always possible for Roger to come around to a movie he was lukewarm on to begin with. BLADE RUNNER (** out of **** originally) , after many years of building momentum/influence, was finally added the Great Movies list by Roger not too long ago. I LOVE that movie, so it was always kind of a bummer that someone whose opinion I valued so highly didn't agree with me on its worth. Apparently he came around for some reason, and I'm all the more happy for it! And yes, I know how sad it is for me to put so much stock in one man's opinion, oh well, that's my insecure cross to bear, LOL.
*On the subject of Fight Club...
I love the first half, but when Project Mayhem comes into play, I think the movie takes a nosedive that it never recovers from.
JE: In the case of "Blade Runner" he came around largely because, after the many interim versions that have been put out over the years, he felt Ridley Scott had finally gotten it right with the 2007 "Final Cut" release (minus the voiceover, minus the "happy ending," and with several other fixes, changes and additions).
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071103/REVIEWS08/71103001/1023
Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out, it IS a better movie now but I don't think any of the other versions were all that hampered with their voiceovers/happy endings. Just sayin'.
I learned movie criticism and appreciation through reading Ebert's review of Great Movies. I've been following these writeups since late 1990s. While I don't agree with some of his choices for yearender's best movies and his giving 2 or less stars to some films I liked so much, I don't lose my high respects for him as the most influential and respected film critic. There was one or two instances when Ebert and I shared the same choice for best film of the year - Eve's Bayou (1997) and Being John Malkovich (1999).
Is the video tribute online?