A Tribute to Roger Ebert

The first post on this blog is immediately the most unusual one for a while, for before I have even posted one review, I have immediately been informed of surprising and quite somber news.

The creation of this blog coincided with the passing of one of the greatest public figures in film criticism. Roger Ebert, renowned film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times who, along with colleague Gene Siskel, coined the famous "Thumbs-up-thumbs-down" rating system, passed away earlier today at age 70, having lost his battle with cancer. A source of great inspiration and influence amongst his fellow reviewers, Ebert was one of the most read and knowledgable film critics I can recall, and his sudden passing marks the loss of a truly devoted man whose passion for films was whole-hearted, contagious and unhindered.

I recall first becoming thoroughly interested in professional film critics in 2009, when I first began watching film reviews on the CBC website and the short-lived and rather obnoxious "Rotten Tomatoes Show". Around that time, I believe in late July, one of the reviews I watched was for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; this was my first ever Siskel and Ebert review. Those familiar with that review will recall that Siskel was less satisfied with that film than Ebert was, and at that time, I was more willing to appreciate the critics I agreed with. Siskel later gained my respect through other reviews, of course.

This series was only one of the many ways that Ebert presented his reviews, but they were the most accessible to me and often the most relatable. Siskel and Ebert's discussions, along with those of Ebert's later collaboration with Richard Roeper, provided something that so many other programs didn't. The act of discussing films on television alone is something that I feel was revolutionary in that it provided two sides to the coin, and each would provide their own insights and thus provide a fuller more in-depth picture of the film in question. Their agreements in approving films were invigorating just as much as their disapproval of films proved entertaining and funny, and their more heated arguments proved riveting, shocking and, in many ways, incredibly cinematic. Their audience never agreed with either of them whole-heartedly every time, but never were their discussion boring. The very last of these reviews that I watched prior to Ebert's passing was Siskel and Ebert's enthusiastic review of A Fish Named Wanda and guess what: the very next day, I bought the DVD.  My opinion will soon be provided.

Ebert was capable of many things as a critic; his reviews were consistently well researched, and he proved incredibly knowledgable about the time periods and situations represented on the films he reviewed. More than anything though, I have to admire two thing about Ebert. The first of these things was his directness. The modern convention among film critics is to make their reviews flowery and insert witticisms, which they hope will make them look clever and unique among critics. Ebert, on the other hand, would review a film as if addressing an audience made up of intelligent, curious, open-minded people, and this is what made him such a relatable person. I myself will fully admit that I am guilty of attempting to be witty when I feel inspired to be, but this directness is something that I regard very highly and hope will come through in my upcoming blog posts.

Ebert's opinions, just as any critic's opinions would, did often counter the general opinion concerning it, but at the same time, he was aware of and willing to accept that. This relates to the second thing I greatly admired about him. With their Thumb rating system, Ebert and Siskel founded what has become the go-to method of establishing the quality of a film, but Ebert, in his more divided reviews and more heated arguments, proved his discontent with the idea of rating films based on stars and thumbs. This invariably relates back to his ability to address his audience. Recalling a heated and quite popular argument Ebert and Roeper had over Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, Ebert stated that ratings were relative and that the viewers should be intelligent enough to decide for themselves based on the discussion, not the thumbs, whether they will enjoy the film or not. This reveals Ebert's true strength; he was thorough in his calculation and his evaluation of the films he admired, then was able to relate that to the audience in order for them to evaluate whether they would appreciate the films he reviewed. Certainly, he was able to identify what certain groups among the audience - people of different ages, people with genre preferences, etc. - would react to and appreciate, but he wrote reviews and expressed his opinions so that they were accessible to the general filmgoer, rarely dictating whether other people should think the way he did.

Roger Ebert was a man devoted to the cinema and proud of it. Just like his colleague Gene Siskel, up to his passing, he never faltered or backed away from expressing what he felt needed to be expressed and understood about the films he saw. Even just before his temporary leave from criticisms two days ago, Ebert stated that it wasn't over and he would still review films that he wanted to review. I'm certain he meant it. Ebert's influence is incredible, and he will doubtless be remembered and greatly missed by his colleagues and readers. If I could be pardoned once to allow one quip in tribute of him, my thumb is definitely up for this remarkable man.


Roger Joseph Ebert
1942 - 2013