Check it out if you have not seen it already
Showing posts with label Roger Ebert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roger Ebert. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Thursday, March 25, 2010
At the Movies Cancelled!
What would be worse: At the Movies with Ben Lyons, or no At the Movies at all? I guess we are going to find out in a few months.
Read Ebert's response (and plans) here.
CHICAGO, March 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. syndicated film review program "At the Movies" has been canceled after 24 seasons, said Disney-ABC Domestic Television and ABC Media Productions.
The show started out in the mid-1970s with the Chicago Sun-Times's Roger Ebert and the Chicago Tribune's Gene Siskel sharing their opinions on current releases.
The Tribune said Wednesday the final episode of the series with current reviewers Michael Phillips of the Tribune and A.O. Scott of The New York Times is to air the weekend of Aug. 14.
Phillips and Scott took over the show from Ben Lyons of E! Entertainment Television and Ben Mankiewicz of Turner Classic Movies, who replaced the ailing Ebert and his co-star of nearly a decade, Richard Roeper of the Sun-Times.
Roeper replaced Siskel when he died in 1999 of brain cancer. Ebert has been suffering from various types of cancer affecting his mouth and throat in recent years. His battle with the disease has left him unable to talk.
"This was a very difficult decision, especially considering the program's rich history and iconic status within the entertainment industry," the Tribune quoted Disney-ABC Domestic Television and ABC Media Productions as saying in a statement. "But from a business perspective it became clear this weekly, half-hour, broadcast syndication series was no longer sustainable."
Read Ebert's response (and plans) here.
CHICAGO, March 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. syndicated film review program "At the Movies" has been canceled after 24 seasons, said Disney-ABC Domestic Television and ABC Media Productions.
The show started out in the mid-1970s with the Chicago Sun-Times's Roger Ebert and the Chicago Tribune's Gene Siskel sharing their opinions on current releases.
The Tribune said Wednesday the final episode of the series with current reviewers Michael Phillips of the Tribune and A.O. Scott of The New York Times is to air the weekend of Aug. 14.
Phillips and Scott took over the show from Ben Lyons of E! Entertainment Television and Ben Mankiewicz of Turner Classic Movies, who replaced the ailing Ebert and his co-star of nearly a decade, Richard Roeper of the Sun-Times.
Roeper replaced Siskel when he died in 1999 of brain cancer. Ebert has been suffering from various types of cancer affecting his mouth and throat in recent years. His battle with the disease has left him unable to talk.
"This was a very difficult decision, especially considering the program's rich history and iconic status within the entertainment industry," the Tribune quoted Disney-ABC Domestic Television and ABC Media Productions as saying in a statement. "But from a business perspective it became clear this weekly, half-hour, broadcast syndication series was no longer sustainable."
Monday, March 8, 2010
Another Manchurian Candidate?
by Scott Johnson
Note that there are POTENTIAL SPOILERS in what follows, although some of this may not make much sense if you have not seen the movie recently. Please add your comments if you have any opinions about this analysis.
After watching the Manchurian Candidate recently I was struck by the scene where Janet Leigh and Frank Sinatra meet on a train and exchange a series of bizarre lines. Through the entire scene, I was uncertain whether they were a) having a real conversation, b) were exchanging a series of code words, or c) Leigh was a Communist dropping post-hypnotic suggestions to Sinatra.
I was pleased to find that Roger Ebert had his own suspicions, writing in his Great Movies review of the film:
In fact, I believe that their relationship suggests that there is something going on beneath the surface--either Leigh is a spy or she is attempting to drop post-hypnotic suggestions to a brainwashed Sinatra. Consider the first few lines of dialogue in their first meeting:
Leigh: Maryland's a beautiful state.
Sinatra: This is Delaware.
Leigh: I know. I was one of the original Chinese workmen who laid the track on this stretch. But nonetheless, Maryland is a beautiful state. So is Ohio, for that matter.
This sounds precisely like an exchange of code words between spies--or a post-hypnotic suggestion. Sinatra continues:
Sinatra: I guess so. Columbus is a tremendous football town. You in the railroad business?
Leigh: Not anymore. However, if you will permit me to point out, when you ask that question you really should say, 'Are you in the railroad line?'
Again, this is even more suggestive, as though Sinatra got the code wrong and Leigh is correcting him, or that his response to the questions is a part of the post-hypnotic suggestion and she is trying to keep him on track. Each character also asks the other--for no apparent--reason whether they are Arabic. At the end, Leigh tells Sinatra her address--Apartment 3B--then repeats her phone number twice, forcefully, as though assuring it gets marked in his hypnotically suggestive mind.
The scene is immediately followed by the entry of Chunjin--the "large Korean man"--into Raymond Shaw's office looking for work. After this scene is a brief interlude with Mr. and Mr. Iselin, then we see Sinatra walking inside an apartment building. Over his shoulder we see a door which is clearly marked "B" in 3 distinct shots--3B?--though we never see the marking of the door he is knocking on. Is this the room Leigh was suggesting he go to? Chunjin opens the door--it is actually Shaw's apartment--and Sintara assaults him.
We next see Sinatra in the police station. Leigh arrives after having been called by the police--Sinatra remembered her phone number! And she shows up! They get in a taxi and she mentions her apartment--"Apartment 3B" he says. On the one hand, he remembered the room number. On other hand, it seems like it is probably her real apartment number and that she did NOT send him to Shaw's, where he was already headed. She then makes a comment about "the general"--she is actually, jokingly referring to General George Washington, whom she admittedly confused with Washington, D.C., so this is a red herring. It is also here that Leigh mentions ditching her fiancee after having met Sinatra once for five minutes.
Shortly afterward we see Shaw's snake bite accident, where he is miraculously discovered and treated by the flirty Jocelyn Jordan (Leslie Parrish) another attractive blonde who even more miraculously has a razor but no spare cloth and so proceeds to remove her blouse to treat his wound. Is this all a coincidence or was she planning to seduce him? After having seen Leigh's strange behavior, this meeting seems almost too good to be true as well. Immediately afterward, Shaw asks Jordan's father for her hand in marriage!
Finally, note that Parrish later appears wearing a Queen of Diamonds costume, which is the symbol that causes Shaw to enter a hypnotic state. She enters immediately after Shaw is shown the symbol by his manipulative mother, saying "I've been watching you through the window." It almost seems like it is not an accident and she knows what she is doing. This is followed by a scene in which Sinatra proposes marriage to Leigh, followed by a scene in which Shaw (Laurence Harvey) and Parrish tell Sinatra that they have just married.
Are both Leigh and Parrish stooges of some form and are their relationships setup with ulterior motives? Probably not--in fact, all of this is probably most easily explained by the "naive" reading that Leigh and Parrish are behaving honestly, if strangely. But the whole backdrop of the movie is that the "Manchurian Candidate" cannot behave honestly. His actions are hardwired and people do strange things to him in order to control his actions. The interactions with Leigh and Parrish ought to be innocent but these various connections and ambiguities create a sense of paranoia.
It is always unclear who can be trusted in this movie, even the women that these men love.
Note that there are POTENTIAL SPOILERS in what follows, although some of this may not make much sense if you have not seen the movie recently. Please add your comments if you have any opinions about this analysis.
After watching the Manchurian Candidate recently I was struck by the scene where Janet Leigh and Frank Sinatra meet on a train and exchange a series of bizarre lines. Through the entire scene, I was uncertain whether they were a) having a real conversation, b) were exchanging a series of code words, or c) Leigh was a Communist dropping post-hypnotic suggestions to Sinatra.I was pleased to find that Roger Ebert had his own suspicions, writing in his Great Movies review of the film:
Is Sinatra's Maj. Marco another Manchurian sleeper, and is Rosie his controller? If you look at their scenes carefully, you find that she broke off her engagement immediately after their awkward train meeting and before their first date. Reflect on the scene where she talks about Marco beating up "a very large Korean gentlemen," and ask yourself what she means when she calls this man, who she has never seen, "the general." I don't know. Maybe Rosie just talks funny. It would be a nice touch, though, for this screwball story to have another layer circling beneath
In fact, I believe that their relationship suggests that there is something going on beneath the surface--either Leigh is a spy or she is attempting to drop post-hypnotic suggestions to a brainwashed Sinatra. Consider the first few lines of dialogue in their first meeting:
Leigh: Maryland's a beautiful state.
Sinatra: This is Delaware.
Leigh: I know. I was one of the original Chinese workmen who laid the track on this stretch. But nonetheless, Maryland is a beautiful state. So is Ohio, for that matter.
This sounds precisely like an exchange of code words between spies--or a post-hypnotic suggestion. Sinatra continues:
Sinatra: I guess so. Columbus is a tremendous football town. You in the railroad business?
Leigh: Not anymore. However, if you will permit me to point out, when you ask that question you really should say, 'Are you in the railroad line?'
Again, this is even more suggestive, as though Sinatra got the code wrong and Leigh is correcting him, or that his response to the questions is a part of the post-hypnotic suggestion and she is trying to keep him on track. Each character also asks the other--for no apparent--reason whether they are Arabic. At the end, Leigh tells Sinatra her address--Apartment 3B--then repeats her phone number twice, forcefully, as though assuring it gets marked in his hypnotically suggestive mind.
The scene is immediately followed by the entry of Chunjin--the "large Korean man"--into Raymond Shaw's office looking for work. After this scene is a brief interlude with Mr. and Mr. Iselin, then we see Sinatra walking inside an apartment building. Over his shoulder we see a door which is clearly marked "B" in 3 distinct shots--3B?--though we never see the marking of the door he is knocking on. Is this the room Leigh was suggesting he go to? Chunjin opens the door--it is actually Shaw's apartment--and Sintara assaults him.
We next see Sinatra in the police station. Leigh arrives after having been called by the police--Sinatra remembered her phone number! And she shows up! They get in a taxi and she mentions her apartment--"Apartment 3B" he says. On the one hand, he remembered the room number. On other hand, it seems like it is probably her real apartment number and that she did NOT send him to Shaw's, where he was already headed. She then makes a comment about "the general"--she is actually, jokingly referring to General George Washington, whom she admittedly confused with Washington, D.C., so this is a red herring. It is also here that Leigh mentions ditching her fiancee after having met Sinatra once for five minutes.
Shortly afterward we see Shaw's snake bite accident, where he is miraculously discovered and treated by the flirty Jocelyn Jordan (Leslie Parrish) another attractive blonde who even more miraculously has a razor but no spare cloth and so proceeds to remove her blouse to treat his wound. Is this all a coincidence or was she planning to seduce him? After having seen Leigh's strange behavior, this meeting seems almost too good to be true as well. Immediately afterward, Shaw asks Jordan's father for her hand in marriage! Finally, note that Parrish later appears wearing a Queen of Diamonds costume, which is the symbol that causes Shaw to enter a hypnotic state. She enters immediately after Shaw is shown the symbol by his manipulative mother, saying "I've been watching you through the window." It almost seems like it is not an accident and she knows what she is doing. This is followed by a scene in which Sinatra proposes marriage to Leigh, followed by a scene in which Shaw (Laurence Harvey) and Parrish tell Sinatra that they have just married.
Are both Leigh and Parrish stooges of some form and are their relationships setup with ulterior motives? Probably not--in fact, all of this is probably most easily explained by the "naive" reading that Leigh and Parrish are behaving honestly, if strangely. But the whole backdrop of the movie is that the "Manchurian Candidate" cannot behave honestly. His actions are hardwired and people do strange things to him in order to control his actions. The interactions with Leigh and Parrish ought to be innocent but these various connections and ambiguities create a sense of paranoia.
It is always unclear who can be trusted in this movie, even the women that these men love.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Ebert on the Lyons debacle
Months after the demise of the reborn At the Movies, Roger Ebert gives his take on the state of the show. Originally posted on Ebert's Sun-Times blog
Time keeps on slip, slip, slippin' away
By Roger Ebert on November 25, 2009 1:22 PM
I sense it's about time to share some of my thoughts about television and movie critics, myself, and the past, present and future of my corner of the critics-on-TV adventure. My friends A .O. Scott and Michael Phillips are well into their first season as the new co-hosts of "At the Movies." Richard Roeper just announced he will be streaming reviews on his web site, and they will re-run a week later on the Starz cable channel. I wish them all good fortune. And good health.
This act of the saga began for me with a call from good Dr. Havey, who had some good news and some bad news. The bad news was that I had thyroid cancer. The good news was that it was the most common kind, which is usually curable by the peculiar treatment of surgery, followed by tossing back a shot glass of radioactive iodine, being isolated for 48 hours and not sitting next to any pregnant women for a month. Enough about that. It worked.
The thyroid removal surgery left me with a slight speech impediment which I tried to deal with by punching out words more forcibly. One side of my mouth drooped a little, and it was recklessly reported online that I'd had a stroke. Diagnosis by video. No such thing.
Follow-up x-rays revealed I had salivary gland cancer, very slow-growing, which had returned after surgery 15 years, as I was told it probably would. I had surgery again in July 2006. Saying goodbye to Chaz in the hospital room were be the last words I would ever speak.
It was said reconstructive surgery would restore my speech and repair my face. I had three such surgeries. Twice it worked, and Chaz held a mirror so I could regard my face as it had been. All three times, as the doctors say, "it fell apart." No need for additional details. They did their very best.
It became clear I might never return to Ebert & Roeper in a speaking role. I had other ideas for participation. Richard Roeper carried on with guest co-hosts, some of whom had also done me the same favor after Gene Siskel's death in 1999. Our long-standing producer and director, Don Dupree, coordinated this, obviously with a look for good long-term candidates.
I believed that such as Michael Phillips, A .O. Scott, Christy Lemire, Kim Morgan, Lisa Schwartzbaum and a few others were good hopes. Roeper and Dupree thought so too. Most of the guest hosts were possibilities for the permanent job. Certain potential guests were suggested to us by friends. Many agreed, One popular recommendation however said she just wasn't interested in doing TV.
Disney in Burbank, who had been a good company to work with, now had a younger generation less impressed with our history. (We were Disney's first show in syndication, and therefore its longest-running.) The studio was concerned about improving its demographics in younger age segments. After Roeper and I announced we were leaving, Disney had Phillips shoot test segments with Ben Lyons, a young Los Angeles celeb-TV personality. Phillips was a good sport; he was essentially helping to choose his replacement. I heard Lyons was pretty much at sea in debates with him. In way, he wasn't to blame; he'd been recruited despite Dupree's incredulity for a job he was obviously unsuited for, but the infatuated Disney producer was dangling a prize plum.
Ben Lyons at that time had never published a single movie review, and to my knowledge still never has. To put him in my seat was a mistake, and it was not well-received. A full-page story in the Los Angeles Times displayed a huge thumbs-down -- not the opinion of the writer, but the general opinion. I wrote a blog entry, "Roger's Little Rule Book," that never mentioned a critic by name, but...
Our new Disney executive from Burbank had other new ideas. She looked at the balcony set at ABC/Chicago, one of the most iconic set ideas in the history of television history, which had survived for more than half of the life of the medium, and decided it needed to be replaced. Now workers tore at our set with sledge-hammers, and it collected in a dumpster in the alley. It was replaced by two sets, one resembling a demo counter at a trade show, the other two nice chairs at an Admirals' Club. (Siskel advised me 25 years ago to buy a Lifetime Pass to that club for, as I recall, $200 at the time. He gave me a lot of useful advice. When I pull out that ancient piece of plastic at a club, I'm treated as if I were George Clooney with his Titanium Pass in "Up in the Air.")
The first Ben & Ben season did not start well. "Roger," an ABC/Chicago friend called and said, "the first taping is this afternoon, and right now they're repainting the sets. They didn't like the color." Those sets could have been painted like Joseph's amazing dreamcoat and they would have been the same crappy sets.
The show's reviews were not kind. Two websites opened to catalogue Lyon's lapses. I e-mailed Mankiewicz in sympathy, comparing him to the victim of a drive-by shooting. That he remained polite and supportive throughout the ordeal is the mark of a gentleman. I was nowhere near that nice to Siskel, and I loved him.
It was clear that the two Bens would have to go. Roeper and my wife Chaz and I had announced a new show. Would Disney simply pull the plug on theirs and walk away? What, and vacate the "At the Movies" time slots for us to try to grab? Unlikely. Time slots are like chess pieces.
The studio announced the hiring of -- why, A. O. Scott and Michael Phillips, of all people! Michael courteously came over to our house to inform us personally. I e-mailed my congratulations to them both, and in our living room enthusiastically told Michael I would bring back the Thumbs and give the show my endorsement. Disney turned down my offer, explaining that the show had "moved on." That was a sad day for me.
Watching Michael and Tony on the show, I felt sorry for them being deprived of the famous set. It would have felt creepy to see Ben Lyons in one of our seats, but Scott and Phillips deserved better. It was sad to see them working on a set which, for all of the paint jobs, looked better suited to a couple of earnest preachers on Sunday morning. TV loved the movie balcony illusion. Now we no longer understand why they're sitting like that. There's no screen for them to look at. Why then are they at such an awkward angle, instead of sitting more conversationally?
We were not blowing smoke about our new show. Gathering up Richard, Michael and Christy Lemire (the Associated Press film critic), Chaz and I seemed to have found a welcome at a major syndicator. Unfortunately, its president left. I suspect, but do not know, we fell victim to the ancient Hollywood custom that a new executive must clean house by throwing out his predecessor's projects. Perhaps there was more to it than that. They treated us honestly and fairly, but it was not to be. At about that time, the economy went into free-fall. Roeper & Phillips & Lemire was the show that was never to be.
Now here we stand. Chaz and I still have plans. We still love Christy. She and Chris just had baby boy Nic. Don Dupree has caught fire as assistant news director of CBS/Chicago, helping them to a recent ratings surge. Richard has announced his own plans for his web reviews and Starz. Good luck, buddy.
I confess I felt a twinge that Rob Feder's column quoted you: "As much as I loved doing 'Ebert & Roeper,' this will have much more of an unfiltered, uncut, viral feel. As someone at Starz put it, they wanted 'Roeper uncut.' If a film is a piece of shit, I'll say it's a piece of shit."
Richard, were you not uncut at E&R? Did you never say a movie was "a piece of shit?" On the web and cable you can use that very word, of course, as you do in your web site's promo for your new enterprise, promising to review "a lot of big movies, and some smaller, shitty ones as well."
Things are better. Ben Lyons has returned to celebrities. Ben Mankiewicz is still at Turner Classic Movies and will prevail. Scott and Phillips are doing exactly what we all advised Disney two years ago they should be doing. Everybody still has the day job.
I still can't speak aloud, but I have the dear Sun-Times and write more than ever. When I try to put things in context, I remember Olympia Dukakis's wise dialogue in Norman Jewison's "Moonstruck." Her husband thinks he's been getting away with cheating on her, and she tells him: "I just want you to know no matter what you do, you're gonna die, just like everybody else."
Time keeps on slip, slip, slippin' away
By Roger Ebert on November 25, 2009 1:22 PM
I sense it's about time to share some of my thoughts about television and movie critics, myself, and the past, present and future of my corner of the critics-on-TV adventure. My friends A .O. Scott and Michael Phillips are well into their first season as the new co-hosts of "At the Movies." Richard Roeper just announced he will be streaming reviews on his web site, and they will re-run a week later on the Starz cable channel. I wish them all good fortune. And good health.
This act of the saga began for me with a call from good Dr. Havey, who had some good news and some bad news. The bad news was that I had thyroid cancer. The good news was that it was the most common kind, which is usually curable by the peculiar treatment of surgery, followed by tossing back a shot glass of radioactive iodine, being isolated for 48 hours and not sitting next to any pregnant women for a month. Enough about that. It worked.
The thyroid removal surgery left me with a slight speech impediment which I tried to deal with by punching out words more forcibly. One side of my mouth drooped a little, and it was recklessly reported online that I'd had a stroke. Diagnosis by video. No such thing.
Follow-up x-rays revealed I had salivary gland cancer, very slow-growing, which had returned after surgery 15 years, as I was told it probably would. I had surgery again in July 2006. Saying goodbye to Chaz in the hospital room were be the last words I would ever speak.
It was said reconstructive surgery would restore my speech and repair my face. I had three such surgeries. Twice it worked, and Chaz held a mirror so I could regard my face as it had been. All three times, as the doctors say, "it fell apart." No need for additional details. They did their very best.
It became clear I might never return to Ebert & Roeper in a speaking role. I had other ideas for participation. Richard Roeper carried on with guest co-hosts, some of whom had also done me the same favor after Gene Siskel's death in 1999. Our long-standing producer and director, Don Dupree, coordinated this, obviously with a look for good long-term candidates.
I believed that such as Michael Phillips, A .O. Scott, Christy Lemire, Kim Morgan, Lisa Schwartzbaum and a few others were good hopes. Roeper and Dupree thought so too. Most of the guest hosts were possibilities for the permanent job. Certain potential guests were suggested to us by friends. Many agreed, One popular recommendation however said she just wasn't interested in doing TV.
Disney in Burbank, who had been a good company to work with, now had a younger generation less impressed with our history. (We were Disney's first show in syndication, and therefore its longest-running.) The studio was concerned about improving its demographics in younger age segments. After Roeper and I announced we were leaving, Disney had Phillips shoot test segments with Ben Lyons, a young Los Angeles celeb-TV personality. Phillips was a good sport; he was essentially helping to choose his replacement. I heard Lyons was pretty much at sea in debates with him. In way, he wasn't to blame; he'd been recruited despite Dupree's incredulity for a job he was obviously unsuited for, but the infatuated Disney producer was dangling a prize plum.
Ben Lyons at that time had never published a single movie review, and to my knowledge still never has. To put him in my seat was a mistake, and it was not well-received. A full-page story in the Los Angeles Times displayed a huge thumbs-down -- not the opinion of the writer, but the general opinion. I wrote a blog entry, "Roger's Little Rule Book," that never mentioned a critic by name, but...
Our new Disney executive from Burbank had other new ideas. She looked at the balcony set at ABC/Chicago, one of the most iconic set ideas in the history of television history, which had survived for more than half of the life of the medium, and decided it needed to be replaced. Now workers tore at our set with sledge-hammers, and it collected in a dumpster in the alley. It was replaced by two sets, one resembling a demo counter at a trade show, the other two nice chairs at an Admirals' Club. (Siskel advised me 25 years ago to buy a Lifetime Pass to that club for, as I recall, $200 at the time. He gave me a lot of useful advice. When I pull out that ancient piece of plastic at a club, I'm treated as if I were George Clooney with his Titanium Pass in "Up in the Air.")
The first Ben & Ben season did not start well. "Roger," an ABC/Chicago friend called and said, "the first taping is this afternoon, and right now they're repainting the sets. They didn't like the color." Those sets could have been painted like Joseph's amazing dreamcoat and they would have been the same crappy sets.
The show's reviews were not kind. Two websites opened to catalogue Lyon's lapses. I e-mailed Mankiewicz in sympathy, comparing him to the victim of a drive-by shooting. That he remained polite and supportive throughout the ordeal is the mark of a gentleman. I was nowhere near that nice to Siskel, and I loved him.
It was clear that the two Bens would have to go. Roeper and my wife Chaz and I had announced a new show. Would Disney simply pull the plug on theirs and walk away? What, and vacate the "At the Movies" time slots for us to try to grab? Unlikely. Time slots are like chess pieces.
The studio announced the hiring of -- why, A. O. Scott and Michael Phillips, of all people! Michael courteously came over to our house to inform us personally. I e-mailed my congratulations to them both, and in our living room enthusiastically told Michael I would bring back the Thumbs and give the show my endorsement. Disney turned down my offer, explaining that the show had "moved on." That was a sad day for me.
Watching Michael and Tony on the show, I felt sorry for them being deprived of the famous set. It would have felt creepy to see Ben Lyons in one of our seats, but Scott and Phillips deserved better. It was sad to see them working on a set which, for all of the paint jobs, looked better suited to a couple of earnest preachers on Sunday morning. TV loved the movie balcony illusion. Now we no longer understand why they're sitting like that. There's no screen for them to look at. Why then are they at such an awkward angle, instead of sitting more conversationally?
We were not blowing smoke about our new show. Gathering up Richard, Michael and Christy Lemire (the Associated Press film critic), Chaz and I seemed to have found a welcome at a major syndicator. Unfortunately, its president left. I suspect, but do not know, we fell victim to the ancient Hollywood custom that a new executive must clean house by throwing out his predecessor's projects. Perhaps there was more to it than that. They treated us honestly and fairly, but it was not to be. At about that time, the economy went into free-fall. Roeper & Phillips & Lemire was the show that was never to be.
Now here we stand. Chaz and I still have plans. We still love Christy. She and Chris just had baby boy Nic. Don Dupree has caught fire as assistant news director of CBS/Chicago, helping them to a recent ratings surge. Richard has announced his own plans for his web reviews and Starz. Good luck, buddy.
I confess I felt a twinge that Rob Feder's column quoted you: "As much as I loved doing 'Ebert & Roeper,' this will have much more of an unfiltered, uncut, viral feel. As someone at Starz put it, they wanted 'Roeper uncut.' If a film is a piece of shit, I'll say it's a piece of shit."
Richard, were you not uncut at E&R? Did you never say a movie was "a piece of shit?" On the web and cable you can use that very word, of course, as you do in your web site's promo for your new enterprise, promising to review "a lot of big movies, and some smaller, shitty ones as well."
Things are better. Ben Lyons has returned to celebrities. Ben Mankiewicz is still at Turner Classic Movies and will prevail. Scott and Phillips are doing exactly what we all advised Disney two years ago they should be doing. Everybody still has the day job.
I still can't speak aloud, but I have the dear Sun-Times and write more than ever. When I try to put things in context, I remember Olympia Dukakis's wise dialogue in Norman Jewison's "Moonstruck." Her husband thinks he's been getting away with cheating on her, and she tells him: "I just want you to know no matter what you do, you're gonna die, just like everybody else."
Friday, February 20, 2009
The return of the thumb?
Roger Ebert suggests so in a Movie Answer Man column earlier this week where he writes:
Another chapter to this saga will begin when Richard and I shortly announce a new movie review program.
Roeper hinted as much last summer, so this is not exactly news. But this is confirmation that the idea of a new show has not been abandoned (I assumed that it had) and could be exactly the sort of thing that kicks Ben Lyons off the balcony and back on the red carpet where he unfortunately belongs.
Originally posted by New York Magazine blog Vulture via Cinematical.
Another chapter to this saga will begin when Richard and I shortly announce a new movie review program.
Roeper hinted as much last summer, so this is not exactly news. But this is confirmation that the idea of a new show has not been abandoned (I assumed that it had) and could be exactly the sort of thing that kicks Ben Lyons off the balcony and back on the red carpet where he unfortunately belongs.
Originally posted by New York Magazine blog Vulture via Cinematical.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Ebert given honorary award from the Director's Guild
Roger Ebert was awarded with Honorary Lifetime Membership in the Directors' Guild of America on January 31. In cast you missed it on his Web page previously, his acceptance speech is posted below. Note how he cannot but help himself from slamming the Ben Lyon-ization of film criticism.To begin with, thank you. I am so grateful for his enormous honor. And I am no less grateful that it has been presented by the great director Michael Apted, whose "Up!" documentaries strike me as one of the most noble achievements in film.
The person responsible above all others for the gift of a motion picture is the director. That is why it means so much to be honored by you. In countless ways you have directed my education as a film critic. You have allowed me to hang around on your sets. You have invited me to your locations. I was on the beach with Fellini, in Mexico with Peckinpah, in a Western saloon with Henry Hathaway, in a psychiatrist's office with Bergman, in Venice with Visconti, beneath Juliet's balcony with Zeffirelli, at a poker game with Billy Wilder, in Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory with Mel Brooks, and in a Chicago whorehouse with Norman Jewison.
Thinking of tonight's nominees, I discussed his first film, "Grand Theft Auto" with Ron Howard. I met Chris Nolan and Jonathan Nolan after the premiere of "Memento" at Sundance. Gun Van Sant was willing to discuss the thinking behind his challenging film "Elephant." I went through David Fincher's "Fight Club" a shot at a time for a week with students in Boulder, who patiently explained to me why I had completely misunderstood the film. I was ble to show Danny Boyle's "Millions" at my film festival at the University of Illinois.
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."
In this age when worthless celebrity gossip is replacing serious film criticism, I may be peculiar when I find myself on a set, because I'm usually more interested in the directors than the stars. So many of you have explained things to me, and taught me. I remember Brian de Palma diagramming a shot strategy. Marty Scorsese telling me how when he was a kid, he was fascinated by one single shot in a Michael Powell film that may have led him to become a director.
Werner Herzog and I have been in conversation since the 1970s. He is joining us at our table tonight, along with our Chicago friends Virginia Madsen, Andy Davis and Harold Ramis. Also my stepchildren Sonia and Josibiah.
To all of these people and countless others in the film industry, I owe a debt. You have given me a worthy vocation. When I look at Michael's great series between "7-Up" and "49-Up," and follow those lives as they unfold through the years, they lead me to think of the movies as an Empathy Machine.
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.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
"Two geeky guys" vs. "pathetic old putz"
From Defamer.com, this story (possibly apocryphal) suggests that the attacks on Ben Lyons are getting to his dad. Just one question--how are Roeper and Phillips "two geeky guys" and Lyons and Mankiewicz not?
********************************************
What Loudmouth Movie Critic Bashed the 'Old Putz' His Son Was Hired to Replace?
A tipster wasn't naming names when s/he sent word of one film critic's rather vocal dissing of another, more "highly respected" critic at a press screening eariler this afternoon. But the math seems easy enough, even for us: A father, a son and a "pathetic old putz" who's no longer on the air? Show your work after the jump.
Overheard at a press screening. Well-known but little respected TV critic whose son is also a well-known but little respected TV critic, trash-talking highly respected older critic who was replaced by his son.
He called the older replaced critic a "pathetic old putz," and suggested he should be thankful he still has his print column. As well, he suggested that the older critic's original show wouldn't work anymore because nobody wants to watch "two geeky guys." He glowed about how successful his son was at 27, appearing on at least six different networks. And that he didn't understand all of the anger directed at his son because it's only film criticism and that's nothing serious (even though that's what he does as well).
Arrgh. We did have it pegged as a Jeffrey Lyons/Ben Lyons/Roger Ebert love-in — until that part about "six different networks." The Facebook group I Have a Photo With Keira Knightley!!! is not considered an actual network, is it? Any other 27-year-olds with bad-critic fathers we've overlooked?
********************************************
What Loudmouth Movie Critic Bashed the 'Old Putz' His Son Was Hired to Replace?
A tipster wasn't naming names when s/he sent word of one film critic's rather vocal dissing of another, more "highly respected" critic at a press screening eariler this afternoon. But the math seems easy enough, even for us: A father, a son and a "pathetic old putz" who's no longer on the air? Show your work after the jump.
Overheard at a press screening. Well-known but little respected TV critic whose son is also a well-known but little respected TV critic, trash-talking highly respected older critic who was replaced by his son.
He called the older replaced critic a "pathetic old putz," and suggested he should be thankful he still has his print column. As well, he suggested that the older critic's original show wouldn't work anymore because nobody wants to watch "two geeky guys." He glowed about how successful his son was at 27, appearing on at least six different networks. And that he didn't understand all of the anger directed at his son because it's only film criticism and that's nothing serious (even though that's what he does as well).
Arrgh. We did have it pegged as a Jeffrey Lyons/Ben Lyons/Roger Ebert love-in — until that part about "six different networks." The Facebook group I Have a Photo With Keira Knightley!!! is not considered an actual network, is it? Any other 27-year-olds with bad-critic fathers we've overlooked?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Thumb and thumber
One of the casualties of the original At The Movies was the end of the thumb-based rating system, which was denied to the new show by the copyright holders, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel's widow . Since then, we have been stuck with a number of other options, most popularly the 4- or 5-star ratings as well as lesser known systems such as the San Francisco Chronicle's "Little Man", and even a tomato-based rating system.
Behold, the return of the thumb--not as a replacement of the stars but in addition to them on Ebert's Web site next to the list of movies in theaters and new on DVD (but not new reviews of the week). And yet, I am left dissatisfied. The great benefit of the Siskel & Ebert thumb-based rating system was its utter lack ambiguity. Of course, that is also a draw back, but it really defined what was great about the old show--two guys who were highly educated and with refined tastes breaking it down for the masses on a very basic level. We wanted their learned and insightful opinions but without any academic gushing about Foucault and Levi-Strauss and Post-Modern this and that. Do you recommend it or not? Is the thumb up or down?This new system provides one or two thumbs, both (if there are two) pointing in the same direction. What does this mean? I'll break it down:
= 3.5 to 4 stars = 3 stars = 2.5 stars = 2 stars and downThis is based on a quick look at some of the "thumbed" reviews, but unless somebody can find an example that differs from this, I think it is accurate. That means zero to 2 stars get the same rating. Of course, part of the fun at this level is discerning the difference between a 1.5 star movie and a 0.5 star movie, not to mention zero stars. That is always a shock--man, he REALLY hated, hated, hated, hated, hated that movie, he couldn't even spare a star.
First problem--by tradition, Ebert has only one thumb, not two. I remember getting annoyed with people in the past who would say "I give it two thumbs up!" You can't do that--you can only give one thumb, and the other thumb is provided by another person. If Ebert and Siskel each only get one thumb, then so do you. That is what makes it meaningful--two thumbs up means that two discerning critics liked it, not that one person really liked it. Either Siskel or Ebert could be wrong--the split vote would tell us that. But it is quite rare that they were both wrong. If you disagreed with two thumbs pointing in the same direction, then it is probably you who were mistaken.
Second problem: the star-to-thumb conversion is algorithmic. That means you can program a computer to do it. Not HAL 9000 or the WOPR with a fancy artificial intelligence system, but any fool with a Commodore 64 and a 50 page book on programming. You don't even need to calculate the conversion, just create a static list the program can use to look up the conversion. That's even less complicated than converting Fahrenheit to Celsius, a classic beginners programming problem.
Sorry to get all computer geek, but here is where this is important--this conversion was not done by a critic (read Ebert or his editor Emerson) but "calculated"--or converted--by a script on the Web server. This isn't a new review like the "Great Movies" feature--which is excellent. Some Web programmer was just told to have the page serve up thumbs in replace of stars. The reader gets no value added to the review--in fact less, since we now don't know exactly how good or bad two thumbs up or down are.
The thumbs add nothing to the review and are an unnecessary distraction for two reasons. First, for now the thumbs are difficult to read. Look up and down the list of "thumbed" movies on Ebert's page and you will see that the thumbs are so small that you really have to stop and look at what direction the thumb is pointing. Compared to stars, where more are simply better PERIOD, it requires us to do more work to figure out what it means, when all the real work was done by the critic (Ebert) when he designated the stars in the first place.
Second, I still believe that 4-stars is the best rating system, better even than 5-stars, which I get confused by because I am always trying to convert it back to the 4-star system. I know the difference between a 3, 3.5, and 4-star movie in a 4-star system. I have no idea what the difference is between a 3, 3.5, 4 and 4.5 star movie in a 5-star system. But this is probably because I have read Ebert's reviews far more extensively and have done so for far longer than I have read any other critic, so maybe it is just my problem.
So what is this all about? I suspect it is a copyright thing. Maybe Ebert had to use thumbs in order to avoid losing the copyright. More likely, it seemed like an opportunity--if only Ebert is allowed to use the thumbs, why not use them? At the moment, it seems random and poorly executed. It doesn't add anything to what is already a great site and a relatively unambiguous rating system (in spite of the problems of any numerical rating system). And I don't see them advertising "RogerEbert.com: the only movie review site that uses a thumb-based rating system!"
Don't get me wrong--Ebert is still the best in my book. Always will be. It will take another critic 20 years of brilliant and prolific writing to even threaten to replace him. But this computer-generated thumb system looks like a confusing step backwards to me.
Friday, November 7, 2008
With friends like these, who needs friends?
I just noticed this on Ebert's Movie Answer Man Q&A:
Q. I was delighted to see TCM playing several classic horror films like "Cat People," "Freaks" and "The Thing from Another World," which I DVR'd with the intention of having a night-long classic horror fest on Halloween. But on the big night, all my guests booed the idea of a black & white playlist and left shortly after. Is there something I can do to get people excited about seeing these movies or do I just need to seek out new friends for movie night?
Chris Kelley, Ill.
A. These people are not your friends. Even how you word your question indicates you will never be happy with them. No one who dislikes b&w should be allowed to view a motion picture.
Q. I was delighted to see TCM playing several classic horror films like "Cat People," "Freaks" and "The Thing from Another World," which I DVR'd with the intention of having a night-long classic horror fest on Halloween. But on the big night, all my guests booed the idea of a black & white playlist and left shortly after. Is there something I can do to get people excited about seeing these movies or do I just need to seek out new friends for movie night?
Chris Kelley, Ill.
A. These people are not your friends. Even how you word your question indicates you will never be happy with them. No one who dislikes b&w should be allowed to view a motion picture.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Film Threat adds a rule
"Do your homework!" says Scott Mendelson at Film Threat in response to Roger Ebert's rules for critics. This is less scathing than Ebert's article, but he details how some critics make assumptions regarding how much or how little a film made:
I jumped over Dennis Harvey of Variety back in September for lazily assuming that Changing Lanes was a box office disappointment while Crash was a mega-smash (they both made about $95 million worldwide). It’s a common phenomenon, especially when dealing with alleged financial success or disaster. But don’t just make blanket statements that aren’t backed up by the facts. And don’t call a movie a critical failure when its failure was merely financial. And don’t brand a movie as a financial disaster without actually checking the numbers. This happens most often when writers want to appear snarky and cool by trashing a film or actor. It’s amazing how rarely writers make mistakes that prop up a film or filmmaker.
I jumped over Dennis Harvey of Variety back in September for lazily assuming that Changing Lanes was a box office disappointment while Crash was a mega-smash (they both made about $95 million worldwide). It’s a common phenomenon, especially when dealing with alleged financial success or disaster. But don’t just make blanket statements that aren’t backed up by the facts. And don’t call a movie a critical failure when its failure was merely financial. And don’t brand a movie as a financial disaster without actually checking the numbers. This happens most often when writers want to appear snarky and cool by trashing a film or actor. It’s amazing how rarely writers make mistakes that prop up a film or filmmaker.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Ebert smack-down round-up
After the controversy of Minutegate, Roger Ebert has found it necessary to redeem himself. In case you had not heard, Ebert "walked out", or rather turned off, a movie after 8 minutes and then wrote a scathing review. At least he was honest enough to mention this in his review, you might say. But this was an independent movie about gay kids with no publicity (until now, anyway), and the weight of Ebert's disproportionately large thumb has the ability to stamp out any prospects for what looks like a well meaning (although, according to Ebert, very poorly made) film.There is little question, though, that his latest blog posting has fully redeemed him. "I may make mistakes from time to time," Ebert seems to be saying, "but for some critics, their entire career is a mistake." I wonder which critic he was talking about?
Well, it has not taken long for people to figure it out. Ebert, to his credit, never mentions the poor lad's name but makes it absolutely clear who he is talking about. I mean, who else has "friends" throw them a party in Vegas with the "Britney Spears of Korea"? Must be talking about the K-Fed of Korea.
Below is some of the buzz on the blogosphere and beyond. But first, a special shout out to Thighs Wide Shut--the originator of the image above-- with Thumbs Downing His Knows. They seem to have allowed Ben and Harry to take over their entire page.
Second, it is worth pointing out Gawker's critical assessment of Ebert's article. They write:
Then there's this piece of useful advice: "But in hard times like these, do not say, "Reason enough to get it!" Of course in his 2006 review of Take the Lead, [Ebert] says: "That said, Antonio Banderas is reason enough to see the movie."
But this takes Ebert's words totally out of context. What Ebert actually says is this:
It is admirable that the DVD of "Cool Hand Luke" contains an extra where they guess how many eggs Paul Newman ate while filming the egg-eating scene. But in hard times like these, do not say, "Reason enough to get it!"
Anyway, here is a sampling of the rest:
Cinematical: Ebert Lays Down the Law for Critic Conduct
Defamer: Ben Lyons Gleans Valuable Starfucking Tips From Roger Ebert
PopWatch: Roger Ebert savages rule-violating film critics (one critic in particular)
Karina on SpoutBlog: Roger Ebert’s Code For Critics: Don’t Be Ben Lyons
The Portland Mercury: The Eeb Has No Patience for Hackery
Movie Man: Roger's Rules for Critics
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The big dog smacks down the poodle
Roger Ebert slams Ben Lyons without even mentioning his name. Oh yes he did.
Roger's little rule book for critics is a lesson in how to avoid becoming Ben Lyons. Readers of this blog will likely recognize some of the references Ebert makes.
He starts with:
We can't be too careful. Employers are eager to replace us with Celeb Info-Nuggets that will pimp to the mouth-breathers, who underline the words with their index fingers whilst they watch television. As the senior newspaper guy still hanging onto a job, I think this task falls upon me.
And continues:
Keep track of your praise. If you call a movie "one of the greatest movies ever made," you are honor-bound to include it in your annual Top Ten list. Likewise, for example, if we describe a film as "the most unique movie-going experience of a generation," and "one of the best films of 2007, and of the last 25 years," it's our duty to put it in the Top Ten of 2007.
But here is where it gets really good. Recognize any of this behavior?
Accept no favors. For example, if some "friends" throw you a birthday party at a classy Vegas joint they hope to fill with movie stars who are your "friends," say thanks, but no thanks. That crosses the line, even if the "Britney Spears of Korea" truly is your close personal friend. Your only real friends come to the party you throw for yourself in the activities room of your condo building, and they bring their own booze. [Note; If the Britney Spears of Korea is the real thing, Britney Spears should be known in Korea as the BoA Kwan of America.]
. . .
No commercial endorsements. This used to be a given in journalism ethics. A critic must be especially vigilant. If you express approval of a product, you must sincerely believe what you are saying. How will we know you're sincere?
. . .
No posing for photos! Never ask a movie star to pose with you for a picture. No movie star ever wants to do this. They may smile, but they're gritting their teeth. "It is the Chinese Water Torture," Clint Eastwood told me.
. . .
Sit down, shut up, and pay attention. No cellphone use. No texting during the movie. No talking out loud. No sucking up the last Coke out of the Kidney-Buster.
You rule, Roger Ebert.
Roger's little rule book for critics is a lesson in how to avoid becoming Ben Lyons. Readers of this blog will likely recognize some of the references Ebert makes.
He starts with:
We can't be too careful. Employers are eager to replace us with Celeb Info-Nuggets that will pimp to the mouth-breathers, who underline the words with their index fingers whilst they watch television. As the senior newspaper guy still hanging onto a job, I think this task falls upon me.
And continues:
Keep track of your praise. If you call a movie "one of the greatest movies ever made," you are honor-bound to include it in your annual Top Ten list. Likewise, for example, if we describe a film as "the most unique movie-going experience of a generation," and "one of the best films of 2007, and of the last 25 years," it's our duty to put it in the Top Ten of 2007.
But here is where it gets really good. Recognize any of this behavior?
Accept no favors. For example, if some "friends" throw you a birthday party at a classy Vegas joint they hope to fill with movie stars who are your "friends," say thanks, but no thanks. That crosses the line, even if the "Britney Spears of Korea" truly is your close personal friend. Your only real friends come to the party you throw for yourself in the activities room of your condo building, and they bring their own booze. [Note; If the Britney Spears of Korea is the real thing, Britney Spears should be known in Korea as the BoA Kwan of America.]
. . .
No commercial endorsements. This used to be a given in journalism ethics. A critic must be especially vigilant. If you express approval of a product, you must sincerely believe what you are saying. How will we know you're sincere?
. . .
No posing for photos! Never ask a movie star to pose with you for a picture. No movie star ever wants to do this. They may smile, but they're gritting their teeth. "It is the Chinese Water Torture," Clint Eastwood told me.
. . .
Sit down, shut up, and pay attention. No cellphone use. No texting during the movie. No talking out loud. No sucking up the last Coke out of the Kidney-Buster.
You rule, Roger Ebert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
