April 20, 2024

Roger Ebert, Movie Critic of the Mainstream, Dies at 70

His death was announced by The Chicago Sun-Times, where he had worked for more than 40 years. No cause was specified, but he had suffered from cancer and related health problems since 2002.

It would not be a stretch to say that Mr. Ebert was the best-known film reviewer of his generation, and one of the most trusted. The force and grace of his opinions propelled film criticism into the mainstream of American culture. Not only did he advise moviegoers about what to see, but also how to think about what they saw.

President Obama reacted to Mr. Ebert’s death with a statement that said, in part: “For a generation of Americans — especially Chicagoans — Roger was the movies. When he didn’t like a film, he was honest; when he did, he was effusive — capturing the unique power of the movies to take us somewhere magical.”

Mr. Ebert’s struggle with cancer gave him an altogether different public image — as someone who refused to surrender to illness. Though he had operations for cancer of the thyroid, salivary glands and chin, lost his ability to eat, drink and speak (a prosthesis partly obscured the loss of much of his jaw, and he was fed through a tube for years) and became a gaunter version of his once-portly self, he continued to write reviews and commentary and published a cookbook on meals that could be made with a rice cooker.

“When I am writing, my problems become invisible, and I am the same person I always was,” he told Esquire magazine in 2010. “All is well. I am as I should be.”

In recent years, Mr. Ebert became a prolific presence on Facebook and Twitter, on which he had more than 800,000 followers, and was a blogger as well.

He fired tweets with machine-gun rapidity, on topics both profound and prosaic. He commented on pro football, his captions for The New Yorker cartoon contest, an old pub he once frequented, James Joyce short stories and untold numbers of movies and television shows, to which he linked. “Pixar is the first studio that is a movie star,” went one tweet.

He swore he would not become addicted to Twitter, but emphatically did. But Mr. Ebert — whose handle was @ebertchicago — never tweeted during a movie.

Mr. Ebert liked to say his approach — dryly witty, occasionally sarcastic, sometimes quirky in his opinions — reflected the working newspaper reporter he had been, not a formal student of film. His tastes ran from the classics to boldly independent cinema to cartoons, and his put-downs could be withering.

“I will one day be thin, but Vincent Gallo will always be the director of ‘The Brown Bunny,’ ” he wrote.

His thumbs-up-or-down approach drew scorn from some critics, who said it trivialized film criticism. Speaking to Playboy magazine in 1991, Mr. Ebert agreed that his television program at the time was “not a high-level, in-depth film-criticism show.” But he argued that it demonstrated to younger viewers that one can bring standards of judgment to movies, that “it’s O.K. to have an opinion.”

In 1975 he became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize, for his Sun-Times reviews. His columns were syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and abroad, and he wrote more than 15 books, many by skillfully recycling his columns. In 2005 he became the first film critic to be honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

“In the century or so that there has been such a thing as film criticism, no other critic has ever occupied the space held by Roger Ebert,” Mick LaSalle, movie critic for The San Francisco Chronicle, wrote in 2010. “Others as influential as Ebert have not been as esteemed. Others as esteemed as Ebert have not had the same direct and widespread influence. And no one, but no one, has enjoyed the same fame.”

With Mr. Siskel, Mr. Ebert popularized television film criticism. Their collaboration began in 1975. Mr. Ebert was asked to appear on WTTW, the public broadcasting station in Chicago, as co-host of a new movie-review program. He was intrigued, but then taken aback when told that Mr. Siskel, the film critic of The Chicago Tribune, would be his partner.

“The answer was at the tip of my tongue: no,” Mr. Ebert told Time magazine in 1987.

As for Mr. Siskel, he said he initially had no desire to team up with “the most hated guy in my life.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 4, 2013

An earlier version of this article misidentified a movie critic for The San Francisco Chronicle. He is Mick LaSalle, not Mike LaSalle.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/movies/roger-ebert-film-critic-dies.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Critic’s Notebook: The Esquire Network Has Manly Goals

But celebrate we did, each in our own modern-manly way, because G4, a network that no one had ever heard of and apparently has something to do with video games, is going to be rebranded the Esquire Network. The new network, its general manager said, will be dedicated to “the modern man, what being a man today is all about.”

Whoo-hoo! Oh, wait; sorry. “Whoo-hoo” is too Cro-Magnon for a modern man. But we’re overjoyed, really we are. Because finally someone is going to explain what a modern man actually is.

The new network, an NBC property that will be a partnership with Esquire magazine, won’t go live until April 22. For now we have to be content with discovering what a modern man isn’t, by scrutinizing last week’s somewhat unspecific executive comments.

Bonnie Hammer, chairwoman of NBC’s cable group, described the new network as “an upscale Bravo for men,” which sounds great until you realize that Bravo is a trashier-than-it-used-to-be network with a female slant. So the comment is roughly like calling the new entity “a nonmusic CMT for Northerners.” Not very enlightening.

The new network’s general manager, Adam Stotsky, was more specific, saying that it will define us modern men as interested in something more than “tattoos or pawn shops or storage lockers or axes or hillbillies.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. The modern man, it appears, does not chop wood, frequent pawn shops or live like or near Jed Clampett. As for the tattoo thing, some of us wish we’d heard Mr. Stotsky’s clarifying remark before we got the “whoomp, there it is” tramp stamp back in 1993.

If we modern men are obsessed with learning what the Esquire Network is going to offer, it is because we have for decades been searching the television landscape in vain for guidance on what exactly it means to be a man in the postwar world.

Television has always broadcast shows geared to men of course. Live boxing was among the earliest types of programming, way back in the 1940s. Then came all sorts of shows — “Combat!” and “Rawhide” and the rest — featuring guys doing things guys do, like herding cattle and fighting. There was the genre known as jiggle TV, with attractive women in bikinis and such, and then in 1979 came ESPN and the sports explosion. Nowadays we have networks like Spike, with shows that include “Car Lot Rescue” — yes, it’s a TV show about car lots — and the recently announced “10 Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty,” which is just what it sounds like.

We modern men have watched all of this, but guiltily. It’s hard to shake the feeling that this programming is more premodern than modern, an effort to lure us back to the cave rather than into the glorious realm of higher possibilities that awaits us if we can just stop watching basketball, staring at bathing beauties and chasing possibly fictitious creatures through the woods.

Early indications are that the Esquire Network will be using a stealth approach to elevate our subspecies, because what has been announced so far is a type of television that, frankly, sounds an awful lot like the low-aspiration gunk that already exists.

One possible series, executives said, is “Knife Fight,” a cooking competition that seems as if it may be indistinguishable from the zillion other cooking shows already on television. Another is a travel show called “The Getaway,” which would be swell if there weren’t already an entire network called the Travel Channel.

Executives also suggested that a video feature from the magazine’s Web site called “Funny Joke From a Beautiful Woman” might have a place on the network. In the current installment of that feature, Jenna Dewan-Tatum, dressed as provocatively as any Charlie’s Angel ever was, tells a joke about nuns and hot dogs that will not be detailed here.

Presumably the strategy is to lure us modern men to the new network with shows that appeal to the familiar instincts, then gradually upgrade us to “Interesting Philosophical Discussion Point From a Plain-Looking but Extremely Intelligent Woman.” We’ll find out for sure in April. Which means there are only two months left to track down the elusive bigfoot. Hey, $10 million is $10 million.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/arts/television/the-esquire-network-has-manly-goals.html?partner=rss&emc=rss