It breaks my heart to write this article. Roger Ebert has been a part of my love for cinema since I was eleven years old. When I was in the hospital for two months at age 19, I devoured his entire book of movie reviews. I even met him at the 2002 Conference on World Affairs when he dissected David Lynch’s masterpiece Mulholland Drive (though I thought he needlessly threw in the towel regarding the film’s meaning). I don’t need to expound on his contributions to film education and his championing of truly great movies.
Nevertheless, I don’t know the man. I only know his words. Yet I have to wonder if the physical and mental trauma Roger has endured has taken a toll on his mind. He always seemed apolitical to me. He just wrote great movie reviews. However, he started a political journal on his website in the past year. It’s full of the same clap-trap expected from those on the Left: false premises, poorly constructed arguments, and replies to comments which dodge legitimate challenges.
Meyers has updated his post to report about Ebert's typical small-minded and angry reply. Following Meyer's link to Ebert's site, you'll find Ebert's expanded comments where Ebert once again puts out his false assertion and demands a yes or no answer, which is impossible give. (Sort of like, Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?") It's a juvenile move on Ebert's part and underscores Meyer's point.
It's hard for me to fathom guys like Ebert (and Sullivan too). Why are they so adamant about trashing their own legacies over Palin? It seems that whenever they raise a concrete specific complaint, and it's put to scrutiny, they fall short. It's almost like they see themselves as messengers, warning against something bigger.
ReplyDeleteWhat though?