Where Have You Gone, Roger Ebert?

I've said what I had to say about movie critic and hateful columnist Roger Ebert and now Lawrence Meyers weighs in on Ebert's continued sad decline:

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.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Something Wicked This Way Comes has come up on Roger Ebert's overlooked DVD of the week:

"Something Wicked This Way Comes" qualifies as a horror film, but it's an altogether different kind than we've been getting lately. The new breed of horror movies are essentially geek shows, exercises in despair in which all hope has been abandoned and evil rules the world. Bradbury's world of fantasy calls back to an earlier tradition, to the fantasies of Lord Dunsany, Saki and John Collier (but not H. P. Lovecraft!) -- horror fantasies in which evil was a distinct possibility, but men also had within them the possibility of redemption. Robards is offered a choice in this movie, and it is a choice. Things need not end in disaster.

Something Wicked is one of my favorite Ray Bradbury novels and I'm glad to see it was turned into a movie worth watching. I've only seen bits and pieces of the movie on the Disney Channel but from what I've seen I'd have to agree with Ebert. There's an overwhelming sense of foreboding in even those small clips.

Sounds like this is one to put on the must-see list.

More on Ebert

Here's more on the sad story of Roger Ebert:

Roger Ebert can’t remember the last thing he ate. He can't remember the last thing he drank, either, or the last thing he said. Of course, those things existed; those lasts happened. They just didn't happen with enough warning for him to have bothered committing them to memory — it wasn't as though he sat down, knowingly, to his last supper or last cup of coffee or to whisper a last word into Chaz's ear. The doctors told him they were going to give him back his ability to eat, drink, and talk. But the doctors were wrong, weren't they? On some morning or afternoon or evening, sometime in 2006, Ebert took his last bite and sip, and he spoke his last word.

It's a fawning piece on Ebert and I don't have any objection to that. But like a good fawning piece, the article overlooks Ebert's mean and hateful streak that comes through in his personal columns and tweets. Odd since the article deals in depth about how Ebert now communicates after his unfortunate health situation.

No matter. It's the latest on Ebert and may shed some light on his current state of mind. I don't hold with those who think he's changed because of his health battles; I believe he's always been this way and that it's now only coming out because he has so many other ways to communicate.

Roger Ebert Trashes His Own Fans (and Palin) on Twitter

I provided some links to movie critic Roger Ebert in my twitter stream as a favor to someone who hadn't realized Ebert had finally lost it so I won't dig 'em up again. Instead, Pam Meister does much of the heavy lifting for me:

If you follow a movie critic on Twitter, chances are you follow him because you admire his ability to critique the many offerings of Hollywood. Unfortunately, if you follow Roger Ebert, you also get endless tirades on greedy corporate fatcats, ”nutjob Teabaggers,” and how dumb Sarah Palin is.

But that's only recently. Ebert managed to also trash Rush Limbaugh during Limbaugh's heart attack scare over the holiday while Limbaugh was still in the hospital. (Momentarily coming to his senses, Ebert later apologized.) He lost it, too, during the election and joined the bandwagon of Palin bashers, stooping so low as to mock her physical appearance. All of this from a man who had unfortunate and serious health problems, leaving him unable to eat and drink without a tube and unable to speak at all. I'm not saying his health problems have caused Ebert's bitterness - his essays about his troubles have been fairly straight-forward and make for compelling reading. No, I suspect he's harbored this bitterness all along and now that he has new methods of communicating - in addition to his reviews, he blogs and tweets as well - and it's through these outlets his bile pours most freely.

After the Rush incident, I can no longer read his reviews. I see my last link to one of his columns was way back in June but just five days before that, I'd noted how he lost it over Bill O'Reilly.

There are plenty of movie critics out there to read - I've been a fan of Stephen Hunter for a long time but he took a buyout from The Washington Post and I'm not sure how regular his gig is over at Commentary so his reviews are hard to find. I'll manage somehow to learn about the movies we intend to see; it's sad that I just won't be able to rely on Roger Ebert anymore.

Summer and Youth

I may disagree with Roger Ebert for his politics but sometimes his essays are spot on. He redeems himself with this fine essay about Summer and youth:

A new movie is titled "The 500 Days of Summer." That's what it looked like on the last day of school, time reaching forward beyond all imagining. There was a heightened awareness in the room as the second hand crept toward our moment of freedom. We regarded the nuns as a discharged soldier does his superior officer. Here had existed a bond that would never be again. We didn't run screaming out the door. We sauntered. We had time. We were aware of a milestone having passed.

Summer's here but it'll be over before you know it. Let's enjoy it while we can.

Ebert Loses It

As a movie critic, Ebert makes a lousy political pundit. (But not a bad essayist on other subjects, as seen here and here.) When he takes on Bill O'Reilly and his ilk, Ebert is clearly out of his league:

Bill O'Reilly has been brought low by the same process that afflicted Jerry Springer. Once respected journalists, they sold their souls for higher ratings, and follow their siren song. Springer is honest about it: "I'm going to Hell for what I do, and I know it," he's likes to say. O'Reilly insists he is dealing only with the truth. When his guests disagree with him, he shouts at them, calls them liars, talks over them, and behaves like a schoolyard bully.

It pretty much goes on like that from there, with not-quite comparisons to Nazism and such, rhetorical attempts that are far below Ebert.

Ebert's biggest vulnerability: it's clear he doesn't regularly watch O'Reilly's show and didn't listen to O'Reilly's radio program when it was on the air. He peppers his essay with the same old tired references and clips to the occasions when, yes, O'Reilly lost it, but any regular viewer or listener would know those are the exceptions and that even O'Reilly himself pokes fun for those outbursts, though he makes no real apology for him. O'Reilly is O'Reilly so take him or leave him.

Though O'Reilly tends to lean Right, he's really a populist and has no problem at all with government stepping in and taking care of things for "the folks." But there's no one that's even close to him on the Left; the best anyone can come up with that might be O'Reilly's equivalent is Olbermann but watching only a few of Olbermann's shows will tell you Olbermann is just out of his league. There's a reason why O'Reilly regularly trounces his competition in the ratings.

On a drive to Colorado, we listened to O'Reilly's radio show throughout the afternoon as our reception moved from one station to the next. He makes a lot of sense under all of that bluster. Ebert won't be converted but if he did the same thing as we did, really gave O'Reilly a fair shake, Ebert would see how off-base his essay is.

Movie Love Scenes With Passion

Roger Ebert discusses movie love scenes that are passionate but not erotic with a nod to one of my favorite romantic movies, Out of Africa:

When Sydney Pollack was making 'Out of Africa' in 1985, he considered the problem of how to film Meryl Streep and Robert Redford in love scenes that were not explicit, yet were erotic. 'When I have Streep and Redford together,' he told me, 'I don't want to see them strip naked and writhe around in bed together. The challenge was to find love scenes that would have emotion and passion and yet not violate a certain place where we want to see them. There are two really sensual love scenes. One of them is the undressing scene. I always like scenes like that. I think they're sexy. I tried to make a sort of passionate dance out of them undressing each other. The second scene consists of three absolutely terrific lines I took out of a screenplay that was written in 1973 when Nicholas Roeg was going to direct this project. It's only three lines, but what lines: 'Don't move. I want to move. Don't move.'

His instincts were correct. We don't want to see Streep and Redford in a conventional sex scene. That would break the film's romantic spell, and reduce it to sexual choreography. In most movie sex scenes, the director chooses lighting, camera placement, music, and the tempo at which he decides intercourse should take place. The actors perform not as they might in life, but as they think their characters would. I have never seen a 'sex scene' that was particularly erotic. The center of feeling is primarily, by necessity, off screen.

Hey, I'm no prude but, well, all right, I'm a prude, but I do think a director faces a greater challenge staging a love scene that will come across as passionate without being overtly sexual. I mean, come on, we all know what's going on, don't we? Let's leave something to our imaginations.

Ebert lists more examples but I'm glad he led off with this one.

Ebert on Fire

Once again, Roger Ebert is on fire:

If I were on Death Row, my last meal would be from Steak 'n Shake. If I were to take President Obama and his family to dinner and the choice were up to me, it would be Steak 'n Shake--and they would be delighted. If the Pope were to ask where he could get a good plate of spaghetti in America, I would reply, "Your Holiness, have you tried the Chili Mac or the Chili 3-Ways?"

A downstate Illinois boy loves the Steak 'n Shake as a Puerto Rican loves rice and beans, an Egyptian loves falafel, a Brit loves banger and mash, an Indian loves tikki ki chaat, a Swede loves herring, a Finn loves reindeer jerky, and a Canadian loves bran muffins. These matters do not involve taste. They involve a deep-seated conviction that a food is absolutely right, and always has been, and always will be. These convictions are fixed at an early age. I do not expect to convert you.

We're a family of converts, especially Emily. Some years ago, Clara discovered the wonders of Steak 'n Shake and on a road trip through Tennessee, we managed to sample this cuisine. We've been hooked ever since and every time we hit the road, the choice stop is Steak 'n Shake. Now Oklahoma City's closer to perfection with two Steak 'n Shakes in the metro area.

Now, I won't waste time trying to convert Mr. Ebert to be a true believer of Oklahoma's own Sonic but my word to him would be to give it a try and see if there isn't room for another establishments on his top eatery list. (Yes, I know Mr. Ebert's medical condition likely prevents him from enjoying solid food. Still, if it's possible, he shouldn't deny himself the treat of Sonic. Life is too short.)

Ebert Tells Us About The Pot And How To Use It

I have much to criticize when Roger Ebert strays off the movie critic's reservation but his latest post about how to use a rice cooker is, well, let's just say he's on fire:

Now you have your oatmeal. You can substitute any grain of your choice. Even amarath, seen as the favorite side dish in "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor." I like to use low-fat Silk soybean milk. Use what you like. Have a small or medium chopping block and a nice knife. Slice into smallish pieces the fruit of your choice. Any fruit except something like watermelon. I shouldn't have to be telling you this. Slice your bananas, your peaches, your applies, pears, plums, apricots, strawberries, your Kiwi. Throw in your blueberries, your blackberries, your boysenberries, your this berry, your that berry. Drop in maybe a couple dried prunes. No, stupid. Not all the fruits at once. We're making breakfast, not fruit compote. Let's say two fruits together are nice. Bananas and peaches make Peaches 'n Cream. Mmmm! . . .

Let's make some soup. Assemble your ingredients. Throw them in the pot. Add enough water to make it soup. Slam down the lid. This watched Pot boils. Click to Warm when the soup looks about right. If it looks undercooked, add a little more water and keep going. You will also learn to add the ingredients in a mixture in the reverse order of how long you think they'll take to cook. For example, dried beans first. Even let them sit in water and Warm for awhile. If you're in a hurry, throw them in and boil them. The hell with them. Never put in meat and chicken so soon it will overcook. There are no rules. You are Aunt Mary. The last ingredients into the Pot should be the things you like still a little crunchy, like frozen peas and corn.

Stews. Like soup only with less water, Albert Einstein.

Read the whole thing. Then get yourself a rice cooker.