July 16, 2003

Roger Ebert is the most powerful film critic in the world.  Pauline Kael is the second.  And here’s the odd part… Pauline is catching up.

What were the odds that the guy who came up with the idea of “Siskel & Ebert,” would pass away on the very same day that Disney would make the move that signaled the inevitable end of Ebert’s run as the co-host of a weekly movie review show?

But it happened.

On Monday, Eliot Wald, who besides getting credit for the “Sneak Previews” idea was also a key writer on a Saturday Night Live staff that included Larry David, Christopher Guest, Harry Shearer, Billy Crystal, Marty Short and Monk creator Andy Breckman, passed away at the very premature age of 57.  On the very same day, Disney’s Ebert overseer, Mary Kellogg, arrived in Chicago from the coast to fire the show’s long-time producers, Stuart Cleland and Andrea Gronvall.

And so it goes…

A knowledgeable Hollywood money follower claims that Disney has not made a profit on the Ebert Show, in its various incarnations, since they purchased the dynamic duo of Siskel & Ebert in 1986.  I don’t know if that’s true.  What I do know is that the ratings faltered in Gene’s last years, continued to wobble during the season-long search for a replacement, and stabilized a little when Richard Roeper took the permanent seat opposite Roger.  But in his three years in that slot, the ratings have not improved… nor has the show’s placement in the many markets where you have to work hard to keep up with the thumbs.

More importantly, Roger’s status in the history of film has diminished week by week as he shares his long-earned limelight with a non-movie guy.  Anyone who works in or around this business knows the feeling of going to a family function and having a conversation with your Uncle Moe, who has made a fortune in widgets and who “knows” everything about the movie business.  It’s an argument that you can’t win.  If you concede a point, you are encouraging the false notion.  If you win a point, you are Mr. High & Mighty, bullying people because you think you are a movie big shot. 

I am in the awkward position in which any opinion I have about the guy who got the job can easily be tainted by accusations of jealousy, since I once had my shot at the job.  But that was a lifetime ago.  I have had my ups & downs with Richard Roeper in passing.  He’s been a nice enough guy, when his claws have stayed in his paws.  And unlike many in the Chicago film community – which from what I gather, has been unkind to the man – I have nothing against him personally.  When he is not feeling under attack by me, he has been friendly, pleasant, intelligent and funny.

But the casting of Richard Roeper as America’s Second Most Popular Film Critic ranks right up there with Jimmy Kimmel Live and Dennis Miller on Monday Night Football.  Kimmel was a huge success as a niche “man’s man” on Comedy Central.  Miller is, regardless of his recent lean to the hard right, one of America’s most gifted social commentators.  And Roeper is a well-liked pop culture columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times.  But Kimmel after Nightline is like trying to watch Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle right after viewing a pristine print of The Godfathers I & II, Miller on MNF was like listening to a conspiracy nut who sees something that’s not there everywhere he looks, and Roeper as a film critic is like a 5-year-old whose parents have encouraged him to have an opinion on everything, whether he really has anything to say or not. 

The situation with Roger is, on the other hand, almost Shakespearean.  He has just celebrated his 61^st birthday.  He has used his power to find, support, promote and protect cinema, both pushing for specific films and for formats that compel him.  You’ve never had a movie fight until you’ve fought Roger Ebert over MaxiVision versus Digital.  Roger’s Overlooked Film Festival has not only generated the lion’s share of funding to resurrect Urbana-Champaign’s Virginia Theater, but it has helped push a number of films into distribution or caused studios to rethink their positions on the futures of many titles.  And in between a hectic shooting schedule, Roger not only gets to the Sundance, Cannes, Telluride, Toronto and Floating film festivals each time they happen, but he continues to expand his reach to such exotic locals as Egypt, India and The Czech Republic, every time he has the chance. 

His legacy in the movie world should be far greater than the direction of a thumb.  But like a great Shakespearean character, he seems to have lost perspective on the magnificent forest he has built over the last 35 years, trying to save the most familiar tree. 

Gene Siskel’s death left an unfillable void, like the loss of a spouse with whom you have raised a family and built a life for decades.  No small part of the thing that made it possible for two film critics to have a TV show for 22 years was the chemistry.  As the two aged, the chemistry changed.  But they aged together. 

When Gene died, the TV show was faced with the same choice as any widow.  It could just stop and mourn the loss, not moving on.  It could try to replace the lost spouse with someone as identical as possible, moving along for the sake of the kids.  Or it could reassess itself at its advanced age and make the decision to move aggressively into the future. 

Roger’s choice was to hang out with his friends on air, inviting a parade of guest hosts to sit with him in the balcony.  The basic rule was "film critics only".  As time passed, he added some new faces to the rotation, myself included, that interested him.  Some non-critics, well-known and less well-known, crept in as well.  But in March 2000, Disney decided that the house party was over.  Disney’s choice was a non-critic.

Roger could have said, “no.”  He could have jumped up and down.  But he did not.  In all fairness, I don’t think he had found, in that year, a partner who felt like a partner.  He might have been well-served by an Elvis Mitchell or a Jeff Greenfield or maybe a Janet Maslin.  But there were reasons why those candidates and others were not workable.

Richard was hired.  The ship moved on.  Roger was king and Richard was the sorcerer’s apprentice.  Roeper improved.  But a distinct lack of electricity could be felt in the air.  Ebert’s on-air work slowly became simpler as he worked to Roeper’s level of movie insight.  Soon, all there was to watch was two men squabbling… two men who didn’t seem to care for one another very much… not even enough to dislike one another.  Roeper developed Siskel’s on-air style of arrogance, but never with the conviction that made Siskel so infuriating, to us and to Roger.  It felt more like “the critic doth protest too much.”

If you talk to people about Ebert & Roeper these days, the reactions tend to be limited to a few notes.  People wonder why Roger is giving so many films the “thumbs up.”  People say “Ebert & The Other Guy.”  And people say, “They seem to be on in the middle of the night.”

You know how as a great athlete‘s career progresses into its later seasons, there is discussion about how the player has changed their game, playing smarter as their physical skills diminished?  It is time for Roger to become a specialist. 

Entering his 25^th season as the co-host of his own television show, it is time for Roger to take a victory lap.  No desperation moves.  No more “adjusting” the show, trying to make it look younger and hipper. 

Here’s the news flash… there is no “younger & hipper!”  The simple truth is, there is only one man alive who has ever been on-air talent for a successful film critic TV show.  Roger Ebert.  Fat (though losing weight), white-haired, Illinois-accented, four-eyed (until recently), small-town boy, Roger Ebert.  

The only chance the show ever had was to go retro, not high-tech.  You know how real estate is “location, location, location?”  Television is personality, personality, personality.  Do you want these people in your living room each week?  To mis-paraphrase a venerable Roger Ebert saying, “If you like the guys, the show is never too slow.  If you don’t like the guys, the show can never move quickly enough.” 

Again, I am not here to bury Richard Roeper.  He is not the cause of the demise.  He was just a guy who was in the right place at the wrong time.  I’m sure he will parlay this experience into an MSNBC chat show or a chair near Robert Novak somewhere.  And that will be a better fit.  Then he’ll be on Andrew Sullivan’s turf, not mine. 

I am not really close with Roger anymore.  But I do love him.  I love him, in no small part, because of the love of film that we share.  It is a love that I try to bring to this column every day in my small way.  But, Roger’s passion is something that only a small number of people really get to experience with Roger.  People who see the show and read his review and read answer man, etc, etc, etc know. 

If I were to advise my friend, Roger, I would ask him to take a good look at all that he has, not the loss that giving up the show would be.  I would suggest that he announce that his 25^th season will be his last season.  (If the groundswell of interest became overwhelming, he could always pull a Michael Jordan.)  And I would have his agent start inquiring about a regular slot on 20/20 or 60 Minutes or whatever. 

Imagine what Roger Ebert could do for a movie that he loved with 12 minutes to discuss just one film.  Think of how he could advance the appreciation of filmmaking by interviewing directors, writers, producers, and even actors and having the time on air to show what hey have to say in some depth.  What could Roger do for Bollywood on his next trip to the Bombay Film Festival with a crew in tow and the intention to open America’s eyes to a movie industry that rivals our own?  Ebert on the moviegoing experience… Ebert on the indie scene… Ebert on the NC-17… I’d tune in every time.

It is time for Roger to start the third act of his professional life.  The second act has been one of the most remarkable anywhere.  But people are shifting in their seats these days, wondering whether a cocktail and some cheesecake at Joe Allen’s might be preferable to a third act of Titus Andronicus killing everyone after realizing that all of his loyalty has been his undoing. 

Wald & Siskel… Cleland & Gronvall… things do change.  I wrote once that when Roeper was hired, Disney had turned an important weekly cultural event into “just” a TV show.  Three years later, it’s not even good TV.  And there is no way of fixing that, which is why firing the loyal, long-time producers just pisses me off.  It’s like making your grandparents move into a rest home because they have become inconvenient.  Richard & Roger just don’t work as a team.  Period.  Done.  Move along, nothing to see here.

But Roger’s legacy is greater than some dumb television show.  We all know that he’s not ready for Johnny Carson-style retirement, hiding on his tennis court behind a giant hedge.  He has a lot more to do.  He just needs to stop, look at the movie world in which we all now live, and for the first time in his life, build a machine that works for him and not be the most talented cog in someone else’s machine.  We’re all waiting.  You’re too good to just run in place.  You still have a world record or two in there.  Bring it on.

Readers Respond

READER OF THE DAY:  D-n-A writes:  “Right or wrong, I think the MPAA is in line with most of the public on this issue. From my years in exhibition, we always had parents bringing there children to "R" films, but not before they called to ask if there was any sex in it. This included Hard Rs such as Total Recall, Alien: Resurrection and Predator 2 (all which, IMHO, are the goriest major releases in recent memory), not to mention the Nightmare and Friday the 13th movies.

I'm sure Warner's could've gotten a PG-13 for T3 and Both Matrix films if they fought for it, but I'm sure in those cases if they gotten that rating the public (especially the geeks) would that thought they were not "edgy" enough.”

DA BAUMB writes:  “Back in 1992 in the Charlie Sheen starring, Henry Rollins tour de force titled, The Chase."  In "The Chase", Charlie Sheen swerves to the right, a truck swerves out of the way, and bodies come flying out of the back.  One even hits a car, that Rollins is driving chasing down Sheen's character.  So Bay's offensive humor, is about 11 years old.  The movie did play on cable a lot last year, and maybe Bay or the screenwriters decided to incorporate this visual gag from "The Chase" into their film.  If not, it is very strange that all these years later it is actually used.  I guess great minds, or like minds, or minds that find corpses funny when used in freeway chase, think alike or something.”

E ME:  Thumbs up or thumbs down?

The Matrix Reloaded. Reloaded.
Read Part One
Read Part Two