How Roger Ebert Became -- Erroneously - The Greatest Movie Critic of All time

I liked Roger in the old Sneak Previews. Not so much when he went corporate and shilled for every big movie. He and Siskel ( I used to get them confused until I used the memory aid Roger=Round Siskel=Skinny ) helped me to find a lot of foreign movies and directors, and the smaller movies that to me were the better movies.

By the time of his end I mostly disagreed with his every opinion. I can see why he did what he did, and he would occasionally have some good perceptions about movies, but he never saw a big studio picture he didn't like - he turned into a commercial for movie industry.

The Sneak Previews era with Gene and Roger, 1975 to 1982 was the last gasp of America because everything took a money and corporate nosedive. Coincidentally that is when the Reagan administration changed the country by corporate fiat, January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989.

Ebert's very hit or miss for me. I tend to prefer his books on the Great Movies over most of his contemporary fare, maybe because with older titles he actually watched them more than once and was able to think more about them. That's so much more interesting than a knee-jerk reaction to a one-time viewing, which is what most movie criticism is.

As for Kael-- cannot stand her. It's not even that we like or dislike different movies (in fact, there are a lot of times when I agree with her). I don't like her style and by all accounts, she was a nasty person. Ebert's remained popular because of how accessible his work is, but he's also more affable, even when tearing a movie apart.

Ebert had a big ego. The Pulitzer Prize blew that ego up into the size of a Chinese Spy Balloon.

---

Ha. He certainly did mention it a lot. Noteable: All of the critics I noted in my post above EXCEPT Charles Champlin and Kevin Thomas of the LA Times...wrote for MAGAZINES. If the Pulitizer only goes/went to newspaper film critics...a smaller field of competition.

But not a bad one. I forgot to mention Vincent Canby of the New York Times during that time. He gave Frenzy a rave like everybody else did(almost)...but he also gave the Hitchcock movie before it -- Topaz(1969) a rave -- and a lot of reviews on that one were pans.

I read Canby more than Ebert in the 70's because the New York Times was on the shelves of my local and school libraries.

Somewhat interesting: in 1967, the year that Roger Ebert STARTED writing reviews, the long time New York Times critic Bosley Crowther, "retired." A rather bad, out of touch review about Bonnie and Clyde drew return fire from Warren Beatty(internally) and Crowther went out to pasture. Truly his prose was rather 1947 in curlicue, but Crowther had his own following for decades.

I suppose my point about Roger Ebert is this: his writing was fine, often funny, surely "populist." He most certainly had fans, who "miss him every day." And he became the richest critic of them all , I believe, from TV syndication.

But there were many other -- subjectively "better" critics writing than Ebert in the 60s and 70's. They simply didn't survive to the internet archives age.

Time and Newsweek and The New Yorker should really open their film review database open wide -- give Roger some competition.

PS. In Ebert's book "Life Itself," he noted that The Tonight Show(Leno version?) wouldn't book him as a solo guest after Gene Siskel died. Their value was a double act -- "the bickering duo." Ebert was honest in telling us this --evidently The Tonight Show didn't want Ebert on as a solo film critic.

Ebert was never famous where I am. But you're right. The internet has changed how people consume film criticism. The professional film critic is just one voice among many now, and if people read them at all they will tend to find one they trust because that critic's tastes broadly coincide with their own... which isn't much different to finding a fellow non-critic film fan whose tastes coincide with your own and who can articulate their thoughts well.

The idea of a professional film critic being authoritative or venerated is fanciful in an era where anyone can be Pauline Kael.

It's weird-- can a professional critic become as famous as Ebert was?

--

Not in the "getting rich TV syndication way." As a writer? Depends.

One thing many of us looked for in "professional critics" were people who could write better than we can.

I'd say that Ebert, with his Pulitizer Prize, qualified. Pauline Kael, too. The critics for Time and Newsweek were held to only a few paragraphs per review, but Jay Cocks(for one) sure knew how to write some big words in a short time. His American Graffiti review(a rave) had a ton of big words but then concluded with "Bitchin' as they used to say. Superfine." I thought that was a cool finish.

Modernly, the one film critic who I feel is really worth reading(and he works on the Ebert page alongside MANY critics) is Matthew Zoller Seitz. Or however he spells it. The key to these critics is: it doesn't MATTER if they like the same movies I do. I read them for their writing talent.

---

I feel like with the rise of the internet, more people go on social media for fellow movie viewers' takes and less to the published critics.

---

Well, imdb divides reviews between "Critics Reviews" and "User Reviews." Professional critics are expected to be educated about film history, and good on grammar, etc. User reviews can go from professional quality to "just talkin'." Me, here, now -- "just talkin'." But that's fun and meaningful, too, in its own way.

CONT

Interesting to read all those different snippets from different critics, ecarle.

---

Yes. The "Frenzy" reviews. There are several things at work there.

As a young person, I developed a real fanship for Hitchocck and all of his OLDER films. Word was, the new stuff (Marnie, Torn Curtain, Topaz) were films of decline. And then suddenly came all these "raves" for "Frenzy" (all "comeback" reviews; from good to great) and I was very happy for the old dog. I clipped those reviews and used them in school papers. The clips are long gone, but the reviews are in my memory banks.

But the OTHER thing that was happening there was: I was learning to read and admire the film critics of the time. Richard Schickel's phrase "the kind of sly and savage movie that we thought Hitchcock either would not or could not make anymore" seemed very descriptive to me of what Frenzy represented. Time's Jay Cocks disappointed me with "it is not at the level of his greatest work"(aww...not THAT good, eh?) but then he turned a nice phrase in regard: "..but it is shrewd and smooth and dexterous..." READING that, one learns how to WRITE, later. I sure was buoyant reading the Newsweek review by Paul Zimmerman: "Starting with The Birds and sliding down to Topaz, Hitchcock had delivered works of decline authored by old age...well, the old man has fooled us. Frenzy is one of his very best." I mean when you are young and you have a "hero" and he COMES BACK, its a nice feeling.

I have reprinted Roger Ebert's review of Frenzy on the Frenzy page here at moviechat and as I say there: Ebert was pretty wrong about the basic FACTS of the movie, and on Hitchcock's career. Ebert was fairly young then, and probably not up on his Hitchcock. Still...it was another rave review...and a bit of a copycat review of others that came before it.

CONT