Roger Ebert's Legacy

Recently, Esquire published an article about Roger Ebert, which inspired me to address Ebert, at least for a moment.

http://www.esquire.com/features/roger-ebert-0310-6

The friggin insert link button is all wonky for me, and I'm too lazy to figure it out.

I've only known about film criticism in the times after Roger Ebert was an influential writer, so it's at times difficult for me to imagine what it was like before. He is famous, not for reviewing movies, but writing significant literary criticism about them. At the climax of Ratatouille, there is an essay written by the character Ego, a harsh and stubborn critic.
(I could write a whole post on why I am so affected by that speech. I find it's plea for a return to sincerity disarming and heartbreaking) The reviews Ebert writes, especially in his Great Movies series, are different from what is being spoken of here. His body of work belongs among the great American essayists. His best reviews, or at least the ones I prefer, are not the ones that insist you either see or don't see a particular movies, but the ones where he attempts to delve into the core of a movie, elevating it to art. He has become, in my sojourn through great movies, a near constant companion who often offers a different perspective. He notices things I do not. His level of study over certain movies like Citizen Kane (which someday I'll get up the nerve to address), and Dark City (he did a full length dvd commentary on it), offers true guidance to the novice filmgoer. He said once, "I have here a heartfelt message from a reader who urges me not to be so hard on stupid films, because they are 'plenty smart enough for the average moviegoer.' Yes, but one hopes being an average moviegoer is not the end of the road: that one starts as a below-average filmgoer, passes through average, and, guided by the labors of America's hardworking film critics, arrives in triumph at above-average."

There is an argument you might hear from people who play lots of video games, which is that a gamer uses his brain interactively while playing video games, while a person watching a television is passive. Sometimes that may be true, but when watching a great movie, whether for the first or the twentieth time, it seems silly to call it a passive experience. It takes alertness in all sensory experience to watch a movie because it happens so quickly. There are sounds, dialogue and camera angles. Each is an integral part of film, and I consider it a blessing that I can watch them at home with a remote in hand to pause, rewind and confront what is being shown. My ever increasing knowledge of these things would barely exist without the guidance of Roger Ebert.

To write about Ebert at this time is, I know, cliche, but I hadn't seen a picture of him without his lower jaw until he appeared on Oprah. It's difficult to see the man, whose thoughts and optimism I find so admirable, in such a state. Over the past few years he has become a role model of mine up there with Bertrand Russell, and Douglas Adams. Each post, I understand I am writing about what is easily perceived as a pretentious subject, but my aim is to get people as excited as I am about these films, not to look down on those who don't care. Ebert understands that we experience film and books in the same way: We use them as both a means to escape into fantasy for a time, and at others, we use them as a mirror to hold up against ourselves, revealing things that we normally attempt to hide. He wrote once, and I'm sure I could find a better quote, but this will do, "A lot of people these days don't even go to a movie once. There are alternatives. It doesn't have to be the movies, but we must somehow dream. If we don't "go to the movies" in any form, our minds wither and sicken." He should be proud in the twilight of his life, that he encourage so many, myself included, to 'go to the movies' and become sincerely invested in the beauty and artistry of cinema. I will miss him when he is gone, and will always treasure his writings and influence over my life.