To donate to The Ebert Center, click here.
To mark the second anniversary of Roger Ebert’s passing, we
asked our writers to answer one question: What do you think Roger’s legacy is
now almost two years after his passing? The responses were as moving and
diverse as the phenomenal staff inspired to keep his torch burning by
contributing to this site.
SIMON ABRAMS: I
didn’t have the opportunity to get to know Roger Ebert very well. But every
email I got from him was galvanizing. I wish there were more.
NICK ALLEN: Last
summer, I was fortunate enough to be a projectionist for a very special film
class at the University of Chicago’s Graham School, in the types of gatherings
that Roger would famously sell out decades ago (his favored podium is still in
use). This particular class’ focus was a popular one: “Ebert’s Favorite
Films,” as taught by Adam Kempenaar of the inimitable Filmspotting
podcast. And the movies discussed were indeed Ebert’s favorites, but Adam
wisely chose the titles in which the critic’s voice specifically stood out.
These weren’t necessarily movies that Roger famously wrote about as classically
great (many weren’t even from the Great Movies collection), but the discussion
about whether a chosen film was good, and why Ebert touted it, was always as
lively as it was divided. Ramin Bahrani’s elegiac “Man Push Cart” was
too tedious for some, Kasi Lemmons’ enchanting “Eve's Bayou” was too
outlandish for others, and Charlie Kaufman’s haunting “Synecdoche, New
York” was the groan-worthy ode to the middle-aged white man’s woe in the
eyes of a few.
But aside from how everyone became a critic of some type to a
critic’s taste, I was always intrigued by the duality in how Roger Ebert was
referenced. Some strictly called him by his first name, talking about his work
warmly as if he was their departed pal, who had once made some good points. In
the same discussion, others referred to him as Ebert, as if he had already
taken on new life as his impactful philosophies. When it comes to discussing
names of popular figures (celebs, artists, philosophers etc) it’s usually a
one-way street. It’s either “Oprah,” not “Winfrey,” or
“Freud,” not “Sigmund.” It takes quite a unique presence to
have household recognition as both, (Clint [Eastwood]) comes to mind) but
that’s Roger’s legacy. Though we haven’t seen a new review (or even a tweet)
from him in a couple years, we’ve settled into perpetuating his active
influence as both departed friend, and film philosopher. But whether known now
as Roger or Ebert, the beloved mind’s choices of favorites will always be means
for a lively debate.
ERIK CHILDRESS: Roger’s
legacy is now stronger than ever. His spirit in all incarnations of the word
looms over film criticism the way Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite does in
broadcast news. Roger is the name that a whole generation of film lovers that
he helped inspire can point to as a standard to live up to professionally and
even personally. The humanity he translated into words within each film review
spilled over into not just further essays he shared but his everyday life. That
meant that he saw something grander outside a darkened theatre and was hoping
to bring out the light in a world he hoped could have the same magical feeling
he felt after the curtain was closed on the big picture.
SEONGYONG CHO: In
his memoir “Life Itself”, Roger quoted a sentence from “The Immediate
Experience” by Robert Warshow: “A man watches a movie, and the critic must
acknowledge that he is that man.” While Roger is sadly no longer with us, he
still influences me and others immensely through his reviews and other writings
currently available at his site, and many of them have imparted to us that
valuable advice which was very helpful to him during the early years of his
illustrious film critic career. As I said before in last year, you are still a
good teacher, Roger.
OLIVIA COLLETTE: I
know this’ll sound a little simple, but I honestly believe Roger’s legacy is
that we’re a little kinder towards one another. Though Roger deemed this to be
a golden age of film criticism, the concurrent truth is that film criticism is
also very saturated. But by and large, critics are tremendously supportive of
one another. At ground level, they might be competing for the same kind of
work, but that generally doesn’t translate into a malicious streak.
Last year, I talked about how Roger had made me a better
reader, and in turn, it made me appreciate the work of my peers so much more.
This year, after having a proper in-person geek-out with fellow contributor
Scout Tafoya (who I collaborated with to create this lovely
video), I remember thinking, “I can’t do what Scout does, but thank
goodness he’s around to do what he does.” To me, that’s the long arm of
Roger’s legacy.
ODIE HENDERSON: Roger’s
legacy is to continue to inspire readers and writers alike with the 45 years’
worth of reviews contained on this site. For readers, his work serves as an
educational, informative, entertaining and sometimes debatable collection of
the confessions of a movie lover. For writers, Roger provides a master class on
being confident in one’s opinions and one’s voice, consensus be damned.
GLENN KENNY: I
shared this story on my blog, when the news of Roger’s death was announced two
years ago, but I’ll share it one more time, because it’s crucial to where his
legacy lands for me:
In September of 2002, at the Toronto International Film
Festival, I was invited to a small dinner celebrating Denzel Washington’s film
“Antwone Fisher.” Because I was the film critic for Premiere magazine at the
time, I had a pretty high industry profile, especially with respect to
festivals, and so it happened that at the dinner I was positioned almost
directly across from Washington, and directly to the right of Roger Ebert.
Roger and I had mainly a nodding acquaintance, and, making what was at the time
my version of small talk, I waxed dyspeptic on the 9/11 anthology film that was
screening at the festival that year. As a New Yorker, I mentioned to Roger, the
very existence of the movie made me understand, on an emotional level, just
where the religious fundamentalists who had objected to “The Last Temptation of
Christ” sight unseen were coming from.
“Well that’s a fine critical perspective,” Roger responded,
with no little testy irony. Sure, I said; I understood it was a completely
illegitimate critical perspective. I just found it curious the way my
disinterested-by-necessity critical perspective was being messed around with by
my gut reaction. Roger shruggingly accepted my ultimate point, but insisted
that I was allowing myself to get it backwards just a little bit, and that I
ultimately couldn’t afford that luxury.
Now that I write for the website that bears his name, I
think often of the responsibility implied in his response to my tetchy
confession. It’s one reason I’m always grateful for Roger’s example. Although
I’d prefer he was still around to argue movies with, and provide further
examples. Thanks, Roger.
BARBARA SCHARRES: Roger’s
living legacy is the community he founded online. He was the pioneer, the
catalyst, and the instigator in bringing together people from all over the
world for debate, exchange and commentary on films past and present, but also
on culture, politics, and life as it’s lived in many places. That community continues and thrives.
PETER SOBCZYNSKI: I
think that Roger’s legacy is the fact that his presence is just as strong,
fresh and vital today to us as it was before his passing. I do not mean this in
the “Rebecca” sense that we are stuck in the past and
unwilling/unable to go on with our lives, though the number of people who pop
up in the comments sections of the reviews to serenely declaim how they are
certain that Roger would have reviewed it differently (or, in some cases, that
he actually wrote the review) can be frustrating at times. No, what I mean is
that the singular influence that he was able to pass on through his life and
his work continues to be strong enough to unite a disparate collection of
people from around the globe—readers and writers alike—to share their
collective love of film and curiosity about the world around them through such
outlets as this website and Ebertfest.
Oh yeah, “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” is still
ten tons of awesome jammed into a five-ton-capacity sack…
COLLIN SOUTER: There
are so many answers regarding what Roger’s legacy is, so I’ll just say that
it’s a community. So many of us are here (in Chicago reviewing movies) because
of Roger and his work as a film critic, journalist and blogger. I see this
community at least once a week in the screening room(s) and I see Roger’s
spirit living on among those those who write with integrity and thoughtfulness.
I also see it in the kindness and generosity among the colleagues as we gather
together to watch a movie and share in that communal experience.
BRIAN TALLERICO:
The question of Roger Ebert’s legacy is complicated for me since it’s something
I live with every day as the Managing Editor of the site that bears his name.
It is a constant consideration—how the work we do now maintains that legacy.
And so not a day goes by that I don’t think about Roger’s impact, his
professionalism, and my role in paying homage to both through my work and that
of our incredible staff. And yet I think I would still think about Roger every
day even if I wasn’t so honored to carry that torch simply because I love film.
His influence on film criticism exceeds standard appreciation in that one can
easily argue that the way that Roger assessed film changed the way they were
made. It is a ripple effect of influence. How many filmmakers now grew up
reading Roger’s reviews? And just think of the filmmakers they will inspire in
future generations. Everyone who watches a movie feels Roger’s legacy in some
small way. Those of us who work at the site that bears his name may feel that
professional responsibility more acutely but Roger is everywhere. And he will
be as long as film exists.
GERARDO VALERO: I
believe Richard Corliss was correct when he stated in “Life Itself”
that movie critics should not mingle with filmmakers as to avoid being
influenced in their reviews. I also believe Roger was the one exception to the
rule and this is a reflection of who he was: a man with a big heart who managed
to gain people’s trust despite being in an extremely influential and delicate position.
PABLO VILLACA: Roger
Ebert is not here anymore. And, paradoxically, I believe he IS here more than
he ever was. At each passing day, Roger’s legacy grows larger and larger; he
still influences writers, critics and filmgoers everywhere. His website still
is one of the most formidable places to read about movies and the variety of
voices it employs is a testament of how Roger inspired many, many generations.
It’s really fascinating: although we don’t have the unique and amazing pleasure
of reading new pieces by Roger, his presence online is so strong it’s like he
never left. You have to be not only a fantastic writer, but also a remarkable
human being to accomplish something like that – and Roger was both. I miss him
daily and dearly; and at the same time I feel he’s just a click away. And I’ll
always keep clicking.
ANATH WHITE: Chaz
often says, “Roger is still here.” It’s exactly what I think each time, reading
or watching the myriad sources I take in daily, when I so often see his name.
And it’s the experience I have attending a film festival or meeting people who
learn I sometimes write for RogerEbert.com. Virtually everyone has some story
of how Roger’s reviews, or “Siskel and Ebert,” or even some chance encounter
with him, impacted her or his way of seeing movies—and sometimes even their
worldview.
I’ll leave to the deepest of film scholars those assessments
of Roger’s writing about movies generally. Instead I embrace his
democratization of movies, the ways his approach threw open the doors,
welcoming everyone regardless of background, ethnicity, gender, sexual
preference, nationality, or other happenstance of birth, to share his lifelong
passion. He encouraged the pleasure of watching and knowing something of the
process, the story, the moviemakers when you did. And, unlike almost any other
critic, he used his high profile to champion greater opportunities for many
more people (read: not just white males) to make and tell the range of stories
all around us in this complicated world.
Roger’s “Chicago Sun-Times” reviews were my late
’60s introduction as an Illinois teenager to the study and film-related work
I’ve done throughout my life. But until Ebertfest 2011, when honored to be
among the Far-Flungers, I had never met him.
One memory comes back instantly: at lunch, I’m at a table
next to Roger’s when he taps me on the shoulder, handing over one of his
ubiquitous Post-Its. “Go talk to her,” it says. I look as he motions
toward Khomotso Manyaka, the very young star of “Life Above All” (the
luminous South African film nominated by the Academy in 2010 for Best Foreign
Language Film). My hidden reaction, a near shudder, arises out of a natural
shyness, along with uncertainty over how to speak to a 12-year-old. But I do
it, rewarded by Khomotso’s broad smile, as she seems to relax a little more in
this crowd of grown-ups.
Roger beams approvingly and makes that special motion I’ll
always associate with him: looking me in the eye, he nods a little and taps his
heart.
Yes, Roger is still here.
SUSAN WLOSZCZYNA: A
legacy usually refers to something being handed down from the past. But it is
difficult to not think about Roger continuing his “leave of presence.” For one
thing, the fact that this very website continues on in his name is a testament
to his enduring influence but also his lifelong ability to encourage fellow
film lovers to find their voices and share their written thoughts with the
world. His tradition of putting the movies first – what other place besides
RogerEbert.com attempts to review every release each week, no matter how small
or obscure – offers a much-needed thought-provoking forum that stands apart
from our celebrity-saturated culture.
One of the benefits that come from being privileged to
participate in carrying on his work is the reaction I receive when I tell
people what outlet I write for. Everyone knows who Roger Ebert is. Jessica
Chastain’s eyes lit up with admiration when she talked about seeing “Life
Itself” and the effect both it and Roger had on her. And, while attending my
first-ever Ebertfest last year, I felt Roger everywhere – from the fans in the
audience who watched him verbally
sparring with Gene Siskel on TV to the eminent filmmakers such as Oliver Stone,
Spike Lee and Bennett Miller who participated in part because Roger’s support
and keen insights made a difference in their lives and work.
People continue to quote Roger’s reviews and read his books
for a reason. He usually wrote not just in the moment but with a purposeful
sense of cinema past and future. I regularly come across references to him
while researching articles. Just a moment ago, I spied this gem of an
observation from filmmaker Adam McKay. Will Ferrell’s frequent collaborator,
from 2013: “How much we miss him. He
wrote the worst review of anything I’ve ever done. And it was so great! We don’t
care. When you do comedy, you get impervious to good and bad reviews. It was
‘Step Brothers’ and he claimed it was ‘the sign of the end of Western
civilization.’ “
That was the power of Roger. People often felt honored even
when he eviscerated their films. I think he will be present for a very long
time to come.
ALAN ZILBERMAN: The
first important part of Roger’s legacy is that he showed us how to appreciate
the movies. He showed us how form intersects with purpose, and how it is
essential to defend new, exciting voices in cinema. The second, arguably more
important part of his legacy is that he showed us how the movies can help us
lead better lives. He argued that if movies put us in the shoes of other
people, then sensitive movie-goers will have more compassion and tolerance.
To donate to The Ebert Center, click here.
