Movie Reviews

Siskel, Ebert, and the Secret of Criticism

Published

1 year ago

November 16, 2023

Siskel, Ebert, and the Secret of Criticism

Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, who went on the air together for the first time in 1975, have been off the air for a long time now. Siskel died in 1999, and Ebert bowed out in 2011, two years before his death. But, for many people, they remain the very exemplars of film criticism. Fellow-critics still admire their vigorous, wide-ranging discussions while, for the public at large, their thumbs-up/thumbs-down gimmick, which they came up with in 1982, has proved indelible. The story of their rise to fame is told in enticing detail by Matt Singer in a joint biography titled—what else?—“Opposable Thumbs.” For Singer, the critic at ScreenCrush and the current chairperson of the New York Film Critics Circle, the book is clearly a labor of love. He writes that his own aspiration to be a critic was sparked by their show, which he began watching obsessively as a middle schooler, in the early nineteen-nineties.

Singer’s admirably fanatical research renders this obsession tangible. He seems to have absorbed every moment that the duo spent onscreen, whether on their own show or other people’s. (They were Johnny Carson and David Letterman regulars for years). He has combed his heroes’ writings and interviewed their colleagues, friends, family, and fellow-critics. But, more than merely gathering this material, he has thought deeply about it, and the best thing about the book is the way that it highlights some of the basic quandaries that critics confront (or avoid) daily. These fundamental conundrums of criticism involve questions about specialism, authority, personality, art, and business. And, with Siskel and Ebert, these dilemmas came into play long before the duo joined forces on television. Both Illinois natives, the two men came to their critical careers by very different paths, but they had one crucial thing in common: neither had set out to be a film critic.

Ebert, born in Urbana in 1942, was one of those precocious journalists who seem to have printer’s ink in his veins. As a high-school sports reporter, he won an Associated Press prize for professional (not just student) journalists. He edited his college daily at the University of Illinois and, in 1966, having begun a doctorate at the University of Chicago, took a day job as a reporter at the Chicago Sun-Times. The next year, when the newspaper’s veteran movie critic retired, he was tapped as her replacement, having written a few film-related reports. (A publicist recommended him.) In his wise and engaging autobiography, “Life Itself,” he recalls that he didn’t intend to stay in the job long: “My master plan was to become an op-ed columnist and then eventually, of course, a great and respected novelist.” But within a decade he’d become the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for criticism.

Siskel, in contrast, came to journalism more or less by happenstance. Born in Chicago, in 1946, he majored in philosophy at Yale and planned on a career in law and politics. That changed when, needing to avoid the draft, he joined the Army Reserves. He wound up as an Army journalist at a base in Indiana, and, when he got out of the service, in 1969, he took a job with the Chicago Tribune. He’d been there only eight months when the paper’s movie critic took a leave. Siskel, who’d written a few pieces about the movie world, put himself forward and got the job.

Now the two men were in direct competition: doing the same job at Chicago’s two great rival papers. But, as much as they often clashed, there was another key thing they shared: neither was a movie person. Not only was neither a cinema-studies major (such a thing barely existed in their day) but also neither fit the profile of the cinephile, hanging out at repertory theatres and taking sides in the debates then raging over the so-called auteur theory. They were just regular moviegoers who managed to find a journalistic application for their pleasure. Their paths to television were separate but symmetrical, each maintaining print journalism as the solid basis of his activity. In 1973, Ebert hosted a series of Ingmar Bergman films on television, which scored an Emmy nomination. Then Siskel started delivering brief movie reviews on a local station. Then, in late 1975, the Chicago public station WTTW paired them up for a joint movie-review program.

The breakthrough took a while. Though PBS broadcasts in markets such as New York and Los Angeles brought national attention, by 1981, as Singer tells it, Siskel and Ebert were getting frustrated with the over-rehearsed nature of the show. The pair, encouraged by the assistant producer Nancy De Los Santos, decided to give free rein to everything else—the discussions and arguments, the slips and flubs, the spontaneity and authenticity of their interactions. Rather than an entente between rivals, the format became gladiatorial. Critics on TV weren’t new, as Singer notes; most of them would do a few minutes during news broadcasts. Siskel and Ebert were different. Individually, they remained writers first, transferring the essence of their columns to the screen, but the show as a whole was TV first and foremost, with all the showmanship of the commercial medium. Predictably, their burgeoning fame attracted a backlash. In 1990, decrying the state of film criticism in the august pages of Film Comment, Richard Corliss dismissed the show as “a sitcom . . . starring two guys who live in a movie theater and argue all the time. Oscar Ebert and Felix Siskel.” Singer differs: “To a generation of up-and-coming cinephiles, it was their first taste of film school.”

Singer correctly identifies the show’s crucial ingredient: the two stars’ clashing personalities and relentless competitiveness. As rival newspaper critics, they’d been striving to outdo each other for the best part of a decade. Now they were in the same room. In his memoir, Ebert writes:

In the television biz, they talk about “chemistry.” Not a thought was given to our chemistry. We just had it, because from the day the Chicago Tribune made Gene its film critic, we were professional enemies. We never had a single meaningful conversation before we started to work on our TV program.

Ebert’s expansive, jovial character immediately comes across in this memoir and in other published portraits. Siskel remains more of an enigma, because he died young and also because he was a far more private individual, rarely speaking of his personal life. The portrait of Siskel that emerges in Singer’s telling is fascinating. A former Yale roommate declared him “the most competitive person I’ve ever run across—more so than Michael Jordan or Bill and Hillary Clinton.” Ebert said so, too: “Gene was the most competitive man I ever met.” Ebert may have been intensely conscious of a rivalry with Siskel, but Siskel’s competitive ferocity and confrontational chutzpah were on another level. When asked by his first boss at the Tribune what his ultimate goal was, Siskel answered, “Your job.” (When a colleague expressed shock, Siskel replied, “Candor. It is powerful. It knocks people off their feet. They are not used to it. Try it some day. If you’ve got the guts.”)

Related Topics:biography movie critics Reviews roger ebert

Click to comment

Movie Reviews

Sankranthiki Vasthunam Review: USA Premiere Report

Published

6 hours ago

January 13, 2025

Press Room

Sankranthiki Vasthunam Review: USA Premiere Report

Final Report:

Sankranthiki Vasthunam has a passably entertaining first half and a true-blue, over-the-top second half. It remains to be seen how both the target audience and general viewers will respond to it. Stay tuned for the full review.

First Half Report:

Sankranthiki Vasthunam’s first half is passable, with a few over-the-top fun moments that work for those who enjoy that style. Venkatesh as YD Raju runs the show as expected. The second half needs to deliver some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments, as the setup for drama is light.

Sankranthiki Vasthunnam begins with a kidnap drama involving Akella (Srinivas Avasarala), stay tuned for the report.

Stay tuned for Sankranthiki Vasthunam review, USA Premiere report.

Sankranthiki Vasthunam marks the blockbuster combination of Venkatesh Daggubati and Anil Ravipudi, targeting the family genre, with Meenakshi Chaudhary and Aishwarya Rajesh set to tickle the funny bones of audiences. We need to see how solid the fun will be.

Cast:Venkatesh Daggubati, Meenakshi Chaudhary, Aishwarya Rajesh, Upendra Limaye, Sai Kumar, Naresh, VT Ganesh, Prithviraj, Srinivas Avasarala, Muralidhar Goud, Anand Rama Raju, Pammi Sai, Sai Srinivas, Mahesh Balaraj, Pradeep Kabra, and Chitti etc.,

Writer, Director: Anil Ravipudi
Presents: Dil Raju
Banner: Sri Venkateswara Creations
Producer: Shirish
Music: Bheems Ceciroleo
Choreography : Bhanu Master
DOP: Sameer Reddy
Editor: Tammiraju

U.S. Distributor: Shloka Entertainments

This Week Releases on OTT – Check ‘Rating’ Filter

Movie Reviews

Wish You Were Here (2025) – Movie Review

Published

14 hours ago

January 13, 2025

Press Room

Wish You Were Here, 2025.

Written and Directed by Julia Stiles.
Starring Isabelle Fuhrman, Mena Massoud, Jimmie Fails, Gabby Kono, Jennifer Grey, Kelsey Grammer, Jordan Gavaris, Josh Caras, Antonique Smith, Jane Stiles, and Mike Carlsen.

SYNOPSIS:

A woman searching for a spark finds a whirlwind night of romance with a man only to discover he is terminally ill and commits to helping him spend his last days living life to the fullest.

Something is drastically off throughout the meet-cute/spontaneous first night spent between directionless restaurant server Charlie (Isabelle Fuhrman) and mural artist Adam. Unfortunately for Julia Stiles’ directorial debut Wish You Were Here (also penning the screenplay, adapting the book by Renée Carlino), it’s more a case of contrived screenwriting that forces one character to dance around an important topic because if these adults communicated like, well, adults, there wouldn’t be a movie.

There is a mutual attraction between Charlie and Adam, but the latter continuously speaks in something resembling riddles and mysteries about love. For some perspective, I was getting the impression that it would be one of those traveling-through-time rom-coms and that Adam is a reincarnated soul who had known Charlie in a previous life. When all is revealed, what’s actually happening here is so unbearably mawkish that all the genuine charm from Isabelle Fuhrman that the film was passably coasting on evaporates into this cloying trash pile.

After a successful first date that encompasses everything from personal conversations to connecting personalities to creating a mural together to capping the night off with sex, in the morning, Adam’s mixed messaging swings into full-on pushing Charlie away, insisting that this was a one-night stand and she knows it. Devastated, Charlie receives support from her longtime best friend/co-worker (Gabby Kono) and kooky parents (Jennifer Gray and Kelsey Grammar), with her mom and well-meaning jokester brother (Jordan Gavaris) teaming to sign her up for a dating service under the impression that some of her problems in life would be solved by finding the right man (a regressive mindset, for sure, but also the least of the film’s issues.)

To the film’s credit, Charlie does resist that notion but quickly gives in to the prospect of meeting up with an observant, handsome man (Jimmie Fails) who turns out to be a combination of a sensitive soul and a playfully passionate college football mascot costumer. It’s a crime that I don’t remember seeing Jimmie Fails since his tremendously evocative breakout work in The Last Black Man in San Francisco, something that this film cements; he’s the only one who consistently feels like a real, believable person here. That’s also helped because he has the least screen time of the three principal characters. Someone put him in a romance that’s actually good, ASAP.

That’s also not to say Isabelle Fuhrman is bad. As stated, she is charming and easy to get behind, working a job she hates (surrounded by obnoxious customers), hounded by her family to do something productive in life, having bad luck with relationships, and possessing a sweet spark. Adam comes back into the film for reasons that won’t be spoiled, and Wish You Were Here spirals, letting Isabelle Fuhrman down in the process and giving her nothing to do but weepy, aggressively emotionally manipulative nonsense. Also playing out in the background is a ridiculous subplot that sees her best friend also find love, move out of the room they share, and get engaged, all within what feels like less than a month.

It’s also made clear that Wish You Were Here is striving to say something resonant regarding ghosting (and how maybe we don’t always owe someone an explanation for doing so) and how a critical component of love comes down to timing. How Julia Stiles (presumably the book) tackles that message is nothing short of insufferable melodrama that forces two of its characters to service those themes rather than exist as people who feel human. The kindest thing that can be said is that, at the very least, the story doesn’t morph into a tasteless, ludicrous love triangle.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Robert Kojder is a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association, Critics Choice Association, and Online Film Critics Society. He is also the Flickering Myth Reviews Editor. Check here for new reviews and follow my BlueSky or Letterboxd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist

Movie Reviews

Emilia Perez – Film Review

Published

1 day ago

January 12, 2025

Press Room

Violence, corruption, cartels, kidnappings and drug runners. These are the negative stereotypes one thinks of when they think of the worst aspects of Mexico City. But for drug lord, Juan “Manitas” Del Monte (Karla Sofia Gascón) they are a way of life. Hell, he is the one responsible for it and profiting from it all. But it is time for a change of sorts.

Rita Mora Castro (Zoe Saldaña) is a brilliant yet unappreciated lawyer disillusioned with her career. After successfully defending yet another scumbag criminal, she is offered work from a new client, Manitas. Manitas has an odd request (well a demand) one which comes from having always felt like they were born into the wrong body. They want Rita to facilitate gender affirming surgery in secret so that they can begin a new life as a woman. With a huge payday in store, Rita throws her scruples to the wind and helps Manitas fake his death and find a doctor. Manitas is no more and so ‘Senora Emilia Perez‘ is born.

Four years later, Rita finally has the life and respect she always wanted, until Emilia comes back with another request, wishing to be reunited with Juan‘s wife Jessi (Selena Gomez) and children under the guise of being Manitas‘ wealthy cousin. While this farce works at first, it isn’t long before the past catches up to Emilia as they attempt to turn over a new leaf and right the wrongs of Mexico. But remember, Manitas was a violent drug lord after all…

One of the most lauded and awarded films of 2024 finally sees its Australian release in 2025. The second most nominated film in Golden Globe history went home with 4 wins including Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy and a Best Supporting Actress award for Saldaña. However, visionary filmmaker Jacques Audiard‘s genre bending story of redemption and crime has proven to be not without controversy at the same time.

Emilia Perez is a story with a lot of heart, a lot to say and honestly a lot of moralising. This has been called into question with a French filmmaker and a cast of foreigners telling a story with themes and subjects so important to Mexican people. Lack of local talent and Audiard’s admitted lack of research into context has been criticised. The Spanish dialogue which to an outsider simply reading subtitles might seem acceptable, may also seem off to those who can speak it fluently.

But looking past that, I can appreciate Audiard‘s originality and refusal to tell this story in any sort of conventional way. Often even if something doesn’t work, it’s still admirable for a filmmaker to take a chance. While praise has been heaped on Emilia Perez, I still believe that there’s many ways the film just doesn’t quite come together.

It seems ironic that a film entirely about finding your true self can be so lost in grasping an identity of its own. Is this a pop musical? A violent crime thriller? A family drama? A story of redemption or of being unable to truly change who you are deep down? It’s a little bit of everything, and so none of it really feels like it takes centre stage.

The story of a violent drug lord trying to literally become a completely different person is a fascinating one. Gascón switches between the two personas impressively yet is never given a chance to play it as anything more than a bipolar transperson. Saldaña as well earns the acclaim which has come her way but ‘Rita‘ becomes lost amongst endless twists. The sanctimoniousness of her character looking down on the corruption of the elite as she wilfully takes money to whitewash and reinvent a drug kingpin feels unexplored.

This is all despite Emilia Perez‘ lengthy runtime and much of it is due to the film failing as a musical. Giving ‘Joker Folie à deux‘ a run for its money, Emilia Perez just seems to want to be a musical without figuring out how to make it work. While some musical scenes feature stunning choreography from Damien Jalet, others just have the cast reciting run on dialogue that’s set to a beat. Every time this occurs; it detracts from the film rather than enhancing it.

Imagine having a normal conversation which changes into a strangely structured and forced song and dance before suddenly going back to regular speech patterns. Sounds incredibly obnoxious and irritating, right? Well congratulations, you’ve grasped Jacques Audiard‘s approach to the musical genre!

Emilia Perez is considered by some to be one of the greatest films of the year. However, I found it to be an incredibly unlikable and grating experience. A hodgepodge of ideas rolled up into a mess of film genres and styles, one which is bold and not afraid to take chances, but not one which is successfully executed in any meaningful way.

Emilia Perez is in cinemas from January 16th.