This would be sadder news if not for the fact that, due to unfortunate circumstances, Ebert and Roeper has just been Roeper and Other Guy for awhile.
A.O. Scott getting his own show would just be surreal, but if he'd mud wrestle with Manohla each night, I'd watch.
I haven't watched the show very much since Ebert's illness, and have always felt saddened at how over-matched Roeper was since he joined after Siskel's death in '99. I have to admit, though, that the show always had its drawbacks, and I've never enjoyed Ebert's upthrusting/downdangling-appendage-persona as much as his print one. It strikes me that the nuances of his various observations are lost when he's arguing with someone. Truly, I preferred the show to his print reviews only when he was wrong about a movie, and Siskel (or one of Siskel's various replacements pre-Roep-a-dope) was there to fight him.
Love you, Roger, though you never got it right on Fight Club, Crash or almost any Terry Gilliam film. Sorry to see your baby go off the air, in spite of what I just said. Always dreamed I'd be up there arguing with you, but I'll count my blessings you're still writing now.
It was Truffaut who said that he sometimes never even could tell you what a movie was about after the first time he saw it, due to being overwhelmed by the sensory experience of watching it.
I've had a lot of people tell me they think you're awarding too many stars to too many movies lately, and I keep telling them that you're elated to be alive and watching movies in the first place. Right now's the best time I can remember to be covering this beat, and I'm with those who are damn-crazy righteously, heedlessly blinded by their love of the incandescent arts.
To quote (or perhaps paraphrase) you, Roger: "How easily we become accustomed to wonders."
1 comment:
Yeah, I didn't even notice until later on that Ebert's blogpost title is the same as mine.
Post a Comment