April 4th, 2013,
This morning I was reading a post from Roger Ebert's blog entitled "A Leave of Presence" which he posted a few days ago. In it, he explained that after his hip fracture in December 2012, his doctors discovered that he had cancer again. He told his readers that he would be reducing his load of reviews due to his ill health--limiting them only to the movies he was actually interested in reviewing. He said that he was going to launch a new version of his site etc. He thanked his readers for their attention and affection. He said "see you at the movies."
I wondered if he was going to die soon.
A few hours later at work, I found out he died had died this afternoon.
Ebert was one of those figures who made it clear for me the devide that stands between some well-known people and those who admire them: "he is my friend, even though we have never met." In this way, Ebert was a friend of mine; a friend with whom I nerded out and held voracious arguments on a regular basis. We shared a love for the movies, even if we did not agree all the time. He was, in a way, the first guy I called if I was going to see a film.
I started reading Ebert around 2001 when I was maybe 14 years old. I believe I was searching for reviews on
Edward Scissor Hands. I figured that the guy who did the "thumbs up" thing would be a good place to start. I have habitually and eagerly read his reviews ever since and perhaps it is safe to say that his views have affected some of my taste in films.
One does not have to agree with a critic to find value in their statements. But with Ebert, I read him so often that I had a clear picture of how I would like a movie just based on what Ebert said about it--regardless of whether he liked it or not.
I appreciated the fact that Ebert often wrote from all manner of directions depending on his mood. Sometimes he wrote from the gut (his best reviews) and other times, he simply recounted what he saw and allowed readers to decide. He often attempted to write reviews based on the target audience's perspective. That is, if he was writing a review for a silly action flick, then he would assume that the reader enjoyed those kinds of films and discussed it based on what he perceived to be the criteria for enjoying those kinds of films. There is something to be said for this kind of hat-switching as a viewer.
I never had the chance to see his iconic television show with the late Gene Siskel and later on, Richard Roeper. I would certainly have liked to, but he was long done with the show by the time I was cognizant enough to make viewing choices on my own or otherwise develop an appreciation for his reviews. I've heard it was wonderful.
Ebert was also a good writer period. I found myself reading books he had written that were always about movies, and I relished them. I ate up his innumerable anecdotes about Hollywood--a world which he loved--and Cannes--a world which he also loved. He just loved the movies and was well aware that his readers did also.
After Ebert lost his lower jaw to complications with his first bout of cancer, I really thought he was done writing. I personally felt a measure heroism toward him when he appeared in Esquire magazine with full on, unflattering photos showing how disfigured he had become. I feel like he was an emblem of the strength to carry on with life after disfigurement--enduring looks of curiosity and discomfort in order to be out in public where he loved to be. It turns out, one does not have to be able to speak in order to speak out. Ebert loved movies and he probably needed money. So, he kept writing reviews.
In fact he wrote more material per annum after he lost his jaw than he did before, according to his last post on his blog. He embraced the social media and blogosphere as his outlet now that he had lost the power of speech. He was apparently an avid Twitter user and posted great articles and essays on his blog--many of which were quite personal (a generous thing to do for his fans). I believe he just wanted to get his voice out there as much as he could in the only way that was now possible.
Did I mention that Ebert displayed a great attitude about all of this? An amazing example to anyone in that regard.
Of course, Ebert was quite left-wing and often hostile toward Christianity. I felt slighted by many of his statements on these issues, but I shook my head as I must do with so many of my friends and family who share Ebert's beliefs. Hurt feelings were often a small price to pay.
What was more upsetting was the idea that Ebert was always wrestling with deeper spiritual meanings and truths behind his musings--a struggle I completely identify with. I too have many doubts, but I too have a thirst for truth, and that thirst has led me on a much different road than Ebert took. I hope, as I do with everyone, that Ebert may have considered turning to God in the end. Who knows? Only God has any true knowledge of what lies in our hearts.
Well Roger Ebert, you were a good though distant friend, even if you never knew me; A true companion during one of my favorite things on this blue earth--going to the movies.
Here's looking at you kid.
Thank you too.
