Skip to main content

Roger Ebert, and the beauty of confusion

Roger Ebert is all kinds of badass. He wrote a Russ Meyer movie(one that's crazy even by Russ Meyer standards). He has a Pulitzer Prize. He's done more for thumbs than any individual since the days of the gladiators. And while he's easily lumped into the big fat group of givers of movie marquee exclamations, he remains, in truth, one of the most consistently passionate, insightful, witty and bold film critics the form has ever known. In recent years, throughout his very public battle with thyroid cancer, he has been forthright, and self-deprecating -- writing recently that "Well, we're all dying in increments. (Mary Elizabeth Williams, “Roger Ebert on ‘Oprah’: The critic’s voice,” Salon, 2 March 2010)

Roger Ebert, and the beauty of confusion

Roger Ebert IS good. My understanding of him is largely as one of the baby boomers (I guess he's a bit +) who didn't understand living as a constant recourse to tactics and positioning. He lives, explores, self-questions, develops, knows ease and has fun. His life has been an inspiring well-spring of life-engagement, leadership, and generosity, that inspires but also potentially INTIMIDATES, balks, those of us who grew up in the more recent years of, alright, it's now no rising-tide-that-lifts-all-boats but a delimited single pie: have at one another, "boys."

Contemplating contemporary manners, I remember awhile back him feeling the world around him had morphed into sheer nightmare. Like David Denby, he saw and experienced but really couldn't get inside this new world of snark and sneer, so he seemed simply confused and aghast. I'll admit that it was actually pleasing to this probably better man serve as further confirmation for the possible mistruth that the aged at some point lose traction and relevance: no generation should feel that their best efforts will seem but a slip away from what their predecessors managed.

Link: Roger Ebert on "Oprah": The critic's voice


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …