It's been several years since film critic Gene Siskel passed away, but I have yet to get used to his replacement Richard Roeper. He does okay, I guess. He's doing what he's supposed to at the job, you know, telling us about movies he's seen and whether he thinks we should see them or not. Fine, he does that. But you know what?
He's not Gene.
And there's the problem. Siskel and Ebert were a team. There was a well hewn dynamic between them and they approached the movies from different perspectives and as equals. Richard Roeper - no matter what he says - is not Roger Ebert's equal. Oh sure, he thinks that he doesn't give Ebert an inch, but that's just bull. No, he is way too reverential to the guy who, when all's said and done, gave him the job in the first place. Roeper is just the temp who was hired full time.
Hey, is Roger Ebert okay? I noticed that he seemed really thin and that his voice sounded old and quavery. The guy used to be immense, but now all he has left are some sad jowls that remind us of his once magnificent girth. I sure hope he lost the weight to be healthier and that it's not a sign of him wasting away. On the other hand, I miss fat Ebert. Oh sure, obesity is a gigantic health risk, can lead to high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, premature death, blah, blah, blah.
So maybe he lost weight for his 'health', but what about us? Formerly he was jolly and loved life which you can do if you stay up all night eating Snickers bars. As an example. I don't know that he ever actually did that, but he might have. He no longer seems to have that joy that he once did and I know it must be because those Snicker bar binges (again, as an example) are long gone and will never happen ever. And he's just one of those people who need to be heavy, like Orson Welles, or Oprah, or Star Jones.
But you see there was the counterpoint that Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel provided each other. Roger was fat, Gene was thin. Roger had hair, Gene didn't. Roger was the everyman movie-goer and Gene was the intellectual snob. It worked with those two, because you knew where they were coming from and you also knew that you as a consumer of Movie fare were probably right there somewhere in the middle. You could always trust that their opinions collectively could be your guide.
With one exception: Foreign movies. They just went into ecstasy over Foreign movies and they were just wrong. It just so happened that I happened to see a movie they both recommended and tell me if you see the possiblities here. The movie was set in Mexico at a circus, but it starts in an insane asylum with the 'hero' (a young, obviously disturbed young man) naked and perched in a bare tree that the custodians of the asylum thoughtfully placed for him.
In flashbacks it is revealed how he got there, which is that he came from a circus family and his mother lost her arms and he had to stand behind her from then on and be her arms. His mother had some mental health issues of her own and was a serial killer (I seem to remember. It's been awhile).
Anyways, I've told you enough to give you the picture. The movie was totally stupid and weird and you never could figure out what was going on or why. Of course, Sisker and Ebert both loved it. Because it was avante garde and symbolic and powerful and ... oh, please. Just take my word for it and never rent anything that sounds like what I described. I'm not a professional critic, but trust me.
Well, I learned never to listen to them about Foreign films and that's good advice for you, too. Never listen to the critics about Foreign films. These films will always suck from an American perspective. There's a reason why the whole world watches our movies and we don't watch theirs. We know how to make them and they don't.
Then one day, I started to notice Gene getting thin and it looked for all the world that he was wearing a toupee that was designed to mimic a thinning hairline. And finally one day, he did die. Roger Ebert auditioned a series of guest co-critics in his place and they rotated between them, which was fair because who could take Gene Siskel's place? My first choice for a replacement was a rather attractive black woman whose opinions were rather silly, but if I had to see someone sitting across from Roger Ebert it might as well be a sexy woman.
Finally, he did not choose her, but Richard Roeper. So, he made the wrong selection as far as I was concerned, but life moves on and we have to keep going. Then Roger lost weight and instead of fat and thin we now have not-so-fat and stocky. Instead of hairy and bald we have hairy and hairy. And instead of everyman and effete intellectual snob we had everyman and ... I don't know.
Roeper has some carefully thought out reviews, I guess. He does a satisfactory job but he'll never be ... well, you know
No comments:
Post a Comment