Click HERE to read this post on Detroit's Metro Times.
“Of all the arts, movies are the most powerful aid to
empathy, and good ones make us into better people.”
-Roger
Ebert, 2002
I first read those words in early 2006, during a
particularly cold winter and a particularly cold time in my life. I had just graduated
from college after a long series of changes to “the plan,” and the path to a
life that I was interested in living still seemed painfully foggy. I had also
just been the unwilling participant in a particularly painful break-up, and I
was suddenly facing the prospect of weekends with no girlfriend and no college
parties to go to. Though I didn’t know it yet (because I hadn’t actually seen
the film yet), I was just as directionless—and just as non-waspy—as Benjamin
Braddock in The Graduate. All I wanted
was an adult to do something other than ask me about my future, to say
something other than “plastics.”
Roger Ebert filled that void. During one of many evenings
spent aimlessly wandering around Borders (RIP), I stumbled on the first volume
of Roger Ebert’s “Great Movies” books, and I can honestly say it changed my
life.
I had always been a bit of a cineaste. Seeing Pulp
Fiction and The Shawshank
Redemption in theaters as a 13-year old
first opened the floodgates of my movie love, and before I knew it, I was
probably the only 8th-grader in Muncie, Indiana checking out old
Scorsese and Kubrick movies from the local Hollywood Video. This love of film
continued through high school, when I was dazzled by late-90’s masterpieces
like Being John Malkovich, Magnolia, American Beauty, and Three Kings. But college nights and weekends simply presented
too many temptations and distractions, and I went through a period of several
years where I just didn’t see that many films. I eventually finished college
with an English degree and the idea that I would be a rock critic, but I
quickly realized that I just wasn’t very good at writing about the mechanics of
music.
Finding Roger Ebert’s “The Great Movies” on the shelf at
Borders that cold January day was the moment of clarity that I needed. I
couldn’t believe how many of these films I’d never heard of, and I couldn’t
wait to start watching them. As luck would have it, TCM was playing one of the
movies, The Third Man, that night, and I
loved that film so much that I eventually named my blog after it. My journey
had begun, with Roger Ebert as the best tour guide I could ever imagine.
One of Roger’s favorite quotes is from Groucho Marx, who
once said “I would never want to be a part of any club that would have me as a
member.” It’s a funny idea, but perhaps the reason Roger loved it so much is
because it couldn’t have been farther from his ethos. Roger Ebert wanted everyone
to be a part of his club. No one has ever
made the discussion of art feel more inclusive, more accessible, and downright
friendlier than he did. That he was able to do this without ever dumbing down
himself or his subject matter is a truly remarkable achievement.
While Roger was an academic in the most flattering sense of
the term (it’s difficult to fathom anyone understanding or studying film more
than he did), he never came across that way in his writing. To Roger, the point
was never to speak only to other cineastes, but rather to help everyone become
cineastes. Roger wanted the
conversation to have the widest reaches possible, to touch everyone. As he says
in the quote at the top of this piece (taken from the introduction to “The
Great Movies”), the best movies can “make us into better people.” Roger truly
believed that (as do I), and that’s why he wanted everyone to have the
opportunity to be so affected.
Roger’s conversational tone has been a great influence to my
own writing, and reading his work over the years has taught me an incalculable
amount of lessons in how to convey ideas clearly, effectively, and simply
(though I still have some work to do on that last point). I clearly remember my
first few weeks and months pouring over “The Great Movies,” and eventually it’s
sequels. The anecdote from Omar Sharif that begins his Lawrence of Arabia piece—about how unlikely it was that the film would
even get financed—still informs many of my ideas about the business of
Hollywood. When Roger spoke of The Shawshank Redemption absorbing you to the extent that you lose the
realization you’re watching a movie, I knew just what he was talking about.
When he discussed the concept of real truth versus perceived truth in his JFK
piece, he helped me realize that the latter
can be just as important, even more so, than the former.
And reading Roger’s work might have been the first time I
realized that simply stating what you like wasn’t breaking the rules. It seems
obvious now. After all, isn’t stating what you like what a critic is always doing, at least to some extent? But nobody did it
better than Roger, and nobody did it more passionately. Roger’s favorite movie
scene was in Casablanca, when the
singing Nazis are suddenly drowned out by Victor Laszlo leading the singing of
the French National Anthem, La Marseillaise. For someone who believed that good
movies could make us better people, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Roger
was a sucker for people overcoming the odds to do the right thing.
But I am too, and good movies have definitely made me a
better person; hopefully they still are. My thoughts on murder are inseparable
from those of William Muny in Unforgiven—It’s
a hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all he’s got and all he’s ever
gonna have. One of my favorite movies, Groundhog
Day, is literally about learning how to
become a better person. And The Third Man, the very first movie I ever watched on the recommendation of Roger
Ebert, ends with its protagonist doing the right thing knowing it would cost
him the girl, and yet he still goes after her at the end just to watch her walk
away.
In recent years, I’ve found that I haven’t agreed with
Roger’s taste as much as I used to. As his health continued to decline in the
last few years, I felt that his taste was becoming a little less discerning, as
though he was so thrilled to still be able to go to movies he just couldn’t
bear to be as critical of them. But there’s an important lesson to be learned
there, and it’s that no one has ever loved what he did more than Roger Ebert.
Here’s a painful truth to consider: Roger Ebert has probably
seen more terrible movies than most of us have seen movies, period. When
Michael Caine won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2000 for The Cider
House Rules, he famously joked in his
speech about how much crap he’s made. Well, Roger Ebert saw all of that crap.
He saw all of everyone’s crap. He
saw every latter-day Eddie Murphy movie AND every Katherine Heigl movie. He saw
four Scary Movies, but the Movie
Gods mercifully saved him from a fifth with just a few days to spare. And yet
there was no one more excited for the next movie he’d see than Roger Ebert.
Even after a long series of health setbacks robbed his ability to speak, Roger
still looked forward to interacting with an audience.
I noticed this when I encountered Roger at the 2011 Toronto
International Film Festival. He sat two rows in front of me for a surprisingly
uncrowded interview with the heads of Sony Pictures Classics. Despite the fact
that a handful of major directors (Jonathan Demme, Gus Van Sant, and Atom
Egoyan off the top of my head) were in the room and chatting with people after
the interview, I only wanted to meet Roger. I could tell he was having trouble
moving, he seemed tired, and obviously he couldn’t speak, so I didn’t want to
keep him. I didn’t bother him with talking about my writing, I didn’t give him
a business card, and I didn’t even introduce myself. This wasn’t networking. It
wasn’t about what Roger could do for me, but what he had already done for me. I simply told him that his writing has
been very important to me, and I shook his hand.
But of course, that was an understatement. Roger Ebert has
been so important to me that, like Bruce Springsteen, I no longer even like the
informality of referring to them by their last names. I (falsely) feel like I
know them too well for that. Just Roger will do nicely. And something Roger has
always done is steadfastly called them “movies,” not “films.” Films sound
stuffy, while movies sound enjoyable. Roger always thought movies were
enjoyable. In my own writing, I’ve often struggled with this to the extent that
sometimes in the same paragraph I switch back and forth between the two terms.
Should they be films or movies? I’ve never really figured out an answer I’m
satisfied with, but today at least, they’re movies.
When the news of Roger’s death hit Thursday afternoon, I
immediately felt the need to honor him somehow in what I watched that night.
Then I figured out what seemed like the perfect solution. Just a few days
prior, I had checked out Gates of Heaven from
the library, which was one of the 14 movies from Roger’s first volume of Great
Movies that I hadn’t gotten around to seeing yet. Ostensibly it’s a documentary
about Pet Cemeteries, but really it’s a film about how people deal with death,
so it felt like the perfect movie to watch as I celebrated the life of Roger
Ebert in my own little way.
To my surprise, I didn’t really like it. The pacing was a
little too glacial, the action a little too sedate, the interviews a little too
meandering. But like I always do with a movie that Roger recommends, I read his
review afterwards. And even though Gates of Heaven had disappointed me, Roger’s essay about it did not.
Through his words, I understood what he saw in it, why he found it so
interesting, so revelatory about the human condition. Tastes will never overlap
all of the time, and the goal of the critic isn’t to get people to like
everything (you think) they ought to. But that doesn’t mean you can’t help them
understand the things they don’t like, and maybe even appreciate them. I’ve
never learned more from disagreeing with someone than I have with Roger. And on
the night that Roger Ebert died, he was still teaching me.