Roger Ebert

When I was a young child, my parents gave me a collection of Roger Ebert's reviews.  I don't exactly remember what edition it was, but I believe it was the 1990 Roger Ebert Movie Guide.  While the book itself was probably swallowed up by the messy floor of my childhood bedroom, its impact has not been lost.  My parents may not know this, but I used this book as a way to "see" films I was not allowed to see.

At the tender age of 7, I was not permitted to see horror films.  Though I sometimes found ways of viewing a Nightmare on Elm Street here or a Halloween there, I often found myself without a source for such frightening fare.  Ebert's book was such a source.  I would dog-ear the reviews of films like Serpent and the Rainbow and Near Dark.  In the smoky light of my flashlight, I would read Ebert's synopses and the terrifying scenes would play out in my mind.

There is one review I would return to, again and again.  One late evening, I was excited to find that Ebert had written a rewiew for 1981's Friday the 13th, Part 2.  I was soon disappointed that there was no synopsis beyond the basic description of a masked killer hacking up young virgins.  My disappointment did not last, and I soon found myself wrapped up in Ebert's anaylsis.  He did not talk about the movie so much, but instead focused on the audience and their reaction to the film.  Ebert beautifully described a  Chicago theatre audience screaming and laughing at the antics of Jason Voorhees. He was not bothered by how poorly made the film was.  The audience enjoyed the film, and it helped them to escape their daily lives for 90 minutes.  

Roger Ebert believed the audience was as important as those images on the silver screen.  For him, film-viewing was a communal experience.   In all his reviews, Ebert never let his great knowledge and expertise alienate him from the average movie audience.  At the same time, he stuck to his guns when he thought a film was a big piece of crap.  No one could cut a film to its core like Ebert. I'm sure there are many filmmakers who still exhibit the scars of a Ebert review.  Like no other viewer, Ebert balanced his intellectual opinion with a knowledge of the audience.  Those with a Film Masters could appreciate his ingenious insight.  Those layman who just loved a good story could find which movie they should view at the local movieplex.

We all hope to be remembered after we are gone. There is no doubt that Ebert will go down in history as one of the masters, right alongside Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael.  When I tell people that I'd like to be a film reviewer, most say, "Oh, like Roger Ebert?"  "Yes," I answer, "just like Roger Ebert."

You will be missed.