September 12, 2008

• Sorry, Ebert's account is here.
• I didn't see any mention of the incident on Lumenick's blog... is there one? (Granted -- I just gave it a quick glance.)
• Nope, I linked it mainly for the picture of the gentleman in question and the possibility there'd be some mention later on.
• Not that I doubt that it happens. I'm just wondering if he's hoping it'll all go away by not mentioning it? You'd think movie reviewers would be more cognizant of movie theater etiquette than the general public, but often they're not. In my stint as a movie critic for my college newspaper, we got into a lot of press screenings (with the "real" movie reviewers, which was a hoot!). Those guys would often talk to each other and use flashlights to take notes. They didn't care if that wrecked everyone else's ability to pay attention.
• Oddly, when I was following this story last night, Lumenick's blog had a September 11th entry that has since been taken down. Admittedly, there were some nasty comments in it, but why take down the whole entry?
• As long as Ebert wasn't hurt (and from his account, the thwack didn't cause him any pain), I find the incident gut-bustingly funny and somehow life-affirming.
• *gives episode a thumbs-up*
• It's particularly enjoyable as Lumenick, no matter what he does in life from now on, will forever be "the guy who beat up Roger Ebert".
• it's Roeper who really deserves to be smacked, no? can i get a vote for Jeffrey Lyons?
• A publication of mine was once endorsed in a Roger Ebert book.
• Lumenick needs to up the meds?
• No more coffee for him!
• Could it be that Ebert had a hearing problem as well as a speaking one? Otherwise, why did he keep on fondling this belligerent, standoffish guy?
• Ebert's essay answers that question.
• He IS a hearing person. I'm sure he meant well, in his own way, and deserves credit for trying to make less of his and the other guy's flailings.
• I'm not questioning whether he can hear. Think about it: you're in a theater to review a subtitled movie. The guy in front of you is leaning over so you can't see the subtitles. You are physically incapable of speaking or of straining your neck to look around him. You tap him on the shoulder and he's a dismissive douchebag, doesn't even bother to find out what's going on. You still need to be able to read the subtitles so you can review this movie. What do you do?
• You shoot the hostage.
• Presuming I was in good enough health to do so without too much trouble - which I don't think Ebert is - I might try to find another seat. If there was one empty, and if it was in a location where a bunch of people wouldn't have to get up to let me get to it. So, that probably wasn't an option for him. Pass a note? Probably wouldn't be too effective in a dark theater. I think I probably would have done the same thing Ebert did. And I still think the whole thing is hilarious as long as anyone didn't get hurt.
• My feelings about Roger Ebert have gone from "Hack TV Critic", to "Hell of a Great Guy!" in the last year or so. His cancer struggles, the Rob Schneider episode, the Vincent Gallo incident, his essay (linked above) regarding Lumenick... Have all given me the sense of a really good human. Add to that this from Wikipedia the "Boulder Pledge": The Boulder Pledge is a personal promise, first coined by Roger Ebert in 1996, not to purchase anything offered through email spam. The pledge is as follows: Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community. Ebert coined the term during a panel at the University of Colorado in 1996. He wrote the text which appears above. It was subsequently published in the December 1996 issue of Yahoo! Internet Life magazine in Ebert's column titled "Enough! A Modest Proposal to End the Junk Mail Plague." The Boulder Pledge has become one of the basic principles of the anti-spam community in an attempt to make e-mail spam less profitable. Plus, his brilliant summation of the Palin-turbation that is taking over the US in Ebert on Palin have all earned him my respect.
• Not to mention that he wrote the screenplay for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, which in itself raises his esteem in my mind. He's a pretty decent critic as well; misguided at times, but far more knowledgeable and insightful than most others.
• I have to admit, I didn't hold him in any particular regard until I knew him from more than just his tv work -- his written pieces are far better, in that he knows exactly what is important about any given movie. Once I discovered those (usually for films off the mainstream), I realized just how good he is, and how often I'm in total agreement. I'll take any review of his on faith.
• I remember an old sketch comedy show (Maybe SNL? Maybe The State? IDK.) used to do a Siskel & Ebert parody where the two of them ended up in a sissified fistfight at the end of every sketch.
• That was no sketch comedy show -- that was the old Sneak Previews on PBS, before they were told to quit being gay.
• "There is never any doubt about giving four stars, or one star. The problem comes with the movies in the middle."
• That's a pretty good essay, certainly encapsulates perfectly how hard it is to review everything within shouting distance of "meh." The really good ones and really bad ones are a cakewalk, and are also really fun to write, usually because really bad movies are every bit as much fun to watch and write about as really good ones. I've always identified with Ebert because he's so eager to admit his prejudices, his lurking fanboy, and his desire for everyone to be rewarded for their work. Also, he is the only critic I know of who recognized "Dark City" for the work of genius that it is, loved it so much that he even does DVD commentary for it.
• He's crazy about Guy Maddin, which I think is great ... Maddin's almost too weird for my tastes.
• I love all of these. "Fruit Cart" is a favorite.
• Hehe. I like "Ali McGraw's Disease."
• This is the dawning of the Age of Credulity
• I suppose it could have been worse...
• Thoughts on Bill O'Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse
• It has been nearly four years since Roger Ebert lost his lower jaw and his ability to speak. Now television's most famous movie critic is rarely seen and never heard, but his words have never stopped.