A supplement to the Roger Ebert documentary LIFE ITSELF.

Yes, the LIFE ITSELF documentary film of film critic/author Roger Ebert's life and work (getting both theatrical and cable TV On Demand releases) is as good as the reviews say it is.

But, in the apparent need to keep the running time around two hours, some things and/or people are unexplained or under-discussed.  Here's a list.

1. HOWIE MOVSHOVITZ: a critic friend of Ebert's interviewed in LIFE ITSELF.  Movshovitz was a film critic for the now-defunct Colorado newspaper RockyMountain News and has reviewed for Colorado Public Radio.  Here's a sample review of his for the reissue of Max Ophuls' LOLA MONTES: http://www.rialtopictures.com/images_9/lola_colradio.html

2.  JONATHAN ROSENBAUM: former critic for the alternative newspaper Chicago Reader and film historian (DISCOVERING ORSON WELLES).   For a sampling of Rosenbaum's film writing, his website is: http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net

3.  About half of LIFE ITSELF concerns the long-running teaming of Ebert with Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel.  For a comprehensive look at their partnership/rivalry, read the e-book ENEMIES, A LOVE STORY: THE ORAL HISTORY OF SISKEL AND EBERT by Josh Schollmeyer.
http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Love-Story-Kindle-Single-ebook/dp/B007MFTOGM/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1404620770&sr=1-1&keywords=enemies+a+love+story

4.  RICHARD ROEPER: Ebert's post-Siskel TV partner (presumably chosen both for being telegenic and younger) is not mentioned in the film.  Perhaps Roeper may appear in a DVD release extra.

5. RUSS MEYER--the soft-porn provocateur is dealt with in a sort of handle-this-with-a-pair-of-tongs fashion in LIFE ITSELF.  After BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, Ebert did more screenwriting for Meyer.  Ebert contributed the original story for 1976's UP!  using the pseudonym  "Reinhold Timme". And the script (under nom de plume R. Hyde) for 1979's BENEATH THE VALLEY OF THE ULTRA-VIXENS.  In 1977, Ebert and Meyer began work on a later-abandoned film starring The Sex Pistols with the title WHO KILLED BAMBI?

6. PAULINE KAEL: the famed NEW YORKER film critic (mostly between 1968-1991) was a friend and champion of Ebert.  And, like Ebert, she would engage in the practice of being friendly with  directors and not recusing from reviewing their films (Kael being known for being pals with Robert Altman and Sam Peckinpah).

If you'd like a "Best Of Roger Ebert" compilation book, try this:
http://www.amazon.com/Awake-Dark-Best-Roger-Ebert/dp/0226182010/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1404622295&sr=1-12

RIP Roger Ebert.

"When critics like Roger Ebert or Janet Maslin talk about film, they
demonstrate a deep knowledge of and respect for their subject, a
respect for filmmakers regardless of the specific blunders made on a
particular film, and a genuine unwavering joy at the magic of cinema.
Even when they don't like something of mine, I respect the source.
They make me want to try harder."--James Cameron in 1998, in the midst
of his rebuttal to Kenneth Turan's negative review of TITANIC.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/roger-eberts-candidness-cancer-role-model-patients/story?id=18872647#.UV3wpknn_mQ

Something to remember when violent movies get re-condemned in the wake of Connecticut and Oregon.

Reposting this comment made by "djiggs" on the HOLLYWOOD ELSEWHERE site:
"From his review of Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant,' a fictionalized account of a Columbine-like school shooting, here's Roger Ebert on the media's behavior while reporting these kinds of events:
"Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?"
"The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.
"The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."
"In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them.
"I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."
This is Ebert again. I gather my point is what goes around, comes around.

Roger and Chaz Ebert looking for other funding for their film reviews show.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/11/unless_we_find_an_angel.html

I'll repeat some of what I've said here in the past:
Yes, it's good that Roger Ebert put a film review show on television to take up the gap left when The Walt Disney Company guillotined AT THE MOVIES.

But, like the sad season of AT THE MOVIES when Ben Mankiewicz was shackled to shallow Ben (son of Jeffrey) Lyons, Ignatly the Intellect is handcuffed a la 39 STEPS to supersmiling-though-not-dumb Christy Lemire (essentially Richard "careerist" Roeper in drag).

And I don't understand why Roger and Chaz Ebert seem to have a weakness for too-eager-to-be-telegenic cardboard people like Lemire and Roeper.  Perhaps too much deference to TV execs who were likely in preschool when Roger won his Pulitzer Prize.

If the current Ebert show fails to find non-Ebert money to produce and dies a premature death, all one can say is to read Roger's very good autobiography LIFE ITSELF and seek out old clips of SISKEL AND EBERT in its various incarnations to see film criticism on television done right.

[UPDATE 11/11/11: Here's Chaz Ebert thanking viewers of EBERT PRESENTS for their support thus far: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/11/a_personal_message_from_chaz_e.html#more]

I've seen EBERT PRESENTS AT THE MOVIES. Here's my review.

http://www.ebertpresents.com/

Giving the show one thumb up for the Russian critic first-named Ignatly and one thumb down for the off-putting Christy Lemire of the Associated Press.  I don't know why Roger Ebert has a fatal attraction to aggressively telegenic personalities such as Lemire and Richard Roeper.  Unlike Roeper, Lemire at least doesn't give off the odor of "I don't really like movies but this is a boss career move."  But Lemire is yet another TV "personality" that has obviously been trained by image consultants to smile just about every time she delivers a line of copy on-camera.

Thumbs down for Roger's use of ubertraditional news broadcaster Bill Kurtis as his substitute speaking voice; I'd prefer someone a bit more brash-sounding like, say, Patton Oswalt or Michael Moore.

Thumbs up for using old SISKEL AND EBERT clips during the closing credits.

Final Verdict: Substitute either Lisa Schwarzbaum (ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY) or Ben Mankiewicz (who survived the Ben-and-Ben AT THE MOVIES with professional dignity) for Lemire and Roger Ebert will have a more viable film-review series than what can now be seen on public television stations nationwide.

Roger and Chaz Ebert revive AT THE MOVIES with new hosts.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/roger-ebert-presents-at-the-moe.html

It's good to read that Roger Ebert has resurrected AT THE MOVIES--to air on PBS in January.  As for the on-air talent: Christy Lemire of the Associated Press is less glib than Richard Roeper, but still mainstream-movie-friendly.  Elvis Mitchell (known both for his print career and NPR hosting) is a welcome idiosyncratic choice to fill the other chair.

At the very least, it will be a vast improvement on the Ben Lyons/Ben Mankiewicz version of AT THE MOVIES.  Hoping there will also be room for A.O. (Tony) Scott and Michael Phillips to revive their recently-canceled-by-Disney double act.

AT THE MOVIES:RIP.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/03/see_you_at_the_movies.html

The above is Roger Ebert's glass-more-than-half-full eulogy for the AT THE MOVIES show--essentially the remnants of SNEAK PREVIEWS, the Siskel-and-Ebert show I first remember seeing on the Dallas, TX PBS outlet KERA-TV beginning around 1978 (when I was a college student living in Wichita Falls, TX).

Ebert and his wife Chaz are planning on a new film review show for TV--and I wish them well with their endeavor.

I'm curious as to who they can cut a deal with, given that there will be a lot of media conglomerates with we-don't-have-room-for-this-esoteric-low-dollar-generating-stuff attitude like the Walt Disney Company (which dealt the death blow to the Michael Phillips/A.O. Scott AT THE MOVIES this week).

Critic Erik Childress on the continuing trainwreck of AT THE MOVIES.

Thanks again to Jeffrey Wells' HOLLYWOOD ELSEWHERE for providing this link to an article by Erik Childress, which, while a bit long, comments on Ben Lyons (the smarmy one) and Ben Mankiewicz's (the smarter one) sitdown with an Associated Press TV scribe to spin AT THE MOVIES as turning the corner and heading towards success: http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2689

The article also reminds readers of Ben Lyons' Greatest Hits during his critical career for E! and Disney, including his "One of the Greatest Films Ever" blurb about the Will Smith remake of I AM LEGEND.

After having my head explode and my stomach turn from witnessing young Lyons' terminal glibness, I quit watching AT THE MOVIES months ago.

One final comment about the Childress article:
Apparently, Lyons father, hack critic Jeffrey Lyons (who still has a TV show carried by NBC affiliates), once called Roger Ebert a "putz."

The mind boggles when you consider what Ebert has achieved vs. what Lyons and his nonillustrious son don't even try for.

Post-Academy Awards comments, plus what Ebert had to say.

In past years, Roger Ebert was one of the hosts of the post-Oscar local telecast on KABC-TV Channel 7. Here's a link to Roger's recently-posted article on the 81st annual ceremony: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090222/OSCARS/902229997

I didn't see all of the telecast, but thought that Lawrence Mark and Bill Condon did a surprisingly not-bad job of production. Perhaps the only major debit was the decision to have Queen Latifah (again adopting her Dana Owens vocalist persona) sing "I'll Be Seeing You" over the In Memoriam segment. Let the clips speak for themselves, please.

A minor debit for the Judd Apatow PINEAPPLE EXPRESS-themed clipshow, which mostly existed for Apatow to extend a "my movies make a lot of money for the Industry and all I get is a Blackberry message to make a short film for the Oscar show" middle-finger to Hollywood. Note to Judd: with the sort-of exception of FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, most of the films I saw that you had an active or passive hand in creating for release last year aren't going to be considered comedy classics (and that especially goes for STEP BROTHERS). Even the JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE commercial with Kimmel and Tom Cruise was funnier.

Otherwise, the awards were predictable, except for Foreign Film (thought it would go to THE CLASS or WALTZ WITH BASHIR), Feature Documentary (thought something intended as more conventionally ennobling such as TROUBLE THE WATER or THE GARDEN would win over the generally good, overly-adoring-of-performance-art MAN ON WIRE), costumes (glad to see THE DUCHESS shown a tiny amount of love) and Best Actor (equally happy with either Sean Penn or Mickey Rourke taking the prize home).

And congratulations to Kate Winslet and (posthumously) Heath Ledger for winning what can be partially considered Body-of-Work awards.

Ben Lyons--is he the superstupid future of film criticism?

Searching my distant memory, there are a couple of things I recall from Pauline Kael's "The Current Cinema" columns of THE NEW YORKER.

One--She wrote about a NY PBS station's shoddy treatment of silent films broadcast (i.e. not showing them at the proper speed). Ms. Kael talked to station management and received an answer like "So we'll do this for you and the three people that care."

Two--Ms. Kael quoted Frank Yablans (a producer who was an ace marketer of not-always-classic films like SILVER STREAK, CONGO and the legendary MOMMIE DEAREST) as saying that film critics needed to be replaced every few years. Presumably Yablans meant that critics/reviewers who stay on the job too long wouldn't be as receptive to below-average current product as the go-along/get-along types who need to write favorable copy and get those Movie Star interviews for their employers.

Yablans probably would have loved someone like Ben Lyons in the 70s/80s.

Ben Lyons, son of the famed mediocrite Jeffrey Lyons (who once co-hosted a post-Siskel/Ebert SNEAK PREVIEWS with Michael Medved), cheerfully gives Disney/ABC the kind of knowledge-challenged down-with-all-things-current-as-long-as-they're-mainstream wet kisses each week on AT THE MOVIES.

Thanks to Jeffrey Wells of HOLLYWOOD-ELSEWHERE for posting this link to a LOS ANGELES TIMES article critical of Lyons the younger: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-lyons28-2008dec28,0,5374132,full.story

If one were to actually complain to a Disney exec about the hiring of woefully underqualified Ben Lyons (in terms of glib careerism, Lyons outpaces even Richard Roeper), what would the response be?

Perhaps this: "So what? You're one of the ten people who cares."

Roger Ebert on film criticism making way for more celeb gossip.

Thanks to Jeffrey Wells' HOLLYWOOD ELSEWHERE blog for alerting me to the following blog entry from Roger Ebert about the latest blow to film criticism--the Associated Press wanting its film-related articles to be no longer than 500 words: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/death_to_film_critics_long_liv.html

Maybe another death blow was dealt recently when Kenneth Turan, the LOS ANGELES TIMES film critic who angered James Cameron by essentially evaluating TITANIC as mediocre schlock which lowered the standards of mainstream Hollywood filmmaking, gave a pass to the current girl-loves-vampire film TWILIGHT (come to think of it, so did Richard Corliss, who once in FILM COMMENT had his issues with Ebert and the late Gene Siskel about the SISKEL AND EBERT TV show's effects on the criticism profession).

The future of mainstream film criticism will increasingly be inherited by get-along-by-going-along careerists like the AP's Christy LeMire and Ben "I love going to junkets" Lyons. And most younger people won't mourn this because they don't have the time to read more than 500 words at one sitting.