Talk:Roger Ebert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

An individual covered in this article, Roger Ebert, has edited Wikipedia as Rebert (talk • contribs).

Contents 1 On films about African Americans 2 The Rebert account was only active for two days 3 Roger Ebert was here! 4 Critical Life 5 Trivia 6 Bit role? 7 Religion 8 Controversy? 9 Married on 50th or 51st Birthday? 10 Does Roger Ebert smoke? 11 Criticism 12 University of Chicago 13 Iffy edit 14 Damn vandals... 15 Roger Moore? 16 Ebert's distaste for Imovie

[edit] On films about African Americans

"He reacts very strongly to films about the lives of African Americans."

Reacts strongly how? Positively, negatively? And why? This statement seems quite out of place and is unsourced.

13 October 2006

[edit] The Rebert account was only active for two days

Note that Special:Contributions/Rebert only shows activity for two days in November 2004, and, of course, it is difficult to verify that this was really Mr. Ebert or just a good imposter. One might even ask if the "Notable Wikipedian" template is appropriate. 69.181.82.221 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ebert was here!

I'd just like to point out that I am fairly sure Roger Ebert himself has edited this page. user:J.J.

Checking history, you seem to be right: User:Rebert {comments there not his}. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this whatsoever, as long as the end result is NPOV &c. It looks like they were useful entries, though.--Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that such a user is the true man. However, he has given praise to Wikipedia in the past (on his website, I believe). --AWF

I'm not sure either, although Ebert is known for being an active web user. Although I doubt he would credit a picture as "his own" picture. He shows up on Rotten Tomatoes once in awhile.--Amynewyork4248 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He referenced Wikipedia from his "Nacho Libre" review. Aaрон Кинни (t) 09:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Life

Does the link in the Critical Life section to TheaterHopper.com [1] really have a point? Ebert is a Pulitzer prize winner. I don't think TheaterHopper has anything interesting to say about Ebert. The opinion of someone with credentials in film criticism would be more valuable than a link to a rather weak comic strip. --24.159.243.214 07:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only point is that there's been a push in Wikipedia for citing all opinions, and I thought that link had a good summary of Ebert's style of reviewing v. someone like Roeper. If you have a better source, use it. - Lifefeed 15:22, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I think the opinion is valid and interesting, but if TheaterHopper is the only source we can find, I'm afraid I think it should just be removed. TheaterHopper isn't nearly authoritative enough to be encyclopedic about this issue — a better source is required. Unfortunately I couldn't find a good source myself. Many years ago there was an amusing exchange between Roger and Gene concerning populism vs. elitism. After Gene asserted that he was more populist than Roger, Roger replied that his film criticsm was more populist and more cerebral — he had Gene surrounded. --165.189.91.148 17:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I moved the "pop culture trivia" section over to Siskel & Ebert where it's more appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 00:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bit role?

Someone said Ebert had a bit role in Stranger Than Paradise. Poker player. any confirmation? GangofOne 06:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If so, he fails to disclose it in his review. Nor does IMDb confirm. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

How the heck can you be a Roman Catholic and an athiest? Pardon my ignorance (as I'm neither Catholic nor athiest). UndeniablyJordan 20:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"I was raised Catholic, so of course I'm now an atheist." - Bob Odenkirk. - MrBook 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jordan, one cannot possibly be both atheist and Catholic. The Odenkirk quote is a joke, meaning to say that he found the beliefs and practices of Catholicism so off-putting and ridiculous that he ended up rejecting the idea of God and religion completely. It's actually a variation of a Woody Allen joke about being raised Jewish. (And no, before you ask, you can't be both an atheist and a practicing Jew at the same time, either.) -- Minaker

It's a little different with Jews, because "Jew" is used as an ethnic term as well as a religious term, so therefore it is possible to be a Jewish atheist, as Woody Allen would freely admit to being. "Catholic," on the other hand, is almost always used as a strictly religious term, and therefore "Catholic atheist" is usually thought to be an oxymoron. In my experience, people who were raised Catholic but no longer believe or practice refer to themselves as ex-Catholics. But nonreligious Jews generally still call themselves Jews, and are regarded as such not just by Jewish tradition itself, but by society as a whole. marbeh raglaim 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The current article makes no mention of Roger's religious upbringing or current beliefs. Anyone have any citable info? - Mcasey666 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think religion is a big part of who he is as a public figure, so it makes sense that it doesn't appear in the article. But he seems to indicate in his review for Passion of the Christ that he is an ex-Catholic. However, I've never seen him identify as an atheist, and he often comes off as somewhat spiritual in outlook--or at the very least respectful of religious beliefs. marbeh raglaim 20:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw him say in his own words that he considers himself an Agnostic. He said it on ABC in an interview where he was talking about the Passion of the Christ controversy. However, for the life of me, I can't remember what show he was on.-unsigned, December 18, 2006 11:21 PM

Really now...? Doesn't the article say he's a "devouted Roman Catholic" right now? I dunno, but most of the "Atheist/Agnostic" talks from him seem a bit satirical. Anyways, I dont' think it really matters, it's just something that should be pointed out. IronCrow 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

How about a controversy section? I'd be happy to go ahead and do the research, but I don't want to bother if it's just going to get deleted. Possible incidents would include Ebert's political comments in his reviews which have drawn fire from right-wing pundits, and his initial negative review of Brown Bunny and subsequent public feud with its creator. -- Jamiem

Totally agree; the Brown Bunny incident was notorious (and hilarious). 66.131.51.64 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. As the most popular critic in America and on the Internet, the number of incidents involving Ebert are numerous.

According to the "Birth of a Nation" article, it says that Ebert gave the movie a good review...is this true? I think this qualifies as a controversial issue.

He listed it in his Great films section, but he put other Griffith movies first. He says of it "The film represents how racist a white American could be in 1915 without realizing he was racist at all." Although he indicates most of the racism is in the third act and concedes it has a visual beauty and narrative power. Whether it's a good review is kind of a matter of opinion, but I think largely he found it to be historically important despite its repulsive aspects. The full review is here.[2]--T. Anthony 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He did give it a good review, but I'm not sure how that can be construed as controversial.--Amynewyork4248 16:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is akin to labeling Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn controversial because of the language the characters use. --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy. Twain's book, in the context of its time, is very much anti-racist, even if it contains some offensive language. Birth of a Nation is overtly racist, plain and simple. I agree, however, that it's a bit of a stretch to call Ebert's defense of the film's undeniable artistic merits "controversial." The AFI's praise for the film generated some controversy, but I am unaware that Ebert's heavily qualified review did. marbeh raglaim 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Married on 50th or 51st Birthday?

I could have sworn that I once read or heard that Ebert married on his 50th birthday, but according to this article it was his 51st. Did I just remember incorrectly, was I misinformed, or did Ebert and his wife get engaged or something a year earlier on his 50th?

[edit] Does Roger Ebert smoke?

Can anybody inquire into his past, and whether he once smoked, and then had to give it up because of doctor's recommendations?

I don't believe so. There hasn't been an indication that I've read to support this, though I may be wrong. --AWF

[edit] Criticism

Is Andrew Dice Clay's opinion of Ebert really relevant to the article? I could see the opinions of other reviewers being of interest, but a hack like Clay? Does it really matter? Seems more like gossip than encyclopedia material.Michael Dorosh 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, anonymous editors seem to be reinserting Clay's comments. Basically, all that says is that an actor got a bad review and called Ebert a bad name. What is the point of including it? Can someone post something vaguely reasonable in favour of keeping the material? I'm not seeing it.Michael Dorosh 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this would require a publication's or famous blog's written opinion to include this, but Ebert has been "known" to often (and not just occasionally) pan well-recieved movies and like poorly-rated ones. For example, I have heard that he "famously panned star wars when it first came out" (this coming from someone from a forum). The review I found on his site praised it, but I smell revisionism. And also, he gave The Da Vinci Code 3 stars, and I'm out of specific examples but I remember many comments from the Adult Swim Message Boards... Blueaster 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What idiot told you he panned Star Wars? The review of the original version has four stars, the movie is listed as a "Great Movie" and the Special Edition got four stars. 152.23.196.162 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Slightly more specific criticism I've heard is that he lets politics and attractiveness bias his reviews. On politics he seems to admit that he does let his politics sway his reviews at times and will talk politics in his review. His politics is in most respects Left/liberal as in favoring drug legalization, supporting racial minority interests, feminist-leaning, anti-corporation, anti-Republican Party, etc.(Although he got in a fight with Michael Moore about Oscar Night, he felt Moore was indeed booed, he's generally been very supportive of his films) Generally hostile to Communism or authoritarian Left though. On attractiveness I remember someone indicating he "goes easier" on a movie when he finds the lead actress really sexy. For example his review of Gigli was almost positive and he spoke favorably of the speech Jennifer Lopez gave in it concerning the vagina.--T. Anthony 06:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The other thing he did which really grated on me is he said in a review that Lahore was the capital of Pakistan. I know that might sound petty, but I was still a bit floored an educated Pulitzer Prize winner would mix that up.--T. Anthony 06:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ebert very often gets small details like that wrong - to his credit, I suppose, he leaves them intact on his website. Often the details he muddles up are explained in the movies. I don't have any specific examples at the moment but have noticed this trend in the past, so his faux pas with Lahore is not alone - certainly can't be intentional either.Michael Dorosh 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ebert's not a detail type of person. I've noticed that his plot summaries often contain inaccuracies about the movie under discussion. Of course, none of this belongs in the article if it's just our personal observations. marbeh raglaim 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you will need a bit more evidence than an Internet message board to support the claim that he panned Star Wars. I have his 1990 book, and it has what I assume to be his original review of Star Wars, which he called an "out-of-body experience." Furthermore, on his top-10 list from 1977 [3] he clearly includes Star Wars. To have fabricated all this would require a good deal more than revisionism: it would be a flat-out coverup, and there's no evidence Ebert has done anything of the kind anywhere else: for example, he didn't excise his negative review of A Clockwork Orange, and he has more than once admitted to being mistaken or changing his mind about films in the past. marbeh raglaim 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't pan Star Wars ANH. He did, however, state that Return of the Jedi was the "most interesting" of the trilogy and that "The Empire strikes back" was the least. I can't remember how he defined "interesting", but I know which of the two I'd rather see.

Nope, that's not right either. Taken straight from his review of TESB: "The Empire Strikes Back is the best of three Star Wars films, and the most thought-provoking." Taken straight from his 1997 review of ROTJ: "If I had to choose, I would say this is the least of the Star Wars films." 152.23.196.162 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As for his liberal bias, I think that's a valid criticism, but I should point out that he has always been forthright about it. I personally believe that he (along with most other critics) was very generous about Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but it's worth mentioning that he also gave a positive review to Michael Moore Hates America, and he's shown a willingness to reevaluate Moore's films when presented with evidence of the distortions contained in them. marbeh raglaim 15:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Chicago

He doesn't not teach a class at the University of Chicago. The class is taught downtown and costs money to everyone, including University of Chicago students.

So he does teach a course at Uni of Chicago? Optimus Sledge 14:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't, but he doesn't not teach it downtown and it costs money to everyone for him to not teach it, and that includes Univ. of Chicago students. ;-) 152.23.196.162 22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't not completely not follow you now. NotOptimus Sledge 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iffy edit

Is it OK to say in the article that he hates Protestants? He bashed them once during a recording of Siskel and Ebert 156.34.208.149 16:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to come up with a date and a source, and ultimately you'd be constrained to "On DATE during X, Ebert stated that STATEMENT", preferably with a link to your source and any media coverage. Writing involves a lot of time-consuming hard work. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What is being referred to is a humorous (if decidedly off-color) little rant he gives (along with several other equally un-PC rants) in a well-known outtake segment from when he and Siskel were filming promos for their show. The entire thing is done with a mocking tone, and I think somebody would really need to be looking hard for something to get upset about to actually put any credence in any of it. (And the clip itself is hilarious, for what it's worth - a large part of it is simply he and Siskel trading insults with each other.)

[edit] Damn vandals...

I thought he was dead for a second there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.238.117 (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Roger Moore?

I just saw this line in the controversy section: "has given positive reviews for even the most mediocre left leaning movie (anything by Roger Moore for example)". Mistake surely? If it said "mediocre left eyebrow raising movie" I would understand. Perhaps the author meant to write Michael Moore? Beanhead McGinty 10:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • haha clever!

[edit] Ebert's distaste for Imovie

When Ebert reviewed Sarah Silverman's "Jesus is Magic" on his At the Movies program, he said it looked like it had been edited with Imovie.

For over a year now, I've been wondering what was the basis for his cryptic observation.

Was he implying that Imovie is just plain hard to use, or produces inferior edits?

Or was his attempt to nail Jesus is Magic a Freudian manifestation of his desire to nail something else, and - groping for words - he bandied about the "Imovie" reference, this being the product of a deepseated desire nearly all day long nearly bursting from his lips, all of this at the drop of the proverbial hat, merely because, because - words almost fail me here - everybody else was doing so?

Sure would be nice if he could clear his Imovie reference up. 198.177.27.20 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)