Tag: Roger Ebert

Comparing with the Critics – Worst of 1984 – Harry & Son

On By 18cinemalane17 Comments

This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.

Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!

Toward the end of At The Movies’ ‘Stinkers of 1984’ episode, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert share a collection of films they felt were some of the worst movies of 1984. One of the films Roger brought up was Harry & Son. In a brief segment about the movie, Roger refers to the picture as a “sincere, but misguided dream”. Roger also calls Harry & Son “a painfully contrived tear-jerker”. Gene responds before the segment ends that “he and Burt Reynolds are two of the worst in ‘84”, likely referring to Paul Newman. I honestly hadn’t heard of this film until I watched this episode of At The Movies. Therefore, I approached the title with little to no expectations. But now that I have seen Harry & Son, I think calling the picture one of the worst of 1984 is, actually, a bit harsh.

Harry & Son poster created by Orion Pictures

While briefly talking about Harry & Son, Roger brings up Robby Benson. But instead of simply referring to Robby by his name, Roger says “Robby “gee Dad, want a diet pop” Benson”, even saying it in a mocking tone. By addressing Robby’s name in this way, Roger gives the impression Robby’s character, Howard “Howie” Keach, is just a stereotypical surfer jock. As I got to know this character while watching Harry & Son, I discovered this assumption was far from the truth. Throughout the story, Howie always has his heart in the right place. More often than not, he brings a burst of positivity, choosing to look at the glass half full. In a scene where Howie and his father, Harry, are on their porch, Harry orders his son to find a job, a bitter tone in his voice due to his frustrations over his declining health. In a positive, yet matter-of-fact way, Howie informs his dad how he already has a job washing cars. Another scene shows Howie coming home, excited to see his dad arrive so early from work. A big smile is spread across his face and his eyes shine bright with joy. But as he learns his dad has just lost his job, Howie’s face changes to display confusion and fear. This change in persona is seamless, never missing an emotional beat. Moments like this one were made possible by Robby’s acting abilities, showcasing a wide range of emotions and expressions. In my opinion, I think Robby should have, at least, been nominated for his performance in Harry & Son.

It’s In The Name Of The Title Blogathon banner created by Gill from Realweegiemidget Reviews and Rebecca from Taking Up Room

As I just mentioned in the previous paragraph, Harry is frustrated over his declining health. After an incident at a construction site, Harry is forced to be honest about his poor eyesight. One scene has Harry talking with one of his co-workers about his health issues, raising concerns over how these issues will affect his employment. In the 21st century, specifically the 2020s, there has been a risen awareness for men to address their medical issues. So, for Harry to talk to a peer about his health in a movie from the ‘80s is kind of ahead of its time. Later in the story, Howie learns his friend doesn’t have health insurance. When he takes his friend to the hospital, Howie is frustrated by the rejection his friend faces due to the hospital’s policies. The importance of health insurance is another medical topic that has gained attention in the 21st century, including the 2020s. Similar to what I said about Harry’s honesty about his health, I appreciate these brief, yet necessary moments to bring up these serious health subjects, especially in a time when they weren’t found in common societal conversations yet.

Since Harry & Son takes place in Florida, I thought this picture of a Florida shaped pool would make sense for this review. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen. Image originally found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiBkULOrf7Y.

In the introduction of my review, I quoted Roger Ebert’s statements about Harry & Son, with Roger saying the film was a “sincere, but misguided dream” and “a painfully contrived tear-jerker”. I will agree with Roger about the movie being sincere. There were some sweet moments that were written, acted, and directed with a strong amount of sincerity. One example is when Howie goes to a high-end clothing store to purchase a suit jacket. When I first saw that scene, I honestly thought Howie had bought the jacket for himself, showing his dad how he can afford nicer attire. So, imagine my shock when Howie gave the jacket to his dad as a birthday present.

Where Roger and I disagree is how the movie is a “misguided dream” and a “painfully contrived tear-jerker”. I will admit Harry & Son has its flaws, such as scenes ending too quickly and emphasizing showing without telling. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say the movie is “misguided” or “painfully contrived”. With scenes ending too quickly, it felt like the characters were expected to say more. When Nina (Harry’s daughter and Howie’s sister) is talking with a client at a hair salon, I thought Nina was going to respond to the client’s story about their estranged father. But the moment is quickly forgotten as the story moves on. As Howie is reconnecting with Katie, an ex-girlfriend, their conversation is one of the most cryptic pieces of dialogue I’ve ever heard in a movie. While I could see these characters still cared for one another, by observing their expressions and displayed emotions, it took me a few minutes to figure out what Katie and Howie were saying to each other. This is just one example of showing without telling.

Comparing with the Critics banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. TV show title cards created by WTTW National Productions, WTTW, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Lifetime Television, Tribune Entertainment, Buena Vista Television, and Disney-ABC Domestic Television

Gene added his thought on Harry & Son, stating “he and Burt Reynolds are two of the worst in ‘84”, as he possibly referred to Paul Newman. Since I haven’t seen many of Paul’s or Burt’s films, I can’t agree or disagree with Gene’s statement. But what I can do is share my overall thoughts on Harry & Son. This is an ok, slice of life story, which, in my opinion, would have worked better as a stage play. My reason is how the cast is smaller and the story seems more condensed. While I liked the acting performances in this film, Robby Benson ended up being the star of the show. If anyone has an interest in watching Harry & Son, I’d recommend the film for Robby’s performance alone. With the flaws I already mentioned, I also felt like there was too much happening in a short amount of time. However, the story itself was easier to understand. Harry & Son will not become one of the best movies I’ve seen this year, so far. But compared to some of the films I’ve, so far, seen, there are far worse titles than Harry & Son.

This review was brought to you by

Sally Silverscreen

Comparing with the Critics – 1984 – Introduction

On By 18cinemalaneLeave a comment

In the history books of cinema, 1984 is considered one of
the strongest years at the theater. This statement is based on the belief that an
abundance of quality films were released in 1984, with some of these titles
even earning the distinction of being a “classic”. A few of these movies
include, but are not limited to The Karate Kid, Indiana Jones and the
Temple of Doom, and the highest grossing film of the year, Ghostbusters.
Though 1984 may have been a strong year in cinema, it definitely was not a
perfect year. In December of 1984, movie audiences were introduced to the
infamous “so bad it’s good” picture, Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo. Sylvester
Stallone and Dolly Parton’s feature film, Rhinestone, failed to sparkle.
The movie was so bad, Sylvester earned a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst
Actor. For this edition of Comparing with the Critics, my choice for Best and
Worst of 1984 share one thing in common: each film features a name in the
title. The similarity between these movies is not a coincidence, as I’m
reviewing them for the upcoming event, It’s In The Name of The Title blogathon.
In this event, I’ve selected Harry & Son as the Worst of 1984 and
the Oscar winning movie, Amadeus, as the Best of 1984.

Comparing with the Critics banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. TV show title cards created by WTTW National Productions, WTTW, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Lifetime Television, Tribune Entertainment, Buena Vista Television, and Disney-ABC Domestic Television



Comparing with the Critics – Best of 1976 – Network

On By 18cinemalane6 Comments

This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.

Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!

There are two reasons why I chose Network for my first review of Comparing with the Critics. The first reason is how the movie is an appropriate title for The 6th Golden Boy Blogathon: A William Holden Celebration, hosted by Virginie and Emily from The Wonderful World of Cinema and The Flapper Dame. Network appearing on Gene Siskel’s and Roger Ebert’s list of the top five films from 1976 is the second reason. When I looked through William Holden’s IMDB filmography in preparation for the blogathon, I remembered how Ebert and Siskel liked Network. In fact, it was one of the few films they agreed on. I was aware of Network prior to the Comparing with the Critics series because I had heard it was adapted into a stage play. Toward the beginning of the ‘Best Films of 1976’ episode, Siskel proclaimed how “1976 was a pretty lousy year for movies”. I can’t speak on the cinematic year of 1976 as a whole. But based on my thoughts on Network, this movie would fit Siskel’s argument about the state of 1976 when it comes to film.

Network poster created by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and United Artists


When it’s his turn to talk about Network, Siskel says
“I think she’s gonna win an Oscar for this picture”, referring to Faye Dunaway’s
performance in the film. Siskel got his wish when Faye did win the Best Actress
award at the 49th Academy Awards. While I can’t compare her portrayal
of Diana Christensen to the other performances that were nominated that year, I
can comment on how interesting some of Faye’s interactions were with William
Holden’s character, Max Schumacher. While having dinner one evening, Diana asks
Max a series of questions, in order to learn more about her co-worker. The more
personal the questions become, the more reserved Max appears. This reserved demeanor
is consistently carried by William throughout the movie, using emotion more
subtly. When Max does become more emotional, it happens at certain moments,
such as when he’s recalling a story about his first broadcasting job. Meanwhile,
Diana expresses her emotions more openly. She’s more honest when it comes to
her perspective, believing no subject is off limits. The pairing of Max and Diana,
portrayed by William and Faye, represents the “old school” and “new school”
mentality of the world of broadcast television. It also represents “old” and “new”
Hollywood.

News reporter being filmed image created by Macrovector at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/journalist-reporter-profession-isometric-banner_2875517.htm’>Designed by Macrovector</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/banner”>Banner vector created by Macrovector – Freepik.com</a>, Image found at freepik.com.

Some of Hallmark’s movies have pulled back the curtain on
certain industries. One great example, Cooking with Love, shows a
behind-the-scenes look at how to create a television show. As you’re reading
this editorial, you’re probably wondering what a film such as Cooking with
Love has to do with Network. Similar to the 2018 aforementioned production,
the 1976 film explores the behind-the-scenes operations of network television. Network shows the various steps that are needed
to make network television run as smoothly as possible. The movie also
addresses how television programs are brought to the screen. During a typical
work day, Diana was presented with a set of tv pilots. Hearing the premise of these
pilots makes her realize how similar they all sound. This revelation inspires Diana
to create a program that is drastically different. While talking about Network,
Siskel shares how “I also like movies that deal with what’s really going on in
the world”. Because the movie, more often than not, grounds itself in reality,
the realistic presentation of network television’s behind-the-scenes are
insightful and even educational for the audience.

The 6th Golden Boy Blogathon: A William Holden Celebration banner created by Virginie and Emily from The Wonderful World of Cinema and The Flapper Dame

As I just wrote about in this editorial, Network explores
the behind-the-scenes operations of network television. While I liked this
aspect of the movie, there were times when I felt the movie’s creative team
expected their audience to know what they were talking about. The mention of “shares”
is just one example. The term “shares” was thrown around like confetti on New
Year’s Eve. Diana even dreams about creating a show that will earn a certain number
of shares. Trying to figure out what this part of network television was, I was
confused if the characters were referencing the Stock Market or a program’s
viewership. According to Wikipedia, Network is considered a “satirical
drama”. I could tell when moments were intended to be satire. But, in my
opinion, effective satire is when a story’s creative team knows when to play it
straight and when to acknowledge the joke. Network’s creative team
played it a little too straight, taking their production too seriously. All of
this led to a movie that was pretentious.

Newspaper image created by Zlatko_plamenov at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-psd/newspaper-mockup_1386098.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/mockup”>Mockup psd created by Zlatko_plamenov – Freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

In this review’s introduction, I mentioned how Network was one of the few films Ebert and Siskel agreed on. They both stated how comedic Network was. While Ebert called the film “funny”, Siskel said “I laughed a lot at Network”. Comedy, like cinema, is subjective. With that said, the only time I giggled during the film was when Max Schumacher suggests hiring a psychic to report the weather. The story overall was not only dry, it took itself too seriously, as I already mentioned in this review. Network’s first half was a drawn-out search for a resolution to the story’s conflict. The movie’s second half turned into a contest to figure out which character could yell the loudest and angriest. To me, this was a recipe for a headache and not a hilarious two hours. Then again, I don’t find characters yelling and screaming at each other funny.

Comparing with the Critics banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. TV show title cards created by WTTW National Productions, WTTW, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Lifetime Television, Tribune Entertainment, Buena Vista Television, and Disney-ABC Domestic Television


Network was one of the films featured in the ‘Best Films
of 1976’ episode of Opening Soon…at a Theater Near You. As stated in
this review’s introduction, the movie appeared on Gene Siskel’s and Roger Ebert’s
list of the top five films of 1976. If I made a guest appearance on the show, Network
would not be on my top five or even top ten films list of that year. In fact, I’d
consider the movie as one of the “Dogs of the Year”. Network, for me,
was an endurance test that almost made me fall asleep. Taking itself too
seriously by expecting too much from the audience and telling a dry, boring
story didn’t help Network’s case. Though comedy is subjective, I didn’t
find the film very funny. However, there were aspects of the film I liked, such
as the acting and the peek behind network television’s curtain. But, like
network television itself, there are many parts needed to make a movie work. As
I wrap up this review for Comparing with the Critics, I’d like to respond to
the film’s overarching quote; I’m bored as heck, and I wish Network used
its indoor voice.


This review was brought to you by

Sally Silverscreen





Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!

On By 18cinemalane9 Comments
Comparing with the Critics banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. TV show title cards created by WTTW National Productions, WTTW, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Lifetime Television, Tribune Entertainment, Buena Vista Television, and Disney-ABC Domestic Television


Back in January, I announced a new series I was starting
called Comparing with the Critics. A brief explanation was provided for what readers
could expect from the series. But this article will go into further detail
about how Comparing with the Critics will work. As I stated months ago, I will
choose one movie from each of the ‘Worst of’ and ‘Best of’ episodes of every
iteration of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert’s show. After watching the chosen
films, I will write an editorial style review explaining why I agree or disagree
with Siskel, Ebert, or any critic that appeared on the program. Here are the
following guidelines of the movies that are and are not eligible for Comparing
with the Critics.


n 
Movies that are either featured on the show or
brought up by any of the critics

n 
Films I either have never seen, haven’t seen in
its entirety, or haven’t seen in over five years

n 
If a movie has been reviewed on 18 Cinema Lane
prior to Comparing with the Critics, it will not be re-reviewed for the series


In the reviews, I will be referencing the episode a chosen
movie was included in, incorporating quotes from the critics. For each year of
the show’s existence, I will provide an introduction explaining why I chose those
films and giving an overview of the year itself. While I try to write
spoiler-free reviews, I will inform readers if a review contains spoilers.


Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen






18 Cinema Lane Looks Ahead to 2024!

On By 18cinemalaneLeave a comment

A new year comes new content and changes for 18 Cinema Lane! At the beginning of the year, I inform my readers of what they can expect for the rest of that year. Similar to 2023, I have four major announcements for 2024! But first, I’ll list my blog stats from the previous year!

Image by starline on Freepik

2023

Total Blog Posts: 87

Total followers: 33

Total Comments: 364

Total Likes: 358

Awards: 2

Participated Blogathons: 29

Total Movie Reviews: 362

Total Word on the Street stories: 1

Changing the ‘Welcome to 18 Cinema Lane!’ Message

For years, readers have been introduced to 18 Cinema Lane through the ‘Welcome to 18 Cinema Lane!’ message. Located on the right-hand side of the website, this message gives readers an idea of what they can expect from my blog. Since publishing that message in 2018, so much has changed on 18 Cinema Lane. Therefore, in the near future, I will be rewriting the message, to better reflect the current state of my blog.

Changing the format of ‘Sally Solves a Mystery’

Last year, I published the first post of my series, Sally Solves a Mystery. This series explores television related mysteries I find interesting. While I will continue the Sally Solves a Mystery series in 2024, it will become an annual series. Posts will now be published once every year.

Readathon Plans

Since 2022, I’ve been participating in the Buzzwordathon readathon. I also participated in the Eurovisionathon readathon for the first time in 2023. Looking back on last year, though, I thought about how I was devoting so much time to two readathons that required a significant amount of preparation. Therefore, I will participate in 2024’s edition of Eurovisionathon but take a break from Buzzwordathon. However, I will still publish my reviews for October, November, and December’s books from 2023.

New Series – ‘Comparing with the Critics’

As I have said on 18 Cinema Lane, film is subjective. This statement also applies for critic reviews, including those from household names like Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. There are times where I have disagreed with Ebert and Siskel. But I was curious to know how often I disagreed with the legendary critics. Cue the introduction of my new series, Comparing with the Critics! In this series, I will choose one movie from each of the ‘Worst of’ and ‘Best of’ episodes of Sneak Previews/At The Movies. After watching the chosen films, I will write an editorial style review explaining why I agree or disagree with Siskel, Ebert, or any critic that appeared on the show.

Image by starline on Freepik

Have fun in 2024!

Sally Silverscreen

Introducing My Youth-Led Film Double Feature!

On By 18cinemalane4 Comments

In my post called ‘Goodbye 2019, Hello 2020!’, I shared that every time I publish 100 posts, I coordinate a double feature in honor of the accomplishment. Because I published 300 posts at the end of last year, I scheduled the double feature for January. In my aforementioned post, I also mentioned the reason why this series of reviews and articles were focusing on youth-led films. This is because January’s theme for MovieRob’s Genre Grandeur is “Youth-Led Movies”. Since I’ll be participating in that blogathon, I figured it would a good idea to use my achievement to highlight my involvement.

V211-social media
Youth wearing 3D glasses image created by rawpixel.com at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Background vector created by rawpixel.com – http://www.freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

While creating my first blogathon, “Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon”, I came across a video on Youtube of one of their episodes of “Sneak Previews”. While watching that video, I became fascinated by how two youth-led films, Rich Kids and Over the Edge, were not only released in the same year, but also around the same time (according to the Siskel and Ebert video). Not knowing whether or not this scheduling choice was intentional, I chose these two films for my next double feature! While I had never heard of Over the Edge before, I was aware of  Rich Kids‘ existence. When I watched Siskel and Ebert’s discussion of this film, I was surprised to discover that it was about a completely different story from what I expected. Before choosing to watch this film, I thought the movie was a documentary style film about a group of rich kids growing up over a period of time.

For these reviews, I’ll be answering a series of ten questions related to the movies I watched. However, the three questions that will receive primary focus are the following:

 

Is there any aspect of either film that could be seen as relevant today?

 

Besides having young actors as the leads, do these films share any similarities?

 

Do the socio-economics of each film’s world affect the characters or the story?

 

Before I end this introduction, I’d like to say that there will be no pre-movie thoughts and/or questions for this double feature.

06
Kite in the sky background created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/pattern”>Pattern vector created by freepik – http://www.freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

 

If you want to watch the video I referenced in this introduction, type ‘WTTW Channel 11 – Sneak Previews – “Real Life, Rich Kids, & More” (Complete Broadcast, 9/20/1979)’ into Youtube’s search bar. Siskel and Ebert’s discussion on Rich Kids starts at 1:41 and ends at 7:01. Their discussion on Over the Edge starts at 21:48 and ends at 24:49. If you are planning on watching this video, I just want to let you know there are sensitive topics that do get brought up at some points of the episode.

A Thank You from the Blogathon Moderator

On By 18cinemalane4 Comments

Hey everyone! I just wanted to publish this post to say thank you to all of my readers, visitors, and followers who took an interest in ‘Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon’ by reading and/or liking the articles associated with it! I also want to give a special thank you to all of the blogathon participants! ‘Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon’ was more successful than I expected. In total, there were ten bloggers who submitted entries! For my first blogathon, this is a great start. As I’ve already told some of the blogathon participants, I will be hosting my second blogathon in 2020! But the theme will be announced in next year’s first half.

Siskel and Ebert Film Reel banner
Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon is here!

On By 18cinemalane14 Comments

Welcome to my very first blogathon, Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon! For five days, blogathon participants will share a variety of topics related to Gene Siskel and/or Roger Ebert. All of those posts will be listed on this community post, separated by the categories that were established in the announcement post that was published back in May. Every participant worked very hard on their article, so be sure to check out as many posts as you’d like!

Siskel and Ebert Profile banner
Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.

Collection of Participants

Category A

18 Cinema Lane — Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbooks: How Relevant are They Anyway?

Silver Screenings — Roger Ebert’s Landmarks of 20th Century Cinema

The Movie Shelf Reviews — Siskel & Ebert Blogathon: The Critic — “Siskel & Ebert & Jay & Alice”

 

Category B

Critica Retro — Z (1969)

Realweegiemidget Reviews — FILMS…Prizzi’s Honor (1985)

Dubsism — Movies Everybody Loves That I Hate: Episode 5 — “Casino”

The Midnite Drive-In — Make Room for Hannibal

Taking Up Room — Go Ask Shirlee

Pure Entertainment Preservation Society — 52 Code Films — Week #38: “A Star is Born” from 1954; “The Brightest Star” for “Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon”

Category D

MovieRob — The Siskel and Ebert At The Blogathon – Opportunity Knocks (1990)

The Siskel and Ebert At The Blogathon – About Last Night (1986)

The Siskel and Ebert At The Blogathon – Rookie of the Year (1993)

Siskel and Ebert Film Reel banner
Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.

Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbooks: How Relevant are They Anyway?

On By 18cinemalane5 Comments

Found in cardboard boxes at garage sales. Seen on shelves at a used book store. Appearing on Amazon’s and Ebay’s pages. Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbooks, or sometimes known as Roger Ebert’s Movie Home/Video Companion, are records of years gone by. Showcasing movies that have already premiered, the books feature reviews and other movie related material from Roger Ebert himself. From the mid ‘80s to the early 2010s, these yearbooks provided an overview of any given movie year. They correlated with Roger and Gene Siskel’s show, At The Movies. But for the majority of the 2010s, a movie yearbook has not been published. Also, it seems like this concept is not as talked about as it once was. Is this idea that Roger created still relevant anymore? Does it still have a place in our current day and time? This editorial will explore the arguments for and against the revival of the movie yearbook. I will also share my thoughts on the argument as a whole. Since today is the first day of Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon, let the blogathon begin!

Siskel and Ebert Movie Theater banner
Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.

How Roger’s Movie Yearbooks Are Still Relevent

What do putting up Christmas trees, going trick or treating, and watching the ball drop in Times Square on New Year’s have in common? All of these activities are rooted in tradition. Because these activities have become cherished for many people, they are put into practice year after year. For approximately three decades, Roger Ebert shared his thoughts, opinions, and insight about movies and other subjects related to that topic through his movie yearbooks. Throughout his career and reputation, Roger gained the likeability and respect of his audience. Because he became a cherished figure in the movie community, the publication of his movie yearbooks turned into a tradition. What helped was having continuous segments on his shows with Gene Siskel, such as episodes dedicated to the best and worst movies in a given year. Because these segments took place every year, it helped the show’s audience associate tradition with Roger Ebert.

 

When I think of a “yearbook”, I picture a hardcover book given at the end of a school year, filled with pictures and short, but thorough explanations about those photos. As I conducted my research about Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks, I discovered that they did not fit my definition of a “yearbook”. These books are a collection of reviews, interviews, and essays. Despite this, a traditional “yearbook” and Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks do share one major similarity: they are a collection of records and reflections. A typical school yearbook focuses on the memories and events of a particular school year, reflecting on things such as various school subjects or graduating classes. This publication is usually more visual, where photos are used to tell the story and express ideas. In Roger Ebert’s case, he chose a more verbal approach when it came to the creation of his movie yearbooks. Since movies are a visual medium and images like movie stills and award winners can be found in other publications, pictures are not necessary for these particular books of Roger’s. All of these books discuss the movie year prior to the book’s release. For example, Roger Ebert’s movie yearbook from 1999 will talk about movies from 1998. Like a school yearbook, Roger’s movie yearbooks are a singular place where his collective story can be presented.

 

Another important component to a yearbook, whether it be a movie yearbook or one from school, is how it creates a shared experience amongst its audience. Because the subject of movies and school is so broad, readers are able to find something in the text that they can relate to. Within the movie yearbooks, Roger Ebert reviews a variety of films that were theatrically released. Different studios and genres are represented throughout the publication. Because of the yearbook’s broad range of movies, there’s a chance that the material is appealing to almost everyone. On his shows with Gene Siskel and in his movie yearbooks, Roger would talk about whether he liked or disliked a particular film. Since they talked about movies that were theatrically released, meaning they are easily accessible for the majority of their audience, a shared experience was allowed to talk place. Just one example is when both Gene and Siskel reviewed the movie, Jurassic Park. This is a movie that a large number of people have seen, so it feels like people watching or reading their review can join a shared conversation.

 

During the run of Siskel and Ebert’s television shows, as well as their careers, both Gene and Roger created a legacy that outlasted their lives. By reviewing films and making those thoughts accessible to their audience, who also happen to be potential movie-goers, they helped create the concept of movie related entertainment. Gene and Roger also showed that anyone could articulate their thoughts and opinions on film. This contribution has been appreciated by fans and members of the movie community, even encouraging them to become movie critics themselves. Roger’s movie yearbooks make up a part of his legacy, proving to be an essential piece of movie related literature. This concept of looking back on a given movie year through text is something that would continue to be beneficial to movie fans and fellow critics. It may even help make the movie community a better place.

20190919_173650[1]
The cover of Roger Ebert’s first movie yearbook, Robert Ebert’s Movie Home Companion. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.

How Roger’s Movie Yearbooks Are Not Relevant Anymore

The last movie yearbook to be published was Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbook 2013, which covers the movie years of 2010 to mid-2012. This is because Roger Ebert passed away on April 4th, 2013. Because of this, the movie community lost one of the most unique perspectives in film critic history. It also means that new movie related content from Roger can never be created, since the work would not come directly from him. Making a book called “Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbook” and not having Roger involved in the project kind of defeats the purpose. Carrying on one of Roger’s long running book series without his consent also seems disrespectful. Sure, we could guess what Roger would think of movies released after April 2013. But it’s better to know than take a guess.

 

When Roger Ebert passed away six years ago, the world lost one of the faces of the movie community. The other face of the movie community, Gene Siskel, passed away twenty years ago. This means that the movie community currently does not have any one person that represents them. Gene and Roger earned their titles through their appearances on their television shows. Since their first show, Sneak Previews, premiered in 1975, there were not as many voices in the movie community as there are today. Because more people have joined this community, it would be difficult to choose a new representative. How would this person be chosen? What credentials would give this person the title? Who would nominate this person? So many factors would play a role when trying to make a decision like this. But the one question that should be asked is “Does the movie community really need a new representative”?

 

With the invention of the internet and social media, more people have been given the opportunity to share their thoughts on film. Blogs, websites, and even Youtube channels have provided platforms for more voices to be heard. These inventions helped the movie community grow, gaining more members now than when Gene and Roger first appeared on Sneak Previews. If the concept of the movie yearbook were to come back, it would be difficult to determine whose opinions get included. Do you choose the people who are associated with movie related companies or Youtubers with smaller channels? What about bloggers, would their thoughts be incorporated in the yearbook too? The website, rogerebert.com, is a place where multiple film critics can share their thoughts in one place. Would these people have a say in who’s cinematic thoughts are welcome? The very first movie yearbook from Roger Ebert, titled Roger Ebert’s Movie Home Companion, was released in 1985. Because the internet and social media weren’t big factors like they are today, the people associated with coordinating Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks didn’t have to think about these things. But the landscape of the movie community has expanded in the 21st century.

 

Not only has the internet and social media provided a platform for more members of the movie community, they’ve also presented information in a shorter amount of time. Today, movie reviews are uploaded to the internet days, sometimes even weeks, before a movie’s premiere. Some quick searching will lead any movie fan to a wide variety of reviews and other movie related content from multiple authors. Our digital age has produced e-books, making it easier for readers to download many different stories. With these new elements that the movie community has gained, the idea of putting a movie yearbook to print comes into question. Why not just create an e-book version of this project? Wouldn’t it be easier to put all this content on a website? Another concern that needs to be addressed is whether people would pay for a collection of information when they can receive it for free in places that have internet access. When Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks were published, most of his audience didn’t have the internet. They relied on his books, articles, and television programs when they wanted to hear what he had to say. Today there’s rogerebert.com, a website that provides reviews and movie related articles at a faster pace. They give this information straight to their audience, eliminating the process of company publishing and book binding.

20190919_173701[1]
The cover of Roger Ebert’s last movie yearbook, Robert Ebert’s Movie Yearbook 2013. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.

My Thoughts on Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbooks

There’s no denying that Roger Ebert played a huge role in the movie community’s foundation. His thoughts and opinions on film helped many people become film critics of their own, instead of simply accepting the role of movie consumer. Something that made this goal a reality was the publication of Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks. These books allowed Roger’s audience to reminiscence over films they’ve seen or heard about, as well as reflect on the topics of the featured interviews and essays. After the publication of Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbook 2013 and Roger Ebert’s death, the world stopped receiving the wise and knowledgeable insight that could have easily been taken for granted. The concept of the movie yearbook is an interesting one, beneficial for all members of the movie community. I, as a movie blogger and member of the movie community, would love to see this concept brought back into publication. However, before this idea could be executed again, several important questions would need to be answered. From selecting the people who would contribute to the yearbook to which medium would host the project, these factors could affect the return of Roger Ebert’s long running series. A series that became a tradition because of one cherished individual. But all traditions start somewhere, and if they’re worth it, should be put into practice for many years and generations to come.

 

Have fun at the blogathon!

Sally Silverscreen

 

If you would like to check out this editorial’s references, here are the links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15010613-roger-ebert-s-movie-yearbook-2013?from_search=true

https://www.rogerebert.com/about

Only Five Days Left to Sign Up for the Siskel and Ebert Blogathon!

On By 18cinemalane2 Comments

Siskel and Ebert At the Movies banner
Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.

Hello everyone! If you’re interested in joining my blogathon, Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon, you still have time! All you have to do is leave your topic request in the comment section of the post, “Announcing my new blogathon called ’Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon’!”. This post can be found when you click the blogathon banner at the right-hand side of the page or by visiting this link:

Announcing my new blogathon called ‘Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon’!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen