Remembering Siskel and Ebert

The film reviews that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert aired on various television channels, formats and names from the mid-70s through the end of the 90s are indelibly stamped in my memory. These guys had a weekly presence in my household, as my mother and I watched them religiously when I was a teenager, and I continued to watch religiously into early adulthood. I can actually recall certain lines verbatim: Roger, when addressing the criticism by those who felt that the 1988 film The Accidental Tourist was kind of slow, “You know what my answer to them is? ‘You’re kind of slow!’” When both Gene and Roger gave an enthusiastic thumbs up on a film, it got my attention, and more often than not I’d seek out the film. I didn’t always agree with them, but I respected them enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

There was a brief moment when Siskel & Ebert episodes were available at the online archive atthemoviestv.com, with over 5000 searchable reviews. Sadly, Buena Vista/Disney-ABC dropped the site when they discontinued At the Movies in 2010. Years later, an unofficial fan-initiated site, SisketEbert.org, also went down. Today, it seems that the best way to view old episodes is on YouTube. Though not ideal, it’s terrific that people have gone through the trouble to upload so many of these episodes, and I’ve spent countless hours rewatching the show.

It’s mind-boggling to me that two intelligent people (though that might be the first problem) offering short reviews of new movies can’t generate a consistent following. There are a few podcasts I’ve listened to, but none are as appealing to me as the old format of Siskel & Ebert, who typically reviewed five new movies an episode, sharing clips before offering their opinions and giving their trademarked “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.” Yes, the film clips and the reviews got shorter and shorter as the pair transitioned from PBS to network TV, honoring new time constraints, but they were so articulate, fun and knowledgeable that they could communicate a lot in a short period of time. Today, I find so many film discussion to be too short or too long, too immature or too unrelatable, and often lacking succinct, intelligent observations.

It’s such a shame that Gene died in 1999 and that Roger’s health was so significantly compromised prior to his passing in 2013. An additional decade or two of Siskel and Ebert episodes would be such a gift. What would Gene have thought of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? What would Roger have thought of The Big Short? What I’d give to hear them spar over Tropic Thunder or Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, or First Reformed or Spotlight. But we’re fortunate that these two offered their insights for a quarter century of movies.

The film industry could use another pair of film advocates with as much gravatas as Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. If they’re out there, I’d love to hear about it in the comments section below.

(note: as if I needed reminded, I appear to be repeating myself, as I wrote a very similar blog entry back in 2013 after Roger Ebert dies. Eerily, I’d just watched a Siskel and Ebert episode two nights prior to learning about Roger’s death. This is especially eery given that last year I watched The Natural the night that Robert Redford died, and Spinal Tap II basically at the same time as Rob Reiner’s murder. I’d forgotten about the Ebert coincidence, but it does make me wonder whether I’ve got to stop watching videos of the living!)

Screens, Streams and Creativity

In my last post I posed the question, “Is creativity in jeopardy of diminishing or dying altogether?”  It was inspired by Amy Nicholson’s comments on the Raiders of the Lost Ark episode of Unspooled, a podcast devoted to discussing the AFI’s top 100 American films of all-time.  She remarked, “I feel like something in us is just stuck because we’re not using our imaginations anymore, we’re just hitting rewind.”

While few would claim that there aren’t still amazingly creative things happening in the arts, if recent successful films are any indication Amy’s observation isn’t entirely unwarranted.  One need look no further than Disney’s recent output to conclude that original content isn’t always a major priority of film studios.  According to film critic William Bibbiani of @WilliamBibbiani, “35 of the top 50 films domestically (in 2019) were sequels, remakes, reboots, spinoffs or other films based on pre-existing blockbuster multimedia franchises.” 

That’s a staggering statistic.  Gone are the days when the most celebrated films were also the most-watched (think Forrest Gump, Silence of the Lambs, Rain Man, etc.).  Broadway has also fallen into the reboot trap.  I wrote about this seven years ago, and its sorry state certainly hasn’t improved in the ensuing years (think Mean Girls, Frozen, Moulin Rouge, Shrek, Tootsie, Dirty Dancing, and on and on…)

So why the devotion to reboots?  For film, the obvious game-changer has been streaming, which has dropped the average theatrical run to only four weeks.  Given this, it’s no wonder that studios are devoting fewer funds to riskier ventures.  But just when you think that all is lost, you hear the flip side of the same coin.  Yes, streaming may have shortened theatrical runs which has directly led to studios relying on well-established franchises, but it’s also opened up a world that heretofore was difficult to enter. 

Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio recently appeared on Marc Maron’s podcast, WTF, and they both discussed how as producers they are being given the green light to make films that wouldn’t have gotten financed years ago.  Streaming services are now making smaller films viable options (to hear this particular segment of the interview, go to the one-hour mark, though the whole interview is worth a listen). DiCaprio goes on to say that in the past these films would have to win an Academy Award to get any viewership at all, but now “millions and millions of people watch these documentaries as opposed to having to go through a theatrical system.”

Isn’t this exciting? 

And from my limited experience DiCaprio is correct.  I’ve watched more documentaries in the last ten years than in the previous forty years combined, and more and more of my friends are recommending documentaries, small films, and of course dozens and dozens of TV shows (some of them even worth watching).  Add to this the accessibility of short films that would never have been viewable prior to the Age of Streaming, and we’ve got so much wonderful output right at our fingertips, no one will ever be able to check the box that says, “All caught up.”

So it’s not all doom and gloom.  Creativity is alive and well, but like much of art these days, it may be fragmented.  You may not be hearing about a film or a book or a TV show by viewing the best-seller or highest-grossing lists, but with a little word-of-mouth and targeted searches you can find the original content that appears to be lacking in mainstream theaters.  I would argue that even theatrical runs have shown signs of life recently.  I’ve watched eight out of the nine Best Picture nominees and there’s not a dud among them.  2019 may be one of the best years of film in recently memory.  And it’s very likely that films like Roma and The Irishman, both of which appeared in theaters just long enough to qualify for the Oscars, have done far better with the new business model than they would have with the old one.

Yes, things are changing.  I imagine Walt Disney himself would be disappointed in his company if he were alive today.  But others are taking that creative torch and carrying it boldly in this century. Some things may be lost along the way, but creativity and human originality won’t be among them.