Homage to a Master

"At the Movies" officially closed up shop this past weekend. This show, with Gene Siskel (later Richard Roeper) and Roger Ebert, provided thoughts on movies for 33 years. Over three decades. The show reached its "Jesus Birthday." It had life and love of movies. I'm connected to this show in two ways.

First, I love the movies and occasionally dabble in my own review and criticism of the medium (see sidebar at right). I've won an online contest for one review, but that's the limit of my accolades as a movie critic. Siskel & Ebert were the masters. They became one of the most recognized and legitimate standards of movie measurement for decades. They formed a unique love-hate relationship with the movies and each other (more on this later). Even after Siskel's untimely death, "At the Movies" continued for years with Richard Roeper. For my money, Siskel was better and the main reason the show kept its success was Ebert's ability and fame. Ebert can accept a teen sex comedy and horror movies for what they are and what they do, and he recognizes these types of movies when they do their work well and chastises them when they're only fluff. I don't think Roeper can appreciate a well-done horror movie. It's not high brow enough for him. That's his loss. See for yourself in his interview with Ebert on Chicago Tonight the next time it's replayed.

My second connection to "At the Movies" is from the Factory Theater's production of Siskel & Ebert Save Chicago which Roger Ebert himself came to watch and was kind enough to mention on his own site. I have love and respect for Roger Ebert because of his relationship with movies and his patronage of the Factory Theater. Ebert is a masterful writer and critic. Look no further than the eloquence personified from Ebert's own statement on the ending of his show (many thanks to good buddy Eric Roach from the Factory for sharing this). I felt several heart muscles rip as Ebert comes to the "time to awake from my daydream." That still hurts. I will be eagerly awaiting his next venture and I'm so happy for all he has given to movies.

On Sunday, I read an exceptional article from Christopher Borrelli at the Tribune. In case the Tribune link dies, here are some highlights to illustrate:

"[With the ending of 'At the Movies'] the informed movie review can be placed officially on the endangered species list. On TV, let's just declare it extinct."

"Siskel and Ebert said what they felt, and you never doubted their sincerity or honesty. Even today—especially today—this remains a radical idea. What Siskel and Ebert created is still the closest that television criticism has ever come to former New Yorker writer Pauline Kael's insistence that 'the critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.'"

"...what chills the blood is that film criticism has been so diminished in recent years that Disney-ABC didn't even attempt to replace reputation with reputation, or continue what Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert started. "

"But I bet for the average everyday moviegoers who rarely think beyond 'I liked it' or "I hated it" and who rarely consider aesthetics or polemics or politics when they go to a multiplex, the end of the original incarnation of "At the Movies" will feel like the finale of film criticism itself. The argument has ended. And the argument, as "At the Movies" taught us, was the thing—that art itself was arguable, and that was OK."

"Indeed, it wouldn't be an overstatement to say that for a generation or two of moviegoers, it was Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert who introduced the idea that good criticism is not about finality or consensus or putting your thumb up or down. It's about argument itself."

I'm in total agreement with Mr. Borrelli and I only want to add one thing. In addition to the arguments they generate, what makes movies and "At the Movies" so valuable are the relationships to the movie material and the people who are with you, whether you're discussing the movie together or watching it. Siskel and Ebert formed close relationships to their movies and a closer relationship with each other. These relationships were rocky (sometimes ugly), they were happy, and they were honest. A family of and about the movies plus all the sometimes awful, sometimes great dynamics that go with family. A family for 33 years, complete with arguments. It was good and it shall be missed.

My First Business Trip in Years (or, is Denver better than Oakbrook?)

Just returned from a business trip to Denver yesterday. The final proof of my company's catalog is now set to print. The people at the company were terrific and they treated my boss and me to a nice dinner. Not a bad trip. I hadn't traveled for business since the '90s. Another cruel reminder of aging. Still, it was good to go back to Denver since I used to go there all the time while growing up in New Mexico. I hadn't been to Denver since the '80s; Cruel Aging Reminder #2. The mountains are still nice, but for the most part, Denver looks like Oakbrook, Illinois. A lot of strip malls and skinny, square business buildings. Not exactly attractive, but a mountain backdrop adds plenty: nice scenery to break up the strip mall setting and snow in August if you're above 10,000 feet. If all goes well, this will be an annual trip for work as we update our big catalog (meaning 1,500+ pages big) every year. I love seeing the mountains again, the company and its people are great, and I can deal with an Oakbrook style strip mall setting as long as I get one pint of Fat Tire to get me loopy for the whole evening. One drink at elevation 6,000 feet is plenty for someone my age (C.A.R. #3) but it's another way to beat Oakbrook; I'd need at least three beers there. Efficiency, scenery, and company; that's how Denver beats Oakbrook.