The truth of the matter is that only a precious few film critics would merit a biography in book form about them -- Pauline Kael got one and Andrew Sarris got a book of essays from other critics idolizing him -- and probably only Roger Ebert, to date, merited a film biography.
Two reasons:
ONE: With the aid of Siskel and thanks to TV syndication, Ebert became the most famous and rich film critic of all time(Siskel's early death dropped him out, but even when Siskel was alive, Ebert had the Pulitizer Prize, the published books, and the bigger fame).
TWO: Ebert's long and protracted battle with cancer became at once gripping(what happened to his face, and the loss of his voice) and inspirational(he WROTE to the bitter end; the internet blog saved him; and he fought his cancer to the end.)
Taken together, Ebert's main lifetime and bitter end were enough for a good documentary.
---
Thanks to the internet, the print film critic is in decline and even the professional film critic on the internet, swamped by thousands of bloggers(some of whom are just as good as "the professionals" -- they just can't make a living at film criticism, so they have day jobs and "blog by night.")
Consequently, we will likely never have a film critic important enough for a book(like Kael) or a documentary(like Ebert) ever again.
---
But one thing is clear to me: Siskel and Ebert with their "point/counterpoint" debates of movies...laid out the framework FOR the internet, and the boards and chat rooms like imdb where new generations of movie lovers argue with each other about film, hopefully with respect, sometimes with flames, often with passion.
That's Ebert's legacy.
reply
share