Why not Siskel?
It seems to be me he was the one with more intelligence and taste. He died relatively young, so Ebert had a longer career but I would personally be more interested in a documentary about Siskel. Just my two cents.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Life Itself (2014) Discussion > Why not Siskel?
Well, Roger did more in terms of writing. He wrote all those books, not only the Movie Home Companion/Video Companion/Yearbook, but Great Movies, Scorcese, etc. Gene never did that. But I would like to see something on Gene as well.
shareDocumentaries about film critics? What's next? A documentary about some lunchlady? Give me a break!
shareRight. Because a film critic who wrote several books and was well-known internationally was like a lunchlady.
Incidentally, I'll bet you could do a great documentary about a lunchlady. Certainly great ones have been made about (among other subjects) workers in a meat plant, two high-school basketball players nobody outside the city (or certainly the state) ever heard of, a group of unknown seven-year-old Britishers (every seven years), and so forth.
I'm glad for your comment, emncaity. I was thinking as I read that snarky comment that lunchladies would be a great subject for a movie. They have lives outside of the cafeteria, you know!!!! ;)
share[deleted]
I agree with you, Roger was a cheap whore ... I'd rather see a documentary or porno about a cheap whore than all the BS Roger dished out in the last 10 years of his life.
shareFor one thing, it's probably because not everybody agrees with you re Siskel having more intelligence and taste. (I really did like Siskel, and thought him to be the equal of Ebert as far as the critic's mind, by the way.)
For another, because Ebert was by far the more prolific and well-known writer.
I don't think it's anybody's value statement that Siskel was inferior. It's probably more the judgment that a film about Siskel most likely wouldn't make as many dollars.
Probably a few reasons.
Despite his infamous comment about video games, Ebert was far more into nerdy stuff than Siskel, so he might have a somewhat wider appeal.
Mainstream documentaries about such subject matter haven't really been a "thing" until the last few years. I'm sure a big part of deciding to make Ebert the focus was just the fact that they could get him while he was still alive.
Ebert had already written his memoir, under the same title, whereas Siskel tended to keep his personal life private.
Because the documentary is actually based on Ebert's book. And because Ebert was alive when they started this, the vision of the director was pretty clear.
share@scoonermuds,
of course a documentary about Roger Ebert based on Ebert's book WOULD be about Ebert and not Siskel.
my question was simply why no one has made some kind of film tribute to Gene Siskel, who I think is very deserving of one. His was a presence in film I truly respected and I miss him quite a bit at times.
My point is that Siskel and Ebert, though I love them both and have been a very important part of my life, have both been "over-lauded" to the point of deity already. If anything, a movie about their massive egos and flaws, with how terrible and vindictive both could be, would be fair enough right now.
In order to make a movie you have to have an angle, or something you can base it on, like this movie. I just can't see a major documentary being done on Siskel, because everything you need to know about him has been told, or is online already.
Is there something we should know about Siskel that you can tell us here? Some special angle that nobody knows about, or something he did that isn't known to the public? I'd really like to know. Ya, a tribute documentary would be nice, but who's going to fund it? Movies need to make money. And again someone has to have a full vision before even a thought of a movie could be made.
Ebert was a much more complex man at the surface, going from young prodigy, to enjoying being the "dark side/villain" reviewer, to great teacher of young writers and patient lover of bringing little-known movies to the masses.
Ebert, could and should have become much more of a curmudgeon in his later life, considering how douchee some writers he tried help could be him1. But so many writers also thanked him for the time he gave them and I think he began to realize in the end he would live on through his mentoring. His wife was also helpful in bringing out Eberts teaching and caring side. That's a story.
I, again, understand your idea about Siskel, but movies don't get made by themselves. They need a vision, reason, or an overwhelming need by the public. It would be nice if movies were made altruistically but, in the end, they need to make money. And right now, a movie about Siskel meets none of these "criterias". Unless you can give us one?
1 http://deadspin.com/5482198/my-roger-ebert-story
To the OP I would agree that Siskel is missed and perhaps deserving of a documentary of his own. But to say he had more taste than Ebert? I will grant you equal taste but it's hard to say he had more coming from a man who gave thumbs down to such movies as SLAP SHOT; APOCALYPSE NOW; ALIENS; FIELD OF DREAMS and THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS just to name a few. Yes Ebert had some questionable reviews as well which is why I would lable them equal in taste - neither better than the other.
shareI can understand the other movies, but Gene thumbs downed "APOCALYPSE NOW" and "ALIENS" ? Wow, I remembered him as having better taste in movies. I might could even understand AN, because it was so long and over the top, but Aliens ?
share[deleted]
The documentary does demonstrate that in his young, single years, Chicagoan Siskel hung with Hugh Hefner at his Chicago powerbase..with naked ladies(there's a photo.)
And Siskel's wife (now widow) was and is very attractive. Its all very sad but the feeling one gets is that Siskel was a player.
I'm goin 2 take a wild guess dat he prolly wudnt want 1. He kept his illness a secret 2 da bitter end and not even ebert knew. He seemz 2 be a man dat don't want 2 much attention or there be a book on him and a doc based on dat
I do agree dat he had mo insiteful commentary and came across as mo approachable.
Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafcker
because siskel simply isn't as interesting as a person? siskel is interesting only because he worked with ebert.
shareThe movie actually gave a lot of information about Siskel. Gene and Roger both ended up dying of cancer, but whereas Gene's was fairly private and he went relatively quickly, Roger's went on for years and was very visible. I would also like to see a documentary about Siskel, but it's not difficult to see why Roger's story lends itself more to a film.
Roger was a man with many faults, as the movie makes clear. Gene was the young player, hanging out with Hef, who got married and had a family at the age you would expect. Roger was alone most of his life, didn't find love until he was 50, was an alcoholic... The end of Roger's life was harrowing in a way very few people have seen, and he continued doing his work, writing more than he had before his condition, right up until the day before he died. It's an inspirational story of a man with many faults who found love when he thought it was too late and who fought a horrifying illness until the end.