The Moviegoer: Roger Ebert's Not at Sundance, Except When He Is

Roger Ebert is not, in fact, up in Park City for the Sundance Film Festival right now. I am, screening films and working in the cold, and while there's plenty of old friends and new about -- every press screening at Sundance is like a high school reunion, if only for the A.V. Club -- I was thinking of Ebert this week for fairly obvious reasons. I've met Roger often over the years, and for some reason -- some stupid internal mechanism of self-deprecation, I would wager -- I always, always assume he will not remember me, or who I am. He does, of course, because he's a gentleman, but in my mind I tell myself that Ebert's mental file of "white dudes with glasses who are film critics and like to wear sweater vests" must be full to bursting, so I always re-introduce myself when I run into him. But I have friends who know him well enough, and one of them told me a few weeks ago "Ebert won't be at Sundance; he's having surgery on the 24th, for his voice."

I saw Roger at this year's Toronto International Film Festival, briefly, at a press screening of Reservation Road out near Yonge and Eglinton. He was accompanied by an aide, and could not speak, but I re-introduced myself for the 20th time and we chatted as casually as you can chat with one of the titans in your field when they can only pass you notes. And we didn't chat long, because it is occasionally hard to have the courage to speak to people when they look like they might not be feeling their best. I recall thinking, with no small amount of sadness, that Roger looked unwell, and that he didn't need to have his time wasted by awkward small talk with some distant, not-quite associate. And, yes, sad as it is to admit, I felt conflicted and depressed about the thought of him -- someone whose voice I've heard since my youth -- unable to speak as a side effect of the surgery he's had to deal with as part of his current bout with cancer.

That night I logged on my computer and went by his site, and after reading his postings from the Toronto Film Festival I felt even more of a fool. I thought of blind Milton dictating Paradise Lost; I thought of Beethoven, composing even as he went deaf. And while you can laugh off those two reference points as hyperbole -- or, more graciously, as extreme examples -- they still came to mind. No, Ebert could not speak, but that did not mean he had nothing to say. The speaking voice I knew from my childhood was silent, but his voice as a writer that I later came to appreciate, and still try to understand and follow to this day, was not only still there, but stronger. And the joy in the work, the delight and charm and clearly communicated insights in the reviews and reports, was a pleasure to read. In a field so often defined by the smirk of show-off cynics, by the buzzy drone of 'entertainment journalism' or by the incoherent grunts of fake pop-culture populists, reading Ebert's work since his return to his writing desk has been a place to find wonder and delight and the plain-spoken intelligence that has consistently, constantly marked his place in the field. And reading his reports and reviews that night, I had a reminder of things that really matter.

A few weeks later, I got giddy e-mails from friends, as Ebert had quoted a brief snippet from my Toronto International Film Festival review of Rendition in his own. And really, what could be a nicer thing to hear -- that a person you admire in your field found something to like in your work? Friends joked that I could get t-shirts of the pertinent paragraph made up, or a tattoo, and I laughed, but the truth is that I store my memory of that privileged moment -- and the brief, yet gracious note he sent in response to my acknowledgment of his piece that morning -- in my mind alongside other things that keep me going when things are not good, or when my writing feels unworthy, or when the words and words and words feel like nothing more than words and words and words.

And when I heard Roger wouldn't be here at Sundance this year, I felt a moment of sadness; if I had said anything to him (after introducing myself unnecessarily once more) if he had been up here, it might have been this: Thank you, not just for one review where you quoted what I'd written but for every review you've written that made me want to write. And I wouldn't have said that to him, face to face, but I can say it here. I'm typing these thoughts that have been on my mind as a brief break from typing about movies at Sundance. And I've felt Roger's presence here even though he isn't here: In the films and filmmakers that have come from a tradition of independent American cinema that Ebert cultivated, and still helps build and grow, through his support for films he thinks deserve it. In the foreign films that are hoping to take root in the rocky soil America offers their chances, soil that would be so much more barren and harsh if Ebert had not done so much to help it become more nourishing through years, decades of support for excellence and enthusiasm. In the work of many of the writers here, many of whom I'm lucky enough to know, because years ago one man proved you could write about film without being a tedious academic or a banal shill and demonstrated every week, every year, that you can write about film with good humor and real insight and verve and vigor and principle and good manners. In some of the web-based video clips of interviews I've seen filed from up here, because Ebert demonstrated long ago, alongside Gene Siskel, that you could do TV about movies and still say something honest and real.

I didn't want this piece to become an open letter -- that most tiresome of the clichés in the columnist's arsenal -- but I'm writing this on the 24th, and I hope Roger's surgery went well today, and I hope he regains his speech; I miss the tone of appreciation in his voice when it speaks with praise, and the musical baritone notes of his disapproval. But even if it doesn't, I know that he will still be writing, which means I will still be reading. When I was younger, long before I started writing about film, I was in London, and touring St. Paul's Cathedral. I was stopped and moved by the words above the crypt of the great architect Christopher Wren, who built so much of that majestic city: Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice -- "Reader, if you seek his monument, look about you." And I've been thinking about that and thinking about Ebert, because if you seek Ebert's voice, you can find it about you -- and not just here in Park City, either. It's in the struggling theaters in your town that play smaller films, it's in the breadth of choice of films in theaters or on DVD, it's in the landscape of films and film criticism that would be very different, and not for the better, if Ebert had not helped create and drive and support a different way of talking about film through strong and elegant work for years. No, he's not here in Park City, he's not here at Sundance. But he is, and we're lucky for that.

Comments

[ttlms]

I remember one of Roger's recent columns, right before he was going to appear in public, warning people about his physical appearance as being that of someone who was sick. Then I saw a photo of him wearing a turtleneck collar, presumably to conceal some surgical scars. Roger, I thought you looked great! Keep your eyes open and your thumbs up. And get well soon.

[ehnonymous]

Something dreadfully wrong with this sentence: "In a field so often defined by the smirk of show-off cynics, by the buzzy drone of 'entertainment journalism' or by the my Toronto International Film Festival review of Rendition in his own."

Cut and paste gone wrong?

[esgabel]

Growing up in Chicago I was blessed with Ebert and the Sun Times and later WTTW's At the Movies with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. Movies carry me away, echo my life experience and inspire. From the stylish movies of the 30's and 40's, forward I have loved the silver screen and been enriched by Roger Ebert's Commentaries. Thanks Roger. You are in my prayers.

[auramac]

Great article. I too hope to hear Roger's voice again soon. Of course, I still do when I read his reviews.