So Roger Ebert's TV movie review show, Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies, is "on hiatus."
Sorry, but at this point in time and in this media culture, I have to say I'm surprised it's on at all. Perhaps it's time to put it to rest once and for all.
Really -- between video blogs and all the other on-demand-style movie criticism available on the Internet, the notion of a movie-review show on TV seems a little quaint.
Once upon a time, that wasn't the case. But these days, it all seems sort of last century. If anything, I'm amazed that what began as the Ebert-and-Siskel (or Siskel-and-Ebert) format has lasted this long -- or that it lasted at all once Ebert suffered the string of medical disasters that cost him the power of speech.
It was one thing for him to replace Gene Siskel when his long-time on-air partner died in 1999. You still had Ebert holding the fort, with his alternately cranky and enthusiastic vigor and rigor. Ebert is a brand-name -- the second celebrity movie critic (after Rex Reed) who became a TV star but never lost his boyish love of the movies.
I've met and interviewed Ebert several times over the years. More important, his show with Siskel was like a lifeline, when my career seemed lost in the black hole of a newspaper in Sioux Falls, S.D., in the early 1980s. Though I could escape to Minneapolis to see the smaller independent and foreign films of the day, I came to rely on my weekly dose of Siskel and Ebert on TV to provide a window into cinema that went beyond what the major studios were releasing. It was crucial, even essential viewing.
Eventually, I found my way to the East Coast -- at which point the Siskel-Ebert show became less of a necessity for me. Still, I'd check in from time to time, mostly to see how their opinions matched up with -- or contrasted with -- my own.
In the intervening years -- indeed, even while Siskel and Ebert were on the air -- there were pretenders to their throne, other duos who were slapped together to try to mimic the chemistry and strike the same sparks that Siskel and Ebert did. But none of them had the magic -- let alone the staying power -- that the original did.
I understood Ebert's indignation when his syndication company replaced his show -- which was populated by other actual critics when Ebert could no longer appear -- with a pair of chucklehead posers, as if to say, "We're not critics but we play them on TV." Like it was that simple -- as though the format was the star, rather than the actual critics.
And I understood the impulse when Ebert came back with a show he and his wife Chaz produced, using still other critics as stand-ins (with a regular feature showing Ebert typing a review that a narrator, usually Bill Kurtis, read aloud as Ebert's voice).
But I'll admit I never watched it. And, apparently, the audience was not sufficient to attract the necessary funding -- even for public TV -- to keep the show in production.
Far be it from me to offer advice to Roger Ebert. He is an acknowledged giant in my field, one whose work I have admired for decades, more than I'd care to admit.
It's a different world, one in which access to movie reviews -- and movies, for that matter -- is literally at people's fingertips. At the start -- even up until the point that Siskel died -- the Siskel-and-Ebert brand meant something. It hadn't been swamped by the one-two punch of the Internet and the hundreds of TV channels available on cable and satellite. These days, people don't even have to use a television to see TV shows.
So while I understand the fact that Ebert -- a fighter if there ever was one -- wants to give this show its shot, I'd say, well, let it go. He'll undoubtedly come up with another, better idea to excite him (beyond the day-to-day demands of simply being a working film critic).
And if he doesn't, well, how many people can say they created something truly original that lasted as long as this has?
Find more reviews, interviews and commentary on my website.
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.