Despite neither cared for one of my favorite films, "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", and they both liked "Forrest Gump", which I think is grossly overrated, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert altered how we view America's favorite pastime. From the late 1970's until Siskel's untimely passing in 1999, "Siskel and Ebert" brought an objective perspective to films removed from the star worship and genuflecting that the public often pays to the entertainment industry. "Siskel and Ebert" taught us that films are about entertainment and art, and really little more. Every week, they discussed why or why not certain feature films were worth seeing, be they hyped big-budget feature films, or smaller independent films. I remember hearing them talk about a shoe-string budget documentary called "Hoop Dreams" about young African-Americans with dreams of playing in the NBA. When I finally decided to watch it, based largely on their recommendation, I couldn't stop watching it. By around 1990, the studios realized that a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down" (the famous symbols of recommendation or avoidance) from Siskel and Ebert could influence box office receipts, and I think they helped to improve the quality of movies over the years.
Particularly in the United States since the 1920's, the corporate studios have contrived to paint a picture of the entertainment industry as a fantasy world replete with nobility, limos, and satin gowns amid flashing cameras, as if a movie premier is akin to the crowning of a monarch. The movie stars and directors are the royalty and nobility, and the film-going public are a kind of peasantry, waving at the procession of nobles from behind secure gates. The studios characterize themselves as wonderful benefactors of films toward a thankful movie-going public who should be grateful for receiving such wonderful entertainment. Whereas, it really is the other way around. Films and film careers live and die based on box office receipts and video sales. With the rise of film criticism, I think that the mystique of filmmaking has been somewhat tempered, and Siskel and Ebert were able to soften the "larger than life" atmosphere the studios often want to project. But the studios still fight very hard to entrance the public in order to get them into the theaters, despite whether a movie is of quality or pure schlock.
When you take away the limos, the stars, the velvet carpets, the gowns and the flashing cameras, film is simply about an art and/or entertainment experience for about 2 hours brought to you by a script, actors, set designers, cameramen, a director, and a myriad of other people needed to create such a project. There are films designed for pure escapist entertainment, such as "Pirates of the Caribbean"; there are artistic films like those of Fellini, such as "8 1/2"; and there are films that blur between the two, such as "Casablanca" and "Ghandhi". Films are about allowing a viewer into another world that he/she could probably not otherwise experience. Each individual decides whether the movie was successful in terms of how they enjoyed this finite event. Were they absorbed by the script, scenes and actors or were they starting to look at their watch? Probably the success or failure of a film is determined by how much the viewer was absorbed into it and how much they enjoyed this absorption.
"Siskel and Ebert" did not care about the lights, the stardom, the limos, or the velvet carpets. What they did care about was the final product, the actual film that viewers would see. Was this a movie worth seeing? Is it a movie to avoid at all costs? Is this a film just for pure entertainment or one that transcends most other offerings? Is it a movie for a particular audience that not all may appreciate, like a Kung-Fu or disaster film? Is it a movie expressing an artistic vision that may be somewhat challenging to average movie-goers? Or is it a slasher cult movie? Siskel and Ebert every week made the point that the real royalty were the movie-goers, not the filmmakers. They gave equal credit to all genres, be they horror, action, comedy, drama, etc. A favorable review depended upon quality. That's why in the days of Shakespeare, the actors bowed to the audience, because actors' careers lived or died by audience approval or disapproval. Their irreverence toward the studios emphasized what films are really for: to entertain audiences.
Siskel and Ebert were famous for their on-screen disagreements. While both recognized the truly great films, like "Casablanca" and "Citizen Kane", they could disagree about the lighter fair. While Ebert would (and still does) like overtly sentimental offerings, Siskel would sometimes balk at the cutesy stuff, although both liked "Forrest Gump" much to my astonishment. One that comes to mind is "Back to the Future II" (the worst of the three) which Ebert recommended but Siskel didn't. Of all movie reviewers, including those in print, Siskel was probably closest to my own tastes, although Ebert has been for going on a half-century one of the most intelligent and insightful writers of film criticism. Ebert and Siskel knew to find the heart and meaning of good films. Simultaneously, when a film lacked substance, they would pounce on it. I remember them trashing every Paulie Shore movie in the 1990's, and these films deserved their critical beatings.
They couldn't always steer American tastes. Both hated "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" which did quite well at the box office, so it's not like they could necessarily wield control over all movie-goers. The viewers of their show were probably of slightly higher intelligence. But they could certainly start a wave of either negative or positive reaction to a film. They did their job by only looking at the movie itself and ignoring the hype. We may never have such a dynamic duo of film criticism on the television airwaves again.
Particularly in the United States since the 1920's, the corporate studios have contrived to paint a picture of the entertainment industry as a fantasy world replete with nobility, limos, and satin gowns amid flashing cameras, as if a movie premier is akin to the crowning of a monarch. The movie stars and directors are the royalty and nobility, and the film-going public are a kind of peasantry, waving at the procession of nobles from behind secure gates. The studios characterize themselves as wonderful benefactors of films toward a thankful movie-going public who should be grateful for receiving such wonderful entertainment. Whereas, it really is the other way around. Films and film careers live and die based on box office receipts and video sales. With the rise of film criticism, I think that the mystique of filmmaking has been somewhat tempered, and Siskel and Ebert were able to soften the "larger than life" atmosphere the studios often want to project. But the studios still fight very hard to entrance the public in order to get them into the theaters, despite whether a movie is of quality or pure schlock.
When you take away the limos, the stars, the velvet carpets, the gowns and the flashing cameras, film is simply about an art and/or entertainment experience for about 2 hours brought to you by a script, actors, set designers, cameramen, a director, and a myriad of other people needed to create such a project. There are films designed for pure escapist entertainment, such as "Pirates of the Caribbean"; there are artistic films like those of Fellini, such as "8 1/2"; and there are films that blur between the two, such as "Casablanca" and "Ghandhi". Films are about allowing a viewer into another world that he/she could probably not otherwise experience. Each individual decides whether the movie was successful in terms of how they enjoyed this finite event. Were they absorbed by the script, scenes and actors or were they starting to look at their watch? Probably the success or failure of a film is determined by how much the viewer was absorbed into it and how much they enjoyed this absorption.
"Siskel and Ebert" did not care about the lights, the stardom, the limos, or the velvet carpets. What they did care about was the final product, the actual film that viewers would see. Was this a movie worth seeing? Is it a movie to avoid at all costs? Is this a film just for pure entertainment or one that transcends most other offerings? Is it a movie for a particular audience that not all may appreciate, like a Kung-Fu or disaster film? Is it a movie expressing an artistic vision that may be somewhat challenging to average movie-goers? Or is it a slasher cult movie? Siskel and Ebert every week made the point that the real royalty were the movie-goers, not the filmmakers. They gave equal credit to all genres, be they horror, action, comedy, drama, etc. A favorable review depended upon quality. That's why in the days of Shakespeare, the actors bowed to the audience, because actors' careers lived or died by audience approval or disapproval. Their irreverence toward the studios emphasized what films are really for: to entertain audiences.
Siskel and Ebert were famous for their on-screen disagreements. While both recognized the truly great films, like "Casablanca" and "Citizen Kane", they could disagree about the lighter fair. While Ebert would (and still does) like overtly sentimental offerings, Siskel would sometimes balk at the cutesy stuff, although both liked "Forrest Gump" much to my astonishment. One that comes to mind is "Back to the Future II" (the worst of the three) which Ebert recommended but Siskel didn't. Of all movie reviewers, including those in print, Siskel was probably closest to my own tastes, although Ebert has been for going on a half-century one of the most intelligent and insightful writers of film criticism. Ebert and Siskel knew to find the heart and meaning of good films. Simultaneously, when a film lacked substance, they would pounce on it. I remember them trashing every Paulie Shore movie in the 1990's, and these films deserved their critical beatings.
They couldn't always steer American tastes. Both hated "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" which did quite well at the box office, so it's not like they could necessarily wield control over all movie-goers. The viewers of their show were probably of slightly higher intelligence. But they could certainly start a wave of either negative or positive reaction to a film. They did their job by only looking at the movie itself and ignoring the hype. We may never have such a dynamic duo of film criticism on the television airwaves again.