An atmosphere of joy and celebration permeated the crowd of almost
500 people on a chilly evening at the Hammer-schmidt Memorial Chapel at
Elmhurst College. “What Roger Ebert Meant to Us” was the subject of a
panel discussion moderated by Rick Kogan, veteran Chicago journalist,
along with Neil Steinberg, author and columnist at the Chicago
Sun-Times; Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune film critic; and Ignatiy
Vishnevetsky, film critic and founder of Cine-File.info. Chaz Ebert,
Roger’s widow, was in the audience with family and friends. All knew and
admired Roger, both for his “common touch” as a scholarly film devotee
and incisively forthright critic and as a man of notable kindness,
friendly exuberance, and dedicated cultural sensitivity.
The panel shared fond stories which spun off intelligent, lively, and
rewarding discussions of film, criticism and writing, and how Roger
Ebert contributed profoundly to those realms both, in print and on TV.
“At the Movies” was long aired with his companion critic, Gene Siskel
until the time of Siskel’s illness and passing.
Each of
the panelists had stories of Ebert nurturing people’s ambitions and more
fundamental concerns, even those not directly involved in the realm of
journalism or film criticism. His dedication to civil liberties went
back to the very early days of the 60s, before those efforts became a
vast cause célèbre.
In the world of criticism, Ebert left
very big shoes: Neil Steinberg said, “He’s got this wonderful, common
touch.... He had this relationship with the reader when he was so
excited about these movies.... A thousand years from now, he will be
read by those who want to know what movies were like in our time.”
Michael Phillips added, “Ebert didn’t try to write for everybody.
Despite his common touch, he had the air of someone who was trying to
get it right for himself.” Ignatiy Vishnevetsky commented, “It’s easy to
write in a simple style; what’s difficult is to still write in a simple
style and be completely accurate...that you’re not oversimplifying what
you’re talking about. I think that’s what he did, that’s really
difficult to do.”
Rick Kogan had the longest history with
Ebert; in fact, his father helped Ebert get hired at the Chicago
Sun-Times. He shared, “I had the ugly duty of reviewing that television
program...when I was a colleague of Roger’s... when those two guys (the
other being the late Gene Siskel) in the strangest clothes you’ve ever
seen...and they were both, frankly, a little awkward around the
edges.... If you had seen that first show, you could never imagine that
it would go on, yet it did......”
Kogan asked what the
panelists thought made their TV program work for 31 years. Michael
Phillips responded, “That they stayed where it started...they really
didn’t muck with the formula.” He added, “People trusted them, they
weren’t the kind of guys who had the demeanor of the huckster who says,
‘trust me.’ They simply were.” Ignatiy Vishnevetsky opined, “What’s
really interesting about his newspaper copy is that...it works very well
read aloud.... I think he wrote in a way that was very
conversational...which I think contributed to his appeal. He was the
same in print as he was on the television.”
The evening
closed on thoughtful questions from the audience to which the panel and
Chaz Ebert responded. Roger Ebert, who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize
and a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2005 used to say, in his
waning days with progressive cancer, that he was, “taking a leave of
presence.” While remaining a star here, one left the chapel with the
conviction that Roger Ebert likely remained a star in the hereafter, his
presence renewed in Eternity. Indeed, the evening was one of immense
appreciation for a presence gone but legacy-rooted giant.