For the offended

What is this?

Thursday, April 9, 2026

Flashback 2013: Reviewing movies was the least of it

Roger Ebert comments on NPR in 2006 (Photo courtesy of Sound Opinions)

     Shakespeare wrote, in "Julius Caesar," that "the evil men do lives after them, but the good is oft interred with their bones." That might be generally true — I'm not in a position to tell. But not always. Not with Roger Ebert, whose kindness and wisdom — and excellent writing — extend far beyond his time on earth, or the after-echo experienced by even the most successful journalists. 
     Certainly he lives on in my writing — I mention him from time to time, and recently started a column  with his lecturing on "La Dolce Vita." Facebook served up this piece, that ran 13 years ago today, and it's too enjoyable not to share.
    As is one moment that I mention on Facebook — truly, it's the part I remember best, as I was practically cringing. Here's how I describe it:
     "Roger Ebert's funeral at Holy Name was quite beautiful — my column will be posted [soon]. There was a bit of levity, before. I was sitting with the Sun-Times crew and the Holy Name, pastor, Msg. Mayall, came over to me, directly. 'You're not going to escort me out, are you?' I said, in a small voice. No, he wanted to thank me — I had helped raise money for repairs after their fire (I had forgotten). Nice guy."

 

     In the end, the movies weren’t the important part.
     Oh, being a film critic certainly made Roger Ebert a rich, famous, influential man.
     But — and as with all good surprise endings, I didn’t see this coming — when his loved ones, his friends, colleagues, regular readers and admirers gathered at Holy Name Cathedral Monday to say goodbye to Roger on what started as a rainy, gray, chill Chicago morning and ended in warm, golden sunlight, the world of box-office numbers and star-fueled glamour and good reviews and bad reviews felt very, very far away.
     What mattered was his noble soul, his quick mind, his big heart, his brave pen, his loyalty to his profession and his city. “We know he loved Chicago and Chicago loved Roger,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel. “He was the most American of American critics in the most American of American cities.”
     Mass was officiated by a trio of priests — Monsignor Daniel Mayall, parish pastor of Holy Name, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, St. Sabina’s firebrand and the Rev. John F. Costello, special assistant to the president of Loyola University, who delivered a homily that showed off his Jesuit training by explaining — without ever drawing attention to the fact he was explaining — a question perhaps on the mind of many: how Chicago’s most famous agnostic and public doubter of all doctrines ended up being delivered up to heaven at the city’s preeminent Catholic cathedral.
     The answer: He found God — well, a version of God, Costello said, “a new God, one of ironic compassion, of overpowering generosity, of racial love” — at the movie theater.
     “I am convinced from our conversations that Roger found in darkened places, especially theaters, just such a God,” Costello said. “In that discovery in the darkness, Roger found a Jesus very different from the one he had been handed as a young Catholic child growing up in the Heartland of our great country. This Jesus was an ironic one with unquenchable love, even for — especially for — people who betrayed him.”
     Costello cited the 1966 novel “ Silence,” by Japanese writer Shusaku Endo. Its main character, Father Sebastian Rodrigues, is a 17th century Portuguese Jesuit priest who learns that his beloved former seminary teacher has been captured in Japan, tortured and forced to renounce Christ.
     “Finding it impossible to believe that his mentor and teacher chose apostasy over ‘glorious martyrdom,’ ’’ Costello said, Rodrigues travels to Japan, where he finds himself in similar straits — captured by a Shogun warlord, who demands that he also condemn his faith — only there is a cruel twist this time. It is not Rodrigues who will be tortured, but three Christian peasants who will suffer in his place unless he renounces his belief by trampling upon an image of Jesus.
     “In the dark night of the soul, Rodrigues choose to apostatize for the love and compassion of those suffering,” Costello said. “In praying to the heretofore silent Jesus, Rodrigues hears from the face of Christ that he is about to defile, ‘Trample! It was to be trampled on by men that I was born into the world. It was to share men’s pain that I carried my cross.’ ’’
     In other words: Sometimes official doctrine has to be set aside in order to help people. Not a message the church is saturating the airwaves with. But then, that was Roger. He could bring out the best in anybody.
     “Roger loved being part of the humanity he embraced all of his life,” Costello said. “He, like Rodrigues, felt the compassion and love he saw among the shadows in the celluloid darkness, for the people in the stories, the viewer in the theater, and the hearts which meekly yet unwavering seek their Author.”
     Gov. Pat Quinn called Ebert “a great and humble man with a servant’s heart” who had “a passion for social justice, Catholic social justice.” If you’re wondering what reviewing movies has to do with social justice, the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s middle son, Jonathan, explained how Ebert was a passionate advocate for African-American filmmakers.
     “He took us seriously,” Jackson said, reading a note from director Spike Lee. “ ‘He saw young black children not as problems, but as people . . . Roger Ebert was a champion of my work and other black filmmakers at a critical time in American film history.”
     The last speaker was Roger’s widow, Chaz Ebert, moved by her daughter’s words, she said, to spontaneously take the pulpit.
     “He would have loved this, the whole thing,” she said. “Loved that you were all here. . . . He really was a soldier for social justice. He had the biggest heart I’ve ever seen. It didn’t matter your race, creed, color, level of ability, sexual orientation. He had a heart big enough to accept and love all.”
     Funerals are for the living, and Roger Ebert’s not only made being alive seem more precious, but sent those attending into the day wondering how to do a better job of it.
           — Originally published in the Sun-Times, April 9, 2013 

17 comments:

  1. One of your most touching columns. Sad day when Mr. Ebert passed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All true. The blog Ebert wrote in his last years was a gift, a blessing. Both fun and deeply enlightening, it was a perfect reflection of his extraordinary mind and humanistic values. Best of all, he created a community of readers and commenters that enriched his posts with their own thoughts and ideas. This was the early days of social media, before bots and algorithms and bad ideas, but it's also a credit to the power of Ebert's writing and thinking and the way he drew people to him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Roger's writing was just so elegant & concise. I remember he was the one who wrote the front page headline for the Sox loss of 11-0 in a playoff game, but i can't remember the actual headline.
    And of course his classic review of the movie "North", whose first line is "I hate this movie, I hate this movie!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clark St: The White Sox in their history have never lost a playoff game 11-0. What evidence do you have that inspires you to casually toss of a (non) factoid on this blog that you " remember he was the one who wrote the front page headline for the Sox loss of 11-0 in a playoff game." Further, you state you can't even remember the actual headline for this game to which no actual score exists. What evidence do you even have that Roger Ebert wrote such a headline - that apparently only you remember, sort of? Just wondering, was there a by line above or below this headline?

      Delete
    2. When Roger died, Barack Obama said: "To a generation of Americans, and especially to Chicagoans, Roger Ebert WAS the movies." How many people still remember that Roger's Sun-Times review almost singlehandedly resurrected "Bonnie and Clyde" from oblivion, after it was shredded by the rest of America in the late summer and early fall of 1967?

      Everyone else hated it. HATED it. TIME magazine, Newsweek, the New York Times. They thought it was violent, sickening, worthless. Almost pornographic in its then-shocking violence. Meant only for an inglorious future in Texas drive-ins.

      But Roger's bold and no-nonsense review made people take another look. The rest, as they say, is cinematic history. "Bonnie and Clyde" paved the way for so much more.

      Roger wrote:

      “Bonnie and Clyde is a milestone in the history of American movies, a work of truth and brilliance. It is also pitilessly cruel, filled with sympathy, nauseating, funny, heartbreaking, and astonishingly beautiful. If it does not seem that those words should be strung together, perhaps that is because movies do not very often reflect the full range of human life."

      "Under Arthur Penn’s direction, this is a film aimed squarely and unforgivingly at the time we are living in. It is intended, horrifyingly, as entertainment. And so it will be taken. The kids on dates will go to see this one..."

      "But this time, maybe, they’ll get more than they counted on. The violence in most American movies is of a curiously bloodless quality. People are shot and they die, but they do not suffer. In Bonnie and Clyde, however, real people die. Before they die they suffer, horribly. These become people we know, and when they die it is not at all pleasant to be in the audience."

      "When people are shot in Bonnie and Clyde, they are literally blown to bits. Perhaps that seems shocking. But perhaps at this time, it is useful to be reminded that bullets really do tear skin and bone, and that they don’t make nice round little holes like Swiss cheese... "

      "This is pretty clearly the best American film of the year. It is also a landmark. Years from now, it is quite possible that Bonnie and Clyde will be seen as the definitive film of the 1960s, showing with sadness, humor and unforgiving detail what one society had come to. The fact that the story is set 35 years ago doesn’t mean a thing. It had to be set sometime. But it was made now and it’s about us."

      Maybe Mr. Ebert's biggest, best, longest, highest, most arching homer ever. Still a joy to read, and food for thought, almost six decades later.

      He was sorely missed. And he still is.

      Delete
    3. Everyone including me thinks Ebert started off his review of North by saying I hated this movie. That is wrong. He doesn't write that until the 8th paragraph of his review. Still a great line though. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/north-1994

      Delete
    4. The White Sox never lost a World Series of play off game 11 to 0. They did beat the Dodgers 11-0 in the 59 world series

      Delete
    5. One of life’s simple pleasures is reading Roger’s slaying of a movie that he didn’t like. At least three collections of these gems have been published: “I Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie”, “A Horrible Experience of Unbearable Length”, and “Your Movie Sucks”. I have all of them on my shelf, and they never fail to do the trick when I need some cheering up.
      Recommended companions to those treasures would be any collection by the late, great film and theater critic John Simon. He was a little meaner than Roger, but very erudite and just as hilarious.

      Delete
  4. Brilliant and moving. Thanks for sharing. A nice start to the day for this Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A deeply wonderful light hearted man, with grace, humor, bravery, and humility. He was the epitome of "giving back", often without even knowing it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The passage ...
    "The answer: He found God — well, a version of God, Costello said, “a new God, one of ironic compassion, of overpowering generosity, of racial love” — at the movie theater."
    ... makes me think of one of John Updike's later novels 'In the Beauty of the Lillies", where one of the main characters, Rev. Wilmot, loses his faith and self-soothes, at least in part, by becoming a bit of a cinema fanatic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. On the tv show, Gene Siskel was so rude to him. Never liked GS.

    ReplyDelete
  8. glad you got to visit the lovely Cathedral

    ReplyDelete
  9. He had a heart big enough to accept and love all.

    Franco

    ReplyDelete
  10. Was in college and reading the Sun-Times every day when Roger Ebert came to the Sun-Times in 1967. One of his earliest reviews was about a British film called "The War Game"...which documents the effects a nuclear attack on a city in England. His descriptions were so powerful that they made me feel an overwhelming need to see it. Which I did.

    His words:

    "The cameras follow the consequences, in horrific detail. There is remarkable authenticity. Burn victims die without drugs. Wedding rings are taken from the dead. They fill a bucket. These sections are certainly the most horrifying ever put on film (although, to be sure, greater suffering has taken place in real life, and is taking place today). The camera examines a woman who stands over a dead policeman, her arms filled with looted food.

    And there was more:

    "In probably the saddest and most heart-wrenching scene, the interviewer asks four little boys what they want to be when they grow up. “I don’t want to be nothing,” says the first tiny, barely audible voice. “Neither do I want to be nothing,” says the next. They should string up bedsheets between the trees and show “The War Game” in every public park. It should be shown on television." (which it was, many years later, with negligible results).

    Walked out of the theater in a daze, and took a left turn on the way home. Figuratively, as well as literally. Have never looked back.

    Thank you, Mr. Ebert. You changed my life. And you were a national treasure.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm glad to be a part of a society that still has room for kindness and celebrating a person like Roger Ebert even years after his passing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. thanks for this one. i always thought that roger's. elegance as a writer was too often overlooked and i was amazed at. how his compassion, intellect and skill transported readers into a deeper understanding of the art involved in the making of a good film. of course, you're pretty damn goood yourself, and father costello had a few chops of his own.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are vetted and posted at the discretion of the proprietor. Please try to post under a name of some sort, so that other readers can differentiate between commenters.