“You have to realize you're not writing for the filmmakers, you're writing for the potential film audience. And I would much rather hurt somebody's feelings who made the picture then send somebody to see a movie and spend two hours of their life seeing a movie that I don't think is worth seeing.”
-- Roger Ebert
What better credo could a critic – any kind of critic – live by? Would that more wine writers kept it in mind.
I never met Ebert, though he did decline to write the introduction for my book about the movie “Casablanca,” written for its 50th anniversary. My editor, who knew him a little, thought she could talk him into it, but without success.
I did, however, have a great moment with Gene Siskel, who was Ebert’s original co-host on their TV movie review show. I was a 17-year-old phone clerk in the sports department at a newspaper in suburban Chicago in 1975. One evening, I answered the phone, expecting to talk to a high school basketball coach.
“Is Temple Pouncey there?” Pouncey was one of the writers, and was hosting a party that was legendary at the paper.
“No, he’s not. Can I take a message?”
“Yes, this is Gene Siskel, Can you tell him that I’m coming to the party?”
I almost dropped the phone. Siskel was the film critic at the Chicago Tribune, and this particular 17-year-old phone clerk wanted nothing more than to one day work for a big city newspaper like the Tribune. I idolized reporters the way others did rock stars.
“Yes sir, Mr. Siskel. I’ll give him the message.”
”OK. Now, that’s Gene Siskel,” and then he spelled his name for me, “S-I-S-K-E-L.”
Which is another lesson wine writers should learn – no matter how famous you think you are, you probably aren’t. Humility never goes out of style.
Recent Comments