|
Aired
|
April 5, 2013
|
|
Running time
|
11:28
|
|
Previous review
|
|
|
Next review
|
|
|
Link
|
|
|
Video
|
 |
NC: Hello, I'm the Nostalgia Critic, I remember it so you don't have to. On September 4th, 1975, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert got together and they performed a review show where they looked at movies. It would eventually be called Siskel and Ebert. On February 20th, 1999, Gene Siskel passed away, and on April 4th, 2013, Roger Ebert passed away. I bring this up in this order for very specific reason. When many duos inevitably break apart, usually they can't survive on their own, because so many people see them as the duo they've seen as that for several years. But what was so cool about Roger, is that he was never just "and Ebert". He was never "and Ebert", he was always Roger Ebert, he was never the other guy, and the reason for that is because they had both such potent, strong personalities. That they could survive just as well on their own as they could together. Imagine way back when, when they were first starting. How many people were just scratching their heads at how...angry they could get at each other over a movie. Most people said, "That's not going to change anything, it's just a movie. It's mindless entertainment." What made both of them so...incredibly interesting to watch, though, is that not only did they get so personal about it, but they saw film as important, and they would always stress how important film is. They would say, "Not only is it art", but they would say, "This is a representation of what's going on right now." This is showing us what's being valued, what's not being valued, asking questions like, "Why is something many critics say is good not being a success or something critics don't like is a success?" "What's that say about us?" "What's that say about other people?" "What's that say about what's popular right now?" "What's that say about culture?" But what always shined through with them, whether they hated something or they loved something, was they had this incredible passion. And that's what I think people really related to, even if you totally disagree with them on something. They just had this passion for what they did. I don't know if how many people really keep in mind how many movies these...both these guys would review. They would review five movies a week. Where most critics do...two sometimes, you know, maybe three, uh, they would do five every week. And they would write about it and also do the television show about it. A lot of you are probably saying, "Oh, pfft, really?" Like that's really hard and stuff like that. To make it constantly entertaining and constantly make people want to come back and hear your opinion on something. Yes, that is difficult. For five movies a week? That is difficult. So many people, I think, going into any kind of criticism or appreciation of art or film literature or whatever, they think it's mathematics or science, and it's not. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert showed that this is about what you bring to it or what it can bring out of you or what it delivers or any of that stuff. It's a journey. It's an experience. It's "What does it do for you?" and "What are different points of view of looking at it?" There is no right or wrong way of looking at something. And they are the only people who could actually say there's a right and wrong way of looking at something! They would look directly at each other and say, "You are wrong!" But they could get away with it! They could get away with it because you knew they were getting caught up in how passionately they loved cinema and how much they knew it represented! They would get so vulgar and so angry in what we found out watching them. Why we kept watching them. Because we thought that the reason we liked these guys so much and why we enjoyed hearing them...argue about this stuff was because they were taking something that clearly isn't important than just talking about like little children. But what we were really enjoying was how passionate they were because we said to ourselves without even knowing it. If we had just an iota of that passion for anything in our lives, whether it be film or books or games or people or anything, we'd be pretty set. Like, we would have a lot of good things going for us because no matter what happens, we would have that undying passion that Roger Ebert had for movies and Gene Siskel had for movies. The kind where they would yell at each other! They would get personal! They would get so angry! But at the same time, they could get so...happy about what they reviewed. They could be so thankful for the job that they had because they would see something like Ed Wood or Fargo or any of these other incredible films. Freaking Beauty and the Beast! The Disney animated film! They would go on and on. "What a perfect wonderful movie this is!" And that's for kids! It was a children's animated film, and they took it just as seriously as the adult films. Because they took it that seriously! There was nothing that they said, "Oh, this is just for children, just for older people, just for teenagers, just for whatever!" They took it all seriously, because they knew it represented what was going on. They knew that this was important. It's the equivalent of taking the famous illusion of "Do you see an ugly old lady or do you see a beautiful young woman?" It's the same thing. It's not like Ebert would come in and be like, "No, it's the young woman, and that's it There's nothing else there!" No, he would say, "Look at it from this point of view. I know you may see something ugly, but take a look at it from this different point of view the way I see it. And at the very least, give yourself an option to see it from this point of view." That was what was so cool about Roger Ebert, and that he loved discussing, that he loved sharing. That even after Gene Siskel died, he still kept it going with other reviewers. You know, Ebert & Roeper and other critics that he had on, and that he would just keep it going, 'cause he loved the discussion. It was obvious he loved the discussion. A lot of you probably know that I did a tribute to Siskel and Ebert, and he tweeted about it. And I am so pathetic that I still have that goddamn tweet framed. I might be the only person to ever frame a tweet. And the reason I bring that up is because, once again, this shows...just how humble a guy he could be. And the reason is that I'm not a filmmaker. I'm not in Hollywood. I'm not doing any of that stuff. I'm not even really in the great scheme of things that huge a name. But he saw this video from a guy he'd never heard of, you know, he'd never watched, and he saw this tribute knowing that I wasn't from Hollywood. I wasn't a big name director. I wasn't any of this stuff. And he not only said it was a good tribute, he said it was the best he had ever seen. And for someone who clearly must be made aware that he is the most famous movie critic in the world to go out to this...this kid who just made something, you know, in his parents' other room with this little camera and one or two lights, this guy who has put so much passion into everything and say that it was the greatest he's ever seen, it's meant the world to me. It's meant the freaking world to me. And there's times where I said to myself, "God, I gotta look up where he's appearing next! When he's gonna do his next book signing or whatever!" Because I wanna say how much that meant to me. I was literally saying that the other day, like two days ago! I was saying that, and now...I will never get that chance. But here's what I do realize. It's that given how intelligent this guy is and how aware of his status he was and what a big name he was. He...must have known how much of an impact he had. Not just on me, but on so many of us. He must have known how much we appreciated him, because I don't think he would've shared as much if we didn't listen as much. If we didn't accept him as much. It really was a two-way street, because we would keep saying, "Tell us your opinion. Your opinion is actually a voice for us. Even if we disagree with you, we can see that you are a voice that I understand." That even if you say, "This is crap the way you talk about it." I might say "I like this or vice versa." If he loves something and maybe I can hear the way the talks about it I don't think I would like this because we did feel like we knew him so well. Because he shared so much with us and he shared his passion with us. He was the guy who made everybody want to be a movie critic, and not for the reasons you would think everyone wants to be a movie critic. Not because they get to complain and get paid for it. Not because it looked glamorous. Not because their opinion carries so much power. But because he had that passion. He had that love for it, and we were just wishing we could get just the tiniest bit of that passion and love. And I think by sharing that with us, we did. We did get so much of that passion and love. And he was kind enough to share it with us and to be honest about it. He never bullshitted anything. Everything was straightforward, and you knew that just by seeing him talk about it. And he would confess when he was wrong. And he would fight when he thought he was right. This really was...a rare person who changed more than even I think he was aware of. And it really, really breaks my heart that he's gone. But what I do know is that what he has left us...is a great education about movies. About understanding movies. About the passion of loving movies. And that's a greater education that...I know I couldn't teach. I know so many other critics couldn't teach. But he found the way, and he did it so unbelievably well. And I can say very honestly...so many people got it. We heard it. And we loved it. And we loved you, Roger Ebert. I'm the Nostalgia Critic, and you will always be remembered.
(The credits are rolled in silence as well as the Channel Awesome logo)