Alrighty.... I’ve lived through the whole SISKEL & EBERT thing, and ya know what? I’ve had a whole hell of a lot of fun.
First off, I’ll give ya some of Ebert’s feelings on some of the TALK BACKS that appeared in the “Discuss the Episode” talkback. Here’s Roger...
“Read the first batch of reader feedback on your site with great interest. Some comments: Many people said you were nervous. I think this is because they would have been nervous, and were projecting. Proof: They often said you were nervous in the first segment and then settled down. Since the first segment was taped last, if you were nervous at all, it was least on that segment. Sitting across from you, I thought you were relaxed and held your own. “
You see... One of the reasons I didn’t want to talk about the filming of the show, was I was very curious to see... What you folks would think without knowing anything about the process.
As you can see from Ebert’s above comments, the show isn’t always taped linearly. We taped the first section twice, the version that got aired was the second taping.
Also, people have been talking about the ‘editing’ of my comments. Yes, that too took place, but you know what... It happened to Ebert as well.
On SLC PUNK, I did a quick impression of Matt Lillard’s acting skills, to which Roger reacted negatively to, and ya know... Many things were said.
But you know what? It’s a 21 and 22 minute show that ends up reviewing 6 items. It’s concise. It’s a brisk pace, and the number one thing I learned from this first show is, if or when I ever do the show again, I have to be concise and to the point in Crosstalk. I also mentally need to prepare for the opening statement coming off Roger’s review a bit more. Because the more you can cram into that instant retort... the more likely that it will stay in the show.
The main reviews that we (Roger and I) wrote and delivered straight into camera are edited and tightened. Not just mine, but his as well. It’s a fine art to trim a review down to it’s bare essentials, and for me.... Who usually writes long ponderious introspective musings about the film and my own life... Well, it was a chore, but.... At most I lost 4 sentences all together.
So, I did a pretty darn decent job of fitting into the format. And since I know Roger’s work is touched in the same way... Well, you know what... THAT’S TELEVISION!
The ideas and the opinions are never changed, but it has to, ta quote Lucas, “Be Faster and More Intense!”
Writing tight small 300 or less word reviews is... a strange format, but ya know, it’s a fun challenge, and since I can always write my long ponderious journeys into the jungle of filmic journalism... I’m happy.
In all, I have no gripes. I lost as many points to editing as Roger, so if it seemed Roger beat me.... Well then, in your opinion, he did so fair and square.
Personally, I don’t think either of us won or lost. We were feeding off of each others energy, and that energy built all the way through the show. And I liked that.
The funniest thing in TALK BACK is the bit about me being nervous. Ya know, for everyone that knows me, even periphally, they know that I wasn’t. You see.... When I begin talking film in reality. When the keyboard isn’t hindering my mouth and chaining my hands... I gesture like a m.f. For me, I cannonball my way into the conversation sending a wave. I love ‘getting into it’ and for me, me and Roger both celebrated film and argued it. As it should be. As all good film discussions go.
My serious comments on the show are as follows...
Right now, this show is very clearly Roger’s show. By writing 3 of the 5 principle reviews, the video pick of the week, the intro, the summary and the lead in to the next week.... Roger dominates... As he should... it’s his show.
So when you are out criticizing the various critics that go up against Roger, know that... Right now, the show is structured towards it’s established strength which is quite clearly Roger.
My suggestion is on the second rotation of any guest that comes on the show is to give him or her the reverse responsibilites the next time they appear. So that whoever the returning critic is, give them 3 reviews and the video of the week. Possibly let them doll up the summaries.
Mix it up a bit. For one, it’ll truly make the co-host, the CO-HOST.
But that is a rather small nitpick. In all, the show is a fantastic thing to do. Talking with Roger about films on and off the camera is, well like talking with a film lover... that knows a great deal about what he’s talking about. He’s passionate and respects other’s opinions even if they are half his age.
An interesting tidbit I learned from Ebert is this. He never graduated from a Film School with a degree in Film Criticism. He began writing reviews at the age of 24 and by the age of 27 he began the show with Siskel.
Strangely, I began writing reviews at the age of 24, and appeared on his show at the age of 27. What does it mean? Not a Goddamned thing, but I thought it was WEIRD as hell.
As for you folks desiring me to have my own TV show at a 1 hour format.... be careful what you ask for..... it may be closer than you think. (and yes I will leave it mysteriously at that.)
This has all been fascinating, an experience that was both enjoyable, and told me that I could read off a teleprompter as easily and convincing as I put down doughnuts (or let me rephrase that) As easily as I chew a carrot stick!
OH... and for all of you folks wanting me to go back on Ebert’s show for the STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE show.... Dream on. Roger has something quite special in the works for that show, and it will feature just him. Set your recorders, it’ll be a keeper.
Thanks for the support and the well wishes.... And to the few hundred people that dropped me an email message lauding praise on me.... Aw shucks.... Thanks. I’m not worthy. (But don’t let that stop ya! Hee hee hee)
