I Miss Siskel and Ebert

I have loved movies for most of my life. Even before I could go to movies by myself, I would read the movie pages of the newspaper with great interest – “Wow, this Rocky Horror Picture Show must really be scary, they play it every weekend!” As a child of no more than ten or so, I discovered Siskel and Ebert on PBS. Their show, “Sneak Previews” was filled with intelligent discussions about movies, and I made sure to watch it every week. They discussed movies with passion and insight, and I loved it.

I remember their commentary back then as being more in-depth than it was on later shows. Their clips would be longer and they would cover only two or three movies in an hour. The conversations were allowed to flow without the start and stop of commercials. I may be building it up into more than it was, but these are what my eight to twelve-year-old memories recalled, and clearly it was good enough to capture the hearts of America, because the two men started showing up on the Tonight Show (hosted by a really nice old man named Johnny) and the next thing you knew they had jumped to commercial television.

The style and content of the show changed a bit (for the worse), but Siskel and Ebert continued to be passionate about movies. “Thumbs up” and “Thumbs down” became synonymous with their movie reviews. I didn’t love the new show quite as much as the old one. The discussions were briefer, and they seemed intent on covering more movies per half hour, but now with time for commercials in-between. They also started reviewing videos as they came out. The commentary was less intense, but I appreciated their views. I was seeing several movies a month at this point, and found myself mainly in agreement with Siskel, except about popcorn/action movies, which Ebert had a better eye for.

When Siskel died, I was quite sad. It was hard for me to watch the show without him. I never really warmed up to the new guy, Roeper. I still watched on occasion, but the “Ebert & Roeper” never made my Tivo list. Roeper simply wasn’t the same kind of counterbalance, and he hadn’t been around when I was ten years old. He did nothing for me.

When Ebert went in for surgery, I didn’t expect it to permanently take him off the air, but after the sudden death of Siskel I did start worrying. I started watching the show again for a while, mainly to see the wonderful array of guest hosts that filled in for him those first few months. Kevin Smith and Harold Ramis were the most interesting to me. Eventually the film geeks went away and Roeper was joined by other film critics of varying quality. I lost interest again.

Now, because Ebert still cannot speak after over two years and may never be able to speak again, Ebert and Roeper have officially been replaced by a pair of slick-looking young men who are telegenic, but don’t have any real film review credibility. I have no desire to see them. Roeper will surely land somewhere, with Ebert helping out behind the scenes, but it too will be a pale imitation of the old show. The days of Siskel and Ebert sitting across the aisle from each other, trading film observations and insults, is gone. I, for one, miss it. I take some comfort in the fact that Ebert still writes reviews, and I hope that he keeps at it for a long time, but for me it will never be the same as his conversations / arguments with Siskel.

Why I Stopped Going to the Movies

My friend Steve texted me six times yesterday with his countdown to the midnight showing of The Dark Knight. His level of excitement was about as high as I have ever seen from him. He was boiling over with anticipation. I wish I could say I shared the excitement. It sounds like a good movie. The reviews are great. I know the Batman mythology well and it sounds like they may have finally gotten it right. The problem is, to see it I have to go to a packed movie theater, and for the most part I just don’t enjoy doing that anymore.

Back in the eighties and into the nineties, a typical weekend for me included seeing at least one and as many as three movies. I wasn’t picky about what movies I saw. I went to almost any comedy, most action movies, plenty of dramas and a smattering of foreign films. I had plenty of company too. Most weekends I had no problem finding two or more friends to go to the movies with me. Life changes for everyone, and it certainly has for me. At this point, I go to the movies about once a month and usually at someone else’s urging. I almost always regret it. The experience has changed, and I have as well. Below are five reasons why I’ve stopped going to the movies:

I don’t want to spend the money

I’m not usually strapped for cash these days, but I’m cheaper than I used to be. When I made six dollars an hour, plunking down twelve dollars for a ticket, popcorn and a soda didn’t bother me. Now I make several times that, but the thought of spending forty dollars or more for my wife and I to go to the movies just seems like a waste of money, especially when my local video store (Sorry Blockbuster, I found a better deal) charges me $.99 to rent the DVD complete with features and I can spend the other 39 dollars on far better snacks with money to spare.

I’ve already seen it

Hollywood stopped making new movies years ago. They were already recycling pretty heavily in the eighties and nineties, but now it seems to have reached a fever pitch. Every major movie this year is a sequel or based on a comic book (or both). I’ve seen them all before. As for the rest of the cineplex, try to tell any two romantic comedies apart these days. The pattern is so hardwired that you can time the beats on your watch.

Commercials

I don’t go to movies to watch commercials. Thanks to Tivo, I rarely even watch commercials at home. I am perfectly happy to sit through previews of coming attractions, but I do not want to experience jingle spouting dancers shouting the word Fanta at me in Dolby Surround Sound. I also don’t want to be lectured about movie piracy. I don’t steal movies, and I don’t know of any reason that those annoying commercials would stop somebody who did. They are just punishing the innocent.

People don’t know how to watch a movie anymore

Even in the eighties, you had to deal with people talking in movies, but the trend is growing exponentially. Between the people chatting with each other, the people talking on their cell phones and the people texting each other, the theater isn’t just loud, it’s glowing. It’s easy to blame this sort of thing on these kids today but I see plenty of older offenders who should know better. I am also shocked by the number of people bringing small children to late showings of movies — especially R-rated movies. It is simply inappropriate.

Television got better

While the quality and originality of movies seems to have fallen steadily during my time as a moviegoer, the quality of television has risen dramatically over the same period. Shows like Lost, The Shield, Weeds, Dexter, Californication, Entourage and The Office have raised the bar for writing and production values to the point that they are every bit as entertaining as movies. Sure, there is a lot of junk out there, but the beauty of Tivo and other DVRs is that you can watch what you want, when you want. In the past, movies (with their multiple viewings per day) were more accessible than television shows, but now that gap has closed.

I’ll always be a fan of movies, but more and more I am waiting for the DVD to come out. There isn’t the sense of urgency that there once was. I know I can see it sooner or later, and I’m perfectly happy to wait most of the time. Also, it seems as if the truly unique movies only make it to the video store. The theater is too busy showing the latest bland blockbuster on eight different screens.

Three Reasons to Support the WGA Strike and Three Ways You Can Do It

Anne Wayman over at The Golden Pencil wrote a great article about the WGA strike today, and in the comments she asked me for ideas about how to support the strike. This post is my response.

Three Reasons to Support the WGA Strike

TV and Film Writer’s Don’t get to Copyright Their Work
Even as a lowly blogger, my work automatically gets a copyright the moment I publish it on my site. I own it. I might, like Leo over at ZenHabits, choose to give up that right, but it is my right to give. A screenwriter’s work, once it is acquired by a studio (which is pretty much the only way to see it get produced and distributed) no longer belongs to the writer. It never belongs to them again. Ever. They have no rights to it other than what the studios agree to give. The WGA is there to make sure the writers are fairly compensated for giving up the rights to their work. By the way, if you think this is the same for copywriters or technical writers, guess again. There’s a genuine difference between business writing performed to a company’s specifications and creative work performed in the hopes of people enjoying it.

There is a Limited and Tightly Controlled Market for a Screenwriter’s Work
The lion’s share of the television and motion picture market is controlled by just six extremely large corporations, all of whom work very hard to make sure that outsiders cannot compete on a level playing field. These corporations also control most major news outlets, which is why NBC was able to run a “news” program about the Golden Globes Awards that never discussed the fact that the original show was canceled because of a strike.

Electronic Rights Means A LOT More Than Just YouTube
The simple fact is that with ever increasing bandwidth and services such as Tivo and Netflix, we are moving closer and closer to the end of traditional broadcast television. We are moving toward a model of video-on-demand, in which most shows will be downloaded by people who want to watch them. The profit model for this is still in flux, which is why the writers want a percentage, rather than a set fee. They want to be sure that whatever the future model is, they are fairly compensated. If a profit can’t be made, a percentage of the profits can’t harm anyone. Obviously though, there will be plenty of profit made.

Three Ways You Can Support the WGA Strike

You Can Stop Going to Movies
TV will die its own slow death due to a lack of new content, but the movie studios have at least a year’s worth of movies ready to go. They will only feel the effects of the strike if you stop going to movies. You are welcome to go to movies produced by studios that have signed independent deals with the WGA. At present that list includes films by United Artists, Spyglass, MRC, and Weinstein Company. The list is growing every week though.

You can Walk the Picket Lines with Writers
The WGA writers welcome support from other writers, especially moral support. Walking the line is admittedly easier if you live in Los Angeles or New York, but the chance to meet all these writers can serve you well in the future, especially if you want to be a screenwriter yourself. If you don’t want to walk, bring them pizza or donuts. All writers love food.

You Can Write About the Strike
The major corporate players in this strike control much of the broadcast media, but they don’t control the Internet and they only have some control over newspapers. Write letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. Blog about the strike. Write letters to the AMPTP and its major corporate players. Tell them to go back to the negotiating table and to stop playing PR games and giving ultimatums.

That’s it. I’m not asking you to give anyone your money or sacrifice anything more than a little time, effort, and maybe a pizza. Just be vocal in your support and remember who has the money and the power in this battle.

30 Poems in 30 Days: Courting Controversy

This is Day 11 of 30 Poems in 30 Days

The Big Tent

While I like to think of the poetry community as one big family, I don’t necessarily think of it as one big happy family. Just because you are in the same family doesn’t mean you have to like each other.

Alexander Pope was an insufferable little man (At 4 foot 6, I do mean little) who was loved by half the literary world and despised by the other half. Any poet his disliked, he insulted and parodied within his poems. Even poets that were his friends rarely escaped his poetic wrath. He was perhaps the best poet of his age, and he had no humility about that fact whatsoever.

In modern times, one of my poetic heroes, Charles Bukowski, was forever insulting the beat poets, and took great offense whenever his work was lumped in with theirs. On the surface, their work had many similarities, but Bukowski felt as if the beats were conspicuously trying to embrace the lifestyle of the poor and downtrodden, while for him that was simply the reality of his life.

Some people believe that you cannot have poetry without meter. That patterns are the very heart of poetry and that meter is the way of determining and defining those patterns. For most of the history of poetry, few poets questioned that poetry and meter were inextricably intertwined. In the twentieth century, however, poets began to reconsider the idea of meter. Poets such as William Carlos Williams began to focus image over meter. They wrote poetry in which line length was determined by the image or impression the line was meant to create rather than patterns of syllables, word lengths, sounds or stresses. This was a controversial act.

My point is that you will never please everybody. Some people will like your poems and others will, most decidedly, dislike them. You have to write what feels true to you. Embrace the pasts of your voice that you like, whether they are popular or fit in with the rest of the crowd.

Today’s Poetry Assignment

Read a poet you don’t like. Try to figure out what they do that upsets you and determine whether or not this assessment is fair. Try to think of ways that you would approach the same subject matter using your style. Write a poem that addresses some of the same subject / style / tone of the poet you dislike but do it in your own style.

Today’s Recommended Poet

I personally find this poets work to be interesting, but I find many of his word and pattern choices to be frustrating. Thats my opinion, but this review of “Selfwolf” from Kirkus has several more complaints:

The third book by the author of a critical study of Wallace Stevens anticipates critics by admitting its sentimentality and flat, demotic speech of course, the poems that indulge Hallidays delusions of greatness, though meant to be ironic, are closer to his sense of self-importance. Far too many of these colloquial narratives concern Hallidays anxieties about his academic career, and the poetry biz: Loaded Inflections mocks all critics, leaving true judgment only to God and the future; two poems resent other poets who don’t sufficiently praise his genius; and The Halls bemoans the indifference of the building where he failed to get tenure.

Selfwolf 1999