Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Life and work of Roger Ebert
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Life and work of Roger Ebert
Roger Ebert is a famous Chicago Film-Critic who was born on June 18, 1942 and passed away on April 4, 2013. He also worked as a journalist, and a screenwriter. He worked for the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 up until he passed away. He was very popular in the movie business and won many awards and had very high regards from his coworkers and peers. Some even consider him the most famous movie critic in the world. He was married to his wife Chaz Ebert for 21 years. Although he did get married his very first love definitely had to be films, the movie making industry, and journalism. He struggled with many things throughout his historic career as a movie critic and fought numerous battles throughout his long and vast life.
Ebert’s high school
…show more content…
days really molded him into the writer he became today. He didn’t even begin looking at movies till later on in his career. At this point in his life he was just writing for his towns paper The News Gazzette. This time in his young career was crucial because this is where he was able to begin to create his “style” and really was able to figure out what he really wanted out of writing. After graduating he began attending the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in 1960. There he was able to obtain a more wide-spread column to write for The Daily Illini. This was his first real gig in which he was able to make an impact on a bigger scale. After a couple of years writing for the column he eventually rose to the senior editor of the gazette itself. His decisions to write lead him down a path he would never have imagined. It actually ended up working out for him, the fact that he just stuck to writing. He was hired by the Sun-Times’ Magazine to write for them. Then about a half year later, the main reporter passed away leaving a vacant position for Ebert to take advantage of. From the very beginning of his new position he portrayed that he was excited and passionate about being a film critic. He proved that he had a persona about himself that he brought to the paper that not many people had. On his first day at his new job he gave readers a look at the French film Galia, using the film to advance his overall opinion about the entire genre of French “New Waves” movies. His reviews of theses foreign movies received loads of praise from everyone and jumpstarted his movie critic career. It’s doubtful anyone could have predicted the prestige and longevity Ebert would bring to the position. He then made the transition to Television and being a movie critic on television for some television stations. Ebert decided to make the move to television which proved to be one of his greatest decisions. The decision to move to television put his name on the map and on the wider scene of movie critics. Ebert began to show that he had an influence on movies, their audience, and even the producers. He contributed a wide variety of things to the movie industry. With extremely popular show Opening Soon at a Theatre Near You and his partner in crime the much more reserved, Gene Siskel, their shows popularity flew through the roof. By the end of its first season it was on hundreds of public television stations. With the rise of their movie critiques and a brand new show they started becoming a couple of household names. The pair and specifically Ebert, had a huge contribution to the movie industry by campaigning for the creation of the NC-17 rating. Additionally they fought for and supported independent and foreign language films, as well as documentaries otherwise doomed to fall through the cracks. These movies then began receiving recognition and it began a whole new boom of under the radar documentaries to rise and be able to compete with the big name movies and the big name movie companies and producers. Ebert also began writing an assortment of books that expanded his thoughts on film.
This really gave an insight to what movie critics go through mentally when they are evaluating a movie. Some say that this helped movie producers get an inside edge on what they “should” produce for the audience and for the critics themselves. This changed the game for most producers, but his real impact was on the television screen.
The idea of the thumbs up thumbs down technique when it comes to reviewing movies is an everyday concept that seems as if it has always been around, but it hasn’t. Ebert and Siskel brought the concept to their show thinking it would be good to have a visual aid and something for the audience to get a feeling of participation in so they created the idea and it stuck. The concept is used on Internet movie review websites, on talk shows about movies, and even in everyday conversation. Giving a movie a “thumbs up” could technically be traced back to the Ebert and At the
…show more content…
Movies. Ebert received high praise by being added to the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2005. But, when it came to rating movies Ebert was brutally honest and up front about all the moviews he reviewed, which presented mixed feedback from people. In the movie business, movie producers were sometimes terrified to have Ebert do a review or hear about an Ebert review on their film because of his brutal honesty. He gave a review on the movie “Catwoman” and in the review he said, “There are three things good in it; Halle Berry’s Face, Halle Berry’s body and Halle Berry’s costume.” (LATimes) These were the types of things that helped Ebert gain status as the golden standard in movie critique. Then the man who was the golden standard and a “God” in the movie business then became human. He was stricken with cancer in his mouth. This forced surgeons to cut out part of his lower jaw. So the man who made a living with his words and voice settled into this new phase of life. The surgeries may have destroyed his television career, but not his writing. He decided to return to the Sun-Times and kept reviewing films. He was then able to move his writing and reviews to an online medium. He really felt that he could still use his knowledge of the movies to put out there his opinion and provide society with his true feelings towards movies. This new transition for him was a revelation and it changed When Ebert was towards the end on his career he started something in his hometown of Champaign, Illinois, his own movie festival.
The festival is called Roger Ebert’s Film Festival, but is usually referred to as Ebertfest, but Ebert wanted to originally call it the “Overlooked Film Festival”. This fest is a lot different than many other film festivals because as opposed to accepting submissions for movies to be played during the festival Ebert and the organizers of the fest would personally select the films. These were all films, as previously stated, as smaller no name films that had received no recognition. This reflects the type of person that Ebert was and showed his true stance on movies. He always felt that the smaller movies deserved a chance as well as the bigger ones and he did anything he can to fight for this sort of
thing. His greatest contribution has to be the developments that took place in early 2010. After several years of speaking with a computer-generated voice that he activated by a keyboard, Ebert stumbled across the work of CereProc, a Scottish company that analyzes prior recordings of a person’s voice to recreate a computer generated sound that is extremely similar to how a person actually speaks. For Ebert, there was no shortage of archived sound to draw from, and on March 2, 2010 after months of work, he debuted his old voice on the Oprah Winfrey Show. This work will help patients like him be able to communicate even without a jaw. He planned to go throttle New Media: Facebook, Twitter, Ipads every new sort of media out possible. The deteriorating of the old show and the old Ebert allowed him to recreate a whole new self, and image. He said that he had adapted to the times of technology and it actually helped him in his work. “My web site and blog at the Sun-times site have changed the way I work, and even the way I think. When I lost my speech, I speeded up instead of slowing down.”
Who decides how much someone's life is worth? Is it even morally right to put a price tag on someone's life? I believe that there should never be a price tag for how much someone's life is worth. Every life is unique and cannot simply be replaced. Every life should be treated the same no matter what the circumstance.
One of the best, most valuable aspects of reading multiple works by the same author is getting to know the author as a person. People don't identify with Gregor Samsa; they identify with Kafka. Witness the love exhibited by the many fans of Hemingway, a love for both the texts and the drama of the man. It's like that for me with Kurt Vonnegut, but it strikes me that he pulls it off in an entirely different way.
This film influenced me greatly and how I might be able to go about in my speech making. James Farmer Jr. and his debate team delivered their speeches with a lot of emotion, drawing their audiences in on their side. James Farmer used his own experiences and struggles to drive his speech making, while trying to prove himself to everyone that he was not just a child. Although James Farmer and I are different, especially in the way we present our speeches, I admired the way he used his knowledge and emotions to help win the last debate
In doing so, he has established a signature mark. Both his films mix drama and comedy in a way that does not diminish the other. He exaggerates his characters for comedic effect but makes sure that they never crossover into being too slapstick. His films are short, around ninety minutes, and use montages to move quickly through narrative. His films contain both causal and episodic narratives. All his scenes are relatively short so his characters have lots of opportunities for different interactions. And he uses nature to reveal how a character is feeling. The way he tells a story is unique and constantly fascinating. His style and brand of humor is instantly recognizable, whether you 're watching one of his features, shorts, or advertisements. He still has the opportunity for a long career ahead of him and as he moves into more mainstream Hollywood, it will be important to see how he changes. His films may not have won any Oscars, but they have received acclaim in New Zealand and abroad. His effectiveness as a director and writer is impressive and his talent undeniable. Because he has been able to carve out this auteur identity in such a crowded industry, his films are surely worthy of study in the future. At the very least, they 'll always be highly
...l in our society today. With these aspects in the movie, he allows people to see certain flaws in the movie industry and celebrities from a different perspective. It also was a way for the movie industry and those celebrities to see themselves in this way. This movie used comedy as a method of showing these flaws and as it could have encouraged more people than offended. Even with that being said, some people may learn and change, but there will surely always be those absurd celebrities out there. This movie was a hit and many people found it funny in many different ways. This only means that there will probably be more of these films to come.
What parts of the film were surprising or made you sit back and say, “Hmmm, I need to think more about that? Or, “Wow, I never thought about that.” The part would be when he was talking about “shared equality” up until the 1970’s was a normal thing and how everybody’s income doubled in size as well.
Beginning roughly with the release of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Stopped Worrying and Loved the Bomb in 1964, and continuing for about the next decade, the “Sixties” era of filmmaking made many lasting impressions on the motion picture industry. Although editing and pacing styles varied greatly from Martin Scorcesse’s hyperactive pace, to Kubrick’s slow methodical pace, there were many uniform contributions made by some of the era’s seminal directors. In particular, the “Sixties” saw the return of the auteur, as people like Francis Ford Coppola and Stanley Kubrick wrote and directed their own screenplays, while Woody Allen wrote, directed and starred in his own films. Kubrick, Coppola and Allen each experimented with characterization, narrative and editing techniques. By examining the major works of these important directors, their contributions become more apparent.
Through these extensive genres, Welles made a brand of himself. He was known for playing in theaters, receiving the American Film Institute’s Lifetime Achievement Award, the D.W. Griffiths Award, and was named number sixteen on the Fifty Greatest Screen Legends List of the American Film Institute. In Welles films, famous actors like Everett Sloane and Joseph Cotton made constant appearances. His filmin...
--clockwork orange... at times I wish I had those eye-lid clamps for some of my classes, that and bottle of visine, too. it's a nicely designed page, with lots of information on his films. I forgot he was the one who directed dr. strangelove, a personal classic of mine.
Ebert, Roger. Rev. of Almost Famous, dir. Cameron Crowe. Rogerebert.com. Chicago Sun-Times, 15 Sept. 2000. Web. 29 March 2011.
...made Donald Glover more famous, but also reflected a side of him that no one has seen.
...nations. His films were visually magnetic, tight and directed economically in such a way that little was ever left on the cutting room floor. John Houston left us with a rich heritage of films that will continue to entertain for generations to come.
One can learn from Tony’s mistakes. One can learn that family comes first. Society can also learn that taking shortcuts in life sometimes lead to a dead ends with no u-turns. This film showcases the time line of how a drug lord could rise to power from nothing. This film also shows how that same power one gets from becoming a drug lord could be taken at any time. Studying how to analyze a movie has definitely changed my perspective on how I view movies. I actually look at all the detailing in movies. I look at the camera angles and how they affect the scene. I even start to question why the director did not use a different angle for certain shots. By using film theories and criticism one can generate enough ideas in order to understand the movie better. When a film is being captured the director focuses on certain angles and lights to get the meaning of the scene to the audience. Just like everything in life has a meaning, everything in film also has a comparison meaning. This course has widen my intellect on how movies affect our societies. Movies can play a major role in how we act or how laws are even created. Movies has the same power as music. I say movies has the same power because one can look at a movie and want to become whatever he or she saw in the movie. One major skills that I developed in this course is being able to focus. Before this course, I could not focus on anything at all. I was the type to focus on three or
...movie that I fell in love with. But most of all I love how the story line is a great overlap into the cinematically engaging movie. There is a great use of camera, timing, shots and story line that are portrayed in this movie without being too overwhelming. This allows the audience to relax during the movie and just take in the scenes as a story from reality. To this day, and even still doing this paper I still come to find different aspects of the movie that I missed the previous times I have watched it.
despite him being my favorite director and I just watched it few weeks ago. By watching that film you can see his unique style and the technique he used to shot that film which is amazing.