The Rise, Impact, and Power of Siskel and Ebert

View in your browser
Twitter     Facebook     Instagram 
The Ringer
In the July 20 newsletter:
Welcome to a special publication of our newsletter! Today's edition is dedicated to our new narrative documentary podcast series, Gene and Roger, which explores the rise of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert with a focus on the cultural footprint they left behind.

A Brief Q&A With Our Host, Brian Raftery

So: Why Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert?
I've been fascinated by these guys for decades. I grew up in a very movie-obsessed home, and Siskel and Ebert were fixtures of my weekly TV-viewing for as far back as I can remember. I loved when they argued about movies, obviously: Few people could be as quick, or as cutting, as Gene and Roger. But as I grew older, I was tuning in less for Gene and Roger's debates, and more for their insights about why a particular movie worked (or didn't work). People remember them for their fierce back-and-forths, but what stands out now when you rewatch old Gene and Roger clips is how thoughtful they are—about filmmaking and filmmakers, and about why a movie does or doesn't work. I learned a lot from them.

So I'm a longtime Gene and Roger fan, as are millions of others movie-lovers of my generation. But the idea of a podcast that would explore their lives and careers was really kick-started a few years ago, when I was researching a book about the films of 1999. I was wading into these movie-focused threads on Reddit and Twitter, and I couldn't believe how many young movie fans—people who were barely alive when Gene and Roger were on the air—were still talking about old Siskel and Ebert reviews, and uploading entire episodes to YouTube. At the same time, I was seeing (and hearing) more and more podcasts adopt the Siskel and Ebert style when it came to talking about movies—or TV, or sports, or anything, really. It became clear to me that Gene and Roger's influence had extended into a new generation, and I figured it was a good time to tell the critics' story, and try to make sense of their influence.

How long have you been working on this podcast?
I think we started talking about it in early 2020—and then the pandemic slowed everything down for months. But that delay turned out to be a blessing, because I used that time to watch countless hours of Siskel & Ebert, and read every news article I could find about them. And there was A LOT. If you weren't around when Siskel and Ebert were on TV, you might not realize how huge they were. I mean, these guys were on late-night shows, magazine covers, Howard Stern—they were true celebrities. I had lots of research to digest, and by the time we started interviewing their friends and family members that fall, I'd become an amateur Siskel and Ebert scholar.

What's your earliest Siskel & Ebert memory?
I know I started watching the show when I was very young, but my clearest memories start in the mid-'80s: I wasn't allowed to see any R-rated movies, and I have very clear memories of watching scenes from movies like Aliens and Psycho III. But the review that stays with me the most, weirdly, is the one for 1986's The Hitcher: Gene and Roger despised this movie, and at one point, Gene describes a shocking murder scene that wound up giving me nightmares. For years. (To date, I still can't bring myself to watch The Hitcher, because of that review.)

Do you have a favorite Siskel & Ebert TV episode?
There's one from early 1996 that's pretty crucial to Gene and Roger's history—and very entertaining, as well: It features the review of Broken Arrow in which Gene, after hearing Roger's side, changes his thumbs-up to a thumbs-down halfway through (something that had never happened on the show before). It also has their review of Black Sheep, one of the few movies Gene ever walked out on before it was over. That episode gives you a pretty good idea of Gene and Roger's chemistry, and why they worked so well together for nearly 25 years. 

But I also love the special single-topic episodes they did in the '80s and '90s, which covered everything from slasher films to Oscar arguments to the impact of Quentin Tarantino. And as heartbreaking as it is now to watch, the episode in which Gene—who's just had surgery—calls into the show to give his thumbs-down to the 1998 Godzilla is really a wonderful moment: He's still in the hospital, yet as persnickety as ever.

Are you more of a Siskel or an Ebert?
Oh, man! That's tough. As far as actual movie preferences go, I think I enjoy sci-fi and horror more than Gene did. And I'm a little bit tougher on comedies than Roger was at times. But as far as personalities go, I'd say I'm 50-50: When it comes talking about movies, I alternate between rapid-fire sarcasm (like Gene) and wide-eyed wonder (like Roger). It all depends on who I'm talking with, and what movies we're talking about, and whether I've lost a night's sleep because I'm still having nightmares over that one scene from The Hitcher.

How Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert Taught a Generation to Argue

Getty Images/Ringer illustration
 

The following is an excerpt from the first episode, “I Must Destroy Him."

Every week, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert—movie critics and Chicago newspaper rivals—sat in an empty theater, showed a few clips from the latest releases, and talked. That’s it. No big star interviews. No goofy trailer reactions. Just two smart, middle-aged writers … from Chicago … debating whatever movies they’d seen.

This was a very unusual formula for a hit television show—especially in the ’80s, when prime time was full of dopey sitcoms and glitzy soaps. But millions of viewers tuned in to watch Siskel & Ebert. Brian Raftery was one of them: Every Sunday, he’d rush home to catch the bald guy and the big guy.

Mostly, he watched Gene and Roger to learn about film. They talked about cinematography. And the pleasure of a good performance. About old movies, and why they’re so important to understanding new movies. And they did so in a way that didn’t make you feel intimidated or uneducated about film. Instead, Gene and Roger brought the movie conversation out of the theater lobby and into your home—and invited you to listen along.

At the end of each episode of Siskel & Ebert, Gene and Roger would deliver their verdicts on the week’s big movies: thumbs-up or thumbs-down?

If that sounds quaint now, remember that back then, there was no internet. No Tomatometer. So Siskel and Ebert’s votes had power. If they gave a film their trademark “two thumbs up!”—whether it was My Dinner With Andre or Anaconda—moviegoers would take it seriously. And if they went thumbs-down? Woof. Burt Reynolds, who starred in several poorly reviewed movies, called Gene and Roger “the Bruise Brothers.” Eddie Murphy once noted that a two-thumbs-down verdict could kill a film.

You could gripe about Siskel and Ebert’s decisions—and they made some truly strange calls over the years. Like when they both gave Reservoir Dogs a thumbs-down. Yet even if you disagreed with them about a movie, you always wanted to know why they voted the way they did. They could boil down big observations into just a few quick, cutting sentences. And while they got heated at times, they were never mean to each other. Most importantly: They were able to sound smart without ever coming off as show-offy.

It was such a simple approach to movie reviewing. But when they first teamed up, no one else was doing it. “They were the only game in town. And this was sort of a new thing,” recalls Chaz Ebert, Roger’s wife and business partner for more than two decades. “Two Midwestern guys sitting in movie chairs, reviewing the movies—people went a little gaga over it. When Gene and Roger were both really high on a movie, it was so much fun to sit and talk about it with them. Because they’re like two little boys going back and forth ... ‘Wait a minute, what about this part?’”

You probably have a Siskel in your life. Or an Ebert. It’s the one friend you can debate anything with and never have to worry about being impolite or incorrect. Gene and Roger simply had those same conversations on TV every week, for decades. That banter would make Siskel and Ebert famous. And it would change the way people in media talk—or at least, how they try to talk. And not just about film, but about sports, politics, television, fashion, or even history. Some of your favorite talk shows and podcasts are indebted to Siskel and Ebert’s style.

It’s been more than two decades since Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert reviewed a movie together. Gene Siskel died in 1999; Roger Ebert passed away in 2013. But in a weird way, Gene and Roger are just as influential now as they were in their heyday. They taught an entire generation how to argue. And, for better and worse, created the blueprint for modern media. Any time you see two sports nerds going at it via a Zoom screen, or listen to a pair of movie podcasters bemoan the Oscar nominations … well, they’re just doing Siskel and Ebert, whether they know it or not.

For Gene and Roger, becoming Siskel & Ebert would be a battle at times, both on screen and off. But in the years to come, the two men would form a remarkable partnership—one that would make them as recognizable as the actors and directors they covered. So how did Gene and Roger become TV superstars in the first place? And why do their opinions—and the way they shared them—still hold so much sway, years after they’ve been off the air? Find out this season on Gene and Roger.

Follow Gene and Roger on Spotify

Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were the most famous and powerful film critics of their time, and their shows were smash hits that changed an entire industry.
No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.
—Roger Ebert
Twitter     Facebook     Instagram 
Copyright © 2021 Bill Simmons Media Group. All rights reserved.

The Ringer
1438 N. Gower St.
Los Angeles, CA 90028


Unsubscribe | Manage Preferences | Contact

Older messages

The Problem With ’NBA Countdown'

Friday, July 16, 2021

View in your browser Twitter Facebook Instagram Share | Subscribe The Ringer In the July 16 newsletter: The problem with NBA Countdown, the importance of Devin Booker's Mexican heritage, and the

It’s Not Looking Good for the Bucks

Saturday, July 10, 2021

View in your browser Twitter Facebook Instagram Share | Subscribe The Ringer In the July 9 newsletter: An assessment of the NBA Finals thus far, a look at Sha'Carri Richardson's suspension, and

🏀 Get Ready for the NBA Finals 🏀

Tuesday, July 6, 2021

View in your browser Twitter Facebook Instagram Share | Subscribe The Ringer In the July 6 newsletter: Our staff predict the NBA Finals, an oral history of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and the history

There’s More to the Bucks Than Giannis

Friday, July 2, 2021

View in your browser Twitter Facebook Instagram Share | Subscribe The Ringer In the July 2 newsletter: The Ringer guide to streaming in July, a look at what's ahead for the Clippers, and praise for

The Mavs Are Counting on Their Past to Mold Their Future

Friday, June 25, 2021

View in your browser Twitter Facebook Instagram Share | Subscribe The Ringer In the June 25 newsletter: A salute to Conan O'Brien, a look at recent front office news in Dallas, and the return of

You Might Also Like

Rejection Dust

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Are you, like Toni Morrison, looking for something more interesting to read? Rejection Dust By Caroline Crampton • 28 Mar 2024 View in browser View in browser The Dust Of God Sam Kriss | Numb At The

🎙️ Meet the Secret Weapon Behind Sci-Fi’s Biggest Franchise

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Plus: A novel anti-aging treatment revitalized mice immune systems — will it work in humans? ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

Squeezed by African Coups, Biden Cozies Up to the World’s Worst Dictator

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Famous for its repression and torture, Teodoro Obiang's Equatorial Guinea got an aid delivery from US Special Operations forces. Most Read Elon Musk Fought Government Surveillance — While Profiting

Practically-A-Book Review: Rootclaim $100,000 Lab Leak Debate

Thursday, March 28, 2024

I watched 15 hours of COVID origins arguments so you don't have to - but you should! ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏

SIROTA’S SIGNALS: This Graph Explains The Discontent

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Plus, a nonprofit health care system secretly becomes a debt collector, regulators may help you find cheaper credit cards, and Big Tech's plan to keep preying on kids. SIROTA'S SIGNALS: This

Is Biden on track for defeat? The debate, explained.

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Plus: How happy are you? What will SBF's sentence be? And more. March 28, 2024 View in browser Good morning! If you've consumed any kind of news about the 2024 presidential election cycle

Boat Probe, Opening Day, and a Cadbury Raccoon

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Facts, without motives. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

These 50 companies have donated over $23 million to election deniers since January 6, 2021

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Then, according to the report of the bipartisan January 6 Commission, Trump engaged in a "multi-part conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020

Numlock News: March 28, 2024 • Orcas, Visas, Dragons

Thursday, March 28, 2024

By Walt Hickey Visas As part of the budget signed into law on Saturday, $50 million has been allocated to the State Department to cut down on the passport backlog and reduce the long wait times for

☕️ Not so rational actors

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Robinhood is playing the long game with its new credit card... March 28, 2024 View Online | Sign Up | Shop Morning Brew PRESENTED BY Aura Health Good morning. It's Opening Day for Major League