Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.07 AVERAGE
4.07 AVERAGE
Well written and researched, but even though I loved these men and their show, this book should've been a magazine article. There just isn't enough to talk about.
As a 23 year old man (I’ll be 24 in a month but lets do me a favor and pretend I’ll be young forever), I was obviously not there when Siskel and Ebert were at their peak. My only exposure to their show -- and what has been my main exposure to film criticism in general throughout my life -- has been through YouTube.
Watching clips of their show, it’s easy to see the appeal: Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, two similar men who paradoxically could not be more different from one another, take part in fast-paced verbal duels where they fiercely debate with their counterpart the pros and cons of whatever movie they're discussing. It is a type of debate that is easy to get wrapped up in and difficult to turn away from. Ebert and Siskel have the intelligence to speak their points eloquently, while being petty and passionate enough for their points to resonate with a viewing audience that only grew over time. As the book points out, it was the men and not the format of the show that was the real cause of success.
Singer’s book covers the rise in popularity of the two critics, as they begin with little coordination or appeal on public broadcast television, to eventually becoming talk-show staples and pop culture icons of the 80’s and 90’s (although something tells me my coworkers in the office, who gasp in astonishment whenever I tell them that I enjoy black-and-white movies, have likely never heard of the duo). As someone who knew the format of Siskel and Ebert’s show but not the facts, I appreciated Singer for offering a timeline of Siskel and Ebert’s professional journey that is so thorough and straightforward -- and it is entirely because it is so straightforward that I find the book difficult to recommend.
Singer’s enthusiasm for his subjects is clear on every page (or, minute of audio, in my case since I listened to this during work), but, to reiterate the same complaint Roger Ebert levied towards later versions of his show that lacked Siskel: there is no drama. There is not much to get invested in unless you already have passion for these two men.
A lot of Singer’s book provides an accurate, dramatically stagnant A to Z journey for the duo. It is structured like, “this happened, and then this happened. Pause for description of an interaction the two had with one another. And then this happened.” It is difficult to stay focused on the novel because much of it recounts moments on the show that one could simply look up on YouTube and experience themselves. It is not Singer’s fault as a writer, but it is a simple fact that watching Ebert and Siskel and hearing them argue is much more interesting than a written account describing them arguing.
The greatest strength of Singer’s book is that it gave me a perspective on how different the medium landscape was back then. Showing clips of movies was considered a unique, exclusive thing: a far-cry from today where it seems every movie has on-set photos leak before it gets anywhere close to cinemas. Siskel and Ebert were from an era where things were more homogenized and there was a greater sense of community: the world actually had the patience and attention span for two simple, well-spoken film critics from Chicago. These days, everyone's a critic but so few are worth listening to. There does not exist room for critics to maintain a grip on the general American public the way Siskel & Ebert did.
I was going to give this book either a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down, but unfortunately I found this book to be right down the middle, a real 5/10 experience, so I am forced to give it the taboo and disgraceful thumb in the middle. May Siskel and Ebert have mercy on my soul.
Watching clips of their show, it’s easy to see the appeal: Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, two similar men who paradoxically could not be more different from one another, take part in fast-paced verbal duels where they fiercely debate with their counterpart the pros and cons of whatever movie they're discussing. It is a type of debate that is easy to get wrapped up in and difficult to turn away from. Ebert and Siskel have the intelligence to speak their points eloquently, while being petty and passionate enough for their points to resonate with a viewing audience that only grew over time. As the book points out, it was the men and not the format of the show that was the real cause of success.
Singer’s book covers the rise in popularity of the two critics, as they begin with little coordination or appeal on public broadcast television, to eventually becoming talk-show staples and pop culture icons of the 80’s and 90’s (although something tells me my coworkers in the office, who gasp in astonishment whenever I tell them that I enjoy black-and-white movies, have likely never heard of the duo). As someone who knew the format of Siskel and Ebert’s show but not the facts, I appreciated Singer for offering a timeline of Siskel and Ebert’s professional journey that is so thorough and straightforward -- and it is entirely because it is so straightforward that I find the book difficult to recommend.
Singer’s enthusiasm for his subjects is clear on every page (or, minute of audio, in my case since I listened to this during work), but, to reiterate the same complaint Roger Ebert levied towards later versions of his show that lacked Siskel: there is no drama. There is not much to get invested in unless you already have passion for these two men.
A lot of Singer’s book provides an accurate, dramatically stagnant A to Z journey for the duo. It is structured like, “this happened, and then this happened. Pause for description of an interaction the two had with one another. And then this happened.” It is difficult to stay focused on the novel because much of it recounts moments on the show that one could simply look up on YouTube and experience themselves. It is not Singer’s fault as a writer, but it is a simple fact that watching Ebert and Siskel and hearing them argue is much more interesting than a written account describing them arguing.
The greatest strength of Singer’s book is that it gave me a perspective on how different the medium landscape was back then. Showing clips of movies was considered a unique, exclusive thing: a far-cry from today where it seems every movie has on-set photos leak before it gets anywhere close to cinemas. Siskel and Ebert were from an era where things were more homogenized and there was a greater sense of community: the world actually had the patience and attention span for two simple, well-spoken film critics from Chicago. These days, everyone's a critic but so few are worth listening to. There does not exist room for critics to maintain a grip on the general American public the way Siskel & Ebert did.
I was going to give this book either a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down, but unfortunately I found this book to be right down the middle, a real 5/10 experience, so I am forced to give it the taboo and disgraceful thumb in the middle. May Siskel and Ebert have mercy on my soul.
informative
medium-paced
informative
lighthearted
slow-paced
informative
lighthearted
tense
slow-paced
informative
fast-paced
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
relaxing
medium-paced
emotional
funny
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
sad
fast-paced
lighthearted
medium-paced