Phillips was one of four men to attend the panel, which I had the pleasure of attending this evening. The remaining three men were Rick Kogan, a Chicago radio personality and writer, who also moderated the panel, Neil Steinberg, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, and, finally, a huge influence on myself, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, film critic for Notebook, a digital magazine on the film-website MUBI and frequent reviewer on The AV Club website. Held in the gorgeous Hammerschmidt Chapel on the campus of renowned private college Elmhurst College (where my mother spent four years studying nursing), the evening was met with a wide-range of emotion, most of which positive and a lot of fond memories of the famed film critic.
I was fortunate enough to attend, planning this event since around August when my mother received the letter. Only vaguely looking at the envelope, I loosely planned to attend. Weeks later, I revisited the envelope and saw the name of Ignatiy Vishnevetsky and knew I couldn't miss the event. Vishnevetsky has been on my list of favorite critics since I first saw him on Ebert Presents At the Movies, the short-lived film-review Television program that was produced by Ebert himself and hosted by Associated Press film critic Christy Lemire and Vishnevetsky. Vishnevetsky's style of criticism - simple sentence structure but complex wording, detailed, specific examples of certain scenes, and heavy emphasis of a film's tonality and mood - provides for intelligence thought and contemplation about a specific film and, in return, always produces thought-provoking thinkpieces on cinema.
Before I go any further, I must also state that Chaz Ebert, Ebert's wife, was also in the audience and voluntarily answered questions during the Q&A session. It was an honor to be in her presence in addition to the four intelligent men involved in the panel.
Kogan, Steinberg, Phillips, and Vishnevetsky at 7:08pm and proceeded to talk for roughly an hour about the impact Roger Ebert had on them as critics, journalists, and people. Kogan discussed how Ebert made people who didn't have time to go see films or weren't interested in certain types of films interested and what they were talking about. He also added how much respect he had for such a man and how courteous he always was to him. Steinberg, who began working for the Chicago Sun-Times as Ebert was reaching his stride as a critic, recalled how accepting and welcoming the man was to everyone he met. He was a mentor and a friend, along with an assistant to many people when he really didn't need to be. Phillips, who began to show subtle but present emotion late in the panel, discussed how Ebert provided him with encouraging words when discussing his early work as a writer, and continued to provide him with assistance as he filled in for Ebert on At the Movies with co-host Richard Roeper and when him and New York Times film critic A.O. Scott took over in 2010. Vishnevetsky was the only panelist who had gotten to know Ebert after he lost his voice to thyroid cancer and met him as he was working as an employee for the Chicago Film Festival. Since then, Vishnevetsky has been writing for numerous websites and hosted Ebert's movie-reviewing program, as stated.
The panel went on for about an hour, with the four men talking about what made their relationships with Ebert special and how he revolutionized film criticism single-handedly. Points even went out as far as to comment on how, upon losing the ability to speak, Ebert could've easily faded into obscurity and shy away from life and the glory of his career (similar to how Siskel did upon being diagnosed with a brain tumor). But Ebert decided to embrace his illness, and upon losing the ability to speak, paraded around his new voice technology on Television, including Oprah's talk show. Not to mention, in his later years of writing, Ebert ventured out into different subjects to write about, such as politics, current events, gun control, and even how to use a rice cooker (he couldn't eat, mind you, on account of the thyroid cancer).
The discussion portion of the panel concluded at 8:00pm and was followed by an abnormally and somewhat disappointingly short Q&A, which lasted about fifteen to twenty minutes with about eight or so questions in total. I was anticipating at least forty minutes or so because of the $20 admission fee at the door. However, exiting the auditorium, these feelings quickly subsided as I realized the wealth of discussion points provided were worth the price of admission. These last few hours, I have been left to contemplate quite a lot, as what direction I want to take my reviews, what path I'd like to try and follow when I get older, and how I just witnessed four role model speakers on stage talking about the person who inspired me the most next to close family and friends. It was worth the $20 fee.
NOTE: It's also safe to say I kind of underestimated the attire at the event as well. For those who don't know me in real life, my day-to-day outfit consists of a thin gray shirt, equally thin gray sweatpants, long black socks, slippers, and the makings of a mullet. Needless to say, I'm kind of a sore for sight eyes. Many in the venue had on suits, dresses, and their Sunday best, and the one who sat roughly ten rows back, aisle seats, in all gray and boasting a blonde mullet (who also was likely the youngest guest in the venue by approximately thirty years) was me. My sincerest apologies.
Comments
Post a Comment