Awake in the Dark: The Best of Roger Ebert
by Roger Ebert, University of Chicago Press, 2006

Awake in the Dark: The Best of Roger Ebert by Roger Ebert, University of Chicago Press, 2006

       Consider the power of Roger Ebert. Here is a film critic whose opinions are so universally valued that he has been given the legal rights to the phrase Òthumbs up.Ó Think about that: the guy has actually been acknowledged by the legal system as having an opinion so unique and influential that the very words he uses to express his like or dislike of a movie are off-limits to any other reviewer, lest they be mistaken for him and taken more seriously than they deserve to be taken – that is, as seriously as Roger Ebert, which no one but Roger Ebert deserves. ItÕs arguable, certainly, whether any single reviewer of movies is worthy of such unprecedented veneration, but Roger Ebert is Roger Ebert, and thatÕs a fact.

       Awake in the Dark gathers EbertÕs more serious writing from the past 40 years – essays and interviews, editorials and musings, as well as his reviews of what he considers to be the best movies of the past four decades – and these pieces go a long way toward to explaining why Ebert has become such a cultural icon: he is perhaps the most thoughtful and insightful critic in a field of mainly thoughtless and unperceptive reviewers. ThatÕs not to say that Ebert is the best film critic around, but among the reviewers of the mainstream media, the guys who deliver their opinions on TV and whose one-line blurbs make it into movie trailers and ads, Ebert is unparalleled.

       The interviews and profiles in Awake in the Dark give a clear picture of where Ebert is coming from as a movie lover. He is endlessly devoted to the idea of filmmaker as auteur, and his favorite directors are those who have cultivated an image of themselves as artists. He considers Martin Scorsese to be the best living filmmaker, and he is virtually guaranteed to love anything Scorsese turns out. He is nearly as generous with directors such as Robert Altman and Werner Herzog, despite both filmmakers' proven ability to create real cinematic stinkers.

       The bookÕs collection of reviews also contains few surprises for those who know Ebert (or critically acclaimed film in general). That Ebert considers The Godfather, Nashville, Apocalypse Now, My Dinner with Andre, Goodfellas, SchindlerÕs List and Fargo among the best films of the last 40 years is not unexpected, but here one can read the details of his praise. And, more intriguingly, one can also read his justification for including such curious choices as The Black Stallion, JFK, Dark City, Minority Report and Crash; some of these would not make many criticsÕ lists of all-time favorites, and others are sure to fare less well upon further consideration in a few years.

       In the back of the book, Ebert compiles his lists of the 10 best movies (in his opinion) of each of the years from 1967 to 2005, and here, if you look closely enough, you might begin to see cracks in his legendary ability to pick winners. Was 1998 really such a dismal year for films that Pleasantville was the second best movie of the year? Ditto for 2000 and its No. 2 pick, Wonder Boys. EbertÕs top film of 1987 was the largely forgotten David Mamet picture, House of Games, and the yearÕs Top 10 includes Moonstruck and Lethal Weapon. Ebert indulges in a little revisionism in the introduction to the Top 10 list section, but only insofar as he admits that he often accidentally put the yearÕs truly best movie in the No. 2 position; he doesnÕt concede that sometimes he loves movies that arenÕt very good. (How else would you explain his claim that Crash was the best movie of 2005 – or any other year, for that matter?)

       The most interesting part of the book, however, is a series of essays in which EbertÕs credibility is debated. The first of these essays is an attack on Ebert and his TV-critic colleagues by Time magazine film reviewer Richard Corliss. Corliss claims (in this 1990 editorial from Film Comment magazine) that film criticism has been supplanted by the vacuous blathering of reviewers on TV, Ebert and his partner at the time, Gene Siskel, included. Ebert responds in the same forum that Corliss is partially correct, but that he, Ebert, is not to blame. The demise of college film societies is the reason that no one takes film seriously any more, and he and Siskel are doing what they can to bring serious film criticism to the masses. Besides, Corliss writes for Time, hardly a pillar of scholarly excellence. Corliss fires back: he mostly agrees with Ebert, but he still thinks TV critics are a joke. Ebert seems to tread on firmer ground in the debate; Corliss comes off as an elitist who is more interested in dropping the names of legendary critics than in acknowledging EbertÕs relevance. EbertÕs quotation of CorlissÕ ridiculous purple prose and silly puns in a profile of Tom Cruise is particularly biting. Ebert is justified in resenting being lumped together with Jeffrey Lyons, Leonard Maltin, Rex Reed and their ilk, and his argument for the legitimacy of mainstream film criticism (as opposed to substanceless movie reviewing) is admirable.

       Ebert can write entertainingly and incisively about film, especially when he doesnÕt like the movie heÕs reviewing. His positive reactions to films, however, are both less engaging and less reliable than his negative ones; he can be predictable, and he can be simply off-base in his praise. That makes Awake in the Dark a less enjoyable book than those in which EbertÕs sharpest jabs at bad movies are on display. I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie and Your Movie Sucks are both better collections than this ostensibly best-of anthology.

       Evan Gillespie is a former Fort Wayne resident living in South Bend.

Copyright 2007 Ad Media Inc.