By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

GENE SISKEL FILM CENTER OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE PASSING OF ROGER EBERT

Posted Thursday, April 4th, 2013 - Comments Off on GENE SISKEL FILM CENTER OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE PASSING OF ROGER EBERT
Be Sociable, Share!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 4, 2013

Chicago—The Gene Siskel Film Center of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago grieves with the Ebert family, Chicago, and film buffs everywhere on the passing of the beloved Pulitzer Prize-winning Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert.

Barbara Scharres, the Film Center’s Director of Programming for 37 years, has been a friend and colleague of Roger’s for over three decades. He has made numerous appearances at the Film Center over the years and Scharres has covered the Cannes Film Festival on Ebert’s behalf for the Sun-Times. Scharres said:

“Roger Ebert was one-of-a-kind.  He loved movies so much that he wanted everyone else to love them too.  This love was at the very core of his work, and he brought the rewards and joy of thinking about movies and talking and debating about movies to millions of people around the world.  This is his legacy—he made movies matter in a new way.”

“Roger was as generous in his criticism as he was astute.  His championing of American independents and other young filmmakers is well known.  He often used the power of his fame to focus attention on new talent; a review from Roger gave a welcome boost to many a young career.”

“He was the first film critic to recognize and fully utilize the power of social media.  He took dialogue about the movies he loved global, yet another way Roger found to fold others into film culture through his infectious enthusiasm.”

“Roger’s love for his beloved wife Chaz was a cornerstone of his life.  Roger and Chaz were long the royal couple of any film festival.  He was never happier than when she was next to him.”

“We at the Gene Siskel Film Center mourn along with Roger’s readers everywhere.  Our deepest sympathy goes to heroic Chaz; to all their extended family; to Roger’s longtime Sun-Times editor Laura Emerick; and to Roger’s most loyal assistant Carol Iwata.”

The Gene Siskel Film Center has had a relationship with Ebert since its inception when it was founded as The Film Center in 1972. Renamed after the late Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel in 2000, in recent years the Gene Siskel Film Center collaborated with Ebert on a number of events, including its Sophisticated Ladies benefit which honored Nicole Kidman in 2002 when Ebert interviewed her at its annual fundraiser, and in June 2003 at its annual benefit when he received an Honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and led a Director’s Discussion with Andrew Davis and Harold Ramis. Roger also appeared at the Film Center in March 2002 for a book-signing of Roger Ebert: The Great Movies, followed by a rousing introduction of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb—which he called “arguably the best political satire of the century—presented as part of the series The Many Masks of Peter Sellers. The Film Center is also grateful for the generosity of the Roger and Chaz Ebert Foundation which supported its Black Harvest Film Festival. In 2012, in celebration of the Gene Siskel Film Center’s 40th Anniversary, Roger also lended his artistic talents which appeared in the form of an illustration which appears on the Gene Siskel Film Center’s tote bag.

Jean de St. Aubin, the Gene Siskel Film Center’s Executive Director said: “As everyone’s favorite film critic, an entertaining raconteur, Roger was an extraordinary communicator. Our hearts go out to Chaz, his great love and partner, and to his family. He will be greatly missed.”

Tonight, the Gene Siskel Film Center invites patrons and members of the public to sign a memory book—placed with flowers in its lobby next to the famous Victor Skrebneski portrait of Siskel and Ebert—that will be presented to Roger’s wife Chaz. De St. Aubin, will say a few words before the 6pm screening of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, named one of Ebert’s “Great Movies” this evening.

* * *

The Gene Siskel Film Center of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago is located at 164 N. State St. For more information, call 312-846-2800 (24-hour movie hotline) or 312-846-2600 (general information, 9:00 am-5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday), or visit www.siskelfilmcenter.org.

* * *

The Gene Siskel Film Center of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago celebrates 41 years of presenting cutting edge programs, independent and international cinema, premieres, retrospectives, and classic films. Internationally recognized for its original film programming, the Film Center is a vibrant cultural destination in Chicago that attracts a diverse and creative annual audience of over 80,000. www.siskelfilmcenter.org

A leader in educating artists, designers, and scholars since 1866, the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC) offers nationally accredited undergraduate, graduate, and post-baccalaureate programs to nearly 3,200 students from around the globe. Located in the heart of Chicago, SAIC has an educational philosophy built upon an interdisciplinary approach to art and design, giving students unparalleled opportunities to develop their creative and critical abilities, while working with renowned faculty who include many of the leading practitioners in their fields. SAIC’s resources include the Art Institute of Chicago and its new Modern Wing; numerous special collections and programming venues provide students with exceptional exhibitions, screenings, lectures, and performances. For more information, please visit www.saic.edu

# ##

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Movie City News, Press Releases | Comments Off on GENE SISKEL FILM CENTER OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE PASSING OF ROGER EBERT

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon