Ryan McNeil
Scorsese by Roger Ebert
Trade Paperback: University of Chicago Press, 2008 – eBook Available
When a great talent passes, the urge to consume the work they left behind often presents itself. When musicians die, their records are spun (or at least their MP3’s are clicked). When actors leave us, their films are played on special channels and in select theatres. Of course, when we lose a writer, the urge sets in to read…and wouldn’t you know it, when a writer I greatly admire passed away a few days ago, one of his books was already sitting on the top of my to-read stack.
I’m quite thankful for that crazy, random happenstance, since Scorsese by Roger Ebert is a perfect selection to honour one man’s writing, and his passion that he wrote so well about.
I was hooked right from the outset, when I read Scorsese say something in the foreward that I have, for a long time now, believed to be true. He states that film, like all other art is static, and yet the people who watch them are not. He points out that films we once adored can seem like lesser offerings as we grow older, and films we passed over, we end up growing into. He goes on to underline the difficult role of the critic in this curious dichotomy: That the critic has to put their stamp on the work immediately, and later will have to stick with that snap judgement.
Enter Roger Ebert.
Ebert’s collected writings on Scorsese are an interesting journey through the past. For starters, there doesn’t seem to be a single offering in the filmography he doesn’t like – even though even the most ardent fan can admit that some selections don’t work. The journey is given an added complexity since it appears as though the two men rose through the ranks at the same time. While Ebert gets a lap or two’s head start, already being a critic by the time Scorsese was breaking in with his first small film, they nevertheless seem linked. Repeatedly, we are pointed to the fact that the two men are the same age, and were both raised Catholic. Those similarities lead to an admiration, if not a full-blown friendship.
Such relationships can cloud the issue when it comes to critical thought. As much as I believe it can be the role of the critic to be a champion and not merely a detractor, there can also come a point where being a champion strays into becoming a mouthpiece. There’s a fine line after all between positive criticism and PR.
And yet even when Ebert is speaking warmly about missteps like NEW YORK, NEW YORK or KUNDUN, he does so with honesty and intelligence. When conversation turns to BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, he even freely admits that it’s a film many didn’t care for, but he did. It’s a way of putting one’s take into a larger scope that few people have the balls to do. He’s not giving his friend a blind pass; he’s only tempering his praise.
Throughout the book, conversations with Scorsese are documented, both in the form of feature articles, and a transcribed Q & A from an event at Ohio State University. It’s in these moments that the relationship between the critic and the artist really brings out some wonderful things. During these discussions, Scorsese is quite frank both about his work and his life in a way that is increasingly rare in this age of controlled public image. Perhaps he felt at ease with Ebert, and thus gave him more than he would most writers. Or perhaps Roger just came armed with the better question, based on a better familiarity and understanding of the work.
Whatever the reason, the inclusion of these discussions is what really provides for insight on Scorsese’s world view. They are so refreshing in fact that one feels the void that comes with their omission after Roger lost his ability to speak. There is no discussion to be had about NO DIRECTION HOME, SHINE A LIGHT, or THE DEPARTED. What’s more, there is no discussion about the long-overdue Oscar for Best Director in the early months of 2007. Each of the moments mentioned came with a large degree of personal importance to Scorsese, and it’s a pity they weren’t a point of discussion between the two film aficionados.
There’s a small flaw that comes with stringing together reviews, interviews, and essays that Ebert might not have counted on, and that’s a small touch of repetition. As each article was published, it was likely never ever thought of, since they were going up months-nay-years apart. However, when you plough through 300 pages in a week, you begin to notice when things have already been said. In Ebert’s case, it’s most noticeable in the instances he compares Scorsese’s new works back to MEAN STREETS and WHO’S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR. What’s more, he tended to use the same character traits exuded by Harvey Keitel in both.
It’s unavoidable really. For any of us who write or podcast about a specific topic, odds are we express our position with slight variations of the same stance…we just don’t plan on people hearing that expression back-to-back-to-back.
As I finished the book, I realized that it left me with a wish. That wish was for the project to have been launched three years later, so as to end with Scorsese’s HUGO. There was no way to plan for an ending point of course, but considering the subject matter of HUGO, how it embodied the passion of both Scorsese and Ebert, it would have made for a perfect place to end the discussion. Perhaps someday, a revised edition will hit bookshelves, but for now it will have to remain a wish.
I’m sure you could simply read his review on HUGO to fill the gap – and give the book a natural ending. I’ll be hunting this book down though and indeed, I think I will be reading much of Ebert’s writing as a go-to spot for informative critical analysis.
Well, sure. But that’s like me saying “I wish Revolver and Rubber Soul were one album” and suggesting to just listen to them back-to-back.
Do give the book a read, it’s especially interesting in the bits when it discusses less-analyzed films like NEW YORK, NEW YORK and THE AGE OF INNOCENCE.
Ebert’s writing, which was always excellent, seemed to take it up another level when he wrote about Scorsese.
Word is that he wanted to publish a second one of these to document his writings on Herzog. Pity that never happened, though I’m hopeful that it still may…perhaps without the connective tissue between reviews and interviews.