Roger Ebert Update

Politically, we don’t agree.  But on more movies than not, we do.  And Roger Ebert is a brave man with a great attitude:

Ebert: We spend too much time hiding illness :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

What happened was, cancer of the salivary gland spread to my right lower jaw. A segment of the mandible was removed. Two operations to replace the missing segment were unsuccessful, both leading to unanticipated bleeding. A tracheostomy was necessary so, for the time being, I cannot speak. I make do with written notes and a lot of hand waving and eye-rolling. The doctors now plan an approach that does not involve the risk of unplanned bleeding. If all goes well, my speech will be restored. So when I turn up in Urbana, I will be wearing a gauze bandage around my neck, and my mouth will be seen to droop. So it goes.

And, he says, he doesn’t care about the paparazzi.  He just want to see the movies.  But it’s obvious he won’t be returning to TV anytime soon. . .


 
 
 

6 Responses to “Roger Ebert Update”

  1. Dan
    24. April 2007 at 22:12

    As a Chicagoan, I respect greatly what Roger Ebert has done for the city and for the Sun-Times. Now, with this brilliant stance of courage, he is telling us all about the pains of cancer in a way that most of us would never want to say. And due to this cancer, he cannot even say it: it’s just the power of the written word and a few pictures that do the job he unfortunately cannot.

    Get well Roger! Chicago and Hollywood both need you!

    Thanks Augie for posting this story.

  2. Juan
    25. April 2007 at 06:06

    I like Ebert, but it’s OK with me that he won’t be returning to the Ebert-Roeper show anytime soon. I’ve gotten used to the guest-critic format — especially when that guest critic is New York magazine’s David Edelstein or The New York Times’ A.O. Scott (both better critics than either Ebert or Roeper).

  3. Joseph J. Finn
    25. April 2007 at 10:15

    I’ll disagree with Ebert not being better than those two critics, but they both are usually quite worth listening to. On the other hand, the guest critic format gave us this week: John Mellencamp. WTF?

    (And maybe not a great critic by any measure, but Kevin Smith’s two appearances have been enjoyable – he obviously loves talking about movies and he’s definitely ready to mix it up with Roeper if the discussion calls for it.)

  4. Juan
    25. April 2007 at 11:57

    I like Ebert, but he likes entirely too many movies, including crap like The Honeymooners. And too often he fails to see what a filmmaker is trying to do or say (Spielberg in “War of the Worlds,” Eastwood with “Unforgiven”).

    Oh man, Mellencamp was the guest critic last weekend? Well, I’ll definitely take Ebert over him. =)

  5. Juan
    25. April 2007 at 11:57

    Oh, and I too enjoyed Kevin Smith’s appearances.

  6. Craig Welsh
    25. April 2007 at 12:46

    I just enjoy Ebert’s writing. I appreciate he’s not getting back on TV anytime soon. I suspect he’s gone for probably the rest of this year in terms of TV, if not longer. But he’s such a good writer that I hope he gets his strength up enough to even review one or two movies a week in the paper.

    Yes, you can argue he’s gotten a bit softer in his review in recent years. But he’s still a hell of a good critic and a top writer. I’ve missed his writing the past year, but I’m glad to see he’s determined to not let his health problems of the past year keep him down.