Showing posts with label Tilda Swinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tilda Swinton. Show all posts

Monday, February 06, 2012

PSIFF 2012: THE STORY OF FILM: AN ODYSSEY—The Evening Class Interview With Mark Cousins

Mark Cousins and I met in the press lounge at the Palm Springs International Film Festival (PSIFF) where I parked myself on an armchair next to his to wolf down crudité and sliced fruit. When I glanced up at him, his mirthful eyes were twinkling and he was smiling impishly from ear to ear. "Hello," he immediately greeted me the moment we made eye contact, as if he wanted to become friends straight away. We introduced ourselves and I discovered he had brought his 15-hour documentary The Story of Film: An Odyssey (2011) for its U.S. premiere to the festival, as well as guest curating PSIFF's Archival Treasures sidebar. Though I had already missed a couple of the early morning three-hour segments of his ambitious survey of film, I arranged to attend the film's weekend marathon, which proved to emulate not only the pereginations of Homer's wandering protagonist; but, also Homer's literary precedent of mentorship.

The Story of Film began its journey last September at a Telluride gallery installation although the film's official world premiere occurred at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), where local journalist James McNally wrote: "Choosing to focus on the history of cinematic innovation rather than on the standard Hollywood narrative, the series ties together advances in technique, technology and influence from places as far-flung as India, Mexico, Iran, China and several African countries." From TIFF, The Story of Film returned to the UK for a televised broadcast on Channel Four and since then individual segments have teased festival audiences here and there, such as at the Mill Valley Film Festival. The Story of Film is currently screening at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) through February 16 and David Hudson has rounded up a suite of reviews for MUBI. For those unable or unwilling to sit through 15 hours of film history, the DVD of The Story of Film will be released in the UK on April 23 by Network Releasing, and will soon be available to preorder on Amazon.

One would think that sitting in a theater for two days straight at eight hours a stretch with only an hour off for lunch would prove exhausting; but, instead, The Story of Film's passionate focus on innovation was invigorating and—with Cousins on hand to introduce each day's segments and to field questions at the end of each day—the experience is already guaranteed to be one of this year's cinematic highlights. "Sometimes you can learn to drive in a weekend or you can learn to make pasta sauce or you can take a refresher course in a foreign language," Cousins mused at the onset of the marathon. "Maybe The Story of Film is something of a refresher course in movie language. Maybe come Monday morning if you've stayed here and you've liked it, you'll have learned some new things about this bright-lit, luminous, flickering language of the movies."

* * *

Michael Guillén: Mark, what distinguishes your survey of cinema from other histories of cinema?

Mark Cousins: There have been other histories of the movies, but none of them in my opinion quite do justice to a number of things: first of all, African cinema is usually overlooked and you're going to see tons of African cinema in
The Story of Film; secondly, and very importantly, women directors. So many histories of cinema overlook or slightly patronize women directors. You're going to see tons of women directors in The Story of Film. Not only because they're women; but, because they're brilliant at their art.

Guillén: Can you speak to the style you've applied to your film, both generally but especially with regard to your interstitial footage?

Cousins: I didn't want
The Story of Film to be a dry description of cinema. I didn't want it to be reportage. When I make documentaries, I try not to make them too pedagogic or sociological. I try to make them a bit more poetic. So, hopefully, there's a degree of poetry in The Story of Film. This is something of a love letter to cinema. In particular—with regard to the style I've used—there are no reverse angles, very few close-ups, and very few camera moves in the bits that I've filmed. I kept saying to myself, "Imagine that you're making a magic lantern show with glass slides lit from behind to elicit the gorgeous luminosity of the early movies." That's when movies were born: in that Victorian period of the magic lantern shows. That's the style I tried to adopt in The Story of Film. In particular, often a shot wipes in from the right of the screen, as in a magic lantern show. I wanted my footage to have its own unobtrusive style and to not be doing a lot of jazzy things, even though there's not a single still image in the full 15 hours. There were no name tabs on people. These were all part of a number of things I decided to do.

Guillén: Can you speak to your location shots?

Cousins: These locations where the movies were shot were evocative. Either the building or the street or the studio is still there and that's evocative or not
as evocative. One of my favorite books is George Steiner's Real Presences, which speaks to the idea of the authenticity of a place. I like to walk around with my camera—which is in my bag here—and film at dawn, going to those old studios in Calcutta, for example, to try to capture some of the magic of it.

Guillén: Where has the film shown previously?

Cousins: We showed it in a gallery space at the Telluride Film Festival and then it had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival. The Palm Springs International Film Festival audience will be one of the first to see it in its entirety. It's playing next at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, and from there to festivals and cities throughout the U.S. Our fingers are crossed that it will also sell to a TV station, even though it's designed to be seen on the big screen to capture the scale of the thing. There a thousand film clips within
The Story of Film from many of the world's great movies so it's preferable to see it on a big screen.

Guillén: Can you speak to the process of making the film?

Cousins: It took six years to make. We started almost exactly six years ago. The first thing we shot was the interview with Youssef Chahine, the great Arab director, because we got a little bit of money. We worked bit by bit. As we got a little bit more money, we filmed a little bit more. The editing, of course, was a long period and took almost two years in the editing suite. We cut it totally out of sequence so that we would be cutting Brad Pitt and then going back to Thomas Edison and then going to Africa and then to Iran. I had to go to many of the great archives of the world—in Beijing, in Cairo, in Iran—to get the material I needed. No one has ever collected this material in this way before and only in the digital era has it been possible to do that.

Guillén: How did you finance this research?

Cousins: There wasn't much financing. We made
The Story of Film mostly out of love. We took no fees ourselves, for example. I stayed in cheap hotels and traveled coach mostly. The money came from the European Media Programme, a bit of money from Scotland, and then British money, mostly from the UK Film Council and the British Film Institute.

Guillén: How did you arrange for clearance rights for all the clips you've used?

Cousins: None of the clips are cleared. We've used what is called the fair use law here in North America and the fair dealings law in Britain and this allows a film scholar to use an extract from a film for scholarly purpose, just like a literary scholar uses an extract from T.S. Eliot's poem "The Wasteland" for literary purposes.

Guillén: Does the film have a website?

Cousins: There's a Wikipedia entry that lists most—though not all—of the films cited in
The Story of Film. Plus, the official website we're building for the film will list all the films. The reason that site's not live at the moment is because we didn't want it to be a standard website that advertises the film—we wanted it to be more imaginative and creative than that—so once you visit the site when it goes live, you'll be plunged into an imaginary world in 2046 where cinema has been banned. You'll go into an underground world where a Norma Desmond figure is keeping cinema to herself. Hopefully, this will be an inventive way of looking at cinema.

Guillén: Seeking the inventors of cinema is, admittedly, a questionable enterprise. You referenced Auguste and Louis Lumière but not Max Skladanowsky?

Cousins: You're right. I didn't reference Skladanowsky. First of all, I couldn't fit everything into The Story of Film—the Brits have some claim to inventing cinema as well—but, I made my best judgment on this and decided that I wanted to look at the two figures who most certainly had a key creative role in inventing cinema: the Lumière Brothers and Thomas Edison. Skladanowsky's claim is good and strong but I didn't have space for him in the film. When you look at those early years of film history, there was something that was happening in the 1890s, which was across many countries. Many people were excited by that creative moment: the inventiveness of the Victorian time. I feel strongly that Edison and the Lumière Brothers were key and, beyond that, I felt I could go no further because we'd already taken quite a lot of time on the early years of cinema in The Story of Film and it would have taken even longer.

If you take any moment in the history of film—if you take 1952, for example, or 1921—you can expand it out and there's a kind of rich habitat of filmmaking going on, you know? I think you can tell from
The Story of Film that I'm interested in ideas and—when I went to Edison's studio and saw that plaque hanging there that emphasized the great idea that ideas matter—that made him crucial for me. Edison is often thought of as a money-driven person; but, he was more about ideas than people think. That's why I wanted to give him his due. But, again, you can certainly expand any area and I'm happy to list things that I've left out. There's so much that I've left out! There's no Preston Sturges. I do mention Sturges in the last hour of this film, which is a very strange place to mention him but at least I did mention him.

Guillén: Who else would you have liked to have included but weren't able to?

Cousins: Sam Fuller is not in
The Story of Film. Neither is Éric Rohmer, Jacques Rivette or Maya Deren. I could go on and on. At the end of the film where I say thanks, I really wanted to say apologies and then have a massive list of everyone who didn't make it into the film. At one point there was a 19-hour version of the film in which a lot of these people were in the film; but, I had to cut it down because 19 hours is a lot to ask of an audience. We sort of decided, "What is our limit? What can we conceivably ask people to watch in a weekend?" The PSIFF audience is actually one of the first audiences in the world to know whether it is watchable at 15 hours.

Guillén: For me the value of your project comes down to the art of the storytelling. A story can't be told unless you have a consummate and passionate storyteller and each storyteller has his or her conventions. I'm intrigued by your use of the Christmas ornament to reference the cinema of Hollywood, which immediately made me question my own collection of Christmas ornaments. [Cousins laughs.] Can you speak to why that metaphor expresses Hollywood for you?

Cousins: In my personal life?

Guillén: Yes.

Cousins: First of all, the bauble seems to me an interesting one because it's reflective, it's beautiful, it's attractive, a lot of which Hollywood was. I felt I needed to find some image to try to express the beauty of Hollywood. Lots of fancy people kick Hollywood and I didn't want to do that. I wanted to do something slightly different than that.

In my personal life, the first film I ever saw was
Herbie Rides Again. [Laughs.] But I remember sitting with my Dad when I was a boy and we were watching It's A Wonderful Life, that great Frank Capra picture. I want to say that it was Boxing Day or shortly after Christmas because I remember the Christmas lights. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw that my Dad was crying. My Dad was a tough man, but he was crying watching It's A Wonderful Life and in a very simple, childish way I thought, "There's something in this. There's a power in this thing that we're watching." That was one of the things that attracted me to cinema: I was drawn in like the tractor beam in Star Trek. It got that hold on me and quite gently, but firmly, drew me into its world.

Guillén: What further strikes me—as a film writer or simply as someone who loves film—is that point at which you've watched enough film that you can begin to make the leaps between films and to recognize and sift out the continuity of film, how cinema evolves out of itself, which I feel you have brilliantly illustrated in The Story of Film. I loved the lineage you traced from the "troubled bubbles" of Carol Reed's Odd Man Out through Jean-Luc Godard's 2 Or 3 Things I Know About Her to Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver.

Cousins: Thank you. That, for me, is what I love doing. Another example would be how—while watching Brad Pitt in Andrew Dominik's beautiful film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford—I was reminded of Lillian Gish in D.W. Griffith's films. Brad Pitt is filmed in the same way as Lillian Gish. This kind of connective tissue, this kind of poetic impulse that filmmakers have had across this relatively young art form, and discovering this unexpected connection between Brad Pitt and Lillian Gish—there it is!—that's what's been the thrill of making The Story of Film: noticing those connections. I love it.

Guillén: So, in a sense, you were constantly educating yourself while making the film?

Cousins: That's right. I was constantly educating myself. I learned so much from Youssef Chahine—the wonderful, bold and daring Egyptian filmmaker who died a few years ago—not only about Egyptian cinema, I thought I
knew Egyptian cinema, but also about human bravery. This is a guy who—when he made Cairo Station—tried to be more honest about sexuality and was spat at on the street; but, he kept going. In my interview with him for The Story of Film, he spoke quite openly and daringly about Egyptian politics long before the Arab Spring that happened recently, long before the end of Hosni Mubarak. I learned so much from the courage of filmmakers like Chahine. They were really pushing themselves and their societies. I was incredibly touched by that. I was permanently changed by the experience of making this film.

Guillén: That being said, clearly having access to these filmmakers and their films was directly instrumental in the process of educating yourself during the course of making the film. But what can you say to young people wanting to educate themselves about film at a time when so many independent video stores are going under? You point to so many incredible films in The Story of Film but how accessible are they?

Cousins: Let me tell you a story and this is quite an optimistic story. When I was making this film, I realized I knew nothing about Ethiopian cinema. I didn't even know if there was Ethiopian cinema. I started to research and I found that there was. I found one film in particular called Harvest: 3,000 Years. I ordered it from Facets in New York. It cost me $120 and took two weeks to arrive. In that period, my appetite to see this film grew and grew so that—when it arrived—I
slammed it into my video recorder and watched it. It was a masterpiece. Now if you want to see that film, you can just click on YouTube and see it in all its glory, subtitled and everything. So that argues against the point you've just made; but, a crucial question, I think, from the lesson of my story is about appetite generation: I was getting hungrier and hungrier and hungrier to see that film. Now that it's so available and so easy to watch, the danger is that you think, "Well, I can watch it there so I'll watch it next Tuesday. Or I might watch it next year. Or I might watch it when I retire, or whatever." It's a different process. Actually the problem is not about accessibility but about generating an appetite for cinema. We're in an era of relative plenitude—not total plenitude but relative plenitude—therefore, the question for me as a sign poster is how to look at this Ethiopian film. As to the accessibility of these films, many of them are on YouTube so it's not as horrible as it sounds to hunt them out. Some of them are hard work and some of this is about shaming the rights holders of these films—who do nothing with these films—to make them available.

Guillén: In the documentary you defend the advances of digital production and the effect this will have on the future of cinema. Ironically enough, at that point in your documentary I detected the first evidence of pixellation.

Cousins: I noticed that as well.

Guillén: So having defended digital production, if I'm hearing you right you're now saying you have no issues with digital projection? You're not a celluloid purist?

Cousins: I absolutely love digital projection. I always sit right in the front row. If it's a film projection I notice immediately when it goes out of focus; but, with digital projection it doesn't. So I'm very new-fashioned about this. If you recall, there's a sequence in the documentary where I also talk about the colorization of an Indian film? Purists, I guess, would be against colorization but I felt in that case it worked. So I guess I'm not a purist about things like that.

Guillén: With regard to digital production, you reined the discussion in to industrial practices and didn't mention all the advances and trends in what has been termed "disposable" cinema; i.e., films made with handheld cameras by everyday folks?

Cousins: The democratization of the filmmaking process is crucial. That means that anyone in this room that might have a film talent but is not rich or not connected to the film industry will still be likely to make films. For me that's almost closer to the sociology of cinema rather than the poetics of cinema. I'm not a sociologist and, therefore, I've kept out of that discussion. People have asked me why I've not looked at audience reactions and marketing and that sort of thing and—though these are all very interesting—they're areas that I'm not qualified to speak. A lot of people think I should have done a big summary at the end of the film in my epilogue as to what cinema has achieved; but, I preferred to end it on something of a grace note with that scene of all the people holding hands at FESPACO in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, which was probably the most cinephilic place I've been in my life, even moreso than Hollywood.

Guillén: You and I both tend to interview filmmakers. I imagine it has come to be quite easy for you?

Cousins: No, it's very hard. Some filmmakers have been interviewed all their lives and that makes it difficult to ask something fresh. In a previous life about 10 years ago I was an interviewer and spent a lot of time on TV interviewing directors and actors and I used the technique then that I use now, which is to sit down and write a long sometimes-handwritten letter to the person after having watched all their work first. I introduce myself and say, "You don't know me. I know you've been interviewed all your life and here's why you need to give me 40 minutes of your time." Then I talk them through their career. For example, with Stanley Donen I wrote a long letter saying, "Here's why the leg of mutton dance in your last well-known film
Bedazzled is one of my favorite sequences." In that way you show a knowledge of the work and a take on it. It mostly works. In most cases we got who we wanted. As you can see, we weren't necessarily going for the most famous people by any means; just the people who were at a key moment and who could be an eye witness to that moment.

Guillén: How closely does The Story of Film: An Odyssey follow your publication The Story of Film: A Worldwide History?

Cousins: I wrote my book The Story of Film: A Worldwide History in 2002-2003. I had actually suggested in a British newspaper that there should be a single volume history of cinema like E.H. Gombrich's The Story of Art. Then I drove to India by camper van and when I got back there were two letters from publishers suggesting, "Why don't you write such a book?" I was in my thirties, which was probably a little too early, but I gave it a go. The book did well and was published all around the world in the '90s. Then my nutty producer John Archer said, "Why don't we try to make it into a film?"

Usually, adaptations of books are shorter than the books. My book is about 450-500 pages but my commentary for the film is also 500 pages. So
The Story of Film is roughly as long as the book. What I would say is that the book covers lots of things that aren't in the film, but the film covers things that aren't in the book. I spend more time showing clips in The Story of Film than I do talking about them in the book. As I'm sure you know, when you're writing a book you're trying to conjure images in people's minds, for example the shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. With a film, I don't have to conjure it in people's minds to make the image concrete; I can just show it. Instead, I have to try to help the audience see the imaginative process that leads to the image. It's like inside-out vs. outside-in, or back to front.

Guillén: One of the distinct spectatorial pleasures of watching The Story of Film in its entirety here at PSIFF is the fact that you hosted it. You're enthusiastic and somewhat impish, so why then did you choose such a calm tenor to narrate your film? Can you speak to the tone you sought for your film?

Cousins: The tone was crucial for me. I thought a lot about the tone. What I knew I didn't want was a kind of TV tone, which is fast. I didn't want the narrative voiceover to move fast. In the recording booth, I didn't want to lecture. I wanted to create the sense that I was sitting beside you in the audience looking at the screen with you, talking in your ear. I know it's a bit whispery and some people hate that, but—if you're interested in the poetics of something—you need to almost get a slightly nighttime feel. Whether that works, I don't know, but that's clearly what I was going for.

Guillén: How much do you think your being Irish has affected your perspective as an observer?

Cousins: That's a fair question. When I read the capsule for the film's premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, it said something I hadn't even considered. It stressed that the film wasn't made by an institution. The British Film Institute's logo is on the film but they came in at the end. So it wasn't an institution or a cinematheque that made
The Story of Film; it was me and my producer. So it's not really my Irishness that affects my perspective as an observer, but my independence and the smallness within which we worked. I didn't have layers of producers with whom I had to deal with. I didn't have to submit my editorial judgments for approval from a panel of experts. The fact that I live in Ireland and worked on the film in Scotland—places that are on the edge of Europe and not customarily associated with being at the center of the film world—sort of meant that we just got on with it. Nobody ever thought we'd finish it, I guess. Nobody took us too seriously.

Guillén: What I appreciated about your documentary is its stance of enthusiasm as criticism. Do you have anything to say about the responsibility of film writers or journalists or critics to advance the story of film?

Cousins: I know that the film writing I really enjoy is enthusiastic. I love François Truffaut's writing on cinema. I quoted a bit of it in
The Story of Film when he's talking about Johnny Guitar. I love the passionate film criticism of Manny Farber. I love that thing that Rilke says: "Pray, poet, what do you do?" "I praise." So there's a degree of praise going on in The Story of Film. Beyond that, I don't think I have a good answer to your question other than to say that I would like film writers to write as well as possible about this medium and whatever mode they choose is fine.

Guillén: Finally, before we leave here, can you talk about your involvement with the 8½ Foundation?

Cousins: The 8½ Foundation was created by Tilda Swinton and me. We discovered that we both fell in love with movies about the same time, when we were eight-and-a-half. Tilda's son asked her once, "Mummy, what did people dream about before the movies were invented?" These things came together and made us think that maybe around the age of eight-and-a-half is a kind of threshold moment; a perfect time to fall in love with cinema before you become a teenager and try to be too cool. We decided to invent a movie bar mitzvah; an initiation into the world of cinema. The 8½ Foundation takes place in Scotland, though we've had offers to repeat it elsewhere. Children—when they're reaching the age of eight-and-a-half—log onto our website, which is set up as a magical world with little projectors in a midnight forest where there are clips of films that Tilda and I particularly love. If these children want to see any of these films or get one of them for their eight-and-a-half birthday, they write a handwritten letter to us. I get hundreds of letters now with drawings and everything. We wrap the film up in sparkly paper and send it off to the child. The idea behind all this is not simply to give the child a beautiful film—and it's a Chinese film or an Iranian film or a West African film—but it's also about appetite generation. As I mentioned earlier, in this modern day when everything is so accessible, if you have to write a letter, send it off and then wait for three weeks before the film arrives, there's a sense of build-up there and, hopefully, that's fun.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

SFIFF53: ROGER EBERT TRIBUTE

Roger Ebert was the distinguished recipient of the Mel Novikoff Award at this year's edition of the San Francisco International Film Festival (SFIFF53). The presiding theme that ran throughout the celebratory evening held at San Francisco's historic Castro Theatre was that—at a time when (as Jason Sanders states it in his tribute essay) "the future of film criticism remains a real question"—Ebert has proven by example that film criticism's role in championing the work of new filmmakers has kickstarted many a career and encouraged others to hone their craft. To prove that point, the San Francisco Film Society invited four guests whose directorial careers have been personally encouraged by Ebert to share their thoughts: Philip Kaufman (The Right Stuff, Henry & June), Errol Morris (The Fog of War, The Thin Blue Line), Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Juno) and Terry Zwigoff (Ghost World, Crumb).

Letter From Tilda Swinton

One guest who had been invited but was unable to attend due to a conflict in her filming schedule was festival favorite Tilda Swinton, whose brave performance in Erick Zonca's Julia was singled out by Ebert for reconsideration. In lieu of attendance, Swinton forwarded a letter to Ebert, which Program Director Rachel Rosen read to the audience:

"Dear Roger: I cannot tell you how sad I am to miss out on our San Francisco moment. I am—as my daughter would describe her dog when it pines—'pretty low to the ground' about the whole thing. Were it not that I'm in Connecticut shooting what I sincerely hope is a great film with
Lynne Ramsay, and were there flights that existed that could get me there and back between the end of a Friday night shoot and an early call on Monday without our company suffering one collective heart attack, you know I would be there.

"You do me and Julia such great honor. Such a beloved film for me and all those who made it. Your support has kept us warm over the past months. The witness you provide for this kind of work is incalculably valuable to all filmmakers working outside the frame of studio movie's muscle and your inexhaustible passion as a film fan means everything. Tilda."

Terry Zwigoff

Introducing Terry Zwigoff as a "director who makes a specialty of literate antisocial oddballs", Rachel Rosen qualified: "that he does it with comedy takes more guts than doing it in tragedy."

"I make films about 'antisocial oddballs'?" Zwigoff countered behind the podium. "I guess that's fair. You write about what you know. I'm actually so antisocial myself these days I find it very difficult to watch a film in a theater among other people. I'm not saying that to be self-serving; it's just the truth. I feel very uncomfortable and I prefer, these days, to watch films at home, especially comedies. I know Roger prefers that communal audience experience—he's a much more well-adjusted, sane person—but, I really can't stand it when I go to a film and the audience starts laughing at something I don't find funny and when they don't laugh at something I do find funny. It's a very alienating experience for me and I'm alienated enough, so.... But whenever I watch a film at home, I got into this habit of wanting to talk or think about it with somebody and, of course, the guy I always choose to think about is Mr. Ebert. I can go to the computer and hope that he has written a review of what I've just watched. Why do I do this? I'm not even sure to tell you the truth because I don't fully agree with him; but, why I do it is because he's a great writer.

"I brought something to read and I hope he doesn't mind but it's part of a review that he wrote for one of my favorite films, which is Army of Shadows: 'Jean-Pierre Melville's Army of Shadows is about members of the French Resistance who persist in the face of despair. Rarely has a film shown so truly that place in the heart where hope lives with fatalism. It is not a film about daring raids and exploding trains, but about cold, hungry, desperate men and women who move invisibly through the Nazi occupation of France. Their army is indeed made of shadows: They use false names, they have no addresses, they can be betrayed in an instant by a traitor or an accident. They know they will probably die. This is not a war film. It is about a state of mind. ...[A]bout the war within the minds of Resistance members, who must live with constant fear, persist in the face of futility, accept the deaths of their comrades and expect no reward, except the knowledge that they are doing the right thing. ...Their immediate commander is Philippe Gerbier, played by Lino Ventura with a hawk nose and physical bulk, introspection and implacable determination. To overact for Ventura would be an embarrassment.' That's like the greatest line I've ever heard: 'To overact for Ventura would be an embarrassment.' People forget that Roger is a very funny writer as well as a smart one. I know that's known without my reading that.

"I often times read things he's written and take on a new appreciation for something I've seen, and watch it again, and learn something. Anyway, I'm so socially retarded that I don't think I've ever become friends with Roger in the traditional sense. I don't know him very well personally so I don't have very many anecdotes to share. I had dinner with Roger and Chaz once, but Malkovich's whole crazy family was there.... He's interviewed me a couple of times. He's had me at Ebertfest. I don't know, part of it's—I guess—that you have to keep a little bit of a professional distance if a guy's reviewing your films as well.

"I first met him at the Telluride Film Festival in 1984 where I had my first film Louie Bluie and I had only been accepted in one other film festival before that; it was down at Filmex, which is now called the L.A. Film Festival. I think 12 people showed up to see the film down there. So I didn't expect much when I went to Telluride; but, one of the people in line to see the film was Roger Ebert, which was a big deal to me. I remember I was in the lobby selling LPs—that sort of dates the whole thing; but, at least they weren't 78s—and they were soundtracks to the film Louie Bluie. Roger wanted to buy a few. He came up and I said, 'Just take a few, man, take some.' He seemed rather put off and rather irritated by that because maybe he thought I was trying to bribe him or something.

"I guess the biggest criticism I have of Roger is that his reviews are often too easy on films, except for my films of course—he could never be too easy on them—but, the guy loves films so much that it's almost contagious. He's open, he's smart, he's thoughtful, he's always very clear, and he's got a really good heart and—like I said—he's really funny, which is hard to do as a writer. He manages to make you think critically without making it seem like homework. God knows the world needs more people thinking critically these days about a lot of things.

"Finally, I'm going to tell a short story for Roger's benefit that he's never heard and that probably most of you have never heard. I don't tell many people this; but, I get a kick out of it so what the hell? When I made my film Crumb years ago, my executive producer Lynn O'Donnell suggested that we have a few informal test screenings before we locked picture. She wanted some feedback from an audience and so she got about 200 people to come and she handed the audience survey cards. They would ask you things like: What do you like most about the film? Do you like this? Is it too long? Too short? That sort of thing. After the screening was over, I realized it hadn't gone very well and so I went up to Lynn and I said, 'You know what? Let me take those cards home with me and read them over tonight and I'll give them back to you tomorrow morning.' She said, 'Okay.' So I took them home.

"I was mortified reading the cards because they were unanimously down on the film. The consensus was that I should take Robert Crumb's brothers out of the film, which to me was the whole point of the film. But everyone wanted to go in a more cheery, upbeat direction, and spend most of the time on underground comic books or something, which I had no interest in. So I thought, 'Well, I better take a few of these cards and fill in my own comments to balance this out.' I knew I wasn't going to be able to find any blank cards so I took some Wite-Out and I whited out their comments, then I went down to Kinkos and I Xeroxed about a hundred of these things. I came home and got a bunch of different pens and tried to disguise my handwriting on these cards and wrote, 'Oh, the brothers were great! More of them!'

"Eventually, we had one more screening and I couldn't do that again and, luckily, at that test screening this guy Walter Murch came and everybody felt the same way except him; but, he had enough clout as an Oscar®-winning editor to just say, 'Y'know, the film is great. Just leave it alone.' He went on beyond that to do a free sound mix for me, because we had no money.

"So we locked picture and started submitting it to film festivals and everyone turned us down. Eventually, somehow, the New York Film Festival let us in and it did well there. Roger and his ol' pal
Gene Siskel saw it and they started championing the film on their show. They got it on there three or four times. The first time they did an early review to encourage theaters to actually book the film. Then after that they did it again when it came out to review it. And after that to remind people to go see the film. Eventually, by then all the other critics had gone along and come out for it. Ultimately Roger argued for it at Oscar® time and eventually it made its way onto Roger's list of great films, which was probably a greater thrill for me than winning the Oscar® itself.

"A few years ago Roger did a commentary for the film. The truth of the matter is that Sony Pictures had done a poor transfer the first time they did it and I had been on their case to correct it. Ever since then they sort of made it clear that—if they were going to do that—they wanted me to do a commentary and that's how I could pay them back for all the expense. But I just wasn't comfortable doing a commentary for a film. I think it takes the mystery and the magic out of it and it diminishes the film sometimes if you're not careful. So I was a little reluctant to do it, but I said, 'Y'know, why can't Roger Ebert do it? He could talk about this film. He knows it pretty well.' They said, 'Okay. That's a great suggestion.' So they called Roger and Roger agreed to do it and I said, 'Great! I'm off the hook.' And they said, 'No. You have to do it as a conversation with Roger.' So Roger came and we did this commentary and I tried to sit there the whole time and not say anything. I let him talk. I later found out they had used a lot of his voice from that DVD commentary to help restore his computer voice, which was great.

"Anyway, it's been my greatest hope and fondest joy to talk about Mr. Ebert here. Again, I'm glad he's been given this award. He truly deserves it."

Errol Morris

"It's an honor for me to be here tonight. Roger Ebert has given out so many awards to so many filmmakers, it's nice to be part of giving him an award this time around. Anybody who's done this long enough knows that there are two, three, four people who have made an extraordinary difference in their careers for many many many reasons. For me, Roger is most certainly one of those people. He champions unlikely films. His own film festival is the perfect example of this. It's my perfect trophy, by the way, the thumbs up. ...It's something I'm very very proud of, although I was disappointed to find out it was not Roger's thumb.

"I had made my first film Gates of Heaven. I think this is true many many films later, you don't really know if they're good or bad. You really depend on someone to tell you that they're not as bad as you might think and, in fact, they might be good! For me, very early in my career Roger Ebert—because my film went to the New York Film Festival; I was really lucky to be accepted—but, there was a newspaper strike that year in New York so no one read about the film. And then out of seemingly nowhere these reviews appeared on television and in the newspaper from Roger and Gene Siskel, almost as if he would not give up. In fact, he hasn't given up—I think it's now something like 30 years—his obsession with this film and other films I've made. I owe him an enormous debt of gratitude.

"What do you hope for when you make a film? That someone out there will appreciate it, perhaps see it in a kindly light, or maybe see things in it that you saw in it, or maybe even see things in it that you never even noticed. It's truly a blessing and Roger has certainly played that role in my life over the years. For that alone—aside from all the great writing and the great criticism—I am grateful.

"It also occurred to me—I will be brief—that there's something very odd about this man. He's not really just a film critic. He's also an icon, quite clearly. I remember when I first met him—I believe I first met him at the Cannes Film Festival years and years ago—I was told, 'Y'know, Roger always writes about his experiences at Cannes' and I read the one from that year. I remember saying to my wife at the time, 'This guy writes really really well.' And it's absolutely true. He's an extraordinary writer. If I call him 'kind', it seems like it's the wrong way to put it; but, he's an enthusiast and a person who is very much a person of conviction....

"So it's an enormous privilege for me to be here. He means—and continues to be—a lot to me. He's mastered every form of this sort of thing: as a writer, as a newspaper man, as a television personality, now as a blogger, and I'm sure that—if in the future there is a new kind of media that is developed—he will master that as well."

Jason Reitman

"Terry, I have one word of advice for when you're in a movie theater and they are laughing at the thing that's not funny. It's something I do when my wife drags me to a horrible romantic comedy. You just have to laugh three times as loud and talk about what's happening on the screen: 'Oh my God! She doesn't know that he's already in the bathroom!' And just get bigger and bigger and bigger. You can own that film.

"It's hard to give context for the life of Roger Ebert when it is he who has given us all context. He is America's critic. He's one of the few people who comprises our cinematic voice of record. He is ... 'The Thumb.' It's almost hard to come up with what we're supposed to say. Roger's name alone stands for his great writing, his criticism, all his contributions that have lived so far beyond them. One would think one could say, 'Now the Mel Novikoff Award goes to Roger Ebert' and that would be it.

"A few times a year Roger will choose a film, sometimes a studio release, but more often a film on the fringe, something small that was made for all the right reasons; something that moves him, and he will blow wind into the tiny sails of this film and give it a life that otherwise would be unimaginable. I'm not the first person to talk about this. I realize everybody's actually talking about this. I have personally experienced it. I remember arriving at the Toronto Film Festival with this tiny movie about teenage pregnancy starring an unknown Canadian actress named Ellen Page that I really thought, 'This will be a festival movie and it will not be seen otherwise.' I remember when the movie ended and people began to clap, I saw Roger—he was actually seated a few seats away from me—and he nodded to me. It was an extraordinary thing! The next morning he had already started talking about the film. He shone a spotlight on it. He gave people a reason to pay attention to it and by the end of the week I got a call saying that Roger would actually like to sit down and talk to me about the film. I was terrified but knew it was going to be a thing I was going to cherish for the rest of my life, and it was. I have no doubt that Roger is one of the very few reasons why people know the name Juno.

"There is a joy for Roger even when he doesn't like a film. I'm sorry in advance for this but here is a quote from [a review of]
a movie that will go nameless: 'I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it.'—Errol, you're right, he's a great writer!—'Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.' Here's the thing: even in this review, I know how much Roger loves movies. I know how much he thinks of them, how much he wants from them, what he expects from them, because these are the same things that I look to movies for. I can't quite put a finger on it but there's something about many film critics and the way they write that makes me think they actually hate movies.

"There's an enthusiasm in Roger's writing that can't be mistaken for anything else but joy. He's passionate and cannot be silenced. He's America's best friend who won't stop nagging you until you've seen this new film. Nowhere is this more evident than on Twitter. I know teenage girls that tweet less than Roger Ebert. You could put Ashton Kutcher, Britney Spears, and the entire staff of Ain't It Cool News and /Film together and not tweet as much as Roger Ebert. He tweets about movies. He tweets about politics. He tweets jokes. Yesterday he retweeted the following Twitter user named Superstanos who wrote: 'I just spent 20 minutes writing WU TANG into a lab table. This is why I go to school y'all.' The Roger Ebert Twitter feed is one of the best publications we have running. I don't mean this sarcastically. It's awesome. It's political. It's daring. It's funny. It's self-effacing. It's everything that I love about his writing. It rails against Sarah Palin. It's even about the artfulness of video games.

"He has somehow found yet another medium and a way to share what he thinks is special. This is the passion I associate with this great man who I was introduced to watching At the Movies and who I was fortunate enough to meet when I was a 20-year-old short film maker at the Toronto Festival. I introduced myself. I had no idea that as a writer he would change my life. His instinct to write and share is one thing, but then he wants you to experience what he has experienced, to feel what he has felt. It's an instinct to give and he gives so much. And so there's really only one thing left to say: thank you. Roger, thank you for everything you have done for my career. And thank you for everything you have done for cinema. I cannot imagine a more deserved honor."

Philip Kaufman

"Rose and I left Chicago during the great blizzard of '66 with our little son Peter. We'd done a couple of low budget independent films in Chicago but the films gave no return to the investors, money dried up, and Rose said it was time to head back to San Francisco: always our city of succor. We'd become best friends with Nelson Algren and he came to the airport to see us off. He started to tell us it would be lonely in Chicago without us. Nelson, as you know, wrote The Man With the Golden Arm. At that very time, maybe at that same moment that we were hugging Algren on our way out of Chicago, a bright, tough young kid was just making his way into Chicago. I like to think he took our place. He became a friend of Algren's. And Studs Terkel. And the great Mike Royko. In time he would come to be known as the Kid With the Golden Thumb. Everything you've read by this kid Ebert over all these years should be taken in the context of his being in the tradition of these Chicago guys: tough, give 'em hell, not compromising, no bullshit, tell it like it is, compassionate writers. Like them, Ebert spoke from his heart, spoke against the big boys, championed the little man against small-minded bullies. He told us the truth according to Ebert and—like Mike Royko—he could say with all humility: 'I may be wrong ... but I doubt it.'

"Once, Roger called and woke me up at about six in the morning. Rose and I had made Henry & June and by now Peter was our producer. The Ratings Board had dropped the dreaded 'X' on the film, which meant essentially that it couldn't be distributed. They demanded that I make some cuts. 'Why should I?' I said, 'You guys don't give an "X" rating when a breast is mutilated or blown away; you only give one when a naked breast is caressed. Besides, I applied the same standards I did in The Unbearable Lightness of Being and you gave that an "R" rating.' They said, 'We should have given that film an "X" too.' At which point I might have used the word fuck. They told me I could not use 'the F word' with them and that cemented the 'X' rating.

"I was going to fly to Washington that very day with a big-time lawyer to take on the system and that's the morning Roger called me and woke me up. Roger had been fighting the same fight with the rating system for years and he called us to tell us that the Ratings Board had backed down and that—because we had challenged them and Roger had led the forces of change—they were finally coming up with a new rating: NC17. This was the first I had heard of it. Roger had the news before anyone else. Good news. We felt great at the time. We thought everything had changed. Now, in America we could see films that were—as Rose used to say—'not for children of all ages.' But pretty quickly the powers-that-be found a way to make the NC-17 become the new 'X' and today studios will no longer make or distribute a NC-17 film; but, that's another story. The point of this story is that no one has fought harder or longer or with more enthusiasm than Roger Ebert for justice and fairness and good movies. He's fought for intelligence in movies and, at the same time, he's fought for fun, for sex, beauty, humanity and did I mention sex? In San Francisco, Roger Ebert's our kind of guy.

"Roger and I have both been lucky to find great loves in our lives who stood by us through thick and thin, who had our backs, at the same time led us, who were our partners. I wouldn't be here today if not for Rose and Roger wouldn't be here if not for Chaz. Chaz and Roger, I wanted to tell you a little story about Rose. I was in graduate school at the University of Chicago. Rose and I went to see a film at the Hyde Park Theatre. One of us liked the film and the other one didn't. I've forgotten who felt what. I've even forgotten the name of the film. But I do remember that—in the heat of our passionate disagreement—Rose hauled off and punched me in the face. ...A couple of hours later after thinking things over in some of the local bars, I decided, 'Who needs this shit?' I staggered back to our one and a half room basement apartment on Blackstone ready to end our relationship. Rose had bolted the damn door. I was locked out on a cold, windy Chicago night. I walked around to the alley and found a window that was slightly open. This was the window to the tiny bedroom. As I crawled through the window onto the bed, Rose grabbed me and wrapped herself around me. Tears were all over her face. She whispered, 'Enough of this crap. Let's make our own films. Let's make our own films.'

"We stayed in that bed for days and talked through those days and every night that followed about everything; a lot about films. Our conversation went on for the next 50 years. We never stopped talking. [At this moment grief overwhelmed Kaufman and he found it difficult to speak. Ebert reached out his hand to him.] It's tough being here because Rose and I saw hundreds of movies in this theater. We saw many with Mel. We loved this theater. I thought I could get through this more easily; but, anyway, Rose—as anyone who knew her can attest—never stopped telling me or anyone exactly what she thought. She was fearless and brave as hell, like Roger. As I said, I wouldn't have the honor of being up here on stage with Roger and Chaz if not for Rose.

"I just wanted to say, Roger: thanks for always keeping the bedroom window slightly open. Thanks for encouraging me and these wonderful directors up here and thousands of aspiring filmmakers all over the world to make our own films. Now, as one Chicagoan who has found his home here in San Francisco to another Chicagoan who will always have a second home here, I'd like to present you with a couple of things."

At this juncture Kaufman read aloud Mayor Gavin Newsom's proclamation of May 1, 2010 as Roger Ebert Day in San Francisco and handed Ebert the Mel Novikoff Award.

Cross-published on
Twitch. Introductory photograph of Ebert and friends in front of the Castro Theatre marquee courtesy of Pamela Gentile and the San Francisco Film Society.