Friday, February 13, 2015

Roger Ebert


  •  A lot of Ebert's beliefs sound beautiful and his opinion on the meaning of life sounds lovely, but I don't think any of these were his true beliefs. With the struggles he has been through, the way he writes makes him seem like an amazing person that doesn't get sad, and that doesn't pity himself. I think a lot of the things he said had to do with his image, and that even if he was dying inside, he wasn't going to let anybody know that. I think he just wanted to "say the right things". Sure, he may have actually had these outlooks on life, but the odds are pretty low. It doesn't make sense that a famous movie critic loses his voice, abilities to eat, abilities to drink, and many other things and still is extremely content with life. When he went to that party with his wife and the friend that sat with him and the friend apologized for eating, Ebert said they were eating for him. I think he said that only to make the person feel better, because certainly there had to be the underlying desire to be able to eat again and taste all those lovely things.
  • I'm also kind of upset about this whole thing, how he got even more famous after losing a huge part of his life. I feel like if he hadn't been famous beforehand, nobody would pay attention to him besides the immediate people in his life. I think his extreme fame for losing his voice was only due to his prior fame as a movie critic. If this happened to an average person, they would not become a worldwide figure, getting interviewed on numerous talk shows. I really think it's unfair, because Ebert probably was not the first to lose his voice to cancer.
Overall, as inspiring as his story is, I don't truly buy into it and his overwhelming fame after his surgeries irritates me.