I’m joined by Matt Singer this week, author of Opposable Thumbs: How Siskel and Ebert Changed Movies Forever. The book, out this Tuesday, is a wide-ranging look at the myriad ways in which Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel’s seminal show—or, really, three shows, which ran across multiple networks over multiple decades—changed not only film criticism but film marketing as well. We talked about the introduction of the thumb system—which, shockingly, was not with the duo from the beginning—and why their genuinely antagonistic relationship hasn’t really translated to the YouTube/podcast era of film criticism. If you enjoyed the episode, make sure to share it with a friend!
I loved Siskel & Ebert's show(s) back in the day (may they both RIP), and thoroughly enjoyed this interview!
Now I'll have to find them on YouTube...
I lived in North Carolina and looked forward to watching the following on PBS, Jonathan Miller’s The Body in Question, Nova, Siskel and Elbert and the show Life and Times with Patt Morrison and a very reasonable sounding Hugh Hewitt. Another time.
When Gene and Roger gave opposing indications (one thumb up and the other thumb down), I pretty much knew I was going to like a picture. It didn't much matter which one was positive.
It was a thing. It was the same time that the sports writers on tv came on the scene
There is some strange synergy between the late 1970s Chicago media scene and the Hollywood productions of that period which make the early episodes surprisingly visceral.
Really fun episode. Learned some things I didn’t know about S & E.
My feeling after watching years of their shows was that Roger was the better writer, but Gene had better taste.
One of the curious things about watching them is you got the sense that Siskel was more intellectual about movies than Ebert but actually the opposite was true. The thing I especially enjoyed about their show is that they really liked movies, including the experience of seeing a movie. Sometimes I get the sense in reading reviews that the reviewers have seen too many movies and have become jaded about the whole enterprise.
Thoughtful point, but not sure of your meaning of "...Gene had better taste."
Can you elaborate?
Meaning that I agreed with his 👍and 👎 more than I did with Roger’s. He seemed to have a better grasp of what made a film good or bad, whereas Ebert was often swayed by details, reputation, political correctness, etc.
Okay...that's reasonable. Thx.
I had forgotten how this was must see TV. These episodes need to be saved in the Library of Congress.
You had me at thumbs. Buying it now. I worked with Gene from 1974 until his death. And for about half that time I was one of his main editors/“bosses” (hah!). Gene was...something else. I liked him but he could be a pain--and he always had to be the smartest person in the room (and he usually was). But it was fun to be there when he and Roger went from local stars to tv icons.
Two thumbs up for this episode. Thanks.
Charming episode.
Delightful discussion of Siskel and Ebert and their shows.