Two white guys “At the Movies”

"600 Words by Esther J. Cepeda"

First off, let me put this out there… I love white people. Half my family (the half that isn’t, by the numbers, even more Filipino than it is Hispanic) is white.

I’m also not the type to go around being all bitter that "da man" is trying to keep me down. But sometimes it sorta, kinda feels like maybe…

Here’s what gets me: Roger Ebert and Rich Roeper walked away from At the Movies and were replaced by...drumroll please… two pasty white guys.

Fine, upstanding, imminently qualified guys, perhaps funny and – to some tastes – attractive guys. But… well… white guys!

It’s 2008 and some black dude is running for president, but the movie review show based in Chicago – which has one of the largest black and Latino populations in America – couldn’t find one single movie writer, reviewer, or blogger "of color" as the kids like to say, to fill one of the seats? Give me a break!

Back when the world was young and movies were no longer the sort of place you got dressed up to go to, Roger Ebert invented the newspaper beat of "Movie critic." And God bless him for doing so, he took what could have been a meritless, fluffy opinion column and created serious scholarly discourse on an important American art form.

In 1982, Rog, along with Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune brought movie criticism into the mainstream with their inimitable TV show Sneak Previews which went onto become At the Movies. About a year after Gene died in 1999, Roger’s fellow Sun-Times columnist became his new balcony-mate. I was thrilled!

Never mind that Rich was totally cool, an awesome writer on many things including –

but not limited to – movies, he had great chemistry. But not only that, Roeper was the final pick after a long slew of many male, female, and diverse "guest hosts" auditioned for over a year. He was the best, no problem – merit-based success is really the only kind that should exist.

I’ll take a side-note here to say I’m sure the show’s producers had a really hard time finding such a diverse array of talent to fill that guest slot. There are very, very few popular minority media people, much less those with cushy entertainment beats…editors generally send black reporters to the South Side and the Latino ones to the local factories to investigate immigration raids. (Yes, that is a true statement.) Let’s face it, people who aren’t white have had a tough time cracking into such elite white-collar positions as "movie critic."

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not just crushing sour grapes here, it’s not like I sent an audition tape, but last week when I read about Ben Mankiewicz and Ben Lyons’ new gigs in Sun-Times columnist Robert Feder’s piece ABC 7 ready to raise curtain on new 'At the Movies' , what could I do but just shake my weary head?

I’ve got nothing against Ben and Ben. Feder called them "both scions of famed show-biz families; Mankiewicz was a host for Turner Classic Movies and Sirius Satellite Radio, and Lyons reported for E! Entertainment," so clearly they’re qualified. But c’mon, only white people get to give their take on talkies?

What about George Singleton? What about some talented blogger? Hey, how’s this: how about a woman – any color’s fine.

Yep, it’s 2008 and women and blacks are not only allowed to vote but they get to do so for someone who looks like them. Good times, in perspective.

But though I don’t think there’s some anti-minority media bias, sadly, there seems to be a terrible confluence of managerial blind spots and lack of imagination and – even worse – a lack of opportunity for writers who aren’t white.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the "600 Words" & "Pregunta del Dia" columns, and is also the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission. Her views and reporting do not necessarily reflect those of ISAC. "600 words" is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

Comments

[Jack Spatafora]

I connect with everything you wrote...there is indeed room and reason for critics of color...but here's another spin...I suspect there's also need for critics who are honest enough to emphasize the "business" part of the "show business" equation...in other words, rather than constantly rhapsodising about movies as artforms (which yes they often are),also dealing with the money-grabbing busines calculations that go into these cinematic efforts...including massaging the plots, the players and the purposes more for the buck than the art..there's a lot a good critic could say about this nasty little reality that usually goes unsaid...

[Tim Cruickshank]

I disagree with you on Siskel and Ebert being "irreplacable." Few people qualify for that distinction, but not movie critics - of any skin color. On the contrary, even knowledgable movie critics like the old "Siskel and Ebert" are still a dime a dozen. This is one job almost anyone could do, as long as you have an outspoken personality. Most people are movie critics as soon as they leave the theater after a showing. Some are "professional" movie go-ers.

The question of why they hired white guys to replace Ebert and Roeper can only be answered by their employer. For a job or profession with training qualifications, such a result is easier to explain. For example, why was the U.S. Olympic basketball team ALL black men? Likely their performance statistics revealed they were the best available at their position.

I agree with you in general, they easily could have come up with 2 black, or 2 hispanic women just as easily as 2 white guys. And, those picked for the job absolutely DO NOT need anywhere near the previous experience that the men picked for the job have. These are NOT highly technical positions!

[John]

There needs to be consensus over who are some of the best. There are so many choices for people to look at, from Fandango.com and Rottentomatoes.com, to TV news segments…”Sneak Previews” (remember those days?) is hardly a unique piece of media anymore, and there don’t seem to be ANY critics that stand out like Siskel & Ebert did, not even in ethnic-specific media...

Perhaps what is needed isn’t so much a host as a full time influential producer/editor who can highlight certain critics, and create a pool from which readers can read/listen to. If there were a key website that people would go to (rather than watching a show like “Sneak Previews”), they could feature different kinds of critics, and have viewers vote on the most helpful and/or interesting critics. From that system, a core group of critics (especially of different ethnicities and genders) could emerge.

I personally would like to see PHILSOPHICAL diversity . Someone who would be willing to question “was that sex scene really necessary?” or “did we have to see that much blood?” If one of those critics were an evangelical Christian (for example) they might even choose to not review certain movies because of the expected material. That would be an opportunity for a guest critic to step up and get exposure

Back to the philosophy…it would be possible to hear a different angle that shouldn’t get missed. For example, talk about the movie “Blood Diamond” centered on Leonardo Di Caprio. Yes, he was good, but it seems a vital message of the movie was lost: how the love of a father (Solomon Vandy, portrayed by Djimon Hounsou) & hope for one’s child can triumph over the darkest evils. A different kind of critic might be able to open people’s minds.