Name: Siskel & Ebert on Letterman, March 1, 1982
Uploaded: 2017-05-18T01:34:03.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Siskel & Ebert on Letterman, March 1, 1982' from Don Giller on Comedy Buff. Published 2017-05-18. Transcript available. By request: Gene and Roger's first appearance on Late Night.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Siskel & Ebert on Letterman, March 1, 1982' from Don Giller on Comedy Buff. Published 2017-05-18. Transcript available. By request: Gene and Roger's first appearance on Late Night.

Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel are resident adversaries on the weekly PBS program
sneak
previews. They're both very well-respected film critics based in Chicago and
both have extensive
backgrounds in print and broadcast reporting. Together they've added a new
twist of film
criticism and the audiences seem to love it. Please welcome, it's fun to have
these gentlemen
with us, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel.
I would give that film four stars.
You like that?
I like the film. It imitates a film we just saw, Venom, which had a snake's
point of view,
here's a dog's point of view. These films, in all seriousness, these films are
more interesting
than some of the junk that we have to sit through. Disney live action pictures,
Neil Simon's
comedies, that little thing.
So, we've taken care of Brando and Neil Simon tonight.
It needs Klaus Kinski to be bitten by the dog.
I think your show is terrific, by the way. I saw it Saturday night and I guess
for...
Most people, when a motion picture critic image comes to mind, most people
think of somebody
who is kind of goofy, too esoteric, too intellectual, or on the other hand,
kind of bitchy and goofy.
That's kind of the ambiance we try to recreate on the show.
You guys are just nice, reasonable fellows reviewing films.
I think we're film lovers. We're fans. We like films. We like to see good films.
We're disappointed when we see bad ones.
And we talk about them to each other, I think, the way a lot of people talk
about movies to each other.
This is the thing I heard. I mean, I was in New York over the weekend and
people said you're fans. That's what we like.
You sound the way we sound when we talk about films. That doesn't mean that we
can't talk about a serious concept or serious films.
It's just that we do it from a point of view of loving the work, appreciating
it, and not taking cheap shots.
When I said the Neil Simon remark, that may have sounded like a cheap shot, but
it is based on having sat through a lot of his films.
And they're not particularly good of late. Ever since he moved to California, I
don't think coincidentally, he has not done very good work.
I mean, I would just say it honestly.
Yeah.
His films are usually better than movies like Master of the Flying Guillotine,
though, which you see in theaters where your feet stick to the floor and people
open up cans of tab all over your head.
That's very, that's real discouraging.
But the problem is he's adapting these things from plays and the seams show.
The Goodbye Girl was written originally for the screen, and I think that's the
best film.
Yeah.
What is the origin of this show? How did you guys get together?
We started about six years ago in Chicago with a program called Opening Soon at
a Theater Near You,
which was over by the time I got the title on the screen, and we did it once a
month.
We sat in director's chairs. We hid behind clipboards. We were both very
paranoid, I think.
I was afraid I would say something very stupid, and Gene would say something
like, "That wasn't Fellini. That was Bergman," and I would leave in dismay.
Eventually, I think we developed a rapport because we became confident we were
working with each other and talking about films.
In the introduction, we used the word "adversaries," but in watching the
program, I get the feeling that it's not necessarily adversarial positions.
Here's what happens. We are film critics for the competing newspapers in
Chicago, sometimes for Roger, the Tribune, for myself.
We are in competition. We try to get stories in first. We try to write a better
review, better Sunday articles, think pieces, and we play that very seriously,
but most journalists, when they finish their work, they go to bars and they
bitch about the other person.
We, after we finish our work on Thursdays, go to the studio and talk together.
I have an opportunity to address Gene directly. I can explain his errors and
try to correct it.
We talk directly. Then we can go to a bar if you want afterwards, but we do.
One day a week, we do talk together, and out of the talking together, we've
created something very positive, and I think we have changed.
I think the contribution of the show is we have changed the image of film
critics. We would rather talk about, most people think critics hate films, are
jealous of stars like Christopher Reed, jealous of his looks and all that, and
that we are frustrated, we want to make films, we want to be directors.
And no, I like writing. I like writing about movies. I'd rather see a good
movie than a bad movie. We love this stuff more. Why would we see it all if we
didn't love it so much?
Yeah, that would be a lot of work, right?
Apart from the fact that we have paid.
Yeah, that's true, too, but you spend a lot of time in dark rooms watching
movies.
It's something that I enjoy. I love it at 9 o'clock in the morning when
everybody else is going into their offices with their briefcases and I'm
sneaking into a theater with my bucket of popcorn.
At 9 in the morning.
Sure. 9 o'clock last Christmas morning, I was at the Chicago Theater.
Oh, that's a sad, ugly story.
I've got more just like it, too.
Let me ask you, is it possible for you guys to see a film that you know is good,
but to dislike it?
I don't know what you mean by that.
Say you don't enjoy the film, but you know it's a good one.
I saw a movie called "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" I enjoyed the performance very
much. I thought Richard Dreyfuss was brilliant in the film.
I disagreed with the entire premise of the film, which was that he should be
allowed to die because he doesn't want to go on living anyway.
He doesn't want to go on living as a quadriplegic. I felt that intellectually
the film was dishonest, yet I enjoyed it as an entertainment.
So I was really split on that film and it put me in a very strange position.
Even to this moment I'm kind of on the fence with that one.
Yeah. I don't have a reaction like that. If a film is good for me, that means I
have enjoyed it, so I don't have that kind of a split.
Yeah. Do you worry about somebody shelling out the dough for the wife and the
kids or the husband and the kids?
You know what I started to do? Many years ago I started to pay for the movies.
The newspaper reimburses me.
But I wanted that little event of taking out the money and noticing that the
prices have gone up from four to four and a half now in New York, five bucks.
And just the fact of doing that makes one less likely to write the sentence, "This
little thing was worth the price of admission," because most often it is not.
Yeah. One of the things that bothers me is these films that come out of places
like Utah, like "In Search of Historic Jesus," "In Search of Noah's Ark."
At the end of that film they were still searching for Noah's Ark. And they
spend millions of dollars on the advertising campaign.
They get the entire family there. It costs 20 or 25 dollars for tickets. It's a
disappointment for everyone.
The family feels burned. They don't want to go back and see a movie like that
again.
Those weren't comedies, were they either? Those weren't musical comedies?
I laughed a lot, but they were not comedies.
Well, if you gentlemen can hang around for a moment or two, we have to pause.
We'll be back with Mr. Siskel and Mr. Ebert.
However, at this time, Late Night would like to welcome a new sponsor to our
program, Ryder, the best truck money can rent or lease.
Hi there, and welcome back to the extravaganza. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert are
here, and we're talking about your television program, which is "Sneak Previews,"
and a wonderful show.
Now, it's PBS. You probably couldn't do that on a commercial operation?
We would probably not be able to show so many movies that are not commercial
movies. We show documentaries, independent films, and foreign films. If we were
on a network, they'd probably want us to show Superman every time.
There may be a flow, too, and a continuity we can refer to. We know what you
mentioned before, here's the same thing going on in this film, that if it's
interrupted by a commercial, I think it would make us less likely.
And so we would do little pieces and try and hit peaks right before the
commercial break, which is the problem with made-for-TV movies as opposed to
regular movies.
Right.
You can have a flow. You can have visual references that can make sense and
moments of recognition. He's made-for-TV movies. You've got to hammer them
right before the commercial. Someone's going to get nailed.
It's trying to see a made-for-TV movie all the way through without commercials
because it kind of goes away.
Yeah, it's designed in that framework. Tell me about, I saw your show Saturday
night, and you disagreed on One from the Heart.
I didn't like it. I felt I agreed with the dentist, as a matter of fact. It was
overproduced, and it didn't have enough of the human qualities in it, including
teeth, but also heart and mind.
I thought the actors at all times were overshadowed by Coppola's amazing
production, which was great to look at.
And I enjoyed the movie on that basis as a technological achievement, but the
technology totally dwarfed the people in the film.
The first time I saw the picture at this big Radio City Music Hall showing here
in New York a few weeks ago, I had pretty much that same reaction.
I saw it again in Chicago before I reviewed the film. I was told that some
changes were made, so I felt that I was obliged to see it again.
I had spent more time with the characters then. In effect, I had spent four
hours with these characters.
And I felt that the more time I spent with them, the more I got to feel for
their situation.
This is a couple busting apart right at the beginning.
And what I really enjoyed about the film was the fantasies. Each person pursues
a fantasy.
And people who have ever been in relationships that are failing have this drive.
And I found that the fantasy figures, Raoul Julia for Terry Garr and Nastassia
Kinski for Frederick Forrest, that these fantasies were charming.
And the drive for fantasy, that moment of losing yourself in the fantasy, I
thought was very exciting.
And I would see the picture a third time.
But don't you feel if you're trying to make a lightweight romantic comedy, it's
a bit much to ask people to see it twice?
Don't you feel that Coppola could have made a film in which the human values
and the fun and the fantasy and the escapism would have been there right away?
I felt that he could have had more in the beginning of the picture.
If we're going to follow this couple for two hours, I felt we should have known
them better as the film opens.
And I still say that that's what's wrong with the picture.
One of the interesting things about our show is trying to make qualified
remarks.
So much of criticism is simply thumbs up and thumbs down.
And I think that one of the things we try and do in a longer discussion on the
show, not just the normal film criticism that you get with one person sitting
in front of the camera introducing the film and saying it's stuck,
is that we try and moderate our opinions.
I do think the film is flawed.
There's no question about it.
It's just that on our show, I have a time to tell you that I did see it a
second time and that it got to me.
Can I say something?
Great.
I think your point is an interesting one.
And you mentioned earlier, Gene, that once you start paying for these suckers,
you're a little more tentative.
Movies aren't that expensive, though.
I think $4.50 or $5 today in 1982 is not that expensive.
Compared to plays?
Yeah.
I just saw a play here over the weekend.
$40 bucks.
$40 bucks.
Yeah.
And folks here tonight, what did you pay?
$20, $30 bucks a pop?
Yeah.
Just to get in here.
I want to mention something briefly that I heard Francis Ford Coppola say.
He said that he felt that people were too harsh on filmmakers and that, I'm
paraphrasing here, he felt that the Michael Cimino film should have had a
chance to be judged by the public.
And he felt that the media decimated it early on.
Heaven's Gate was brought to Chicago, to a suburb south of Chicago, for a sneak
preview, its second version, and the audience hated it.
Before the critics got a chance at it the second time around.
Yeah.
And the audience in that particular suburb had not, wasn't aware of the New
York critical reception, didn't know that the returns were already in, had not
heard of the film in particular.
I think it's an objectively a bad film.
It's not a good film.
Well, his point was, not having seen the film, I don't know what I'm talking
about here, which is true in most cases.
But his point was, a film is a piece of art done by a filmmaker, much as a
painting is a piece of art done by a painter.
And therefore it should be allowed to hang in the hall right alongside all of
his other works.
That's what he did with One from the Heart.
He brought it to Radio City.
He played it in Los Angeles.
Two audiences who could go up and buy a ticket and walk in and sit down before
he had any press screenings or any reviews.
Yeah.
So I honor the fact that he wants to do that.
I think it's great that he wants to do that.
I think films have a right to be seen.
And I don't, with my reviews, say, don't show it.
I just say, I can't recommend it.
Our language is very specific on the show.
I can recommend it.
I cannot recommend it.
I'm not saying don't go to see it.
That's your decision.
What we have is our opinions.
Okay.
Our subjective opinions.
Let me move along here to the Academy Award nominations.
Anything here?
I'm not looking forward to this year's Oscar cast.
I'm not really passionate about any of the films that have been nominated.
Which ones have been nominated now?
Atlantic City.
Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Reds.
On Golden Pond.
Reds.
And what's the fifth one?
Chariots of Fire.
Chariots of Fire.
Great film.
But not a groundbreaking film.
In years past, with movies like Bonnie and Clyde and Nashville, I've really
been involved.
I thought those pictures represented something.
If you're going to handicap the Oscars, it's going to be Reds versus On Golden
Pond.
And I don't think it makes a difference to me, I don't think to Roger, or maybe
even to people here.
Which wins?
I think it could be a very dull show.
You care?
Do I care?
I guess, gee, I have to have an opinion here, don't I?
I guess I'm kind of pulling for Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I would vote for that.
On the other hand, I haven't seen On Golden Pond, so...
Raiders of the Lost Ark was at least pure escapist entertainment.
It was great fun.
And as far as...
One of those bruised arm movies.
Yeah.
People are grabbing you.
You know, the one that I truly liked, which was, I guess, not eligible for the
Academy Awards this time around, was...
The show?
No, the Terry Gilliam film.
Time Bandits.
Time Bandits, yes.
Didn't you think it was all on one note?
Oh, somebody was going to applaud for it.
Well, that's all right.
We'll have them taken out back and roughed up.
Didn't you feel it was all on one note?
The first 15 minutes were terrific and the rest of the film was just like the
first four hours?
I found that to be sort of comforting because once you understood the premise...
You could leave and come back and not have missed anything.
No, I just, I found that once you understood the premise, the whole thing just
sort of unfolded in front of you and it was like a smorgasbord.
It was a terrific production.
It was a great looking film.
I thought it was like your 16 course TV dinner, which had about too many
courses.
Really?
Yeah, that's interesting.
You know, there was a scene on a boat, the Titanic, and that one I would have
taken out.
Yeah.
Fewer things like that.
But the idea is cute.
A child's bedroom invaded in his dreams.
Right.
That's fun.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Once you, it's a wonderful premise.
You can go anywhere with that.
What's great is that so many different kinds of films find audiences.
Yeah.
You get Raiders of the Lost Ark and then you get My Dinner with Andre.
Both at the same time, hits in their own fields.
Yeah.
I'm going to ask you about the film that, or a film that you wrote.
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
That's right.
Ten Best Films of the 70s, yes.
Was it really one of the ten?
Several.
Richard Corliss, I think, put it on his list of the ten best films of the 70s.
I think he was the only critic who put it on.
Was it a quality?
Well, it must have been.
It was a 20th Century Fox production.
It was shot in color.
I think of it as the first horror rock exploitation musical.
When did you write that?
1969.
Now, I would be very disappointed to learn that you guys were now secretly
writing films.
I have never written one.
I feel that I would have to quit this job and throw it all on the table and go
out to Hollywood
and write a script.
I don't think I can do both.
Roger?
I'm not writing a screenplay right now.
Well, it's a load off my mind.
You guys are terrific.
Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.
We'll be right back.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.

Siskel & Ebert on Letterman, March 1, 1982

Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel are resident adversaries on the weekly PBS program
sneak
previews. They're both very well-respected film critics based in Chicago and
both have extensive
backgrounds in print and broadcast reporting. Together they've added a new
twist of film
criticism and the audiences seem to love it. Please welcome, it's fun to have
these gentlemen
with us, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel.
I would give that film four stars.
You like that?
I like the film. It imitates a film we just saw, Venom, which had a snake's
point of view,
here's a dog's point of view. These films, in all seriousness, these films are
more interesting
than some of the junk that we have to sit through. Disney live action pictures,
Neil Simon's
comedies, that little thing.
So, we've taken care of Brando and Neil Simon tonight.
It needs Klaus Kinski to be bitten by the dog.
I think your show is terrific, by the way. I saw it Saturday night and I guess
for...
Most people, when a motion picture critic image comes to mind, most people
think of somebody
who is kind of goofy, too esoteric, too intellectual, or on the other hand,
kind of bitchy and goofy.
That's kind of the ambiance we try to recreate on the show.
You guys are just nice, reasonable fellows reviewing films.
I think we're film lovers. We're fans. We like films. We like to see good films.
We're disappointed when we see bad ones.
And we talk about them to each other, I think, the way a lot of people talk
about movies to each other.
This is the thing I heard. I mean, I was in New York over the weekend and
people said you're fans. That's what we like.
You sound the way we sound when we talk about films. That doesn't mean that we
can't talk about a serious concept or serious films.
It's just that we do it from a point of view of loving the work, appreciating
it, and not taking cheap shots.
When I said the Neil Simon remark, that may have sounded like a cheap shot, but
it is based on having sat through a lot of his films.
And they're not particularly good of late. Ever since he moved to California, I
don't think coincidentally, he has not done very good work.
I mean, I would just say it honestly.
Yeah.
His films are usually better than movies like Master of the Flying Guillotine,
though, which you see in theaters where your feet stick to the floor and people
open up cans of tab all over your head.
That's very, that's real discouraging.
But the problem is he's adapting these things from plays and the seams show.
The Goodbye Girl was written originally for the screen, and I think that's the
best film.
Yeah.
What is the origin of this show? How did you guys get together?
We started about six years ago in Chicago with a program called Opening Soon at
a Theater Near You,
which was over by the time I got the title on the screen, and we did it once a
month.
We sat in director's chairs. We hid behind clipboards. We were both very
paranoid, I think.
I was afraid I would say something very stupid, and Gene would say something
like, "That wasn't Fellini. That was Bergman," and I would leave in dismay.
Eventually, I think we developed a rapport because we became confident we were
working with each other and talking about films.
In the introduction, we used the word "adversaries," but in watching the
program, I get the feeling that it's not necessarily adversarial positions.
Here's what happens. We are film critics for the competing newspapers in
Chicago, sometimes for Roger, the Tribune, for myself.
We are in competition. We try to get stories in first. We try to write a better
review, better Sunday articles, think pieces, and we play that very seriously,
but most journalists, when they finish their work, they go to bars and they
bitch about the other person.
We, after we finish our work on Thursdays, go to the studio and talk together.
I have an opportunity to address Gene directly. I can explain his errors and
try to correct it.
We talk directly. Then we can go to a bar if you want afterwards, but we do.
One day a week, we do talk together, and out of the talking together, we've
created something very positive, and I think we have changed.
I think the contribution of the show is we have changed the image of film
critics. We would rather talk about, most people think critics hate films, are
jealous of stars like Christopher Reed, jealous of his looks and all that, and
that we are frustrated, we want to make films, we want to be directors.
And no, I like writing. I like writing about movies. I'd rather see a good
movie than a bad movie. We love this stuff more. Why would we see it all if we
didn't love it so much?
Yeah, that would be a lot of work, right?
Apart from the fact that we have paid.
Yeah, that's true, too, but you spend a lot of time in dark rooms watching
movies.
It's something that I enjoy. I love it at 9 o'clock in the morning when
everybody else is going into their offices with their briefcases and I'm
sneaking into a theater with my bucket of popcorn.
At 9 in the morning.
Sure. 9 o'clock last Christmas morning, I was at the Chicago Theater.
Oh, that's a sad, ugly story.
I've got more just like it, too.
Let me ask you, is it possible for you guys to see a film that you know is good,
but to dislike it?
I don't know what you mean by that.
Say you don't enjoy the film, but you know it's a good one.
I saw a movie called "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" I enjoyed the performance very
much. I thought Richard Dreyfuss was brilliant in the film.
I disagreed with the entire premise of the film, which was that he should be
allowed to die because he doesn't want to go on living anyway.
He doesn't want to go on living as a quadriplegic. I felt that intellectually
the film was dishonest, yet I enjoyed it as an entertainment.
So I was really split on that film and it put me in a very strange position.
Even to this moment I'm kind of on the fence with that one.
Yeah. I don't have a reaction like that. If a film is good for me, that means I
have enjoyed it, so I don't have that kind of a split.
Yeah. Do you worry about somebody shelling out the dough for the wife and the
kids or the husband and the kids?
You know what I started to do? Many years ago I started to pay for the movies.
The newspaper reimburses me.
But I wanted that little event of taking out the money and noticing that the
prices have gone up from four to four and a half now in New York, five bucks.
And just the fact of doing that makes one less likely to write the sentence, "This
little thing was worth the price of admission," because most often it is not.
Yeah. One of the things that bothers me is these films that come out of places
like Utah, like "In Search of Historic Jesus," "In Search of Noah's Ark."
At the end of that film they were still searching for Noah's Ark. And they
spend millions of dollars on the advertising campaign.
They get the entire family there. It costs 20 or 25 dollars for tickets. It's a
disappointment for everyone.
The family feels burned. They don't want to go back and see a movie like that
again.
Those weren't comedies, were they either? Those weren't musical comedies?
I laughed a lot, but they were not comedies.
Well, if you gentlemen can hang around for a moment or two, we have to pause.
We'll be back with Mr. Siskel and Mr. Ebert.
However, at this time, Late Night would like to welcome a new sponsor to our
program, Ryder, the best truck money can rent or lease.
Hi there, and welcome back to the extravaganza. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert are
here, and we're talking about your television program, which is "Sneak Previews,"
and a wonderful show.
Now, it's PBS. You probably couldn't do that on a commercial operation?
We would probably not be able to show so many movies that are not commercial
movies. We show documentaries, independent films, and foreign films. If we were
on a network, they'd probably want us to show Superman every time.
There may be a flow, too, and a continuity we can refer to. We know what you
mentioned before, here's the same thing going on in this film, that if it's
interrupted by a commercial, I think it would make us less likely.
And so we would do little pieces and try and hit peaks right before the
commercial break, which is the problem with made-for-TV movies as opposed to
regular movies.
Right.
You can have a flow. You can have visual references that can make sense and
moments of recognition. He's made-for-TV movies. You've got to hammer them
right before the commercial. Someone's going to get nailed.
It's trying to see a made-for-TV movie all the way through without commercials
because it kind of goes away.
Yeah, it's designed in that framework. Tell me about, I saw your show Saturday
night, and you disagreed on One from the Heart.
I didn't like it. I felt I agreed with the dentist, as a matter of fact. It was
overproduced, and it didn't have enough of the human qualities in it, including
teeth, but also heart and mind.
I thought the actors at all times were overshadowed by Coppola's amazing
production, which was great to look at.
And I enjoyed the movie on that basis as a technological achievement, but the
technology totally dwarfed the people in the film.
The first time I saw the picture at this big Radio City Music Hall showing here
in New York a few weeks ago, I had pretty much that same reaction.
I saw it again in Chicago before I reviewed the film. I was told that some
changes were made, so I felt that I was obliged to see it again.
I had spent more time with the characters then. In effect, I had spent four
hours with these characters.
And I felt that the more time I spent with them, the more I got to feel for
their situation.
This is a couple busting apart right at the beginning.
And what I really enjoyed about the film was the fantasies. Each person pursues
a fantasy.
And people who have ever been in relationships that are failing have this drive.
And I found that the fantasy figures, Raoul Julia for Terry Garr and Nastassia
Kinski for Frederick Forrest, that these fantasies were charming.
And the drive for fantasy, that moment of losing yourself in the fantasy, I
thought was very exciting.
And I would see the picture a third time.
But don't you feel if you're trying to make a lightweight romantic comedy, it's
a bit much to ask people to see it twice?
Don't you feel that Coppola could have made a film in which the human values
and the fun and the fantasy and the escapism would have been there right away?
I felt that he could have had more in the beginning of the picture.
If we're going to follow this couple for two hours, I felt we should have known
them better as the film opens.
And I still say that that's what's wrong with the picture.
One of the interesting things about our show is trying to make qualified
remarks.
So much of criticism is simply thumbs up and thumbs down.
And I think that one of the things we try and do in a longer discussion on the
show, not just the normal film criticism that you get with one person sitting
in front of the camera introducing the film and saying it's stuck,
is that we try and moderate our opinions.
I do think the film is flawed.
There's no question about it.
It's just that on our show, I have a time to tell you that I did see it a
second time and that it got to me.
Can I say something?
Great.
I think your point is an interesting one.
And you mentioned earlier, Gene, that once you start paying for these suckers,
you're a little more tentative.
Movies aren't that expensive, though.
I think $4.50 or $5 today in 1982 is not that expensive.
Compared to plays?
Yeah.
I just saw a play here over the weekend.
$40 bucks.
$40 bucks.
Yeah.
And folks here tonight, what did you pay?
$20, $30 bucks a pop?
Yeah.
Just to get in here.
I want to mention something briefly that I heard Francis Ford Coppola say.
He said that he felt that people were too harsh on filmmakers and that, I'm
paraphrasing here, he felt that the Michael Cimino film should have had a
chance to be judged by the public.
And he felt that the med