Roger Ebert Should Lay Off the Facial Reconstructive Surgery
by Scott Hardie on April 25, 2007
When Roger Ebert took ill last fall, I thought it would pass in a week like his previous cancer scares, and he'd barely mention it. Then he didn't come back to work for months, and I thought he'd announce his retirement, because it's really hard to go back to doing something full-time when you've rested too long, even if you love it like he does. Then he announced that he'd be present at his annual film festival this month, and I thought the recovery was done and he was about to return. Now he's facing the press looking like a man transformed and I don't know what to think any more. (link) Academically speaking, he may be a big fish in a small pond, but I've always considered him one of the wittiest and most accessible of writers in any medium, and he seems like a warm and generous person in private. Whatever else his health has in store for him, I wish him the best, and look forward to his professional comeback in any form.
Two Replies to Roger Ebert Should Lay Off the Facial Reconstructive Surgery
Scott Hardie | May 7, 2007
Just to be clear, since I've heard myself misinterpreted by several people: I don't think Ebert looks bad in these new photos. I just think he looks different, very different, from his traditional image in the press. Maybe I've been lucky in this regard, but I have rarely seen a person transform that much. (The title of this blog post sounds insulting, but I was just borrowing the structure of a South Park episode title.)
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy
I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »2012
What a great year. Kelly and I got engaged. Kelly gained permanent employment and health benefits. Go »Year of Disney
Kelly's been suggesting for a long time that we invest in annual passes to Disney World, since we live two hours' drive away. I finally wised up and listened to her, as some number-crunching showed that we would only need to spend three days there for the passes to pay for themselves. We placed the order and called it a Christmas gift to each other. Go »Mayhem
Last night I saw Killswitch Engage, Slayer, and Marilyn Manson. This morning I discovered that Walgreens sells a pretty good neck brace for $11.99. Aaron Shurtleff bought my Mayhem Festival ticket in May as a gift, and I'm grateful to have another generous friend. Go »Even When I Was a Child, I Was Hated by Skeletons
We watched The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra again last night. If you haven't seen it, and you have a place in your heart for a pretty good spoof of campy D-grade sci-fi movies from the 1950s, rent it. A few people have been turned off by its slow pace, but I have yet to watch it with someone who hasn't at least found a few things to chuckle at. Go »
Jackie Mason | April 26, 2007
[hidden by author request]