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 »Downtown A-Town
I can't write about why I spent the week in Atlanta because it's too confidential and work-related, but I can say that I had a good time around the margins of that event. The first day was the only loss. I got so little sleep the night before (seemingly a part of every trip I take) that I spent it groggy and exhausted. Go »Kids Again
Kelly is a big Kids in the Hall fan, so I bought her tickets to see them for our first anniversary. And since they were playing at Universal Studios in Orlando, we decided to make a day of it at the theme park, which became a whole weekend getaway. And since I like sharing my opinions at length on the Internet, here's what I thought of each part. Go »Blood Lines
A few weeks ago, I dropped a glass bottle of salad dressing on the kitchen floor, making the house smell like vinaigrette for a day. Today, I stepped on the last errant bit of glass hiding in a crack of tile by the corner. Better my foot than the cat's paw, I guess; I don't lick between my toes. Go »No More Mr. Nice Guy
Steve West doesn't know it yet, but he did me a big favor. Less than 48 hours after meeting me, he offered a friendly observation that I was not being assertive enough while running GooCon, to make sure everything happened right. I've heard that criticism from people my whole life, but explained in terms like "you're too polite" or "you're too fair" that don't sound like behaviors that need to be corrected. Go »
Jackie Mason | April 26, 2007
[hidden by author request]