| Thursday, April 24, 2003 |
14:22 - Ebert on Moore, War, and More
http://www.progressive.org/radio/ebertransc.html
|
(top)  |
Judson forwards me this transcript of a Progressive Radio interview with Roger Ebert. It's interesting... last month I'd pegged Ebert as a guy who seemed to have a good, sane perspective on big world issues, even if he did lean left ('scuse me, progressive). And I do still think that; I'm just not as sure how well this interview bolsters that opinion.
It starts off with Ebert's analysis of Moore's Oscar-acceptance speech, and weirdly enough he critiques it-- discussing ways in which Moore's acting performance behind the podium could have been better, how he could have gotten his important message out more effectively and countered the booing. Not a word about the factual idiocy of Bowling For Columbine, of course; it's as though that one thirty-second window in human history following Moore's wrapping his meaty hand around the little gold guy was the One Big Chance the world would have to broadcast the all-important message that Bush is a fictitious president promoting a fictitious war. He seems genuinely disappointed that Moore blew it-- that history could have turned out differently if only Moore hadn't hunched over the podium or spoken so quickly and huntedly. Also this didn't help:
Nevertheless, I agree with what he said. I don't think Bush was legitimately elected President. But I was very offended as a reporter when Michael came directly back to the pressroom where I was, along with 300 or 400 other reporters, and lectured us, "Now do your job. Don't report it was a divided house. Only five loud people were booing."
Do your job, he says. Don't stifle dissent. Moore would have made an excellent "minder" under Saddam.
The remainder of the interview is fairly interesting-- it's got a very hopeless tone to it, but then maybe that's just me projecting a post-war sense of relief and snarky cynicism onto a March 30 interview. If nothing else, we get a much broader cross-section of Ebert's views here (evidently he considers Sean Penn to be the best actor of his generation, and bemoans the unfair right-wing reactions to his and Sarandon's and the Dixie Chicks' statements-- hey, did you know that Ebert gets only long, thoughtful essays from liberals, but nothing but terse dismissive vitriol from conservatives? Who's been writing to this guy?). I'm not sure where he gets his impressions of Bush as a televangelist standing in a beam of light from a stained-glass window, receiving pronouncements from Heaven and acting on them without thought or debate, especially considering the world we live in where that does happen every week-- just not in the White House. It's another set of moral-relativism blinders, where only the mildest of religious inspiration is to be condemned here at home, but genuine insane genocidal raving from religious leaders elsewhere in the world is just hunky-dory, because hey, everybody but us is entitled to free practice of their customs. Ebert doesn't seem to feel it necessary to address the multiple sides of the argument-- maybe it's because of the nature of the organization doing the interviewing, but the timbre of the whole thing is so dispirited you'd think they were conducting the interview while clasped consolingly in each other's arms.
I still think he's a well-reasoned individual and capable of plenty of rational thought, but I'm having my doubts as to the selection of the battles he's choosing to fight.
|
|