Because he is, after all, a mass media big deal to this day, film critic Roger Ebert is comfortable weighing in on other topics besides film, most often politics. I’ve seen him chide conservative mogul and convicted felon Conrad Black, that liverish-lookin’ dude Bill O’Reilly, and others over on his very active blog. His politics, as far as I can discern, are pretty much what you’d expect from any random very affluent urban liberal, and I sympathize with them in large part. And now Ebert’s got a Twitter account, which he’s recently used to make a couple of dismissive asides concerning Sarah Palin and the emerging “Tea Party” movement.
WARNING: To That Fuzzy Bastard and others who don’t like this sort of thing: this is going to be that sort of thing, more or less and kind of.
The thing about being Roger Ebert in the contemporary media climate is, if you make a 140-character-or-less sarcastic remark about Sarah Palin or the “Tea Party” movement, it is likely to inspire some dimwit to reel off a 600-word denunciation of you over at Big Hollywood.
A few days ago, the nitwit in question was one Pam Meister, or, as I like to call her, “The Pam Meister,” who noticed an Ebert tweet that invoked not only the “TeaBagger crowd” and “Town Hall” “nutjobs.” I guess “The Pam Meister,” who first came to my attention writing about a malfunctioning Porta-john on a Malibu property of Bob Dylan’s, counts herself as being a member of all said factions, except it’s not “TeaBaggers” or “tea baggers,” gosh darn it, it’s “Tea Partiers,” and Ebert’s insult really cheesed her off. “If you follow a movie critic on Twitter, chances are you follow him because you admire his ability to critique the many offerings of Hollywood,” sayeth “The” Pam Meister. (Incidentally, I was thinking along similar lines the other day, but my conclusion came out different, as in “If you follow a movie critic on Twitter, you’re fucking retarded.” * But I digress.) It’s not because you want that critic espousing politics, particularly politics that are opposed to your own. Okay, fair enough.
Ebert seemingly responded to “The” Pam Meister’s exertions with a laconic tweet recalling the quasi-pornographic (or something) origins of the phrase “tea bagger,” or “TeaBagger,” or, uh, I dunno. And this set off Big Hollywood editor-in-chief John Nolte.
Now I’ve enjoyed cordial relations with Mr. Nolte in the past. Hell, if I may tell a tale just slightly out of school, we once discussed the notion of my contributing to what would become Big Hollywood. (This idea didn’t work out. As you see.) But I have to say, reading his “Regarding Roger” post, I am gripped by a strong suspicion that Nolte’s boss Andrew Breitbart has been lacing Nolte’s Diet Cokes (or whatever it is he quenches his thirst with on the job) with potent doses of Sandoz-grade LSD-25. It’s not just the way that he constructs the post as yet another treacly aria about conservative victimhood, it’s the absolutely insupportable assertions he tries to “make” his “case” with. Beginning with the pulled-directly-out-of-his ass meanderings that Ebert’s years-long struggles with various ailments ought to have resulted in his becoming “a more tolerant and patient man with a new appreciation for the simple and human things in life.” Because, among other things, “those who disagreed with his politics put those meaningless differences aside as we worried and prayed” for Ebert. But hold on. If they’re meaningless differences, then why…
Never mind. Then, ostensibly responding, we should recall, to all of two “tweets,” Nolte notes, “it’s been extraordinary to watch this once beloved critic squander all the universal affection and goodwill he had built up over a lifetime in just a few short months.” Whoa. I have nothing but respect for Ebert, and I know that in many circles he is regarded in a way that one might reasonably apply the term “beloved” to, but let’s not get carried away here. Ebert is disliked and even hated by some, always has been. “Roger Ebert is fat” jokes (which I do not approve of, and I can’t believe I actually somehow feel obliged to say that) were common currency back before Michael Moore was editor of Mother Jones. So this “universal affection” thing is a bit of an overstatement. Give Vincent Gallo a call some time, J.N. As for the squandering, Nolte goes back to an earlier point: “And over nothing.” Wait, if it’s nothing then why…? Well, Nolte feels that as neither he, nor Sarah Palin, nor any Tea person ever “bad mouthed [Ebert’s] mother or rang [Ebert’s] doorbell and ran,” Ebert’s got no standing to be all personally insulting towards them.
And here we remember our good friend the stoned LOL cat.
It gets better though! Ebert is a “multimillionaire” making pronouncements from “the cowardly Olympus” of his Twitter account. From whence he is taunting “mechanics, schoolteachers, gardeners, truck drivers, beauticians, small business owners, military veterans, college kids and senior citizens as ‘c**ksuckers.’ ” (I think Nolte means “cocksuckers.”) Wait, what? again: isn’t Twitter, in both theory and practice, the most egalitarian of digital social networks? But whatever. What Ebert really needs to do, according to Nolte, is stop being like that bully from Dead End and attend a Tea Party convention, or protest, or what have you. Roger may be surprised at what he sees there, says Nolte, and here the editor launches into what is, for all intents and purposes, his own written version of the coda of Spike Lee’s The 25th Hour: “There’s sure to be a Tea Party near you before the year is out. Why don’t you come down from Twitter-Olympus?…Not only will no one hurt you, we’ll be glad to see you. Glad you took the time to look behind the Anderson Coopers and Keith Olbermanns to see for yourself who the ‘teabaggers’ really are…As a matter of fact, I guarantee that if you don’t mind shaking calloused hands, hearing ‘I prayed for you’ in a Southern accent, signing autographs on hard hats and diaper bags, and discovering you were wrong about thousands of good and everyday people, we won’t hurtcha at all.”
Now I don’t know about you, but the mental image of Roger Ebert signing a hard hat has become my own personal version of the laundromat dryer that Peter Fonda stares into in the freakout portion of Corman’s The Trip. But my question is, is Nolte aware of the fact that Ebert’s various ailments have left him permanently unable to speak (let alone ingest solid food and drink), and that, hence, pressing the flesh in such a way as Nolte describes above might not just be inconvenient and undesirable and potentially medically dangerous for Ebert, but maybe just downright impossible? Yes? No? Maybe? Well, anything to prove a point, I suppose.
I also wonder, having not experienced the drug in some time (and having only experienced it in diluted and compromised, e.g. speed-laced, mutations), whether the effects of LSD-25 blinded Nolte to the fact that in posting this piece, he was throwing a particularly red slab of meat to Big Hollywood’s readers. And to tell you the truth,a few of them sound as if they might actually not be terribly averse to, um, hurting him. “Ebert is now just more human vomitus.” “Roger seems to be a self-loathing homosexual.” “He’s a sick old guy acting the role of a cowardly fool.” “When a man comes out of near death without the honor of his life, no one else is going to honor his life.” [See “Cat, LOL stoner” again.] “I hope he died.” “He knows where he can shove that fat thumb of his.” And my favorite, for its passive-aggressiveness and so much more: “Poor Roger Ebert. He has no God. No real hope. Just bitterness. That’s not to be hated—just pitied. May he find real Peace before his journey’s end.” Ooh, yuck, creepy!!!
Anyway, the upshot of all this: a link on Big Hollywood’s marquee, reading EBERT TWEETS: I WILL NO LONGER USE ‘TEABAGGERS.’ This does not mean that he will not, say
, employ teabaggers, I mean “Tea Party” supporters, as interns or anything. I think. Anyway, here’s the tweet in question.
And that, my friends, is why I avoid blogging about politics. The end.
*Satire!!
UPDATE: A friend points me to a very plus ça change 2008 post from Nolte’s old Dirty Harry shingle, wherein the author excoriates Ebert for some demonstration of Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome. So that whole “Oh Roger, we all loved you so much and then you had to go and do this” schtick turns out to be bullshit, pretty much. What a cocksucker!!!
For the record, I don’t object to this at all! I hate it when personal attacks on critics get wrapped up in commentary on movies themselves—I think it muddies the waters. And I hate it when commentary on critics becomes nerd-camp sniping about grammar, access to region-free DVDs, personal habits, or other deeply boring topics. But talking about critics as writers and political actors, and judging the arguments they’re making, seems perfectly fair. Not that you needed my permission, but just for the record.
As for the specifics: The Big Hollywood crowd, like most conservative activists get indignant when accused of being mean, stupid, or violent, even as they fervently defend their sacred right to be all those things. Similarly they scream that they’re being condescended to whenever someone criticizes them, and it’s pathetic.
To post a picture of someone insisting that they’re “Revolting Against Socialism” without gently explaining to that person that maybe they don’t understand what socialism means, now that’s condescending (unless, like Nolte, you’re too dumb or ignorant to understand the word yourself). As I think Joe Klein said, telling you that you’re wrong when you’re wrong is the opposite of condescending; it’s telling you that you’re a good, true and inherently wise American when you’re spouting nonsense that implies contempt for your ability to think.
By the way—weren’t the kids in “Dead End” implying that they were, in fact, very eager to “hurtcha”? Maybe the comparison is more apt than Nolte thinks.
Learn from Fuzzy Bastard – It’s okay to insult certain people, just not the people he likes. The end.
Aw, shit. Here we go.
You know, sometimes I think that maybe I must be on acid or something. Because as I’m writing stuff like this, I“m not thinking, “Hey, I’m really gonna stir up some controversy here,” or, “Well, this will certainly start a fight.” No, I’m thinking, “I hope somebody says, ‘Man, that was hilarious what you said about how that Big Hollywood writer should call herself The Pam Meister.’ ” Seriously. That’s what I’m thinking.
If it makes you feel any better, Glenn, I came very close to not saying anything at all. Why that should make you feel any better, I don’t know.
No, Bill, I just don’t like insulting to get wrapped up in discussions of movies. Keeping them in separate categories is just fine. As for those I like vs those I don’t, SCR is probably not the place for an extended discussion of why anyone who thinks Obama’s policies are socialist is an imbecile, while anyone who thinks Palin is blowhard is an objective observer of reality.
And sorry Glenn, Edroso beat you to “The Pam Meister” years ago.
The only part of this piece that I disagree with is the idea that Nolte’s M.O. has changed since he started cashing Breitbart’s paychecks. Purposefully drumming up the fervor of his stupider readers while keeping enough of a cool demeanor to disassociate himself from them (if need be) was his schtick at his own blog, and prior to that, when he was the head blogger at Libertas.
Gentle men, put up thy rapiers.
I guess just to speak up in response to bill, I don’t really like these kinds of posts even when they tend to – as on this occasion – align with my own politics. I value Glenn’s blog for his writing on films and the people who make them and write about them rather than for his interest in the various interactions, on- and offline, between various writers, bloggers, critics, etc. But this is his blog and those are among his interests, and I wouldn’t keep coming back if I didn’t value the place; it’s pretty easy for me to focus on his posts on Siodmak or Farber or Ford much more closely than those on Wells, Longworth, or Big Hollywood.
I don’t have anything to add re: the holes in Nolte’s piece nor the politics at the heart of it. I will, however, say a few words in favour of twitter. To be clear at the outset, I know you’re being satirical when you say us twitter users are retarded, as I always make it a point to read a footnote, so I hope this doesn’t come across as any sort of passionate defense or that I’ve taken any umbrage.
I tried my hand at Facebook years and years ago and I didn’t click with it. The whole thing seemed kind of weird and pointless and also redundant; if I want to find out about someone, I visit their webpage. If I want to get in touch with them, I send them this thing called an e‑mail. I just didn’t get it, and I was much the same way when my wife (now of six years and two days, yay!) insisted that we get on, gah, twitter.
If Facebook seemed kinda weird, twitter seemed stranger, and I bristled at the 140 character limit. I am, as various comments in these parts will no doubt atest, generally more than a little long-winded. And in fact we would have been one of those many many people who join twitter, don’t get it, and then quit, if we hadn’t started participating in live-tweets.
Live-tweeting is much like live-blogging, only it’s more public– cinephiles all watching the same film together at the same time and sharing observations, commenting on what the other has said, and arguing with one another. Kinda like a more chaotic and idiosyncratic version of a commentary track. It’s often as interesting and invigorating as a discussion on a blog, but it’s more immediate and social, emulating the tenor of an actual conversation.
And I’m sure you’re probably saying, well, if I wanted to do something like that, I’d invite some people over, put on a movie, and we’d HAVE an actual conversation about it. And, sure, that would be preferable, and, in New York, which has no shortage of intelligent cinephiles, certainly plausible. I’m unfortunately in Michigan, and my social group contains far less cinephiles and far too many passionate gorehounds. Discussions of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST or THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER are hard to come by.
Using twitter has helped me to understand Facebook/social networking media in general, though I still prefer twitter because it has, (1), this conversational feel and, (2), to my mind, a greater capacity for that social networking. Most twitter feeds are public, so you don’t have to wait for someone you don’t know to accept your friend request before you start to get to know them. The highest number of hits we get to our website are from twitter (the second highest, from people clicking on my name on the bottom of my comments on this site). The pull quote we have on our SON OF A SEAHORSE poster was one we took from a tweet. For me personally it’s been a lot more successful than facebook, both in terms of making friends, “contacts” (ugh, what a terrible word), and in getting other people to pay attention to us.
[And I would be remiss if after expending these words about twitter if I didn’t point out the livetweet of Jim Jarmusch’s GHOST DOG: WAY OF THE SAMURAI this Saturday (2÷13) at midnight that I’m leading as @tomandmary. Joining me will be Ugo.com horror critic & New York Post blogmeister Simon Abrams (@simonsaybrams), cinephile and underscore enthusiast @patrick_pogo, and West Coast filmmaker/producer Marya Murphy (@maryamurphy). Follow along under the hashtag #ghostdog. It’ll be keen.]
Following “The Pam Meister” nicknaming it is only appropriate that Rob Schneider, or Norm Macdonald by way of Schneider, who provides the proper response to this hullabaloo:
Sgt. Sisk: Ladies and gentlemen, our suspect is not human. He is at home in the bush. Shoot to kill. Any questions?
Mob Member: Oh, yeah, yeah, I got a question there. When do we get to light our torches?
Sgt. Sisk: When it gets dark.
Mob Member: Ah, I see. Oh, hey, I got another question there. Suppose, hypothetically, you know, a guy had already lit his torch. I mean, it’d be cool if he could just keep it lit, huh?
Sgt. Sisk: Yes.
Mob Member: Oh, excellent. Excellent.
Sgt. Sisk: Now, if there are no more questions…
Mob Member: Oh, hey, hey, hey, I got another question. Hey, uh, if one part of the mob gets separated from another part of the mob, shouldn’t there be a place that we can get together? Maybe a secret place the two mobs could reunite, and we’d be a big mob again.
Sgt. Sisk: Stay with the mob.
Mob Member: Stay with the mob. All right.
Sgt. Sisk: Right.
Mob Member: Hey, hey, hey, I got another question. Hey, uh, doesn’t this guy deserve a fair trial?
Sgt. Sisk: You – back of the mob!
Mob Member: “Back of the mob”? What? This is my spot! I came early!
Sgt. Sisk: Okay, *out* of the mob!
Mob Member: Ah, this mob blows.
Ebert tweeted our Film Preservation Blogathon, thus validating the whole damn service in my view.
He has also been publishing reviews in which his politics are apparent for lo these 40 years, so anyone subscribing to his Twitter feed can hardly claim to be blindsided, unless they haven’t actually read his writing.
The rich kid from Dead End is an odd reference; the plot turns on the fact that when the kid does come down, he gets the stuffing kicked out of him. And then gets kidnapped. But hey, at least Nolte maybe prompted some people to rent it. Good movie.
Man, that was hilarious what you said about how that Big Hollywood writer should call herself The Pam Meister.
See, people? How hard was THAT? Even if Edroso did get there first (that being another reason I don’t often address such topics.)
Cute kitten.
I laughed hard enough to spray spit out on my computer screen when I read “my conclusion came out different…”
I also liked the effortless succinctness of “give Vincent Gallo a call sometime”.
Say Glenn…did ya see “Valentine’s Day” yet?
A few stray thoughts in regards to “Regarding Roger” –
– Truck drivers and beauticians can spend hundreds of dollars to hear Sarah Palin speak? They must have good unions.
– I haven’t seen “Dead End,” but I did see “Other People’s Money” when it was still running off-Broadway. So imagine my surprise when John Nolte cited Larry the Liquidator’s climatic speech as an examplar of “compassionate” conservatism. You know, the monologue where Larry greets the prospect of workers losing their jobs with a sneering “Who cares?” I wonder if any of the salt-of-the-earth types that Nolte seemingly praises would find it so compassionate.
– Of course, listing the occupations of Tea Partiers is not a very coherent defense of their actual politics. But, as others have noted, coherency isn’t Nolte’s speciality.
Let’s say it twice just in case
mate, that was hilarious what you said about how that Big Hollywood writer should call herself The Pam Meister.
It goes without saying that The Pam Meister, or “master of Pam”, is a terrible cook! Everyone knows you’re supposed to use butter or olive oil.
There’s no point in trying to discuss anything, especially politics, with someone whose primary gambit is, “If you don’t agree with me, you’re an imbecile.” I’ve been down that road before, and it’s a waste of time. If the Big Hollywood guys are such jerks, why give their comments any additional bandwidth?
That last comment you cite–“Poor Roger Ebert. He has no God.”–reminds me of a short verbal scuffle I had with a woman in an airport. I can’t remember what it was about, exactly–something involving me trying to make a connecting flight and her making sure her small dog was comfy in his cage–but I do remember it ending with her saying, “May you die and go to heaven.”
To this date, the most passive aggressive thing I’ve ever been told.
Isn’t this the usual “I am outraged, just outraged that someone speaks ills of other’s political beliefs” schtick when we all know if Ebert had tweeted pot shots that agree with Nolte’s views, Nolte would be more than okay with it? And that isn’t something restricted to one political party as much as it is about the ability for people in this country to go into self-victimization mode in record time.
This is the internet. If you don’t like what anyone says, you can write and formulate your own argument about why they’re full of crap and publish it as opposed to trying to create some bullshit high moral ground by taking down someone’s character as opposed to their logic.
You would think the internet was invented so that people could exclaim that they are angry without bothering to explain why they’re angry. It’s like all those people in “Network” screaming out their windows that they’re mad as hell only because they saw Howard Beale do it on television.
P.S. Glenn, I laughed at Pam Meister, but this blog definitely needs more stoner cat.
I don’t Tweet or Book, or whatever, and I’ve learned not to read Ebert’s political blogs on his web site. But, I love his film reviews, and never confuse the two. And, hey, I agree with only about half of the movie comments. It was once a fun “hobby” to participate in blogs at various film/social sites, etc.…..but now, the experience involves a bunch of screeching idiots. And, yes, “teabaggers” IS an appropriate nickname for that group of, um, folks.
Hey, Nolte probably lurks here- a man who bleats about “cool kids” and the “palace guard” and other high school level bullshit at much as he does can’t NOT gravitate towards a place like this- so, John, why not say hello?