Review: A Terrific, Little, Third-Person Memoir
Rating: 4 out of 5
Date: 05 13, 2012
I can still remember seeing 'Sneak Previews' for the first time.  (At least I think it was called 'Sneak Previews' at the time.)  I grew up in a Chicago suburb back then; I couldn't have been more than twelve years old, and I was at a friend's house where they watched PBS as their staple source.  I didn't understand everything they said, but I was captivated by their lively debate, and I loved the subject matter.  When I became an older teen, I liked taking sides.  Whether or not I had seen the movie, I sided with the one who seemed to have the better argument.  I always thought of Siskel as the critic with the heart and Ebert as the one with the head.  Yet, even early on I knew this was a superficial judgment, for there were plenty of times when Ebert thought with his heart and Siskel felt with his head.  Their debates were enthusiastic.  When they agreed, they glowed; when they disagreed, they sparred.  When it was close, it could be a friendly, skillful duel; when it came from a great divide, they could become adament to the point of indignation.  I held them as dear as any show growing up in front of the small screen,  Yes, 'Saturday Night Live,' 'Monty Python,' 'MTM,' 'All in the Family,' and ' M*A*S*H' were just as innovative for me and near to my heart.  The way the sparks flew on that program provided a forum never seen before and seldom perfected since.Now Josh Schollmeyer has done us all a great service by unveiling the vaults of behind-the-scenes revelations, which are mostly fascinating.  One can conclude--and Roger Ebert has pretty much established online--they were a very competitive pair.  Both seemed to love the format and the chemistry, but they could develop as much comraderie as they could hostility.  This isn't much of a revelation, but the anecdotes by agents, staff member, newspaper colleagues, competitors, friends, and other associates Schollmeyer provides are very revealing as to what extent and in what forms their competitive natures entailed.While I can't laud enough the breadth and quality of all the quotes and the scope of participants, I can't help but have hoped for more commentary--maybe from the reporter himself.  Yet, if he had given into my subjective whim, the whole memoir could be docked for bias.  As accomplished as both were at captivating a huge audience-which was and is rare at PBS--each man was a stellar debater.  As thoughtful as each man was bringing his case to the table, it is worth noting that Gene had a field day when Roger panned 'Blue Velvet,' and Roger did the same when Gene panned 'Apocalypse Now'.They were frenemies indeed, but their synergistic antagonism was an accomplishment we have all benefitted from.  As celebrities on national talk shows, that meant a lot for us growing up in or near "The Second City."  For The Big Apple there always was Broadway and The Yankees.  LA had Hollywood.  But for those of us growing up near Chicago before the 1985 Bears or Michael Jordan's Bulls, Siskel & Ebert were just about all we had in the #1 spot.  Any background information that unveils the genesis, evolution, and details of such a momentous achievement deserves heaps of praise--even from greedy reviewers like me who would have liked to have read or could have added more.