This one has been different. I’ve said many times that I want a partner, and this relationship was the closest I’ve ever come to having that. The respect, regard, and rapport are still there, and it’s made moving on so much more difficult for me.

Then, yesterday, I read a story about the late Roger Ebert’s relationship with the love of his life, Chaz Hammelsmith Ebert. And I felt immediate recognition of my ideal. These people were truly partners.

In reviewing what he wrote about their attraction for each other, their connection, their bond, and their love, I can see more clearly not only why the relationship I left couldn’t realize that potential, but also why I’ve never been able to find or attract that kind of relationship in the first place.

Here are some salient excerpts from his description of both Chaz and their connection:

• “I didn’t know her, but I’d seen her before and was attracted. I liked her looks, her voluptuous figure, and the way she presented herself. She took a lot of care with her appearance and her clothes never looked quickly thrown together.

• “She seemed to be holding the attention of her table. You never get anywhere with a woman you can’t talk intelligently with.”

• “She had a particular quality. She didn’t seem to be a ‘date’ but an equal. She knew where she stood, and I found that attractive.”

• “Her love letters were poetic, idealistic and often passionate,” he recalled. “I responded as a man and a lover. As a newspaperman, I observed she never, ever, made a copy-reading error.”

These are the words of a man who knew what he wanted, saw it, and went after it. There was no hedging, no ambivalence, no pussy-footing around. He was confident and secure about who he was and what he valued and he communicated that posthaste.

And what did he want? He wanted an intelligent woman, a strong woman, one who had a commanding presence and voluptuous beauty. He appreciated her passion, idealism and romantic nature. He wanted an equal.

He clearly saw Chaz and her value immediately, and he responded to it. She recognized her partner immediately as well:

• “I was going out to Los Angeles a few days later, and I asked her to come along. We formed a serious bond rather quickly. It was an understood thing. I was in love, I was serious, I was ready for my life to change.”

I wrote in a Facebook post that in reading about their beautiful love story, I couldn’t help but think: “This is how grown folks love each other.” And when I say “grown folks,” I mean it in the African-American use of the phrase. Grown folks is not synonymous with the word “adult.” Instead, it implies a maturity and an enlightenment that most adults never attain. And this is why such partnerships are so rare.

And I’ll admit, though I’m 41 years old, I’m not “grown” yet. I don’t have the confidence and strong sense of self to be as comfortable in my own skin as either Chaz or Roger had at the time that they met. Still wanting to please and still wanting to conform to the American societal (narrowly defined) standard of femininity and beauty, I have struggled to value and see myself as an attractive woman. Without that self-confidence, I find myself falling in love with a relationship’s or a man’s potential rather than seeing the reality before me and recognizing what is and isn’t right for me.

But this story gives me hope. Not necessarily that I’ll find my “soulmate,” but that I will one day become a “grown” woman–able to see myself and recognize my own value–and able to radiate that confidence in the extraordinary way that Chaz does.

“We had times together I will always remember. Right after our first Christmas together, we flew to Venice, where I promised Chaz it would be rainy, cold, deserted, and we would have it all to ourselves. That was how I’d first seen Venice in 1966, and it was the same. It was romantic, sleeping late in the Royal Danelli and then waking up and making love and looking out across the Grand Canal. The hotel was half empty, the rooms a fraction of the summer cost. The city was shrouded in mist and always haunting. Romance in the winter in Venice is intimate and private, almost hushed. One night we went to the Municipal Casino, carefully taking only as much money as we were ready to lose, and we lost it. In a little restaurant we had enough left for spaghetti with two plates, and then lacked even the fare for the canal waterbus. We walked the long way back through the night and cold, our arms around each other, figures appearing out of the fog, lights traced on the wet stones, pausing now and again to kiss and be solemn. It was one of those experiences that seals a marriage.”

“Roger loves Chaz” | The Chicago Sun-Times | 7.18.12

Follow THIS IS ARIENNE on Bloglovin

Now, I’m not a huge fan, I don’t read every review he posts (in fact, I don’t know if I’ve actually read any), he’s not my journalistic hero. But I admire the man. He’s had an amazing career and accomplished things that when he started out were impossible for a film critic.

I admire him as a journalist and as human being. And the fact that he died so young makes me so sad. I’ve had difficulty processing this today.

He fought a long hard battle with cancer. And he did it with a smile on his face. Not just the smile that was put there after failed surgeries, but an optimism not all have. My grandfather lost his battle with cancer last summer and had a similar optimism.

Today on NPR I heard that people had told him not to put his photo out there with his face as it was after the surgery. But he said it was his face now and he wasn’t going to hide it. He continued to do his work he was passionate about. He shared intimate details of his struggles with cancer. He was and always will be a great role model to all aspiring journalists and to those fighting cancer.

My condolences to Chaz, his family and all his fans around the world.

He fought a courageous fight. I’ve lost the love of my life and the world has lost a visionary and a creative and generous spirit who touched so many people all over the world,” she said. “We had a lovely, lovely life together, more beautiful and epic than a movie. It had its highs and the lows, but was always experienced with good humor, grace and a deep abiding love for each other.”

Related articles

• Sun-Times: Famed Movie Critic Roger Ebert Dies (witn.com)
• Sun-Times: Famed movie critic Roger Ebert dies (wcnc.com)
• Sun-Times: Famed movie critic Roger Ebert dies (krem.com)
• PHOTOS: Remembering Roger Ebert (cltv.com)
• We’re all rooting for Roger Ebert as he fights cancer (suntimes.com)

Roger Ebert, long time film critic of the “Chicago Sun Times” and the first critic to win a Pulitzer Prize, died today after a long battle with cancer. He was 70.

As I typed that preceding sentence, I felt more sadness than I logically should. I never met him in person, and there would have been absolutely no chance when we could have. He would never have read this blog – there was no reason for him to ever read it. But still, I feel as though I have lost a dear friend, a man whom I could always go to when I had troubles, and who would know exactly what to say. He was a film critic first and foremost. But he wrote about far more – life, death, love, travels – and did so with more insight and wit than any of his contemporaries.

I could talk about his accomplishments; his Pulitzer Prize, his nationally syndicated TV show, his NC-17 scripted Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, which he was proud of his entire life. I could talk about his struggles with cancer and how it took his voice.

But what’s the point of regurgitating information everyone knows? What matters at this point (as it does for everyone when they shuffle off this mortal coil) is the impact that he left on the people who read him. I cannot speak for everyone. But I can speak for myself, and describe the profound impact he had on me.

Honestly, I am not sure the first time I ever saw him. By the 1990s, he was such a huge part of popular culture that practically every single show referenced Siskel and Ebert to some degree.I absorbed him through a kind of osmosis. If I had to venture a guess, it was probably from this Sesame Street clip.

When you have become popular enough to share screen time with the Muppets, you have accomplished something in your life. But, as a kid, I did not see the value of it. It was another little bit featuring characters who were there to teach me my ABCs. Nor did I really appreciate his show with Siskel when it was at his peak. In many ways, I still feel it was the wrong format for their profession. That is more due to the restrictive nature of television; Siskel and Ebert were never given the chance to really explore films, with only a few exceptions. Besides, I was a young kid at the time. What possible use would a Nickelodeon watching child have for a show about film criticism? Especially a film criticism show that was forced to reduce its hosts to latter day Roman emperors judging fighters at the Colosseum?

I didn’t really rediscover Ebert until later in his career, after he announced his cancer diagnosis. His writing was almost a shock to discover and far removed from the mental image I had built of him. Someone who had more to say than could be expressed in a hand gesture? I am sure it began with me stumbling to his website, but I was hooked on everything the second I found it. I read every review I could – even for the films I had never heard of. I was still young, so reading his reviews of long forgotten New Hollywood films was as bizarre to my peers as if I had walked into school with a nose ring. But I loved it and found that he was broadening my horizons. His “Great Movies” series was one that I treasured, and still use to judge what belongs in my Netflix queue. I don’t know if I would have watched Dark City or The Third Man without his recommendations. Certainly, I would not bother taking a chance with any unknown film.

And, with increasing urgency, I started reading his blog. I saw his ups and downs, and his entries about the illness that cost him his voice. When I read that, I was not sure what was going to happen. I didn’t expect it would lead to the most insightful and revealing writing of his career. His blog entries became just as important as his reviews to me, as I tried to imagine the life he was living and writing about. I still cannot, and admired the tenacity he would always display. Even when he appeared on TV, he did not try to hide who he was. In fact, after the famed “Esquire” photos were published, Ebert said that he had nothing to hide. “No one looks perfect,” he said. “And this is how I look.” Look at this interview – he says just as much with his eyes and head as he does with his computer. And he’s dead on about what makes a great film – it’s a feeling I still cannot explain.

When he announced that his cancer had returned a few days ago, I knew that things would change, but I had hope that he would still be around to talk about the films he was watching, the films he was using to alleviate the pain from his treatment, and the support he was getting from his family and friends. I was looking forward to reading all of it and debating him. I didn’t expect to always agree, but I knew I would learning something from his reviews.

I still don’t always agree with him. He gave my two favorite films (Brazil and Edward Scissorhands, for those who don’t remember) two stars (more than the two and a half stars awarded to Gigli) while promoting trash like Crash and Lost in Translation, even insulting those who stated they could not see the merit in them. And even when I agreed with his low score, I sometimes disliked his approach.  I gave Kick Ass a bad review, yet I thought his objection to the film would have been better served in a turn of the century Christian revival meeting than a serious discussion about what the film accomplishes and how it accomplishes anything. And his blanket statement that no video game could ever be art was something that I (and many others) simply could not comprehend.

But this is all ignoring how much Ebert impacted countless writers (including me), especially as the internet rose to replace news papers in offering film criticisms. Listing everyone who can claim Ebert as an influence would take the rest of the night. But I can easily summarize what attracted me to his writing. He was erudite, he was witty, he was insightful, and he knew what was needed when he wrote. Nothing more, nothing less.

If there was one thing he wrote that I would pick as a “favorite,” it would be this journal entry on his struggles with alcoholism that was later reprinted in Life Itself. I had never known that he had those problems in his life. A man as successful as him, who did what he loved, still felt the need to escape using alcohol? And had hit rock bottom? It came as a shock, but what was equally shocking was how poignant and revealing he decided to be about that moment in his life. And honest; he didn’t hold back about that experience. But unlike lesser writers, he did not try to moralize or preach. His alcoholism wasn’t a ticket to become a Hubert Selby Jr character, nor was it something he would use to tell people to stay away from intoxicating beverages. It happened, and here’s what he took away from it. His approach to criticism was much the same way. That’s more effective than what a lot of critics do these days. Look at Room 237, which spends all its time trying to crack a code to solve The Shining without ever explaining why it’s an important and great film. Look at the number of critics who insist on wearing their emotions on their sleeves and think an experience stops there, like Harry Knowles. Look at Armond White, who seems to think that going against everyone else indicates that he’s a more highly evolved form of life. None of them would be capable of writing that blog entry.

When Ebert posted his last journal entry on his website, I posted the following comment. Many others commented, wishing him a speedy recovery and looking forward to his new writings. The comment is live, but I doubt he personally ever saw it. I didn’t think it would be the last chance anyone would have to talk to him:

“Sometimes I thought your reviews were dead on. Sometimes I vehemently disagreed with what you wrote. But I treasured every word.

I’m not sure if I’ve said this before, but thank you for everything.”

I don’t think there’s anything else I can say. The only thing I can do is repeat that last sentence. Thank you.  Thank you for everything.

Rest in Peace, Roger Ebert.

Roger Ebert

I was sorry to hear about the passing of Roger Ebert today, after his long struggle with cancer. Roger Ebert was a very honored and accomplished film reviewer and cultural uber-personality. Please take the time to read this essay of his in remembrance; its a meditation on race, and very sweet. He is survived by wife Chaz.

***

For any aspiring  film critic growing up in the 90s that was not in NYC or LA, Roger Ebert is the THE film critic. His work influenced me to write about film. I really hope he gets better soon. Read his letter here.

CHICAGO — Famed Chicago movie critic Roger Ebert has been hospitalized with a hip fracture.

His wife, Chaz Ebert, told The Associated Press on Thursday that her husband was doing much better and “doctors are making assessments” about when he could leave the hospital.

Roger Ebert then posted on Twitter that he does not need surgery.

Chaz Ebert tweeted earlier in the day that her Pulitzer Prize-winning husband was doing well and “asking for computer, will probably tweet.” She jokingly attributed the fracture to “tricky disco dance moves.”

The 70-year-old Chicago Sun-Times film critic has had health problems over the last several years. He has battled cancer in his thyroid and salivary glands and lost his ability to speak and eat after cancer surgeries.

His wife, Chaz Ebert, told The Associated Press on Thursday that her husband was doing much better and “doctors are making assessments” about when he could leave the hospital.

Roger Ebert then posted on Twitter that he does not need surgery.

Chaz Ebert tweeted earlier in the day that her Pulitzer Prize-winning husband was doing well and “asking for computer, will probably tweet.” She jokingly attributed the fracture to “tricky disco dance moves.”

The 70-year-old Chicago Sun-Times film critic has had health problems over the last several years. He has battled cancer in his thyroid and salivary glands and lost his ability to speak and eat after cancer surgeries.

Ebert is credited with popularizing film criticism and for years had a successful syndicated movie-review television show with Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel. Siskel died in 1999.

Yes, fracture. But no surgery needed. Details follow. :)—
Roger Ebert (@ebertchicago) December 06, 2012

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

 More on Roger Ebert

Hit the jump to learn more about Mr. Ebert’s new (Chicago based) television series!

If you think I’m going to leave this post at that, you’re crazy. Instead I am going to refer you to Roger Ebert’s new At The Movies web site. For over a year now, Mr. Ebert has been trying to relaunch the At The Movies television show with the very same Chicago/Public Television affiliates that helped make him such a mainstay in the arena of film criticism. With the help of his wife Chaz and his two co-hosts Christy Lemire & Ignatiy Vishnevesky, Mr. Ebert has completed a full season of this venture. But, he needs your help if were going to get a second.

Check out their video reviews at: http://www.ebertpresents.com/

The more hits they accumulate, the easier it will be for Chaz and Roger to promote the popular relevance of the show. I’m sure they’d appreciate it. Also, be sure to read Mr. Ebert’s movie reviews here at: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

I’m sure you’ll find them to be most helpful.

Thank you so much Mr. Ebert, this means everything to me.

You can check out the review for yourself, along with others I’ve done, right here.

 More on Roger Ebert

Hit the jump to learn more about Mr. Ebert’s new (Chicago based) television series!

If you think I’m going to leave this post at that, you’re crazy. Instead I am going to refer you to Roger Ebert’s new At The Movies web site. For over a year now, Mr. Ebert has been trying to relaunch the At The Movies television show with the very same Chicago/Public Television affiliates that helped make him such a mainstay in the arena of film criticism. With the help of his wife Chaz and his two co-hosts Christy Lemire & Ignatiy Vishnevesky, Mr. Ebert has completed a full season of this venture. But, he needs your help if were going to get a second.

Check out their video reviews at: http://www.ebertpresents.com/

The more hits they accumulate, the easier it will be for Chaz and Roger to promote the popular relevance of the show. I’m sure they’d appreciate it. Also, be sure to read Mr. Ebert’s movie reviews here at: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

I’m sure you’ll find them to be most helpful.

Thank you so much Mr. Ebert, this means everything to me.

You can check out the review for yourself, along with others I’ve done, right here.

Life Itself: A Memoir

448 pages, Grand Central Publishing, 27.99

Usually our “butting heads” approach to books is pitting one of them against another, but in the case of this Roger Ebert autobiography, we thought it might be interesting to invite our movie review critics, John and his dog. Spanky, in from the other room to get their take.

JOHN: Well this long book has some ups and downs, mainly because I think a reader goes to it for some specific interest (behind the scenes on his relationship with Gene Siskel or Ebert’s take on famous movie directors) and then has to wade through the rest. I did find his Catholic upbringing (which parallels mine and Martin Scorsese’s—not to mention James Joyce’s) got me to thinking, but his stuff on being a “newspaper man,” true or not, just seems kowtowing to the old stereotypes.

There were a few surprises. Russ Meyer, for whom Ebert wrote “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” apparently was reliving his military experience with old cohorts on film locations—in any case it resulted in a suprpise ride for the author through the British rock ‘n roll scene. Siskel comes across as a very private person (and of course he died), which makes us cheer all the more for Roger’s wonderful wife, Chaz, who’s been so important to him through his bouts with cancer.

SPANKY:  Parts of this book, the star stuff—interviews with Lee Marvin, Robert Mitchum, John Wayne—seem like filler to me. But when he gets to the directors…we get depth and insight. For me his sections on Scorsese, Woody Allen, Ingmar Bergman and Werner Herzog make this worth reading , and make their movies worth another viewing. For example, he mention that Robert Altman in his last picture, Prairie Home Companion, is really personified by Garrison Keillor in Keillor’s portrayal of himself. I watched the movie again with new eyes.

Ebert isn’t us, but at times he takes our place, giving us up-front details and behind the screen glimpses at the movies which have defined (his and) our lives.

Buy this book directly from Amazon for $13.95. Click here: Life Itself: A Memoir

As WBBM Newsradio’s Felicia Middlebrooks reports, Ebert posted an entry on his blog Wednesday titled, “So long for awhile,” in which he announced that his “Ebert Presents at the Movies” program will go on hiatus at the end of this month while he searches for necessary funding.

LISTEN: WBBM Newsradio’s Felicia Middlebrooks reports

“This move is necessary to allow the public television stations that carry our show to plan their programs for the beginning of the new year,” Ebert wrote. “We held off as long as possible but we had to give notice today.”

The program is produced by WTTW-Channel 11, and is distributed nationwide by American Public Television, as well as overseas by the American Forces Network.

But Ebert writes that he and his wife, Chaz, had been essentially financing the show out of their own pockets, with just one $25,000 donation from the Kanbar Charitable Trust when the program began.

“Ebert Presents: At The Movies” was launched in January 2011, and uses the same format that Ebert used with late CBS 2 movie critic Gene Siskel.

The show is fronted by two new hosts — Mubi.com critic, Chicago Reader contributor and Odd Obsession alternative video store co-manager Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, and Associated Press critic and “What the Flick?!” host Christy Lemire. Like Siskel and Ebert before them, they give movies “thumbs up” and “thumbs down.”

Ebert, who has undergone multiple cancer surgeries and is no longer able to speak, also reviews movies, with CBS 2′s Bill Kurtis doing the voice-overs.

“The show has been a success. We will have produced 50 episodes. In Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky we have co-hosts whose chemistry has ignited, and who provide two definitely different viewpoints, which is the idea,” Ebert wrote. “We have developed a cadre of Contributors who have created video essays and festival reports.”

Ebert says he has heard from fans that they like the show, and “we hope our hiatus will be brief.”

“Please have faith in us as we sort through the possibilities,” Ebert wrote.

“Ebert Presents: At the Movies” is in danger of cancellation. Credit: “Ebert Presents: At the Movies” Facebook page

Film critic Roger Ebert has said that “Ebert Presents: At the Movies” is in danger of cancellation, unless the syndicated program receives more investor funding.

“Unless we find an angel, our television program will go off the air at the end of its current season,” Ebert wrote on Nov. 6. “There. I’ve said it. Usually in television, people use evasive language. Not me. We’ll be gone. I want to be honest about why this is. We can’t afford to finance it any longer.”

The program, co-produced by Ebert and his wife, Chaz Ebert, debuted in January and is co-hosted by Christy Lemire of the Associated Press and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of the Chicago Reader. Ebert co-hosted previous versions of “At the Movies” until his battle with thyroid cancer.

Noting that he and his wife, co-producer Chaz Ebert, have been funding “Ebert Presents” on public television channel PBSalmost entirely by themselves since it premiered in January, Ebert wrote on his blog “we can’t afford to do the show any longer.”

Ebert said the new show, the latest version of the legendary “Sneak Previews” movie review show that Ebert launched in 1979 with Gene Siskel, has been “a great success,” shown in more than 90 percent of the country and boasting ratings near the top on U.S. public television.

But he wrote that as co-producers, he and his wife were expected “to find foundations or other sources that would underwrite it. We believed so firmly in the show that Chaz and I agreed to back it personally” while they searched.

And, he said, they had funded the show almost entirely themselves, along backing from the Kanbar Charitable Trust, paying for the set, the titles, and all of the salaries, including current co-hosts Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky.

Ebert said he must tell PBS sometime this month whether the show will be back next year, writing: “Unless we find underwriting, I’m afraid our answer will have to be “no.”

Chaz and Roger Ebert. Image via Flickr user mc1968a by Creative Commons License.

Euthanasia “is never discussed openly, but the topic is out there and it’s terrifying,” Mrs. Ebert said during a roundtable discussion titled “The Many Faces and Challenges of Caregivers” led by veteran ABC news journalist Sam Donaldson at the annual conference of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) in Hollywood, Florida last week. With respect to her husband, “here’s someone whose whole life was about speaking and sharing information, and he lost his ability to speak. He was also someone who loved food and eating with his friends and family and he wasn’t going to be able to eat.”

She knew those realities were going to be devastating for him, but she also knew – or thought she knew – that her husband loved life “and that somehow we would find a way through this.”  That certainty was shattered, however, when, after waking up from a procedure that left him partially and temporarily paralyzed, her husband scribbled “kill me” on a piece of paper.  Shaken by the depth of her husband’s pain, “I told him that wasn’t an option.  He was looking at me to give him some direction, so I told him, ‘If you will find the will to live I will find a way to make your life interesting for you.’ ”

He did persevere, and she has made good on her promise, “but I feel like I should have been better prepared to handle the emotional rollercoaster,” she said.

Jai Pausch, wife of the late Randy Pausch, the Carnegie Mellon professor and author of The Last Lecture, which he wrote while terminally ill with pancreatic cancer, shared a similar story in the hope that it might help oncologists understand that shielding caregivers from certain realities, although well meaning, can leave them more vulnerable to the crushing blows when they occur.   “My husband, who had always been very optimistic and very positive, told me that he didn’t want to be a freak show for our children and if he got to the point where he was to be comatose in that slow progression of dying, he wanted me to give him an overdose of morphine to speed the process along.”

Up until that point, “I would have done anything for him. I didn’t know how to respond. I couldn’t go there,” Mrs. Pausch said.  “I later learned that this is something that a lot of patients talk to their caregivers about, that it’s a normal part of the process, but it’s something that nobody tells you.”

–Diana Mahoney (on Twitter @DMPM1)

Roger Ebert: No Longer an Eater, Still a Cook