From Roger Ebert's review of Looney Tunes: Back in Action:
Let me tell you a personal story involving Daffy Duck, which also takes place on the Warners lot. I quote from an interview I did with Albert Brooks in 1991, when his new movie "Defending Your Life" was about to be released.As I was getting up to leave his office, Brooks said, "Look at these funny coffee mugs the studio sent over."
He had four or five of them on a shelf, cups shaped like the Warners cartoon heroes.
"Here," he said. "Have one. I want you to have one."
He pressed Elmer Fudd into my hands.
"No, that's OK," I said.
"Take one. What is this, a bribe? They're worth 10 cents apiece; 25 cents, tops."
"You know," I said, looking at the shelf, "I've never really been a fan of Elmer Fudd. My hero has always been Daffy Duck."
Brooks took the Daffy Duck mug from the shelf.
"Here, take it," he said. "I want you to have it. Really."
I could tell from the subtle intonation in his voice exactly what had happened. He had given me Elmer Fudd because he didn't like Elmer Fudd, either. He liked Daffy Duck. I had taken his favorite mug.
"No, you keep Daffy," I said. "I'll bet it's your favorite."
"Come on, come on," he said. "Take Daffy Duck. Take the one you want."
I tried to put Daffy back on the shelf. He pressed Daffy into my hands. I left with Daffy, but I would have bet a hundred bucks that the moment I was out of his office, Brooks had his secretary call Warners to see if they could send another Daffy Duck over.
The moral of the story is, rent "Defending Your Life" instead.
Or Roger is turning into one of those old guys who ramble on and on telling stories without morals.
You know.
Like bloggers.
np: Collective Heart, The Keep, Happy Rhodes
I think I've mentioned this before but...I love Defending Your Life.
Neo: So we need machines and they need us. Is that your point, Councillor?
Councillor Hamann: No, no point. Old men like me don't bother with making points. There's no point.
Neo: Is that why there are no young men on the Council?
Councillor Hamann: Good point.
Jason, don't think you have. Neither have I, and I thought it was great, once I was Sat Down and Made to Watch It.
I can be stubborn about these things for no particular reason at times. Not one of my better personality traits, that.
And this is why I'll be seeing the first two LotR movies for the first time, along with the 3rd one, on Trilogy Tuesday next month. If the Ghettofabulous Jessica managed to get tickets, that is. . .
George, where are your pants?
So. When you watch LotR, you need to give us a review.
I need an appropriate post to start my LotR 'pants' on.
I like Ebert a lot better when he speaks extemporaneously, particularly about politics, than when he writes. He just seems like a more interesting person when he's spontaneous. Also, did I miss where anecdotes needed morals?
VASpider, I knew somebody was gonna want to do that. And I had a feeling that somebody was you.
We're sharing a moment. And. . . it's over.
Elayne, I was just joking about that "moral of the story" bit; various Nubian goddesses know my anecdotes generally lack not just morals, but also internal consistency and coherent narratives.
And I don't think I've ever seen Ebert speaking off-the-cuff on. . . anything, not counting the (presumabley) unscripted chatting on the various reviews shows.
Not that I've watched him and Roeper, because Roeper isn't fit to shine the late Gene Siskel's shiny bald head.
Yeah, I guess I really am that predictable.
I wouldn't say predictable, love.
Consistent, perhaps. Or as constant as a northern star, if you're in a Joni Mitchell sort of mood.