Posted on 11/07/2011 4:12:45 PM PST by Borges
Unless we find an angel, our television program will go off the air at the end of its current season. 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.
Before I go into details, let me say that by any fair measure, "Ebert Presents At The Movies" has been a great success. The program has a coverage of more than 90% of the country, and all of the top 50 markets. Our ratings place us among the top shows on public television, and compare to the ratings of cable news. And we have loyal and vocal followers. Whenever our show is pre-empted for any reason we get immediate e-mails, calls and letters from viewers looking for it. We have also had cordial relations with the programmers and station managers across the country.
Chaz and I were just sitting here watching this week's episode, and when it was over she turned to me and said, "It's a damned good program." I agree. In Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, we have ideal co-hosts. It took them a few weeks to settle in and get used to working together, but right now I think they're doing it as well as it can be done. They know their movies, they come from different viewpoints, they listen, they respond, they are clear and forceful. We are also proud of our our contributing critics, director, staff and crew, and the educational programs we have established for our interns.
I believe a program like this is needed on television. On "Ebert Presents," a new Johnny Depp movie can get two thumbs down (or up, or a split decision) from two intelligent people who will tell you why they voted that way, and challenge one another. Movie coverage on TV is otherwise so intensely driven by marketing that some programs actually cover the marketing itself.
In trying to get the show back on TV, we approached WTTW, the Chicago public station where Gene and I began on "Sneak Previews" in 1976. In the dusty corner, they still had the balcony chairs we used. We went in for meetings. WTTW said it would love to have the show back again, and spoke of ideal time slots. They couldn't have been friendlier.
There was a problem, which I didn't catch on to right away. They were not going to finance the show. I was living in dreamland. We were expected to finance the show ourselves. We would give the show free to those public stations that wanted it, using something called American Public Television to distribute it. APT is a different entity than PBS, but we would receive no funding from either one.
When you hear on PBS that a show has been brought to you by various foundations, "and viewers like you," what does that mean? Essentially it means your pledges help finance the operating overhead of the stations. As producers of our show, we 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 we started looking around. We have been talking to corporations, private foundations, and public charitable organizations, the sorts of places you might think of.
We could offer the underwriters something more than a feeling of benevolence. At the beginning and end of each program, they could have a 15 or 30-second spot. They'd be getting two spots on a national program. Our demographics include the most educated viewers in the "right" age groups and geographic areas.
Since we went on the air in January 2011, "Ebert Presents" has been almost entirely funded by Chaz and me, plus $25,000 in generous backing from the Kanbar Charitable Trust. We paid for the screen tests. We paid for the pilot. We paid for the titles. We paid for the set, the lighting, and all of the salaries (Chaz and I do not draw one). We have offices at WTTW, for which, of course, we pay rent. We pay for the director, the camera operators, the assistant producers, the interns, the editors and editing suites, the transmission of the show to American Public Television, lunch on taping days, everything. We also paid for the design and maintenance of the web site, www.ebertpresents.com.
We can't afford to support the show any longer. That's what it comes down to. Chaz has been the heroine here. As executive producer, she did all the heavy lifting. When the first package of shows played, she told me we should stay on the air from autumn through December. "It's a beautiful show," she told me. "Christy and Ignatiy have found their groove. We've paid for the backdrops and sets. It's the show we dreamed of. Let's give it one more chance."
We did. But now American Public Television wants to know if they can tell their member stations we'll be back in 2012. We have to give them our answer this month. Unless we find underwriting, I'm afraid our answer will have to be "no." Chaz says she still has a few more days to keep making calls.
Too bad advertisers don't pay for "coverage."
We watch Turner Classics with Robert Osborne. He is so great.
The last two reviews I read by Ebert clearly showed he’d not attended (or attended but didn’t pay attention to) the movies he was reviewing. Good riddance.
Hey Ebert, GTH.
Maybe if you didn’t publicly mock us we’d watch your little show.
Welcome to the free market Ebert! ;-)
Roger Ebert is a typical leftie jerk. But I would have thought that was what the viewers of Public TV want to see. He is a very famous leftie jerk, after all.
Ebert isn’t one of the critics on the show. He can’t talk.
I’ve met Roger Ebert and, politics notwithstanding, he is not a jerk. But he is only the financier of this show. He is not on it.
It is the internet age. People who care about a review are going online.
Ebert hooked up with Chaz Bono? Who knew? I miss Gene Siskel.
It’s strange. I feel nothing.
Apparently he can’t hear in movies either.
I blame Roger for the fact that John Cusack ever made it past a screen test.
I’ve never seen the show. Do you recommend it?
It’s a notch above what passes for “film criticism” on TV. Still not as good as Siskel and Ebert used to be.
I haven’t been to the movies in 40-50 years. I don’t believe in subsidizing the enemy. Haven’t watched reviews either.
I haven’t been to the movies in 40-50 years. I don’t believe in subsidizing the enemy. Haven’t watched reviews either.
People who don't like the smarmy jerk will avoid things with his name on it.
That is why people buy Paul Newman salad dressing but it is doubtful they would buy one from Jesse Jackson.
I can't remember even the hint of ever deciding which movie to see or avoid based on the opinions of Jabba the Hutt. Of course, it's been more than a decade since I have watched him at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.