<\/p>\n
There are so many reasons why we still consider Roger Ebert one of our greatest film critics.<\/a> He’s possibly the most visually recognizable of them all thanks to his television show “Siskel & Ebert,” where he would engage in a dialogue about the new releases of the week with fellow critic Gene Siskel. There’s even one episode in which they give their advice on how to be a successful film critic<\/a>, and while it’s certainly helped how I approach my work, I’ve always been more drawn in by Ebert’s words. What made him a great critic was that, even when you shared a diverging opinion, he knew how to make a compelling argument on the page. His sincere enthusiasm in writing about film gave me a deeper appreciation of the form, and often led me to so many great works. Ebert’s collective articles about what he considers as “The Great Movies” were love letters to the movies that spoke to him at an emotional level. With that personal criteria in mind, it’s no wonder he included 1942’s “Casablanca.”<\/p>\n The Michael Curtiz-directed romance drama about lost love and unsure futures has endured for over eight decades because it draws you into the plight of its characters. The complicated decisions they have to make in the face of pressing matters outside of their control is why Ebert came to love it so much (via RogerEbert<\/a>):<\/p>\n “These are not heroes \u2014 not except for Paul Heinreid’s resistance fighter, who in some ways is the most predictable character in the film. These are realists, pragmatists, survivors […] At the end of the film, when they rise to heroism, it is so moving because heroism is not in their makeup. Their better nature simply informs them what they must do.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n