The Magic of Siskel & Ebert's Appearances on David Letterman
To me, Siskel & Ebert's many appearances on David Letterman is cinema
The YouTube Algorithm. A superspreader of misinformation. A HAL-9000 in waiting. That said, it can also recommend you rad stuff every once in a while. As is the case when, in an afternoon of binging European city walking tours and Dick Cavett clips, the Algorithm fed me a new recommendation: “Siskel & Ebert on Letterman, Part 1 of 6.”
Part 1 of 6? Part 1 alone was an hour and a half. Watching the other five would take as much time as marathoning Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. Did I have that much time to spend watching the Thumbs Up/Down guys spar with David Letterman and/or each other?
Naturally, I watched the whole saga. Well, really just the interviews. I did catch Siskel and Ebert’s commercial for “Big Ass Hams” though.
For those who grew up playing outside and not watching dead movie critics give their hot takes on 40-year-old movies, let me give you a crash course on the phenomenon that was Siskel & Ebert. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were two film critics from the Windy City who worked for rival newspapers: the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times respectively. Despite being fierce competitors who held a mutual animus, Siskel and Ebert were paired for a television program that underwent many names over the years. While the program's title changed, the format never did - Siskel and Ebert would review the latest releases, giving their brief thoughts before engaging in a discussion, more often debate, on the picture. Then they would sum up their feelings on the film with either a “Thumbs Up” or “Thumbs Down.” They would also do specials in which they did retrospectives on major actors or directors, analyze concurrent trends in the film industry, and take the Academy Awards to task for failing to recognize their favorite films of the year, usually in the Best Documentary category.
The pair attracted national notoriety for their fierce arguments. Siskel & Ebert were individually respected critics - Roger Ebert was the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize - but they were more infamous for their barbed wit and love-hate relationship with one another. While their show was instrumental in popularizing film criticism and engaging general audiences with important films, Siskel & Ebert also inadvertently created one of the best comic duos of the late 20th century. What other syndicated program could offer the opportunity to watch two grown men, both accredited and qualified journalists, get in a verbal shoving match over Benji the Hunted or Cop & A Half? Those are just the frivolous exchanges. When the pair were discussing a truly worthy film, their debates were as profound as they were petty.
Their act wasn’t just a novelty, eight. People might forget just how much celebrity status the two had at their peak. They were invited to the Playboy Mansion and rubbed elbows with the likes of Bill Clinton. They also made frequent appearances on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Arsenio Hall Show, and, most prolifically, both of David Letterman’s late-night programs: Late Night with David Letterman on NBC and Late Show with David Letterman on CBS.
Letterman was among the first to have on Siskel & Ebert, with their first appearance dating back to ‘82. With their endless banter, unquestionable expertise, and clashing personalities, Siskel & Ebert were the perfect guests for Letterman, who would bring them on to discuss the most popular films of the year, give their two-cents on the Academy Awards nominations, and weigh on news and scandals of the film industry. They matched wits with Letterman, who clearly developed more and more respect for them over the years.
Among all of their other guest appearances, Siskel and Ebert really thrived on Letterman’s shows. In a way, he was the perfect foil. Letterman presented himself as an everyman with a passive sense of curiosity and irreverence towards the prestigious. He could also represent the voice of the audience. Siskel & Ebert would go back and forth about whether Chariots of Fire or On Golden Pond would win Best Picture, while Letterman was rooting for Raiders for Lost Ark. While Siskel and Ebert would go back and forth about some foreign film they saw at Cannes, Letterman would always joke that the last film he had seen was Jaws, a gag he kept up to the late ‘90s. Yet, Letterman was also an engaged listener and savvier than he ever let on. I was pleasantly surprised that his first on-air conversation with the duo opened with him asking about One from the Heart and Heaven’s Gate, two pictures by auteurs that had just flopped with audiences and critics alike.
Letterman’s audience might not have been inclined to hear Siskel and Ebert talk about independent films or documentaries, but they were receptive to the duo’s unbridled passion for movie-going, and penchant for theatrical argumentation. How could Gene Siskel give a Thumbs Up to One from the Heart if he had to see it twice to fully appreciate it? How could Roger Ebert give a Thumbs Down to Batman even with its immaculate production design? That’s a taste of their more intellectual exchanges. Siskel and Ebert were not above personal insults or bickering. If Gene Siskel got the name of a director wrong, you could bet that Roger Ebert wouldn’t let him live it down for the rest of the segment. In return, Gene Siskel never missed a chance to make a fat joke at poor Roger’s expense. “Roger liked Free Willy because he identified with a whale - I wonder why.”
Their banter could also be in good fun and belied the duo’s camaraderie. They recounted pranks they played on each other, argued over who got to tell *that* story about their interview with Jack Lemmon, and riffed endlessly with Letterman.
It was those qualities that made Siskel & Ebert fit right in with Letterman’s esoteric programming that regularly featured Harvey Pekar, Andy Kaufmann, Harmony Korine, and other oddball showmen. Letterman’s audience was also interactive, and it was thrilling to watch Siskel and Ebert win them over. The audience might’ve booed them at times, like when Ebert regrettably gave a Thumbs Down to Tim Burton’s Batman, but they also applauded the duo when they challenged the Academy Awards for snubbing Do The Right Thing or chastised the entertainment industry for not giving enough directing opportunities to either women or people of color.
To some Siskel & Ebert might be the textbook example of film-critic snobbery. Especially if you’re a horror fan and watched their hysterical takedowns of “dead teenager” pictures like Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. You might especially remember Gene Siskel as the fuddy-duddy who turned his nose up at hits like Pee Wee’s Big Adventure & The Terminator. Thankfully, their Letterman appearances can remind viewers of how anti-establishment they could be, and how they were the most suited critics to bring important cinematic works to the masses. I can almost guarantee that nobody in the Letterman crowd had heard of Moonlighting or One False Move until Siskel and Ebert promoted them on the show, imploring David Letterman to give these films a chance.
I got a lot out of these Siskel and Ebert clips. You could trace the arc of pop culture by watching them chronologically. With every appearance, the duo complained more and more about special effects taking over screenwriting, or about the abundance of sequels. Back in their first appearance, a grim Siskel noted that the major studios were releasing seven sequels in 1982. To which David Letterman muttered, “good heavens.” Nowadays, you’d be lucky if the studios released seven original films in a calendar ear.
What I was really left with was the realization that there’s a Siskel-and-Ebert hole left in the world of film discourse. As silly as these two men could be, and as wrong as they could be, David Letterman reminded me of their infectious love of the movies and their equally infectious humor. Even though they started off as rivals, Ebert and Siskel had developed a begrudging affection for each other that always kept a human element to their conversations, and to their analysis. But they also never sold out their integrity as critics and never cheapened the medium of film by lowering their standards.
Right now, the vast majority of critics and commentators talk about film like it’s just “content.” Film critics get passed over for influencers, who promote the latest MCU film without even seeing it. Why should they? All their followers need to know is that they can get a fifteen-percent discount by using the special code in the description.
Film Bros cozy up to conglomerates like Disney and write five-star reviews about how The Rise of Skywalker brought “tears to their eyes” because that one guy from Return of the Jedi can be seen somewhere in the background. If anybody ever questions their judgment, they’ll shrug and say, “It’s just a movie, man. Can’t you have fun with it?”
Siskel and Ebert, for better or worse, took nothing more seriously than film. Even a disposable piece of children’s entertainment like Benji the Hunted was evaluated with the weight of a Kubrick film because the duo realized that movies were more than just a way to kill time. These men were moved, infuriated, enthralled, and disgusted by the films they saw, and wouldn’t rest until they said their piece. And they stuck by it. Say what you will about Ebert’s glowing review of Cop & A Half, he never would’ve shrugged off its detractors by saying “It’s just a movie.” He defended it on the grounds that films, even the most juvenile ones, could enrich somebody’s life.
Let’s be clear: Siskel and Ebert’s rigorous standards and uncompromising moralizing often led them to absurd conclusions. The most minor, frivolous detail could ruin a classic movie for them. Ebert gave a Thumbs Down to Die Hard just because the stupid cops annoyed him. Siskel thought slasher films were morally bankrupt and would rob the youth of their imagination. But while they took films seriously, they never took themselves seriously. They let goofballs like David Letterman poke fun at them, time after time, and they always laughed along.
The outdated humor aside, these appearances rejuvenated my taste for classic cinema and reminded me of the precious space that films occupy in our lives. It also reminded me that film discourse doesn’t have to be stuffy or self-important to offer value and insight and that we can approach culture with both good humor and genuine curiosity.
As I was writing this, wildfires erupted in Los Angeles, devastating the Palisades and forcing many to evacuate their homes. If you’re able to help those affected in any way, here’s a comprehensive list of helpful resources.