| Tweet |
Just saw Roger Ebert‘s appearance on “Oprah,” but before I disclose my reaction, I want to briefly provide some context:
As most of you probably know, the last several years of Roger Ebert’s life have been extremely trying. He was diagnosed with cancer in 2002, went through countless surgeries, came close to dying on a number of occasions, and eventually lost his lower jaw, completely eliminating his ability to speak, eat, or drink.
As an avid reader of his work and an avid viewer of his television reviews (under whichever moniker suits you best), all of the aforementioned mayhem has been really depressing. Some of that depression was lifted when he started updating his blog regularly with insight after insight after insight. And it was certainly the case when he wrote of his collaboration with Swedish software company CereProc to have his speaking voice replicated on a computer program back in August of last year.
But, after the incredibly moving piece on him appeared in Esquire last month and the developing technology made a huge stride in synthesizing his lost voice, seeing him reveal it on “Oprah” seemed to be the final step.
And here it is. It wouldn’t be a talk show if things weren’t stilted and somewhat awkward, but that’s how these things work. The introduction for him was somewhat sweet, but when she brought him out, she almost spoke to him as if his hearing was the operative function in jeopardy and not his speech. She had his wife Chaz read tidbits from different blog posts of his and showed footage of them at home. Standard Oprah stuff (not that I would I know).
But I guess the point, here, is to talk about the actual quality of the synthetic voice. I have to be honest: hearing it for the first time was pretty unbelievable. It’s definitely a far cry from the real thing, but it’s very realistic and very meaningful.
Apart from Oprah’s innately disconcerting atmosphere (not to mention the fact that he was only on for about 20 minutes), the only other thing that upset me was his conviction that Sandra Bullock would take home the Oscar and his description of her performance as “dazzling.”
And that brings us to something often speculated: has Ebert gone a little soft? I’d be lying if I said the thought didn’t cross my mind from time to time, especially when I read that, in his opinion, the only flaw with “The Wolfman” was the special effects, or when I see that he thinks “Knowing” was one of the best films of 2009. But it’s all the same. I don’t think it’s his faculties as a critic that have been altered so much as his approach to the medium.
And either way, you can’t blame a guy who’s been through what he’s been through for having no patience for cynicism anymore. No matter what his particular opinion is, it’s always considered, evaluated, and articulated with astonishing care and reverence. There’s an omnipresent enthusiasm for the movies in his work; saying it’s infectious is an understatement.
It certainly infected me.
I’ve been devouring everything he’s written since I was 16-years-old and take all of this stuff very personally. I still get choked up when his relationship with Gene Siskel is mentioned in some capacity and I flat out cried like a baby when I read that passage in the Esquire piece. I would’ve liked an entire hour devoted to Roger, but that’s not within the realm of possibility for obvious reasons (namely his health and Oprah’s skewed priorities and interests).
Update: Watch the big moment on “Oprah,” here.
16 Responses to “Roger Ebert's synthetic voice is uncannily accurate”
Leave a Reply
I have though that he has gone a bit soft as the last few years he has been listing pretty much all the movies that have garnered any sort of attention in his end of year lists and summaries. That and the fact juno was number 3 or 4 on his top 10 of the decade. There were other strange choices but that was the one that sticks out for me.
I have though that he has gone a bit soft as the last few years he has been listing pretty much all the movies that have garnered any sort of attention in his end of year lists and summaries. That and the fact juno was number 3 or 4 on his top 10 of the decade. There were other strange choices but that was the one that sticks out for me.
I hated “Juno” rather passionately and still do. Same with “Crash,” which he also loved. But even so, he’s an invaluable writer, critic, cinephile, and human being.
I hated “Juno” rather passionately and still do. Same with “Crash,” which he also loved. But even so, he’s an invaluable writer, critic, cinephile, and human being.
His articles lately are amazing–even when I don’t agree with him cinematically, they are informed by his situation and have the knowledge of a life lived fully. Some of his best recent writing only tangentially relates to movies.
I enjoyed the segment on Oprah, but also lamented that it was presented in such a short, capsule-sized time block. They really should have devoted the entire episode to him and his life.
His articles lately are amazing–even when I don’t agree with him cinematically, they are informed by his situation and have the knowledge of a life lived fully. Some of his best recent writing only tangentially relates to movies.
I enjoyed the segment on Oprah, but also lamented that it was presented in such a short, capsule-sized time block. They really should have devoted the entire episode to him and his life.
I definitely agree that Oprah should have given him the hour. His new computer voice is amazing, and it should only improve with technological advances. That’s something they could only do with somebody who has a lot of vocals preserved for posterity. I’ll bet he’s doubly glad he did all those DVD commentaries now, although I wonder if they couldn’t have gone back to tapes of his movie-review shows for vocal tracks as well.
Siskel and Ebert are especially good when you look at who’s followed or imitated them, although A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips are doing a solid job on At the Movies now.
I definitely agree that Oprah should have given him the hour. His new computer voice is amazing, and it should only improve with technological advances. That’s something they could only do with somebody who has a lot of vocals preserved for posterity. I’ll bet he’s doubly glad he did all those DVD commentaries now, although I wonder if they couldn’t have gone back to tapes of his movie-review shows for vocal tracks as well.
Siskel and Ebert are especially good when you look at who’s followed or imitated them, although A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips are doing a solid job on At the Movies now.
I don’t know how or why, but I really only began reading his blog regularly over the last 1-2 months and I certainly will be reading it consistently from this point on.
I don’t know how or why, but I really only began reading his blog regularly over the last 1-2 months and I certainly will be reading it consistently from this point on.
Randall, I’m pretty sure I read that they were unable to use clips from the show to create his new voice because there was almost always background music and/or someone interrupting him.
And good call, Greg. It’s a wonderful blog.
Randall, I’m pretty sure I read that they were unable to use clips from the show to create his new voice because there was almost always background music and/or someone interrupting him.
And good call, Greg. It’s a wonderful blog.
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/See-How-Technology-Gave-Roger-Ebert-His-Voice-Video
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/See-How-Technology-Gave-Roger-Ebert-His-Voice-Video
Thanks for the link, J.!
Thanks for the link, J.!