In the late 1960s and early '70s, you’d be hard-pressed to find a bigger rivalry between two competing newspaper identities than the one between the respective film critics of the Chicago Sun Times’ Roger Ebert and Chicago Tribune’s Gene Siskel.
"They had an epic rivalry through that time," author Matt Singer tells Wisconsin Public Radio’s "BETA" of the two.
"Roger would talk about how they would be attending all the same press screenings in Chicago, and they would see each other at functions or events, and they would just not look at each other, and they would not talk to each other," Singer continues. "If they were waiting for an elevator together, they would stand awkwardly in silence because they both knew that their jobs were to beat the other guy in print, write the best reviews and get the best access and interviews with stars and directors and all of that. So yes, they were very familiar with each other, but definitely did not like each other."
Singer is the author of "Opposable Thumbs: How Siskel & Ebert Changed Movies Forever," which traces how the two channeled this competitive energy into one of the most successful and groundbreaking syndicated shows in TV history and how Siskel and Ebert became movie-making power brokers.
All of that came from humble beginnings. In 1975, Chicago public television station WTTW pushed to have the critics join forces for a pilot episode of a show called, "Opening Soon…at a Theater Near You."
Even Siskel and Ebert — who clashed on everything including physical appearance, hairstyles and eyewear — agreed it was a mess.
"It went very badly in almost every way. If you are a fan of the show like I am," Singer said, "you might be astonished by how badly it went, given how good they became as this wonderful, charismatic, funny, insightful screen duo."
Things would’ve ended there had it not been for a new WTTW staffer, Thea Flaum. She wisely identified that both the format and the conflicting hosts had a lot of untapped potential.
"They always credited her as being the one who figured out how to take this off-camera competition, rivalry, animosity and figure out a way to turn that into something that worked on camera," said Singer.
Siskel and Ebert set aside their differences and worked diligently to get the show to work. They spent weekends at Flaum’s house, getting comfortable to be on camera and in the setting together.
"They did get better and more comfortable, and they figured out ways to bring that connection, or anti-connection, that they had off camera to make that something that worked for television," Singer said.
The results were undeniable. While the show changed titles and stations over the years before settling simply on "Siskel and Ebert," the secret sauce to their success remained the same.
It was more engaging to watch two passionate film fans and critics discuss the why of a film than to simply read a single newspaper column.
For the decades to come, Siskel and Ebert perched themselves weekly in the balcony of a Chicago theater where they argued — and sometimes agreed — on movies. The show was then syndicated, and they became household names and trusted tastemakers to viewers across the country. They rated each movie with their signature thumbs up or down and signed off their telecast with another signature line: "The balcony is closed."
That success became evident in the early 80s when the duo discovered their dynamic might be well-suited for another outlet. They became popular and sought after recurring guests on the late-night talk show circuit.
"The show began to do pretty well on PBS. And that was when they started becoming really full-blown TV stars. They were, you know, in their heyday — they were as famous as a lot of the people in the movies they were reviewing," said Singer.
Singer recounts a specific outing on the "Late Night with David Letterman" show where the two men simply refused to go off-brand.
"They were essentially kind of set up by producers," Singer said. "They were both told to be prepared to tell this specific story. A funny anecdote about them jointly interviewing Jack Lemmon... And when Letterman kind of prompts it because they both want to tell the story, neither will let the other tell it, and it becomes this huge, genuine shouting match. They are really angry and annoyed and frustrated."
Siskel and Ebert left the taping feeling a little embarrassed about arguing so vehemently on live TV, but learned a valuable lesson.
"As they were leaving the Ed Sullivan Theater, a producer on the show said to them, 'That was a great segment, that was great TV.' And that kind of summed it up," Singer said.
For his research, Singer dove into the ocean of archived content available online of all the various Siskel and Ebert appearances, shows and reviews and identified nuances in their disagreements and categories of their fights.
"You watch hundreds of episodes, you start to see that they had different sorts of fights about different sorts of things. And amusingly, they could fight about a movie they theoretically agreed about. They could give a movie two thumbs up and spend the entire review fighting about why it was good, why they liked it," he said.
Singer said the opposite was also true. They could both hate a film, but then argue as to why.
Take for instance, their disagreement on a forgettable 90s sequel "3 Ninjas Kick Back," which spiraled into a much larger discussion on film in general.
"Gene (Siskel) would be like, 'A good movie is a good movie, is a good movie. And this kids movie is not a good movie. Thumbs down.' And Roger might look at it and say, 'Well, these things are relative and relative to the standards of children's entertainment. Thumbs up. Or perhaps I'll give it a thumbs down. But I will tell you that I do think that it works on the level that a kid might enjoy it,'" Singer said.
"Then they would fight about that," he continues. "Where they're not even really arguing about the specific movie. They've used this movie as a jumping off point to a kind of higher-level discussion of what makes a movie good, what makes a movie bad? How do we determine that? Is it good if it appeals to every audience or is it good if it appeals to its target audience?"
Singer writes in "Opposable Thumbs" that even though they were predominately defined by their differences and debates, they never crossed a line personally and professionally that would end their relationship.
In fact, he notes that if wasn’t for Siskel’s death in 1999 after a battle with a brain tumor, the pair would’ve continued on debating films for the foreseeable future.
Even though Roger Ebert would continue the show in a similar format with a rotating cast of fellow critics and film directors for several years after Gene’s death, nothing held up to the magic of "Siskel and Ebert."
Singer said the duo's legacy expands well beyond just a thumbs up or down. Siskel and Ebert inspired a generation of arts and pop culture critics, launched or halted more than one or two Hollywood careers and pioneered a reliable TV format that is, for better or worse, still humming today.
"Certainly, there's movies that they championed that they helped get out into the world and find an audience. Filmmakers they championed, that they helped establish careers," Singer said. "I do think that even though there is not a 'Siskel and Ebert' type show on the air right now, at least about movies, I think that it has this enormous legacy and there's lots of other shows we can think of on television now that are not about movies, but that have that same spirit and energy of people passionately arguing about something, you know, sports, politics, whatever it is that that model has become enormously successful in other worlds."