Whoa, Whoa ... WHO Struck Roger Ebert?
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Toronto International Film Festival
It must be said, right off the bat: We all have bad days, we all behave obnoxiously sometimes, and (once in a while) we all do really stupid things that we regret big-time three seconds later. Having said that, it simply must be asked: Lou Lumenick ... what the &%!#$ing &$)# were you thinking? I hesitate to even write about this story, but since a dozen other movie sites have picked up on it, we'd be a little tacky if we just brushed it under the carpet. Plus, hey, it's interesting.Anyway, according to various sources, NY Post film critic Lou Lumenick got into a brief altercation with Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert during a press screening at the Toronto Film Festival. More specifically (and allegedly, I suppose I should say), it seems that Lou ignored numerous shoulder taps from Roger, and then -- in a fit of full-bore film critic snittiness -- whirled around and landed a half-solid pop on Ebert's
For his part, Roger Ebert has been (as usual) the epitome of class. At first he tried to keep the situation quiet, but once word got out, he penned this explanation. And since the guy already has a Pultizer, I say he now deserves a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Because let me tell you right now: If I was struck silent by a throat malady and the PROFESSIONAL FILM WATCHER in front of me refused to turn around and at least acknowledge my simple request, well, then I suspect we'd be reading blog posts about how "Cinematical Film Critic Scott Weinberg Just Wrapped a Fire Hydrant Around the Head of an Unidentifiable Man."
And for HIS part, Lou Lumenick has remained distressingly silent. Whether or not the guy was dead-wrong or drop-dead apologetic, there's no excuse for him not addressing the story by this point. Something along the lines of "Dear sweet lord, was I an asshole the other morning. I'm really, truly sorry" published on the New York Post editorial page should just about do it. Me? I'd have written that email six minutes after the incident occurred. Before sending it to every movie site, blog, and message board in the universe.
You Say 'Twilight,' Taylor Swift Says 'Firelight'
Robert Pattinson Talks 'Breaking Dawn' & 'Unbound Captives'
Gwyneth Paltrow Joins Nicole Kidman in 'The Danish Girl'
Discuss: The Movies That Haunt You_thumbnail.jpg)
'Yogi Bear' Will Cry Me A River With Its Cast
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-13-2008 @ 1:02AM
Mr. R said...
That guy Lou is king of douche! What a nerve. I think Roger is a gentleman of high standards and he has the winning card this time, shame on that ass.
Reply
9-13-2008 @ 2:13AM
RuFiOh said...
Hahaha, not a big fan of Ebert, and I could really care less if he got slapped (sorry Mr. Weinberg), but this article had me in stiches. Pardon the pun.
First time I've felt I needed to comment on an article on this site, I frequent it because of it's high quality and prestige, and it's not like any other article in the past hasn't DESERVED my two cents, but I just had to tip my hat to the author, gave me a pretty good laugh and still got the story across.
Well done chap!
Reply
9-13-2008 @ 3:40AM
NIck said...
Minor note: According to Ebert's account, Lumenick hit Ebert on the knee, not the thead.
Anways, I alreayd point it out in the comments of the slashfilm story about this, but I remembered Lumenicks name when I first heard about it because of the Cinematical article a month or so ago calling him the worst critic of the year. I say there's a lesson in this, if the critic is a hack, he's also probably a jerk.
Reply
9-13-2008 @ 7:03AM
RP said...
"there's no excuse for him not addressing the story by this point"
There's every reason, it's no one else's business.
Reply
9-13-2008 @ 9:44AM
Etan Cohen said...
Wrong. Ebert is the jerk here.
Before Lumenick had to say, "Do not touch me" a THIRD time, Roger should have moved to another seat. Done. He didn't move though. Instead he touched Lumenick... again. Lumenick then "touched" Roger with a swift smack of his paper.
Roger being the "classy" guy that he is, then poked the guy a FOURTH time. WTF? I tell you, if it hadn't have been Roger Ebert, he would have been ejected from the theater. Keep your hands off of others. If you're having trouble communicating, have someone help you communicate. Don't just poke at people.
It's not Lumenick's responsibility to recognize Roger (in a dark theater) and his needs (via hand gesture). It's Roger's responsibility to recognize Lumenick's personal space.
Reply
9-14-2008 @ 12:32AM
John said...
Why should Ebert, or anyone for that matter, have to move to another seat in the middle of a screening? If you sat down in the middle of a dark theater and had your view obstructed by a fellow audience member, I'd say that you would have every right to ask the person in front of you to show some courtesy.
Oh, and for the record, he didn't poke the guy repeatedly, he tapped him gently on the shoulder. That's not a violation of personal space and it wouldn't have killed Lou to politely acknowledge the guy.
"It's not Lumenick's responsibility to recognize Roger (in a dark theater) and his needs (via hand gesture)."
It's called a show of courtesy. Just as one should turn off their cell phone in a movie theater so as not to disturb everyone else, one should not to block someone's view if they can help it either.
9-13-2008 @ 12:47PM
patrick said...
He should have moved to another seat? And how should he have communicated that he wanted to switch seats?
9-13-2008 @ 12:58PM
Etan Cohen said...
If no other seat was open I suppose he could have written a note. I'm not sure how he communicates currently. Maybe he has an assistant?
He could have written a note to Lou also, or he could have let Lou watch the movie in peace.
9-13-2008 @ 1:20PM
eugene said...
Sorry Etan, you're completely wrong here. A theater is a community space, you're not entitled to obstruct the view or ruin the experience for someone else just because you're on a power trip over your "personal space".
And if you're such an asshole that you're causing the people around you to get up to avoid you, then that in itself should be telling you something.
9-13-2008 @ 10:49PM
Mr. R said...
Maybe I am wrong, but last I heard, Roger was still stranded on a wheel chair and cannot speak. It's a matter of turning around and finding out what the person poking you is doing it for. Basic education.
9-13-2008 @ 2:52PM
finishdish said...
Eugene,
I may be partially wrong, but I don't think I'm completely wrong. You see, I never said Lou was "entitled" to obstruct Roger's view. Please don't misunderstand.
If Lou was intentionally blocking Roger's view (as you seem to believe), then sure... Lou was being a dick. I can't argue with that. Conversely, if Lou was not intentionally blocking Roger, then he was not being a dick.
Much is probable. For instance, what if Lou had no idea why someone was poking him in the back? It's quite possible Lou just didn't comprehend what Roger was trying to communicate. Who knows, maybe he had a bee sting, and had to sit to the side.
We just don't know.
What we do know (unless this is where I'm partially wrong) is that in either case (Lou's a dick vs. Lou's not a dick), "poking" is not appropriate. Especially after Roger was told, "Do not to touch me".
From wikipedia...
"Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent."
Generally speaking, "poking" is not an effective form of communication or problem solving. Rather it seems to further escalate negative situations. As it did here. When Roger didn't realize he was being a dick.
Please don't poke strangers in a dark theater. They might just defend themselves.
Reply
9-14-2008 @ 12:15AM
eugene said...
Lou knew why Roger was tapping him, or at least that's the way it comes across in Roger's account, since Lou leans over even more to further obstruct Roger's view after being tapped/asked.
That's called being on a power trip and being an asshole.
9-14-2008 @ 12:32AM
John said...
I doubt you could convince a judge to convict Ebert of assault for tapping somebody on the shoulder without their consent. That's just grasping for straws.
Seriously, if tapping somebody on the shoulder is what you call assault, then I guess whacking somebody with a large festival binder is attempted murder.
9-13-2008 @ 4:57PM
Scott Weinberg said...
See, here's what I don't get: If you're sitting somewhere and you feel a slight poke on your shoulder, I think the first NORMAL instinct is to turn around and see where the poke came from. Did I drop my wallet? Is someone in the back of the room looking for me? Is there maybe an emergency? Maybe the guy behind me is choking or about to puke and needs to get out of the way. Whatever.
But for LL to intentionally IGNORE that instinct to turn around, and instead blurt out something like "Don't touch me!" -- I dunno, seems a little uncool. Of course I wasn't there, and I do look forward to Mr. Lumenick's side of the story.
Reply
9-13-2008 @ 7:55PM
Ryan said...
He writes for the NY Post which is one step away from being National Enquirer. Not shocked at all.
Reply
9-13-2008 @ 9:06PM
DylanG said...
Ebert was the jerk here. When one goes to watch a movie, one should choose a seat where they have a clear view of the screen. If your seated and someone sits in front of you, obstructing your view, they have every right to and you can move a couple seats over if you have a problem with it. You can't expect them to slouch down in their seat or lean over to one side for you. If they do, that's nice, but they shouldn't be expected to. If there were no available seats, no one was stopping Ebert from getting a booster seat outside the theatre.
While Lou was hasty in yelling at Ebert (at least from Ebert's own account), the fact that Ebert can't speak may have played a factor. If someone poked me while I was at a theatre, and when I turned around they didn't say anything, I'd probably say something too. In that situation, you usually expect someone to say something to you, to provide an explanation for their poking.
So I'd say Ebert was the jerk and Lou just misunderstood the situation.
Reply
9-13-2008 @ 10:04PM
Mr. R said...
Dude, everyone into movies knows all about Roger's problems, you are trying to say that a critic wasn't aware of this? Please.
9-14-2008 @ 12:32AM
John said...
Funny how the people defending Lou keep saying that Ebert poked the guy repeatedly when it clearly states in the above article that he was merely tapped on the shoulder a few times.
"When one goes to watch a movie, one should choose a seat where they have a clear view of the screen."
You're saying that as if Ebert chose to have his view obstructed. I don't think that seems logical. Do you choose to sit down near obnoxious moviegoers when you see a film in theaters? I doubt it.
Oh, and you're missing the point entirely. The issue here is not with Lou's refusal to move, but with his outrageous response to Ebert's polite attempts to get his attention. It just seems ridiculous that anybody can justify a physical response like whacking someone with a binder over a tap on the shoulder. It's wrong no matter how you slice it.
9-13-2008 @ 9:37PM
totoro said...
It was a Film Festival, not some general movie theatre. It was totally full-standing room only.
Ebert can't talk. He can only tap the guy on the shoulder to indicate his problem.
The guy was an asshole. Period.
Reply
9-14-2008 @ 1:14PM
E-Rock said...
I would like to go to work on Lumenick with a pair of pliers and a blow torch.
Reply