Oscars flashback: When Siskel and Ebert fought over spoiling ‘The Crying Game’ [Watch]
In the new book “Opposable Thumbs: How Siskel & Ebert Changed Movies Forever,” author Matt Singer recounts several contentious moments between famed critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. But only one argument left Ebert calling Siskel “arrogant” in the national press, with Siskel responding by mocking Ebert’s “motor coordination.”
It all started during the pair’s annual “If We Picked the Winners” Oscars special in 1993. While discussing that year’s Best Supporting Actor nominees, Siskel warned viewers that he was about to spoil a key plot point in “The Crying Game” involving Jaye Davidson. (The infamous twist focused on Davidson’s character, a transgender woman named Dill, whose gender identity was kept secret from the audience and the film’s protagonist.) Siskel felt he had to discuss the performance in full to make his case for why Davidson should win an Academy Award. Ebert, however, was immediately upset. “You’re not really going to do this,” Ebert said to his partner.
Siskel did reveal the twist, after warning the audience at home to turn down the television volume. And what followed was not just an argument about whether or not he should’ve spoiled the film, but also another fight about whether Al Pacino was good in “Glengarry Glen Ross” – and if his performance was as successful as Joe Mantenga, who played the same role on stage. (Pacino was Ebert’s pick for Best Supporting Actor that year.)
“It’s a really nice encapsulation of their relationship right there,” Singer says in an interview with Gold Derby (watch it below). “It’s funny and fun. But it also gets back to those ideas about how they had such different ways of evaluating things too. Ebert is looking at these five Best Supporting Actor performances only, and thinking, ‘Which is my favorite, which is the one I think is best? Al Pacino.’ And Siskel is going, ‘Well, I’m comparing it to every performance that’s ever been given, and which one stands out as this thing that seems really unique, or that other people could not do?’”
In the aftermath of the episode, which can be found here, the onscreen debate spilled into the press. “The program is ‘Siskel and Ebert,’” Ebert told TV Guide at the time. “A decision like that should’ve been discussed beforehand. It was arrogant of him.”
“Arrogant? That’s a strange choice of words,” Siskel said when presented with Ebert’s quote. “We never discuss our opinions in advance. I was simply making a case for one of my picks.” Siskel added that Ebert was as “angry as a 50-year-old child” and then threw in the aforementioned dig about his partner’s fine motor skills.
“They were very honest, very upfront, and didn’t care what anyone thought,” Singer says. “They didn’t care what the consensus outside the show was – or even inside the show. It didn’t matter if their co-host said, ‘This is one of the best movies of the year.’ If they disagreed, they were gonna say that to the person’s face.”
“Opposable Thumbs” is available now. More information about the book can be found here.
For more on the 1993 Oscars, check out our Oscars Playback episode on the ceremony:
PREDICT the 2024 Oscar nominees through January 23
Make your predictions at Gold Derby now. Download our free and easy app for Apple/iPhone devices or Android (Google Play) to compete against legions of other fans plus our experts and editors for best prediction accuracy scores. See our latest prediction champs. Can you top our esteemed leaderboards next? Always remember to keep your predictions updated because they impact our latest racetrack odds, which terrify Hollywood chiefs and stars. Don’t miss the fun. Speak up and share your huffy opinions in our famous forums where 5,000 showbiz leaders lurk every day to track latest awards buzz. Everybody wants to know: What do you think? Who do you predict and why?
SIGN UP for Gold Derby’s free newsletter with latest predictions