1. 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.

Posted at 1:02AM on Sep 13th 2008 by Mr. R

2. 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!

Posted at 2:13AM on Sep 13th 2008 by RuFiOh

3. 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.

Posted at 3:40AM on Sep 13th 2008 by NIck

4. "there's no excuse for him not addressing the story by this point"

There's every reason, it's no one else's business.

Posted at 7:03AM on Sep 13th 2008 by RP

5. 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.

Posted at 9:44AM on Sep 13th 2008 by Etan Cohen

6. 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.

Posted at 12:32AM on Sep 14th 2008 by John

7. He should have moved to another seat? And how should he have communicated that he wanted to switch seats?

Posted at 12:47PM on Sep 13th 2008 by patrick

8. 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.

Posted at 12:58PM on Sep 13th 2008 by Etan Cohen

9. 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.

Posted at 1:20PM on Sep 13th 2008 by eugene

10. 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.

Posted at 10:49PM on Sep 13th 2008 by Mr. R

11. 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.

Posted at 2:52PM on Sep 13th 2008 by finishdish

12. 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.

Posted at 12:15AM on Sep 14th 2008 by eugene

13. 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.

Posted at 12:32AM on Sep 14th 2008 by John

14. 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.

Posted at 4:57PM on Sep 13th 2008 by Scott Weinberg

15. He writes for the NY Post which is one step away from being National Enquirer. Not shocked at all.

Posted at 7:55PM on Sep 13th 2008 by Ryan

16. 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.

Posted at 9:06PM on Sep 13th 2008 by DylanG

17. Dude, everyone into movies knows all about Roger's problems, you are trying to say that a critic wasn't aware of this? Please.

Posted at 10:04PM on Sep 13th 2008 by Mr. R

18. 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.

Posted at 12:32AM on Sep 14th 2008 by John

19. 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.

Posted at 9:37PM on Sep 13th 2008 by totoro

20. I would like to go to work on Lumenick with a pair of pliers and a blow torch.

Posted at 1:14PM on Sep 14th 2008 by E-Rock