On View : Critical Successes : SISKEL & EBERT’S FORMAT WORKS AS THEY MAKE ONE MORE ANNUAL LIST OF ‘BEST AND WORST’

Remember when there was no Siskel & Ebert?

Granted, it was a long time ago. The dueling critics first made their TV debut 18 years ago in “Opening Soon at a Theatre Near You” on PBS affiliate WTTW in their native Chicago. By 1977, the rechristened “Sneak Previews” was airing on 200 public TV stations around the country. In 1982, Tribune Entertainment began syndicating “At the Movies” on commercial TV; in 1986, the show moved to Buena Vista Television as “Siskel & Ebert & The Movies.”

Through the years, through all the syndication deals, theme music, set and name changes (it’s now just “Siskel & Ebert”), Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert have become very famous, very rich and very influential. A decade ago, the field was full of TV reviewers--Rex Reed, Bill Harris, Dixie Whatley and Michael Medved among them--jockeying for position. Yet somehow, without altering their original format or forsaking their local-boy status, Siskel & Ebert made it to the top of the heap ... big-time.

“There are no prompters or run-throughs; what you see is spontaneous,” said Siskel, who credits WTTW producer Thea Flaum for establishing the show’s successful format. “Also, I’m not talking to the audience, I’m talking to Roger. So it’s like you’re eavesdropping on us.”

This week the two sum up the year with the annual roundup “Siskel & Ebert: The 10 Best,” airing Sunday, and “The 10 Worst,” next Sunday.

When discussing their success, Siskel cites his and Ebert’s newspaper work as a major distinction: “The people who followed us didn’t have the experience of writing at length--being to the point, having a news quality to the reviews.”

In a separate interview, Ebert agreed: “We’re both full-time print journalists; I still write a full-length review of every movie. And that keeps you honest. It also helps that we’ve been around so long.”

But it wasn’t always smooth going. “We started out monthly to begin with, out of the public view,” said Ebert. “We were both good critics, but not in the habit of speaking spontaneously. I was also initially cool to the idea because Gene and I weren’t the best of friends. Actually, I didn’t know him well enough to dislike him personally; I just disliked him as the (Chicago) Tribune film critic.”

Over the years, the two acknowledge that their relationship has seen its ups and downs.

“Roger and I have a common bond and language,” stressed Siskel. “But we went through a rough time one-and-a-half years ago--and you could see that we were ticked off at each other. Lately, though, it’s been a real good feeling.” Seconds Ebert: “What you see is actually happening. I can’t be dishonest. I can do the show with Gene because he has intelligent opinions. But if you look at any two people who aren’t married and are working together, I’m sure you’d find that kind of personal competition and hostility--except it’s usually masked.”

Siskel noted that many viewers seem to enjoy a certain level of antagonism between the two.

“We hear, ‘We love it when you disagree, because so much of TV is scripted and phony.’ On the other hand, we know when it gets vicious it’s uncomfortable for the audience. So there are some rules. One is we’re going to play fair with the arguments. The funny thing is, we agree with each other around two-thirds of the time. That proves the show is real. If we were in a mind-set to fake it, we’d disagree more.” As for their patented go-rounds, Siskel said, “I don’t relish when we disagree, because it means I’ve got to defend myself and the film--which is work.”

The pleasure, each said, is in finding a gem of a film. Both cite the little-known chase drama “One False Move” and the recent Australian movie “Flirting” as sure picks for their best of 1992 list--and the leaden fertility comedy “Frozen Assets” as a definite worst candidate.

“ ‘Frozen Assets’ is pathetic,” sniffed Siskel. “What makes you angry is not that a film is bad or boring; it’s when they don’t even try. It’s like art abuse.” He paused. “When the job is extra good, when it delights you, is when you find something that’s come from someone’s heart. When you get letters from people whose careers you’ve affected positively, that’s great.”

Ebert makes no bones about using his critical clout: “When I come across a terrific film,” he says bluntly, “I like to plug it.”

Both say they’ve dealt comfortably with the celebrity that’s attended their ascent. “When you’re a clue in the New York Times crossword puzzle or suddenly find your likeness in Mad Magazine or you’re in Johnny Carson’s monologue--that’s the fun,” says Siskel. “But the nicest part is that we’ve never moved: We went national without leaving our hometown. We’re doing the same things we’ve always done. And my self-image is much more related to (my family relationships) than to what I do.”

Said Ebert: “People in Chicago are not very star-struck; they’re kind of indifferent.”

Even in recognition, he adds, there’s a rub. “A lot of people think I’m Gene Siskel.”

“Siskel & Ebert: The 10 Best” airs Sunday at 11:30 a.m. on KGTV and 6:30 p.m. on KABC; “The 10 Worst” airs the same times next week.