These thoughts about Siskel are new to me.  I am, however, familiar with Rosenbaum's account of the man.  As someone who worked in the same city, in the same field, his account of Siskel is of a person who never really seemed interested in film outside of seeing one for his show, in the sense that he was 'disinterested in movies, apart from the movie business.'  I don't mean to rule the guy out - he did have his own talents and vaule as the sort of reviewer he was.  Based on Rosenbaum's accounts, it always seemed to me like Ebert was the one being restrained, and that Siskel had it just the way he liked it. (And that's before I knew about these philosophical references . . . from my vision of Siskel, I'd be surprised if he didn't read a book on/hear things about Heidegger, as opposed to reading Being and Time or something . . . but we're talking about a dearly departed man whom I never knew personally, so I ca! n't justly assert such a claim!)  But we are talking about someone who's main beat for the Tribune when he started was real estate.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about: People who are into sales/retail/business becoming the locus of 'expertise' in mainstream film criticism.  As I've said, Siskel did have some merits, and I'm not one to say that anyone involved heavily in business would make a poor, or ulterior motive-d film critic.  Still, this confluence of interests says a great deal not only about the sort of movies people see, but also how they're advised to decide what to watch by the 'experts' they look to for opinions.