.jpg)
A documentary featuring: Roger Ebert, Chaz Ebert, Marlene Iglitzen,
A.O. Scott, Richard Corliss, Gene Siskel, Ramin Bahrani, Errol Morris, Werner
Herzog, Martin Scorsese, Avy DuVernay
The voice of Roger Ebert: Stephen Stanton
Magnolia Pictures and CNN Films present a
film by Steve James. Based on the memoir “Life Itself” by Roger Ebert. Running
time: 115 min. Rated R (for brief sexual images/nudity and language).
I didn’t know I was a
writer. I went to school to be an actor. I’d watched “Siskel & Ebert &
the Movies” on Saturday mornings as a kid. To me Roger Ebert was just a guy on
TV who talked about movies, which I thought was pretty cool, but that was the
end of it. Then when I was in college, an acting friend of mine turned me on to
Roger’s written word. Suddenly I realized that not only was there more to
movies than I’d ever imagined, but there was more to criticism.
Roger Ebert was like no
other film critic on the planet. He even differed greatly from his TV partner
Gene Siskel. With other critics, it always seemed as if they were performing a
duty to their critical calling. With Roger, it was his pleasure. It was under
this premise that I slowly realized that I was also a writer and a critic. It
kind of goes in that order too, even though the majority of the writing both
Ebert and I have performed in our lives has taken the form of movie criticism.
This might state it correctly—writer (critic).
The new documentary by
renowned documentary filmmaker Steve James—whose “Hoop Dreams” will go down as
one of the greatest docs ever made—focuses a great deal on Roger Ebert the film
critic, as it must, but it’s fascination is with Roger Ebert the person. Based
on Ebert’s own memoir, “Life Itself” is an exploration of a life lived—not
always well, but lived almost beyond measure.
James’ movie doesn’t delve
quite as deeply into Ebert’s youth as the book does. This is a minor
disappointment, since I found Ebert’s recollections of his own upbringing and
early influences to be fascinating. Of course, they were also accompanied by
his wonderful prose, which cannot be the substance of a film of any kind.
Although, James does his best to work in as much of Ebert’s writings into the
film as possible with a great deal of passages taken directly from the book and
narrated with a spot on Ebert intonation by Stephen Stanton. It makes a
difference to hear his words spoken as he would say them.
Despite any missing
fragments from Ebert’s account, it’s important to note that the production
began before Ebert’s death and was not intended originally as a eulogy for the
venerated man. When Ebert’s death occurred during filming, his late life health
problems probably came more to the forefront of James’ vision for the film.
That’s not to say it wouldn’t have played much of a role had he not died. Ebert
was very public with his health woes over the final years of his life. Because
he was such a public personality, he may not have had much of a choice. The
film also documents very clearly why Ebert was so determined to be up front
with everyone, including the public, about his health condition. His longtime
professional partner, Gene Siskel, had been very secretive about his illness, and
it hit Ebert to the core. Ebert was determined not to have the same effect on
others.
James shows us frankly the
daily stresses of living with health issues. Ebert makes a point to express on
screen how happy he is that they were able to film him having his lungs cleared
out with suction. It ain’t pretty and neither was Ebert in his final years;
although somehow the shock of seeing a man with his entire lower jaw removed is
never unsettling here. That is a testament to the man himself, who exudes such
a positive attitude about his situation, which could not have been as easy as
he makes it look.
Personally, I was struck by
the many testimonies presented by celebrities and news industry friends alike,
who all speak of the man as if he were an ideal. Even when they speak of his
arrogance and self-importance, they speak with reverence. The filmmaker Ramin
Bahrani speaks of his introduction to Ebert. He’d made a movie outside the
Hollywood system and wrote to Ebert on a whim, never expecting a response, to
request that Ebert merely watch his movie. He was shocked when Ebert responded
personally and immediately. His experience in reaching out to Ebert, a man who
must’ve received countless requests for advice and guidance, was very similar to
my own. I didn’t have a movie but a review I wished him to look over. His response,
although brief, was personal and encouraging. His response to Bahrani’s film
was that of exuberant support.
It is also interesting to
see the responses of other notable film critics to Ebert’s work. A.O. Scott and
Richard Corliss both contribute quite a bit to the doc, talking of how Ebert’s
approach to film criticism and how making the general public aware of cinema as
art on a much more massive level than had ever been done before had also
mainstreamed criticism in a way that was not always beneficial to it’s purpose.
The thumbs and the star ratings became an instant review format embraced by the
mainstream, which sidestepped the nuances of the cinematic art form and of
criticism in general. Ebert was well aware of this influence, but I think it can
be said his positive impact on cinema was much greater than his negative.
One thing other critics
criticized Ebert for was befriending the filmmakers. Martin Scorsese was on
very friendly terms with Ebert and was invariably one of Ebert’s favorite filmmakers.
Scorsese, an executive producer on this film, also appears to discuss how
helpful a critic like Ebert was to his career. Not just for getting him noticed
with his first film “Look Who’s Knocking at My Door?”, but also as
inspirational support to continue to challenge himself through a tough period
in the 80’s. He speaks of Ebert’s negative review of his sequel to “The
Hustler”, “The Color of Money”. He says Ebert’s words hurt, but they weren’t
cruel and could be used as guidance to avoid mistakes in the future.
Since appointing myself a
movie critic years ago when I started sending e-mail reviews out to my close
friends, I’ve often wondered just what the purpose of a critic really was. Many
of my friends are artists, and coming from that circle, I know that criticism
from an outside source is not something easily embraced. Ebert had a gift of
making criticism seem like a natural everyday part of the Hollywood industry.
He wrote in a conversational style that felt like a discussion you were having
with a close friend. This is why he was so beloved, even by those who received
the worst of his critical ire. He was a friend. It’s that simple. And you
really couldn’t ask for a better friend. With Ebert’s pure enjoyment of all
things in life, he was a friend that inspired all of those in his wide reach to
better themselves, and the world is a better place for having him. Perhaps
cinema was the best vehicle to bring such a person into so many lives, since
everyone loves the movies.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment