MOVIE REVIEW
“LIFE ITSELF”
A documentary about the life, and death, of
film critic Roger Ebert
by Doug Young
I arrived at the theater and took a seat in
my favorite location — on the aisle in the
section to the right of the screen (as you face
forward) about midway back so that the
middle of the screen is at eye level. I don’t
take notes as doing so is distracting, and
because I could never decipher the scribbles
made in the dark, especially as I would
discover to my horror afterwards that I ended
up scribbling on top of previous scribbles. I
even tried new technologies like pens with a
small light bulb at the tip so you can see
what you’re writing, but these devices were
equally useless and ended up bothering the
people around me like a precursor to the
outrage over the ubiquitous use of smart
phones during movies.
I prefer an empty seat in front of me, not
only to avoid having my view blocked as I
slowly slink down into my seat during the
course of movie watching, but also because
the seats in art house theaters, where this
film was being shown, are packed so tightly
together that if you don’t flop your legs over
the seat in front of you, you lose all feeling in
your extremities. Thank goodness for art
house theaters because without them we
would only get to enjoy Transformers, super-
heroes, zombies and vampires. But seriously,
must they be the size of dioramas? Precious
few people actually patronize art house films
anyway, which should allow ample room for
those of us still enamored with the cinematic
arts.
And it’s the cinematic arts that are at the
center of Life Itself. Film critic Roger Ebert
was a preeminent and populist connoisseur
of them. He emerged on the scene at a time
when film criticism was stiff, stuffy and
insular. He made it his life’s mission to make
commentary of film accessible to the
masses. Sure he desperately wanted people
to see films he thought worthy and transcen-
dent, but he also, truth be told, didn’t want
his own opinions to be relegated to the
obscurity of dusty academic volumes.
He was first and foremost a journalist,
and, like all journalists, he wanted to be in
the thick of it connecting with average Joe
and Jane readers. Much of his formative
years were about how he perfected his craft
in the presence of “newspaper men,” which
involved copious evening binges at the
corner bar and holding court with those, like
him, who are fascinated by, and yet
somehow disconnected from, the travails of
the human species. That he became a film
critic was beside the point; even without his
fortuitous selection as such shortly after
being hired at the Chicago Sun Times news-
paper in 1967 when the position opened up,
he likely would have found fame as a writer
even if he wrote about flambé much less film.
Which is all by way of wondering: What
was so special about Mr. Ebert? How did he
become so famous, so associated with film,
its popularity and its analysis? And, does this
film shed any light on those queries?
I’m not sure even Roger Ebert could
answer those questions. He tried in his auto-
biography, also called “Life Itself” and upon
which this film is based. Instead, in the book
as in this documentary, we get lots of narra-
tive about his upbringing, his times at the
newspaper, working on television, sparring
with Gene Siskel, and, most affectingly, his
wife Chaz and his declining health and the
final days of his life.
All of this is of interest to those who
relished an “Ebert review” — or, once he
started to write blog postings in 2008, his
ongoing thoughts and arguments on evolu-
tion, religion, guns, video games, interna-
tional travel, family, politics and death. But
would it make compelling viewing for anyone
not particularly absorbed in all things Ebert?
Where’s the crossover appeal?
As I watched Life Itself, I kept wondering
whether the run of the mill, by the numbers
biographic material that’s portrayed in typi-
cally historical and anecdotal fashion
complete with talking heads, old photos and
stock footage also imported anything special
— that is, allowed a viewer to truly under-
stand the appeal of Ebert’s writings and
thought processes. How does one show, in a
visual form, the unique insights, style and
touch that Ebert brought to the enterprise?
Clearly the answer is that one cannot.
That does not mean that the filmmakers have
failed in their efforts to depict the highlights
of Ebert’s life. They do an admirable job of
keeping us interested and providing enough
behind the scenes revelations to keep us
entertained (although all of this material is
not new to anyone who has been a follower
of Ebert over the years). But what it cannot
convey, even though it tries valiantly
employing many techniques, including a
sound-alike actor’s voice subbing for Ebert’s
and graphic snippets of his writings, is why
his communication was so not run of the mill.
For that, you have to actually read his writ-
ings or listen to his actual voice — when he
had actual use of it.
The sections of the film showing Ebert’s declining
health are equally troublesome. I am not cold-hearted
enough not to be moved by watching someone maintaina positive
spirit when his throat is suctioned after having the
cancerous lower half of his face and neck removed. I know
that he made a conscious decision not to hide
his condition from the public and that he did not flinch in
allowing the public to experience the details and course of his
illness. And I applaud him for doing so.
But I again wondered whether any of this
was in any way different than watching the
personal struggles of so many who have had
to endure similar suffering. Even though I
spent many free hours with Ebert’s writings
and commentaries that I felt like a veritable
member of the family, I still felt that I was
intruding on his personal space.
Then there is the love/hate relationship
with Gene Siskel. Anyone who has experi-
enced sibling rivalry can relate to this rival-
rous friendship. Since this film is about
Ebert, we don’t get to learn much about
Siskel, although his life is not completely
overlooked. But even learning about Siskel
causes one to wonder why Siskel was not as
popular or had as big a following as Ebert.
The film does not proffer any theories and
just progresses through the highlights as if
simply flipping through a family photo
album.
Ebert was a great writer and a great
observer who could relate what he saw in
films to what humans encounter, imagine,
dream and fear every day. Just like a good
journalist, he could hold his own with the
likes of the cinematic sophisticates —
Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Jonathan
Rosenbaum — and yet was also able to
condense it all down into a flip of the thumb
that the rest of us could comprehend.
There’s a section in the film that touts
Ebert’s attendance at the University of
Colorado’s Conference on World Affairs. He
was one of the longest attendees of this
unconventional confab where famous and
not so famous people of all persuasions and
professions chatter about anything and
everything under the sun (and then some). I
remember attending these as a student
where Ebert would examine a film frame-by-
frame and the audience could get in the fun
by shouting stop and pointing out some
feature that we all may have heretofore
missed or failed to fully comprehend. I would
adjust my schedule so that I could make as
many of these as possible. Still, it’s nearly
impossible to convey the depth of under-
standing that Ebert possessed and the way
he could instill an equal appreciation of the
joy of films or just about any topic nested
within them.
There’s an anecdote relayed in the film
from Denver’s own film critic Howie
Movshovitz whereby someone at the CU
conference asked Ebert why we should
listen to him and not someone else. You’ll
have to see the movie to learn Ebert’s
answer, but the question is a worthy one.
What would Ebert have thought of this
film itself? I’m sure he would have thought it
covered the ground and allowed a peek into
his personal life and his agonizing illness
and elevated spirit. But if this film were not
about him, would he have been as enam-
ored with it as his life itself? We will never
know, as he died before the film was
completed.
[linebreak style=”simple”]
