Movie Review: "Life Itself"

Life Itself (2014)

R

5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Steve James

Martin Scorcese
Werner Herzog
Ava Duvernay
Ramin Bahrani
Roger and Chaz Ebert
Gene Siskel

 

What is truth? In a piece of fiction there can be some confusion between truth and artistic license when the writer chooses a historical person or event for his topic. But in a documentary that by definition chooses real people, real historical events as their topic, the truth becomes even more difficult to describe. If the documentarian simply “cherry picks” his facts and does so without deception or distortion, has he still actually told the truth? In Steve James’ thoughtful and seemingly complete review of Roger Ebert’s adult life as a movie critic, Roger Ebert’s adult life is laid out for all to see, warts and all. Though to continue the thought I started with, when the documentarian is as clearly enamored with his subject as James is with Ebert, I inevitably wonder what might have been left out of the movie.

James is brutally unstinting is his depiction of Ebert’s sad physical state near the end of his life in 2013 from cancer. Ebert had been undergoing treatment and multiple surgeries following a 2006 diagnosis of thyroid cancer. That initial surgery and presumed cure for this normally easily treated cancer led unfortunately to several subsequent surgeries; ultimately Ebert had his lower jaw removed. This prevented him from speaking, eating or drinking, and it certainly created a new, shocking physical state for him. Despite this latter fact though, Ebert steadfastly insisted that his actual situation be presented clearly to the public, without any attempt to mitigate it. Thus, in James’ film the viewer is shown in graphic detail Ebert’s final state, even as his nurse vacuumed out his trachea. His discomfort is there to be plainly seen. It is shown along with his emotional state, which is also quite definitely not the upbeat, life-loving person that Ebert evidently was most of the time.

At fifty Ebert married the love of his life, trial attorney Chaz (Charlie Hammelsmith). Into his previously single life came one of the most positive influences in Ebert’s life. Her affection and devotion to Ebert as he neared the end is heartbreaking to witness. Chaz joined Ebert’s mother and father as the undisputed anchors and major positive influences in Ebert’s life. Famously not so simply positive on Ebert was his long term professional relationship with fellow critic Gene Siskel. The sections of the movie that deal with the birth, maturation and end of this fruitful relationship are most definitely the most interesting part of the film. For Ebert as the confident and assertive single child grown to adulthood being forced to share the stage with an equally self-confident entity such as Siskel, was a tremendous challenge for both. James shows in unblushing detail the outtakes of the two quarrelling and struggling for control of the television series. And yet following Siskel’s own death to cancer (brain cancer in his case), Ebert came to the conclusion just how instrumental to Ebert’s development as a critic, TV personality and indeed as a man Siskel had been. The scenes immediately following Siskel’s death visibly haunted Ebert. One big lasting effect on Ebert was his decision to not follow Siskel’s decision to pass away privately; how much Siskel’s decision influenced Ebert’s choice to have the effects of his cancer play out in public seems pretty clear in this film.

Also of great interest is the close relationship Ebert had with many in the movie industry (e.g. Martin Scorcese, Werner Herzog, Ava Duvernay, Ramin Bahrani, and the director of this film, Steve James). It seems very reasonable to wonder how such close relationships could affect Ebert’s objectivity towards the work of each of these gifted directors (all comment extensively on Ebert during this movie). James points out though that such close relationships were the norm in previous times between composers and their music critics. That could be so, and James does display one movie of Scorcese’s (The Color of Money) where not only did Ebert savage the movie, but Scorcese went so far as to say that Ebert’s criticism was educational, more so than painful. Again, I re-raise the question of truth in such discussions. When the material and reviews are as subjective as movies and their criticisms, or when the interviewee is clearly a close and indebted friend such as Scorcese was to Ebert, the outside observer is justified in wondering where the line between truth and near-truth might lie. To help underscore the relationship between Ebert and Scorcese, James has Scorcese discuss how at a low point in Scorcese’s career, he had considered suicide. Ebert at that time with Siskel’s cooperation invited Scorcese to Toronto during a film festival to win an award. By Scorcese’s account, this would turn his career and life around. This is a beautiful and touching story and I would not want to demean it in anyway, but I really must wonder about the nature of the objectivity in their relationship when two such men were so emotionally connected.

There is emotion galore in James’ film. Each of the featured guest directors share at least one story about how they felt a tight bond to Ebert. Sometimes as in Duvernay’s case it was due to an article written by Ebert on one of her films, or as in the case of Bahrani the active role Ebert played in Bahrani’s career via Ebert’s positive focus on Bahrani’s films. A similar argument could be made for Herzog, though Ebert surely did not make Herzog’s career, he just as surely helped spread the word on the genius so often displayed by Herzog. With “witnesses” such as these, can “Life Itself” be said to be a depiction of the truth of Ebert’s life? Perhaps, but whether James is guilty of selectively choosing his commenters (all are positive throughout the film) or not, the viewer gets a sense they understand who Ebert was and how he came to be the man he was at the end. He had his warts (overdrinking early in his life, a take no prisoners point view when he wanted his way), but in the end, he was a gifted man that led in many ways a charmed life. I have read many, many Ebert reviews and I always try to learn from each experience. Watching “Life Itself”, I felt I have learned yet more, if not movie criticism, then quite definitely about humanity and life itself. This is a movie really worth seeing.