This man is dead. That fact exists in parallel with the film, yet it's never a spectre lingering over the production. If there's a reason for that, it'd be that the filming primarily took place in Ebert's final year. Indeed, Ebert himself is one of the primary subjects of the film, talking a little bit about his life and his situation and being documented in some activities of the final phase of his life. For him, this was the climax of the third act; the ending. Only once before had Ebert been inside the production, while writing a shlock film of all things. This is his first time in front of the camera on the big screen, and also his last. Perhaps he knew that, even if nobody else wanted to. We see him here as nobody but himself: The subject of the film, but no less the film critic, expressing to the director how he wants the documentary to explore the whole truth. He would be very happy with the outcome.
Ultimately, Life Itself is a tribute. Ebert is a man that touched the lives of many, from critics to directors to mere readers of his work. The film explores his reach, but it also looks at the man himself, in all his glories and imperfections. James doesn't hide Ebert's problems - the misogyny of his early years is discussed, as are traits like his arrogance and his control freak tendencies. It's the man Ebert shared a show with, the late Gene Siskel, that brought out much of the latter. The two had an intense rivalry, and it's not glossed over. Footage from behind the scenes is shown in between friends and family reminiscing about the fights between Siskel and Ebert.
Now, we know Ebert as a sort of legend. He was the reigning king of film criticism for a large chunk of his life, and came to be known by many. One individual he touched, director Martin Scorcese (most recently known for The Wolf of Wall Street), is interviewed in the film, having a number of comments included in the final work. He's one of a few filmmakers interviewed in the documentary, all of whom are people Ebert personally influenced and inspired, some of whom believe they owe their careers to him. Ebert's inspiring approach to film criticism is discussed in the film. Many newer critics likely owe something to at least Ebert in general, if not specifically the show he shared with Siskel, and the film underlines their popularity in a tone of fond reminiscence.
More than that, though, Life Itself humanizes its subject. James takes testimonies from a broad array of people who knew Ebert, and in these interviews we see large snippets of who the man was. Interviewees make humorous comments about their friend Roger, which is what he is constantly noted as in the movie. Going by his first name instead of his last might not be much (in fact, it's probably not particularly unique) but it's something that keeps this tribute from being consumed by reverence. This is not a film directed too reverentially, but a film that pays tribute to a man in a way which he would approve of. That, in itself, is perhaps the greatest success this film aspired to. James is probably looking at the glowing reception to his film, and feeling satisfied about himself. He's earned it.
Meanwhile, the world is moving into a post-Ebert age. The production doesn't outlast its subject, and in the final minutes Ebert looks upon the future of film criticism with optimism. As a film critic myself, it's hard for that not to hit close to home. It's a sort of life-affirming notion that, combined with the successes of Ebert's life that are outlined within the movie, make the young film critic hopeful. Roger Ebert's former blog has been repurposed into a film review website, with a staff of critics who update it with reviews of every major release. The film was reviewed by Matt Zoller Steiz, who, in a review much longer than my own, gave it three and a half stars.
I would give it four.
10/10
No comments:
Post a Comment