At one point in Life Itself a point of criticism is introduced, concerning the Siskel & Ebert tv show and its effect on criticism. The main point is that the show lightly touches on each movie and movies are too complex to be graded on a mere "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" basis. Ebert defends the format of the show, though he does not deny the gist of the argument.
A similar point could be made about Life Itself. It merely touches on a few highlights and lowlights of Ebert's life without the kind of in-depth exploration that Ebert's life warranted. For example, much of Ebert's memoir is devoted to Ebert's life in Champaign and Urbana, but this part of Ebert's life is covered in just a few minutes in the documentary. This and other areas are barely referred to probably because Steve James could not find the important people from those periods of Ebert's life, as many of them had already passed on. Ebert's father, who was a great influence on his life, died just after Ebert graduated from high school. Ebert's mother later became an alcoholic (and somewhat out of control), which would seem to tie in to Ebert's later problems with the bottle. Neither of these issues was discussed in the documentary. Other areas that could have and probably should have received more coverage included Ebert's relationship with Russ Meyer, Ebert's love of film festivals and the people who attended them, Ebert's celebrity interviews, and Ebert's love of literature. Ebert is always associated with movies, but he was quoted as saying that he preferred reading to the visual arts. Interesting. But evidently not interesting enough to Steve James, who does not include this in the documentary.
James also relies too much on Ebert's inner circle. Sure, they are great, but Herzog, Scorsese, Morris, and Bahrani are a little too close to Ebert, not to mention that they do not have much to offer about Ebert's early years. The views of Corliss and Rosenbaum are offered as a counterpoint, but I wanted more. Ebert's review of Blue Velvet is briefly mentioned, but missing is a more comprehensive look at Ebert's writing. For example, concerning Blue Velvet and others, it is clear that Ebert had hangups that he could not look past. In this case it involved the poor treatment of women. Never mind that the filmmaker did not necessarily condone this behavior. Other examples of this included Ebert's reviews of Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. An even more curious example is Ebert's review of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a movie that was even directed by a woman. It is not just that Ebert did not like the movie-he was offended by it. His review is so vitriolic that one wonders if he was in a really, really bad mood when he saw the movie. Could this be the same guy who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?
Another issue that never comes through in the film is Ebert's views on religion. Ebert was not a religious person in the doctrinal Catholic sense, but he was certainly shaped by religion. It is another theme that is ignored.
James focused in on certain parts of Ebert's life, and the result is a quality work. Only so much can be covered in two hours, and James was limited in who he could interview because so many of Ebert's associates are no longer around. Life Itself has a lot of heart, and it is never dull. Those with only a passing familiarity with Ebert will probably find it entertaining and emotionally captivating. But Ebert lived a rich and interesting life, and I wish more of this was in the film.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Ebertfest 2014, Day Zero
Bringing back memories of sleeping through political science and classic civ (when I bothered to attend), I returned to Foellinger Auditorium on Tuesday to attend the showing of the original version of The Taking of Pelham, One, Two, Three. Not a huge crowd, and technical aspects were lacking, but those that did attend were treated to the musings of the often hilarious Patton Oswalt, who introduced the film and took questions afterwards. I am sure that even those who were not thrilled by the movie were entertained by Oswalt's energetic and insightful banter which at times verged into standup territory. And Pelham is one of those movies worthy of such a discussion.
A few thoughts about the movie (spoilers)-
1. Why didn't the city just shut off power to the runaway train?
2. Did we really need to see Robert Shaw fry? And this really came out of nowhere-it would have been nice if the movie had explained motivations a little bit better.
3. This is a really lamebrain scheme. The police know exactly where the train stopped. Why wouldn't they station police in that area to make sure no one escaped. Even if the police believed one or more of the criminals were still on the train, that doesn't account for any criminals that might have jumped off the train and fled on foot-with the loot.
4. The score was awful, and I do not really buy the explanation that it was merely reflecting the ugliness of the city.
5. The direction was almost as bad, in terms of awkward editing, clumsy camerawork, and hammy acting from bit players. Maybe that is what separates this movie from Diehard.
A few thoughts about the movie (spoilers)-
1. Why didn't the city just shut off power to the runaway train?
2. Did we really need to see Robert Shaw fry? And this really came out of nowhere-it would have been nice if the movie had explained motivations a little bit better.
3. This is a really lamebrain scheme. The police know exactly where the train stopped. Why wouldn't they station police in that area to make sure no one escaped. Even if the police believed one or more of the criminals were still on the train, that doesn't account for any criminals that might have jumped off the train and fled on foot-with the loot.
4. The score was awful, and I do not really buy the explanation that it was merely reflecting the ugliness of the city.
5. The direction was almost as bad, in terms of awkward editing, clumsy camerawork, and hammy acting from bit players. Maybe that is what separates this movie from Diehard.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Play It Again
Today's Cubs-Phillies game featured an almost replay. Darwin Barney was hit by a pitch. The umpire ruled that it was a foul ball. Renteria discussed it with the umpires for about four minutes in old school style, but no replay was forthcoming. I do not know why the replay was not allowed. The broadcasters were equally clueless, and as far as I know no definitive explanation was ever provided.
One possible explanation is that even if it was not ruled a foul ball, the umpire would have ruled Barney swung at the pitch, thus resulting in a strike. Therefore if Renteria challenged it, the replay would have shown that the ball hit barney without striking the bat. This would have been BAD for the Cubs, because the umpire would then call it a strike instead of a foul ball, and Barney would have struck out. Taking this idea one step further, Sandberg should have challenged the call because Barney would have been called out. Instead the call stood and Barney singled on the next pitch.
One possible explanation is that even if it was not ruled a foul ball, the umpire would have ruled Barney swung at the pitch, thus resulting in a strike. Therefore if Renteria challenged it, the replay would have shown that the ball hit barney without striking the bat. This would have been BAD for the Cubs, because the umpire would then call it a strike instead of a foul ball, and Barney would have struck out. Taking this idea one step further, Sandberg should have challenged the call because Barney would have been called out. Instead the call stood and Barney singled on the next pitch.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
SCOTUS Run Amok
Is the issue really this simple? Yes, it is.
The first sentence-"In the past four years, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has made it far easier to buy an election and far harder to vote in one."
The last sentence-" A country that expands the rights of the powerful to dominate the political process but does not protect fundament rights for all citizens doesn’t sound much like a functioning democracy to me."
Scary.
It would be scarier if not for the definite possibility that Hillary will serve eight years following Obama, thus providing an excellent opportunity to replace one or more Republican leaning justices. Scalia is 78 years old. Considering that he is not the healthiest looking 78, it is extremely unlikely he will last on the bench another ten years. Kennedy is a few months behind him. On the left side of things is Ginsburg, who at age 81 might want to consider retiring while Obama still has a chance to name a replacement, just in case Hillary does not win.
The first sentence-"In the past four years, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has made it far easier to buy an election and far harder to vote in one."
The last sentence-" A country that expands the rights of the powerful to dominate the political process but does not protect fundament rights for all citizens doesn’t sound much like a functioning democracy to me."
Scary.
It would be scarier if not for the definite possibility that Hillary will serve eight years following Obama, thus providing an excellent opportunity to replace one or more Republican leaning justices. Scalia is 78 years old. Considering that he is not the healthiest looking 78, it is extremely unlikely he will last on the bench another ten years. Kennedy is a few months behind him. On the left side of things is Ginsburg, who at age 81 might want to consider retiring while Obama still has a chance to name a replacement, just in case Hillary does not win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)