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.
No comments:
Post a Comment