Documentary Corner: Life Itself

A year after publishing his 2011 memoir Life Itself, Roger Ebert contacted Steve James, the accomplished director of Stevie and Hoop Dreams, to make an accompanying documentary of the same name. It must have been a daunting proposition. Assembling the definitive life story of the world’s most famous film critic is certainly not an easy task. It makes me therefore happy to report, that James ultimately succeeded in producing a biography with subtlety, sincerity and an undeniable intelligence.

Overall, it was an interesting experience watching this film as I was only vaguely aware of Roger Ebert’s work. I knew who he was but, I suppose not living in America or being alive whilst his show was on television, I was never really aware of the cultural juggernaut he was. I certainly had no idea about the intricacies of his character and personal life which James explores and presents so well here. Producing comprehensive biographical documentaries can often be hard. After all, any person one wishes to study is a complex being with opinions, characteristics, biases, likes and dislikes all working together. Where Life Itself succeeded was in leaving me with the feeling that I really got to know Ebert. I also liked how the filmmakers were not afraid to include some of the less glamorous aspects of Ebert’s life, from his alcoholism to his ego. But, whereas other directors often present topics like these in a manipulatively melancholic way, James understood that these were human flaws and presented them with the nuance and complexity that should be expected when telling a deeply personal life story. The way Asif Kapadia handled Amy Winehouse’s life story in Amy is another example of this done well.

There were a few things I think the film was missing however. His love for film was made clear but I never got a sense of his opinions or which films he liked or disliked, and for what reason. Which films affected him the most? What philosophies does he spell out in the way that he writes about them? On top of this, I also really wanted to know what made Ebert better than the average reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes. There were also a few parts of the film which felt slightly pointless, at least to the wider narrative. The section on the Cannes film festival is an example of a part of the film which didn’t really go anywhere or provide interesting insight. I would understand if other people disagree with me on this though. Overall, I commend the filmmakers for being restrained in their runtime and not letting everything drag on for too long. It’s definitely a pitfall for a lot of similar biographical films, Scorsese’s Marley is one example. All this adds up to a biographical film which works in every way it should. I should think Ebert would be very happy to add this documentary to his legacy.