Worth Living: LIFE ITSELF

From a contemporary viewpoint, it’s unexpected to discover that Roger Ebert had no academic background or concentrated expertise in film when he secured his post as The Chicago Sun-Times’ film critic in 1967. Of course, there were few college-level film studies programs at the time. As a serious, committed journalist, Ebert simply accepted whatever job he was assigned and likely allotted each one the same effort and consideration in fulfilling his duties as a writer and reporter. It’s not hard to argue that Ebert made film his life’s work, even before he became a celebrity via the weekly movie review television series he co-hosted with his hometown rival, The Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel. And yet, this documentary, directed by Steve James (HOOP DREAMS), might not exist had Ebert not kept such a high profile while publicly battling cancer for the last seven years of his life.

Much of the film is loosely adapted of Ebert’s 2011 memoir of the same name. An off-screen narrator reads sections of this text, which is fleshed out with archival photos and interviews from newspaper colleagues, fellow critics, producers, filmmakers and Ebert’s wife, Chaz. As a framing device, James periodically inserts footage he shot of Ebert in the last six months of his life, mostly in his hospital room and at rehab. Even though Ebert’s radically-altered appearance is well-known, it’s still shocking to see him like this, especially compared to the iconic, rotund, bespectacled Midwesterner one remembers from his TV show. But his presence does not inspire pity or feel exploitative, for if a pattern emerges throughout his life’s story, it’s that he lived it as deeply as anyone could. His passions naturally included movies and writing about them, but also reading, storytelling, drinking (until he gave it up in his late thirties), traveling, and once he met his wife, love and family.

LIFE ITSELF celebrates Ebert but also recognizes his other, less perfect qualities too, as any well-rounded portrait should. The film’s most entertaining section is a series of SISKEL AND EBERT outtakes where he and Gene verbally spar with each other, each man dishing out snark towards the other but with an uproariously “professional” passive-aggressiveness that gets to the heart of why their anti-chemistry made for compelling TV. It’s refreshing to hear one of Ebert’s longtime colleagues say, “Roger was a nice guy, but he wasn’t that nice.” Reconcile that with the affable thumbs-up guy persona he cultivated so well via such pursuits as a 1980s documentary he made about the Cannes Film Festival or the popular blog which became his voice after cancer took away his speech. Sure, he wasn’t the best or most innovative critic of his time—a few interviewees acknowledge as much, and perhaps the film could’ve used even more of this dissent. Still, just imagine a world without Roger Ebert. As a populist, he brought film criticism to a wider audience than anyone else before (or arguably since). One comes away from this film comprehending the sincerity with which he did this and how it also applied to his own design for living–especially in the shadow of inevitable death.  Grade: A-