Martin Luther King (to George Wallace): “The
blood of these innocent children is on your hands.”
Roger Ebert (21 Years Old, On King): “That’s not entirely the truth. The blood is on so many hands that history
will weep in the telling. And it is not
new blood. It is old, very old and, as
Lady Macbeth discovered, it will not wash away.”
Leave it to Roger Ebert to deepen a
statement by Martin Luther King and put elegance to inelegant truths. Of course, King was trying to be persuasive
and make an emotional appeal, he was being practical, whereas, Ebert was being
academic, historical, and philosophical.
Life
Itself is
a journey through Roger Ebert’s personal and professional life and beyond, into
his very soul. Early on, his
interpretation of movies is communicated: “The movies are like a machine that
generates empathy. It lets you
understand a little bit more about different hopes, aspirations, dreams, and
fears. It helps us to identify with the
people who are sharing this journey with us.”
And this film helped me to identify with Roger Ebert and those in his
life—not just a little—a lot more.
This film gives us extended glimpses
into Roger Ebert’s long suffering with various cancers, a hip fracture,
pneumonia, and all the appropriate medical treatments and rehabilitation. Then there’s the fabled loss of speech and
the disfigurement. Yet, Ebert found his
voice on his blog, a real winning moment for the inventors of computers,
internet, and social media. I was one of
his blog readers. I often posted my
comments hoping to get direct replies from him, never did. Once, I spent much time on an entry and it
wasn’t showing me that my entry was successfully submitted, so I kept hitting
enter, repeatedly and then I saved it to a document and decided to try it
later. Later on, I got an email
informing me that my comment was entered like 10 or 15 times. It was directly from him (it had his
signature salutation as seen in the movie, “Cheers, R”). I was both a little embarrassed and a little
gratified. I didn’t get an actual reply
on the blog, but I got an email.
 |
I loved the he was a populist, on the
progressive end of the political spectrum.
Yet, I have many disagreements where movies are concerned. For instance, we have different positions on
3D.
There were many revelations for me. I learned that he was a heavy drinker (and
bar regular), he was a provocative speaker, he hired escorts, and he was seen
with all manner of odd women. I never
knew his younger years were so colorful.
In college, as editor of the student newspaper, he stopped the presses, following
John F. Kennedy’s assassination, to change the location of a visually offensive
ad displaying a musket pointing at Kennedy’s head. He was a student hero for this tough call,
requiring him to stand his ground against older adults.
This film offered up some rather
penetrating insights into Gene Siskel’s life as well. We see how Gene Siskel was ushered into
Hugh Heffner’s entourage. I had no clue
that Siskel caught Heffner’s attention.
We see Siskel on yachts and on the private Playboy jet, and in hot
springs with a topless model. Gene was
living it up.
Then they made the headlines real with highly
emotional coverage of Siskel’s last year with cancer. His wife chokes up and we see pictures of a
defiantly smiling Siskel, who didn’t want his kids to anticipate his death nor
have to witness their sadness. It’s like
he never really died until I watched this film, because the news just didn’t
convey the gory emotions of the family reality.
Siskel and Ebert’s uncomfortable behind-the-scenes
rivalries are presented. Siskel calls
Ebert an asshole on one occasion, and they verbally spar with smug faces and
curt tones. They blamed each other for
ruining takes, always having to be superior to the other. They rose to the top of their field together
while waging a war of egos. But then,
with time, they started to love the rivalry and things grew friendly. They laughed when once they would have been
rolling eyes and condescending. They
became inseparable when once they resented having to work with that other
critic, one critic cramping another’s style.
We witness the noble and generous Chaz Ebert. We witness her
choke up on screen too. Chaz and Roger’s
emotions during the marriage, during world vacations, and during the difficult
times are all engrained into the viewer’s soul.
We witness the inter-racial magic of this union. And we wonder how can anyone still hold
opposing beliefs?
Roger Ebert was a man of
magnanimity. Ramin
Bahrani, the director of Man Push Cart, tells of how he and Ebert became intertwined over
the course of his film’s promotion and debut.
One scene introduces Ebert’s adorable grandchildren while Bahrani
visits. Hearing it from the
grandchildren and Bahrani is a testament to the genuine existence of Hallmark
sentimentality in our world. I never
heard of Man Push Cart until this
film, now I’ve got required viewing.
Martin Scorsese also exhibits rarely
glimpsed emotion (choking up). Ebert
validated Scorsese right at the beginning of his career, and both Siskel and
Ebert saved Scorsese from his own despair at one point. These anecdotes are astonishing to behold. There’s so much going on in each and every
scene of this film, so much in their lives, and so much to live up to as we
continue our own lives.
Roger Ebert was at the top of his field,
he won a Pulitzer, he won a Webby for his remarkable blogging, and he continues
to be one of my primary influences.
NEXT UP: CANADIAN SCREEN AWARDS (WHEN IT'S FINALLY READY)
.jpg)
